Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Sagar Malik And Ors. on 30 October, 2018

                 IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
                   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04 
                PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.



CNR No. DLND01­007354­2017



SC No. 161/17
FIR No. 62/17
PS - Vasant Kunj (North)
U/s  ­ 498A/304B/34  IPC


State


Vs.


     1. Sagar Malik                     Accused
        S/o Late Rambir Malik
        R/o B­11, Masoodpur,
        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

     2. Sawan Malik                     Accused
        S/o Late Rambir Malik
        R/o B­46, Masoodpur,
        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.


State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.
FIR no.  62/17
PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                             Page no. 1 of 130
      3. Neha Malik                                           Accused
        D/o Late Rambir Malik
        R/o B­46, Masoodpur,
        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

     4. Sheela Malik                                         Absconder
        Wd/o Late Rambir Malik
        R/o B­11, Masoodpur,
        Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.


Date of Institution                        :    24.05.2017
Date of Arguments                          :    22.10.2018
Date of Judgment                           :    30.10.2018



JUDGMENT:

­

1.   Brief   case   of   the   prosecution   as   per   charge­sheet is :­

  a)  On 01.02.2017, at about 02.35 pm on receipt of PCR call regarding brought dead of one lady Sneha, W/o Sagar (accused),   PSI Kapil reached at Fortis Hospital, Vasant   Kunj.   In   the   meantime   at   about   03.21   pm   and 04.08 pm two DD entries bearing no. 25A and 27A were recorded   in   PS   Vasant   Kunj   (North)   and   SI   Neeraj Kumar also reached Fortis Hospital. On inquiry, it was State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 2 of 130 revealed   that   patient   Sneha   Malik,   W/o   Sagar   Malik (accused) was brought dead at 02.13 pm by her husband Sagar   Malik   at   Fortis   Hospital.   MLC   of   deceased   was collected. On the MLC doctor recorded "A/H/O was found unconscious, hanging from ceiling fan in sitting position at   02.00   pm".   SI   Neeraj   got   preserved   the   dead   body. Thereafter SI Neeraj along with PSI Kapil reached the spot  i.e.  B­11,  Masoodpur, Village, 1st floor, where one room was constructed and door of that room was broken. On inquiry they came to know that deceased had hanged herself in the said room. Crime team was called at the spot. Crime team took photographs of the spot. No suicide note was found at the spot. Two pieces of chunni were sealed and seized. SDM, Naib Tehsildar and parents of deceased were informed through telephone by SI Neeraj Kumar. Sh. R.K. Singh, Naib Tehsildar reached the spot but after some time left the spot as parents of deceased did not reach there.

  b)  On 02.02.2017, parents of deceased reached at SDM office and father of deceased Sh. Dharamraj Singh gave his statement to the effect that his daughter was got State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 3 of 130 married to accused Sagar Malik on 26.02.2016 and as per his   status   he   gave   dowry.   In   the   year   2016   on   the occasion   of   Karva   Chauth,   accused   Sagar   Malik   had called him and told him that his daughter has consumed something   wrong.   Thereafter,   his   wife   Suresh,   reached the house of accused. Accused and his family members apologized   to   her   and   assured   her   that   this   kind   of incident would not happen in future. On 01.02.2017 he received call from brother in law of Sneha namely Sawan that Sneha had hanged herself and has expired. In the morning of 01.02.2017, Sheela, mother in law of deceased had called them and told them that they must pay them money   or   give   them   four   wheeler   vehicle   or   else   they would not allow Sneha to stay in their house. He asked for some time, but in the afternoon he got the news that his   daughter   had   hanged   herself.   He   also   stated   that Sagar (husband), Sheela (mother in law), Sawan (Brother in law) and Neha (sister in law) had killed his daughter. On   the   basis   of   said   statement   SDM   had   ordered   for registration of case. 

  c)  Thereafter, SI Neeraj Kumar took the parents State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 4 of 130 of deceased to AIIMS hospital. On his direction constable Kuldeep   had   brought   the   dead   body   of   deceased   from Fortis Hospital to AIIMS mortuary. The dead body was got identified by the family members of the deceased in the   presence   of   Naib   Tehsildar   and   thereafter postmortem   of   dead   body   was   got   conducted.   After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her father Dharamraj. Case u/s 304B/498A IPC was got registered. During investigation site plan of the spot was prepared. Statements   of   witnesses   were   recorded.   Accused   Sagar Malik   was   arrested.   His   disclosure   statement   was recorded.   Statements   of   mother   of   deceased   namely Sudesh   and   his   uncle   Lalit   was   also   recorded   by   IO. Viscera   of   deceased   was   got   preserved.   Exhibits   were sent to FSL. NBWs against accused Sheela Malik were obtained.   Supplementary   charge­sheet   against   accused Sawan   Malik   and   Neha   Malik   was   also   filed.   After completing   the   investigation,   charge­sheet   was   filed   in the court.

2.   In   view   of   the   allegations   against   the   accused persons   in   the   charge­sheet,   charge   u/s   498A/304B/34 State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 5 of 130 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3.   In   support   of   its   case   prosecution   examined   24 witnesses.

4.   PW­1   Sh.   R.K.   Singh,   Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate,   Vasant   Vihar,   testified   that   on   01.02.2017, he   received   a   telephonic   call   of   SHO   PS   Vasant   Kunj North   that   one   lady   namely   Ms.   Sneha,   who   had committed  suicide, was brought dead at Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. He directed SHO to send the dead body to the mortuary of hospital and to reach at the spot. Thereafter, he reached the spot i.e first floor of house no. B­11, Masood Pur village, New Delhi at about 04.00p.m. At   the  spot,   IO   SI Neeraj  along with  other police  staff met him.   He inspected the spot and also found that door of the room was in broken condition.  He directed the IO to   inform   the   parents   of   the   deceased   Ms.   Sneha. Thereafter, he left  the  spot.

5.   He   further   testified   that   on  the   next   day   i.e. 02.02.2017, parents of the deceased Ms. Sneha along with IO   came   to   his   office.     He   made   inquiries   from   Mr. State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 6 of 130 Dharamraj   Singh,   father   of   deceased   and   recorded   his statement   Ex.PW1/A   in   presence   of   Ms.   Sudesh,   his wife/mother   of   deceased.     He   also   directed   the   SHO   to lodge   FIR   on   the   basis   of   the   said   statement   under relevant sections of the law.  He proved his endorsement on Ex.PW1/A as Ex PW1/B. He further testified that  he also   authorized   IO   SI   Neeraj   to   conduct   all   the formalities   in   respect   of   postmortem   of   deceased   Ms. Sneha at AIIMS hospital. He proved his request to CMO, Forensic   Department,   AIIMS   hospital,   New   Delhi   in respect of authorization of IO SI Neeraj as Ex PW1/C. He further testified that on the same day he was called in the hospital by the doctor and all proceedings in respect of   postmortem   of   deceased   were   conducted   in   his presence.     He   proved   his   request   to   Head   of     Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS hospital, New Delhi to conduct the postmortem on the body of deceased as Ex PW1/D.   That he also filled up form no. 25.35(1)(B) Ex PW1/E.   Thereafter,   IO   SI   Neeraj   also   recorded identification statement of Ms. Sudesh, Mr. Lalit and Mr. Dharamraj   Singh   as   Ex   PW1/F,   Ex   PW1/G   and   Ex State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 7 of 130 PW1/H   respectively,   before   the   postmortem   of   the deceased.     After   postmortem   of   the   deceased,   the   dead body   of   deceased   Ms.   Sneha   was   handed   over   to   the parents of the deceased.     

6.   PW­2 W/ASI Fukeria, was posted as duty officer on 02.02.2017 in PS Vasant Kunj (N). On that day at about 03.05   pm,   she   received   a   rukka   from   SI   Neeraj   for registration   of   case.   On   the   basis   of   said   rukka   she registered   the  present   case  FIR   Ex.PW2/A.   She  proved her endorsement on the original tehrir as Ex.PW2/B and certificate u/s 65­B Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/C.

7.   PW­3 Sh. Dharamraj, is the father of deceased. He testified   that   he   was   having   one     son   and     three daughters including deceased Ms. Sneha.  On 26.02.2016, he  had  married   his daughter Ms. Sneha   with  accused Sagar Malik and Ms.Sapna, another daughter with Mr. Shakti Dahiya.   The marriage of his both the daughters were     solemnized   at   his   village   Gulawati,   Dikstt. Bulandshehar,   UP.     In   the   marriage,   he   had   given sufficient dowry articles as per his   status and capacity. He further testified that in the night of Karwachauth of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 8 of 130 2016, his wife had received phone call of accused Sagar Malik   that   his   daughter   Ms.   Sneha   had   consumed something in the evening.  As the call was received in the night   time   they   did   not   visit   the     residence   of   his daughter Ms. Sneha at Delhi.  His wife PW­8 Ms. Sudesh had asked her brother PW­6 Sh. Lalit Phogat, who lives in  Delhi,    to    visit and see   Sneha to know   what has happened.   That on the next day,   his wife Ms. Sudesh had gone to the house of his daughter and talked with her   mother   in   law.   After   talks,   mother   of   the   accused assured   his   wife   that   the   incident   would   not   happen again. 

8.   PW­3   further   testified   that   in   the   morning   of 01.02.2017,   his   wife   PW­8   Ms.   Sudesh   had   received   a phone call of mother of the accused whereby she stated that "tumhari larki ko nahi rakhengey agar paisa or gari nahi dogey  to".    On the same day in the afternoon his wife also received phone call of  Sawan, dever (brother in law ) of Sneha who informed that  Sneha had committed suicide and had  expired. On the same day, he along with his   wife   and   other   family   members   reached   at     Fortis State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 9 of 130 hospital where they came to know that Ms. Sneha had already expired.  He further testified that on 01.02.2017, police inquired from him and his wife and also recorded their   respective   statements   separately.   He   proved   his statement dated 01.02.2017 as Ex PW3/A.  

9.   PW­3   further   testified   that   on   the   next   day   i.e. 02.02.2017,  he along with his wife  and IO reached at the office   of   Tehsildar.     Tehsildar   inquired   from   him   and recorded his statement in the presence of his wife. On the same     day   i.e.   02.02.2017,   postmortem   on   the   body   of deceased   was   got   conducted.     His     identification statement was also recorded and after postmortem they received the dead body and cremated the same at their village.     PW­3   further   testified   that   on   06.02.2017,   he was called by the IO at PS   Vasant   Kunj North along with   marriage   photographs   of   his   daughter   Ms.   Sneha with accused Sagar Malik,  Marriage Invitation card and list of dowry articles.   He handed over five photographs of marriage of his daughter with accused  ExPW3/P­1 to Ex P3/P­5, Marriage Invitation card Ex PW3/P­6 and list of dowry articles Ex PW3/P­7  to the IO.   IO seized the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 10 of 130 same vide seizure memo Ex PW3/B.

10. PW­3   further   testified   that   when   his   wife   visited after   Karwachauth   of   year   2016   at   the   house   of   his daughter, then for the first time  she came to know that her husband and her in laws used to harass his daughter for demand of dowry i.e car and money and also gave her beatings. The cross­examination of          PW­3 would be discussed at later stage of judgment.

11.  PW­4   is   Dr.   Soumitra   Thandar,   Junior   Resident, Department   of   Emergency   Medicine,   AIIMS,   who testified that on 19.10.2016 at about 11.25 pm one Sneha Malik,   w/o   accused   Sagar   Malik   was   brought   into casualty with alleged history of poisoning i.e.  ingestion of floor cleaner (harpic). He examined the patient and found there   was   no   external   injury.   He   proved   the   MLC   of Sneha as Ex.PW4/A.

12.  PW­5   is   Dr.   Mahipal   Sharma,   CMO,   Sukhmani Hospital, Vasant Kunj, who testified that on 19.10.2016, he was working as CMO at the said hospital. On that day at   about   10.05   pm,   one   Sneha   Malik   wife   of   accused Sagar  Malik  was   brought  by her husband with  alleged State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 11 of 130 history   of   unknown   poisoning   by   drinking   unknown liquid (phenyl). He examined the patient and after giving her  primary   treatment  and  she  was  referred  to   AIIMS hospital   for   further   evaluation   and   management.   He proved the MLC bearing No. 56/16 as Ex.PW5/A.

13.  PW­6   Sh.   Lalit   Kumar   is   the   uncle   of   deceased Sneha. He testified that on 26.02.2016, the marriage of his   two   nieces   namely   Sneha   and   Sapna   took   place   at village Gulawati. Sneha was married with Sagar Malik resident   of   village   Masoodpur,   Delhi.  Ms.   Sapna   was married with Sh. Shakti Dahiya resident of Budh Vihar, Rohini, Delhi. He further testified that on 19.10.2016, he received   a   phone   call  of   his  sister  Sudesh   to  the  effect that Sneha was not well as she had consumed something. She also told that her son in law Sagar Malik had made call to her in that respect.  His sister asked him to go to the   hospital   and   to   see   as   to   what   had   happened. Thereafter, he went to   AIIMS hospital and met Sneha and   at   that   time   Sneha   told   him   that   Sagar   and   his family members  used to give her beatings and they used to demand money and car. He asked Sneha to call the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 12 of 130 police but Sneha refused for calling the police and told him   that   Sagar   Malik   and   his   family   members   had assured her that they would not harass her in future. She also   told   that   they  were   in   need   of   money.    He   talked back to his sister and narrated to her all these facts.  

14.  PW­6   further   testified   that   on   next   day   i.e. 20.10.2016, his sister came to the house of accused Sagar Malik from Gulawati. On the same day his sister came to his   house   at   Humayunpur   after   meeting   Sneha   at   her matrimonial   home   and   told   him   that   Sagar   Malik,   his mother,   brother   and   sister   used   to   give     beatings   to Sneha   after   two   three   months   of   the   marriage   for demand of money and car.   He further testified that after about 7 to 10 days of 20.10.2016 at the instance of his sister   he   went   to   the   house   of   Sneha   and   gave   rupees three lakhs to the mother in law of Sneha in presence of accused Sagar Malik and his brother Sawan Malik.  After giving rupees three lakhs, Sneha lived happily for some time.   After   some   days   Sagar   Malik   (husband),   Sawan Malik (brother), Sheela ( mother in law ) and Neha Malik (   sister   ),   started   harassing   Sneha   again   and   gave State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 13 of 130 beatings to her and started demanding money.  His sister also   talked   to   him   over   phone   two­three   times   on   the issue of Sneha and he told his sister to keep patience and everything   would   be   fine.   He   further   testified   that   on 30/31 January, 2017, he received phone call of his sister and at that time his sister again told him that in laws of Sneha were still demanding money and car and Sneha is upset. 

15.  PW­6 further testified that on 01.02.2017 at about 01.00  p.m,   he  received phone call of  his sister and she told him that she had received a phone call from the in­ laws of Sneha that some wrong has happened with Sneha and further she asked him to go and see her.  Thereafter he   reached   at   Fortis   hospital,   Vasant   Kunj,   Delhi   and there he came to know that Sneha is no more. In the late evening   his   sister   along   with   her   husband   and   family came to Delhi. They went to PS Vasant Kunj (N) in the night and the police officials  told them to  come on next day as SDM would record their statements.   Thereafter on 02.02.2017,  he along with his sister and jijaji went to SDM   office   at   Palika   Bhawan,   Delhi   and   there   SDM State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 14 of 130 recorded the statement of his sister and jijaji and at that time   he   remained   present   outside   the   room.   After recording the statements  they went to AIIMS mortuary and there they identified the dead body of Sneha.   That police   officials   recorded   their   identification   statements. After postmortem they received the dead body, which was taken to Gulawati and was cremated there. PW­6 further testified   that  on  09.04.2017, he along with  Neha, elder sister   of   Sneha   and   Sarita,   mediator   in   marriage   of Sneha, went to PS Vasant Kunj. At that time IO Pankaj Pandey made inquiries from him. He handed over mobile phone of deceased Sneha which was handed over to him by nurse in Fortis hospital to the IO and the same was seized   vide   seizure   memo   Ex   PW6/A.     The   cross­ examination of this witness would be discussed at later stage.

16.  PW­7 Surender Kumar, is the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, who proved the Customer Application Form of mobile   no.   8527629886   issued   in   the   name   of   accused Sagar   Malik   (used   by   deceased   Sneha)   as   Ex.PW7/A, certified   copy   of   Adhar   Card   as   Ex.PW7/A1,   call  detail State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 15 of 130 record   of   the  said  number  for   the  period   01.08.2016  to 03.02.2017   running   into   20   pages   as   Ex.PW7/B   and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW7/C.

