Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul Kumar Etc(3) on 24 December, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No : DLST01-000300-2013
SC No. 6848/2016
FIR No. 310/2013
Under Section. 304-B/498-A/34 IPC
Police Station Ambedkar Nagar
STATE
Vs.
Rahul Kumar & Ors.
1) Rahul Kumar
S/o Jhankaru Lal
R/O - H.NO.13146,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
2) Jhankharu Lal,
S/o Alam Dass
R/O H. No- 13146,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
3) Sanjay Kumar
S/o Jhankaru Lal
R/O H. No- 13146,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
4) Sandeep
S/o Jhankaru Lal
R/O H. No- 13146,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
.....Accused persons
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:54:21 +0530
2
Date of filing of chargesheet : 13.10.2013
Final arguments heard on : 20.12.2024
Judgment pronounced on : : 24.12.2024
Final Judgment : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. As per the case of prosecution an information was
recorded vide DD No. 33-A at about 02.38 pm on 14.07.2013, and
police was informed from Saket City Hospital regarding receipt of
dead body of Ms. Bina Devi W/o Jagdish aged 36 years on MLC No.
130/13. The said information was reduced into writing and sent to ASI
Bijender who along with Ct. Shamsher reached the hospital and
obtained the said MLC. The relatives and father of the deceased were
inquired and it was found a case of Dowry Death as per the
allegations. Accordingly, SHO of PS Ambedkar Nagar and SDM
concerned were informed.
1.1 It is further alleged that the jewellery being worn by the
deceased/victim were seized by ASI Bijender and thereafter, ASI
Bijender got the dead body preserved at AIIMS mortuary. It is further
alleged that thereafter, he visited to the place of occurrence i.e., H.no.
13/146, Dakshin Puri, Delhi where the deceased had allegedly
committed suicide by hanging herself with her Chunni. It is further
alleged that the spot was got inspected by the crime team and he red
coloured Chunni was seized by the IO.
1.2 As per chargesheet, on 15.07.2013, Sh. S.K. Gupta the
then SDM/ Hauz Khas had reached the AIIMS mortuary and had
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:54:30 +0530
3prepared the inquest papers and he had also recorded the statement of
complainant Asha Devi who was the mother of the deceased/victim
Bina.
1.3 In her statement Smt. Asha Devi had alleged that “she is
the mother of the deceased/victim. She got married her deceased
daughter in the month of October, 2007. Her daughter had a girl child
namely Gifty aged four years. She further alleged that she was
informed by her younger daughter Deepa at about 11.30 am on
telephone that her sister Bina (since deceased) was being harassed by
her inlaws and were being beaten by her in laws. She further alleged
that the Deepa had also told that Bina had asked her to send her father
and mother. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant Asha
and her husband were started getting ready to go to the house of victim
Bina, however, after some time, at about 01.30 pm to 01.45 pm, she
received a telephone call from maternal uncle of Jagdish that victim
Bina was admitted in the Modi hospital and she had expired. It is
further alleged that on hearing that, complainant and her husband went
to Modi Hospital (Saket City Hospital) where some persons from the
inlaws of her deceased daughter were found present and they had left
the place after their reaching in the hospital. It is further alleged that
thereafter, they along with dead body of the deceased and police went
to AIIMS Mortuary. It is further alleged that she stated that husband of
her daughter Bina and her in laws used to harass her daughter for
dowry demand. It is further alleged that the father in law of her
deceased daughter Bina had used to provoke her husband and get the
Bina beaten by her husband. It is further alleged that they used to
demand for bike and cash. It is further alleged that apart from the
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:54:40 +0530
4husband of her deceased daughter, her brother in law Sanjay (jaith),
brother in law Sandeep (devar) had also used to beat her daughter Bina
and they used to do so on the provocation of Jhankaru Lal, the father in
law of deceased Bina. It is further alleged that she had never
informed to the police about the demand of dowry from the in laws of
the deceased Bina as she thought that things would become better
with the passage of time, but she never thought that this would happen.
The complainant had prayed that Rahul (husband of Bina), Sanjay
(jaith), Sandeep (devar) and Jhankar Lal (father in law) be punished
for their act.”
1.4 The above statement was endorsed by the SDM. He got
the post mortem conducted vide no. 924/2013 at AIIMS Forensic
Department and the dead body was handed over to the legal claimants.
2. As per the case of prosecution in the chargesheet, the
deceased/victim Bina Devi got married with the accused Rahul on
25.10.2007 and after the marriage, the accused Rahul (husband),
accused Jhankaru Lal (father in law), accused Sanjay Kumar (Brother
in law) and accused Sandeep (brother in law/devar) used to harass the
victim Bina in order to meet their dowry demand and they used to
commit cruelty against her.
2.1 It is further alleged that due to the above said act of
cruelty by the accused persons on 14.07.2013 at 01.05 pm at H.No.
13/146, Dakshinpuri Extension, New Delhi within jurisdiction of PS
Ambedkar Nagar, the deceased/victim Bina had committed suicide by
hanging herself and accused persons caused dowry death of the
deceased/victim Bina.
2.2 On the complaint of the complainant Ex. PW1/B, the FIR
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:54:47 +0530
5
bearing no. 310/2013 PS Ambedkar Nagar dated 15.07.2013 was
registered and investigation was taken up.
3. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed and
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. The accused persons Rahul Kumar, Jhankaru Lal, Sanjay Kumar
and Sandeep were charged for commission of offence punishable U/s
498-A/34 IPC and for commission of offence punishable U/s 304-B/34
IPC.
Brief description of testimonies of witnesses examined during
the trial.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
5. PW 7 Jagdish Prasad:- He was the father of the deceased. He
deposed that he was working in the canteen of Food Corporation of
India. He deposed that he had married his daughter Beena with the
accused Rahul Kumar on 25.10.2007. He deposed that in the marriage,
he had given sufficient dowry to the accused persons as per his
capacity. He deposed that however, the accused persons were not
happy with the dowry.
5.1 He further deposed that his daughter lived happily
with the accused persons for about 2-3 years, and thereafter, he started
receiving complaints from his daughter regarding harassment and
beatings. Witness further deposed that accused Jhankaru Lal, the father
in law of the deceased Beena used to instigate other accused persons
namely Rahul- husband of the deceased, Sanjay-Jaith of the deceased
and Sandeep – Devar of the deceased to harass and give beatings to her
daughter.
5.2 He further deposed that accused Rahul Kumar SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 14:54:55 +0530 6
demanded motorcycle as well as cash of Rs. 1 lakh or 1.5 lakh. He
further deposed that the harassment and demand remained continued
till the death of his daughter Beena.
5.3 He further deposed that on 14.07.2013 at about
11.00/11.30 am, deceased Beena made a call to them which was
received by his younger daughter Deepa and she told that she was
given beatings by accused Rahul, Sanjay and Sandeep at the instance
of her father in law Jhankaru Lal for demand of dowry. He further
deposed that she also asked Deepa to send her mother and father to her
house.
5.4 He further deposed that when he along with his
wife were planning to go to her house and in the meantime, at about
01.00 – 01.30 pm, he again received phone call of Om Prakash (Mama
of the accused Rahul) and he requested them to reach the Modi
Hospital as soon as possible, and when they were on the way to Modi
Hospital, he had received a phone call of Jhankaru Lal regarding death
of his daughter Beena.
5.5 He further deposed that when they reached at the
Modi Hospital, he saw his daughter lying dead and at that time, he
noticed three horizontal marks on the front side of her neck. He further
deposed that at that time, his son Jitender was also beaten by the
accused persons. He further deposed that police had also reached in the
Modi Hospital and thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from
there and from Modi Hospital, the dead body of his daughter was
shifted to AIIMS Mortuary.
5.6 He further deposed that on 15.07.2013, he along
with his wife and daughter were taken to SDM office at Hauz Khas
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:55:03 +0530
7
where inquiries were made from them, however, main statement of his
wife Asha was recorded. He further deposed that in the hospital, he
along with Satender -his brother had identified the dead body of Beena
and SDM had recorded his identification statement as Ex. PW 7/A. He
further deposed that after postmortem, the dead body of Beena was
received by them vide delivery memo Ex. PW 7/B.
5.7 He further deposed that after two – three days,
police had also recorded his statement and after two days of receiving
of the dead body, he had handed over marriage card in respect of
marriage of his daughter Beena with accused Rahul, five photographs
of marriage, one CD of marriage and dowry list which IO had seized v
and memo Ex. PW 7/C was prepared.
5.8 He had also identified the marriage card as Ex. PW
7/P-1. Witness further identified five photographs as Ex. PW 7/P-2 and
the CD as Ex. PW7/P-3. Witness further identified the dowry list as
Ex. PW7/P-4. He deposed that his daughter also gave birth to a
daughter who was at that time aged about six years and they had not
seen the face of said daughter of the deceased.
5.9 During the cross examination made on behalf of all
the accused persons, he replied that he knew the family of Jhankaru
Lal for the last about 15-20 years. He admitted that Goverdhan -father
of his wife was owning house no. 13/134 till 1988, in the same locality
where the house of Jhankaru Lal was situated.
5.10 He admitted that he was a tenant in one of the rooms in
the house owned by accused Jhankaru Lal and he used to reside with
his family members till 1989 and at that time, the age of her daughter
Beena was two – three years.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 14:55:11 +0530 8 5.11 He admitted that Smt. Vidhya Devi -sister of his wife was
also tenant in the premises owned by accused Jhankaru Lal in the year
1988-89. He further admitted since a long period, they were knowing
each other. He replied that they were fully aware about the behaviour,
living condition and other relevant factors pertaining to the entire
family members throughout.
