Delhi High Court - Truth losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged - Misuse abuse of 498a 304B

Delhi High Court - Truth losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged - Misuse abuse of 498a 304B  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLN.1036/2013
Reserved on : 29 th October, 2013
Date of decision : 19 th November, 2013

BISHAN DASS DURGA    ..... Petitioner
Through :  Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI      ..... Respondent
Through :  Mr. Karan Singh, APP.
Mr. Sanjay Suri, Adv. for complainant.
S.I. Gopal, P.S. Shakar Pur,  Delhi.

CORAM :-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

JUDGMENT

1.  The petitioner  is seeking regular bail in FIR No.835/2012 under  Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.  The petitioner is the father-in-law of  Payal.  On 12 th November, 2012  at about 6:00 am, the petitioner  found Payal hanging from the ceiling fan whereupon he  immediately  informed the complainant, Naresh Batra (father of Payal) who  along with his wife,  son  and  daughter  reached the petitioner‟s house. The deceased was taken to Shanti Mukund Hospital where she was declared dead.  The complainant lodged the FIR in which he made allegations of harassment and demands against the accused persons. It was alleged that the deceased was beaten by her husband and  mother-in-law. It was further alleged that money and gifts were demanded within 10-15 days of marriage; separate house was demanded  for son-in-law and recently Renault Duster  was demanded.  As per the post-mortem report, the cause  of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

3.  On 1st May, 2013, the police filed the chargesheet after investigation against the petitioner  and the aforesaid family members of the petitioner. 

4.  The hearing of this  bail application  was deferred from time to time  till  the  recording of the  statements  of the six material witnesses by the Trial Court. The statement of all the six material witnesses have now  been recorded. Copies of the statements have been placed on record by the petitioner. 

5.  PW-1, Jasvinder Maakheja, an independent material witness,lives on the second floor of the building in which the accused persons  are  residing. On the fateful morning of 12th November, 2012, PW-1 went to the third floor and saw Payal hanging from the ceiling fan. PW-1 told the accused persons to bring down the body whereupon the accused  -  Saurabh cut  the  „chunni‟ and brought down the dead body and kept it on the bed.  PW-1  tried to revive the deceased by pressing her chest while accused - Gaurav gave her mouth to mouth  resuscitation. PW-1  informed the police.  The parents and the other family members of Payal reached the accused persons‟  residence  within five minutes. PW-1  accompanied the body of Payal to the hospital.  PW-1 deposed that Gaurav (husband of the deceased) tried to revive Payal many times on the way to the hospital.

6.  PW-1 to PW-6 have made some important admissions in their cross-examination.  PW-2 to PW-5  deposed  that Payal knew Gaurav before marriage and they worked together on various projects of interior decoration before and after marriage. PW-6, Jagdeep Madan,  deposed that  Payal and Gaurav  had a  love affair which resulted in their marriage. PW 6 deposed that Payal told her that she had not told anything to her parents and she had married Gaurav against their wishes. PW-1  deposed  that accused had a Honda City Car, two motorcycles and a scooter prior to the marriage of Payal. The motorcycles and scooter were used by the sons of the petitioner and one more bike was purchased by the petitioner after the marriage of Payal. PW-2 also  deposed  that the accused had a Honda City car and bikes. PW-2  deposed  that Gaurav was having a furniture showroom in Geeta Colony.  PW-1 deposed  that Payal never complained of dowry demands, harassment or torture though she demanded separation from her in laws one-and-a-half months before her death. PW-1 further deposed  that he never saw any quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws and Payal being beaten up by the accused persons. PW-2 further deposed that he never made any complaint during the lifetime of Payal to any authority for harassment or demands.    

7.  PW-2 to 5 are the father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased, made material improvements in their deposition made before the Court vis-à-vis the statement made to the police/SDM earlier. They were confronted with their previous statements at the time of cross-examination.  The following improvements were made by the aforesaid witnesses:-

-  The demand of more gifts was made on Holi as the gifts were not enough to distribute among relatives on Holi.
-  The mother-in-law taunted  Payal that her family  just came to have dinner on her birthday without any gifts for them
-  On the occasion of “Nirjala Ekadashi”,  the  mother-in-law was not happy on seeing the  fruits, clothes and cash  sent by the father of the deceased  and she questioned  the deceased  what Gaurav saw in  Payal  and that she could get 20 others like her for Gaurav.
-  The deceased was beaten up by her husband on the road and that the deceased came to her parent‟s house and two days  later,the petitioner with Gaurav came to the parent‟s house   and apologized and assured that demands of car and bikes would not be made and took the deceased back.
-  Three to four months after the marriage,  on  Raksha Bandhan suits,  diamond ring and  Rs.5,100/-  were given to Payal and Gaurav whereupon  Payal‟s  brothers-in-law argued and quarreled with her that they had not got anything for them.
-  The petitioner, his wife and Gaurav demanded  a Duster Car and brothers-in-law demanded motor cycles.
-  PW-4 took dry fruits, sweets, Rs.2,100/-  for Gaurav,  Rs.1,100/-for other family members and a fully automatic washing machine on Diwali to which the mother-in-law quarreled with Payal about gold coins and clothes not being given and that PW 4 assured that the same would be given next morning. 

8.  The defence  set up by  the accused  in  the cross-examination of the six witnesses is that Gaurav and Payal were having a love affair for more than three-and-a-half years; Payal‟s father came to know of the said love affair about  two to  three months before the marriage; Gaurav‟s family approached Payal‟s family for marriage in pursuance to which  Gaurav and Payal got married on  23
rdFebruary, 2012;  Payal was insisting her husband to separate from the joint family house  immediately  to which Gaurav was  not agreeable  as he wanted to  separate  after Diwali;  Payal was a stubborn,  aggressive and emotional girl;  Payal wanted to lead an independent modern life with her husband separate from her in laws;  Payal attempted to commit suicide  twice  before;  Payal purchased Phenyl for committing suicide if Gaurav did not separate from the joint family;  Payal committed suicide because of her obstinacy for shifting immediately; Payal‟s sister also threatened to
commit suicide as she did not want to stay with her husband;  the accused  persons have  furniture showrooms  at Geeta Colony,  New Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar,  a house at Anarkali  and a plot allotted by DDA at Rohini  besides the 200 sq. yard house at Bank Enclave; the interior decoration of the house of accused was done by Payal;  the  relationship between Payal and the accused were cordial;  the atmosphere at the joint family house was calm and cordial;  photographs show Payal being happy with Gaurav and the other accused persons in various events;  Payal is shown feeding cake to Himanshu  in  a  clipping of Himanshu‟s (one of the coaccused and brother-in-law of Payal) birthday on 21st August, 2012;  Payal stayed with her mother-in-law for her cataract operation at the Centre for  Sight  for three days;  the complainant and his family have  leveled false allegations against the accused persons regarding demand of dowry and torture out of emotion and vengeance;  the complainant engaged a private counsel from the very beginning; the complainant‟s family gave statements to the police after consulting a lawyer and taking advise from the police.

9.  In  Narender Singh Arora  v.  State, 2010 (173) DLT 244, this Court noted that whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage at in-laws' house, whatever be the cause of death, the  parents of the deceased want the  in-laws  to be hanged. This Court observed truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged.This Court further observed that normally in-laws are convicted on the  testimonies of parents of the girl who, in a fit of anger or because they had lost their daughter, are not prepared to believe that their daughter could commit suicide for any other reason. The testimony given by the complainant in such cases is not a normal testimony. The deceased‟s father and other family members who deposed in the court testified after the death of their daughter and their testimony is coloured with the loss they suffered due to sudden death of the daughter little realizing that she committed suicide not because of dowry demands but could be because of her fragile and sensitive nature.This Court  further  observed  that suicide is a known phenomenon of 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; and 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 alive 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 in-laws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws.

10.  In  Hari Gopal Wadhwa  v.  State, (143) 2007 DLT 210, this Court observed that no doubt, an unnatural death is always a cause for concern and if proved that the daughter-in-law of the family was compelled to take her own life as it was rendered not worth living by the in-laws, they must suffer. But personal liberties have to be preserved, meaning thereby, in an appropriate case, accused has to be set free till trial concludes.

