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 versus 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 statement." 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. PW1/B). (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 ruqqa. (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 evidence. 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  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  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