17.  PW­8 Smt. Sudesh, is the mother of deceased who testified that she was having four children i.e. one   son and three daughters including deceased Ms. Sneha. That on   26.02.2016,     her   daughter  Ms.   Sneha     was   married with accused Sagar Malik.  On the same day her another daughter Ms. Sapna,  was also married  with Mr. Shakti Dahiya of Budh Vihar, Delhi.  The marriages of her both the   daughters   were     solemnized   at   their   residence   i.e. village   Gulawati,   Dikstt.   Bulandshehar,   UP.     She testified that in the marriage, they   had given sufficient dowry   articles   as   per   their   status   and   capacity.     The accused   Sagar   Malik   and   his   family   members   started harassing her daughter Sneha for demand of money and Honda city car.  However, she came to know this fact only on the day of Karwachauth  of year 2016  i.e.  19.10.2016 through her brother Mr. Lalit.  She further testified that on   the   night   of   19.10.2016   i.e.   Karwachauth     at   about 10.00­10.30 pm she   had received phone call of accused State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 16 of 130 Sagar   Malik   that   her   daughter   Sneha   had   consumed some thing in the evening. Since the call was received in the   night   time,   she   did   not   visit   the     residence   of   her daughter   Sneha   at   Delhi   and   had     asked   her     brother PW­6 Sh. Lalit Phogat, who lives in Delhi,  to  visit and see     Sneha   at   AIIMS   hospital   to   know   what   has happened.   On the same night her brother informed her that Sneha had told him that accused Sagar Malik and his   family   members   used   to   harass   her   for   demand   of money.   She further testified that her brother also told her that he had asked Sneha to call the police but she refused as she was assured by accused Sagar Malik and his   family   members   that   they   will   not   harass   her   in future.   Her   daughter also told to her brother that the accused persons were in dire need of money at that time.

18.  PW­8   further   testified   that   on   the   next   day,     she had   gone   to   the   house   of   her   daughter   at   Masood   pur and  met   her.   At   that   time,   her   daughter  told   her   that accused persons used to beat her with fists, legs and also used to demand money or Honda City car from her.  Her daughter also told that accused persons were in dire need State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                    Page no. 17 of 130
           of   money   at   that   time.     Thereafter   she   talked   with
          mother   in   law   and     husband   of   her   daughter   Sneha.

Even   at   that   time   both   of   them   told   her   that   their financial condition is very poor and they are in need of financial help. Thereafter, she talked   with her brother Lalit   and   sent   Rs.   3.00   lakhs   to   the   house   of   accused persons   through   her   brother.   For   some   days   all   things remained   well   and   thereafter   they   again   started harassing her daughter.  

19.  PW­8 further testified that on 31.01.2017, she again received phone call of her daughter in the noon time. At that   time   she   told   her   that   accused   persons   used   to harass her for demand of money  or Honda City car. She also told that accused persons had already planned to kill her.   Thereafter,   on   the   same   day   at   about   08.00­08.30 pm, she made a call to the mother of accused Sagar Malik and   asked   her   as   to   why   they   are   harassing   her daughter. The mother of accused Sagar Malik, replied to give money or Honda City car else her daughter had to face the consequences.   She further testified that on the next   day   i.e.   01.02.2017   at   about   12.00­01.00   pm,   she State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                 Page no. 18 of 130
           received     phone   call   of   Ms.   Sheela,   mother   of   accused

Sagar Malik that if they failed to fulfill their demands of money or car in that case she would marry her son Sagar Malik at another place with another girl, who are ready to   fulfill   their   demands.   She   further   told   that   she   has already   prepared   for   giving   divorce   to   her   daughter Sneha and would leave her daughter.   

20.  PW­8 further testified that on 01.02.2017 at about 02.14 pm, she received a call of Sawan Malik ( dewar of Sneha   )   that   her   daughter   had   committed   suicide   by hanging herself.  On hearing this she made a call to Ms. Sheela, the mother of accused Sagar Malik but that call was attended by Sawan Malik.   Thereafter she made a call   to   her   brother   PW­6   Lalit   and   asked   him   to   visit there.   She   further   testified   that   on   the   same   day   she along with her husband and  other family members came to   Delhi  and  went   to   Fortis   hospital   where   they  found that Sneha    had expired.   Thereafter, they went to PS Vasant  Kunj (N),  police made inquiries from them and recorded her complaint Ex PW8/A. 

21.  PW­8   further   testified   that   on   02.02.2017,     dead State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 19 of 130 body of her daughter Sneha was handed over to them by the   AIIMS   hospital.   Her   dead   body   identification statement was recorded by the IO. She further testified that before receiving the dead body of the deceased they visited the office of concerned SDM and statement of her husband   was   recorded   there.   The   statement   of   her husband was read over to her by the concerned SDM and she also endorsed the same by putting her signatures on the same.  Thereafter, on  06.02.2017, she along with her husband went to PS Vasant Kunj North and there she handed over a written complaint Ex.PW8/B to the SHO regarding   the   incident.   The   cross­examination   of   PW­8 would be discussed at later stage.

22.  PW­9   Sh.   Kamal   Kumar,   is   the   Nodal   Officer, Reliance   JIO,  who   proved   the   Customer   Application Form of mobile no. 8368582232 (used by PW­10) issued in the   name   of   Sh.   Padam,   S/o   Papa   as   Ex.PW9/A,   call detail record of the said number for the period 25.01.2017 to   02.02.2017   running   into   03   pages   as   Ex.PW9/B, certified   Cell   ID   Chart   running   into   two   pages   as Ex.PW9/C and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                             Page no. 20 of 130
           Ex.PW9/D.

23.  PW­10 Neha Maan, is the sister of deceased Sneha, who   testified   that   the   marriage   of   her   younger   sister Sneha Malik was solemnized with accused Sagar Malik on   26.02.2016.   The   said   marriage   was   solemnized   at Gulawati.   On   the   same   day,   marriage   of   her   another younger sister Sapna was also solemnized. Her parents had given sufficient dowry in the marriage to both of her sisters according to their capacity.   She further testified that accused Sagar Malik and his family members were not happy with the dowry articles given in the marriage to   Sneha   Malik.     After   the   marriage,   accused   Sagar Malik and his family demanded money and Car  from her sister.  She used to talk with her sister on phone and her sister used to tell her about the demand of their in laws on phone.  She further testified that she assured her that she   would   talk   to   her   parents   in   this   regard   but   she always   restricted   her   not   to   bring   this   issue   in   their notice.   That due to non fulfillment of their demand the in­laws   of     Sneha   used   to   beat   her   and   due   to   fear   of society,   Sneha   restricted   her   not   to     disclose   the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 21 of 130 harassment and said that at appropriate time she would talk to parents.  

24.  PW­10   further   testified   that   on   the   eve   of Karvachauth   i.e.   18/19   October,   2016   her   sister   had consumed  harpic due to her harassment for demand of money or car. After this incident, she had talked with her parents   and   narrated   about   all   the   harassment   which was disclosed to her by Sneha Malik. Her father had also talked to the in laws of her sister and had agreed to give the car after some time. That till 31.01.2017, she and her sister were continuously in touch with each other and her sister used to tell her about the atrocities.   She further testified that on 31.01.2017, she had received phone call of Sneha on the mobile phone of her husband at about 11:00­11:30   pm  and at that time she was weeping and she again told that her in laws are again harassing her for demand of car or money and she also told that if she did not bring money or car, she would be turned out from her matrimonial house. Sneha also told that her life had been spoiled and she would commit suicide due to said atrocities. PW­10 made her understand and said that she State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 22 of 130 along with PW­8 i.e. mother would visit her on next day. However, Sneha again refused not to  tell this to mother (PW­8) and the phone call was disconnected. 

25.  PW­10   further   testified   that   on   01.02.2017,   she again made a call to her sister Sneha at about 10.00 a.m. and she picked up the phone and told that her husband Sagar   Malik     was   beating   her   at   the   instance   of   his mother. After hearing this PW­10 made a call to accused Sagar   Malik   and   at   that   time   he   told   PW­10   either   to give   money   or   car,   or   take   back   Sneha   to   her   parents home.     At   that   time   mother   of   Sagar   Malik   was   also present there so she also talked with her upon this issue but she disconnected the phone call. On the same day, at about 02.30 pm she came to know from her mother that her sister Sneha Malik is no more. That she used mobile number 8368582232 of her husband to talk to  Sneha  at mobile number  8527629886.  

26.  PW­11   Dr.   Remant   Tiwari,   was   working   as Emergency Medical Officer on 01.02.2017 at Fortis Flight Lt.   Rajan   Dhall   Hospital   at   Vasant   Kunj.   He   testified that on the said day at about 02.11 pm one Sneha Malik State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 23 of 130 wife of accused Sagar Malik aged 27 years was brought into   casualty   by   her   husband   with   alleged   history   of being   found   unconscious   hanged   from   ceiling   fan   in sitting position at 02.00 pm on that day. He examined the patient and during examination no sign of life was found. On   local   examination,   ligature   marks   around   neck running over thyroid cartilage obliquely upwards on right side, horizontally on left side incomplete backwards with petichae   below   it,   were   noticed.   No   other   external injuries   were   noted.   He   proved   the   MLC   No.   4803   of deceased Sneha as Ex.PW11/A. 

27.  PW­12   Smt.   Sarita   Phogat,   is   the   mediator   of marriage   of   accused   Sagar   Malik   and   deceased   Sneha. She testified that the said marriage was solemnized on 26.2.16   at   Gulawati,   Bullandshehar,   UP.   The   parental home   of   PW­8   Smt.   Sudesh   is   also   at   Humayunpur, Delhi.   On   20.10.2016,   she   was   called   by  the   mother   of Sneha   at   Humayunpur   and   at   that   time   she   came   to know from  Sudesh that her daughter Sneha was being harassed by her in laws for demand of dowry. She also came   to   know   that   they   had   demanded   Rs.10.00   lakhs State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 24 of 130 and a  car and that due to said harassment Sneha had consumed   something   on   19.10.2016   on   the   eve   of Karvachauth. After 1­2 days, she visited the house of the accused  persons   to made  them understand  and at that time accused persons had told that her role is over and it is their family matter and they will settle it on their own. She further testified that PW­6 Lalit,   had told her that they had given Rs. 3 lacs to the in laws of the Sneha and also   requested   the   in­laws   that   they   would   fulfill   their remaining demand if some time is given to them.   After payment of Rs. 3.00 lakhs to the in laws some days spent smoothly and after that they again started harassment for their demands.   

28. PW­12 further testified that on 01.02.2017, due to harassments done by the in laws of the Sneha, she had committed suicide.   Lateron police also called her at PS Vasant   Kunj   North   and   she   along   with   Mr.   Lalit   and Neha     went   to   PS   Vasant   Kunj   North.     Police   made inquiries from her and her statement was recorded.

29.  In her cross­examination PW­12 admitted that she did   not   herself   notice   any   harassment   nor   was   ever State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 25 of 130 informed by Sneha about the harassment.

30.  PW­13   ASI   Ramesh   Kumar   is   the   Assistant Draftsman,   who   prepared   the   scaled   site   plan Ex.PW13/A.

31.  PW­14   Dr.  Manjul Bijarnia, Sr. Resident Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Sneha vide PM report No. 156/17. He proved the said report as Ex.PW14/A.

32.  PW­15 HC Jai Singh, is the photographer who took the photographs of the spot on the directions of Incharge Crime   Team   and   IO.   He   proved   the   photographs   as Ex.PW15/A1   to   Ex.PW15/A4   and   its   negatives   as Ex.PW15/B1 to Ex.PW15/B4.

33.  PW­16   HC   Ram   Niwas,   has   obtained   one   exhibit containing viscera which was duly sealed with the seal of Department   of   Forensic   Medicine,   AIIMS,   New   Delhi from   MHC(M)   vide   RC   No.   6/21/17   and   deposited   the same at RFSL, Chanakyapuri. 

34.  PW­17   constable   Dharam   Singh   had   joined   the investigation   of   the   case   with   SI   Neeraj   Kumar   on 02.02.2017. He proved the arrest memo, personal search State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 26 of 130 memo and disclosure statement of accused Sagar Malik as Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/C respectively.

35.  PW­18 SI Ajay, is the Incharge of Crime Team. He proved his crime team report as Ex.PW18/A.

36.  PW­19 SI Neeraj Kumar, is the first IO of the case.

He proved DD no. 27A as Ex.PW19/A, seizure memo of ligature   material   as   Ex.PW19/B,   request   to   HOD   of Forensic medicines AIIMS for preservation of dead body in   the   mortuary   as   Ex.PW19/C,   seizure   memo   of belongings   of   deceased   and   one   Shawl   as   Ex.PW19/D, seizure memo of viscera and nail clippings of deceased as Ex.PW19/E,   rukka   as   Ex.PW19/F   and   site   plan   as Ex.PW19/G.

37.  PW­20   Dr.   Rajesh   Kumar,   Assistant   Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Army College   of   Medical   Science,   has   provided   the   opinion regarding cause of death of deceased. After going through the   postmortem   report,   original   FSL   report   and photocopy of Inquest papers, he opined the cause of death in this case as "asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging". He proved his final opinion as Ex.PW20/A. State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 27 of 130

38.  PW­21 Dr. Sweta Sinha, Chemical Analyst, JFACE, RFSL,   Rohini,   testified   that   on   17.02.2017   one   sealed corrugated box duly sealed with the seal of FMT LHMC was  received   in   the office in  case FIR no. 62/17 of  PS­ Vasant   Kunj   (N).   The   same   was   marked   to   her   for chemical   analysis.   On   chemical  analysis  no  poison  was detected. She proved her report as Ex.PW21/A.

39.  PW­22   SI   Manish   Kumar,   testified   that   on 14.07.2017,   he   had   joined   the   investigation   of   the   case with Inspector Rajesh. On that day accused Sawan Malik was   formally   arrested   by   the   IO   vide   arrest   memo Ex.PW22/A   in   the   present   case   as   he   was   already   on anticipatory   bail.   He   also   proved   the   personal   search memo of accused as Ex.PW22/B.

40.  PW­23   Inspector   Rajesh   Kumar,   had   received   the further   investigation   of   the   case   on   20.04.2017   from MHC(R). He perused the case file and on 25.05.2017 he got   declared   accused   Sheela   Malik   as   absconder.   On 13.07.2017,   he   received     viscera  report  and  subsequent opinion regarding cause of death. On 14.07.2017, accused Sawan   Malik   and   Neha   Malik   came   in   the   PS   and   he State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 28 of 130 formally   arrested   both   of   them.   He   proved   the   arrest memo of accused Neha Malik as Ex.PW23/A and personal search memo as Ex.PW23/B. Thereafter, on 04.09.2017, on the directions of court, he collected call detail record of mobile no. 8527629886, 8006770106 and 9582832832.

41.  PW­24 is Inspector Pankaj Pandey, the IO of case.

He has deposed on the lines of charge­sheet filed by him. He   proved   DD   no.   24A   as   Ex.PW24/A,   DD   no.   25A   as Ex.PW24/B, DD No. 41A as Ex.PW24/C and DD no. 37B as Ex.PW24/D.

42.  The   entire   incriminating   evidence   was   put   to accused   persons   at   the   time   of   recording   of   their statement   u/s   313   Cr.PC.   Accused   persons   denied incriminating evidence against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

43.  All  accused  persons have stated  to  the effect that present   case   is   a   false   case.  Deceased   Sneha   had committed suicide herself as she was not able to conceive and due to the said reason she remained sad and also had mood swing behaviour as even the younger sister namely Sapna Dahiya and her sister in law namely Reena Malik, State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 29 of 130 got   pregnant   within   one   year   of   their   marriage.   That whenever   the   family   members   and   relatives   from   both sides used to ask her the reason for not getting pregnant, she used to feel sad and become offended. The parents and family members of deceased, in order to take revenge of death of deceased Sneha from in­laws family members, have   concocted   a   false   story   and   falsely   implicated   all accused persons.

44.  Accused chose to lead evidence in defence.

45.  DW­1 Ms. Meeta Malik testified that accused Sagar, Sawan and Neha Malik are her brothers and sister. She was   got   married   on   22.02.2016   and   Sagar   Malik   was married   with   Sneha   on   26.02.2016.   The   marriage   of Sagar Malik was simple and no demand was raised from their side. She had cordial relations with deceased Sneha even  before her marriage with accused Sagar and they had   good   bonding.   After   marriage   she   along   with   her husband   used   to   celebrate   all   festivals   and   functions together with Sagar and his wife i.e. Sneha. The brother of Sneha namely Vinay, used to remain in the house of Sagar Malik and also had good relations with her. 