5.12 He denied the suggestion that accused Jhankaru Lal used
to help the people who hail from Pauri Gharwal (Uttarakhand), being
the close community and being few in number. He replied that he was
not aware about the nature and conduct of accused Rahul Kumar,
husband of his daughter Beena immediately before her marriage.
5.13 He admitted that in old times, there was a custom and
tradition that the family of the groom used to pay cash amount to the
family of the bride. He replied that he could not tell since when the
said tradition had stopped, but it used to be practiced during the time
of his grandfather or even before.
5.14 He admitted that for the first time, accused Jhankaru Lal
had himself came to his house with the proposal of marriage of
accused Rahul with his daughter Beena. He further deposed that
thereafter, accused Jhankaru Lal alongwith his three daughters came to
their house and gave customary gift of paajeb/anklet to his daughter.
He denied the suggestion that accused Jhankaru Lal had given a sum
of Rs. 52,000/- in cash to him at the time of marriage in the presence
of relatives.
5.15 He admitted that no other gifts had been given except as
mentioned in the list of articles. He further admitted that the articles as
mentioned in Ex. PW7/P-4 were given by him as a gift with his own
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
14:55:17
+0530
9volition and desire without any demand for the same by the accused
persons.
5.16 He further admitted that a daughter was born from the
wedlock of the accused Rahul and victim Beena and her name was
Gifty who was born on 18.12.2009. He admitted that when Beena was
pregnant and Gifty was born to her, accused Rahul and his family
members used to look after them and used to make all the expenditure.
5.17 He admitted that the first birthday of Gifty was celebrated
on 18.12.2010 by accused Rahul and his family at his house. He
admitted that one function after the birth of Gifty was organized in the
month of January, 2010 by accused Jhankaru lal and his family
members. He admitted that the second birthday of Gifty was celebrated
and he had attended the same with his family members.
5.18 He had identified the seven photographs dated 18.12.2011
as Ex. PW 7/DP-1 to Ex. PW 7/DP-7. He admitted that Ex. PW 7/DP-1
to DP-3 contained the photographs of his daughters Beena and Deepa.
5.19 He further admitted that in Ex.PW7/DP-4, he was sitting
with accused Jhankaru Lal. He further admitted that in Ex.PW7/DP-5,
he was sitting with a neighbour of accused Jhankaru Lal. He denied the
suggestion that the marriage of accused Sandeep had been solemnized
within his relation.
5.20 He admitted that the name of his sister-in-law was Rani
and her husband’s name was Sanju. He further admitted that the wife
of accused Sandeep was cousin of said Sanju. He further admitted that
the marriage of Sandeep was solemnized on 12.03.2012. He denied the
suggestion that at the time of marriage of Sandeep, they had cordial
relations with the family of accused Jhankaru Lal. He admitted that heSC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:55:24 +0530
10along with his wife, daughter – Deepa and his sons had participated in
all the functions solemnized during the marriage of Sandeep in the
year 2012.
5.21 He had identified fourteen photographs dated 12.03.2012
pertaining to marriage of accused Sandeep as Ex. PW7/DP-8 to Ex.
PW 7/DP-21. He had admitted that the accused Rahul alongwith Beena
used to come at his residence. He further admitted that when he
alongwith his family members went to his native place in Pauri
Garhwal, accused Rahul alongwith Beena and Gifty stayed at his
residence from 02.06.2013 to 08.06.2013, in order to look after his
house.
5.22 He further admitted that his sons and daughter-Deepa had
given the address of accused Jhankaru Lal whenever they used to
apply for any employment with the government organization and they
used to get the information and correspondence from accused Jhankaru
Lal. He further admitted that his children used to give the address of
accused Jhankaru Lal, only for the reason that they had faith and belief
that they will get their call letters and documents and it will be safe.
5.23 He further admitted that Sandeep has one daughter. He
replied that it may be that the ‘Mundan’ ceremony of Sandeep’s
daughter was performed in Kalkaji Mandir on 21.06.2013. He had
identified one more photographs which was pertaining to the said
mundan ceremony as ex. PW7/DP-22.
5.24 He replied that he was not aware if accused Rahul and
Beena used to go out of station or not. He replied that he cannot say as
to whether Rahul and Beena had gone to Agra on 22.06.2013 on
picnic. He admitted that at no point of time since 2007 till death of his
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:55:30 +0530
11
daughter any kind of Panchayat was held regarding them and the
family of accused Jhankaru Lal.
5.25 He admitted that no complaint was ever made by him or
his family members against the accused persons. He voluntarily
deposed that for the welfare of their daughter, they never made any
complaint. He replied that the police had recorded his statement once,
in the present case, after two-three days of the death of his daughter
-Beena.
5.26 He admitted that no such statement had been made by him
before the police that he had not made any complaint due to welfare of
his daughter. He denied the suggestion that no Panchayat or police
complaint was made, as his daughter was living happily in her
matrimonial home. He further replied that he had given a sum of Rs. 1
Lakh to accused Rahul in four installments i.e. Rs. 20,000/- in the
month of January-2012, Rs. 30,000/- in March-2012, Rs. 40,000/- in
May-2012 and Rs. 10,000/-in June-2012.
5.27 He further replied that according to him, only one demand
of Rs. 1 Lakh was made by the accused Rahul from him, and the same
was paid in the manner as stated above, and thereafter, there was no
demand made directly from him. He further replied that he had stated
in his statement to the police that accused Rahul Kumar used to
demand a cash of Rs. 1 Lakh or 1.5 Lakhs.
5.28 He admitted that they had never taken Beena to hospital
for her treatment for the beatings given to her. He denied the
suggestion that no beatings were ever given by the accused persons to
Beena. He admitted that he had never came to know that Beena was
ever taken to the hospital by the accused or she herself had gone to the
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:55:38 +0530
12
hospital due to any beatings given to her.
5.29 He replied that he along with his wife Asha, his sister in
law Vidya Devi and brother in law Sanjay had left for hospital
immediately after receiving the information regarding death of his
daughter Beena and they reached the hospital at around 02.00- 2.30
pm.
5.30 He further replied that when they reached Saket City
Hospital, two police officials were already present there. He further
replied that the said police officials had not inquired from them
regarding the incident, nor they had told them about the incident. He
replied that they remained in the hospital till about 04.00 PM.
5.31 He further replied that three accused persons, namely,
Jhankaru Lal, Rahul and Sanjay were present in the hospital, when
they had reached at the hospital. He further replied that they had told
the police, the names of the accused persons, who were involved in the
commission of the offence. He further replied that at that time, the
aforesaid three accused persons were present in the hospital. He
replied that he could not say whether police had arrested the accused
persons at hospital or not, after telling by them regarding their
involvement, or they had run away from there.
5.32 He further replied that thereafter, they hired a vehicle and
then, police took them to AIIMS hospital, where, they remained up till
06.00/07.00 PM. Witness further replied that thereafter, they returned
to their home at Loni, Ghaziabad.
5.33 He further replied that on the next day, they again went to
AIIMS hospital. He admitted that SDM had made inquiries from him
and his wife. He further replied that SDM had recorded his statement.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 PANDEY 14:55:45 +0530 13
He further replied that SDM himself had written his statement. He
further replied that he had signed the said statement. He again replied
that his signatures were not obtained, but the thumb impression of his
wife was obtained on that statement.
5.34 He further replied that at the time of recording of his
statement by the SDM, his daughter Deepa and one police official
were also present there. He further replied that he could not tell the
time when his statement was recorded by the SDM.
5.35 He admitted that they had not received the dead body of
his daughter Beena, and the same was received by Om Prakash, the
relative of accused persons. He replied that he could not tell as to
where the cremation of the dead body of Beena took place, as they
were not present in the cremation of his daughter Beena.
5.36 He further replied that he could not tell as to how many
times he had visited the police station regarding this case. He further
replied that on 15.07.2013, he had reached the police station-
Ambedkar Nagar for registration of FIR, at around 03.00-04.00 PM.
5.37 He further replied that at that time, accused Jhankaru Lal,
Sanjay and Rahul were under custody in the police station. He further
replied that he had stayed around 30 to 60 minutes in the police
station and on that day, the police had not recorded any of his
statements.
5.38 Witness further replied that he did not remember as to on
which date, he had visited the police station after 15.07.2013. He
further replied that he alongwith his brothers Satender & Sanand and
his Nephew- Ajay had visited the police station and as they had come
to know that Sanjay had been released by the police, therefore, they
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:55:52 +0530
14
had gone to police station for inquiring this fact as to how and why
Sanjay was released from custody.
5.39 He further admitted that when he alongwith Satender,
Sanand and Ajay had visited the police station for the first time after
15.07.2013, no statement of witness, Satender, Sanand and Ajay was
recorded by the police on that day.
5.40 He further replied that he could not tell as to when he
visited the police station, thereafter. He admitted that police had
recorded his statement during his visit to police station, but he cannot
tell the date of its recording. He further replied that his statement was
recorded by one police official, namely, Devender, in his handwriting,
but the same was not signed by him. He further admitted that none of
his statements was got typed in his presence.
5.41 He further replied that he did not remember if any police
official was accompanying them from hospital to police station, when
he went to police station for lodging the FIR. He further replied that
he had handed over the copy of his statement recorded by the SDM to
the police official at police station. He replied that when he had
reached the police station, accused Jhankaru Lal, Sanjay and Rahul
were already in the police custody.
5.42 He replied that he had not stated to the SDM or to police
in his statement that his daughter lived happily with the accused
persons for about two three years, after her marriage. He replied that
he and his wife Asha had come to know on 14.07.2013 in the evening
at his home about the fact that accused persons had given beatings to
his son Jitender at Saket City Hospital.
5.43 He affirmed the suggestion that he as well as his wife SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by Digitally signed RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 14:55:59 +0530 15
Asha had not stated in their statements to SDM or to police regarding
the fact of beatings given by accused persons to his son Jitender. He
denied the suggestion that no beatings had been given by the accused
persons to his son Jitender or that he had deposed falsely in this regard.
