Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Kumar I.D. No. 579/16 on 24 November, 2016
 In the court of Additional Session Judge­04,  District Shahdara, Room
           No.51, Second Floor,  Karkardooma Courts, Delhi 

 State Vs. Rakesh Kumar                       I.D. No. 579/16
 FIR No.456/2010                              S.C. No.40/14
 PS Bhajanpura                                Decision reserved on:  17.11.2016
 U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC                       Date of decision        :  24.11.2016

In the matter of   

State (NCT of Delhi)                                        ...State


Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
r/o Village Shikanderpur, P.S. Khatoli,
District Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.)
Presently residing at C­1/28, 
Third Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.                             ...Accused

                                J U D G M E N T 

1.1     (Introduction)   -   On   12.04.2010   at   12.55   p.m.,   a   DD   No.13A
(now   Mark­X1)   was   recorded   in   the   police   station   Bhajanpura,   this
information was received from constable Karamvir from GTB hospital
that   one   namely   Tina,   aged   about  28   years,   wife  of   Rakesh   Kumar,
resident   of   A­4/84,   Gali   No.27,   Bhajanpura   has   been   admitted   in
unconscious state by her father, she has been declared dead. This DD
entry was handed over to SI Ajeet Singh (now PW13), who went to GTB
hospital   where   he   met   Manvir   Singh,   father   of   deceased   and   it   was

S.C. No.40/14                     State v. Rakesh Kumar                     Page 1 of 18
 discovered that his daughter Renu had married about three years back,
it was also informed to SHO/Inspector Hansraj Thakran, area SDM Sh.
A.K.   Sharma   was   also   informed,   the   spot   at   K­4/85,   Gali   No.27,
Bhajanpura was also viewed by them, the dead body was also seen
and   the   Crime   Team   was   also   called,   who   inspected   the   spot   and
photographed   the   same.   Inquest   proceedings   U/s   176   Cr.P.C   were
being carried by the area SDM. No paper or any substance was found
at the spot. Statement of father of deceased was recorded by the SDM.
It was also directed by SHO to preserve the dead body in mortuary of
GTB   hospital   and   a   constable   was   deputed.     This   information   was
recorded in returned entry DD No.76B dated 12.04.2010 at 9.55 pm.

1.2         On   12.04.2010,   under   the   DD   no.   13­A   dated   12.04.2010,
statement of Sh. Manbir Singh was recorded. He had stated that "he is
resident of Bhajanpura since 1984, where he alongwith his family has
been living.   His eldest daughter Renu was married to Rakesh about
three years back, Rakesh lives in Vijay Park.   Complainant's daughter
Renu   was   living   with   him   for   the   last   one   year.     Her   in­laws   were
harassing   her.     Her   brother­in­law   (Jeth)   Sanjay   and   brother­in­law
(Nandoi) Suraj had asked twice for a house for Renu and Rakesh and
they also tried to burn Renu.  Because of these harassment Renu was
living with the complainant.  Once, it was tried to strangulate her. Today
at about 6­7 am when we woke up, we found Renu was perplexed and
immediately she was brought to GTB Hospital and after some time of
arrival she expired.  It appears that she had had something and that is
why   she   died.   He   concludes   his   statement   that   statement   is   given

S.C. No.40/14                      State v. Rakesh Kumar                       Page 2 of 18
 without any influence and in his perfect state of mind. It is his correct

1.3         Seizure memo in respect of gastric lavage and sample seal
was also seized as per seizure memo dated 1.4.2016 (Ex. PW7/A).

1.4     Thence,   postmortem   of   body   of   Smt.   Renu   was  got   done,   the
inquest proceedings were completed by the area SDM, the dead body
of Renu was given to her father Sh. Manbir Singh and to her brother Sh.
Pawan Kumar, the viscera box was handed over to constable Sita Ram,
which was seized by memo (now Ex. PW13/A), under the DD No. 13­A
on 13.04.2010.   On 13.04.2010 vide arrival entry DD No. 51­B police
station Bhajanpura, all these facts were incorporated in the rojnamcha.

