Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED

4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Court framed FIR No. 188/14; U/s 498A/304B/302 IPC, P.S. Jahangirpuri DOD: 02.09.2016 the charge for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC and alternative charge for offence punishable U/s 302 IPC against accused Sumit, vide order dated 23.07.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses namely PW1 Dr. Ashish Bhute, PW2 Ct. Kapil Tomar, PW3 Dr. Devender Dutt, PW4 HC Dev Dutt, PW5 HC Jitender Singh, PW6 Dr. Gopal Krishna, PW7   Sh.   Vinod   Dhatrawal,   PW8   Smt.   Maya   Devi,   PW9   ASI   Surender Singh, PW10 Ct. Mangal, PW11 Ct. Varun, PW12 HC Shailender, PW13 Inspector Manohar Lal, PW14 HC Guman Singh, PW15 Smt. Nirmal, PW16 Sh.   Ramesh,   PW17   Sh.   Shakeel,   PW18   Sh.   Sachin,   PW19   Sh.   Rajeev Ranjan,   PW20   Sh.   Sahil,   PW21   Sheikh   Shah   Alam,   PW22   HC   Suresh Kumar, PW23 Ct. Akash, PW24 Sh. Satender, PW25 Sh. Chander Shekhar, PW26 Sh. Santoshi Lal, PW27 HC Shailender Kumar, PW28 Inspector Anil Kumar and PW29 Inspector J.P. Meena, during trial.

(v)   Such   cruelty   or   harassment   is   shown   to   have   been meted out to the woman soon before her death.  

Xxxxxxx"

54. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in recent decision delivered in the  matter titled as "Kanwar  Pal Vs. Shakuntala & Ors." reported at 2015 IV AD (DELHI) 450.

55. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Kanwar Pal Vs. Shakuntala And Ors."  reported at  2015 IV AD (Delhi) 450,  has held that the   prosecution   is   required   to   prove   beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused.   In that case, it was observed from the evidence of the prosecution witness and in particular   PW1   and   PW4   that   they   have   made   general   allegations   of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased.  The onus was also on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt  the  ingredients  of  Section  489A  IPC.    Relevant   portions   from  the judgment read as under:­ "xxxxxxxx In   any   case,   to   hold   an   accused   guilty   of   both   the offences   under   Sections   304B   and   498A,   IPC,   the FIR No. 188/14; U/s 498A/304B/302 IPC, P.S. Jahangirpuri DOD: 02.09.2016 prosecution is required to prove beyond   reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution   witnesses,   and   in   particular   PW1   and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and   have   not   brought   in   evidence   any   specific appellant on the deceased........ 

xxxxxxx"

56. Now, adverting back to the facts of the present case.  In order to establish   the   aforesaid   ingredients,   the   prosecution   had   cited   public witnesses  who have been examined as PW15 Smt. Maya Devi, PW17 Sh. Shakeel, PW18 Sachin, PW20 Sh. Sahil and PW24 Sh. Satender during trial.

57. The prosecution alleged that accused had been demanding car from mother of deceased, in order to earn his livelihood by driving the said FIR No. 188/14; U/s 498A/304B/302 IPC, P.S. Jahangirpuri DOD: 02.09.2016 car.   PW15 Smt. Nirmal  (mother  of  deceased) has deposed during chief examination   that   she   had   purchased   one   Eeco   vehicle   from   Mahendra company and had got the said vehicle financed after making down payment of   Rs.   1,50,000/­   and   handed   over   the   same   to   her   daughter.     She   also deposed during chief examination that accused had driven the said vehicle for about 3­4 months, whereafter he misappropriated the same.  However, in her   cross   examination,   truth   came   out   as   she   admitted   that   it   was   her daughter Kushboo who had requested her to purchase Eeco Car so that her husband could earn his livelihood by driving the said car.  She also admitted that   Kushboo   had   assured   her   that   accused   would   pay   the   monthly installments and   would repay the loan amount which she had incurred in purchasing   the   said   car   and   actually   the   accused   had   also   paid   few installments   thereof.   The   other   witness   on   this   aspect   examined   by   the prosecution is PW16 Sh. Ramesh.   However, the said witness as already discussed above, turned hostile during trial and expressed ignorance that accused   was   using   any   Eeco   car.     Instead,   he   deposed   during   trial   that accused  was  having  one  Maruti  Van  which  he  had  sold   through  him  to Sheikh Shah Alam (PW21) for Rs. 60,000/­.  The said part of his testimony stands   corroborated   by   PW21   Sheikh   Shah   Alam   who   deposed   to   have purchased Maruti Van No. DL5CC 5072 from accused through PW16 for Rs. 60,000/­ against execution of Agreement Ex.PW21/A.  PW17 Shakeel is the   person   who   had   subsequently   purchased   the   said   Maruti   Van   from PW21 and got the said vehicle registered in the name of his son Kasim in FIR No. 188/14; U/s 498A/304B/302 IPC, P.S. Jahangirpuri DOD: 02.09.2016 the records of Transport Authority.

62. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is quite apparent that there is no cogent or reliable evidence available on record showing that  accused had subjected deceased Khusboo to any sort of cruelty or harassment either soon before her death or at any point of time during her life time after entering into marriage with her.  The prosecution has also failed to lead any credible evidence   showing   or   proving   that   there   was   any   sort   of   cruelty   or harassment   directly   or   indirectly   from   the   side   of   accused   for   or   in FIR No. 188/14; U/s 498A/304B/302 IPC, P.S. Jahangirpuri DOD: 02.09.2016 connection with demand of dowry or that there was any act attributable to the accused  which led to the death of  Khusboo.   In the absence of  any cogent evidence being available on record in this regard, it is held that the prosecution   has   failed   to   bring   home   the   guilt   of   accused   in   respect   of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B IPC beyond shadow of doubt.