He affirmed the suggestion that Vidya Devi, who was his sister-in-law
was also called by the name of ‘Sakku’.
5.44 He affirmed the suggestion that he was Cook in FCI
Canteen and was earning monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/- at the time of
marriage of his daughter – Beena. He further replied that he has three
children namely Jitender, Mahender and Deepa. He replied that at the
time of death of his daughter Beena, his son Jitender was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month and Mahender was earning Rs.7,000/- per
month. He replied that they were aged about 25 and 24 years
respectively and were unmarried.
5.45 He replied that they were working since 2-3 years prior
to the death of Beena. He replied that he had one motorcycle, which
he had purchased about two-three years ago and before that they had
no vehicle. He replied that he had purchased a house on installments,
in the year 1996. He replied that he did not have any other property.
He affirmed the suggestion that accused Jhankaru Lal had three
houses. He further replied that two houses of 25 yards each had been
joined together and they are four storeyed and the third one was a
single storeyed house.
5.46 He replied that accused Rahul did not have any
motorcycle at the time of his marriage with his daughter Beena. He
affirmed the suggestion that the accused Rahul used to come to their
house on a motorcycle but he did not know its registration number. He
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:56:07 +0530
16
replied that he could not tell when that motorcycle was purchased after
marriage. He replied that he did not know who was the owner of that
motorcycle. He further replied that he could not say if the said
motorcycle was ‘Platina’ motorcycle.
5.47 He replied that at the time of death of his daughter Beena,
the accused persons had only two vehicles and those were
motorcycles. He replied that one motorcycle was given to Sandeep in
his marriage by his in-laws and on the other motorcycle Rahul used to
come to their house but he did not know as to who was the owner of
that motorcycle.
5.48 He replied that after about one year of marriage of his
daughter Beena, accused Rahul had started coming to their house on
that motorcycle. He replied that at the time of marriage, accused
Rahul was doing some private job on daily wage basis and at the time
of death of his daughter, he was working in some company. He could
not say if he was working as a Quality Controller in a company called
‘Sakshay International’ at the time of death of his daughter.
5.49 He affirmed the suggestion that accused Jhankaru Lal had
retired from Kalindi College, Delhi University but he did not know if
he retired as Senior Assistant or not. He affirmed the suggestion that
Sanjay and Sandeep were also working in Kalindi College. Witness
was shown three photographs and he admits that his daughter Beena
was seen in those photographs as Ex.PW7/DP-23 to DP25. He denied
the suggestion that no demand of dowry was ever made by the
accused persons from his daughter Beena or from him or any of his
family members.
5.50 He denied the suggestion that his daughter Beena had
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:56:15 +0530
17
never been harassed by the accused persons on account of demand of
dowry or for anything-else. He further denied the suggestion that his
daughter Beena had been living happily with her husband or that he
had got the present case registered just to extract money from the
accused persons or that he had deposed falsely.
6. PW-8 Smt. Asha:- She was the mother of the deceased. She
deposed that she was house wife and she was illiterate. She further
deposed that she had married her daughter Beena with accused Rahul
Kumar in the month of October -2007. She further deposed that her
daughter remained happily for about one year after her marriage and
thereafter all the accused persons namely Jhankaru Lal – father in law
of the deceased, Rahul Kumar- husband of the deceased, Sanjay- Jaith
of the deceased and Sandeep – Devar of the deceased had started
harassing his daughter Beena for want of more dowry as well as cash.
6.1 She further deposed that whenever her daughter used to
come to their home, she used to tell about the demand and harassment
to her younger daughter – Deepa. She further deposed that on some
occasions, they had tried to made them understand not to harass their
daughter for want of dowry, but the behavior of the accused persons
remained as it is.
6.2 She further deposed that on 14.07.2013 at about 11.30 am,
her daughter Beena made a call which was received by her younger
daughter – Deepa and she requested to send her mother and father, as
the accused persons were harassing and beating her and when they
were in the process to go to the house of her daughter – Beena, in the
meantime, at about 01.00-01.30 pm, they had received a phone call of
Om Prakash – Mama of the accused Rahul Kumar who told them to
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
14:56:21
+0530
18reach Modi Hospital, Saket, New Delhi as they had brought Beena
there. Witness further deposed that thereafter they reached at Modi
Hospital, Saket, where they saw their daughter – Beena was lying
dead.
6.3 Witness further deposed that from the hospital, the dead
body of her daughter was shifted to AIIMS mortuary. She further
deposed that from the hospital, she along with her daughter and her
husband were taken to SDM Office, where SDM had made inquiries
from them and he had also recorded his statement on 15.07.2013 As
Ex. PW 8/A. She deposed that they had also received the dead body of
her daughter after post mortem.
6.4 She further deposed that her daughter had also gave birth
to a daughter whose name was Gifty and was at that time aged about
5-6 years and till that time, they had not even seen her face. She
deposed that she was in the doubt that whether she was living with the
accused persons or not. She had identified the accused persons in the
court correctly.
6.5 During the cross examination made on behalf of accused
persons, she replied that she did not remember at what time, she had
reached the hospital after receiving intimation of death of her daughter
Beena. She further replied that police was already present in the
hospital when she had reached there and at that time, accused Rahul,
Jhankaru Lal and Sanjay were also present in the hospital. She further
replied that at that time, she did not tell the police that her daughter
died due to these persons.
6.6 She further replied that she did not remember whether the
accused persons were apprehended in the hospital or not. She furtherSC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:56:28 +0530
19replied that her statement was recorded by the SDM initially. She
further replied that later on, police also recorded her statement and
after recording of her statement by the SDM, she did not remember
whether her statement was ever recorded by the police or not. She
further replied that she did not remember whether her statement was
recorded by the SDM on the date of incident or later on. She replied
that police had taken them to SDM. Witness further replied that she did
not remember whether the SDM himself recorded her statement or got
it recorded from somebody else.
6.7 She further replied that she did not remember whether the
SDM read out her statement to her or not. She voluntarily replied that
she was illiterate. She further replied that she might have accompanied
her husband to police station thereafter, but she did not remember
whether her statement was also recorded formally by the police or not.
6.8 She admitted that she had stated in her statement to the
SDM that her son Jitender was also beaten by the accused persons
there when he asked from the accused persons as to how his sister
died. Witness was confronted with her statement Ex. PW8/A, wherein
it was not so recorded. She further replied that she did not remember
whether she had stated so in her statement recorded by the police. She
replied that she could not recall at that time as to when her daughter
last visited her house prior to her death, but perhaps, that was in first
week of June, 2013.
6.9 She replied that she did not remember distinctly as to
whether she had gone to the police station on the date of death of her
daughter or on the date when her postmortem was conducted, but she
might have gone to the police station. She further replied that she didSC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:56:45 +0530
20not join the cremation of her daughter. She further replied that she did
not remember whether she had visited police station after the date of
postmortem or not.
6.10 She further replied that she did not remember whether she
had stated in her statement to the SDM as to the demand of Rs. 1 lakh
– Rs 1.5 lakh by the accused persons. Witness further replied that she
was not in very fit condition of mind due to death of her daughter, at
the time when her statement was recorded by the SDM.
6.11 She denied the suggestion that due to unfitness of mind at
the time of recording of statement by the SDM, she did not remember
as to what she had stated before SDM at that time. Witness further
denied the suggestion that no demand of dowry was ever made by the
accused persons from her daughter Beena or from her or any of her
family members.
6.12 She denied the suggestion that her daughter Beena had
never been harassed by the accused persons on account of demand of
dowry or for anything else. Witness further denied the suggestion that
her daughter Beena had been living happily with her husband or that
she had got the present case registered just to extract money from the
accused persons.
7. PW 9 Deepa:- She was the sister of the deceased Beena. She
deposed that she was doing B.A 2 nd year through correspondence, from
Delhi University. She further deposed that her elder sister Beena was
married with accused Rahul Kumar on 25.10.2007. She deposed that
her sister Beena remained happily in her matrimonial home for about
two – three years and thereafter she was harassed by the accused
persons for demand of dowry and cash.
Digitally signed
SC No. 6848/2016 RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. KUMAR
KUMAR
PANDEY
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:56:53 +0530
21
7.1 She further deposed that the accused persons used to give
beatings to her sister Beena. She further deposed that accused persons
used to demand bike/ motorcycle and cash from her sister Beena. She
further deposed that her parents also used to try to make them
understand not to demand dowry or harass Beena, but their behavior
remained unchanged.
7.2 She further deposed that the other accused persons
namely Sanjay – Jaith of the deceased, Jhankaru Lal- father in law of
deceased and Sandeep – Devar of the deceased. She further deposed
that the husband, Jaith and Devar of her sister Beena used to harass
and give beatings to Beena at the instance / instigation of her father in
law Jhankaru Lal.
7.3 She further deposed that on 14.07.2013 at about 11.30 am,
her sister made a call which was received by her. She further deposed
that she had requested to send her mother and father as soon as
possible as the accused persons were harassing and beating her. She
further deposed that she had also told about this to her parents and they
had left for her house.
7.4 She further deposed that later on, she also came to know
from her father about the death of her sister Beena. She further
deposed that on 15.07.2013, SDM had also made inquiries from her as
well as her parents and later on police also recorded her statement on
16.07.2013. She had identified the accused persons in the court.
7.5 During her cross – examination made on behalf of
accused persons, she replied that her deceased sister was five- six
years elder to her. She further replied that she was informed about
death of her sister Beena by her brother Jitender and at that time, she
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:57:01 +0530
22
was at home, but she did not remember at what time, she got this
information. She further replied that she did not remember at what
time, she had gone to the office of SDM.