2.      On receipt of opinion on MLC, the circumstances were apprised
by report (now Ex. PW13/B) to the area SDM   and Sh. A.K. Sharma,
Sub Division Magistrate, Seelampur by his remarks (now Ex. PW6/E)
directed   action   be   taken   as   per   law   by   considering   the   postmortem
report and statement of father of the victim.  Therefore, SI Ajeet Kumar
endorsed a ruqqa (Ex. PW13/C) on the statement dated 12.04.2010 of
Shri Manbir Singh (Ex. PW1/A, its narration has already been given in
para 1.2 above) and formal FIR u/s 498­A IPC was directed, accordingly
FIR no. 456/2010 (now Ex. PW11/A) in police station Bhajanpura u/s
498­A IPC was registered on 07.09.2010.

        The   investigation   was   carried   and   after   collecting   all   kind   of
evidence, either in the form of statement of witnesses or medical record.
The accused Rakesh and Renu had married on 24.04.2008 and Renu

S.C. No.40/14                     State v. Rakesh Kumar                      Page 3 of 18
 died on 12.04.2010 by unnatural death within period of seven years of
her   marriage.   It   result   into   charge   sheet   u/s   498­A/406/304­B   IPC
against accused Rakesh Kumar.   He was summoned by the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate and case being triable by court of session, it is
committed to Sessions Court.

3.      (Charge) -  Accused Rakesh Kumar has been charged u/s 498­A
IPC that on or before 12.04.2010 (date of death of Ms. Renu), he being
husband, harassed, coerced and subjected his wife Renu with cruelty
with view to meet his unlawful demand of dowry, he forced her and her
father to meet such demand after 24.04.2008 (being date of marriage)
and   committed  an   offence  punishable   u/s   498­A   IPC.     He  has   been
further charged u/s 304­B(2) IPC that in the aforementioned period and
date and place he being husband, soon before the death of his wife
Renu,   subjected   her   with   cruelty   and   harassed   her   physically   and
mentally on account of insufficiency of dowry and by harassing her with
a view to force and coerce her and her parents to meet his unlawful
dowry   demand,   which   resulted   in   her   dowry   death   otherwise   than
normal circumstances.   However, the accused pleaded not guilty and
claim trial. Thus, the case was put to the prosecution evidence.

4.1     (Prosecution Evidence) ­In order to prove the charges and to
establish   the   prosecution   case,   the   prosecution   got   examined   11
witnesses,   their   names   are   given   below   with   brief   introduction   of
purpose of their examination : ­

(i)  PW1 Manbir Singh - To prove that he is father of Renu (since
deceased) as well as the allegations of demand of dowry by the in­laws

S.C. No.40/14                   State v. Rakesh Kumar                   Page 4 of 18
 of   Renu   and   for   want   of   fulfilling   such   demand,   the   said   Renu   was
harassed, she was living with the complainant about one year prior to
her death with her parents.  Further to prove his statement (Ex. PW1/A)
given to the police immediately on death of his daughter as well as the
police complaint in writing given subsequently on 13.04.2010 (now Ex.

(ii)  PW2 Pawan - To establish that he is younger brother of Renu as
well as to prove allegations of harassment of dowry demand against the
accused besides to corroborate the statement of his father Manbir.

(iii) PW3 Subhash Chandra - To prove that Renu was his niece and
her in­laws used to demand separate plot/house and because of that
Renu   was   harassed   and   she   was   upset   vis­a­vis   she   was   being
harassed by calling her on telephone by accused Renu.

(iv) PW6 A.K. Sharma, Retired Dy. Secretary, Department of Law &
Justice,   Delhi   Government-   To   prove   that   he   was   area   SDM   on
12.04.2010 and on receipt of telephonic message from the then SHO
Bhajanpura, he reached GTB Hospital and recorded the statement of
Sh. Manbir Singh (Ex. PW1/A) in vernacular and on 13.04.2010 inquest
proceedings were carried, appropriate forms (Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B)
were filled in and dead body of Renu was got postmortem and after
postmortem it was handed over to her father.  On 30.07.2010 on receipt
of status report, an appropriate action was directed at the earliest on the
statement (Ex. PW1/A).    ....................