11.  On careful examination of the statements of the six witnesses, this Court is of the prima facie view that although it is difficult to say ultimately what shape  the trial would take after completion of the entire evidence, but if ultimately it is found on evidence that Payal was a very sensitive person and committed suicide because she could not bear the pressure of living in joint family, the possibility of the  petitioner succeeding in establishing their defence cannot be ruled out.

12.  The petitioner as well as four other family members namely, his wife  and  three  sons  including the husband of the deceased  are in custody since 13th November, 2012.

13.  The petitioner  himself had informed the complainant about the demise of Payal without any delay.

14.  There was no ante-mortem injury on the  body  of the deceased.

15.  There is no possibility of the petitioner influencing any witness  since the statements of the six material  witnesses have already been recorded by the learned Trial Court.

16.  There is no material to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will misuse the liberty granted to him to subvert the justice.

17.  In view of the aforesaid, the bail application is allowed  and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The petitioner is directed to surrender his passport, if any, with the Trial Court and  he  shall not leave the country  without  prior permission of the Court.

18.  All  observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the bail application  and  shall not  be considered at the time of trial of the case.

19.  Dasti.

J.R. MIDHA, J.
NOVEMBER 19, 2013

Source - http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/JRM/judgement/19-11-2013/JRM19112013BA10362013.pdf

Del HC-Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in-law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

Crl. Appeal No. 93 of 2004                                                                  

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve:  1st October, 2010  Date of Order: 2nd December, 2010  +Crl. Appeal No. 93 of 2004                    
02.12.2010

RANI                                              ... Appellant 
      Through: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI           ... Respondents
      Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for the State

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?            Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?        Yes.

JUDGMENT
1.  Present Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 1st October,  2003, and order on Sentence dated 13th October, 2003, whereby the Appellant was  convicted under Section 304B/498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of `1,000/-.  

2.  Janki was married to son of the  Appellant on 5th  December, 2000.  She  committed suicide by hanging herself on 1st   March, 2001.  After  her  death,  her brother Ved  Prakash, PW-2 gave a statement to SDM  that  he  had  visited  Janki’s  house on 23rd February, 2001 and found her in a sad mood.  She told him that her in- laws were asking for ` 50,000/- and a scooter as they wanted to open a shop and the  scooter was required for roaming around.  Ved Prakash stated that thereafter he talked to in-laws of her sister and told them that he would respond after thinking over.  He asked them to send Janki with him.  On this, he was told that they would take her to his house after 2-3 days.  After that he received information that Janki had died. He expressed his doubt that his sister had been killed by her husband, parents of her husband and husband’s sister Kiran. 

3.  In the name of investigation, police  took photographs of deceased,  recorded statement of brothers of Janki, collected postmortem report about the cause of her death, and FSL report of viscera. Even the site plan of the place of suicide and of the house was not prepared. The postmortem report shows that there was no external injury on the body of Janki.   The cause of death was given due to asphyxia. Ligature mark present on the neck showed that there was no ligature mark on left side of neck showing that ligature was caused due to hanging.  FSL report showed presence of insecticide  in the body.  No  investigation was  done by the police on the aspect of purchase of  insecticide or  administration of insecticide etc.   Charges against the accused persons were framed under Section 304B read with Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.  

4.  Prime witnesses in this case are PW-2 Ved Prakash and PW-7 Jai Prakash, the two brothers of the deceased Janki.  Ved Prakash is the one who claimed to have visited Janki on 23rd February, 2001 and stated that Janki was in sad mood and she complained that her in-laws were demanding  ` 50,000/- and a scooter.  PW-7 Jai  Prakash stated that Janki had come to his house in the village after about a week of her  marriage and had told  him that her in laws were demanding scooter and `  50,000/-.  He then sent his brother Jaidev @ Ali to the house of his sister Janki and this demand was repeated to him and Jaidev informed him about the demand. 

5.  PW-4 Laxman is 3rd brother of Janki.  He testified that he had visited his sister  at her matrimonial house after about a month of her marriage.  He stayed there for few moments  and  at  that time he had no  talks  with his sister.  Thus, as per his  testimony, no complaint was made to him by his sister about demand of `50,000/- and a scooter. 

6.  These three witnesses were practically not cross examined on the charges framed against the accused persons.  The  only cross examination done  by the defence counsel was putting to the witnesses statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and giving suggestion regarding denial of the demand. 

7.  On the basis of the testimony of two  brothers  i.e. PW-2 and PW-7, the appellant and other two accused persons were convicted under Section 304B/ 498-A/34 IPC. 

8.  It is apparent that the allegations were very vague in nature.  Who demanded ` 50,000/- and scooter, whether it was the demand of husband or of mother-in-law or of  father-in-law, when was it made  –  answers to all these questions are  absent.  Even if it is presumed that demand was made,  the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were  totally absent in this case as there was  no evidence on record to show that cruelty  of any kind was  perpetuated on Janki for this demand.  Section 304B IPC reads as under:

  “(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.

(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.”

To bring home an offence under Section 304-B IPC it is  an  obligation of the  prosecution to prove in those cases where death of a woman occurs within 7 years of her marriage, that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative,  in connection with a demand of dowry.  Mere making of demand is not the only pre-requisite for proving an offence under Section 304B IPC.  The prosecution was  thus supposed to prove that the demand made by the accused was coupled with  a  harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand. Unnatural death can be called a dowry death only if, after making a demand of dowry, the accused perpetuates cruelty on the victim so that the demand made by him is got fulfilled by perpetuation of cruelty on  the victim.  If the alleged demand of dowry is not coupled with cruelty, harassment or any other  such act on the part of accused, Section 304B of IPC would not be made out.  In this case, none of the three brothers stated that cruelty was perpetuated on Janki or she was  harassed by  the appellant or  by  any other relative for not fulfilling the demand. I consider in these circumstances conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC was totally  illegal and unjust. The conviction seems to be the result of a callous criminal justice system where neither the defence counsel prepared the case nor the prosecutor discharged his duty  in an impartial manner nor the Judge considered it as his duty to see what offence was made out and everyone acted in a mechanical manner. 

9.  The other question arises whether the appellant could be convicted under  Section 306 IPC i.e.  for the offence  of abetment  of suicide, since the deceased  committed suicide within three months of her marriage.  In order to convict a person
for abetment of suicide,  apart from proving suicide, it has to be proved that the appellant or accused was instrumental in commission of suicide.  Section 113A of  Evidence Act which raises a presumption regarding abetment of suicide in respect of
a married woman reads as under: 

  “113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a  married women  - When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a women had been abetted by  her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”

A perusal of above section would show that abetment of suicide of a married woman by relatives would be presumed by the Court if it is shown that her husband or such other relative of husband had subjected her to cruelty.  In the present case, there is not  an iota of evidence in respect of cruelty perpetuated upon the victim, either medical evidence or oral evidence.  I, therefore, consider that that the appellant could not have been convicted even under Section 306 IPC. 

10.  It is seen that the Appellant herein belonged to a very poor family of vegetable seller.  She had three young daughters and two sons.  She herself was a house-wife and not working and that seems to be reason that during trial she and her husband and son could not engage a counsel with some experience who could have done justice to the brief. The witnesses were not cross-examined in a proper manner and cross-examination done to the witness was only to confront them with their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Along with the Appellant, her husband and her son were also convicted.  Even during Appeals, this  family could not engage an efficient counsel and that is why her husband and son remained in JC during entire  Appeal period.  After  undergoing entire  sentence, they appeared in the court and stated that they do not wish to pursue their Appeals, so, the Appeals were dismissed. 

11.  A perusal of record shows  that  the deceased’s brother had made application before the Court for return of dowry articles and  Istridhan during trial and gave a list of the articles given at the time of engagement ceremony (sagai) and marriage.   The
list reads as under;

(i) One Silver Coin, (ii) One Three Piece Suit for Boy, (iii)
One Gold Ring, (iv) 51 Utensils, (v) Fruits and Dry Fruits,
(vi) Nine Sarees, (vii)  Nine Gents Shirts, (viii) Four Pairs of
Clothes for Children and (ix) ` 501/-.    At marriage the dowry list is as under;
(i) One Silver Coin, (ii) 5 Units of Clothes for Boy, (iii) One
HMT Wrist Watch, (iv) 27 Utensils (of Steel and Brass), (v)
Ear-ring (Kundal) +  „LONG‟  of Gold for Girl, (vi) A set of
Silver pajeb + Key Ring, (vii) One Double-Bed with
Matress, Quilt and Pillow, (viii) One Chair, One Table, One
Stool, One Dressing Table, One Cooler, One Godrej
Almirah and One Small Box.

