Excerpt:It is needless to say that mere allegations of demand of dowry are not suffice itself. These allegations have to be much more than mere averments itself. If prosecution is considered to have shifted the onus of this fact and discharge the burden of proving the facts that dowry was demanded then specific instance beyond one or two casual instances for asking for dowry, should be put forward in the form of evidence. Such averments, however, by any of the prosecution witness is lacking in the present case. In other words, the testimonies of PWs do not inspire their confidence.
Delhi District Court
Sc No.:­28303/2016 State vs . & Bhaskar & Ors. Page No.1/44 on 13 August, 2018
        IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR, ASJ-04 (CENTRAL)
                                                     TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Sessions Case No.:-28303/2016
Unique ID no.:-02401R145252-2008
CNR NO.-DLCT01-000576-2008

State
Vs.
1.

Bhaskar S/o Ram Chandra

2. Praveen @ Pappu S/o Ram Chandra

3. Bhupinder S/o Ram Chandra All R/o H.No.-16/835-E, Padam Singh Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

Case arising out of:-

FIR no.                                                                                             :    126/2008
Police Station                                                                                      :    Prasad Nagar
Under Section                                                                                       :    498-A/304B/201/34 IPC
Date of Institution                                                                                 :    24.01.2009
Date on which arguments heard                                                                       :    13.08.2018
Date of Decision                                                                                    :    13.08.2018

J U D G M E N T:-

1. Story of the prosecution in brief is as under:

That on 11.07.2008 one Parvati went to PS Prasad Nagar and stated that she is living along with her son Naresh and had four daughters, and one of them, Madhu has already expired. Another SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.1/44  daughter is Bhawna @ Pinky, the youngest who was married with Bhaskar R/o Padam Singh Road, Bapa Nagar on 08.02.2006. She stated that Bhaskar along with his elder brother Praveen @ Pappu, mother Krishna Devi along with other, used to beat her and subject her to cruelty and also used to demand dowry. She further stated that on 07.07.2008, when she went along with her daughter Bhawna to her in-laws to leave her there, her husband Bhaskar quarreled with her and her daughter Bhawna, and said that “mai teri aankh phor donga”. It is further alleged that her daughter was admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital on 10.07.2008 and she seems to have been given some substance due to which her daughter died on 11.07.2008 at about 3:30 AM (night). As per the complaint of Smt. Parvati Devi, FIR was registered in the present case under Section 498-A IPC.

2. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed against four accused persons under Section 498-A/304- B/201/34 IPC. One of the accused Smt. Krishna Devi expired during investigation and proceeding against her has been abated. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, charge under Section 498- A/304-B/34 on 19.02.2010 was framed against accused Bhaskar, Praveen and Bhupinder, and Additional Charge was framed under Section 201/34 IPC on 11.11.2010 against accused persons namely Bhaskar and Praveen. SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.2/44

3. In order to establish the liability of accused persons, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses. Statement of accused Bhaskar U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 11.05.2012 and statements of accused Praveen and Bhupinder U/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded on 24.05.2012. Additional statement of all the accused persons was recorded on 18.11.2015. Accused persons stated that they want to lead the evidence in their defence and 7 witnesses were examined in their defence.

4. Before proceeding further, as per mandate laid down under Section 354 (1) (b)Cr.PC following are the points of determination which are necessary to consider in order to arrive at a conclusion:

(i) Whether all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, jointly subjected deceased Bhawna to cruelty by demanding dowry and committed an offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC?

(ii) Whether all the accused persons jointly and in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Smt. Bhawna within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty for fulfillment of their demand of dowry and thereby committed an offence under Section 304B/34 IPC?

(iii) Whether accused Bhaskar and accused Praveen jointly and in furtherance of their common SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.3/44  intention flushed out the floor where deceased Bhawna had vomited before she died and by doing so, they destroyed the evidence and thereby committed an offence under Section 201/34 IPC?

5. My findings according to above mentioned points of determination is given in following paras as under:

(i) Whether all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, jointly subjected deceased Bhawna to cruelty by demanding dowry and committed an offence under Section 498-A/34IPC?

With regard to the first point of determination, it is utmost required for the prosecution to establish the fact that there was a demand of dowry and in furtherance thereof, deceased Bhawna was subjected to cruelty. In this regard, before proceeding further, it is important to mention the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC which are necessary to determine the liability of accused persons as alleged in the charge-sheet against them. These are;

(i) It is the husband or relative of the husband of a woman.

(ii) Such woman is subject to cruelty. Cruelty here implies;

(a) Any willful conduct which 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.

(b) Harassment with a view to coerce her or any                                                              person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.

6. This Section 498-A IPC has been incorporated as a response to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and was incorporated in the Act 1983. Cruelty as defined in this Section, consist of two Clauses as mentioned above in point (ii) (a) and (ii) (b). Section 498-A IPC postulates the willful conduct on the part of the accused person. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence. Complainant, in order to substantiate his or her averment has to prove that there was an unlawful demand from husband or any of her relative. It has been held in “Ramesh Chand Vs. State of UP” 1992 CrLJ 1444 (All.), that assuming that the husband asked the wife to bring some jewellery, this by itself could not be unlawful demand as no law would punish a mere demand without settlement of dowry at the time of marriage.

7. It is needless to say that such demand can be made even after the marriage. It may in some cases be that if the husband makes a demand through his wife it may also be conceded by the father-in-law and if that is done, the demand would not become unlawful and, therefore, subsequent refusal by the father-in-law is not a determinative factor whether the demand was unlawfully made unless the said demand can come within the definition of dowry.