(v)    PW9 Dr. P.K. Phukan - Dr. Rahul Parekh was working in GTB
Hospital   on   12.04.2010,   he   prepared   MLC   of   Renu,   as   he   had
examined her, however, he left the services of hospital, that is why in
order   to   prove   MLC,   Dr.   P.K.   Phukan/PW­9   has   appeared,   who
identified signature and writing of Dr. Rahul on the MLC which is now
Ex. PW9/A.

(vi) PW10 Dr. Neha Gupta ­  To prove that on 13.04.2010 she carried
the postmortem on the body of Renu and gave her report (Ex. PW10/A)
and on 17.10.2011 opinion (Ex. PW10/B) was given on MLC about the
cause of death of Renu was due to shock as a result of ingestion of
sulphuric acid and it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature.                ......................

S.C. No.40/14                     State v. Rakesh Kumar                       Page 5 of 18
 (vii) PW11 SI Naveen Rathee - To prove that on 07.09.2010 he was
duty   officer   in  police   station   Bhajanpura  and  on   receipt   of   statement
alongwith ruqqa sent by SI, he recorded FIR no. 456/2010 u/s 498­A
IPC (Ex. PW11/A), he made an endorsement as Ex. PW11/B on the

(viii) PW4   HC   Yashvir   Singh   -   To   prove   that   he   was   posted   as
Malkhana Moharar on 12.04.2010 and SI Ajeet Kumar had deposited
sealed   parcel   of   gastric   lavage   alongwith   sample   seal,   which   he
recorded in register no. 19 (Ex. PW4/A).  On 13.04.2010 parcel viscera
box with sample seal was deposited for which he also carried entry in
the register no. 19 (Ex. PW4/B).  On 21.07.2010 the said exhibits were
sent to FSL through Head Constable vide road certificate, which was
also entered in registered (Ex. PW4/B).

(ix) PW13   SI   Ajeet   Kumar   -   To   prove   that   he   carried   appropriate
inquiry and investigation from the inception of receipt of DD no. 13­A on
12.04.2010, not only he went to the spot but also apprised time to time
information to senior officers, who also called crime team, area SDM at
the spot, the postmortem was carried during his investigation, the dead
body   was   handed   over   to   the   relatives   vis­a­vis   statement   of
complainant   was   recorded,   he   also   obtained   MLC   and   opinion   on
postmortem   report   and   then   matter   was   apprised   to   the   area   SDM,
lastly not only the FIR was got registered by endorsing the ruqqa but
also consequent investigation was carried. PW­7 Constable Sita Ram
also remained associated with him during such inquiry/investigation. 

(x)    PW7   Ct.   Sita   Ram   -   To   establish   that   he   participated   the
investigation with PW­13 SI Ajeet Singh on 12.04.2010 and 13.04.2010
and also joined investigation with SI Sunil Kumar/PW­5 and constable
Ashok   Kumar/PW­12   on   29.09.2011,   as   in   his   presence   accused
Rakesh was interrogated after surrender in the court vis­a­vis arrest and
personal search of accused was carried, he also given his disclosure
statement,  he  is  a witness to  all  the  memos  prepared.     He also got
examined the accused medically.

(xi) PW8   ASI   Raghu   Raj   -   To   prove   that   he   is   the   second
Investigating   Officer   and   he   was   posted   to   PS   Bhajanpura   on
25.01.2011 and he carried further investigation consequent to mark of
the case to him.  IN further investigation not only he took the permission

S.C. No.40/14                    State v. Rakesh Kumar                     Page 6 of 18
 for arrest of the accused but also recorded supplementary statement
and on receipt of further opinions, the accused was arrested.   It result
into charge sheet.                 .............

(xii) PW5 SI Sunil Kumar - To establish that on 29.09.2011 he was
posted as Sub Inspector in the police station and at that material time
main IO was not there vis­a­vis there was application for surrender/bail
by the accused and he was deputed to lift into the matter, consequently
he alongwith PW­7 Ct. Sita Ram and PW­12 Ct. Ashok Kumar went to
the court where appropriate investigation was carried inclusive of arrest
and   interrogation   of   accused,   his   disclosure   statement,   his   personal
search   etc.     His   bail   application   was   dismissed   and   he   briefed   the
circumstances to SHO.