  This list, prepared at the time of marriage was duly signed by husband Raju.  The list would show that both parties belonged to poor strata of society and except     ` 501/-, there was no cash transaction as dowry between the parties and the parties knew each-other’s  financial position well.  No question was asked about the list nor the investigating agency made the list as a part of their investigation nor the dowry list attracted attention of the Judge concerned.  This list would have shown that it was not a case where dowry has been demanded.  Where the parties knew that the status of girl  was such that even at marriage and engagement ceremonies only    ` 501/-  cash was given, the husband  of relatives  would not have thought  of  demanding ` 50,000/- and scooter within few days of marriage.  The most disturbing factor is that no evidence, whatsoever, was collected by the police about the real facts.  No effort was made by learned Public Prosecutor or by Trial Judge to even go through the evidence and consider what charges were made out.  Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner.  No effort is seem to have been made by the Trial Judge either at the time of framing charge or later on as to what offence was made out. 

12.  Every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be a suicide due to dowry demand.  The tendency of the Court should not be that since a young bride has died after marriage, now somebody must be held culprit and the noose must be made to fit some neck.

13.  There is an unfortunate development under criminal justice system that even in those cases where accused should be examined as a witness by the defence, the accused persons are not examined as a witness.  In matrimonial offences, it is the accused and his family members who know what transpired within the family and they should always volunteer themselves as witnesses in the Court so that the Court gets their side of the version by way of evidence and testimony.  Under Section 106 of Evidence Act, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.  When a death takes place within the four walls of matrimonial home, the  husband and  in-laws should come forward and depose as to what was the real cause of death.  The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness.  I do not know  why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the Court, to the version of the other side, by their advocates.  

14.  Adversarial system of trial being followed in this country has turned most of the trial court judges into  umpires and despite having sufficient power to ask questions to the witnesses and to find out truth, most of them do not ask questions to the witnesses to know the truth.  In fact, the witnesses are left to the Advocates and the Judges  just sit and watch.  This tendency of being only umpires works  heavily against the poor who are normally not defended by Advocates of competence and standing, as they cannot afford their fee.  The Trial Courts, therefore, must shed their inertia and must intervene in all those cases where intervention is necessary for the ends of justice.

15.  In this case the High Court did not find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants, who continued to remain in jail during trial period as well as appeal period for no crime.   In all such cases where  appellants are in jail and sentence is not suspended,  the High Court should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals.  Neither the criminal should be let off by default as High Court has no time to hear appeals  nor should the innocents rot in jail by default.  The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling so that the constitutional mandate of equality before law is made meaningful and it should not be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by the person with money or power, as is the case today. 

16.  The appeal is allowed.  The appellant is acquitted.

DECEMBER 02, 2010            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm

 

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/03-12-2010/SND02122010CRLA932004.pdf

Delhi HC- ipc506/34 Frivolous petition by wife to harass husband and his relatives dismissed with costs

Crl. Revision  Pet. No.456 of 2006   Anjali Aggarwal v State & Ors.   

 

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  
             Date of Reserve: September 7th,  2010    Date of Order:  September 22nd  , 2010

  Anjali Aggarwal            ...Petitioner         

  Versus  

  State & Ors.              ...Respondents   

Counsels:
Mr. J.C. Mahendroo for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1.  Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?
3.  Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

1.  By way of present petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. petitioner sought setting aside of the judgment dated 10th
February 2006 passed by leaned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting respondents no.2 and 3 for the offences under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 

2.    The revision petitioner in her complaint to police had alleged that on 26th September 1992, she had come to Tis Hazari Courts in a child custody  case.  Respondent Sudershan Kumar  Bagrodia, her ex-husband, who was a party in the custody case had come to Tis Hazari Courts along with  his sister Smt. Jai Shree Bindal and when she was near gate no.2 of Tis Hazari Courts, both the respondents stopped her and threatened that she should  stop coming to the Court otherwise she would be killed. She alleged that they tried to snatch the child from her and slapped her. She then went  to the police station to lodge a report and her report was recorded and after investigation, challan was filed. 

3.  The learned trial court after calling the records of the custody case pending between the parties observed that on 26th  September 1992, there was no date of the custody case between the parties.  The learned trial  court  also, after appreciating the testimony of complainant and her cross examination, concluded  that the child was not with her on that day. The learned trial court found that  the complaint made by the petitioner/ complainant was a false complaint and, therefore, acquitted the respondents. 

4.  In her revision petition, the petitioner/complainant had taken the stand that on 26th September 1992, there was no hearing in the court and she had taken the child for meeting with the husband. Thus, the stand taken by the petitioner in revision is contrary
to her statement made in the trial court wherein she had stated that she had appeared on that day in custody case of her child before the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal as her case was going on in the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal. I consider that in  a  revision petition, this Court cannot consider a new plea of fact which was not raised before trial court. Moreover, her version in the revision petition is belied by her version in FIR also wherein she had stated that on 26th  September 1992, there was a date of the case. 

5.  I find that the present revision petition was another step taken by the petitioner to harass her husband and his family members. This petition being a frivolous  petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-.    

September 22nd, 2010                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SND/judgement/23-09-2010/SND22092010CRLR4562006.pdf

Cross examination shatters 498a 304B case- U-turn by deceased’s(wife) parents who deny their own allegations- Aquittal of husband and family members

IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.146/09
FIR No.39/07
U/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC
PS C.R.Park
State
Vs.
1. Sandeep Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
2. Sonika Chopra w/o Sanjay Chopra
3. Chaman Lal Chopra s/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal Chopra
4. Sanjay Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
5. Vipin Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
6. Ekta Chopra w/o Vipin Chopra
7. Sudesh Chopra w/o Chaman Lal Chopra (Since expired)
............Accused
Challan filed on : 10.05.07
Received by Fast Track Court on:30.11.09
Reserved for Order on : 27.08.2010
Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2010
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on
09.02.07 on receipt of DD no.13A regarding hanging of one lady at D-
720 CR Park, Delhi, SI Tika Ram alongwith Ct. Azad reached at the spot
and found one Shefali W/o Sandeep hanging with dupatta with ceiling
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 1 of 36fan. Crime team was summoned at the spot and HC Giriraj took some
photographs. The Executive Magistrate was informed and he also
reached at the spot and dead body was removed from the ceiling fan
after cutting the dupatta. The Executive Magistrate recorded the
statements of parents of deceased. The statement of Smt. Anita Bhatia is
Ex.PW2/A in which she has alleged that the engagement ceremony of
her daughter Shefali was solemnized with Sandeep Chopra on
10.02.2006 and they spent about Rs.10.00 in the engagement ceremony
and they spent about Rs.30.00 lacs on the marriage of her daughter
Shefali. After marriage Sandeep came to their residence and stated asked
as to why they have not called his friend Raju and uttered that he is
everything for him. After that Sandeep started quarreling with their
daughter. He is a drunker and also a gambler. They were under the
impression that Sandeep will improve after birth of child. On 18th
Jan.
2007, a male baby has been born out of the wedlock and on that
occasion, Sandeep demanded Skoda Car from them. In the marriage they
had given Accent Car of red colour bearing no. HR 29P 4907 to accused
Sandeep but he had passed on this car to his sister. They went to the
matrimonial house of their daughter and urged the parents of Sandeep to
make him understand but they also paid no heed and inturn started
uttering to Shefali that she should perform her work properly. Sandeep
had a fight with his own brothers because of Raju. He used to utter that
he will not leave Raju but he can leave Shefali. Whenever they visited
the matrimonial house of Shefali, her father in law, mother in law,
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 2 of 36Sandeep and his brothers used to given them a long list of items and ask
them that they have to give those items otherwise it will not be in their
interest. Sandeep uttered to them that if their demands will not be
fulfilled and they did not take care of his friend Raju, he will leave
Shefali at her parents house. He used to come to home after 11 p.m after
consuming liquor and he used unparliamentary language to Shefali. He
used to beat her by giving leg blows during pregnancy. All the accused
persons Chaman Lal Chopra, Sandeep Chopra, Raju, his wife Neetu,
Sonika Chopra, Vipin Chopra, Ekta Chopra and Anju Chopra have killed
her daughter and thereafter hanged her with fan and it was informed to
them at about 9.15 p.m that Shefali has committed suicide. On this
statement SDM has directed the SHO PS C.R Park to register the case
u/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC. The case was registered and investigation
was done. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of
investigation challan was filed.
2. Being the case of the category exclusively triable by the court
of Sessions, after committal proceedings, it was assigned to the court of
sessions and charge against accused persons u/s 304B/498A/406/34 IPC
has been framed on 22.02.08 against accused Sandeep Chopra, Chaman
Lal, Sudesh Chopra(Since deceased), Vipin Chopra, Ekta Chopra,
Sanjay Chopra and Sonika Chopra to which all the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 3 of 363. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused persons
has  examined in all 16 witnesses.
4. The incriminating evidence against the accused persons were
put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they
have denied each and every allegation and stated that they have been
falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter the case was fixed for final
arguments.
5. I have heard Sh Inder Kumar Ld. APP for the State as well as
Sh Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate for the accused persons.
6. In view of the submissions made by Ld.Counsel for defence
as well as Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the documents and
testimonies of each witness carefully. During the course of arguments
Ld. counsels for the accused persons have drawn the attention of the
court on the testimonies of each witness and stated that the statements
given by the relatives of the deceased are contradicting to each other and
they have made glaring improvements in their testimonies. It has further
been stated that no demand for dowry was ever made by the accused
persons and the deceased was never harassed for dowry. Ld. counsel has
drawn the attention on the testimonies of each and every witnesses and
stated that  no case is made out against the accused persons and they may
kindly be acquitted.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 4 of 367. On the other hand Ld.APP for the State has stated that no
improvement have been made by the PWs because they has stated as per
the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the statement recorded by the
SDM. The relatives of the deceased have made specific allegations
against the accused persons for demand of dowry and harassment due to
which Shefali committed suicide. It has been further submitted that
accused persons may kindly be punished in accordance with law.
8. In view of the submissions made by the Ld.defence counsels
as well as Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the testimonies of
witnesses.
9. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased Shefali. He has
stated that SDM has recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He
identified the dead body of his daughter vide staetment Ex.PW1/B and
received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He handed over the list
of dowry to the police which is Ex.PW1/D and photographs which are
Ex.PW1/E & F.
10. PW2 Anita Bhatia is the complainant and mother of
deceased Shefali. She has stated that SDM has recorded her statement
which is Ex.PW2/A. She has stated that accused persons demanded
Skoda from her at the time when her daughter gave birth to a male baby.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 5 of 3611. PW3 Dr. Akhilesh has stated that Dr. MG Jai and Dr.
Raghvender had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shefali.
the post mortem report is Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal uncle of deceased Shefali
and he has stated that Raju demanded skoda car from Anita Bhatia and
Kuldeep Bhatia. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
13. PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased Shefali and he
has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared
hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the
State but in vain.
14. PW6 Ct. Azad Singh reached at the spot with SI Tika Ram
and he has stated that they found one lady hanging with ceiling fan with
the help of chuni. The executive Magistrate came there and he recorded
the statements of the parents of deceased. The dead body was sent to
Mortuary. IO prepared the rukka and got the case registered through him.
He further deposed about seizure of articles from the spot vide memo
Ex.PW5/A,B and C. He further deposed that accused Sandeep was
arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/A and his personal search was conducted
vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed about arrest of accused
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 6 of 36Chaman Lal on 10.2.07 vide memo Ex.PW6/C and conducting of his
personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/D. He recorded the disclosure
statement of accused Sandeep Chopra which is Ex.PW6/E. He identified
the chappal, key with chhalla as Ex.Pw6/Article1 and Ex.PW6/article2.
15. PW7 Ct. Gopal Prasad has deposed that on 9.2.07 he reached
at the spot with SI Tika Ram. He was sent by SI Tika Ram with dead
body to mortuary of AIIMS. He handed over the pulland given to him in
the hospital to IO which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A.
16. PW8 HC Sarjeet Singh has deposed that he was posted in
control Room, PHQ on 9.2.07 and he received telephone call from no.
9811111118 from Vipin Chopra that his sister in law has killed herself
and he recorded the same in form which is Ex.PW8/A.
17. PW9 HC Giriraj is the witness from crime team and he took
photographs which are Ex.PW9/A6 to A10 and negatives are
Ex.PW9/A1 to A5.
18. PW10 HC Rajeev has recorded the FIR of this present case.
The copy of FIR is Ex.PW10/A.
19. PW11 SI Naveen Kumar has deposed that on 9.2.07 he was
posted in crime team and after inspecting the spot he prepared his report
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 7 of 36which is Ex.PW11/A.
20. PW12 Ct.Tejpal has deposed that he delivered the copies of
FIR to Joint CP, ACP and area ACP on 9.10.07 (should be 09.02.07).
21. PW13 SI Tika Ram is the first IO and he reached at the spot
with Ct. Azad where they found one lady Shefali hanging from Ceiling
fan with dupatta. He called Executive Magistrate and crime team. He has
stated that Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of the parents of
the deceased on the basis of which he got the case registered. He seized
the articles lying at the spot vide memo Ex.PW5/A, B and C. He
prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B. He arrested accused Sandeep,
conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. He
got conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shefali and after post
mortem handed over the dead body to her father and brother vide memo
Ex.PW1/C. He arrested accused Chaman Lal and conducted his personal
search. He got prepared the scaled site plan. He identified the case
property.
22. PW14 Sh. RK Saini is the Executive Magistrate who
recorded the statements of Kuldeep Bhatia and Anita Bhatia Ex.PW1/A
and Ex.PW2/A and he has instructed the SHO to take legal action vide
endorsement Ex.PW14/A.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 8 of 3623 PW15 SI Mahesh has prepared the scaled site plan which is
Ex.PW15/A.
24. PW16 Insp. Jogender Kumar is the second IO and he
formally arrest accused Raj Kumar vide memo Ex.PW16/C. He seized
the photographs and marriage invitation card vide memo Ex.PW16/D.
He also seized the accent car vide memo Ex.PW16/E.
25. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the PWS it is