8. In the light of above mentioned discussion, the evidence led by the prosecution is perused. First of all, it is not the case of prosecution or alleged by any of the PWs that any other relatives of accused persons, beside them, have demanded dowry or subjected deceased Bhawna to cruelty. Thus, it is to be seen that it was done by accused persons or not. The first witness examined by the prosecution in this regard is PW-1 ASI Tersem Kumar who was working as Duty Officer on 11.07.2008 who recorded FIR no.126/2008 PS Prasad Nagar Ex.PW1/A. Another witness examined by the prosecution with regard to registration of FIR is PW-9 HC Pharlad Prasad who stated that on 11.07.2008, he was working as Duty Officer and at about 5:15 am he received a message through telephone which was reduced into writing and handed over the same to ASI Khem Chand. The DD Entry so registered by PW-9 is Ex.PW9/A. PW-11 W/ASI Suman is another witness examined by the prosecution who received initial information with regard to the present case and recorded DD no.17A dated 10.07.2018 which is Ex.PW11/A.

9. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-2 Parvati Devi who is stated to be the mother of deceased Bhawna. It is stated that Bhawna was married on 08.02.2006 with accused Bhaskar and huge amount was spent on marriage. It is alleged that all the house hold articles and jewellery were given to her in laws but they were not  satisfied. PW-2 further stated that after marriage, in-laws of deceased Bhawna i.e. her husband, dewar Praveen, jeth Bhupinder and mother-in- law (since expired) used to torture, harass and pressurized her to bring money from her parents and they were demanding dowry. PW-2 further stated that she had given Rs.20,000/- on one occasion and Rs.25,000/- on another occasion to the in-laws of deceased Bhawna. Pw-2 has further stated that three days prior to her death, when PW-2 had gone to drop Bhawna to her in-laws’ house accused Bhaskar quarreled with her and deceased Bhawna, and threatened by saying “mai teri aankh phor donga”.

10. From the entire examination-in-chief of PW-2, there are no averments besides the above mentioned facts with regard to demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased Bhawna to cruelty in that regard. During her cross-examination dated 25.08.2011 at page no.2, PW-2 herself has stated that accused Bhaskar loved his wife very much and they were living happy married life. PW2 has further stated that since the day of marriage of her daughter Bhawna with accused Bhaskar till her death, she never made any complaint regarding demand of dowry, money, articles, assault or harassment.

11. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-3 Naresh Kumar who is the elder brother of deceased Bhawna. PW-3 has stated that marriage of his sister was solemnized on 08.02.2006 with accused Bhaskar. Huge amount was spent on the marriage and household articles given to her in-laws. It is stated by PW-3 that after 6/7 months of her marriage, Bhawna’s husband used to torture her and she was not allowed to visit her parental house. Accused Bhaskar used to talk in a rude manner. Accused Bhaskar would not allow her to call her parents. All the accused person used to torture her for less dowry. It is further stated by PW-3 that his sister deceased Bhawna told him that her husband Bhaskar, dewar Praveen, jeth Bhupender and mother-in-law Krishna Devi (since expired), used to torture and harass her. They also used to pressurize her to bring more money and dowry from her parents. It is stated that on one occasion Rs.20,000/- was given and on another occasion Rs.25,000/- was given to her in-laws as pressurized by them alleging that they need this money for purchasing goods / material for their shop / business.

12. During his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that at the time of marriage of his sister deceased Bhawna, he was residing in a tenanted house. PW-3 further admitted that his sister was suffering from gynecological problem and was being treated at Lady Harding Hospital, AIIMS, Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, Dr. Mrs. Kochhar Clinic etc. PW-3 also                                                                                                    Page no.8/44  admitted that deceased Bhawna suffered two miscarriages and had also delivered pre-mature child. PW-3 also admitted that accused Bhaskar used to provide deceased Bhawna treatment so that she could deliver healthy child and do not suffer pain. PW-3 further stated that whenever deceased Bhawna used to suffer any medical problem, accused Bhaskar used to take her to the doctor. It has also been admitted by PW-3 that his sister deceased Bhawna and accused Bhaskar used to love each other a lot. During cross-examination, it is further stated by PW-3 that deceased Bhawna never made any complaint to the police, court or any other authority regarding harassment or dowry demand or beating. PW-3 also stated that last rites of deceased Bhawna were done by her husband accused Bhaskar and his family.

13. It is important to mention here that testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 who are mother and brother of deceased Bhawna, are very crucial for determining the liability of accused persons. However, it does not seem to have inspire their confidence. They have not alleged that at the time of marriage, there was a demand of dowry. They have also not claimed any such articles nor there is any allegation of Section 406 IPC against accused persons. Only two instances of making payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- are made.

14. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-13 Smt. Indra who is stated to be the neighbour of accused persons and deceased Bhawna. It is stated by PW-13 that on the day of incident, when she saw certain people gathering outside the house of accused persons and she inquired from Bhawna (since deceased) what has happened, Bhawna (since deceased) herself stated that some insect had bitten her. PW-3 further stated that at that time, deceased Bhawna was present at the ground floor. This witness was found to be resiling from her statement, therefore, Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross-examined her. During her cross-examination PW-13 stated that deceased Bhawna did not vomit in her presence. Certain Court questions were also put to the witness and in response to that PW-13 stated that on the day of incident deceased Bhawna was lying on bed on ground floor and she was neither smeared with vomiting nor was emitting any foul smell.