(xiii) PW12   Ct.   Ashok   Kumar   -   To   prove   that   on   29.09.2011   he
remained   in   association   of   Sub   Inspector   Sunil   Kumar   in   respect   of
investigation   of   the   case,   which   was   carried   in   the   venue   of
Karkardooma Court Complex.        ..........................

(xiv) FSL result U/s 293 Cr P C that exhibits/visera preserved  were
examined  and they were found to be containing sulphuric acid. 


4.2      The prosecution witnesses have been thoroughly cross examined
on behalf of accused to show that neither there was any demand of any
thing by the accused from his wife or in­laws at any point of time nor
from   his   father­in­law.   Renu   was   under   treatment   of   some   mental
disease, even prior to her marriage and she was undergoing treatment
of Ojha (Quack) from Balaji, which came to the knowledge of  accused
subsequently when Renu was being taken medical hospital, PW1 asked
that she is not to be treated in Hospital as she is under treatment at
Balaji. PW1 has also asked that she will be recovered and for recovery,
the accused and said Renu has to live separately and that is why she
was   living   with   her   father   for   more   than   one   year.   Otherwise,   the

S.C. No.40/14                              State v. Rakesh Kumar                   Page 7 of 18
 accused   had   visited   them   as   well   as   the   complainant   had   invited
accused   and   others  in  marriage  of     Renu's   younger  sister   Gudia   on
16.2.2010   (wherein   accused   had   given   presentation   of   washing
machines & cash). Moreover, Renu's jewellery articles were stolen by
her parents, when she demanded it, her parents had killed her. 

5.1         (Statement   of   accused   &   defence   evidence)   -   After   the
conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313
Cr.P.C, without oath, he replied all the questions put to him, he denied
all allegations. In fact, his Renu has been murdered by complainant and
his other family members, a false report was lodged against accused to
implicate him. When he received information of death of his wife, he
approached the police also, who recorded his statement but for want of
action on his statement, he lodged complaint in the court, which is still
pending. Moreover, his wife's jewellery was stolen by her parents and
when she demanded, she has been murdered by them. The accused
also put his this plea and other defences to the prosecution witnesses
during   their   cross   examination.   Accused     also   opted   for   defence

5.2     The   accused   got   examined   three   witnesses   namely   DW1   Anil
Gupta and DW 2 Sunil Kumar to prove that in the month of May/June,
2008 and also in the month of December, 2008, when Rakesh's wife
Renu was ill and under fits, they have taken her to the clinic of doctor in
Maujpur   at   the   request   of   accused   vis­a­vis   Manvir   Singh   was   also
present and he was saying that Renu is under treatment of one Bhagat.
Accused also got examined DW3 Kalyan Singh, court clerk to prove that

S.C. No.40/14                    State v. Rakesh Kumar                    Page 8 of 18
 a private complaint dated 19.9.2011 (Ex DW3/A) against Manbir Singh
and   two   others   is   pending   trial   before   the   court   of   metropolitan
magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi against Manbir and othes.  All the three
witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the State. Then, defence
evidence was closed. Thus, case came for final hearing. 

6.1     (Final submissions on behalf of accused) - At the juncture of
final   hearing,   Ld.   Counsels   Sh.Sandeep   Tyagi   alongwith   Sanjeet
Kumar, Advocates opened oral submissions, with request to file written
synopsis, which have also been filed by giving copy to State.  In nutshell
there is no evidence to prove charge U/ss. 498A/304B IPC to held the
accused   guilty.   There   are   unsubstantiated   allegations   as   well   as
improved  statement  in court  from the statement  given to police.   Ms
Renu   was   living   with   her   father   for   the   last   more   than   one   year,   as
accused was asked that they shall live separately as a prevention for
her better treatment  but she died there at residence of her father. There
was no demand of dowry and in fact in the subsequent complaint also,
which  was prepared   an  after   thought,  the   complainant   himself  refers
that certain 'gifts' were given in marriage, this shows that there was no
demand  at all. Neither  in the first statement  to area  SDM nor in the
subsequent   complaint   there   is   any   specific   allegation   against   the
accused Rakesh of demand of dowry or of plot for residence of accused
and   for   Renu.   Hence   there   is   no   proof   of   cruelty   or   harassment   by
accused in connection of dowry or soon before death of Renu vis a vis
there   is   no   recovery   of   suicide   note   to   infer   anything   against   the
accused. Moreover, it is not only delayed FIR but also the Renu was
brought   to   Hospital   by   her   father   after   much   delay,   as   arrival   in   the