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 30 of 130

46. DW­1 further testified that in the month of March 2016,   accused   Sagar   Malik   along   with   deceased   Sneha had gone for their honeymoon at Jammu and Kashmir. However, just after 2­3 days both of them returned back and   Sneha   stated   to   her   that   she   was   suffering   acute pain in her abdomen. Thereafter, her brother took her to doctor   for   checkup   and   she   had   also   undergone ultrasound on 26.03.2016, in which it was revealed that Sneha had a cyst in her ovary and doctor advised her for long   treatment.   She   always   used   to   talk   to   Sneha   on telephone and used to chat with her on whatsapp. She further   testified   that   her   brother   Sagar   Malik   always used to take Sneha for treatment to different doctors at Dwarka and Vasant Kunj, however, Sneha was not able to get pregnant and she always used to remain sad. She also  testified   that  they always used to  go  for  shopping together and spend time. Deceased Sneha was just like her friend and always shared everything with her. That her brother Sagar Malik and his family always used to treat   deceased   Sneha   very   well.   She   proved   the photographs regarding the time spent together as Ex.D1 State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                               Page no. 31 of 130
           to Ex.D14.

47. DW­1 further testified that her cousin Sumit Malik was married with Reena on 08.12.2015 and real sister of Sneha namely Sapna was also married on 26.02.2016 i.e. on the same day when Sneha was married. That on the eve   of   Karvachauth   in   the   year   2016,   all   the   family members   specially   she   and   her   husband,   her   cousin Sumit and his wife came at the house of accused Sagar Malik for celebrating Karvachauth.   On the said day it came   in   the   knowledge   of   Sneha   that   Reena   is   also pregnant and after knowing this fact she became more sad. Even she was not ready to participate in the rituals of   Karvachauth   but   after   her   counselling   she   came   for celebrating the function. She proved the photographs of the   function   as   Ex.D15   and   Ex.D16.   That   after completing the rituals when they sat for having dinner and   Sneha   was   serving   the   food,   she   went   inside   the kitchen then by mistake she had taken some cleansing material   and   she   immediately   came   out   and   stated   to DW­1   that   by   mistake   she   had   taken   some   bad substance.   Thereafter,   DW­1   along   with   her   brother State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 32 of 130 Sagar Malik, Sawan Malik and Sumit Malik immediately took Sneha to Sukhmani Hospital for the treatment and from  there  she  was referred to AIIMS hospital. As the consumption of above said cleansing material was small, hence she was discharged on the same day. As Sneha was very upset so the very next day her brother took her to her parental home. 

48. DW­1   further   testified   that,   Sneha   went   to   her parental home on the occasion of marriage of her cousin brother   namely   Nitin   and   when   she   came   back,   she stated to DW­1 that she was not happy as her parents and   other   family   members   were   only   looking   after   her sister Sapna and avoided her. She further told that her parents   and   family  members   kept   on  asking  about  the status   of   her   pregnancy   and   that   she   was   very   upset regarding   the   said   behaviour   of   her   parents.   DW­1 consoled her but she remained sad due to the reason that she was not getting pregnant. 

49. DW­1   further   testified   that   on   30.01.2017,   there was   function   of   Kua­Pujan   of   Reena   Malik   (wife   of DW­4), who had just got married two months prior to the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 33 of 130 marriage of Sneha. All the relatives and family members who were gathered at the house of Sagar Malik kept on asking Sneha and Sagar that when they would be giving good   news   regarding   pregnancy.   DW­1   proved   the photographs   regarding   the   said   function   as   Ex.D17   to Ex.D23.   That   the   brother   of   Sneha   namely   Vinay   was also present in that function. Thereafter, on 31.01.2017, she was with Sneha and they went for shopping and they spent   time   together   but   she   always   remained   in   deep sadness   as   she   was   not   getting   pregnant.   On   the   said day, she also talked to Sapna, from the mobile phone of Sneha   regarding   her   baby   but   Sneha   did   not   talk   to Sapna, as she was upset.

50.  DW­1   further   testified   that   on   01.02.2017,   there was   function   relating   to   engagement   of   her   cousin brother namely Narender Malik and the family members of Sneha were also invited in the said function.   On the said date, all the relatives were present at the house of Sagar Malik and on that day some female relatives also asked   Sneha   and   Sagar   about   the   good   news   i.e. pregnancy   of   Sneha.   From   the   said   query   of   family State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 34 of 130 members,   she   was   very   upset   and   got   headache. Thereafter, she took bath and after that she went to her room stating that she wanted to take some rest. At that time   her   brother   Sagar   was   outside   the   house   for arrangement and when he came back he found that his room was locked from inside. He knocked the door but Sneha   did   not   open   the   door.   Accused   Sagar   with   the help of other family members broke the door and found that Sneha was hanging with ceiling fan. Thereafter, she was immediately  rushed to the hospital by her brother Sagar   and   Sumit.   Deceased   Sneha,   was   just   like   her friend   and   sister   and   she   hanged   herself   due   to   the reason that she was not able to get pregnant.

51.  DW­2   Sh.   Veer   Prakash   Malik,   testified   that accused   Sagar   is   his   real   nephew   and   his   house   is adjacent to the house of accused Sagar and there is only 04   inch   wall   between   the   two   houses.   That   he   always used to go to the house of Sagar Malik. The parents of Sneha always used to come at the house of Sagar and he had also met them number of times and they had never complained   him   about   the   ill­treatment   being   given   to State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 35 of 130 Sneha by accused Sagar and his family members. That the brother of Sneha always used to remain in the house of accused Sagar. The marriage of Sneha and Sagar was very simple and nothing was demanded from the parents of Sneha. He further testified that there is tradition in their family that whenever a marriage takes place it is performed only by giving shagun of Rs.1/­ as token and that even marriage of father of Sagar and his marriage was   also   performed   by   receiving   shagun   of   Rs.1/­   and that in their community it has to be disclosed before the Panch that they had celebrated the marriage by taking Rs.1/­. 

52. DW­2 further testified that in his frequent visit to the   house   of   accused   Sagar,   he   had   never   heard   that Sagar   or   his   family   member   ever   made   any   dowry demand from Sneha. Accused Sagar always used to keep deceased Sneha very well. That they are six brothers and are residing adjacent to each other and there was just 6 feet gali in front of his house. He further testified that on 30.01.2017,   there   was   kua­pujan   function   of   his   cousin daughter in law namely Reena and on that day he found State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 36 of 130 that deceased Sneha was very sad. He inquired from his wife   the   reason   for   the   sadness   of   Sneha   and   his   wife informed   him   that   all   the   relatives   were   asking   from Sneha regarding any news about pregnancy. On the said date   the   brother   of   Sneha,   was   also   present   in   the function. His wife also consoled her regarding her non­ pregnancy   but   Sneha   remained   upset.   Thereafter,   on 01.02.2017,  there was engagement function  and all the relatives and family members were present in the house of Sagar. That he noticed that Sneha was looking very upset and when he asked his wife to inquire regarding the same then she stated that although she had consoled her but Sneha was in deep sadness regarding her non­ pregnancy. That in the noon hours deceased Sneha went to   her   room   for   taking   some   rest   and   after   sometime when his nephew Sagar came for changing the clothes he found that room of Sneha was locked from inside. Then Sagar knocked the room but no reply came. Then Sagar Malik and DW­4 Sumit Malik broke open the door and found that Sneha had hanged herself. According to him Sneha had committed suicide as she was upset due to her State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                 Page no. 37 of 130
           non­pregnancy. 

53.  DW­3   is  Dr.   Gajinder   Nayyar,   MBBS,   MAMC, FRCR (UK), Nirmal Nursing Home,  53­54 Sewak Park, Opposite Pillar no. 775, adjoining Dwarka more, Dwarka Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi, who testified that he was qualified MBBS doctor from Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi and FRCR from Royal College London UK. He   was   earlier   consultant   at   Jaipur   Golden   Hospital, Apollo   Clinic   and   Tirath   Ram   Shah   hospital   and   had worked   with   NHS   UK.     The   witness   was   shown   the medical prescriptions running in 7 pages and on seeing the same, DW­3 deposed that patient Sneha Malik with her   husband   Sagar   Malik   visited   his   clinic   at   Nirmal Nursing   Home   on   26.04.2016   with   complaints   of dysmenorrhea   and   inability   to   conceive.   She   was examined and a general treatment was prescribed to her. She had carried an ultrasound report from a doctor which showed polycystic ovary. He examined her and prescribed her medicines for relief. DW­3 further testified that she again   returned   back   with   her   husband   on   24.09.2016 with   increase   in   severity   of   the   pain   and   irregular State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 38 of 130 periods. She was advised to get a repeat USG to be done as  it was  suspected  clinically because of  her symptoms and   previous   report,   that   she   is   suffering   from endometriosis   and  he  started  treatment    to   relieve  the pain   and   decrease   the   symptoms.     She   was   advised   to come   on   26.09.2016   for   review   of   USG   at   Arya   Samaj hospital, Vikas Puri where he was also consultant. USG was   done   on   26th  Sept,   2016   morning   which   showed endometrioma. He further testified that Endometrioma is a disorder where endometroia deposits are found in ovary parametrium   and   broad   ligament,   because   of   the vesicular   supply   of   endometroia   deposits   patient experiences   severe   pain   during   periods   and   has dyuspurania which is painful conjugal   relationship and inability to conceive.

54.   DW­3   further   testified   that   on   25.10.2016   Sneha again visited alonwith her husband for routine check up where she again complained of severity of symptoms and showed her anxiety to conceive.  She was advised to the contrary   that   the   first   step   is   the   treatment   of endometriosis   before   she   can   be   advised   to   go   for State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 39 of 130 conception.   Thereafter,   on   20.12.2016   she  again   visited alongwith her husband for her followup and was advised that the only treatment for endometriosis is insertion of merina which is a plastic devise inserted into the uterus to prevent patient having periods. This devise contains levoprogestrone   to   prevent   the   patient   from menstruation   but   the   patient   was   not   willing   for   this treatment  and lastly she visited alongwith her husband on 11.01.2017 and advised for rest of the treatment to be continued.  She wanted to try her in the natural way and was not agreeing to go for merina implantation.  During her treatment, he observed that she was very sad for non conceivement   as   she   was   anxious   to   be   blessed   with   a child.   That  on  every visit she came with her husband and both of them showed their anxiety to have a child and for that purpose her husband was ready and willing to give her all possible treatment. She was very regular to   take   medicines.     He   proved   the   copy   of   his prescriptions as   Ex. DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/5 and USG   as Ex.DW3/6.

55.  DW­4   Sh.   Sumit   Malik   is   the   cousin   brother   of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 40 of 130 accused Sagar Malik, Sawan Malik and Neha Malik.  He testified that he was got married on 08.12.2015 with one Reena   and   accused   Sagar   Malik   was   married   on 26.02.2016   with   deceased   Sneha   Malik.     That   he alongwith Sagar Malik went to the honeymoon together and spent good time. Both the couples were happy during this period. He had good relations with Sagar Malik and have spent good time and also celebrated all the festivals and functions together. On 26.02.2016 the sister of Sneha Malik was also got married. That his bedroom and that of accused   Sagar   Malik   were   adjoining   to  each   other   and there   was   only   a   4''   wall   in   between   and   they   have   a common   terrace.     He   had   good   talking   terms   with deceased   Sneha   Malik     and   used   to   say   her   bhabhi. Accused   Sagar   Malik   was   having   one   travel   agency namely M&S and he had also attached his two cars in the said   business   and   there   are   some   other   persons     who have also attached their cars with the company of Sagar Malik. He proved the copy of his agreement with Sagar Malik as Ex DW4/A. That accused Sagar Malik was also having his five personal cars in the said business and had State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 41 of 130 good financial background.  Accused Sagar Malik and his family always used to treat deceased Sneha Malik very well   and   they   had   very   caring   nature   towards   Sneha Malik.   His   cousin   sister   Mita   had   also   very   good relationship   with   Sneha   Malik   and   they   were   like friends. 

56.  DW­4   further   testified   that   on   the   eve   of Karvachauth in 2016, he, accused Sagar Malik and his cousin   sister   Mita   Malik   with   their   respective   spouses celebrated Karvachauth together and in the evening after opening the fast they all sat in the house of Sagar Malik for dinner.  He  further testified  that since his wife was pregnant, she was not able to help them, so Sneha Malik herself   arranged   all   the   things.   When   all   the   persons were   sitting   for   the   dinner,   deceased   Sneha   Malik immediately   came   out   and   stated   that   due   to   some mistake she had consumed some cleaning substance and due   to   which   she   was   having   pain.   Thereafter,   he, accused   Sagar   Malik   and   Mita   Malik   took   her   to   the nearest hospital i.e. Sukhmani Hospital from where she was referred to the AIIMS.  After getting treatment they State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 42 of 130 came back. On the next day when Sagar Malik was going outside with Sneha Malik, he was standing outside the house and asked them where they were going to which Sneha stated that they were going to her parental home at   Gulawati,   Bullandshehar   UP.     That   he   noticed   that accused Sagar Malik was taking care of deceased Sneha Malik.  

57.  DW­4   further   testified   that   his   wife   got   pregnant just   after   few   months   of   marriage   and   she   delivered   a baby   on   12.01.2017.   Even   the   sister   of   Sneha   also   got pregnant   within   few   months   of   her   marriage.   Sneha used   to   remain   in   sad   mood   whenever   a   talk   of   her pregnancy was discussed. Even on 12.01.2017 when his baby was delivered she did not come to see his wife and stated   that   she   is   suffering   from   headache   and   after much persuasion she joined the functions regarding birth of his baby.  Thereafter, on 30.01.2017, he had arranged Kuan Pujan function and dinner party adjoining to their house and brother of deceased Sneha Malik also attended the function. The brother of Sneha Malik always used to regularly   visit   the   house   of   Sagar   Malik   for   meeting State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 43 of 130 Sneha Malik. He further testified that he noticed on that day that the mood of Sneha Malik was not good and he personally requested his bhabhi i.e. Sneha Malik, to join the function and on his much persuasion she joined the function.   In   the   evening   when   all   the   relatives   were sitting   in   the   pandal   some   of   his   female   relatives regularly asked Sneha Malik as to when she is giving the good news of her pregnancy, on that she went sad and left the function.  

58.  DW­4 further testified that on 01.02.2017 engagement function of his other cousin brother Narender Malik  was going on and the relatives who had come on 30.01.2017, remained   in   the   house   of   Sagar   Malik.   He   saw   some female relatives were again asking to Sneha Malik about her pregnancy and thereafter she became very sad.   He further testified that on the said day at about 01­01.30 pm   he   was   busy  in   the   pandal   for  arrangement   of   the function and he found that Sagar Malik was knocking the door of his room but Sneha was not responding. Sagar called him  and  after again knocking the door he broke open the door and found that Sneha Malik was hanging State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 44 of 130 with the ceiling fan. They put her down and took her to hospital.   He   proved   the   pen   drive   regarding   the   time which   he   had   spent  with   deceased   Sneha   Malik   as   Ex DW4/X. 

59.  DW­5 Sh. Ram Sawroop @ Pappu, stated that he is the common relative of family of Sagar Malik and Sneha Malik.  He testified that he had attended the marriage of accused   Sagar   Malik   and   Sneha   Malik   and   it   was performed on the shagun of Rs.1/­ only and nothing was demanded   from   the   side   of   Sagar   Malik.   Sumit   Malik also got married on 08.12.2015  and his wife got pregnant after   few   months   of   her   marriage   and   thereafter   on 12.01.2017 she delivered a baby and her function of Kuan Pujan was scheduled on 30.01.2017. He further testified that  on  30.01.2017 he was present in  the function and noticed that deceased Sneha was not happy and when he asked about the same from the mother of Sagar Malik, she   told   him   that   due   to   non   pregnancy   she   always remained upset. He further testified that in the function of Kuan Pujan at the dinner when all the relatives were sitting   then   some   of   the   female   relative   stated   to State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 45 of 130 deceased Sneha Malik that when she is giving good news of   pregnancy   on   that   she   became   more   upset.   He   also stated that Sneha's brother namely Vinay also attended the function. 

60.   He   further   testified   that   on   01.02.2017   the engagement function of Babby @ Narender Malik was to be  performed   and on  30th  and 31 st  January  and on  1st February,   2017,   he   remained   in   the   house   of   accused Sagar Malik. During this period, he did not notice any harassment or comment from the family of accused Sagar Malik   against   deceased   Sneha,   however,   some   relative ladies  in  the  family  were asking deceased Sneha "AAP KAB   KHUSH   KHABRI   DENE   WALE   HO".   Then   she slightly   smiled   and   became   sad   and   after   some   time Sneha went up.  Sneha Malik used to remain sad due to her   non   pregnancy.   He   used   to   visit   frequently   within 10­20 days at the house of accused Sagar Malik. In his presence none of the accused ever demanded or harassed deceased Sneha regarding the dowry.   On 01.2.2017, he was present in the house of Sagar Malik since morning and accused Sagar Malik was in the Pandal at that time.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 46 of 130 Sagar Malik went to his room from Pandal at about 01:00 pm - 01.30 pm for changing the clothes and Sagar Malik continuously  knocked the door but no one was opening the door. Sumit Malik was also there. Both of them tried to open the door and they broke open the door and found that deceased Sneha was hanging.  Accused Sagar Malik called the relatives.