revealed that PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased, PW2 Anita
Bhatia is the mother of deceased, PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal
uncle of deceased and PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased
Shefali. PW2 Smt. Anita Bhatia is the complainant and mother of the
deceased. These witnesses including PW14 Sh RK Saini, the then
Executive Magistrate are the main star witnesses of the prosecution.
PW1,2,4 & 5 are the near relatives of the deceased.
26. To bring the guilt of the accused persons u/s 498A/ 304 B
IPC it is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions. Section 304B
relates to dowry death. The same was introduced in the Indian Penal
Code and it reads as under:-
304 B (1)
Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 9 of 36injury 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 demands for dowry such death
shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
For the purpose of this sub section dowry shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the dowry prohibition Act 1961.
'Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life'.
And if the ingredients of section 304B have been completed
then the presumption u/s 113 B in the Indian Evidence Act is required.
Section 113 B
Presumption as to dowry death - when the question 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 death.
In a case of dowry death cruelty on part of husband towards
his wife by prosecution has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
section 113 B of Evidence Act does not alter this requirement of stick
proof.
And section 498 A IPC reads as under:-
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 10 of 36'Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her
to cruelty – Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband or
a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be
liable to fine'.
27. There is explanation for the purpose of this section cruelty
means:-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life ,limb
or health (whether mental or physical ) of the woman or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
28. In the normal circumstances though cruelty at any time after
marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and
harassment envisaged by section 304B is to be seen before the death of
a woman and it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence
carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is
demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then
again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of the husband
within the short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable
difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident
occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 11 of 36the torture and harassment is confined in the four walls of the house.
However, the courts are to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence
regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are
relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are
strained for any reason whatsoever it might be.
29. Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A
person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological
trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person
committing suicide may think that the life he or she is living is more
miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance
would vary from person to person. Some persons try to make the life
easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their
life. 
30. Reverting back to the testimonies of witnesses firstly I would
consider the testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution
who are related to deceased Shefali. PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal
uncle of deceased and he has stated that Shefali was got married to
Sandeep on 6.3.06 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and Accent car was
given to him in the dowry alongwith other gold and silver jewellery. His
brother in Law spent Rs.15 to 20 lac on the marriage of Shefali. One
friend named Raju @ Raj Kumar of accused Sandeep Chopra used to
demand more dowry from his brother in law Kuldeep Bhatia and
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 12 of 36whenever complaint has been made to Sandeep Chopra, he used to say
that whatever Raju says that is final. His niece was not kept well in the
house. Shefali told her that she is not happy in her in laws house. He has
further stated that at the time of delivery of first child Raju demanded
Skoda car from Kuldeep Bhatia. On receiving the message regarding
death of Shefali he reached in Chitranjan Park and found Shefali hanging
with fan. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he has admitted
that the accent car which was gifted in the dowry, the same was further
gifted to the sister in law nanad/sister in law named Gitanjali. He denied
that when his jija Kuldeep and his family reached at the house of accused
persons, some hot exchange took place between them and then accused
persons went away from their house. He denied that the half portion of
the dupatta which was cut down from the neck of Shefali was taken in
police custody alongwith two pair of lady's chappal and key with
chhalla. He did not state to the police that Shefali committed suicide due
to harassment and demand of dowry by the accused persons and she
expired due to harassment for demand of dowry. He cannot identify the
exhibits which were lifted by the police. I have also considered the cross
examination wherein he has admitted that he has never been to the house
of his sister after or prior to the marriage of his niece Shefali. When he
has not visited the house of his sister, it is not understandable as to how
he came to know that there was some demand for dowry from the side of
accused persons. He has further stated that once only his deceased niece
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 13 of 36disclosed him regarding the harassment otherwise his sister used to tell
him regarding the harassment by accused persons. Sandeep used to meet
him socially in normal way. It is correct that Sandeep never gave beating
to Shefali at the instance of Raju in his presence. In view of his statement
he has alleged that one Raju has demanded more dowry and even that he
demanded skoda car at the time when Shefali gave birth to first child. He
has not levelled allegations against any of the accused persons facing
trial before this court. Raju has already been discharged by the court
vide order dated 22.02.08. Considering the cross examination conducted
by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing incriminating could come out
against the accused persons. In cross examination he has admitted that
accused Sandeep never gave beating to Shefali at the instance of Raju in
his presence.
31. PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased Shefali and he
has stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized on 6.3.06 with
Sandeep Chopra and they present one accent car in the marriage. His
mother used to tell him about the harassment of his sister Shefali by her
in laws. As and when he used to visit the in laws house of Shefali, after
seeing her face he understand her problem but he did not involve in any
affair to avoid future relations. Thereafter he has stated about receiving
of information regarding death of his sister by hanging herself with
fan.During life time his sister was not happy in her in laws house. He has
been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 14 of 36APP for the State wherein he has stated that police did not record his
statement Ex.PW5/A. He has been confronted with his statement by the
Ld. APP for the State but he denied having made such statement to the
police. However, he admitted that on 10.2.07 he identified the dead
body of his sister in mortuary of AIIMS Hospital and he received the
dead body. In view of his statement he has stated that his mother used to
tell him about the harassment of his sister. He has deposed on hearsay
because it was told to him by his mother and not by his sister Shefali.
Secondly, he has not stated as to how the accused person caused
harassment to Shefali and what they used to utter and what they used to
demand. By conducting cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State,
nothing incriminating could come against the accused persons. PW5 has
not made any allegation that accused persons has ever demanded more
dowry or skoda car from his father. He has also not stated that Shefali
has ever told him about the harassment caused to her by her husband as
well as in-laws. 
32. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased Shefali and he
has staetd that he gave hyundai Accent car in dowry. As soon as his
daughter reached her matrimonial house her mother in law took all
jewellery from her and told that she will return as and when she would
require. After days Raju friend of Sandeep told his daughter that they
had to purchase one plot for Sandeep and they asked for Rs.5.00 lac. He
was shocked to know this fact. He was surprised that when he has spent
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 15 of 36so much money on marriage why they are asking for more money. He
told that he is unable to pay Rs.5.00 lac. His daughter was not allowed to
talk on phone and when his daughter prayed them to talk she was told
'bill kya tera baap bharega'. Seeing this, in August 2006 he gave her one
mobile phone. He has further stated that his daughter was not provided
proper food and accused her that from the day she had come, their
business had collapsed. When they received instruction from the side of
Sandeep “Raju mere bhai se bharkar hai aur jo cheez tum mujhey doge
tum Raju ko bhi doge'. Sandeep used to return back home at 11 p.m in
drunken condition. They pressurized for Rs.5.00 lac. In June 2006 he
gave Rs.2.00 lac to Sandeep Chopra in the presence of Raju and parents
of Sandeep Chopra and requested them with folded hand that he cannot
afford more money. Sandeep, Raju and his family members never liked
the food cooked by his daughter and they used to tell 'teri maa ne tujhe
kya sikhya'. In the presence of all the family members and Sandeep, Raju
slapped his daughter uttering the words 'tere ko khana banana nahi aata'.
In the same night Sandeep and Raju returned home after taking drinks
and went in the bedroom where his daughter was sleeping and Raju
started molesting his daughter. He has further stated that Shefali got
pregnant and during pregnancy she was beaten mercilessly. They used to
tell her that after birth of child everything will be settled down. On
18.1.07 Shefali gave birth to a son and at that time Sandeep asked him to
give him Skoda Car. He told the parents of Sandeep about this and they
told 'theek hai jo yeh kah raha hai puri kar do'. He was shocked to know
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 16 of 36that Sandeep has handed over the car Accent to Anjali Lekhi. He has