7.6 She replied that her statement was recorded by the SDM
which she had signed. She further replied that police had also
recorded her statement after about one month in the police station. She
replied that she did not remember now as to what she had stated to the
police. She replied that she did not remember whether police had
recorded statement of any other person on that day or not. She replied
that police made inquiries from her but nothing was written in her
presence.
7.7 She replied that IO did not meet her on the date
05.06.2014 when she lastly deposed in the Court. She denied the
suggestion that no demand of dowry was ever made by the accused
persons from her sister Beena or from her or any of her family
members. She denied the suggestion that her sister Beena had ever
been harassed by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry
or for anything else.
7.8 Witness further denied the suggestion that her sister
Beena had been living happily with her husband. She further denied
the suggestion that on the day of death of Beena, she had not made any
call to her regarding beatings being given to her by the accused
persons for demand of dowry. She replied that she could not identify
the handwriting of her sister Beena. She denied the suggestion that she
had deposed falsely.
8. PW 11 Satendra :- He deposed that he was working as Senior
Assistant in NDMC. He further deposed that on 25.10.2007, his elder
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:57:07 +0530
23
brother Jagdish Prasad had married his daughter-Beena with Rahul S/o
Jhankaru Lal. He further deposed that about 2-3 years, Beena lived
happily in her married life, and thereafter, her in-laws, including Rahul
Kumar (husband), Jhankaru Lal (father-in-law), Sanjay (Jaith),
Sandeep (Devar), had started harassing her for demand of dowry i.e.
bike and cash.
8.1 He further deposed that in the last week of May 2013,
Beena had telephoned to her parents and she told that she was being
harassed for demand of dowry i.e. bike and cash. He further deposed
that in the month of June 2013, she came to her parents house and at
that time, she had also told these facts, and after about one or two
weeks, she was taken back by her husband to her matrimonial home.
8.2 He further deposed that on 14.07.2013, at about 11.30
AM, his brother Jagdish informed him over telephone that they had
received a phone call of Beena who told that she was being harassed
and beaten by her in-laws for demand of dowry. He further deposed
that on the same day at about 01.30 PM, he again received telephone
call of his brother Jagdish that Beena was no more, as his brother had
received a phone call of Om Prakash- Mama of accused Rahul. He
further deposed that thereafter, they had reached Saket City Hospital
and from there, they were taken to AIIMS Mortuary.
8.3 He further deposed that on 15.07.2013, they had also
identified the dead body of Beena and the IO had recorded his
identification statement as EX.PW-11/A. He further deposed that after
postmortem, they had received the dead body of Beena vide delivery
memo EX. PW-7/B. Witness further deposed that on the same day,
statements of his brother Jagdish and his Bhabhi- Asha Devi were
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:57:14 +0530
24recorded by the SDM, and later on, police had recorded the statement
in the police station. He correctly identified all the accused persons
present in the Court.
8.4 During his cross examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that he was working in NDMC since 1997.
He further replied that he had been living at his aforesaid address since
2002. He further replied that he had married in the year 1996 and till
then, he was living with his brother, but after his marriage, he started
to live separately.
8.5 Witness further replied that he was told by his brother
Jagdish with regard to call made by deceased Beena to him in the last
week of May 2013, but he could tell the date, on which, his brother
Jagdish informed him about the said call. Witness admitted that he did
not have the correct information as to why and with whom his niece
Beena went to her parents in the first week of June 2013.
8.6 He further replied that on the day of incident when he had
received the information regarding the death of Beena, he was at his
home. He further replied that he might have reached at Saket City
Hospital between 03.00 to 04.00 PM and by that time, his brother
Jagdish had already reached there. He further replied that at that time,
neither any police personnel nor any family member from the family
of accused Jhankaru Lal, was present there.
8.7 He replied that he did not know as to who had brought
Beena in the hospital and she had already been taken to AIIMS
hospital by her parents alongwith police officials, prior to his reaching
there. He further replied that he had no specific information as to
whether Beena was killed or she had committed suicide, but she might
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:57:22 +0530
25have been killed.
8.8 He further replied that two – three police personnel were
present in the AIIMS hospital. Witness further replied that on
14.07.2013, he alongwith his brother-Jagdish, Sadanand and other
family members went to police station in the evening. He replied that
police had recorded his and his brother Jagdish’s statement and they
told the police that Beena had been killed by the accused persons.
8.9 He further replied that a few of the accused persons had
already been arrested by that time as heard by him, although, he had
not personally seen them to be arrested.
8.10 He admitted that except his statement on 14.07.2013,
police did not record any of his statement thereafter. He again replied
that he was not sure about this fact whether his said statement was
recorded by the police on 14.07.2013 or 15.07.2013, as police official
had informed that prior to registration of FIR, the statements would be
recorded by the SDM.
8.11 He further replied that the police official who made
inquiries from him, had reduced the same in writing in his own
handwriting, while he was giving his statement. Witness further replied
that he had not signed the said statement. Witness admitted that the
police official who had recorded his statement, did not ask from him
about his address and he himself noted the same address as of his
brother Jagdish, being his brother.
8.12 He replied that in his presence, his statement was not got
typed by him. He replied that accused Rahul and Beena had come to
his house also and they quarreled, but no demand was made from him
or in his presence by accused Rahul and he had come to know aboutSC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:57:29 +0530
26the demands, from his brother-Jagdish. He voluntarily replied that he
even came to know that wife of Sanjay who was elder brother of Rahul
had also left him and he was facing some case in that regard in Court.
8.13 He further replied that Jagdish did not tell him the make
of bike or the amount of cash, which was being demanded because
Sanjay’s wife had left him, he was sure, Beena must have been killed
by the accused persons. He replied that although, he had seen the dead
body of Beena, but she was covered with a cloth and he could not see
any part of her body except her neck, which had blue marks. Witness
further replied that he could not say whether she had any marks of
injury on other parts of her body or not.
8.14 Witness denied the suggestion that no demand for any
bike or cash was ever made by any of the accused persons from Beena
or her parents or any of her parental family members. Witness further
denied the suggestion that Beena was not harassed for the said demand
of dowry. Witness further denied the suggestion that it was not a case
of ‘dowry death’. He further denied that he had never been informed by
his brother Jagdish with regard to any demand or harassment by the
accused persons for dowry or anything else or that he had never joined
the investigation or that he had not made any statement to the IO or
that he deposed falsely.
9. PW 12 Sanand Kumar :- He deposed that he do a private job.
He further deposed that on 25.10.2007, his elder brother Jagdish
Prasad had married his daughter Beena with accused Rahul S/o
Jhankaru Lal. He deposed that about two- three years, Beena lived
happily in her married life and thereafter, in-laws including Rahul
Kumar (husband), Jhankaru Lal (father in law), Sanjay (Jaith),
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:57:37 +0530
27
Sandeep (Devar) had started harassing her for demand of dowry i.e.,
bike and cash. He further deposed that in the last week of May, 2013,
Beena had telephoned to her parents and she told that she was being
harassed for demand of dowry i.e., bike and cash.
9.1 He further deposed that in the month of June, 2013, she
came to her parents house and at that time she had also told these facts
and after about one or two weeks, she was taken back by her husband
to her matrimonial home. He deposed that they both were made
understand by the parents of Beena.
9.2 He further deposed that on 14.07.2013, his brother
Jagdish informed that at about 11.30 am, Beena had telephoned Deepa
that Beena was being harassed and beaten by her in-laws for demand
of dowry. He further deposed that on the same day at about 01.00 pm,
he had received a telephone call of his brother Jagdish that Beena was
no more, as his brother had received a phone call of Om Prakash
(mama of the accused Rahul). He further deposed that thereafter, he
was about to reach the Saket City Hospital but before he could enter
the hospital, he had received information from his brother Jagdish that
they had taken Beena to AIIMS Hospital and then he went to the
AIIMS Hospital.
9.3 He further deposed that on 15.07.2013, they also
identified the dead body of Beena. He further deposed that after post
mortem, they received the dead body of Beena. He further deposed
that on the same day, statements of his brother Jagdish and his Bhabhi
-Asha Devi were recorded by the SDM, and later on police recorded
his statement in the police station. Witness further deposed that he
even came to know that wife of Sanjay who was elder brother of
SC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:57:52 +0530
28accused Rahul had also left him and he was facing some case in this
regard in court. He had identified all the accused persons in the court.
9.4 During his cross-examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, witness replied that he knew the family of accused
Jhankaru Lal from about six years prior to the marriage of Beena.
Witness further replied that his brother Jagdish and Jhankaru Lal used
to go to each other’s house before marriage of Beena. He further
replied that he came to know that his brother Jagdish was living as a
tenant with accused Jhankaru Lal.
9.5 Witness further replied that there was no dowry demand
from the side of accused Jhankaru Lal before marriage of Beena.
Witness further replied that he had been living at the aforementioned
address since 2002-2003 with his family. Witness further replied that
he could not tell as to how much amount was spent by Jagdish in the
marriage of Beena.
9.6 Witness further replied that he came to know about the
harassment of Beena, only through Jagdish for the first time after
about 3-4 years of her marriage. Witness further replied that he was not
told about the make of bike or the amount of cash being demanded by
the accused persons by his brother Jagdish.
9.7 Witness further replied that his statement was recorded by
the police on 16th or 17th July, 2013 and it was recorded only once.
Witness further replied that statements of his brothers Jagdish and
Satendra were also recorded but he was not sure whether they were
recorded along with his statement or not. Witness further replied that
he did not remember as to whose statement was recorded when his
statement was recorded. Witness further replied that his statement was
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:57:59 +0530
29
recorded by SI Devender Singh, however, he did not remember
whether he had signed the same or not, but the same was read over to
him. Witness further replied that he had stated in his statement to the
police that his brother Jagdish had told him regarding harassment of
Beena for dowry demand, after three – four years of her marriage.