S.C. No.40/14                       State v. Rakesh Kumar                        Page 9 of 18
 hospital   is   about   11.30   am   but   the   incident   is   of   early   morning   of
6.30am; the hospitals were at a distance of 3­ 4 kms to 7­8 kms from
the residence of complainant as per versions of witnesses. There are
material   contradictions   and   improvements   in   the   statement   of
witnesses,  which have also been  confronted  with. It was  duty of the
prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, however,
none of the charges have been proved so, the benefit of doubt goes in
favour of accused, certain extract of evidence has been reproduced in
the written synposis. Ld counsels are also relying upon:

(i) Ramaiha Alias Rama v. State of Karnataka - (2014) 9 SCC 365 ­
"113­B. Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether
a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown
that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry, the court shall  presume  that such person had caused the
dowry death"

        "A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would demonstrate that
to  attract   the   presumption   as  to   dowry   death   stated   in  the  aforesaid
provision, it is necessary to show that soon before her death, she had
been   subjected   by   such   person   to   cruelty   or   harassment   for,   or   in
connection with, any demand for dowry. When this essential ingredient
has not been established in the present case, the question of drawing
any presumption by invoking of the aforesaid provision would not arise".

(ii)         Bharat Bhushan and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2014) 13 SCC 525 (para 7).  "...the criminal liability under Section 304­
B is attracted not just by the demand of dowry but by the act of cruelty
or   harassment   by   the   husband   or   any   relative   or   her   husband   in
connection with such demand; thus, unless such an act of cruelty or
harassment   is   proved   to   have   been   caused   by   the   accused   to   the
deceased   soon   before   her   death   in   connection   with   the   demand   of
dowry, the accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence of dowry

S.C. No.40/14                      State v. Rakesh Kumar                      Page 10 of 18
 death under Section 304­B IPC. Similarly, Section 498­A IPC provides
that the act of cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relative would
be punishable and would be attracted only if the husband or his relative
commits an act of cruelty within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) in
the Explanation to Section 498­A IPC.

(iii) Major Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab, 2015 [2] JCC 1385 -
(para 15) "The determination of the period which can come within the
term "soon before"  is left to be determined by the courts, depending
upon   facts   and   circumstances   of   each   case.   Suffice,   however,   to
indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the
interval   should   not   be   much   between   the   cruelty   or   harassment
concerned and the death in question.   There must be existence of a
proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."

(iv) State of Karnataka v. Dattaraj & Ors, 2016 [2] JCC 967 ­   while
discussing about 'soon before death' it was concluded in para 18 that
"In so far as the demand of Rs.20,000/­ for the purchase of agricultural
land   is   concerned,   it   is   apparent   that   the   same   was   allegedly   made
when Dattaraj was in Dubai. The said demand was allegedly made by
Ningesh (respondent - accused no.2), the father of Dattaraj, when he

had gone to leave Savita at her maternal home. Dattaraj is stated to have returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the above demand. A female child was born to Savita about a year after the return of   Dattaraj   to   India.   After   the   birth   of   the   female   child,   Savita   had remained   in   her   maternal   house,   for   about   four   to   five   months. Therefore, even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about two years before the  occurrence. The same was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement   of   “soon   before   her   death”   contemplated   under   Section 304B (1) of the Indian Penal Code.”

6.2 (submission of State) – Whereas Sh. Shahbuddin, Ld. APP for the State opposed the submissions rendered on behalf of State that the entire   evidence   is   to   be   read   together   as   it   is   not   a   case   of   direct evidence but of circumstantial evidence. The victim died within seven years of her marriage, it was un­natural  death and statement of star witnesses, clearly indicate of demand of dowry by way of demanding plot from Renu and her parents. She was under constant harassment and   cruelty.     There   is   no   straight   jacket   formula   or   fixed   period   for determining for ‘soon before death’ and each case has to be seen from its own prospective.  She was living with her parents as she was being harassed by the accused. The evidence on record prove the charges. There are some contradiction, but the same are minor or not material one to give any benefit to the accused persons. Lastly, the accused is projecting   different   defences,   which   have   also   not   been   proved,   this also   shows   that   prosecution   has   succeeded   to   prove   the   charges against accused.