further stated that on 8.2.07 Sandeep, Raju and parents of Sandeep came
to their house and demanded Skoda Car and used filthy language. After
requesting them, they went back and thereafter Shefali made a call and
told 'mai bahut pareshan ho rahi hoo apki inse kya baat hui'. On 9.2.07
Sandeep, Raju and parents of Sandeep again came to their house and told
'hamari yeh demand puri kartey ho to theek hai nahin to apni ladki se
haath dho baithogey'. They told them 'agar aap police me galti se bhi
chaley gaye hum apko fasa denge kyunki hamari bahut unchi pahunch
hai'. On 9.2.07 at 1 p.m Shefali had a talk with her mother on telephone
and she told her mother -'Mami dil bahut ghabra raha hai samajh mai
nahi aa raha'. On the same day at about 9.15 p.m his wife received call
from Sandeep that Shefali had hanged herself. He alongwith his wife
reached at the house of Shefali and saw the body of Shefali hanging with
ceiling fan. Her feet were touching the ground. There was no stool near
the dead body one which she might have climbed. He was shocked that a
girl who was married only 11 months back having 22 days child would
never commit suicide. His daughter had not committed suicide as she
had 22 days son, in fact she had been killed by the accused persons.
SDM recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He identified the dead
body his daughter and received the same. He handed over the list of
dowry articles to police which is Ex.PW1/D, photographs Ex.PW1/E and
F and photocopy of marriage card Ex.PW1/G. He has further stated that
Sandeep Chopra, entire family and Raju are responsible for the incident
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 17 of 36with his daughter. In view of the above statement of PW1 he has made
certain allegations against the accused persons. So, first I have perused
the cross examined of this witness conducted by the Ld. defence counsel.
He has stated in cross examination that it is correct that he has not stated
in his statement Ex.PW1/A that the parents of Sandeep had asked that
the marriage should be performed as per their status and accordingly he
raised his budget by taking loan and financial assistance from his
relatives and friends. It is correct that he had gifted Accent Car in the
marriage with his own free will. So,the accent car has been given by
PW1 to accused Sandeep with his own free will in the dowry and it
cannot be terms as demand for dowry. He has further stated that it is
correct that he had not stated to the SDM that parents of Sandeep and his
friend told his daughter that they had to purchase one plot for Sandeep
and they asked for Rs.5.00 lac of that this fact was told by his daughter
to his wife. It is correct that his daughter did not told him directly for
demand of Rs.5.00 lacs. He admitted that no accused present in the court
made any demand of any nature directly from him at any time after the
marriage of his daughter Shefali. PW1 is the father of deceased Shefali
but he has clearly stated in his cross examination that no demand of any
nature has been made from him at any time after the marriage of his
daughter Shefali by the accused persons. Since he has admitted about no
demand by the accused persons, allegation made by him in the
examination in chief seems to be doubtful because he has not made
consistent statement in this respect. It seems that no demand for Rs.5.00
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 18 of 36lacs has been made by the accused persons. Further, PW1 has admitted
in cross examination that he has not stated to Magistrate that their
daughter was not allowed to use telephone and on request of his daughter
that she be allowed to use phone and she was told 'bill kya tera baap
bharega' on which he gave her a mobile phone. He admitted that he did
not stated to the Magistrate that she was not provided food and used to
be harassed for preparing food and that accused used to curse her that
from the day she has come, their business has collapsed.He admitted that
when he used to meet Sandeep and other accused, they used to meet
normally and in cordial manner as relative meets and respect each other.
He admitted that he has not stated that he was pressurized for Rs.5.00 lac
and Rs.2.00 lac was given by him to the mother of Sandeep in the
presence of Raju. He admitted that he did not state to the SDM in
statement Ex.PW1/A that family members of Sandeep never liked food
cooked by his daughter or that Sandeep slapped his daughter by saying
tere ko khana banana hain aata or that Sandeep and Raju returned home
after drink and Raju attempted to molest her daughter. He has not stated
to the SDM that Shefali was pregnant and she was mercilessly beaten.
Sandeep had not demanded Skoda car from him. IN examination in chief
he has alleged that skoda car was demanded from him but in cross
examination he has stated that it was not demanded from him by accused
Sandeep. However, he has stated that it was demanded by Raju (already
discharged). He further stated that it is correct that he has not stated in
his statement to Magistrate that he told the parents of Sandeep that Raju
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 19 of 36was demanding a skoda car and that they told 'theek hai jo yeh keh raha
hai puri kar do'. He has further stated that he has not stated to the SDM
that the car which was given by him has been given to Anjali Lekhi by
Sandeep. He had not stated in his statement that on 8.2.07 Sandeep and
his parents came to their house and demanded Skoda car and used filthy
language and thereafter Shefali called them and said 'mai bahut pareshan
ho rahi hu inse kaya baat hui'. He has further stated that he has not stated
in his statement that on 9.2.07 Sandeep and his parents again came to
their house and claimed that their demand may be fulfilled. He has not
stated that on 9.2.07 at 1 p.m Shefali had a talk with her mother on
telephone and she said 'mummy dil bahut ghabra raha hai samaj mai
nahin aa raha'. He has not stated that when he saw his daughter hanging
her feet were touching the ground and there was not stool nearby. He
made the statement Ex.PW1/A to the SDM in a very perplexed situation
as some of the relatives got it dictated and he just signed. He has further
stated that it is correct that Sandeep has a habit of consuming liquor and
beyond that they have no grievance against him or the accused present in
the court. From the deposition of PW1 who is father of deceased it is
revealed that he has made allegations against the accused persons in his
examination in chief but when he was put through cross examination his
testimony has been completely shattered by the Ld. defence counsel. He
has not been re-examined by the Ld. APP for the State when he denied
the allegations in cross examination. On perusal of his cross examination
it is revealed that the accent car has been given by him on his own free
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 20 of 36will. She has further stated that accused persons have made no demand
from him. So, his version that Rs.5.00 lacs and Skoda Car were demand
cannot be believed.
33. PW2 Anita Bhatia is the mother of the deceased and
complainant in this case. She has also stated in her examination in chief
that they had given hyundai accent car in dowry. She has stated that
after 3-4 days of marriage of his daughter , accused Sandeep told her
daughter that he has to purchase a plot for which he told her daughter to
demand Rs.5.00 lac from them. It was told to her in April 2006. He told
Sandeep that they cannot afford Rs.5.00 lac. They brought it to the notice
of parents of Sandeep who told that whatsoever Sandeep demanding,
they will have to give him. Thereafter they started harassing their
daughter. Her mother in law told to her daughter 'tumhari maa nai ghar
ka kaam nahi sikhya hai' and both bhabies and Sandeep used to take
entire household work from Shefali and used to torture her. Her daughter
used to weep bitterly whenever she called her up. Considering her
grievance they gave Rs.2.00 lacs on 28.6.06. On 10th
August Sandeep
took Rs.11,000/- from them. They were not allowed to meet their
daughter in the hospital and they were asked to bring Skoda car. Anjali
instigated Sandeep and told to give car and she took the car which was
given by them in the marriage. On 8.2.07 Sandeep Raju and parents of
Raju came to their house and demanded skoda car. They requested them
that they cannot give the same but their request was not accpeted. They
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 21 of 36tortured Shefali after reaching house. On 9.2.07 Sandeep, Raju and
parents of Sandeep came to their house and told that if she want to meet
her daughter and want to see her happy she should give skoda car. At
about 1 p.m she received call from her daughter and she was weeping
bitterly and told that Sandeep had not given anything to eat. At about
9.15 p.m Sandeep telephoned her that Shefali has committed suicide.
They had gone there and saw Shefali hanging from ceiling fan. He
further stated that no mother can commit suicide leaving her 20 days
child. Like PW1 father of deceased Shefali, PW2 Anita Bhatia has also
levelled allegation for demand of Rs.5.00 lac and Skoda car from the
accused persons. So, I have also perused her cross examination
conducted on behalf of the accused persons. She has stated in cross
examination that she has not stated in her statement that on the demand
of accused persons they have given accent car. She has not stated in her
statement Ex.PW2/A that Sandeep told her daughter to demand Rs.5.00
lacs for purchasing the plot. She has admitted that she has not stated in
her statement that she has stated that her mother in law told her daughter
'tumhari maa ne ghar ka kaam nahi sikhaya'. He further stated that it is
correct that she has not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A that whenever
she called her daughter she wept bitterly and considering her grievances,
Rs.2.00 lac was given to Sandeep in the presence of his mother on
28.6.06. She has not stated that Rs.11,000/- was taken by Sandeep for
purchase of mobile. She has also admitted that she has not stated in her
statement that Raju and Sandeep met them at the gate of the hospital and
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 22 of 36did not allow to meet Shefali after birth of male child and asked them to
bring skoda car first. She has not stated in her statement that Sandeep's
sister Anjali instigated Sandeep and told to give her car and she took the
car which was given in marriage. It is correct that she had not stated in
her statement Ex.PW2/A that on 8.2.07 at 6 p.m Sandeep, Raju and
parents of Sandeep came to his house and demanded skoda car and
abused despite their request with folded hands but they did not accept
their request and left their house or that they tortured Shefali after
reaching the house and she wept bitterly on phone. She has not stated in
her statement that she saw her daughter hanging with thin chuni and her
feet were touching the ground. It is correct that she had not stated in her
statement Ex.PW2/A that she beg to submit that no mother can commit