61.  DW­6   is   accused   Sagar   Malik,   who   examined himself   under   section   315   Cr.PC   and   testified   that   he runs a travel agency in the name and style M&S Travels at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi since 20.12.2014.  His travel agency is a registered firm.   He runs five cars of his own and 8­10 cars additionally attached in his  travel agency. That on 26.02.2016, he was married with Sneha ( since deceased)   at   Gulawati,   Bullandshehar.   Marriage   was performed   without   any   dowry   demand   and   Rs.   1/­   was given as Shagun to him at the time of marriage by the brother of deceased Sneha. After 20 days of his marriage he and deceased Sneha alongwith his cousin Sumit and his wife went to Jammu & Kashmir for honeymoon for ten   days.   He   proved   the   photographs   of   honeymoon   as State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                              Page no. 47 of 130
           Ex.DW6/B  (  colly).     After 2­3 days they came back as

Sneha was suffering from lower abdomen pain.  He also consulted   to   the   doctor   of   the   hotel   but   no   relief   was found   by   deceased   Sneha   so   they   came   back   to   Delhi. When they returned to Delhi it was Holi (colour) festival. As it was first Holi so deceased Sneha stated to him that she  wanted   to go to her parental home. Thereafter, he alongwith   his nephew Varun Punia and Sneha went to her parental home at Gulawati. They celebrated Holi and spent   good   time   there.   The   photographs   of   the   Holi celebration   were   clicked   by   him,   his   nephew,   Sneha, Sneha's sisters and her bhabhi ( brother's wife ) in their respective   phones.   Thereafter   on   the   next   day   the photographs   were   exchanged   through   whatsapp. Photographs of Holi celebration were downloaded in one pen drive Ex.DW6/A ( Kingston  DataTraveler 4 GB G3).

62.  He   further   testified   that   Holi   was   played   by   him and Sneha for two days. On 24.03.2016 Holi was played at the parental house of Sneha and on 25.03.2016 at their house. The photographs of Holi celebration were proved as   Ex   DW6/C   (colly.).   Thereafter   on   25.03.2016,   in   the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 48 of 130 evening   Sneha   complained   about   abdominal   pain   and was taken to Dr. Neelam Khatri at Vasant Kunj.  On the advise   of   doctor   her   ultrasound   was   got   conducted   on next   day   ie.   26.03.2016   and   it   was   diagnosed   that   she was having cyst in ovary. The original ultrasound report dated 26.03.2016 was proved as Ex DW6/D alongwith the Ultrasound   images.     He   and   his   mother   accompanied Sneha for ultra sound and the report was handed over to him.   Thereafter   within   a   week   Sneha   went   to   her parental   home   alongwith   her   brothers   namely Dharmender, Sunil and Nitin and sisters namely Neha Maan and Sapna Dahiya and stayed there for about 15­ 20 days. He further testified that Sapna, sister of Sneha also got married on the same day of his  marriage.  After 15­20   days   she   returned   back   with   her   brother Dharmender   and   sisters.     After   her   return   at matrimonial home, she informed  him that  she had gone alongwith her mother to consult a doctor regarding her abdominal   pain   and   the   said   doctor   had   given   some medicines   to her. But after taking these medicines she did   not   get   relief   so   he   consulted   Dr.   Gajender   at   his State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 49 of 130 nursing   home   Nirmal   Nursing   Home,   Dwarka,   Delhi. Thereafter,   on   the   advise   of   Dr.   Gajender   fresh ultrasound   of   Sneha   was   conducted   at   D­block,   Vikas Puri   as   referred   by   Dr.   Gajender.   Sneha     was   not conceiving despite her will and therefore they consulted the doctor in this regard also. On the advice of doctor his semen sample was also given at D Block, Vikas Puri for tests. Dr. Gajender on the basis of report informed that there was excessive bleeding during periods of Sneha and her cyst in ovary had also increased. Dr informed that there may be difficulty in conceiving due to the ovary cyst and that the cyst may develop into a tumor, if increased. DW­4 prescribed the medicines for four weeks to Sneha. Next   month   they   again   visited   DW­4   Dr.   Gajender. Sneha   informed   him   that   there   was   still   excessive bleeding and that the pain was also not relieved and that she   was   having     acute   pain   during   their   physical relationship. Doctor advised them for a small surgery to insert some article, name of which he did not remember but it was something like 'T'. Doctor informed them that if that   object is inserted in the ovary, the period would State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 50 of 130 stop for the time  being and during that period ovary cyst of   Sneha   could   be treated.     Doctor  also  informed  them that   Sneha   could   not   be   able   to   conceive   during   that treatment.   He   further   testified   that   he   and   Sneha decided to continue the medicines for some time, before taking   any   decision   for   surgery.   Sneha   went   to   his parental home at Gulawati again in August, 2017 for 10­ 15 days and on her return to their home Sneha informed that her sister Sapna had conceived and everybody in the family  was  taking more  care of her. She also informed that   her   family   members   were   asking   as   to   when   she would   conceive.     He   further   testified   that   for   a   month they skipped visting to doctor Gajender as the said doctor had advised her for surgery. But the condition of Sneha deteriorated   and   in   September   2016  they   again   visited Dr.   Gajender   vide   prescription   slip   already   Ex   DW3/2 (OSR).

63.  DW­6 further testified that after September,  2016 he visited 2­3 times to the clinic of Dr. Gajender.  Lastly they   visited   in   January,   2017.   Due   to   her   condition, Sneha always used to be upset and anxious as her real State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 51 of 130 sister Sapna had also delivered a child in December. As per   the   last   visit   Dr.   Gajender   advised   them   for   the treatment but Sneha was not ready for treatment as she wanted to conceive. Sneha requested the doctor to give some time for the special treatment prescribed by doctor earlier. 

64.  DW­6 further testified that  Ms. Reena is his sister in law and is the wife of Sumit Malik, who had delivered a baby on 12.01.2017. The marriage of Reena, Sapna and Sneha   took   place   within   a   month   and   as   Reena   and Sapna conceived but Sneha could not conceive, as such she   always   remained   upset   and   anxious.     She   also complained   for   headache   and   always   remained   in irritating mood.  She had also mood changing habits and for making Sneha happy he alongwith his other friends used   to   go   outside   and   spent   good   time   with   her.   He proved the photographs showing the time spent by them together as ExDW6/E(colly.). He further testified that he alongwith   his   other   family   members   used   to   spent festivals,   birthday  parties,  new  year  party  etc   together with deceased Sneha.   That on 19.10.2016 was the first State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 52 of 130 Karvachauth of Sneha and also of his sister Meeta and his sister in law Reena. All the family members gathered in   his   house   for   celebrating   the   Karvachauth   function alongwith   family   of   Veer   Parkash   Malik   and   Sumit Malik,   Meeta   and   her   husband.   Photograph   of Karvachauth function were proved as Ex DW6/F ( colly.). After   opening   the   fast   they   all   sat   together   for   having dinner in their hall. As Reena was pregnant and it was disclosed on that day itself, so no one allowed her to do household   work   and   Sneha   was   serving   the   food.   She went inside and came with coughing and stated that by mistake   she   had   taken   some   cleansing   substance.   On that at about 10.00 p.m., he, Sumit, Meeta and Sawan took her to the nearest hospital i.e. Sukhmani hospital where   treatment   was   given   to   her.   The   original prescription/medical   paper   of   Sukhmani   hospital     was proved as Ex DW6/G and thereafter they took her to the AIIMS   hospital.   The treatment  slips of  AIIMS  hospital were   proved   as  Ex   DW6/H.   At   Sukhmani   hospital   he received a call of Sapna Dahiya, sister of Sneha, and he stated her to inform other family members of Sneha. At State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 53 of 130 around 12.30 they were advised to go for AIIMS hospital and they reached AIIMS hospital after ten minutes. At about   03.30   am   she   was   discharged.     That     at   about 12.30,   he   received   two   calls   of   Lalit   Phogat,   maternal uncle   of   Sneha   who   asked   about   the   health   of   Sneha. That none from the family of Sneha came to them either in   Sukhmani   or   at   AIIMS   hospital.   Even   he   did   not receive any call from the parents of Sneha  on this day. 

65.  DW­6 further testified that on 20.10.2016 one ASI namely   Deen   Dayal   came   at   his   house   and   took   the statement of Sneha wherein she stated that  by mistake she had taken some bad substance. At around 03.30 pm, he took Sneha  at her parental home Gulawati as no one from   the     family   of   Sneha   came   to   meet   her.     On 05.11.2016 she went at her parental home to attend the marriage of her cousin Nitin Tewatia. The said marriage was attended by him, his cousin Sumit Malik and cousin Rinku. In the marriage he talked to Sneha and she stated to him that everyone is asking for good news and they are   also   saying   one   new   bride   is   also   coming   in   their home. That due to continuous asking for good news she State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                 Page no. 54 of 130
           was   upset   and   in   order   to     make   her   please,   he   spent

good   time   with   her.   He   proved   the   photographs   of   the marriage of Nitin Tewatia as Ex DW6/I ( colly.).    

66.  DW­6 further testified that thereafter Sneha came back on 09.12.2016 and spent some days at the house of her maternal uncle Mr. Lalit Phogat. DW­6 and Sneha, celebrated his birthday, Christmas and New year party etc but Sneha was not happy and did not want to mix up with others as every member of family asked her for good news.  

67.  DW­6 further testified that in December, 2016, Ms. Sapna sister of Sneha delivered a baby and she arranged a function in January, 2017. Husband of Sapna i.e. Mr. Shakti Dahiya  invited him and Sneha. However, due to some   engagement,   he   requested   Sneha   to   visit   the function alongwith his brother Bobby. He left Sneha in the house of Mr. Lalit Phogat, maternal uncle of Sneha for attending the function. Sneha returned in the evening of same day to their house after attending the function and when he asked Sneha why she returned early, she replied that she was not feeling good as everybody was State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 55 of 130 asking her the same question 'tu good news kab de rahi hai' (when you are giving good news). On 12.01.2017, his cousin Sumit was blessed with a son but Sneha did not go to see his wife Reena and her son. She stated that she was not attending as she was upset. 

68.  DW­6 further testified that on 30.01.2017 there was a kuan pujan function of his sister in law Reena and the same was being celebrated just 50 meter away from his house.   In   the   said   function   family   of   Sneha   was   also invited.     Sh.   Boby,   Sneha's   brother   also   attended   that function.   He   proved   the   photographs   of   Kuan   pujan function   and   dinner   as  ExDW6/J  (colly.).   He   further testified   that   number   of   guests   were   present   at   their house and they stayed in their house for a couple of days because   on   01.02.2017   marriage   of   his   cousin   brother Narender   Malik   was   going   to   take   place.   Copy   of marriage   card   of   Narender   Malik   was   proved   as ExDW6/K.   On the same day, in the party he requested his chachi Smt. Kaushal to call Sneha as she was sitting with   group   of   ladies   and   she   had   send   a   SMS   to   him through Whatsapp to take her to home as everyone was State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 56 of 130 asking for good news from her.   That he and his family members tried their level best to make her please but she remained upset. On the next day he requested his sister Meeta to take her for shopping so that the mood of Sneha would   change   and   accordingly   Meeta   took   her   for   the shopping. 

69.  DW­6   further   testified   that   on   01.02.2017,   the engagement of his cousin Narender was to happen. Most of   the   relatives   were   present   at   their   house   including ladies   to   attend   the   engagement   and   marriage   of Narender   which   was   scheduled   on   next   day.   At   about 01.30   pm,   when   he   came   back   from   the   venue   of engagement to change his clothes with his cousin Sumit, firstly he stayed at ground floor to drink water where his chacha namely Pappu and Tau ji namely Mr. Ram Pat, his mother and bhabhi etc were taking tea. Thereafter, he went up to his room which was on first floor adjacent to the room of Sumit Malik. He knocked the door of the room   but   no   reply   came.   He   tried   to   peep   from   the window but nothing was visible and no reply came from inside.   He   started   knocking   the   door   and   on   hearing State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 57 of 130 noise of knocking Sumit and other relatives came there and with the help of all of them the door was broken and it was found that Sneha was hanging with a chunni from ceiling fan. Thereafter, he called other family members and all of them came. They immediately took Sneha to hospital   where   she   was   declared   brought   dead.   At   the hospital   SI   Neeraj   and   SI   Manish   were   present   they came with him at his house where he handed over his phone   and   Sneha's   phone   to   them.   He   was   thereafter arrested. 

70.  All   defence   witnesses   were   cross­examined   and suggestions  were  given to all rebutting  their testimony and   that   Sneha   committed   suicide   due   to   dowry harassment.   The   witnesses,   however   denied   the suggestions.

71.  Lengthy final arguments were addressed by learned Sh.   S.K.   Kain,   learned   Addl.   PP   for   State,   Sh.   Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sh. Ankit Goel, Advocate for   complainant,     Sh.   Rishi   Pal,   Advocate   for   accused Sawan   Malik   and   Neha   Malik   and   Sh.   Ajayinder Sangwan, Advocate for accused Sagar Malik.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 58 of 130

72.  It   is   argued   by   learned   Addl.   PP   that   the prosecution   has   successfully proved  its case against  all accused persons by examining public witnesses i.e. PW­3 Sh. Dharamraj father of deceased, PW­6 Sh. Lalit Kumar maternal uncle of deceased, PW­8 Smt. Sudesh mother of deceased,   PW­10   Neha   Maan   sister   of   deceased   and PW­12   Smt.   Sarita   Phogat,   mediator,   and   all   these witnesses   supported   and   corroborated   each   other. Learned Sh. Kain has submitted that each witness has specifically   deposed   that   deceased   was   harassed   for demand of dowry prior to her unnatural death. Sh. Kain also argued that the death of deceased took place within one   year   of   marriage   and   mandatory   presumption   u/s 113B   Indian   Evidence   Act,   that   the   accused   persons caused dowry death of deceased Sneha is required to be drawn against all accused persons. Sh. Kain also argued that   accused   persons   have   failed   to   rebut   the presumption   of   dowry   death,   caused   by   them.   Learned Sh. Kain has  relied upon  State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, to submit that even if there are minor variations and contradictions in the testimony State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 59 of 130 of witnesses same are immaterial and evidence cannot be rejected   on   the   same   ground.   He   argued   that   normal discrepancies   are   bound   to   occur   due   to   error   of observation,   errors   of   memory,   lapse   of   time,   mental disposition etc., and no benefit thereof can be granted to accused persons. 

73.  Sh. Kain further argued that the mental status of the father and mother, who had lost their daughter and were coming from a small town Gulawati, UP, has to be kept   in   mind,   before   observing   any   variations   or contradictions. 

74.  Sh.   Kain   also   relied   upon  Bhimrao   Anna Ingawale   and   Ors.   Vs   State   of   Maharashtra,   1980 SCC   (Cri)   888,   to   submit   that   even   if   some improvements   are   made   by   the   witnesses,   the   same would   not   make   the  whole  evidence  of  that  witness  as unreliable. Sh. Kain submitted that the maxim falsus­in­ uno­falsus­in­omnibus, is not applicable in appreciating the evidence under Indian Evidence Act and the aspects which are corroborated by the witnesses, are required to be relied upon. Sh. Kain also argued that no benefit of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 60 of 130 doubt can be given to either of accused as accused were residing in the same house, where the unnatural death of deceased   took   place   and   neither   of   the   accused   has explained   how   and   for   what   reason   the   said   death occurred. 

75.  Inder   Singh   and   Anr.   Vs   State   (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 1091, is relied upon by learned Sh. Kain to submit that any criminal case cannot be proved too perfectly to not have any contradiction in testimony   of   different   witnesses.   He   argued   that   some variations are bound to occur and requirement of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be stretched too far to reject   the   testimony   of   natural   and   trustworthy witnesses.

76.  In order to support his arguments that mandatory presumption u/s 113B Evidence Act, is applicable against the   accused,   Sh.   Kain   relied   upon  Pathan   Hussain Basha   Vs   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh,   AIR   2012   SC 3205  and  Vijay   Pal   Singh   and   others   Vs   State   of Uttarakhand, AIR 2015 SC 684.

