Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
8. During the trial, a total of 19 witnesses were examined, including the material witnesses, namely, Sh. Bhure Ram, father of the deceased (PW-13); Malti Devi, mother of the deceased (PW-16) and Shailesh, brother of the deceased (PW-14). The Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW-17/A) was proved by Dr. Manoj Nagpal (PW-17). The CFSL report (Ex. PW- 15/A) was proved by Dr. Ravinder K Jain (PW-15); MLC report (Ex. PW- 1/A) was proved by Dr. Vineet K Soni (PW-1). Sh. Vijay Khanna, SDM Punjabi Bagh who appeared as PW-10, proved the inquest proceedings (Ex. PW-10/B) and the statements of Bhure Ram and Malti Devi recorded by him as Ex. PW-10/D and Ex. PW10/C, respectively. HC Bodh Raj, who had brought and got Anju admitted in DDU Hospital, was examined as PW-6. The Investigating Officer, Deepak Malik was examined as PW-19. The deceased had filed a complaint on 21.06.2002 before the CAW Cell, Pitam Pura, Delhi, the same was proved by PW-12 Ct. Parveen and is exhibited as Ex. PW-12/A. The other witnesses were essentially witnesses relating to the arrest, seizure and other investigations.
12. Shailesh, brother of the deceased appeared as PW-14 and also deposed on similar lines as PW-13 and PW-16.
13. Arguments have been heard from both sides. Learned defence counsel has urged that all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are not proved; that Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable; that from a reading of the testimonies of PW-13, PW-14 and PW-16, who are the family members of the deceased, no specifics have been given as to when and by whom the alleged dowry demand of Rs.20,000/- was made and also as to when and to whom the amount of Rs.16,000/- was allegedly paid; that though the deceased had died in less than three years of her marriage, she had spent almost 2 years and 4 months at her parental home; that the complaint made by the deceased before the CAW Cell, while she was at her parental home, is also silent about any threats to her life. Learned counsel also contended that the allegations with respect to the statement made by the deceased before the learned ASJ in the bail proceedings of the appellants, are not supported by what was actually recorded in the order sheet of 06.08.2002; that there are material improvements and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The findings of the trial court where Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act has been invoked for treating the complaint filed by the deceased before the CAW Cell, as well as her statement seeking guarantee of the Court as a 'dying declaration', have also been assailed. Ld. defence counsel has placed reliance on Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Sham Lal Etc. v. State of Haryana Etc. (1997) 9 SCC 759 in support of the pleas taken above.
a. Demand of Dowry at the time of marriage
18. On a conjoint reading of the testimonies of PW-13 (Bhure Ram), PW-16 (Malti Devi) and PW-14 (Shailesh), it stands proved that the deceased was married to Rakesh on 27.12.1999 and at that time, articles were given according to their financial and social status, on various dates which is evident from the 'list' of articles. The 'list' was annexed with the complaint (Ex. PW-12/A) filed by Anju on 21.06.2002, before the CAW Cell. A careful scrutiny of the records show that no witness has stated that there was any demand of dowry at the time of the marriage. There is no evidence that articles as specified in the above 'list' were given pursuant to any demand raised by the appellants. A perusal of the complaint dated 21.06.2002 filed by the deceased before the CAW Cell also shows that there is no allegation made therein about any dowry demand made by the appellants at the time of the marriage.
(emphasis added)
31. We have carefully analysed the evidence on record and note that the only demand of dowry that has surfaced is of Rs. 20000/-. The said demand was made in the first 3-6 months of the marriage. After the said demand was partially met, although the deceased was asked to bring more money, yet no specific subsequent demand has come on record. The deceased continued to stay at her parental home for more than 2 ΒΌ years even though some efforts were made by her family members to work out a reconciliation with her in-laws. The deceased was at her parental home when she had filed the complaint (Ex PW12/A) on 21.6.2002, before the CAW Cell. In this complaint also, the deceased had stated that she had not heard from her in-laws for the last 2 years. We find that there was a complete hiatus in the relations between the deceased and the appellants for more than 2 years, till about 6.8.2002. Even after 6.8.2002, when the deceased had joined back at her matrimonial home, there is no evidence on record that any demand of dowry was made. The trial court has relied on Section 32 Indian Evidence Act to treat the complaint dated 21.06.2002 filed by the deceased before the CAW Cell and the statement made by her before the court on 6.8.2002, as deposed by witnesses (PW-13, PW-14 and PW-16), as her 'dying declarations'. However, the complaint filed by the deceased is silent about any threats to her life at the hands of the appellants. Even if the statement of the witnesses as to what had transpired in the court during the bail proceedings on 6.8.2002 are accepted, the apprehension expressed by the deceased related to the time period when she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in the first few months of the marriage i.e., within 3-6 months reckoned from 27.12.1999. The said apprehension cannot be held to be a cause of her death or a 'circumstance of the transaction' which had resulted in her death.