15. During her cross-examination from the side of accused persons, PW-13 stated that when she had talked with deceased Bhawna, she was conscious. PW-13 further stated that deceased Bhawna used to talk with her frequently and used to say that she was living in good condition in her matrimonial house. PW-13 further stated that deceased Bhawna was residing separately on the third floor with her husband. It is further stated by PW-13 that she had not heard that any demand for SC no.:­28303/2016                                                                                                    Page no.10/44  dowry was made or deceased Bhawna was harassed or beaten up for dowry. PW-13 has categorically stated that deceased Bhawna was living happily with his husband Bhaskar.

16. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-15 Daulat Ram who has stated in his cross-examination that no demand of dowry was made in his presence. It is important to mention here that PW-15 is Brother-in-law (Jija Ji) of deceased Bhawna.

17. Apart from prosecution witnesses, accused persons also led evidence in their defence. DW-1 Shankar Prasad is Medical Record Technician who brought record pertaining to the medical history of deceased Bhawna and stated that as per record she was under treatment at Gynae Department of AIIMS.

18. The next witness examined by the accused persons is DW-2 Dr. Mumta Pandey from Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hsopital. This witness, however, did not certify anything as she was unable to identify the writing of the concerned doctor. Therefore, the documents Mark B cannot be said to be proved as per law.

19. Another witness examined by the accused persons is DW-3 Smt. Malti Devi from Gynae Department, Lady Harding Medical College SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.11/44  who brought summoned record pertaining to deceased Bhawna which is Ex.DW3/B, vide this document DW-3 has stated that deceased Bhawna was treated at Lady Harding Medical College for gynae problem.

20. The next witness examined by the accused persons is DW-4 K.D. Sharma, Record Clerk from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh who also brought record pertaining to deceased Bhawna, her treatment related to gynae problem at their hospital. The relevant documents are Ex.DW4/A, Ex.DW4/B and Ex.DW4/C.

All the abovesaid DWs were cross-examined on behalf of the State, however, no material contradiction has emerged from their cross- examination as they have corroborated what they had stated in their examination-in-chief.

21. Another witness examined by the accused persons is DW-6 Vijay Kumari who is stated to be known of accused Bhaskar and his family. DW-6 stated that she also knew deceased Bhawna. She further stated that deceased Bhawna and accused Bhaskar were living happily and lovingly. They were living separately from other family members on the third floor having separate kitchen. It is further stated by DW-6 that deceased Bhawna used to share her feelings with her and she never complaint of any harassment, beatings or maltreatment given by her SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.12/44  husband and her in-laws on account of dowry. She further stated that deceased Bhawna was suffering from lower abdomen pain and some gynae problem. DW-6 further stated that deceased Bhawna also delivered immatured infants twice at AIIMS and thereafter, she was under depression and frustration.

22. DW-6 further stated that deceased Bhawna was under treatment for above mentioned problem and accused Bhaskar used to take her to the hospital regularly. Deceased Bhawna was keen desirous to have a child due to which she was under depression. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as she has corroborated what she had stated in her examination-in-chief.

23. Another witness examined by the accused persons is DW-7 Asha who is the wife of accused Praveen. It is stated by DW-7 that she is residing at the same address on the ground floor where accused Bhaskar was living with deceased Bhawna on the third floor. DW-7 has stated that deceased Bhawna was suffering from lower abdomen pain and gynae problem. Accused Bhaskar used to love her and never harass her or demanded any dowry. DW-7 further stated that due to her gynae problem, deceased Bhawna went under depression and was undergoing treatment for the same.

SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.13/44

24. DW-7 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, no material contradiction has emerged from her cross- examination as she has corroborated what she had stated in her examination-in-chief.

25. In this case, accused Bhaskar examined himself as defence witness and he was examined under Section 315 CrPC as DW-5. It is stated by DW-5 that deceased Bhawna was living happily with him. DW-5 further stated that deceased Bhawna was suffering from lower abdomen pain and gynae problem. She was being treated from AIIMS, Maharaj Agrasen Hospital, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Dr. Mrs. Kochar and Lady Harding Hospital. DW-5 further stated that deceased Bhawna had delivered pre-mature infants at AIIMS and thereafter, she was under depression and tension. It is further stated by DW-5 that deceased Bhawna was given proper medical treatment for her problem till her death.

26. From the abovesaid discussion, it is reflected that, on one hand, the prosecution is alleging through their witnesses that deceased Bhawna was treated badly and there was a demand of dowry by the accused persons and on the other hand, all the DWs including DW-5 allegedly stated that there was no demand of dowry and deceased                                                             Bhawna was treated properly. Deceased Bhawna was also given proper medical treatment and was not subjected to cruelty. From the abovesaid testimonies of PWs one thing is being reflected that though there was a demand, however, except citing two instances of demand of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- there is no other instance of giving any cash or any article by the parents or brother of deceased Bhawna to any of the accused persons. It is needless to say that mere allegations of demand of dowry are not suffice itself. These allegations have to be much more than mere averments itself. If prosecution is considered to have shifted the onus of this fact and discharge the burden of proving the facts that dowry was demanded then specific instance beyond one or two casual instances for asking for dowry, should be put forward in the form of evidence. Such averments, however, by any of the prosecution witness is lacking in the present case. In other words, the testimonies of PWs do not inspire their confidence.