7.1  (Findings) – The contentions of both the sides are considered and   assessed,   keeping   in   view   the   material/evidence   on   record, opinions rendered by experts as well as the provisions of law besides the case law presented.  In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be appropriate to mention ingredients of section 498A and section 304B IPC,  the same are : ­ Section 498A

(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment;

(ii) such cruelty or harassment was shown either by the husband of the women or by the relative of the husband;

(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to drive her (a) to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; or

(iv) such   harassment   was   (1)   with   a   view   to   coercing   her   or   any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (2) on account of failure by such woman or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand.

Section 304B IPC (1) Death of woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.

(2) Such   death   should   have   occurred   within   seven   years   of   her marriage.

(3) She   must   have   subjected   to   cruelty   or   harassment   by   her husband or any relative of her husband.

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

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

7.2 On assessment and analysis of record, the following relevant facts are undisputed facts­

(a) Ms.   Renu   and   accused   Rakesh   were   married   on   24.04.2008, Renu  expired   on  12.04.2010   by  unnatural  death,  therefore,  she  died within  seven years of her marriage.

(b) Renu was living with her parents from December, 2008 and she died by consuming sulfuric acid (as opined in FSL result Ex.PW8/B) as well as by opinion (Ex.PW10/B) by Dr. Neha Gupta that ‘Renu died dueto shock as a result of ingestion of sulphuric acid and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature’.

(c) Complainant/PW1 admitted that her daughter Gudia was married on 16.02.21010, accused Rakesh and his relatives were invited there, accused Rakesh gave washing machine and some cash as gifts on the eve of marriage of Ms.Gudia.

(d) The incident had happened in the early morning on 12.04.2010 when PW2 and his brother had seen Renu lying in her room, PW1 was also informed so and PW1 also says that Renu was seen by him in the morning. Renu was brought to GTB hospital at 11.30 am, where she was  declared brought dead as per MLC (Ex.PW9/A).

(e) Witness/complainant   Manbir   Singh   confirms   his   first   statement (Ex.PW1/A) given to the SDM, he also identified his signature on his statement.    PW1 is not knowing  about the  contents  of his  complaint dated 30.04.2016 (ExPW1/D).

(f) PW3   Subhash   chander,   uncle   of   deceased   Renu,   is   not   the witness   of   any   event   and   he   deposed   whatever   he   heard   from   his brother PW1 or from others. Accused or his relative had not joined the last  rites   of  deceased   Renu   as  no   information   was  reached   to  them about the demise of Renu.

7.3 By keeping in view the evidence on record and requirements of law of charges framed, the following conclusions are drawn:­

(i) PW2 says that there was quarrel by the accused to his wife Renu after two months of marriage  and she was brought back to her parents house and then after one month, she was sent back to her matrimonial home.   On   the   the   other   side,   PW1   says   that   Renu   was   sent   to matrimonial home after three months of marriage on the eve of gona ceremony. However, could there be occasion for quarrel in two months of marriage, when Renu was at her parents house for three month of her marriage. Witness PW3 is not an eye witness to any event and he stated whatever he heard from others.

(ii) It was Sanjay and Suraj (brothers­in­law of Renu), who asked for plot   as   per   narration   given   by   PW1   in   his   statement   to   the   police (Ex.PW1/A)   and   subsequently   the   said   PW1   filed   a   typed   complaint (Ex.PW1/D)   naming   six   persons.   PW1   in   his   cross   examination deposed   that   he   was   not   knowing   about   the   contents   of   his   later complaint.    The  other  witness  PW2 also deposed  that  it was Renu’s brothers­in­law, who asked for a plot to be given to accused Rakesh. This shows that there was no demand or dowry demand or demand of plot by accused Rakesh.

(iii) There is no complaint or police complaint either by PW1 Manbir Singh or by his daughter Ms. Renu or by other relative in respect of demand of plot, if so made after marriage, prior to the registration of FIR in the year 2010 vis­a­vis Renu was residing with her parents for the period more than one year prior to her death.