suicide leaving her 20 days old child. She has further stated that it is
correct that Sandeep had never demanded any money or dowry directly
from her or in her presence. Sometime mother of Sandeep used to taunt
Shefali in her presence regarding lack of dowry. It is correct that she has
not stated in her statement that her daughter Shefali was engaged with
Sandeep on 10.2.06. It is correct that she has not stated in her statement
Ex.PW2/A that her son in law used to fight with his brother because of
Raju. She has not stated that the family members of Sandeep gave a list
of articles that were to be given by her if she want to see her daughter
safe and happy. She has not stated in her statement that Sandeep used to
drink everyday and come back at home at 11 p.m and after coming home
he used to abuse and beat with legs during pregnancy. She denied that
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 23 of 36she was told by Shefali that Sandeep is in the habit of consuming liquor
vol. but in her presence he never took liquor. It is correct that Shefali
was a very sensitive girl. She admitted that all the accused persons have
never harassed Shefali in her presence nor demanded any money or
dowry. She admitted that Shefali has never complaint to her about any
harassment. She admitted that sister of Shefali has not taken Accent Car
in her presence. She admitted that accused persons have never demanded
any skoda car at the time of chuchak vol. it was demanded by Raju. PW2
Smt. Anita Bhatia has been re-examined by the Ld. APP for the state
wherein she has stated that she has stated the same whatever she was told
by the police on 25.8.08. In view of the statement of PW2 mother of
deceased and complainant she has also made allegation in her
examination in chief but in cross examination her testimony has been
shattered by the Ld. defence counsel. Considering her cross examination
the allegations made by her in examination in chief cannot be believed.
34. In view of the above discussions I would like to mention
here some case laws for the just decision of this case. In case law Sunil
Bajaj Vs. State of MP, 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 262 it is stated in head note:-
'Section 304B- It is pleaded that last letter of deceased did
not mention any allegation of dowry demand – The letter
of deceased does not speak of any demand of dowry and
there is totally absence of demand of dowry and so
sec.498A of IPC is not at all attracted – Thus the
necessary ingredients of the offence of sec.304B of IPC is
absence and so the conviction and sentence of the
appellant cannot sustain and so the appellant is acquitted
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 24 of 36of the conviction us/ 304B IPC. It is further stated that :
Both the courts below concurrently committed the
appellant – But out of so many witnesses of the neighbour
none could say that there was a dowry death and the
deceased was soon before her death was subjected to
demand of dowry which was necessary ingredient of the
offence u/s 498A of IPC committed by the husband or by
any of the family members or near relatives'.
In case law Baljeet Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) JCC
627 it is stated in headnote that :
'Evidence Act. 1872 – Sec.113B- Presumption- Dowry
death – Against accused persons to be drawn provided
the prosecution establishes that soon before her death if
the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
within 7 years of marriage'.
'Dowry death – Onus of proof- Preliminary facts – Proof
of – Onus lies upon the prosecution – High Court
erroneously shifted the burden upon the accused – About
the date of marriage – Prosecution is required to prove
that death occurred within 7 days of marriage – PW4
father of the deceased was not creditworthy – So were
other related PW5 – Prosecution failed to discharge its
initial onus of proof – PW5/ the mother stated that the
deceased was depressed – This indicated that woman
committed suicide in a state of depression – Hence
conviction is set aside and appeal is allowed'.
In case Law Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) JCC 1840 it
is stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sec. 113B – Dowry
Death – No incidence of demand of dowry or cruelty or
harassment 'soon before death' – Letter relied on shows
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 25 of 36demand of articles by her parents by her own and not on
the behalf of appellant – Improvements in the statements
of prosecution witnesses – Prosecution squarely failed to
establish accusations against appellant – Appeal allowed
– Conviction set aside'.
In case law Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463 it is
stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B – Dowry death – soon before the death,
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband for or in connection with demand of dowry –
Once this is established, a legal fiction is created under
section 304B IPC whereby such death would be called
dowry death – On facts held, ingredients of Sec.304B
IPC r/ sec. 113 B Evidnce Act not satisfied'.
In case law Appasaheb & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(1)
Crimes 110(SC) it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.304B – Dowry death- appellant convict under –
Deceased died as a result of insecticide poisoning –
Evidence of mother and father of deceased that when
deceased visited her parents she used to narrate all
treatment and beating for bringing money from her
parents – Conviction by Trial court and upheld in appeal
by High Court – Appeal – Both witnesses deposed that
deceased was receiving ill treatment as a result of
“domestic cause” as regards domestic cause they
explained that there was a demand for money to meet
expenses for mature and other domestic expenses –
Evidence did not show that any demand for dowry was
made – Essential ingredient of dowry death i.e. demand
for dowry was not established – Conviction could not be
sustained.
One Important point has been stated that :
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 26 of 36'A demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry and
conviction for dowry death on such demand could not be
sustained'.
In case law Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,
2009 (3) JCC 1622  it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.498A- Demand of dowry – The facts that husband
of deceased owned a truck which need heavy repairs –
The amount given for the purpose does not amount to
demand of dowry'.
In case law Tarsen Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) JCC 372 it is
stated in head note that:-
'One of the essential ingredients amongst others, is that
the woman must have been 'soon before her death'
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with the demand for dowry – Nothing on record to show
that any demand of dowry was made soon before her
death- The cause of action appears to be an ego problem
on the part of the appellant, namely the deceased had not
been coming to her matrimonial home – Conviction u/s
304B not proved'.
'Cruelty or harassment – When the name of the
appellant/husband and his parents were material in the
FIR – It is clear that all of them had been ill treating
deceased for non bringing of sufficient dowry and not
bearing a child- Not correct to contend that FIR does not
contain any statement of cruelty or harassment of the
deceased especially when death occurred within 7 years
of marriage and dead body was found in matrimonial
home'.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 27 of 36It is stated in case Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(1) JCC (SC
341 that:-
'Sec.302, 304B and 498A – deceased wife died of burn
injuries – No independent and reliable witness –
prosecution case based on evidence of interest witnesses
and members of the family of deceased and also on the
basis of dying declaration made to the mother of
deceased. Deceased remained at the house and could not
be admitted to hospital – parents of deceased informed –
Oral dying declaration made at home and not in presence
of any doctor or any other independent witness – Courts
below acquitting other family members of the
appellant/husband – Dying declaration not tained on
basis of such dying declaration – No clearcut evidence of
dowry demand on record- no doctor's evidence – Benefit
of doubt extended to appellant'.
It is stated in case Sabar Bhatti & Ors. Vs. State, 2009(v) AD (Cr)
(DHC) 209 that :-
'Improvements of material nature in depositions of
parents of M – No Particulars of dates when dowry
demands made and amounts paid, given – Conviction of
Z, Mother in law, and S u/s 498A, set aside'.
In case law Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995(1) Crimes 611 it is
stated in head note:
'Sec.304B & 498A – Deceased, Wife of appellant, was
married to appellant two and half year prior to incident –
cause of death as per post mortem was asphyxia due to
organo phosphorus poisoning – Evidence of father of
deceased that deceased used to complain that her in laws
maltreated and harassed her and taunted for insufficient
dowry – Significant omission in FIR and statement
before police regarding demand of motor cycle by
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 28 of 36appellant – Evidence regarding cruelty and maltreatment,
quite vague, inconsistent and untrustworthy –
Independent two witnesses, neighbours not produced –
Co-accused acquitted by trial court on same evidence –
Conviction of appellant is unsustainable'.
In case Law Kalyan & Ors. Vs. State of UP, 2001(2) JCC (SC) 203 it
is stated in head note that :
'Appreciation of evidence -Incident stated in FIR, being
the first version of the occurrence has to be given due
weightage – The case of the prosecution, as sought to be
proved at the trial, appears to be different than the one as
narrated in the FIR – view taken by trial court in
acquitting the appellants herein is justified'.
'Prosecution setting out a new case in evidence, which is
in contradiction to the version stated in FIR – Witnesses
are partisan witnesses and also inimical towards one
accused – Conflict in oral evidence as against medical
evidence-Was High Court right in disturbing the order of
acquittal – Held (NO)'.
In case law Babita Vs. State, 2009(2) JCC 1247 it is stated in head note
that :
'Sec.304B and 498A- no specific demand have been
made except the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- which
according to the father of deceased was made at the time
of marriage – Cannot make out a case of harassment soon
before the death – No dying declaration of deceased was
recorded – Not a single instance of harassment by
petitioner who is sister in law of deceased soon before
her death – No basis to frame charge against petition'.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 29 of 3635. Ld. APP for the state has relied up case law titled Alamgir
Vs. State of Assam, 2003(3) SRJ 461 it is stated in head note that :
'IPC 1860 Sec 304B -Indian Evidence Act 1872 –
Sec.113B- Dowry Death- Injuries not self inflicted –