27. On the other hand, PW-2 and PW-3 are alleging that there was a demand of dowry, however, they are not citing any specific incident except payment of money on two occasions. Coming to the averments with regard to payment of money, as mentioned above, PW-2 and PW-3 themselves have stated that this money was given to the accused persons for their necessity as they had to do some business out of the       said money. Proceeding further, all the PWs as well as DWs have been alleging that deceased Bhawna used to love her husband and her husband was providing medical treatment to her. None of the PWs have disputed this fact that deceased Bhawna was being treated at various hospitals by her husband. It is not the case of PW-2, PW-3 or the prosecution that all the medical expenses of deceased Bhawna or her day to day household expenses occasionally, frequently or regularly were borne by them. It is also not the case of prosecution that at the time of marriage, there was any demand of dowry and dowry in the form of cash and jewellery etc. was given. There is no allegation of Section 406 IPC against the accused persons. Therefore, the testimonies of complainant and other PWs cannot be said to qualify any of the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses that there was a demand of dowry or accused Bhaskar or his family members used to torture, harass or beat deceased Bhawna is not supported with any evidence.

28. More so, the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 are nothing but oral evidence which have been controverted by other prosecution witnesses themselves, like PW-13 who said that accused Bhaskar and deceased Bhawna used to love each other. PW-16 and PW-17 have also stated SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.16/44  similar facts. Thus, none of the essential ingredients of Section 498-A Cr.PC can be said to be established. In terms of these observations, the first point of determination is disposed off accordingly.

(ii) Whether all the accused persons jointly and in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Smt. Bhawna within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty for fulfillment of their demand of dowry and thereby committed an offence under Section 304B/34 IPC?

29. The charge so framed against the accused person is u/s 304B/ 34 IPC. It is important to mention here Section 304B IPC which reads as under:

304B. Dowry Death. — (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with,any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation— For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.17/44  than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

30. From the reading of bare provision, following are the essential ingredients for establishing the offence punishable u/s 304B IPC:

a. There is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused.

b. that the deceased died.

c. that the death is under unnatural circumstances. d. death has taken place within 7 years of marriage. e. it should also be shown that soon before her death that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or a relative of husband.

f. such harassment or cruelty should pertain to demand for dowry.

31. At the outset, it is mentioned that Section 304B IPC is a special provision which is inserted by the amendment in 1986 to deal with dowry death. It applies to all cases when death occurs otherwise then under normal circumstances, if other conditions are satisfied, when she committed suicide, still the death comes within the scope of Section 304B IPC.

32. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here that section 304B IPC has proximate nexus with section 113A and 113B Indian Evidence Act which lays down the presumption in such cases where SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.18/44  death of a married woman is otherwise then under normal circumstances which takes place within 7 years of her marriage. Section 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are relevant to mention here as under:-

113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.

When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative or 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 had 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.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1960).

113B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has 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.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.19/44  section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1960).

33. It has been held in “GV Sidaramesh Vs State of Karnataka” (2010) 3 SCC 152, that there must be material to show that soon before the death of woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, then only a presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman.

34. It has been further held in “Kailash Vs State of MP” AIR 2007 SC 107, that the word ‘soon before’ in section 113B cannot be limited by fixing time limit. It is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthering the discussion, it is important to mention here one relevant judgment of “C.Veerudu Vs State of AP” 1989 CRLJ(NOC) 52 (AP) in which it has been held that “so far as presumption under section 113A evidence Act is concerned, unless the offence u/s 498A IPC is established, no presumption can be invoked.

35. Thus, the outcome of the abovesaid discussion is that the death must be within seven years of marriage and it should be resultant of cruelty soon before her death and such cruelty should be related the dowry. The outcome of first point of determination is that prosecution has not been able to establish that there was a demand of dowry and an SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.20/44  offence as mentioned under Section 498-A IPC has been committed. In such circumstances, the judgment “C Veerudu” (supra) applies with full force and vigor. Before arriving at any conclusion, it is important to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution at length.

36. Coming to the present case, the evidence led by the prosecution is examined in brief in the following paras: PW-2 Smt. Parvati is the star witness of the prosecution who is stated to be the mother of deceased Bhawna. With regard to the cruelty soon before death or any other cruelty, it is reflected that PW-2 has not thrown much light in this regard in her entire examination-in-chief. There are only two instances regarding demand of dowry and cruelty alleged by PW-2 in her examination-in-chief. She has stated that she gave Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- to the accused persons and when she had gone along with her daughter to her in-laws house to drop her there, accused Bhaskar quarreled with deceased Bhawna and PW-2 and threatened by saying that “mai teri aankh phor donga”. Besides these facts, no much light has been thrown by PW-2 with regard to the cruelty or harassment of deceased Bhawna soon before her death or at any point of time. If, examination-in-chief of PW-2 is considered as it is, it does not throw much light, in my considered opinion, upon any of the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC. In other words, if we confine ourself to SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.21/44  the examination-in-chief of PW-2 to this extent is not sufficient to bring the case of prosecution within the realm of Section 304B IPC.

37. During her cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that the last rites of deceased Bhawna were performed by her in-laws. She also stated that no complaint was ever lodged with the police at any point of time before the death of deceased Bhawna. PW-2 has also admitted that deceased Bhawna was suffering from gynae problem and was treated in that regard by her husband accused Bhaskar. PW-2 during her cross- examination conducted on 25.08.2011 at page no.2 categorically stated that accused Bhaskar, husband of Bhawna loved his wife very much and they were living happy married life.

38. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-3 Naresh Kumar, who is stated to be the brother of deceased Bhawna. This witness again is a material witness and his testimony is most important to testify the story of prosecution. He has stated that after the marriage of his sister deceased Bhawna, she was tortured by her husband for dowry. PW- 3, however, has not mentioned any specific instance nor has disclosed as to how this fact came to his knowledge either he was witness to any such incident or someone else had told him. PW-3 has clarified in this regard that his sister deceased Bhawna used to tell him that her husband, SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.22/44  dewar Praveen, jeth Bhupender and mother-in-law (since expired) used to torture and harass her.