9.8 Witness further replied that his brother Jagdish had told
him about harassment of Beena for dowry demand, at least three – four
times. He replied that he did not remember whether he had stated so,
in his statement to the police or not.
9.9 Witness denied the suggestion that no demand for any
bike or cash was ever made by any of the accused persons from Beena
or her parents or any of her parental family members. Witness further
denied the suggestion that Beena was not harassed for the said demand
of dowry. Witness further denied the suggestion that it was not a case
of dowry death. Witness further denied the suggestion that he had
never been informed by his brother Jagdish with regard to any demand
or harassment by the accused persons for dowry or anything else or
that he had joined the investigation or that he had not made any
statement to the IO. Witness further denied the suggestion that Jagdish
had not told him about the harassment of Beena by the accused
persons for any demand of dowry after three – four years of marriage
of Beena. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
10. PW 18 Sh. S.K. Gupta, Deputy Secretary :- He deposed that on
15.07.2013, he was posted as SDM Hauz Khas South District, New
Delhi. He deposed that on that day, on receipt of information from PS
Ambedkar Nagar about this incident, he had reached AIIMS Mortuary
where parents of deceased Smt. Beena Devi met him. He further
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:58:14 +0530
30
deposed that he had made inquiries from them and recorded statement
of Asha, mother of the deceased in his handwriting as Ex.PW8/A and it
was duly attested by him. Witness further deposed that he had also
given direction on the said statement to take necessary action against
the accused persons under relevant provision of law as ExPW18/A.
10.1 Witness further deposed that he had made request for the
postmortem on the body of deceased as Ex.PW18/B. Witness further
deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Shri Jagdish Prasad,
father of deceased and Shri Satender, uncle of deceased regarding
identification of dead body. He had identified their statements as
Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW 11/A respectively. Witness further deposed that
he had also filled up form 25.35(1) (b) as Ex.PW18/C.
10.2 During the cross examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that he had recorded the statement of Smt.
Asha, the mother of deceased Beena at about 09.30 – 10.00 am on
15.07.2013 at AIIMS Mortuary. Witness admitted that the statement
Ex. PW 8/A was in question answer form. Witness replied that he had
not recorded any statement of any other person except Smt. Asha.
Witness further replied that his office was situated at a distance of 12-
14 kms from the AIIMS Mortuary.
10.3 Witness further replied that when he got information
regarding this case at about 09.00 am, he was on the way to his office.
Witness further replied that after receiving this information, he
straightaway went to AIIMS mortuary and he did not go to his office.
Witness further replied that he had remained in the AIIMS mortuary
till 11.00 – 11.30 am.
10.4 Witness denied the suggestion that he had not recorded SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 PANDEY 14:58:23 +0530 31
the statement of Smt. Asha at AIIMS Mortuary. Witness further denied
the suggestion that he had recorded the statement of Smt. Asha at his
office. Witness further denied the suggestion that he had not recorded
the statement of Smt. Asha in a natural way. He denied that suggestion
that he deposed falsely.
POLICE WITNESSES
11. PW 1 HC Mohan Singh:- He deposed that on 15.07.2013, he
was the duty officer from 08.00 am to 04.00 pm. He further deposed
that on that day at about 02.30 pm, he had received a rukka from SHO/
Inspector Abhay Singh in the police station itself for registration of
FIR. He deposed that on the basis of said rukka, he got recorded the
present FIR bearing no. 310/2013 U/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC as Ex. PW
1/A. He also made endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B. He further
deposed that he had returned back the copy of FIR alongwith original
rukka to SI Devender Singh for investigation.
11.1 During his cross examination made on behalf of accused
persons, he replied that the statement of the complainant was not
recorded in his presence. He further replied that he did not have any
personal knowledge of this case.
12. PW 3 SI Krishan Lal:- He deposed that on 14.07.2013, he was
posted as Incharge Crime Team, South East District. He further
deposed that on that day on receipt of call from Control Room, he
alongwith HC Kirti Kumar Proficient and Ct. Punit -photographer had
reached at the spot i.e., H.No. 146/13, Third floor, Dakshinpuri, New
Delhi where Ct. Punit clicked the spot. He further deposed that he
had inspected the spot. He further deposed that the dead body of the
deceased Beena was already shifted to the hospital. He further deposed
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:58:31 +0530
32that he also found one chunni which was lying on the grill of the
window of the said house. He further deposed that he had identified his
scene of crime report bearing no. 634/13 as Ex. PW3/A. He further
deposed that he had handed over the same to the IO / ASI Bijender
who was present at the spot at that time.
12.1 During his cross examination made on behalf of the
accused persons, he replied that he had not stated about the presence of
HC Kirti Kumar in his statement recorded by the IO as it was not
relevant to him.
13. PW 4 Ct. Sanjay Singh:- He deposed that on 15.07.2013, he
was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar. He deposed that on that day, he had
joined the investigation of the present case with SI Devender Singh
and they both had gone to the house of accused persons at 13-146,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi and from there, accused Rahul Kumar and
accused Jhankaru Lal were arrested in the present case and their arrest
memos as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, and their personal search
memos as Ex. PW 4/C and Ex. PW 4/D were prepared.
13.1 He further deposed that IO had recorded their disclosure
statements as Ex. PW 4/E of accused Rahul Kumar and Ex. PW 4/F of
accused Jhankaru Lal respectively.
13.2 He further deposed that they have made the search of
other accused persons namely Sandeep and Sanjay but despite their
efforts, they could not be traced. He further deposed that both the
accused persons were got medically examined in the Batra Hospital
and from there, they were brought to the police station and put behind
the lock-up.
13.3 He further deposed that on the next day i.e. 16.07.2013, SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 PANDEY 14:58:39 +0530 33
both the accused persons were produced before the concerned court
and from there, they were sent to judicial custody. He further deposed
that IO had recorded his statement. He had identified both the accused
persons in the court.
13.4 He further deposed that on 01.10.2013, he had obtained
one sealed pullanda having viscera of the deceased vide RC No.
179/21/13 obtained from MHC (M) at the instance of the IO. He
further deposed that the same was deposited at CFSL, CGO Complex,
New Delhi. He further deposed that he had also returned back the copy
of receipt of the same to the MHC (M). He further deposed that the
pullanda remained intact till it was in his possession and no one had
tampered with it. He further deposed that IO had recorded his
statement.
13.5 During his cross examination made on behalf of accused
persons, he replied that on 15.07.2013, they had left the PS at about
08.30 pm. He did not know if the IO had received any information
regarding presence of accused persons at their house or not as he was
called by the IO. Witness admitted that he had not seen any document
relating to any kind of information with respect to the availability of
the accused at their house.
13.6 Witness replied that he was not associated for the
investigation of the present case on 14.07.2013. He further replied that
they had reached Dakshinpuri at about 08.45 pm. Witness further
replied that he could not say that who were present at their house
except the accused persons. Witness further admitted that he was not
aware about the address where they were supposed to go for
apprehending the accused. Witness further replied that perhaps, the
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:58:46 +0530
34
house of the accused Rahul and Jhankaru consists of three floors.
13.7 Witness admitted that he was not aware about the address
where they were supposed to go for apprehending the accused. Witness
replied that accused Jhankaru Lal was apprehended first. Witness
denied that accused Jhankaru Lal was not apprehended first as the fact
was not mentioned in his statement made to the IO. Witness replied
that he could not tell as to who else apart from him and IO had signed
Ex. PW 4/A to Ex.PW 4/F. Witness denied the suggestion that no
statement of accused Rahul and Jhankaru Lal were recorded in his
presence.
13.8 Witness replied that he had joined the investigation of this
case on 15.07.2013 and 16.07.2013. Witness replied that accused
Sandeep and Sanjay were searched in the neighbourhood. Witness had
denied the suggestion that his statement dated 16.07.2013 was
recorded by the IO of his own without his knowledge. Witness denied
the suggestion that the accused Jhankaru Lal and Rahul were not
arrested from their houses but they accompanied the IO all along.
Witness further denied the suggestion that both the accused persons
were not medically examined from the Batra Hospital nor any
disclosure statement was made by the accused persons. He denied the
suggestion that his signatures were also taken by the IO on Ex.PW4/A
to Ex. PW 4/F.
13.9 Witness denied the suggestion that the signatures of the
accused persons were taken on blank papers. He denied that he had not
participated in the investigation or that IO had recorded his statement
of his own. He denied the suggestion that he had been asked by the IO
to make statement before this Court in support of this case. He denied
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:58:52 +0530
35
the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
14. PW 5 HC Bansi Lal :- He deposed that on 14.07.2023, he was
posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar. On that day, at about 02.30 pm, he had
received DD NO. 31-A which pertains to admission of one Beena in
Saket City Hospital who was declared brought dead and the said DD
was marked to ASI Bijender Singh and handed over the same to him.
14.1 He further deposed that on 23.07.2013, he had joined
investigation of the present case with Inspector Abhay Singh and they
had gone at H.No. 13/146, Dakshinpuri and from there they brought
the accused Sanjay in the police station and after making inquiries
from him, he was arrested by the IO in the present case and arrest
memo Ex. PW 5/A and his personal search was conducted and memo
Ex. PW 5/B was prepared. He further deposed that IO had recorded
his disclosure statement as Ex. PW 5/C. He had identified the accused
Sanjay in the court.