Deceased was with appellant in the bedroom –
Deceased wife was in bathroom for a long time and
appellant showed no anxiety – Some witnesses are
independent witnesses and some are the friends of both
family – Held – No reason to disbelieve the witnesses –
Death having taken place within 7 years of marriage –
Sufficient evidence of demand of dowry – Presumption
u/s 113B of Evidence Act get invoked'.  
Ld. APP for the State has also relied upon case law Pawan
Kumar & ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 1998(2) CC Cases 12 (SC).
36. In view of the testimonies of PW1,2,4 & 5,it is revealed that
PW4 Rajan Bhatia and PW5 Sahil Bhatia who are maternal uncle and
brother of deceased Shefali have not made any allegation against any of
the accused persons. PW5 has also been declared hostile by the
prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia, father of deceased and PW2 Anita Bhatia, mother
of deceased and complainant in this case, both have made main
allegations that accused persons have demanded Rs.5.00 lacs and Skoda
car and they also harassed & tortured Shefali by uttering different
words. But in cross examination both PW1 and PW2 have admitted that
they have not stated about these allegation to the Magistrate in their
statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A. All the above PWS have made
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 30 of 36inconsistent statements in this case. So, their versions cannot be
believed. It is held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Raj Kumar
Vs. State 1997(2) CC Cases HC 291 that:-
'Where the PW has been absolutely inconsistent and has
been changing his stand from time to time, he cannot
be regarded as reliable and trust-worthy witness of the
occurrence'
It is also held by Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. Delhi Admn.
1997 Criminal Law Journal 108(SC) CC Cases that :-
'When the prosecution witness gives two different
statements in their testimonies either at one or two suggest,
therefore the testimony become unreliable and unworthy of
credit and in the absence of any circumstances no
conviction could be made therein'.
37. Considering the above discussion, to prove the case u/s 304B
IPC three ingredients have to be proved (i) unnatural death (ii) within 7
years of marriage and (iii) soon before death she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband (iv) such cruelty
must be in connection with demand of dowry (v) such cruelty is shown
to have been meted to the woman soon before her death. In this case the
death of Shefali was unnatural death and it was within 7 years of
marriage. Now it is necessary to find out as to whether the deceased was
being harassed soon before her death by subjecting her to cruelty and
demand of dowry. In this case only PW1&2 Kuldeep Bhatia and Anita
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 31 of 36Bhatia who are father and mother of deceased have stated that deceased
Shefali made call to them on 9.2.07 i.e. the alleged day of incident and
she was weeping bitterly and stated that family members of Sandeep had
not given anything to eat and thereafter the phone was disconnected. It
has not been stated by them as to what the accused persons were saying
at that time. Allegedly the call for hanging of Shefali was made at 9.15
p.m by Sandeep on 9.2.07. But in cross examination PW2 mother of the
deceased has stated that she has not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A
that at about 1 p.m she received call from deceased Shefali and at that
time she was weeping bitterly and told her that family members of
Sandeep had not given her food to eat and thereafter the phone was
disconnected. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia who is the father of deceased has
also stated the version of PW2 in this respect. Further both the witnesses
in cross examination have stated that accused persons had never
demanded any money or dowry directly from them. It has been stated
that sometime Sandeep used to taunt Shefali. But they have not stated as
to how the accused persons have caused taunt to Shefali. Even PW2 who
is complainant in this case has admitted that Shefali has never complaint
to her about any harassment meted to her by the accused persons. So, in
my view there is no evidence available on file in this case that deceased
Shefali was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of
dowry soon before her death. Hence, ingredients of Sec.304B IPC are
not complete in this case.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 32 of 3638. In this case at the first blush I found that there was force in
the testimonies of PW1 & 2 (father and mother of deceased) but on
perusal of their cross examinations, I am astonished to see their changed
version. Both these witnesses have deposed entirely different in their
cross examination than from their examination in chief. So, I am of the
view that their contentions deposed in examination in chief are not
reliable.
39. I have also perused the testimony of other witnesses. PW3
Dr. Akhilesh has been examined by the prosecution to prove the post
mortem report which is Ex.PW3/A. This report has been prepared by Dr.
Raghvender Kumar and Dr. MG Jai. The cause of death has been opined
as asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging by ligature. The doctor who
prepared the Post Mortem Report has not been produced by the
prosecution. PW3 has only identified the hand writing of doctors who
prepared the post mortem report. PW8 HC Surjeet is the formal witness
who recorded the information in form Ex.PW8/A regarding hanging of a
lady. PW9 HC Giriraj is the photographer who clicked photographs
Ex.PW9/A6 to A10 at the spot and PW11 SI Naveen from Crime team
has inspected the spot and gave report which is Ex.PW11/A. PW10 HC
Rajeev has recorded the FIR of this case copy of which is ex.PW10/A
and PW12 Ct. Tejpal delivered the copies of FIR to Sr. Police officials.
PW15 SI Mahesh has prepared the scaled site plan which is
Ex.PW15/A and he is also a formal witness. PW14 Sh RK Saini, SDM
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 33 of 36visited the spot and recorded the statements of parents of deceased and
conducted inquest proceedings. In cross examination he has stated that
he does not recollect which police official recorded the statement of
Anita Bhatia and Kuldeep Bhatia vol. same was recorded by the police
officer on his direction. Both the statements are in different hand
writings. From this version of PW14 it seems that he has not recorded
the statement of Anil Bhatia (complainant) and Kuldeep Bhatia, parents
of deceased at the spot with his own handwriting and it was recorded by
some police officer there. He could not tell the name of the police
officers who recorded the statements of both Anita Bhatia and Kuldeep
Bhatia. As per version of PW14 the statements Ex.PW1/A and
Ex.PW2/A were recorded on his direction. It seems that he was not
aware as to what was recorded in the statements because he has not
stated that he was recorded under his dictation. So, it create doubt in the
case of the prosecution. PW16 Insp. Jogender Kumar is the second IO
and he arrested accused Raju (since discharged) and Nitu (set free). He
seized the list of articles, photographs and marriage card and also seized
the car. PW6 Ct. Azad, PW7 Ct. Gopal Prasad and PW13 SI Tika Ram
reached at the spot together and found a lady Shefali hanging from the
ceiling fan. PW7 has been sent to mortuary with the dead body and
PW13 got recorded the case through PW6 Ct. Azad. But PW6 Ct. Azad,
in cross examination has stated that he did not take rukka to PS. PW13
has seized the articles lying at the spot and arrested the accused persons.
Both PW6 and PW13 have deposed about the investigation carried out
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 34 of 36by PW13 at the spot. It is well settled principle of law that result of
investigation can never be a legal evidence. 
40. In view of the above overall analysis of the testimonies of the
witnesses and in brief the allegations levelled by complainant Anita
Bhatia (PW2) and PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia cannot be believed considering
the deposition made by them in cross examination because both the
witnesses have stated that the accused persons have not made any
demand of dowry from them. They have not levelled any allegation for
demand of any household items. PW2 has also stated that she did not
state to the Magistrate that Shefali called her up on 9.2.07 at 1 p.m and
at that time she was weeping bitterly and told her that family members of
Sandeep had not given her food to eat and thereafter the phone was
disconnected. She has not stated as to what they were uttering to her at
that time. There is no evidence for demand of dowry or harassment
considering the cross examination of both the witness during the period
6.3.06 to 9.2.07. So, in this case soon before death is also absent and
there is no allegation for soon before death of harassing for demand of
dowry of deceased Shefali. Even there is no evidence on file about
beatings given by the accused persons to deceased Shefali. So, I am of
the opinion that Shefali was not maltreated soon before death or even at
any time after marriage by the accused persons. 
41. In view of my above discussions and considering the case
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 35 of 36laws discussed above, this case does not fall under the category of
section 304B IPC and no presumption can be taken against the accused
persons u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused  u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
42. In over all analysis of the testimonies of the witnesses this
case does not fall under the category of 304B IPC and I also did not find
any evidence against the accused persons u/s 498A IPC keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case and cross examination of
PW1&2. So, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case against the accused persons. In such circumstances, the
accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. I therefore
give the benefit of doubt to accused Sandeep Chopra, Chaman Lal,
Vipin Chopra,Sanjay Chopra, Sonika Chopra and Ekta Chopra and I
therefore, hereby acquit all these accused persons from the charges
levelled against them u/s 304B/498A/406/34 IPC. All the accused
persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 31.08.2010.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN)
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
      (Fast Track Court-New Delhi and South East District)
       NEW DELHI
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 36 of 36State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 37 of 36

 

SOURCE - http://judis.nic.in/dist_judis/pdf_retrieval_main.asp

 

------------------------------

Suggested reading

Delhi HC on mentality of wife’s parent in 304B 498a to rope in all members of husband’s  family and MISUSE of 304B @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/del-hc-misuse-of-304-b-dowry-death.html