77.  Sh. Kain also argued that major allegations in the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 61 of 130 testimony   of   prosecution   witnesses   have   remained unrebutted and therefore must be read against accused persons.   He   also   argued   that   there   was   no   cross­ examination of IO on vital points including cause of delay in recording statements of witnesses. He has relied upon Sunil Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096  to submit that no benefit can be given to accused persons even for delay in recording statements of witnesses, when no questions were given to IO.

78.  Supplementing the arguments of learned Sh. Kain, Sh. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate on behalf of complainant submitted   that   the   offence   u/s   304B   IPC   is   a   class   in itself and the presumption u/s 113B Indian Evidence Act is   made  operative  against  the  accused  persons because the death of deceased is caused within the house occupied by   accused   persons.   The   residents   of   the   house   could have   been   the   best   witnesses,   but   those   witnesses   are generally   themselves   involved   in   dowry   death   cases, therefore the presumption u/s 113B Indian Evidence Act was put in statute by the Legislature. Sh. Mittal further argued   that   in   the   present   case   it   is   admitted   that State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 62 of 130 deceased died an unnatural death within 07 years of her marriage   in   the   house   occupied   by   accused   persons, hence it is for the accused persons to rebut and explain that they are not liable to cause such death of deceased Sneha. 

79.  Sh.   Mittal   also   argued   that   accused   persons   had taken   multiple   defences   in   cross­examination   of prosecution   witnesses.   He   has   drawn   attention   of   the court   to   cross­examination   of   PW­3,   PW­8   and   PW­10. During cross­examination of PW­3, it was suggested by learned defence counsel that deceased Sneha was in love with some other boy and intended to marry said boy and that she used to had severe headache and that she was having   problem   in   her   ovaries   and   that   she   was depressed   because   of   the   reason   that   her   other   sisters were having children but she was not begetting children and that she was frustrated and used to get angry. 

80.  Sh.   Puneet   argued   that   mutually   destructive   and contradictory pleas are taken by accused persons in their defence and none of the defence was proved to rebut the presumption   u/s   113B  Indian   Evidence   Act.   He   argued State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 63 of 130 that an honest and intelligent accused would have taken one defence only but accused in the present case did not leave anything to malign the image of deceased.

81.  Sh.   Mittal   also   argued   that   the   incidence   of 19.10.2016,   when   the   deceased   took   some cleaning/corrosive   substance   as   well   as   the   incidence which was narrated by deceased on 01.02.2017 to PW­8 and   PW­10   were   both   "soon   before   death".   He   argued that   the   harassment   of   the   deceased   Sneha   was   never stopped   by   the   inlaws   except   for   a   short   period   after 19.10.2016,   when   the   maternal   uncle   of   deceased   had given Rs.3.00 lakhs to the mother of accused, in front of accused.

82.  Sh. Mittal also argued that PW­3 as well as PW­8 categorically deposed in their respective testimonies that they   had   given   their   respective   statements   Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW8/A to SI Neeraj Kumar on 01.02.2017. In the said statement they had specifically alleged the demand of dowry i.e. Honda City car or Rs.10.00 lakhs from all accused  and  their mother. It  was also alleged that  the mother   in   law,   sister   in   law,   brother   in   law   and   the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 64 of 130 husband  of  deceased used to harass and beat deceased Sneha for non­fulfilling their demand of money and that the mother in law i.e. absconding accused Sheela Malik had   called   PW­3   in   the   morning   of   01.02.2017,   that   if their   demand   of   money   was   not   satisfied,   they   would leave Sneha and marry Sagar somewhere else. Sh. Mittal submitted that no cross­examination of PW­3 and PW­8 was   conducted   to   suggest   that   they   had   not   given   the statement   dated   01.02.2017.   Similarly   no   such suggestion was put to IO. Even the cross­examination as regards the contents of these documents was not done on behalf of either of accused. Sh. Mittal thus argued that the   accused   had   admitted   these   documents   Ex.PW3/A and   Ex.PW8/A   by   leaving   them   unrebutted.   He submitted that these documents satisfy all ingredients of section 304B IPC read with section 113B Indian Evidence Act and accused persons are liable to be convicted on this ground alone. 

83.  Sh.   Mittal   further   argued   that   the   witnesses   i.e. PW­3,   PW­6,   PW­8   and   PW­10   have   corroborated   each other. Minor contradictions in their testimony are liable State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 65 of 130 to be ignored and some improvements are bound to occur because PW­3 and PW­8 were under severe mental shock and   trauma   on   01.02.2017   and   02.02.2017,   when   their initial statements were recorded. 

84.  Similarly, Sh. Mittal argued that no suggestion was given to PW­8 that she did not receive the threatening call from the mother in law of deceased, hence the said evidence cannot be discarded.

85.  In his submissions on defence evidence learned Sh.

Mittal submitted that the testimony of defence witnesses is   not   believable   as   all   the   witnesses   are   highly interested in favour of accused persons. He also argued that the multiple defences taken by accused in the cross­ examination of prosecution witnesses, are not pressed in examination of defence witnesses. He submitted that the deceased could not have taken some cleaning substance Harpic   by   mistake   on   19.10.2016,   as   suggested   by defence witnesses. He further argued that DW­3, in his cross­examination   has   himself   admitted   that   cyst   in ovary, does not ipso­facto mean that the patient cannot conceive,   hence   there   was   no   occasion   with   deceased State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 66 of 130 Sneha to commit suicide for not being able to conceive. Sh.   Puneet   further   supported   arguments   of   learned Sh. Kain that period of 11 months was too short a period for a married lady to be depressed for not begetting child.

86.  Sh. Puneet Mittal also argued that the prosecution was not supposed to prove the CDRs of PW­8 mother of deceased because no suggestion was put to her that she did   not   receive   phone   call   from   deceased   Sneha   on 31.01.2017 and from her mother in law accused Sheela on 01.02.2017. 

87.  Sh. Puneet Mittal relied upon following citations :­

  1.   Maya   Devi   and   Anr.   Vs   State   of   Haryana, 2016 AIR (SC) 125.

  2.  Sanjay   Kumar   Jain   Vs   State   of   Delhi,   2011 AIR (SC) 363.

  3.  G.V. Siddaramesh Vs State of Karnatka, 2010 (3) SCC 152.

  4.  Govindaraju Vs State of Karnatka, 2009 (14) SCC 236.

  5.  Kansraj Vs State of Punjab, 2000 (5) SCC 207.

  6.  Ram   Kumar   Vs   State,   Crl.   Appeal   No. State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                      Page no. 67 of 130
           200/2011.

  7.  Tej Pal Vs State, Crl. Appeal No.   112/1999, Delhi High Court.

  8.  State of UP Vs Jagdeo and Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 577­578/1995.

  9.  Ashok Vs State, Crl. Appeal No. 433/2013.

  10.  Devi   Lal   Vs   State   of   Rajasthan,   Crl.   Appeal No. 1088/2000.

  11.  Bhupender   Vs   State   of   M.P.   2014   AIR   (SC)

378.

  12.  Narwinder   Singh   Vs   State   of   Punjab,   Crl. Appeal No. 590/2005, decided on 05.01.2011.

  13.  State of Rajasthan Vs Girdhari Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 1186/2008, decided on 07.10.2013.

  14.  Jagjit   Singh   Vs   State   of   Punjab,   2009   AIR (SC) 2133.

88.  Learned Sh. Rishi Pal and Sh. Ajay Inder Sangwan, per contra submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the necessary ingredients for applicability of section 113B Indian Evidence Act and no presumption of dowry death can be drawn against either of accused.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 68 of 130 They   argued   that   there   are   major   contradictions   and improvements   in   the   testimony   of   witnesses.   The witnesses are belied by electronic evidence produced by prosecution itself. It is argued that since the necessary ingredients   of   section   113B   Indian   Evidence   Act   were never   satisfied,   there   was   no   question   of   accused rebutting   any   presumption.   Both   the   learned   counsels however   submitted   that   the   story   of   prosecution   is   an after thought, created after the death of deceased. They further   argued   that   the   defence   has   lead   independent witness   i.e.   DW­3   Dr.   Gajinder   Nayyar   to   prove   that deceased was unable to conceive due to cyst in ovary and the conjugal relationship with accused Sagar Malik was also painful for the said reason, and that she was anxious to conceive. Learned defence counsels further argued that because   the   real   sister   of   deceased   Sneha,   namely   Ms. Sapna, who got married on the same day and had already given child birth, people used to inquire from deceased about her conception, she was under pressure. Similarly, Ms. Reema W/o the cousin of Sagar Malik, who was also married within a month of marriage of deceased, had also State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 69 of 130 delivered baby on 12.01.2017.

89.  Learned   defence   counsels   further   argued   that   all allegations   against   accused   persons   are   vague   and generic and no specific dates are given nor the manner in which the deceased was allegedly harassed is explained. They   argued   that   the   story   of   physical   beating   to deceased   Sneha   was   negated   by   the   respective   MLCs prepared at Sukhmani Hospital and AIIMS hospital on 19.10.2016,   MLC   prepared   at   Fortis   hospital   on 01.02.2017   and   postmortem   report   prepared   at   AIIMS hospital. It is submitted by them no external injury mark was   found   in   either   of   the   medical   report   except   the ligature mark on neck found in the postmortem report, which was caused by hanging of deceased on 01.02.2017. Defence counsels therefore submitted that PW­3, PW­6, PW­8 , PW­10 and PW­12 have cooked up the entire story in   connivance   with   the   police   officials   in   order   to   take revenge   from   the   husband   by   implicating   him   and   his family members, by making general allegations against all of them.

90.  Learned   Sh.   Rishi   Pal   submitted   that   IO   has State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 70 of 130 collected selective material and has mentioned selective witnesses, in order to implicate the accused persons and has   not   conducted   free   and   fair   investigation.   The material   and   witnesses   in   favour   of   accused   were consciously ignored by the IO.

91.  Counsels   for   accused   persons   have   relied   upon following judgments:­

  1.  State   of   NCT   of   Delhi   Vs   Rakesh   and   Ors., 2012 (2) JCC 1334.

  2.   Hans Raj Sharma and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 175 DLT 446.

  3.  Baijnath   and   ors.   Vs   State   of   Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 10 SCC 101.

  4.  Biswajit Halder Alias Babu Halder and Ors.Vs State of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202.

  5.  Narender Singh Arora Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Ors., 2010 (4) JCC 2373.

  6.  Manohar   Lal   Vs   State   of   Haryana,   (2014)   9 SCC 645.

  7.  Lekh   Ram and  Anr. Vs State  of  Delhi, 2018 SCC 8011.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 71 of 130

  8.  Sher   Singh   @   Partapa   Vs   State   of   Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 724.

  9.  Durga   Prasad   and   Another   Vs   State   of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 9 SCC 73.

  10.  Vikas and Ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi), Cr. A. 86/2007.

92.  Court   has   considered   arguments   advanced   by learned   Sh.   S.K.   Kain,   Addl.   PP   for   State   assisted   by learned Sh. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate for complainant and learned defence counsels and has also gone through the record carefully.

93.   From the arguments advanced by learned counsels for   parties   and   facts   and   material   on   record,   following points   for   determination   are   framed   u/s   354   (1)   (b) Cr.PC:­   POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:­

  1)  Whether   the   deceased   consume cleaning/corrosive substance on 19.10.2016 on account of harassment by accused persons for demand of dowry?

  2)  Whether the prosecution has proved delivery of   Rs.3.00   lakhs   to   the   accused   persons   after   such State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                        Page no. 72 of 130
           harassment, if any?
                    3)          Whether the prosecution has proved that soon

before the death deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry?

  4)  Whether   the   investigation   has   not   been   fair and impartial?

  5)  Whether   adverse   inference   is   liable   to   be drawn   against   accused   persons   for   raising   multiple defences?

 

                    LEGAL                PROVISIONS               AND            THEIR

          APPLICATION:­

94.  Both the parties relied upon following provisions of law:­

(i)   Section   304B   IPC   read   with   section   113B   Indian Evidence Act.

(ii) Section 498A IPC.

(iii) Section 2 Dowry Prohibition Act.

95.  In addition thereto learned Sh. Ajay Inder Sangwan also relied upon section 176 Cr.PC.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 73 of 130

96.  Section 304B IPC reads 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 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.

97.  In   the   case   of   Maya   Devi   Vs   State   of   Haryana (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for complainant, Hon'ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of section 304B IPC, held that in order to establish dowry State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 74 of 130 death   under   section   304B   IPC,   following   ingredients must be established:­ (1)  The death of a woman must have been caused by burns   or  bodily   injury or otherwise than  under normal circumstances.

(2)  Such   death   must   have  occurred   within  7  years  of her marriage.

(3)  Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband.

(4)  Such   cruelty   or   harassment   must   be   for   or   in connection with demand of dowry.

98.  All these ingredients were reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court in other catena of judgments including  Sunil Bajaj Vs State of MP (2001) 9 SCC 417.

99.  In the case of Mahavir Kumar and Ors. Vs State, Crl.A.   611/1999,   decided   on   16.05.2014,   while discussing section 304B IPC, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held :­

  16.   This   section   will   apply whenever the occurrence of death of a State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 75 of 130 woman   is   preceded   by   cruelty   or harassment by husband or in­laws for dowry and death occurs in unnatural circumstances.   The   intention   behind this section is to fasten the guilt on the husband   or   in­laws   though   they   did not in fact caused the death. It may be noticed   that   punishment   for   the offence of dowry death under Section 304B is imprisonment of not less than 7   years,   which   may   extend   to imprisonment   for   life,   unlike   under Section 498A IPC, where husband or relative   of   husband   of   a   woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Normally, in a criminal case   accused  can  be punished  for an offence   on   establishment   of commission   of   that   offence   on   the basis   of   evidence,   evidence   may   be direct   or  circumstantial   or  both.  But in   case   of   an   offence   under   Section 304B   IPC,   an   exception   is   made   by deeming provision as to the nature of death as "dowry death" and that the husband   or   his   relative,   as   the   case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 76 of 130 to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said   offence   by   convincing   evidence. Hence,   there   is   need   for   greater   care and caution, that too having regard to the   gravity  of   punishment   prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence   and   in   arriving   at   the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned   ingredients   of   the   offence are proved by the prosecution. 

  17. Section 113B of the Evidence Act   is   also   relevant   for   the   case   in hand.   Both   section   304B   IPC   and Section 113 of the Evidence Act were inserted   by   Dowry   Prohibition (Amendment)   Act   43   of   1986   with   a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:­   "113B. Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a   person   has   committed   the   dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon   before   her   death   such   woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty   or   harassment   for,   or   in connection   with,   any   demand   for dowry,   the   Court   shall   presume   that such   person   had   caused   the   dowry State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                           Page no. 77 of 130
                            death.
                                  Explanation - For the purpose of

this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (45   of 1860)".

  18.  As   per   the   definition   of "dowry death" in Section 304B Indian Penal   Code   and   the   wording   in   the presumptive   Section   113B   of   the Evidence   Act,   one   of   the   essential ingredients   amongst   others,   in   both the   provisions   is   that   the   woman concerned must have been 'soon before her   death'   subjected   to   cruelty   or harassment "for or in connection with the   demand   for   dowry".   While considering   these   provisions,   Hon'ble Court   in   M.   Srinivasulu   Vs   State   of A.P., (2007) 12 SCC 443 has observed thus:

  "8.4... The presumption shall be raised   only  on   proof   of  the  following essentials:

  (1) The question before the court must   be   whether   the   accused   has committed   the   dowry   death   of   a woman.   (This   means   that   the presumption can be raised only if the accused   is being tried  for the offence State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 78 of 130 under   Section   304B   Indian   Penal Code.)   (2)  The   woman   was   subjected to   cruelty   or   harassment   by   her husband or his relatives.

  (3)  Such cruelty or harassment was   for,   or   in   connection   with   any demand for dowry.

  (4)  Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death."

  19. A perusal of section 113B of the   Evidence   Act   and   Section   304B Indian   Penal   Code   shows   that   there must   be  material  to   show  that  "soon before   her   death"   the   victim   was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In other   words,   the   prosecution   has   to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental   death   so   as   to   bring   it within   the   purview   of   the   "death occurring   otherwise   than   in   normal circumstances".   The   prosecution   is obliged   to   show   that   soon   before   the occurrence,   there   was   cruelty   or harassment   and   only   in   that   case presumption   operates.(emphasis supplied)

100.  In   the   case   of  Baijnath   and   Ors.   Vs   State   of Madhya   Pradesh,   (2017)   1   SCC   101,   relied   upon   by State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 79 of 130 learned   defence   counsel,   the   Hon'ble   Apex   court discussed the conjoint effect of the sections 304B IPC and 113B Indian Evidence Act, holding :­   (33) A conjoint reading of these three   provisions,   thus   predicate   the burden   of   the   prosecution   to unassailably   substantiate   the ingredients   of   the   two   offences   by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section   113B   of   the   Act   against   the accused.   Proof   of   cruelty   or harassment   by   the   husband   or   her relative or the person charged is thus the   sine   qua   non   to   inspirit   the statutory   presumption,   to   draw   the person   charged   within   the   coils thereof.   If   the   prosecution   fails   to demonstrate   by   cogent   coherent   and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the   person   accused   of   either   of   the above referred offences cannot be held guilty   by   taking   refuse   only   of   the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.