39. Again, in this regard, it is reflected that no details have been furnished by PW-3 as to when any such incident happened. With regard to payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/-, it is stated by PW-3 that it was given to deceased Bhawna for the reason that it was needed for purchasing of goods / material for their business / shop. At page no.2 of cross-examination dated 26.05.2011, it is stated by PW-3 that he suspects that his sister deceased Bhawna has been killed by accused Bhaskar, accused Praveen, accused Bhupender and accused Krishna Devi (since expired).

40. It is important to mentioned here that in this regard PW-3 has stated that he suspect that Bhawna was killed by accused persons. No specific detail or basis for such belief has been explained by PW-3 as to how he came to believe that it was accused persons who had killed his sister deceased Bhawna.

41. With regard to allegations qua ‘cruelty soon before death’, PW- 3 has stated that deceased Bhawna was suffering from gynae problem, however, accused Bhaskar used to provide treatment to her. It is further stated by PW-3 that accused Bhaskar and deceased Bhawna used to love SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.23/44  each other. PW-3 also admitted that no complaint was ever lodged to the police, court or any other authority qua dowry demand, harassment or beating.

42. The next important public witness examined by the prosecution is PW-13 Smt. Indra who, however, did not support the story of prosecution and stated that deceased Bhawna told her that some insect had bitten her. PW-13 further stated that deceased Bhawna did not vomit in her presence and when she saw deceased Bhawna on the day of incident, she was not smeared with vomiting nor there was any foul smell coming from her clothes.

43. PW-15 Daulat Ram, the brother-in-law of deceased Bhawna is the person who reached at the spot in question on 10.07.2008 and saw that Bhawna was lying unconscious and upon inquiry, in-laws’ of deceased Bhawna told that some insect bite on her arms. PW-15 also reached at Ganga Ram hospital on same day. Deceased Bhawna was in emergency ward of Ganga Ram hospital when PW-15 made a call to the mother of deceased Bhawna about the incident. It is stated by PW-15 that he came to know about the death of Bhawna on the next day.

44. PW-15 in his cross-examination has stated that his wife Smt. Meena, sister of deceased Bhawna was not mentally fit. PW-15 SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.24/44  corroborated the fact that Bhawna (since deceased) delivered two dead infants at AIIMS. PW-15 categorically stated that no demand of dowry was made in his presence.

45. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-16 Smt. Bimla who is stated to be Sister-in-law (Devrani) of deceased Bhawna, is again a material witness who is stated to be residing in the same house at ground floor. It is stated by PW-16 that her mother-in-law Krishna Devi was admitted in Sufdarjung hospital on 7th in the month of Sawan. Next day she went to see her mother-in-law and thereafter on 10 th of month of Sawan at around 1:00 pm, she saw her sister-in-law Asha had gone to roof for drying the clothes. PW-16 also saw that Bhawna was lying on bed. Asha called her and said that Bhawna was not well. PW-16 went there and asked Bhawna what has happened. PW-16 has stated that Bhawna told her that one insect bite her on the right arm in the bathroom while she was taking the bath. Thereafter, Bhaskar, Praveen and Raj Kumar were called. One doctor was also called who said that Bhawna got food poisoning and advised her to shift to Ganga Ram hospital.

46. During her cross-examination, PW-16 has stated that when she reached in the room of Bhawna, she was conscious. PW-16 further stated SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.25/44  that Bhawna and Bhaskar used to live happily and there was no complaint from her side against the accused persons. PW-16 stated that Bhawna was disturbed as she had delivered two dead child. She was also being treated at AIIMS.

47. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-17 Meena who is stated to be the sister of deceased Bhawna. It is stated by PW-17 that on the day of incident, one boy came to her house and informed that her sister Bhawna had fallen ill. When she reached the house of Bhawna, PW-17 saw that Bhawna was lying on bed and her hair were wet and tied. PW-17 further stated that foul smell was coming from the room and her clothes. One cloth in the size of bandage was tied on her arm. Her husband came after five minutes. When PW-17 inquired about the bandage on the arm of Bhawna, one of the sister-in-law of deceased Bhawna told that mosquitoes has beaten her.

48. During her cross examination PW17 has stated that deceased Bhawna had stated through her gestures that she was given something by syringe. PW17, however, admitted that she is being treated for mental illness at RML hospital. PW17 has further stated that she has deposed against the accused persons at the instance of her mother and brother and also being sister of deceased Bhawna. By saying so, in my SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.26/44  considered opinion, PW17 has put her entire statement under doubt. She herself has suggested that she is deposing at the instance of her mother, brother and being sister of deceased Bhawna. Thus, she seems to be an interested witness. Above all, she herself has admitted that she is getting treatment for mental illness from RML hospital for the last more than 5 years.

49. Now coming to the medical evidence, prosecution examined PW10 Dr. Sanjay Solanki with regard to MLC of deceased Bhawna. It is important to mention her that the concerned Dr. Vikas Sharma who had prepared the MLC of deceased Bhawna on the day of incident when she was taken to Ganga Ram hospital, however, he had left the services and PW10 doctor Sanjay Solanki who identified his handwriting and signature, therefore, he has been examined accordingly. MLC of deceased Bhawna Ex.PW10/A is perused which reflects that alleged history of insect bite. Nothing more is mentioned in his MLC Ex.PW10/A which further states that patient was not fit for statement and referred to further department. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross examination of this witness.