14.2 During his cross examination made on behalf of accused
persons, he replied that he could not say whether DD No. 31-A was on
the judicial record or not. He further replied that he had handed over
the said DD to ASI Bijender at about 02.45 pm. Witness admitted that
there was no documentary evidence to show that he had handed over
the said DD to ASI Bijender at Virat Cinema at 06.30 pm. Witness
replied that accused Sanjay was apprehended from the ground floor of
the H.No. 13/146, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi. Witness replied that his
arrest memo was prepared at police station. Witness admitted that
accused Sanjay was arrested from his house no. 13/136, Dakshinpuri
being his permanent residence and not from the H.No. 13/146. Witness
denied the suggestion that at the time of preparing of arrest memo Ex.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 14:59:00 +0530 36
PW 5/A and personal search memo Ex.PW 5/B of accused Sanjay, he
did not join the investigation with the IO on 14.07.2013 and
23.07.2013.
14.3 Witness admitted that there was no documentary
evidence to show that he was on duty on 23.07.2013 at police station.
Witness denied that no disclosure statement was made in his presence.
He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was
made in his presence.
14.4 He further denied the suggestion that the IO had taken
the signatures of the accused on blank paper. He further denied the
suggestion that IO had got his signatures on blank paper. He replied
that the disclosure statement was prepared at about 07.00-07.30 pm.
He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
15. PW 6 Ct. Jaivir Singh :- He deposed that on 03.10.2013, he on
the directions of the IO, had obtained from the MHC (M) one sealed
pullanda which was duly sealed with the seal of AIIMS Hospital which
contained one chunni. He deposed that the same was taken to the
Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS Hospital and handed over
the same to the doctor for subsequent opinion. He deposed that he had
received the receipt and he handed over the same to the MHC(M). He
further deposed that IO had recorded his statement.
15.1 During cross examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that he did not have any personal
knowledge regarding the present case.
16. PW 13 Ct. Hari Om :- He deposed that on 12.12.2013, he was
posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar and on that day, he had joined the
investigation of the present case with IO/ SI Devender Singh and they
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
14:59:08 +0530
37both had went to Saket Court, New Delhi, where accused Sandeep had
surrendered himself before the concerned court and the IO/ SI
Devender Singh after taking permission from the concerned court had
interrogated the accused and thereafter, he was arrested in the present
case.
16.1 Witness had identified the arrest memo of accused
Sandeep as Ex. PW 13/A and personal search memo as Ex. PW 13/B.
Witness further deposed that IO had also recorded the disclosure
statement of accused Sandeep and identified the same as Ex. PW 13/C.
He further deposed that after making the arrest of the accused
Sandeep, he was sent to judicial custody. He deposed that thereafter IO
had recorded his statement.
16.2 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of
accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
17. PW 13 Ct. Sandeep :- He deposed that on 16.01.2014, he was
posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar and on that day on the direction of the
IO, he went to the AIIMS Hospital to collect report from Forensic
Department and the exhibits of the case. Witness further deposed that
accordingly, he went there and collected report and exhibit and handed
over the same to the IO/ SI Devender Singh. Witness further deposed
that exhibits were deposited by SI Devender in Malkhana and report
was kept on file. He deposed that his statement to this effect was
recorded.
17.1 During cross-examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that he did not know who was the IO of the
case when he brought the report and exhibit from Forensic Department
but he had handed over the same to SI Devender. Witness further
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:59:16 +0530
38
replied that no seizure memo was prepared in his presence nor he had
signed any seizure memo in this regard.
18. PW 16 SI Bijender Singh :- He deposed that on 14.07.2013, he
was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as ASI. Witness further deposed
that on that day he was on emergency duty from 08.00 am to 08.00
pm. He further deposed that on that day at about 02.45 pm, he had
received DD no. 33-A in AKAB from HC Bansi Lal and the said DD
pertains to Bina Devi who was brought dead in Saket City Hospital.
He identified the said DD as Ex. PW16/A.
18.1 Witness further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct.
Shamsher had reached Saket City hospital. Witness further deposed
that there he had obtained MLC of deceased Bina from the hospital.
Witness further deposed that in the hospital, Jagdish, father of
deceased Bina alongwith other family members met him and he had
inquired from Jagdish and at that time, Jagdish was saying that his
daughter was killed by the accused persons. Witness further deposed
that thereafter, he had shared this information with the SHO.
18.2 Witness further deposed that he had also requested to send
the crime team at the spot and he had also informed concerned SDM
Sh. S.K. Gupta. Witness further deposed that doctor also removed the
jewellery worn by the deceased and the same were kept in a plastic
container and handed over him and the same was converted into
pullanda by him and duly sealed with the seal of BS and seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 16/B.
18.3 Witness further deposed that thereafter dead body of the
deceased Bina was sent to AIIMS mortuary through Ct. Shamsher for
the purpose of postmortem. Witness further deposed that his request to
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
14:59:22 +0530
39
CMO AIIMS Mortuary in this regard for preserving the dead body of
the deceased Bina as Ex. PW 16/C. Witness further deposed that
thereafter he had reached at the spot.
18.4 Witness further deposed that photographer also clicked
the scene of crime. Witness further deposed that incharge crime team
also prepared scene of crime report and the same was handed over to
him. Witness further deposed that he had also seized two pieces of
chunni, one piece of chunni was lying on the floor and one piece of
chunni was tied with iron window and he had converted the same into
pullanda which was duly sealed with the seal of BS and was seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW 16/D.
18.5 Witness further deposed that he had also collected the
Crime Scene report from the crime team who had visited the place of
incident. Witness further deposed that thereafter, he had come back to
PS and deposited the sealed parcel in the malkhana. Witness further
deposed that on 15.07.2013, SDM got conducted the post mortem on
the body of the deceased at AIIMS hospital and SDM also recorded the
statement of mother of deceased and he had also gone to the AIIMS
Hospital and collected three sealed parcels from the hospital from the
concerned doctor after postmortem of the deceased.
18.6 Witness further deposed that he had collected the
statement of mother of deceased from SDM and came back to the
police station and he had deposited the parcel in the malkhana and the
statement of mother of deceased was recorded by the SDM was
produced before the SHO in the PS. Witness further deposed that the
investigation was marked to SI Devender. Witness further deposed that
his statement was recorded by IO SI Devender on 16.07.2013. Witness
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:59:36 +0530
40further deposed that on 03.03.2014, IO had prepared the site plan at his
instance and recorded his statement in this regard and identified the
same as Ex. PW 19/C.
18.7 During cross-examination, this witness replied that after
receiving DD, he had reached at Saket City hospital at around 03.00
pm. Witness admitted that the deceased Bina was hospitalized by her
husband and other relatives of her husband and the husband of
deceased Bina and other in laws including her father were present at
the hospital. Witness further admitted that he was verbally informed by
the parents of deceased about the incident and at that time, the parents
of the deceased and her in laws were talking with each other about the
incident.
18.8 Witness further replied that after sending the dead body to
AIIMS Hospital for postmortem, he had visited the place of occurrence
where the incident had taken place. Witness further admitted that on
inquiries, he had come to know at the place of occurrence that
deceased had died due to hanging by chunni.
18.9 Witness further replied that the statement of mother of
deceased was recorded by SDM at AIIMS Hospital in his presence.
Witness had denied the suggestion that the statement of mother of
deceased was not recorded in his presence. He denied the suggestion
that he had deposed falsely.
19. PW 17 Ct. Puneet :- He deposed that on 14.07.2013, he was
posted at Crime Team South East District. He deposed that on receipt
of information from control room, he along with SI Krishan Kumar
Incharge Crime Team and HC Kirti, Finger Print proficient went to
house no. 146/13, 3rd Floor, Dakshin Puri. He further deposed that
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
14:59:42 +0530
41local police was found present at the spot.
19.1 He further deposed that Incharge Crime Team had
inspected the place of incident. He further deposed that on the
directions of the IO, he had taken six photographs of the place of
incident and later on those photographs were developed in their official
lab. He further deposed that he had seen the prints of the photographs
which were lying on the record. He had identified the photographs as
Ex. PW 17/A-1 to A-6 and negatives of the same as Ex. PW 17/B-1 to
B6.
19.2 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of
accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
20. PW 19 SI Devender Singh :- He deposed that on 15.07.2013, he
was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar and the investigation of the present
case was assigned to him after registration of the FIR. Witness further
deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Sanjay went to H.No.
13/146, Dakshin Puri in search of accused persons. Witness further
deposed that on reaching there, they found accused Jhankaru Lal and
Rahul Kumar (correctly identified by the witness in the court) were
found present in the said house. Both of them were arrested vide arrest
memo Ex. PW 4/B and Ex. PW 4/A respectively.
20.1 He further deposed that the information regarding their
arrest was given to Smt. Vidya Devi, w/o accused Jhankaru Lal. He
further deposed that both the accused persons were taken to the Batra
Hospital for their medical examination. He further deposed that both
the accused persons were interrogated and the facts disclosed by
accused Rahul was recorded as his disclosure statement of the accused
Jhankaru Lal as Ex. PW4/F. He further deposed that both the accused
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar
RAVINDRA Digitally
RAVINDRA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:59:51 +0530
42
persons were sent to lock-up.
20.2 He further deposed that on the next day, both the accused
persons were produced in the court and sent to judicial custody. He
deposed that he had recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjay. He further
deposed that on 16.07.2013, the relatives of deceased Bina came to the
police station and he recorded the statement of Satender, uncle of the
deceased and Deepa, sister of the deceased. Witness further deposed
that he had also recorded the statement of ASI Bijender who had
conducted investigation prior to assigning the investigation to him.
20.3 Witness further deposed that on 17.07.2013, the parents of
the deceased Jagdish and Smt Asha and Shri Sanand Kumar, uncle of
deceased came to police station. Witness further deposed that the
father of the deceased had given cover of marriage card, five
photographs of marriage and one CD in which function of marriage
was recorded and the list of articles given in the marriage of deceased.
Witness further deposed that these articles were taken into police
possession and seizure memo Ex. PW 7/C was prepared.