  (34)  The   legislative   primature of   relieving   the   prosecution   of   the rigour   of   the   proof   of   the   often practically inaccessible recesses of life State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 80 of 130 within   the   guarded   confines   of   a matrimonial   home   and   of replenishing   the   consequential   void, by   according   a   presumption   against the   person   charged,   cannot   be overeased   to   gloss­over   and   condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts   enumerated   in   the   Sections involved, lest justice is the casualty.   (35)  This   Court   while   often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304B of the Code and Section 113B 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   304B   as   in  Sindo   Alias Sawinder   Kaur   and   another   Vs State   of   Punjab   -  (2011)   11   SCC 517 and echoed in Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana -  (2013) 16 SCC

640. In the latter pronouncement, this Court   propounded   that   one   of   the essential   ingredients   of   dowry   death under   Section   304B   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 State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 81 of 130 beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry   death   under   Section   113B   of the  Act.   It   referred   to  with   approval the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao Vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao -  (2003) 1 SCC 217 to the effect that to attract the provision of section 304B   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".

101.  Similar   ratio   was   laid   down   by   the   Hon'ble   High Court   of   Delhi   in   Ram   Kumar   Vs   State   (supra),   relied upon by learned counsel for complainant.

102.  Section 498A IPC reads as under:­   498A.   Husband   or   relative   of   husband   of   a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband   or   the   relative   of   the   husband   of   a   woman, subjects   such   woman   to   cruelty   shall   be   punished   with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 82 of 130 and shall also be liable to fine.

  Explanation   -   For   the   purpose   of   this   section, "cruelty" means ­ 

   (a)  any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause   grave   injury   or   danger   to   life,   limb   or   health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

  (b)   harassment   of   the   woman   where   such harassment is with a view of coercing her or any person related   to   her   to   meet   any   unlawful   demand   for   any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

103.  In   the   case   of  Hansraj   Sharma   and   ors.   Vs Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi  (supra)   relied   upon learned   counsel   for   accused   persons,   while   discussing section   498A   IPC   Hon'ble   High   Court   of   Delhi   held   as under:­

  10.   In   order   to   succeed   in   charge under   section   498A   IPC,   the   prosecution was   required   to   prove   that   the   appellants had subjected deceased Lovely to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the Section. It State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 83 of 130 is   not   every   cruelty   which   is   punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The cruelty, as defined in the explanation to 498A of IPC, is   altogether   different   from   the   cruelty, which can be subject matter of proceedings, under   the   provisions   of   Hindu   Marriage Act.   The   cruelty,   so   as   to   attract   penal provisions,   contained   in   Section   468A   of IPC, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous   injury   or   danger   to   her   life   or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the   explanation   to   Section   498A   of   IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate,   aimed   at   causing   injury   to   the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such   nature,   that   causing   injury   to   the life,limb   or   health   can   be   a   natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of  such  a conduct, it will attract  criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative,   as   the   case   may   be.   Everyone   is presumed   to   intend   the   natural consequences   of   his   act   and   such   a State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 84 of 130 presumption   must   necessarily   be   drawn even   if   there   is   no   intention   to   cause   any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct   in   question   is   likely   to   drive   the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health,   will   depend   upon   a   number   of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved   woman,   her   temperament,   state of   her   health,   physical   as   well   as   mental and   how   she   is   likely   to   perceive   such   a behaviour. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet   any   unlawful   demand   for   any property   or   valuable   security,   it   will   also constitute   cruelty,   as   defined   in   the explanation   to   Section   498­A   of   IPC.   Of course, the expression "cruelty" would take in   its   ambit   mental   cruelty   as   well   as physical   torture   of   the   woman.   If   the conduct   of   the   accused   with   a   woman   is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will   be   harmful   and   injurious   to   her   life and   safety,   such   a   conduct   would   attract criminal   liability,   envisaged   in   Section 498­A of IPC.

104.  All the judgments relied upon by learned Addl. PP State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 85 of 130 and   learned   Sr.   Advocate   for   the   complainant   and learned counsels for accused persons lay down the same ratio decidendi.

  APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:­

105.  It is rightly submitted by learned defence counsels that   each   case   has   to   be   dealt   on   its   own   facts   and circumstances   and   the   facts   of   one   case   cannot   be generally   applied   to   another   case.   The   essential ingredients   of   the   offence   u/s   304B   IPC   and   498A   IPC have   already   been   discussed   in   the   aforementioned paragraphs. Now the court shall deal with the facts and circumstances  brought on record in the present case to evaluate each point for determination.

  WHETHER   THE   DECEASED   CONSUME CLEANING/CORROSIVE   SUBSTANCE   ON 19.10.2016   ON   ACCOUNT   OF   HARASSMENT   BY ACCUSED PERSONS FOR DEMAND OF DOWRY:­

106.  It is not the case of prosecution that any demand of dowry   or   any   demand   in   connection   with   marriage   of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 86 of 130 accused   Sagar   Malik   with   deceased   Sneha   was   made prior   to   or   at   the   time   of   marriage.   None   of   the prosecution witness has stated that accused Sagar Malik or   any   of   his   family   member   had   put   any   condition   in marriage   for  supply  of  any article  or  money. PW­3 Sh. Dharamraj   (father   of   deceased),   PW­6   Lalit   Kumar (maternal uncle of deceased), PW­8 Smt. Sudesh (mother of deceased) and PW­12 Smt. Sarita Phogat (mediator of marriage) have stated that it was only after the incidence of 19.10.2016 that they got to know that Sagar Malik and his family members used to demand money or car from the deceased.

107.  Court is not in agreement with the submissions of Sr.   Advocate   for   complainant   that   just   because   the learned defence counsel failed to give suggestion to PW­3 and   PW­8   that   their   statements   Ex.PW3/A   and Ex.PW8/A were not recorded on 01.02.2017, the court has to accept the same on their face value.

108.  This is a criminal trial which may result into the life imprisonment to the accused persons. The reliability of any testimony has to be touch stone of judicial scrutiny State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 87 of 130 and   the   accused   persons   cannot   be   convicted   merely because a particular suggestion was not put in the cross­ examination.

109.  It   is   rightly   submitted   by   learned   Addl.   PP   and learned Sh. Puneet Mittal, relying upon judgment in the case of Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (supra) that the evidence has to be read in its entirety. The entire purport of the evidence has to be read and the evidence cannot be appreciated in piece meal. If the cross­examination and conduct   of   case   by   accused   persons   is   seen   since beginning,   at   no   point   of   time   accused   appear   to   have admitted that they subjected the deceased to physical or mental cruelty on account of any demand of dowry or to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

110.  Now coming back to the incidence dated 19.10.2016, PW­24   IO   Inspector   Pankaj   Pandey,   proved   two   DD entries being DD No. 41A Ex.PW24/C dated 19.10.2016 and DD No. 37B Ex.PW24/D dated 20.10.2016. Vide DD No.   41A  Ex.PW24/C, an  information  was received from Sukhmani   Hospital   that   Sneha   Malik   was   admitted   in the hospital. Vide DD No. 37B, DD No. 41A was closed State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 88 of 130 after inquiry as the inquiry revealed that Sneha Malik had taken some liquid by her own mistake and nobody was responsible for the same.

111.  For   the  sake  of   arguments  even  if  it  is  presumed that Sneha had not taken the liquid by mistake, court is unable to buy the submissions of   prosecution that it is proved   on   record   that   Sneha   Malik   had   consumed something   due   to   the   harassment   caused   by   accused Sagar   Malik   or   his   family   members   on   account   of   any demand   of   dowry.   As   already   observed   no   demand   of dowry   was   put   at   the   time   or   before   marriage.   In   the entire examination in chief of PW­3 there is not an iota that even in the night of Karvachauth or before that the deceased was harassed for any demand of money. PW­3 simply stated that accused Sagar Malik informed his wife that   Sneha   had   consumed   something.   His   wife   in   turn asked her brother PW­6 Lalit to visit and see Sneha. He further stated "On the next day, my wife Ms. Sudesh had gone   to   the   house   of   my   daughter   and   talked   with   her mother in law. After talks, mother of the accused assured my wife that it will not happen again".  Thereafter PW­3 State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 89 of 130 deposed   about   the   phone   call   allegedly   received   on 01.02.2017.

112.  Thus there is nothing in the entire examination in chief of PW­3 that any demand of dowry or of money was made by the husband or his family prior to 01.02.2017.

113.  Now   coming   to   the   testimony   of   PW­6   and   PW­8 qua the incidence of 19.10.2016. PW­8 stated that after receiving telephone call of Sagar Malik, that Sneha had consumed   something,   she   asked   PW­6   to   visit   and   see Sneha at AIMS hospital. She further stated that on the same   night   her   brother   informed   her   that   Sneha   had informed him that accused Sagar Malik and his family members used to harass her for demand of dowry. PW­8 further stated that on the next day when she had gone to the house of her daughter at Masoodpur, Delhi and met with Sneha, she informed her that accused persons used to beat her with fists and legs and used to demand money or Honda City Car. PW­6 also stated that on the next day i.e.   20.10.2016   PW­8   had   visited   the   house   of   accused Sagar   Malik   and   also   came   to   the   house   of   PW­6   at Humayunpur.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 90 of 130

114.  In   his   statement   u/s   313   Cr.PC   as   well   as   in   his examination as DW­6, accused Sagar Malik categorically stated   that after  19.10.2016, he and Sneha had visited the parental house of Sneha at Gulawati, UP. The call details   Ex.PW7/B   of   mobile   No.   8527629886   used   by deceased has been proved by prosecution. Scrutiny of call detail   reveals   that   on   20.10.2016   the   mobile   phone   of deceased Sneha was roaming in the area of Western UP and   two   calls   were   made/received   at   19:53:34   and 20:31:53   in   the   said   area.   The   call   detail   records corroborate   the   stand   of   accused   Sagar   Malik   in   his testimony as DW­6 as well as in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC   that   deceased   Sneha   had   visited   her   parental house on 20.10.2016. None of the prosecution witness has stated that PW­8 had taken Sneha along with her. In the facts and circumstances it is rightly submitted by learned defence counsels that  the very visit of PW­8 to the house of   accused   Sagar  Malik   on   20.10.2016   is   under   serious shadow   of  doubt.  If deceased Sneha Malik had gone to her   parental   home   at   Gulawati,   UP,   there   was   no occasion   that   PW­8   would   meet   her   in­laws   home   at State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                                      Page no. 91 of 130
           Delhi.

115.  The oral testimony  of PW­6 and PW­8, in view of electronic evidence produced by prosecution itself in the form of call detail record and location chart Ex.PW7/B, is not reliable.

116.  Another   narration   of   incidence   of   18­19/10/16   has been   given   by   PW­10.   She   stated   "On   the   eve   of Karvachauth   i.e.   18/19   October,   2016   my   sister   had consumed   harpic  due to her harassment  for demand  of money or car. After this incident, I had talked with my parents   and   narrated   about   all   the   harassment   which was disclosed to me by  Sneha Malik. My father had also talked to the in laws of my sister and had agreed to give the car after some time. Till 31.01.2017, I and my sister were continuously in touch with each other and my sister used to tell me about the atrocities".  Interestingly though PW­10   stated   that  she  informed   her  parents  about  the harassment disclosed to her by Sneha Malik but none of the parents stated that PW­10 ever discussed or disclosed any fact of harassment. PW­8 rather stated that for the first time she came to know about the harassment caused State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 92 of 130 to   deceased   Sneha   through   her   brother   only.   It   is important to note here that PW­10 is also living in Delhi only. Moreover, PW­10 stated that after the incidence of 18­19/10/2016   her   father   had   talked   to   the   in   laws   of Sneha   and   had   agreed   to   give   car   after   sometime,   but PW­3, father of PW­10 had not stated any such fact in his testimony. Even PW­8 or PW­6 did not disclose that they ever agreed to give car to the in laws of deceased.

117.  Apart from this even the CDR or the location chart of either of the witness has not been collected by the IO to reflect   that   PW­6   Lalit   Kumar   had   visited   AIIMS hospital   on   19.10.2016.   The   facts   and   circumstances apparent on record do not suggest that deceased Sneha had   disclosed   anything   to   PW­6   on   19.10.2016.   In   his cross­examination PW­6 stated that when he reached at AIIMS   hospital   at   that   time   Sagar   Malik,   his   mother Sheela   and   his   brother   Sawan   were   present   there.   No demand was made by them from PW­6 nor PW­6 sought any assurance nor he talked about the same to either of accused.   It   is   admitted   by   PW­8   that   even   after   the incidence of 19.10.2016, Sneha had visited her parental State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 93 of 130 home but neither any inquiry was made from her nor she herself narrated the tale of her harassment on account of any demand of dowry. In such circumstances it appears that   story   of   Sneha   consuming   corrosive   liquid   due   to harassment   on   account   of   dowry   is   an   afterthought. There are other reasons for this conclusion which would be further elaborated while discussing the next point for determination.

  WHETHER   THE   PROSECUTION   HAS PROVED   DELIVERY   OF   RS.3.00   LAKHS   TO   THE ACCUSED   PERSONS   AFTER   SUCH HARASSMENT, IF ANY:­

118.  This   is   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   on 19.10.2016,   when   PW­6   visited   AIIMS   hospital,   Sneha informed him that accused persons had assured her that they  will not  harass her in future. In  his statement to SDM, PW­3 stated that after the incidence of 19.10.2016, his wife had visited the house of accused persons. At that time   also   accused   persons   apologized   to   his   wife   and assured her that in future no unpleasant incidence would State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 94 of 130 happen. There is no mention of sending Rs.3.00 lakhs in his statement. There is nothing in the statement of PW­3, on   the   basis   of   which   FIR   was   registered,   or   in   his testimony to suggest that when the accused persons had already   assured   that   no   unpleasant   incidence   would happen again, why Rs.3.00 lakhs were sent through PW­

6. Hence, delivery of Rs.3.00 lakhs is major improvement after recording of statement of PW­3 before the SDM. It important to mention here that said statement Ex.PW1/A was counter signed by PW­8.

119.  Reliance   has   been   placed   by   learned   Sh.   Puneet Mittal upon the statement dated 01.02.2017, recorded by the   first   IO   SI   Neeraj.   However   it   does   not   inspire confidence   as   the   said   statements   Ex.PW3/A   and Ex.PW8/A appear to have been antedated by the IO. No statement   of   the   parents   of   deceased   was   recorded   on 01.02.2017, which is clear from the testimony of PW­6, who had remained with PW­3 and PW­8 on their visit to Delhi   on   01.02.2017.   PW­6   in   his   examination   in   chief stated   "In   the   late   evening   my   sister   along   with   her husband and family came to Delhi. We went to PS Vasant State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 95 of 130 Kunj (N) in the night and the police officials told us to come on next day as SDM would record the statements. On 02.02.2017, I along with my sister and jijaji went to SDM   office   at   Palika   Bhawan,   Delhi   and   there   SDM recorded the statement of my sister and jijaji and at that time   I   remained   present   outside   the   room".  Even   SDM PW­1 narrated that on 01.02.2017, that when he reached at the spot at about 4.00 pm, parents of deceased were not present. He directed the IO to inform the parents of deceased Sneha.

120.  In view of the directions of SDM and in view of the testimony   of   PW­6,   it   is   clear   that   no   statement   of parents   got   recorded   on  01.02.2017.   There   is   one   more reason to arrive at conclusion that statements Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW8/A were not recorded on 01.02.2017. In this regard Sh. Ajay Inder, counsel for accused Sagar Malik has   drawn   the   attention   of   the   court   to   section   176 Cr.PC, which provides as follows:­

  176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death

-  (1)  When the case is of the nature referred to in clause (I)   or   clause   (ii)   of   sub­section   (3)   of   section   174,   the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 96 of 130 nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub­section (1) of section 174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.

                    (1A)  Where, ­
                    (a)         any person dies or disappears, or
                    (b)         rape is alleged to have been committed on any
          woman,

  while such person or woman is in the custody of the police   or   in   any   other   custody   authorised   by   the Magistrate or the Court, under this Code in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall   be   held   by   the   Judicial   Magistrate   or   the Metropolitan   Magistrate,   as   the   case   may   be,   within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed.   (2)  The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 97 of 130 in   any   manner   hereinafter   prescribed   according   to   the circumstances of the case.