(iv) There is no specific instance given as to when demand of plot was   made   nor   any   specific   evidence   that   plot   was   demanded   by accused Rakesh either from Renu or from PW1 Manbir Singh.

(v)  PW1 in his statement before the court had narrated certain facts, which had not been mentioned either in his first statement (Ex.PW1/A) to SDM or in his subsequent complaint of 30.04.2010 (Ex.PW1/D) and PW1 says that he had stated those facts to the SDM or to the police in his statement, the same were shown to him and confronted that such facts were not mentioned in his statements, which was also read over to him. Those are substantial improvements.

(vi) PW1 also stated that his daughter used to tell him on telephone about   beatings   or   harassment   met   to   her   for   demand   of   plot   and otherwise to kill her, however, neither it is so mentioned in his statement given to police or to area SDM.

(vii) PW1 in his statement to SDM as well as in his statement to the court narrated the incident that it was about 6 am or 7 am when he found   his   daughter   was   perplexed,   she   was   brought   to   hospital. Whereas   PW2   in   his   statement   explains   that   he   and   his   brother Chaman were sleeping on the top floor, their employee Yogender was sleeping   on   the   roof   of   top   floor,   his   parents   were   sleeping   on   the ground floor; the Renu was on the first floor. The said servant Yogender heard voices coming from the room of Renu and he got woke up PW2 and his brother Chaman, when PW2 went to the room of Renu, she was found lying on the bed. Then PW2 called his father.

The   matrix   of   statements   of   PW1   and   PW2   are   materially contradictory   on   this   aspect,   as   on   the   one   side   PW1   had   seen   his daughter perplexed and on the other side, they people were sleeping and PW2 was got woke up by servant and PW2 called his father from ground floor.

(viii)  As per the MLC (Ex.PW9/A), the said Renu was brought to GTB hospital at 11.30 am and she was also declared ‘brought dead’. There is a gap of 5.30 hours to 4.30 hours from timings 6 am to 7 am,   when PW1 stated to have been seen Renu perplexed, she was brought to hospital. Simultaneously PW1 also says that the distance between his residence and the hospital was 7 to 8 kilo meters.  PW1 also mentions about Rupali Nursing Home at a distance of 4 Km from his residence and also named it first time in court that he had taken Renu there, but they asked to take to other hospital. Immediately, she was brought to this GTB hospital, which was in further way from Rupali Nursing Home. No record of Rupali Nursing Home has been produced. It does not take 4.30 hours to 5.30 hours to cover distance of 7 to 8 km to reach from residence of PW1 to GTB Hospital.

(ix) The   Investigating   Officer   carried   the   inquiry   on   receipt   of information and spot was visited by him besides by area SDM ( in view of above it would be after 11.30 am, when Renu was declared brought dead),   however,   during   investigation,   no   substance   or   container   of substance was discovered  at the spot where Renu was found lying or seen by PW2 and his brother Chaman. There is also no investigation or report in the charge­sheet with regard to substance, if found lying at thespot. In opinion of cause of death, the substance has been opined as sulfuric acid,   which is an acid and it could be kept in some physical container. There is no recovery of any container from the room of Renu or from other part of the house of PW1.

(x) As per the evidence on record, the said Renu was living with her parents or PW1 since December, 2008 and she expired on 12.04.2010, moreover,   on   the   eve   of   marriage   of   her   younger   sister   Gudia   on 16.02.1010,   accused   and   his   other   relatives   were   present   in   the marriage   being   invitees,   vis­a­vis   accused   has   given   presentation   of washing machine and some cash. Nothing has appeared in evidence that there was any harassment or cruelty immediately before death or she was subject to cruelty or she was under constant cruelty.

7.4  By taking stock of undisputed facts mentioned in para 7.2 above and   conclusion   drawn   in   para   7.3   above,   they   do   not   satisfy   the requirement   of   either   section   498­A   IPC   or   of   section   304­B   IPC enumerated   in   para   7.1.   above,   the   charges   have   not   been   proved. Thus the accused is acquitted of charges U/s 498­A/304­B IPC.

Announced in open court today Thursday, Agrahayana 3, Saka 1938 (Inder Jeet Singh)   Additional Sessions Judge­04            (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi     24.11.2016

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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