20.4 Witness further deposed that he had also recorded the
statement of parents of deceased and Shri Sanand Kumar, uncle of
deceased. Witness further deposed that the further investigation was
conducted by Inspector Abhay Singh.
20.5 Witness further deposed that on 12.12.2013, on receipt of
information regarding surrender of accused Sandeep, he along with Ct.
Hari Om went to Saket Court and with the permission of court,
accused Sandeep was arrested and memo Ex. PW 13/A was prepared.
He had identified the accused Sandeep correctly in the court. Witness
further deposed that he had interrogated the accused Sandeep with the
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 14:59:57 +0530
43
permission of the court and facts disclosed by the accused Sandeep
were recorded as his disclosure statement as Ex. PW13/C and
thereafter the accused was sent to judicial custody.
20.6 Witness further deposed that he had recorded the
statement of Ct. Hari Om, who had joined the investigation on the said
date. Witness further deposed that he had also got collected subsequent
opinion from AIIMS hospital in respect of ligature material etc.
through Ct. Sandeep and the said opinion was placed on record as Ex.
PW10/B.
20.7 Witness further deposed that on 10.02.2014, he had issued
a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to Nodal Officer, Vodafone to provide
CDR and CAF of mobile phone number mentioned by him in the said
notice as Ex. PW 19/A. Witness further deposed that one notice under
Section 91 Cr.PC was also served on the Nodal officer of Reliance for
seeking information in respect of CDR and CAF etc as Ex. PW 19/B.
20.8 Witness further deposed that he had also prepared scaled
site plan at the instance of ASI Bijender as Ex.PW 19/C. Witness
further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had also
recorded the statements of witnesses who had joined the investigation
with him.
20.9 During the cross examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that initially, he remained IO in the present
case from 15.07.2013 to 17.07.2013. Witness further replied that
subsequently also he was handed over the investigation of the case but
he did not remember on which date, he was again assigned the
investigation of this case. Witness further replied that Charge sheet of
the case was not filed by him. He further replied that after the case was
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:00:05 +0530
44second time assigned to him, it was again transferred to the previous
IO Inspector Abhay Singh.
20.10 Witness further replied that on 16.07.2013, he had
examined ASI Bijender, Ct. Sanjay, deceased’s uncle Satender and
deceased’s sister Deepa and had recorded their statements under
Section 161 Cr.PC. Witness further replied that on 17.07.2013, the
parents of the deceased and uncle Sanand were examined and he had
recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC.
20.11 Witness further replied that these statements of witnesses
were recorded by him on computer. Witness further replied that he did
not remember whether the family members of the deceased had
informed him about the mobile number on which they allegedly
received the information regarding the alleged incident or from which
mobile phone the same was received. Witness denied the suggestion
that he had not recorded any statement of above-mentioned witnesses
or that those were fabricated by him or that he had copied the contents
of the complaint to suit the prosecution case.
20.12 Witness further replied that he had sent the requisition for
obtaining CDR. Witness further denied the suggestion he had not
conducted the investigation fairly and properly. He further denied the
suggestion that he deposed falsely.
21. PW 20 Retired ACP Sh. Abhay Singh Yadav :- He deposed that
on 22.07.2013, he was posted as Inspector PS Ambedkar Nagar.
Witness further deposed that the investigation of the case was taken up
by him being the SHO of PS Ambedkar Nagar. Witness further
deposed that prior to that the investigation was being conducted by SI
Virender. Witness further deposed that two accused persons namely
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
15:00:26 +0530
45Rahul and Jhankaru Lal were already arrested in this case and accused
Sanjay and Sandeep were yet to be arrested.
21.1 Witness further deposed that he had tried to trace them.
Witness further deposed that on 23.07.2013, he was present in the
police station and received secret information about the presence of
accused Sanjay in the house No. 13/146, Dakshin Puri and he could be
apprehended from there. Witness further deposed that he immediately
constituted a raiding party consisting of HC Bansi Lal and he had tried
to join public persons but they refused. He further deposed that they
went to the said house at 06.45 pm, where accused Sanjay was
apprehended and had arrested him and memo Ex. PW 5/A and his
personal search was conducted and memo Ex.PW 5/B was prepared.
21.2 Witness had identified the accused in the court correctly.
Witness further deposed that accused Sanjay was interrogated and facts
disclosed by him was recorded and memo Ex. PW 5/C was prepared.
Witness further deposed that accused was brought to the police station.
Witness further deposed that after medical examination, he was sent to
lock-up.
21.3 Witness further deposed that on the next day, he was
produced before the court and sent to judicial custody. Witness further
deposed that he had recorded the statement of HC Bansi Lal and
supplementary statement of Jagdish Prasad, father of deceased.
Witness further deposed that on 01.10.2013, the exhibits of this case
were sent to CFSL CGO Complex through Ct Sanjay.
21.4 Witness further deposed that he had recorded the
statements of Ct. Sanjay and HC Keshav MHCM. Witness further
deposed that on 03.10.2013, the chunni seized in this case was sent to
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:00:32 +0530
46
Forensic Department AIIMS to obtain expert opinion through Ct.
Jaibir. He further deposed that he had also sent request to the Nodal
Officer of service providers to furnish CDR and CAF of two mobile
phone numbers 9891818808 and 9953325984 vide letter Ex. PW 20/A.
21.5 Witness further deposed that he had also tried to trace
accused Sandeep who was not found. Witness further deposed that he
had prepared the charge sheet against three accused persons who were
arrested by that time and filed in the court.
21.6 Witness further deposed that the further investigation qua
accused Sandeep was conducted by SI Devender and arrested accused
Sandeep also in this case. Witness further deposed that the
supplementary charge sheet against the accused Sandeep was prepared
by SI Devender which was filed in the court through him.
21.7 During the cross-examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that he did not know if the deceased was
admitted in the hospital by the accused persons or not. Witness
admitted that he remained IO of this case. Witness replied that the
secret information regarding the presence of accused Sanjay at his
house was received to him in the police station. Witness admitted that
when they left police station for arrest of the accused Sanjay, they did
not make any DD entry in that regard.
21.8 Witness further replied that he did not remember in which
direction the main gate of the H.No. 13/146, Dakshinpuri was situated.
Witness further replied that the accused was arrested from a room of
that house situated at right side of entrance. Witness further replied
that he did not remember as to how many rooms were there, in that
house and whether it was single storey or multi storey building.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 PANDEY 15:00:39 +0530 47
Witness further replied that he did not record the names and addresses
of the public persons whom he had asked to join the investigation on
that day. Witness further replied that he did not prepare any site plan of
the place from where the accused Sanjay was arrested.
21.9 Witness denied the suggestion that accused Sanjay, Rahul
and Jhankaru Lal were arrested from the hospital on the same date or
time even before registration of the FIR.
21.10 Witness replied that the mobile phones nos. 9891818808
and 9953325984 of which the CDR was applied for with the service
provider were pertaining to accused Sandeep. Witness denied the
suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation of the present
case fairly and properly. He denied the suggestion that he falsely
implicated the accused persons with the connivance of parents of
deceased. He further denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
OFFICIAL WITNESSES
22. PW 15 Israr Babu was the Alternate Nodal Officer from
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited:- He produced the original
Customer Application Form of mobile number 8860180705. He
deposed that as per record, the said mobile connection was a prepaid
connection and was allotted in the name of Rahul Kumar S/o Jhankaru
R/o 13/147, Dakshinpuri Extension, South Delhi. He also produced the
certified copy of the said CAF as Ex. PW 15/A and he deposed that as
per the record, the form was supported with the copy of Election
Identity Card marked as Mark A. He also produced the call details of
above said mobile for the period from 01.02.2013 to 30.07.2013
running into six pages and identified the same as Ex. PW15/B
collectively.
Digitally signed
SC No. 6848/2016 by RAVINDRA
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:00:45 +0530
48
22.1 Witness also produced the Certificate under Section 65-B
of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the genuineness of the above call
details record and identified the same as Ex. PW 15/C. Witness also
produced the certified copy of Cell ID Chart of Vodafone for Delhi and
NCR running into 118 pages and identified the same as Ex. PW 15/D.
22.2 Witness further deposed that as per call details record of
the above said mobile number, on 14.07.2013, a call was made to
mobile number 9953325984 at 11:44:04 am in the area Cell ID
Number 404110013412371 and ending at 404110013444973.
22.3 During the cross examination made on behalf of all the
accused persons, he replied that he had provided all the details on the
written request including mail of the IO. Witness further replied that he
had not brought any such written request or mail sent by the IO in this
case. Witness had identified the signatures appearing on the letter
dated 10.02.2014 as Ex. PW15/DA of Mr. Anuj Bhatia.
22.4 Witness admitted that this implies that the information
was furnished by Mr. Anuj Bhatia. Witness further admitted that he
had not furnished the information as per letter Ex. PW15/DA.
22.5 Witness replied that the mobile no. 9953325984 as
mentioned in Ex. PW15/DA was ported out to Reliance Company.
Witness further replied that he was from Vodafone company and he
had brought the record of Vodafone company and not from Reliance
Company.
23. PW 21 Sh. Amit Sharma, Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance
Communication Ltd., Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Marg, Delhi :- He
deposed that he had been deputed by Nodal Officer, Reliance
Communication to depose in the present case. Witness further deposed
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:00:52 +0530
49
that on 05.03.2014, the then Nodal Officer who had left the services of
Reliance Communication had given call detail of mobile no.
9953325984 for the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.07.2013 running
into 18 pages. Witness had identified the CDR of mobile number
9953325984 as Ex. PW 21/A.
23.1 Witness further identified the Customer Application form
of mobile number 9953325984 as Ex. PW21/B. Witness further
deposed that the supporting document i.e., Election I Card which was
given at the time of taking number and witness identified the same as
Ex. PW21/C. Witness further identified the Certificate under Section
65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect to the mobile number
9953325984 as Ex. PW21/D. Witness also identified the covering
letter as Ex. PW21/E of the Reliance Communication.