  (3)  Whenever   such   Magistrate   considers   it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already inferred, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.

  (4)  Where   an   inquiry   is   to   be   held   under   this section,   the   Magistrate   shall,   wherever   practicable, inform   the   relatives   of   the   deceased   whose   names   and addresses   are   known,   and   shall   allow   them   to   remain present at the inquiry.

  (5)  The   Judicial   Magistrate   or   the   Metropolitan Magistrate   or   Executive   Magistrate   or   police   officer holding an inquiry or investigation, as the case may be, under sub­section (1A) shall, within twenty­four hours of the death of a person, forward the body with a view to its being   examined   to   the   nearest   Civil   Surgeon   or   other qualified   medical   man   appointed   in   this   behalf   by   the State   Government, unless it is not possible to do so for State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 98 of 130 reasons to be recorded in writing.

   Explanation   -   In   this   section,   the   expression "relative"  means  parents, children, brothers, sisters  and spouse.

121.  A   bare   reading   of   aforementioned   section   suggest that   the   entire   proceedings   by   the   Magistrate   may   be conducted in addition to the investigation held by a police officer. If the statements Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW8/A were already recorded by SI Neeraj on 01.02.2017, FIR could have been registered on 01.02.2017 only. There are more allegations   in   those   statements   Ex.PW3/A   and Ex.PW8/A, then the statement Ex.PW1/A recorded before the   SDM.   But   in   the   present   case   FIR   has   been registered on the basis of the statement given before the SDM   on   02.02.2017   and   not   on   the   basis   of   the statements   allegedly   recorded   on   01.02.2017   by   the initial IO Neeraj Kumar. In the facts and circumstances, no  reliance can  be placed on  the statements  Ex.PW3/A and   Ex.PW8/A   allegedly   recorded   by   the   police   on 01.02.2017. The allegations regarding demand of Rs.3.00 lakhs have been incorporated in these statements. It may State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 99 of 130 be humbly observed here that on 01.02.2017, there were less chances of parents of deceased to recover from the shock   of   death   of   their   daughter.   If   comprehensive statement   could   have   been   given   to   the   police   on 01.02.2017,   the   court   sees   no   reason   that   the   material allegations would be missing from the statement given to the SDM on 02.02.2017. Hence, it appears to be rightly submitted   by   learned   defence   counsels   that   antedated statement   was   recorded   by   the   IO   on   plain   papers incorporating the allegations of delivery of Rs.3.00 lakhs, when   no   such   allegation   was   made   in   the   initial statement before the SDM.

122.  Otherwise   also   there   are   further   material contradictions about the date of delivery of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the mother of accused. PW­6 stated that after about 7 to 10 days of 20.10.2016, he went to the house of Sneha and gave money to her mother in law. PW­8 did not give any   date   of   delivery   of   money.   PW­24   IO   Inspector Pankaj Pandey, stated that PW­6 had informed him that money was delivered on 20.10.2016. Moreover, the source of Rs.3.00 lakhs  has not been disclosed. PW­3 or PW­8 State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 100 of 130 did not state that they had arranged money from PW­6 as   loan   or   otherwise.   PW­6   also   did   not   disclose   from where   he   arranged   the   money   or   whether   he   had   to recover the money from his sister or not. Furthermore, PW­6 did not even bother to verify from Sneha about her wellbeing after paying an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs, nor did he ever attempted to meet Sneha or her in­laws nor asked   or   confronted   the   in­laws   as   to   why   they   were harassing Sneha even after receipt of money. In the facts and circumstances, the entire story of demand of Rs.3.00 does   not   appear   to   inspire   confidence   and   is   full   of doubts.   Hence,   court   is   of   the   opinion   that   prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt delivery of Rs.3.00   lakhs   to   the   family   of   deceased   due   to harassment.

  WHETHER   THE   PROSECUTION   HAS PROVED   THAT   SOON   BEFORE   THE   DEATH DECEASED WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT  IN   CONNECTION   WITH  DEMAND OF DOWRY:­

123.  As per the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW­8 and PW­ State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 101 of 130 10,   deceased   Sneha   was   beaten   with   fists   and   blows. However, no external injury was found on her body at the time of her first admission in the hospital on 19.10.2016 or   at   the   time   of   her   death.   The   doctors   from   the respective   hospital   i.e.   PW­4,   PW­5   and   PW­11   have categorically   deposed   that   at   no   point   of   time   any external   injury   was noticed  on  the  body  of  Sneha.  The allegations   that   Sneha   had   informed   her   mother   PW­8 and   her   sister   PW­10,   soon   before   her   death   on 31.01.2017 - 01.02.2017, about the harassment caused by accused   persons   and   the   telephone   call   made   by absconding   accused   Sheela   that   she   would   not   keep Sneha in her house also appears to be an afterthought. PW­10 stated "I used to talk with my sister on phone and she used to tell me about the demand of their in laws on phone.   I   assured   that   I  will   talk   to  my   parents   in   this regard but she always restricted me not to bring this issue in their notice". It is strange that accused persons would beat the deceased for demand of dowry but would not ask her   to   forward   the   said   demand   to   her   parents   or relatives. The deceased was not working. There were no State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 102 of 130 means   available   with   the   deceased   to   satisfy   the demands   of   accused   persons,   except   to   ask   from   her parents   or   relatives   or   friends.     Deceased   never   asked PW­10 to fulfill any demand. PW­10 also did not inform her parents about the demand nor did deceased do so. In such circumstances, the only result could have been the consistent   and   perennial   harassment   of   deceased   for demand   of   dowry.   It   is   rightly   submitted   by   defence counsels   that   this   could   not   have   been   a   reasonable behaviour of real sister.

124.   Furthermore, PW­10 stated that on 31.01.2017, she had received phone call from Sneha and she used mobile number   8368582232   to   talk   to   Sneha   on   mobile   no. 8527629886.   The   CDR   of   mobile   No.   8527629886   has been   proved   as   Ex.PW7/B.   CDR   of   another   mobile   no. 8368582232   used   by   PW­10   was   proved   as   Ex.PW9/B. There is no call between deceased Sneha and PW­10 on 31.01.2017. According to PW­10 on 31.01.2017, deceased Sneha had told her that she is committing suicide due to atrocities   of   accused   persons   and   PW­10   made   her   to understand and informed her that she along with PW­8 State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 103 of 130 would come on the next date to meet her.

125.  It is strange that even these facts were not informed by PW­10 to her parents i.e. PW­3 and PW­10 or to PW­6. If PW­10 had assured deceased to visit her house along with   PW­8,   at   least   an   information   to   PW­8   was necessary.   Otherwise also  if   the  circumstances  were  so grave,   no   real   sister   could   have   stopped   herself   from sharing the information with her parents or to take some steps   or   at   least   to   talk   about   the   incidence   to   her husband or to her jija i.e. husband of deceased. Hence, the   entire   story   of   the   phone   call   dated   31.01.2017,   is belied by the electronic evidence and the same appears to be an afterthought.

126.  Moreover,   the   testimony   of   PW­10   that   Sneha stopped   PW­10   to   inform   PW­8   i.e.   her   mother   that Sneha's   life  was   spoiled   and  she  would  commit   suicide due   to   atrocities   of   accused   persons,   is   not   possible   in view of testimony of PW­8. PW­8 in her testimony stated that on 31.01.2017, she received a phone call from Sneha in   the  noon   time.  During the said  call Sneha informed her that accused persons used to harass her for demand State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 104 of 130 of money or Honda City car. Sneha further informed her that accused persons had already planned to kill her. If Sneha   had   informed   PW­8   that   accused   persons   had planned to kill her or were continuously harassing her, she had no reason to stop PW­10 to share her plight with PW­8.   Rather,  Sneha would have informed PW­10 that she   had   already   shared   her   plight   with   PW­8.   In   such circumstances, either PW­8 or PW­10 or both of them are not deposing truth. Be that at it may, their testimony in this   regard   cannot   be   relied   upon   against   either   of accused.

127.  Similarly, the narration of PW­10 about the phone calls on 01.02.2017 is unbelievable. PW­10 stated that on 01.02.2017, she made a call to her sister Sneha at about 10.00 am and when she picked up the phone, Sneha told that   her   husband   Sagar   Malik   was   beating   her   at   the instance   of   his   mother.   After   that   she   made   a   call   to accused Sagar Malik, who told her either to give money or car or to take back Sneha to her parental home. CDR Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW9/B reflects that PW­10 had called Sneha at 10.32 am but prior to that at about 10.17 am State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 105 of 130 PW­10 had called accused Sagar Malik on his mobile no. 9582832832. Hence, the incidence of 01.02.2017, also did not happen as suggested by PW­10. PW­10 at first called accused   Sagar   Malik   for   any   reason   whatsoever   and thereafter she had talked with her sister Sneha.

128.  So far as, the telephone call of deceased Sneha to her   mother   PW­8   and   the   telephone   call   of  absconding accused   Sheela   to   PW­8   is   concerned,   court   is   of   the opinion   that   prosecution   has   miserably   failed   to   prove that any such call took place. No CDR record of PW­8 or of absconding accused Sheela has been placed on record. No   call   to   PW­8   is   reflected   in   the   CDR   of   deceased Sneha.   Learned   Sh.   Puneet   Mittal,   has   misplaced   the reliance upon the judgment of Tej Pal Vs State (supra) to submit that non­collection of CDR records by the IO does not make the prosecution case suspicious. In the case in hand   IO   was   conscious   enough   to   collect   the   record   of CDR   which   reflected   the   talks   of   deceased   Sneha   with PW­10   Neha   Maan.   So   IO   was   well   aware   of   the importance of electronic evidence but it appears that he purposely not collected the CDR of PW­8  and absconding State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 106 of 130 accused  Sheela   or the other accused persons. But  even the CDR of deceased Sneha, creates a strong shadow of doubt   about   the   alleged   conversation   between   her   and PW­8. Hence, both the alleged conversation of deceased Sneha with PW­8 and PW­10 are under serious shadow of doubt.   Apart   from   this   there   is   nothing   on   record   that deceased   Sneha   had   informed   anybody   else   about   the alleged harassment caused to her. 

129.  This   story   of   phone   calls   appears   to   be   least probable because it has come on record that Sneha had visited   her   parental   home   on   many   occasions.   It   is strange that she would not inform her parents about the incidence when she had visited the house, or the parents would not inquire from her face to face and would only make inquiry on telephone. From the testimony of DW­6 and from the CDR Ex.PW7/B it appears that Sneha had visited at her parental home at Western UP on various occasions.   She   had   even   celebrated   Holi   with   her husband at her parental house on 24.03.2016. Thereafter, again in the month of August, 2016, she had gone to her parental house for 10­15 days. Thereafter, on 05.11.2016, State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 107 of 130 she   again   went   to   her   parental   home   to   attend   the marriage of her cousin Nitin Tewatia and came back on 19.11.2016   and   she   had   also   spent   some   days   at   the house   of   PW­6.   Moreover,   PW­3   stated   that   her   son namely   Vinay   was   working  at   Delhi.   DW­1  also  stated that said Vinay, used to remain in the house of accused Sagar Malik. In the facts and circumstances, it would be quite natural that the deceased would share the tale of her   harassment   with   her   brother.   It   would   be   further quite natural for her brother to notice the harassment, if any,   meted   out   to   her   sister   or   at   least   he   could   have noticed the sorry affair and the change in her mood if she was   continuously   beaten   and   harassed   by   the   accused persons.   Any   taunt   or   comment   could   have   also   been heard   by   the   said   brother.   DW­1   stated   that   on 30.01.2017, on the function of Kua­Pujan of Reena Malik, brother of deceased Sh. Vinay was also present. Hence, the said brother could have been a natural witness. It is not   denied   that   the   said   brother   was   not   the   regular visitor to the house of his sister Sneha or that he was not present at the said function. His photographs are proved State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 108 of 130 by   accused   persons.   Hence,   the   entire   story   of harassment on account of demand of dowry and beatings to deceased appears to be afterthought.

130.  On the other hand if the conduct of accused Sagar Malik is seen, the accused Sagar Malik, provided proper medical facilities to deceased Sneha i.e. he had taken her to   different   doctors   at   Delhi   and   had   bore   all   the expenses of treatment/medicines. It is not the case of the prosecution   that   accused   Sagar   Malik,   had   ever demanded   any   money   on   account   of   treatment   to deceased Sneha. It is admitted by PW­8 that accused had got the deceased medically examined when she suffered from abdominal pain. Even when accused came to know that   deceased   was   not   opening   the   door,   he   broke   the door and took the deceased down and took her to Fortis Hospital and did not run away. The conduct of accused thus   does   not   show   that   he   was   not   having   love   and affection with her wife (since deceased) and even when he came to know that she was having cyst in her ovary both the husband and wife visited the doctor together.

 

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 109 of 130 WHETHER   THE   INVESTIGATION   HAS   NOT BEEN FAIR AND IMPARTIAL:­

131.  Learned Sh. Puneet Mittal, has again relied upon Tejpal Vs State (supra) to submit that even if there are some lacunas in the investigation or  the IO has not done proper   investigation, benefit of the same should not be granted to accused persons.

132.  Sh.   Rishi   Pal,   learned   counsel   for   accused   Sneha and Sawan has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court   of   Delhi   in   State   of   NCT   of   Delhi   Vs   Rakesh (supra)   and   has   laid   emphasis   on   para   6,   in   which Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows :­

  6. The deceased used to converse with her parents and other family members on phone.   However,   no   call   details   were collected   during investigation  to  establish to whom the calls were made on the day of the   incident.   PW­14   (Inspector   Sukhdev Meena) admitted in the cross­ examination that   the   accused   had   insisted   that   he should interrogate the persons with whom the   deceased   had   conversed   that   day.

Despite   recording   the   statements   of   those individuals, for the reasons known to the I.O,   he   did   not   place   the   materials   on State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 110 of 130 record.   In   their   statements   under   section 313   Cr.P.C.   the   accused   raised   a   specific plea that the deceased had an affair with one   Vijay   and   had   a   long   conversation from   mobile   No.9268070734   to 9250071616   soon   before   her   death.   These call details could have given positive clues. Failure of the IO to investigate the matter thoroughly   makes   prosecution   version suspect. This Court reiterates that the role of   the   police   is   not   merely   to   collect evidence   which  implicates  to a particular suspect   but   explore   and   analyse   all   the materials   which   come   to   light   during investigation. Unlike a party to a private litigation,   the   State   is   not   partisan;   the police,   its   agency,   and   the   prosecutor,   its representatives   have   to   be   fair,   and advance   the   cause   of   justice,   which ultimately   has   to   prevail,   irrespective   of whether   the   material   advances   its hypothesis or exonerates an accused. 

133.  This court is of the opinion that the submissions of learned   Sh.   Puneet   Mittal,   that   benefit   of   faulty investigation, should not be given to accused persons are to   be   accepted,   in   cases,   where   the   prosecution   is otherwise able to prove the guilt of accused by cogent and State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 111 of 130 reliable evidence. However, it has to be seen whether any prejudice   was   caused   to   accused   by   the   faulty investigation.   Prejudices   and   biases   in   investigation,   if any,   are   required   to   be   seen   on   the   basis   of   facts   and circumstances   of   each   case.   No   universal   rule   can   be applicable.

134.  In the case in hand the court is in agreement with the submissions of learned defence counsel that IO has conducted   selective   investigation   and   appears   to   have collected  the material only against the accused persons and   has   purposely   ignored   the   material   and   witnesses which   could   have   been   in   support   of   accused   persons. Even   the   electronic   evidence   appears   to   have   been selectively collected to corroborate prosecution case. The remaining   electronic   evidence   appears   to   have   been purposely ignored.

135.  First major lacuna in the investigation is seen about the seizure of the mobile phone of deceased as well as of accused Sagar Malik. According to charge­sheet and the statement of IO the mobile phone of deceased was seized on   09.04.2017   from   PW­6,   the   maternal   uncle   of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 112 of 130 deceased. Accused Sagar Malik on the other hand in his statement   u/s   313   Cr.PC   has   stated   that   the   mobile phone   was   handed   over   by   him   to   the   IO.   In   his testimony as DW­6 accused Sagar Malik stated that he handed over his mobile phone and Sneha's mobile phone to   the   police   officials   SI   Neeraj   and   SI   Manish   in   the hospital itself.

136.  In   his   statement   PW­6   Lalit   stated   that   the telephone of deceased was handed over to him by some nurse   at   Fortis   Hospital.   As   per   the   MLC   Ex.PW11/A from   Fortis   Hospital,   the   deceased   was   admitted   in hospital by accused Sagar Malik. 