50. Another most important witness examined with regard to medical evidence is PW5 Y.P. Malhotra, the executive magistrate who SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.27/44  conducted inquest of deceased Bhawna. It is stated by PW5 that on 11/07/2008 he received directions from SDM M.T. Kom and went to Ganga Ram Hospital. He recorded the statement of Bhaskar, Parveen, Smt. Parwati (mother of deceased) and Naresh (brother of deceased). The inquest report prepared by PW5 is Ex.PW5/C. From the cross examination of PW5, it is reflected that he has corroborated what he has stated in his examination in chief and no material contradiction has emerged.

51. Next witness examined by prosecution is PW12 Dr. Amit Sharma who had conducted the postmortem of dead body of deceased Bhawna. It is stated by him that patient was brought by alleged history of being bitten by an insect on 10/07/2008 at about 11 am at her home. She expired on 11/07/2008 at 3:40 am. PW12 while examination pointed out that one contusion of size of 1.5 cm x 1 cm present over outer front of right forearm 0.5 cm below right elbow. It is further stated that venepuncture wound was present in the middle of contusion. PW12 further observed that subcutaneous tissue and muscle underneath this injury was showing extra vassation of blood. PW12 opined that the cause of death was poisoning due to aluminum phosphide. Postmortem report is Ex.PW12/A.

52. During cross examination, PW12 has stated that most common SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.28/44  mode of in take of aluminum phosphide is through oral routes in the form of tablet which are readily and easily available in open market. PW12 categorically stated that it will not act if given via injection. PW12 further stated that it is extremely difficult and virtually impossible to give an adult and healthy individual this tablet forcibly. PW12 ruled out the possibility of an struggle of injury mark upon the deceased alleging that there was no evidence of any such sign. Death summery filed alongwith the report Ex.PW12/D is perused, which reflects a different story stating that before her death, deceased Bhawna was given intravenous fluid, antibiotics and as she needed increasing ionotropic support. It was provided, however, her condition deteriorated and she developed cardio- respiratory arrest and could not be saved. She was declared dead on 11/07/2008 at 3:40 am.

53. PW20 Jitender Kumar is the next witness from FSL Rohini who examined the blood sample etc pertaining to deceased Bhawna and in his report Ex.PW7/C, he opined that Ex.1A, Ex.1B, Ex.2B and Ex.2C were found containing phosphide and Ex.2A was found containing aluminum phosphide. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross examination of this witness.

54. Apart from all these, remaining witnesses are police official SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.29/44  including IO. PW4 Ct. Ravinder Singh is instrumental in arrest of accused Parveen and accused Bhaskar. PW6 ASI Khem Chand had arrested accused Bhupender. PW18 Inspector Harish Kumar and PW19 Inspector Joginder Singh are the witness who were part of the investigation. PW-7 Retd. SI Mange Ram is the last IO who prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court. PW-8 Inspector Ram Niwas remained IO for some time. Accused Bhaskar and Praveen were arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. All these police officials have conducted the investigation or the part thereof and have recorded the statement of public witnesses. It is important to mention here that neither the incident nor any part thereof had happed in the presence of any of the police officials which is a matter of record. IOs of the case including other police officials have stated whatever has been alleged by the other witnesses and as mentioned in the charge-sheet which is not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

55. Accused persons have also led their evidence in defence and examined 7 witnesses. DW-1 Shankar Prasad is Medical Record Technician from AIIMS who brought record pertaining to deceased Bhawna according to which she is having gyane problem. DW-2 Dr. Mumta Pandey from Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel hospital has been examined with regard to treatment of patient Bhawna (since deceased) SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.30/44  who further said that she was treated for lower abdomen.

56. DW-3 is Malti Devi from Gynae Department Lady Harding Medical College who brought record pertaining to patient Bhawna (since deceased) alleging that she was being treated at Gynae Department. DW-4 is K.D. Sharma, Record Clerk from Maharaja Agrasen hospital who also brought record pertaining to medical history of patient Bhawna (since deceased) alleging that she was treated for gynae problem. DW-5, as already stated above, is accused Bhaskar himself who stated that his wife Bhawna (since deceased) who was treated at AIIMS, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Dr. Mrs. Kochar hospital and Lady Harding hospital. It is further stated by DW-5 that Bhawna (since deceased) was under depression as she was unable to deliver a child.

57. DW-6 Smt. Vijay Kumari is the neighbour of accused Bhaskar and Bhawna (since deceased) and has stated that both Bhawna and Bhaskar were living happily and lovingly. They had separated from their family and living at 3rd floor having separate kitchen. It is stated by DW-6 that Bhawna (since deceased) never complaint of any harassment, beating, maltreatment given by her husband or her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. DW-6 further stated that Bhawna (since deceased) was SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.31/44  suffering from lower abdomen pain and gynae problem. She had also delivered immature, still born child twice.

58. The last witness examined by the accused persons is DW-7 Smt. Asha who is stated to be wife of accused Praveen Kumar. DW-7 has stated that accused Bhaskar and Bhawna (since deceased) were residing separately on 3rd floor having separate kitchen. Accused Bhaskar and Bhawna (since deceased) used to love each other and accused Bhaskar never harassed Bhawna (since deceased) for demand of dowry. Bhawna (since deceased) was suffering from lower abdomen pain and gynae problem. Bhawna (since deceased) had also given birth to premature still born child. DW-7 further stated that father of Bhawna (since deceased) was working at a bank at AIIMS due to which Bhawna (since deceased) was treated at AIIMS. It is further alleged that Bhawna (since deceased) was treated for depression.