137.  As per testimony of PW­19 the personal belongings of   deceased   were   handed   over   to   him   by   constable Kuldeep   and   the   same   were   seized   vide   seizure   memo Ex.PW19/D. On perusal of Ex.PW19/D it is seen that two sealed pullandas and one sample seal of Fortis Hospital were   received   vide   this   document.   One   pullanda contained a white paper having one chain, two bangles, golden colour ring, one silver colour ring and one pair ear rings. Another pullanda contained a shawl of deceased.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 113 of 130

138.  The court is in agreement with the submissions of learned  defence  counsels that  if   all other  belongings of deceased were handed over to the police officials by the hospital   staff,   there   was   no   reason   with   the   nurse   to hand over the mobile phone of deceased to PW­6. This is more so because PW­6 was not even involved during the admission   of   deceased   to   Fortis   Hospital   and   the deceased was admitted in the hospital by accused Sagar Malik only. In such circumstances, there are less chances that the nurse would even know PW­6 . PW­6 was not even a relative of deceased, who could have been closer to the husband. Moreover, it is highly improbable that the deceased could have committed suicide after keeping the mobile phone in her hand. If the mobile phone could have been   in   the   body   of   deceased,   same   would   have   been recovered   by   the   hospital   staff   only   when   the   other ornaments and clothes of deceased were taken. In such circumstances,   the   seizure   memo   of   mobile   phone   is under  serious   shadow   of   doubt.  The   said   mobile   phone was   sent   to   FSL,   to   recover   the   SMSs   and   Whatsapp messages   sent   or   received   from   the   same.   Report   was State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 114 of 130 received   from   FSL   that   the   mobile   phone   could   not   be opened.   It   is   not   that   the   IO   was   not   aware   of   the importance   of   mobile   phone,   when   as   per   charge­sheet the intimation regarding harassment, time to time was given through telephone only. IO had actually collected the   CDRs   of   two   mobile   phone   numbers   belonging   to deceased and PW­10 in order to corroborate that in the morning   of   01.02.2017,   at   about   10.30   am,   a   call   was made by PW­10 to the deceased. Call details of remaining mobile   numbers   used   by   accused,   mother   of   deceased, maternal uncle of deceased were not collected, despite the fact that these witnesses stated that vital informations were communicated to/by them through telephone. 

139.  Any  reasonable  prudent  man  would  presume  that the   phone   could   not   have   been   received   by   PW­6   the maternal uncle of deceased. There is all probability that the same was collected by the police from the hospital or from the accused sometimes after the death or before the postmortem   of   deceased.   In   such   circumstances,   the suggestion of learned defence counsel to PW­6 that the mobile phone of deceased was handed over to him by the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 115 of 130 IO and the vital information and messages were wiped out   and   that   the   same   was   locked   by   him,   cannot   be ignored. The messages in the mobile phone of deceased and that of accused could have revealed the bonding and relationship of accused with the deceased. But the said piece of evidence appears to have been compromised by a seasoned officer of Inspector level. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that accused was not prejudiced because of this serious lapse in investigation and in the opinion of court the benefit should go in favour of accused. 

140.  Apart from this, it is rightly submitted by learned Sh.   Rishi   Pal   that   role   of   IO   is   not   only   to   collect   the evidence   against   the   accused   and   to   rope   him   in   the offence. He has rightly submitted that the IO has to be fair and impartial and has to collect all evidence whether it supports the guilt or innocence of the accused. 

141.  In   the   case   in   hand   it   appears   that   IO   has conducted selective investigation. The court has already observed   that   the statements  of  PW­3 and PW­8 dated 01.02.2017   appear   to   have   been   antedated.   The allegations   which   were   not   part   of   the   statement State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 116 of 130 Ex.PW1/A,   recorded   by   SDM,   were   added   in   said statement.

142.  In addition thereto on the spot and local inquiry by the  IO   appears   to  be doubtful  and  one  sided.  In   cross­ examination   IO   stated   "I   have   not   inquired   about   the house situated adjacent to house shown at point A in the site plan. The said house was locked. I do not know that the said house belongs to Sumit Malik.......    I have no knowledge as to who is residing towards right side of the house of accused. I have not made any inquiry   in   this   regard.   I   do   not   know   that   said   house belongs to Sh. Veer Parkash Malik........    I have no knowledge that what is relation between Sh.   Sumit   Malik   and   accused   family.   I   have   no knowledge   what   is   relation   between   Sh.   Veer   Parkash Malik and accused family........ 

  I do not remember as to who is residing just opposite the house of accused....... 

  I have no knowledge that on the day of incident i.e. 01.02.2017   there   was   engagement   function   of   one Narinder Malik, who is relative of accused persons and State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 117 of 130 further I have no knowledge that there was a marriage of above   Narinder   Malik   on   02.02.2017.   It   is   correct   that there was a tent installed at the gali.....   It is correct that in between room of accused Sagar Malik and his cousin brother Sumit Malik the width of wall is just 4 inch. Again said, I cannot tell the width of room......

  I   do   not   know   who   is   Sumit   Malik.   I   cannot   say Sumit Malik is the first cousin of accused Sagar Malik and that he is married.

  I   had   not   examined   any   Reena   Malik,   who   is residing on the same floor of the spot. Vol. I had inquired from   many   people   in   Masoodpur   about   the   relation between   accused(s)   and   deceased   Sneha   Malik   and   it came to knowledge that their relations were not cordial. Further Vol. As accused was local resident of the village nobody   wanted   to  become   prosecution   witness.   I  do  not remember the names or particulars of those persons who were examined by me. I did not issue any notice to them. It is wrong to suggest that I do not remember the names of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 118 of 130 the persons told to be examined by me nor I issued any notice because I did not examine any such person and for the same reason there is no record of their examination filed or produced by me nor I am able to tell their name or particulars.

143.  Apart from this learned defence counsels has given suggestions   to   the   IO   regarding   the   investigation   not conducted   by   him   as   regards   source   of   Rs.3.00   lakhs allegedly advanced by PW­6 to the mother of accused. No proof qua the said payment was admittedly asked by the IO, except oral statement of PW­6. Similarly, income tax returns etc. of accused or the family of deceased were not collected in order to show that accused persons were in real financial crunch. 

144.  The IO has stated that he had made inquiries from many local people but he has not mentioned the name of any   such   person   in   the   case   diary.   It   is   important   to mention that daily case diary is issued for the purpose of recording   daily   investigation   by   the   IO.   It   is   statutory requirement under section 172 Cr.PC to record the daily proceedings of investigation in the same. In the present State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 119 of 130 case there is no record that IO made inquiry from any local person, residing in the vicinity or neighbourhood of the   accused.   It   is  rightly   submitted   by  learned  defence counsels that IO could have rejected their statements in favour of accused persons for reasonable grounds but at least   could  have  put  the  facts  regarding  inquiry before the court to arrive at any conclusion but the IO went to the extent  of  denying the relationship and residence of DW­4 Sumit Malik, though the statement of DW­4 was recorded   by   SI   Neeraj   Kumar,   on   01.02.2017,   prior   to handing over the case to PW­24. The said statement was very   much   part   of   the   charge­sheet   and   the   IO   was confronted   with   the   same   and   same   was   exhibited   as Ex.PW24/D1. It is rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that if a function was going on in the joint family of accused persons, and the IO had visited the spot, the same   could   not   have   remained   unnoticed,   nor   it   is supposed that IO would not make any inquiry from the persons participating in the said function some of which could have been common relatives and friends of accused as well as of deceased. 

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 120 of 130

145.  The   court   has   already   observed   that   brother   of deceased   namely   Vinay   was   residing   at   Delhi.   DW­1, DW­2 and DW­5 categorically stated that said Vinay was a regular visitor to the matrimonial of his sister and even attended   a   function   of   kua­pujan   (a   function   organized locally on the birth of a son in family) on 30.01.2017. The IO   however   did   not   make   any   inquiry   from   the   said Vinay, who could have been naturally visiting his sister's house. The said Vinay was the elder son in the family as per deposition of PW­3. If the conditions of deceased were so worse and she was harassed, he must have been aware of the same. Being near to the house of deceased at Delhi, he could have been a natural witness. 

146.  In   his   cross­examination   IO   stated   that   he   made inquiries   from   Meeta   Malik,   sister   of   accused   Sagar Malik but he has not referred anywhere, as to what was revealed   from   the   said   inquiry.   Said   Meeta   Malik   was examined   in defence as DW­1. DW­4 Sumit Malik was residing   adjacent   to   the   room   of   accused.   DW­2   Veer Partap Malik was also residing adjacent to the house of accused. Suspicious local inquiry in the present case and State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 121 of 130 selective   collection   of   electronic   evidence   and compromising the data, which could have been available in the mobile phones of accused and deceased, appear to be serious lapses in investigation capable of potentially prejudicing the accused persons. 

  WHETHER   ADVERSE   INFERENCE   IS LIABLE   TO   BE   DRAWN   AGAINST   ACCUSED PERSONS FOR RAISING MULTIPLE DEFENCES:­

147.  Counsel   for   complainant   submitted   that   accused persons failed to prove various defences raised by them during   cross­examination   of   prosecution   witnesses   and laid   emphasis   on   only   one   defence   of   upset   mood   of deceased due to being unable to conceive. 

148.  Learned   Sh.   Kain,   assisted   by   Sh.   Puneet   Mittal, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the cyst in ovary could not have   been   the   reason   for   committal   of   suicide   because from   the   testimony   of   DW­3   Dr.   Gajinder   Nagar   and DW­6   accused   Sagar   Malik,   it   is   clear   that   the   said disease was curable.

State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 122 of 130

149.  Independent witness DW­3 Dr. Gajinder Nagar has appeared in witness box and has deposed that deceased was   suffering   from   Endometrioma   in   which   patient suffers severe pain during periods and had dyuspurania which   is   painful   conjugal   relationship   and   unability   to conceive.   He   further   deposed   on   the   basis   of   record prepared   by   him,   that   on   25.10.2016,   deceased   visited him along with accused Sagar Malik and complained of severity of symptoms and showed her anxiety to conceive. He   further   deposed   that   on   20.12.2016   deceased   again visited him with accused Sagar Malik and was advised insertion   of   a   plastic   device   merina   into   her   uterus   to prevent   her   from   having   periods.   This   device   was containing   livoprogestrone   to   prevent   the   patient   from mensuration and that the patient was  not willing for this treatment. He further stated that deceased lastly visited him   with   her   husband   on   11.01.2017   and   was   advised rest of the treatment to be continued, but she wanted to try her in the natural way and did not agree to go for merina   implantation.   This   witness   also   stated   that during her treatment he observed that deceased was very State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 123 of 130 said   for   non   conceivement   as   she   was   anxious   to   be blessed with a child. He also stated "On every visit she came with her husband and both of them showed their anxiety to have a child and for that purpose her husband was ready and willing to give her all possible treatment. She was very regular to take medicines and advise given to   her   during   my   treatment".  He   proved   his   medical prescriptions as Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/5 and ultrasound report as Ex.DW3/6. 

150.  In   the   opinion   of   court     mere   fact   that   multiple defences were taken by accused during cross­examination of   the   prosecution   witnesses   but   only   one   defence   was forwarded,   at   the   time   of   examination   of   defence witnesses,   should   not   prejudice   either   of   accused.   The accused can take multiple or alternative defences and can examine   witnesses   in   support   of   either   of   the   said defences. 

151.  In the present case DW­1, DW­2, DW­4, DW­5 and accused   himself   as   DW­6   have   stated   that   marriage   of accused with deceased was performed simply without any demand   of   dowry.   There   is   no   allegation   by   the State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 124 of 130 prosecution   witnesses   also   that   prior   to   marriage   any demand   was   made   by   accused   persons.   All   defence witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased was sad due to her being unable to conceive. The testimony of relatives   is   corroborated   by   independent   witness   DW­3 Dr.   Gajinder.   As   per his testimony  accused was taking the deceased for regular treatment and was willing to do anything.

152.  Learned   defence   counsels   have   rightly   submitted that   accused   was   not   supposed   to   positively   prove   his defence beyond reasonable doubt and would be entitled for benefit of doubt if it is shown that the defence raised by him is probable from the record. 

153.  In   the   case   of  Ritesh   Chakravarti   Vs   State   of M.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 321], Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:­

  33. It was furthermore urged that the appellant has not been able to prove the defence raised by him. It was not necessary for him to do so. It was contended that the burden   to   prove   the   defence   set   up   by   him   was   on   the appellant and he failed to discharge the same. In a case State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 125 of 130 like   the   present   one,   the   said   submission   cannot   be appreciated.   The   prosecution   was   required   to   prove   its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If the prosecution has failed   to   prove   its   case,   it   cannot   fill   up   the   lacuna   by contending that the appellant has not proved his defence.

154.  In   the   case   relied   upon   by   learned   counsel   for accused   persons  Narender   Singh   Arora   Vs   State, (supra) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while observing the tendency   of   in­laws  for  registration  of   case  against  the husband and his relatives, observed :­   This   case   is   a   reflection   of mentality which is now taking grip of parents   of   a   deceased   wife   in   the criminal   cases.     Whenever   a   woman dies   an   unnatural   death   within   seven years of her marriage at in­law's house, whatever be the cause of death, the in­ laws   must  be   hanged.     This   case   also shows how truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in­laws should be hanged.

  Suicide is a known phenomenon of State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 126 of 130 human nature. Suicides are committed by   living   human   beings   for   various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal   stresses   which   are   common   in life.  Some are not able to cope up with the   circumstances   in   which   they   are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals.     There   are   many   cases   where students   commit   suicide   because   they failed   to   achieve   certain   percentage   of marks.     Some   commit   suicide   because they are not able to retain top position, some   commit   suicide   because   they   are not   able   to   cope   with   the   demands   of life.  Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught.   There are various reasons for which suicides are committed   by   men   and   women.     All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is   a   complex   phenomenon.   One,   who commits suicide, is not able to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind   when   he   or   she   committed suicide.   There is no presumption that every   suicide   committed   by   a   married woman in her in­laws' house or at her State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 127 of 130 parents'   house   has   to   be   because   she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in­laws."

155.  No   uniform   rules   can   be   framed,   nor   the circumstances under which an individual would commit suicide, can be presumed. An insignificant matter for one individual   may   be   very   important   for   another.   The defence has led the evidence that deceased was sad for her inability to conceive. The disease may be curable, but its   effect   on   any   particular   individual   may   be traumatizing.   The   court   do   not   know   what   had   really happened   on   01.02.2017,   which   led   the   deceased   to commit   suicide.   However,   as   already   observed   the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients necessary for application   under   section   113B   Indian   Evidence   Act against the accused persons and has failed to prove the offence   of   section   304B   IPC  against   them.  The   defence raised   by   accused   persons   cannot   be   said   to   be     all­ together impossible.

156.  From   the   record   it   cannot   be   said   that   acts   or State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 128 of 130 omissions of the accused persons jointly or individually amounted   to   subjecting   deceased   Sneha   to   cruelty   and harassment in connection with demand of dowry or that soon   before   her   death   the   deceased   was   subjected   to cruelty or harassment in connection with such demand. Hence,   the   prosecution   has   miserably   failed   to   prove charge u/s 498A and 304B IPC against either of accused tried by this court. 

157.  Accused Sagar Malik, Sawan Malik and Neha Malik are thus acquitted.

158.  Accused Sagar Malik, be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case. Bail bonds of accused  persons   except accused Sagar Malik, furnished during trial stand cancelled and sureties are discharged. Endorsement   on   the   documents   of   sureties,   if   any,   be cancelled.   Original   documents   of   sureties,   if   any,   be returned   against   acknowledgment.   Articles   seized   vide seizure   memos   and   personal   search   memos   of   accused persons be released to them against acknowledgment. 

159.  Accused   persons   have   already   filed   respective personal bonds and bail bonds in terms of section 437A State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N) Page no. 129 of 130 Cr.PC. The same are accepted.

160.  File   be  consigned  to record   room  to  be revived  as and   when   accused   Sheela   Malik   is   arrested/produced before the court. 

          Announced in the open court
          on the 30th day of October, 2018
                                                                      Digitally signed
                                                                      by AJAY
                                                         AJAY         PANDEY
                                                         PANDEY       Date:
                                                                      2018.11.02
                                                                      16:00:25 +0530

                                                          ( Ajay Pandey ) 
                                                       Addl. Sessions Judge ­04, 

       New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts                           New Delhi State VS Sagar Malik and Ors.

FIR no.  62/17

PS -  Vasant Kunj (N)                                               Page no. 130 of 130