59. DW-7 has stated that on 10.07.2008 she had gone to roof for drying clothes when Bhawna (since deceased) called her in her room and showed her right hand stating that some insect had bitten her. Jethani Bimla was called and Bhawna (since deceased) had also told her that some insect had bitten her while bathing in bathroom. DW-7 called her husband Praveen who came along with Raj Kumar and accused Bhaskar SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.32/44  also reached there. Doctor was called and Bhawna (since deceased) was taken to Ganga Ram hospital.

60. During her cross-examination, it is stated by DW-7 that she has deposed for the reason that her husband is an accused in this case and she wants to save her husband as well. The reply given by DW-7 reflects that she is an interested witness and more interested to save her husband who is accused in the present case. It further implies that the possibilities that in order to save her husband, PW-7 can mold her statement, cannot be ruled out. Thus, the testimony of DW-7 cannot be said to be free from vices.

61. From the careful perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses, it is reflected that they are not able to shift the burden upon the accused that it were the accused persons who subjected Bhawna (since deceased) to cruelty soon before her death and due to that she died. At the outset, it is mentioned that the nature of cause of death of Bhawna (since deceased) is not disputed and after considering the testimony of PW-12 Dr. Amit Sharma who conducted the postmortem of Bhawna (since deceased) and the testimony of PW-20 Jitender Kumar from FSL, it is reflected that poisonous substance i.e. aluminum phosphide was found in her body, SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.33/44  however, the cause of her death was cardio respiratory arrest. In other words, the death of Bhawna (since deceased) was not natural for the reason that poisonous substance by the name of aluminum phosphide was found in her body and she was not having any history of any such heart disease. More so, as per medical jurisprudence aluminum phosphide in most of the circumstances results into multiple organ failure and may not result in cardic respiratory arrest.

62. None of any other witness be it PW-2 Parvati Devi or PW-3 Naresh Kumar or PW-16 Bimla or PW-17 Meena has stated anything in this regard that soon before her death Bhawna (since deceased) was subjected to cruelty. More so, considering the outcome of first point of determination the testimonies of the PWs do not even qualify the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC itself. Further, it is reflected that IO during his investigation has not been able to collect any concrete evidence qua cruelty upon Bhawna (since deceased). In these circumstances, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that most essential presumption which qualifies Section 304B IPC, i.e. Section 113B Evidence Act, has not been established by the prosecution.

63. It is needless to say that Section 113B Evidence Act is laying down a presumption, however, there has to be some sufficient and SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.34/44  cogent material on which such presumption is based. It has come on record that Bhawna (since deceased) did not die naturally as some poisonous substance by the name of aluminum phosphide was found in her body and before her death, as stated by PW-12 Dr. Amit Sharma, she died due to cardio respiratory arrest as mentioned in Ex.PW12/D. Thus, following are the circumstances emerging from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, which in my considered opinion, if given due weightage, cannot be said to prove the liability of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt that they had subjected Bhawna (since deceased) to cruelty soon before her death and thereby caused her death or the death was caused due to their actions:

(1) It is a matter of record that marriage of Bhawna (since deceased) took place in Feb 2006 and she had expired on 11.07.2008. The death is therefore, within the seven years of her marriage. It is also reflected from the record that the death is not natural as per postmortem report, testimony of PW-12 and PW-20.

(2) As per charge-sheet, it is stated that there was demand of dowry, however, except payment of cash on two occasions i.e. Rs.20,000/- and SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.35/44  Rs.25,000/- there is no evidence available on record. With regard to payment of aforementioned cash, PW-2 and PW-3 themselves have stated that accused persons demanded this money for their necessity i.e. for their business purpose. If, this submission is presumed to be correct, even then it is leading to more than one conclusion that accused persons could have asked for some financial help from the parents and brother of Bhawna (since deceased). In these circumstances, the judgment “Ramesh Chand” (supra) is equally applicable in the present case.

(3) None of the public witness has stated to the certainty that accused Bhaskar or other accused persons used to torture Bhawna (since deceased) or subject her to cruelty. On the contrary, it has been said by all the public witnesses and more particularly PW-2 Parvati Devi (mother of deceased Bhawna) and PW-3 Naresh Kumar (brother of deceased Bhawna) that accused Bhaskar and Bhawna (since deceased) were living happily and SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.36/44  lovingly.

(4) With regard to cruelty, either with regard to Section 498-A IPC or as mentioned under Section 304-B IPC under the qualification ‘soon before her death’, none of the PWs have thrown any light in this regard. It is not the case of prosecution or alleged by PW-2 mother of Bhawna (since deceased) and PW-3 brother of Bhawna (since deceased) that there was demand of dowry at the time of marriage or, thereafter, and any such dowry either in the form of cash or jewellery was given, as per the requirement and demand of accused persons. There is a difference between gift given at the time of marriage and dowry. The difference though, is a thin line difference, however, is of great importance and entirely depend upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Testimonies of any of the prosecution witnesses, in this regard, do not inspire their confidence at all.

(5) As per the story of prosecution, Bhawna (since SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.37/44  deceased) is stated to have been bitten by some insect. In common paralance, there is no such insect found in India which could be so poisonous and if it is so, it could inject aluminum phosphide in the body of Bhawna (since deceased). All the witnesses including PW-2 Parvati Devi (mother of deceased Bhawna) and PW-3 Naresh Kumar (brother of deceased Bhawna) have not stated anything to the contrary.

(6) PW-13, PW-15, and PW-16 are most important witnesses who had seen Bhawna (since deceased) just before her death. None of these witnesses have said anything with regard to any cruelty caused upon Bhawna (since deceased). On the contrary, all these witnesses have stated that they were told by Bhawna (since deceased) that some insect had bitten up on her arm. PW-17 Meena is the sister of Bhawna (since deceased). PW-17 has stated that when she reached at the house of Bhawna (since deceased), she was lying on bed and upon inquiry, Bhawna (since deceased) herself SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.38/44  had stated that some mosquitoes had bite her.

None of these prosecution witnesses have alleged that Bhawna (since deceased) had stated that either something was injected into her or she was given some tablets orally against her wishes.

(7) It has come on record and mentioned above that the death of Bhawna (since deceased) was not natural, as per report of PW-20 Jitendra Kumar from FSL, poisonous substance by the name of aluminum phosphide was found in her body.

However, prosecution has not been able to collect any evidence as to how such poisonous substance went into the body of Bhawna (since deceased).

The possibility of any force or struggle or taking such poisonous substance through injection has been ruled out by PW-12 Dr. Amit Sharma.

More so, as per medical jurisprudence, aluminum phosphide may not lead to death by cardic arrest but the death, if any such poisonous substance is taken or given, then it results into multiple organ failure. As per postmortem report, SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.39/44  the cause of death of Bhawna (since deceased) was cardic respiratory arrest.

(8) PW-13 Smt. Indra, who is stated to be the neighbour of accused persons and Bhawna (since deceased), has also stated that Bhawna (since deceased) used to share all her feelings with her but she never complaint against accused persons that she was harassed or subjected to cruelty.

(9) No complaint is stated to has been lodged against the accused persons either by Bhawna (since deceased) or by her parents or brother at any point of time that accused persons used to demand dowry or she was subjected to cruelty or harassed.

(10) It is also reflected from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses that Bhawna (since deceased) was having some gynae problem for which she was being treated at various hospitals and clinic. It has also not been disputed by the defence witnesses that Bhawna (since SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.40/44  deceased) had given birth to two still born premature children and as she was not able to have any child, therefore, she was under some kind of depression. However, neither it has been suggested by any of the prosecution witness or defence witness nor it is the story of the prosecution that Bhawna (since deceased) could have commit suicide or she would have taken the poison by herself.

64. All these above mentioned facts which are emerging from the evidence available on record, are so glaring that they cannot be ignored outrightly. Thus, considering the mandate laid down in judgment “C. Veerudu” (supra) and above mentioned findings, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to establish the second point of determination.

(iii) Whether accused Bhaskar and accused Praveen jointly and in furtherance of their common intention flushed out the floor where deceased Bhawna had vomited before she died and by doing so, they destroyed the evidence and thereby committed an offence under Section 201/34 IPC?

65. With regard to the third point of determination, it is mentioned SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.41/44  that it depends upon the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC under which charge has been framed against the accused persons. In other words, concealing or removing the evidence by the accused persons is always dependent upon and subjected to commission of main substantive crime. The outcome of first and second points of determination that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to establish that Bhawna (since deceased) died due to cruelty which was soon before her death. With regard to Section 201 IPC, though prosecution has examined PW-14 Dev Shankar Singh and PW-15 Daulat Ram who came to the spot, however, they have not stated to the certainty that there was any vomiting found spread on the spot. Only one witness i.e. PW-17 Meena has stated that she had observed foul smell coming from the room and the clothes of Bhawna (since deceased), however, she also did not see any vomiting on the floor or at any other place. No other PW has stated anything in this regard that he or she saw vomit at the place of incident.

66. PW-14 Dev Shankar Singh is an independent witness who reached at the spot and had examined Bhawna (since deceased). PW-14 had also not seen anything either on the bed or at the floor. PW-14 had stated that he saw some water on the floor. If, the testimony of PW-14 is presumed to be correct, even then it cannot be said to the certainty that the water found on the floor was there in order to wash the vomiting. SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.42/44  Thus, the testimonies of all the PWs available on record are not sufficient to conclude any of the essential ingredients of Section 201 IPC. In terms of these observations, third point of determination is decided accordingly.

67. In the light of the above discussion it is reflected that none of the ingredients of the Sections under which charge has been framed against all the accused persons have been established against them as prosecution has miserably failed to prove the liability of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. However, as the circumstances are emerging in the present case, the death of Bhawna (since deceased) cannot be said to be natural as some poisonous substance has been found in her body and she was not having any such heart related problem, though she is stated to have suffered cardic respiratory arrest which proved fatal to her. None of the defence witnesses or accused persons have stated that any other person could have done so nor they have brought on record that the place of incident was accessible by third person. Therefore, benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons. Hence, all the accused persons namely Bhaskar, Praveen @ Pappu and Bhupinder are acquitted for the offences under Section 498-A/304- B/201/34 IPC, charged against them. Their bail bonds except so furnished under Section 437-A Cr.PC, stand cancelled and sureties are discharged. One of the accused persons namely accused Smt. Krishna Devi has SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.43/44  already been expired and proceedings against her have already been abated. Endorsement, if any, on documents stands cancelled. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

                                                                                                                                         Digitally signed by
                                                                                                              PRASHANT                   PRASHANT KUMAR

                                                                                                              KUMAR                      Date: 2018.08.13
                                                                                                                                         16:10:44 +0530

Announced in the open court                                                                              (PRASHANT KUMAR)
on 13th day of August, 2018                                                                              ASJ/ Central District
                                                                                                        Tis Hazari Court/Delhi




SC no.:­28303/2016                                             State Vs.  & Bhaskar & Ors.                                                             Page no.44/44

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s