23.2 During cross-examination made on behalf of accused
persons, witness admitted that none of the above exhibited documents
bear his signature. Witness replied that he did not know who had
signed the said documents on behalf of the service provider.
MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
24. PW-2 Dr. Aijaz Ahmed Ganai:- He deposed that on 14.07.2013,
one Beena Devi D/o Jagdish Prasad aged about 25 years was brought
in casualty at 01.05 pm by Om Prakash and Rahul Kumar with alleged
history of being found unconscious at home around half an hour ago.
He further deposed that earlier the patient was taken to local hospital
(Saini Nursing Home) at Madangir and subsequently, she was referred
to their hospital. He deposed that he had examined the patient and
during examination, he found ligature mark present on both sides of
her neck, but left side’s ligature mark was more prominent than the
SC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR
KUMAR
PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:00:58 +0530
50
right side ligature mark (the patient was declared brought dead at
01.10 pm). He identified his detailed MLC No. 130 dated 14.07.2013
as Ex. PW2/A.
24.1 During his cross examination made on behalf of accused
persons, he admitted that the contents of MLC as Ex. PW2/A were not
in his handwriting, however, the same were written at his instance and
in his presence by another Doctor as at that time, he was also
examining another patient as that patient was very critical in condition.
Witness admitted that the name of the Doctor, who had written in the
said MLC was not there on the MLC (Ex. PW2/A).
24.2 Witness denied the suggestion that he had not examined
the patient. He admitted that cause of death has not been mentioned in
Ex. PW2/A and it can only be given by the doctor, who conducted the
postmortem. Witness replied that he could not confirm whether it was
a case of suicide or homicide. Witness further replied that he could tell
the symptoms of homicidal death. Witness admitted that on 14.07.2013
when he had examined the patient, nobody had made any complaint to
him that deceased was being tortured by her husband and in laws for
demand of dowry.
25. PW 10 Dr. Hans Raj Singh, Tutor (FMT) AIIMS Hospital:- He
deposed that on 15.07.2013, he was working as Junior Resident at
AIIMS, New Delhi. He deposed that on that day, he had conducted the
postmortem on the body of the deceased vide PM report 924/13 and
during postmortem, he found:
“Ligature Mark- A dark reddish brown parchmentised ligature
mark of width 3 cm was present at the middle one third of neck. The
ligature mark was running obliquely, upwards and backwards, merging
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:01:04 +0530
51with posterior hariline at nape of neck, incompletely encircling the
neck. The ligature mark was 6 cm below the mentum and 6 Cm above
suprasternal notch in anterior midline of the neck. The ligature mark
was 3 cm below right mastoid tip and 5 cm below left mastoid tip on
lateral aspect of neck. Total neck circumference was 34 cm.
On dissection of neck, the underlying soft tissue was dry, pale,
glistening, white and hard to touch and was devoid of any
extravasation of blood or hematoma. The underlying muscles and
blood vessels of neck were intact and were devoid of any extravasation
or hemotoma. Thgyrohyoid complex was intact. Tracheal mucosa was
congested. No other external ante-mortem injury was present over the
body.
After postmortem, viscera and blood – in – gauze was preserved
and the same were handed over to the police alongwith dead body,
postmortem report, inquest papers and clothes.
Opinion: The cause of death in this case was asphyxia due to
ante-mortem hanging. However, viscera has been preserved to rule out
any concomitant intoxication.”
25.1 He proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW
10/A. He further deposed that on 03.10.2013, an application was
submitted by SHO/ Inspector Abhai Singh Yadav of PS Ambedkar
Nagar for opinion regarding ligature material, in respect of PM report
No. 924/13 of deceased Beena Devi.
25.2 He further deposed that as per his opinion, he was of the
considered opinion that the ligature mark present over the neck of the
deceased Beena Devi, could be possible by the provided ligature
material (chunni), and hanging was possible with the said ligature
SC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:01:11 +0530
52material. He further deposed that he had handed over all the submitted
documents to the IO, i.e., 12 inquest papers which he had given
numbers and ligature material which was duly sealed with the seal of
Department. He identified his detailed opinion as Ex. PW10/B.
25.3 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of the
accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
26. PW 14 Dr. Sudhir Gupta, Professor and Head of Department of
Forensic Medicines, AIIMS, New Delhi :- He deposed that on
14.07.2013, the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased
Beena Devi had been conducted in AIIMS Mortuary by Dr. Hans Raj
who was working under him, vide post mortem report as Ex. PW10/A.
He further deposed that further he had also given subsequent opinion
in this case on 17.10.2013 and he identified the same as Ex. PW 10/B.
26.1 He further deposed that the same had been forwarded by
him in the capacity of In-charge of Subsequent Opinion of MLC and
Head of Department. Witness further deposed that the subsequent
opinion Ex. PW10/B bears his signature at point B along with his
endorsement at point C.
26.2 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of the
accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
DEFENCE WITNESSES
27. DW-1 Smt. Sangeeta:- She deposed that she lived at 13/147,
Ground Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi alongwith her husband
Sandeep (accused) and his parents. She further deposed that accused
Rahul was the elder brother of her husband and he lived at 13/146,
Third Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. She further deposed that
her brother in law namely Sanjay used to live in a separate house i.e.
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:01:17 +0530
53H.No. 13/136, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi.
27.1 She deposed that deceased Beena was her sister in law
and she was the mediator in her marriage. She further deposed that
deceased Beena was her relative as her Mausi Deepa was married to
her maternal uncle’s son. She deposed that her family and family of
deceased were on visiting terms. She further deposed that deceased
Beena had brought the proposal of her brother in law Sandeep for her
marriage. She deposed that in her marriage, no dowry was given by
her parents as it was a simple marriage.
27.2 She further deposed that her husband and his family
members never demanded any kind of dowry from the deceased Beena
or from her family members. She deposed that in their families, there
was a custom that family of bridegroom used to give some cash to the
family of the bride in the marriage. She further deposed that in her
marriage Rs. 30,000/- was given by her husband’s family to the family
of the deceased/ her parents. She deposed that to her knowledge,
neither accused Rahul nor his any other family member ever raised any
demand of dowry from deceased Beena or her parents. She deposed
that the deceased Beena used to have suspicious nature and she used to
object whenever she talk to her brother in law namely Rahul. She
further deposed that she was suspecting illicit relation between her and
her brother in law Rahul.
27.3 She further deposed that on 14.07.2013, her brother in law
Rahul was going out to market to purchase some articles and therefore,
she also requested him for bringing certain household articles for
herself to which Beena i.e. the deceased had raised objection and when
Rahul did not listen to her and agreed to buy household articles for her,SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
PANDEY
KUMAR Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
15:01:22
+0530
54
Beena became annoyed and went upstairs. She further deposed that
when accused Rahul came back and went to his room on the third
floor, he found that deceased Beena had hanged herself in the room
and after seeing that, he raised alarm and all the family members
including witness, mother in law and her husband went upstairs.
27.4 She deposed that she had brought her original Voter ID
Card showing her address and she had identified the same as Ex.
DW1/1.
27.5 During cross examination made on behalf of State by Ld.
Additional PP for the State, witness replied that the marriage of
deceased Beena was solemnized with accused Rahul prior to her
marriage. She replied that prior to her marriage with Sandeep, she was
not acquainted with the family of accused Rahul. She replied that she
was not aware about the monetary transaction or dowry given or taken
at the time of marriage of Beena with accused Rahul. She replied that
she was not in talking terms with deceased Beena since she was
suspicious about her relation with her husband Rahul. She further
replied that she did not used to visit the house of deceased Beena.
27.6 She further replied that since she was not in talking terms
with the deceased and did not use to visit her house therefore, she
cannot tell about their personal relation and other matters between
them. She denied the suggestion that she had come to depose falsely
in favour of her accused husband Sandeep and his family members at
their instance.
28. DW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar:- He deposed that he was living at H.No.
13/146, Second Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi as a tenant
since the year 1999. He deposed that Beena was living with herSC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:01:29 +0530
55husband Rahul in the same house at the third floor. He further deposed
that she used to remain unhappy and used to complain that her father
in law had got his two sons namely Sanjay and Sandeep employed in
government job but he did not do anything for her husband Rahul. He
deposed that he had not seen any family member of accused Rahul
ever raising any demand of dowry from deceased Beena or quarreling
her with her on any account. He had identified his Voter ID Card and
Aadhar Card as Ex. DW2/1.
28.1 During cross examination made on behalf of State by Ld.
Additional Public Prosecutor, he replied that in the year 1999, he was
working as Electrician and he used to leave his house at around 08.00
am for the work and used to return at around 05.00 pm and at
sometimes, at late hours i.e. around 07.00-08.00 pm. He replied that
he cannot say what used to happen in the house of his landlord or other
floors during the period, he used to be at his work place. He replied
that he had no talking terms with deceased Beena.
28.2 He further replied that he did not use to visit the other
floors of the house frequently. He replied that since he did not use to
frequently visit the floors where the family of his landlord was living
therefore, he was not aware of their internal family affairs. He denied
the suggestion that he had come to falsely deposed in favour of
accused persons at their instance.
29. DW-3 Rahul Kumar (accused):- He deposed that they are three
brothers. He further deposed that they all stayed separately after their
respective marriages. He deposed that his younger brother Sandeep
used to reside at 13/147 Ground floor Dakshinpuri at the time of
incident. He further deposed that his elder brother Sanjay used to
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:01:37
+0530
56reside at 13/136, Dakshinpuri at the time of incident. He deposed that
his marriage was solemnized on 25.10.2007 with deceased Beena. He
further deposed that it was a simple marriage between him and his
wife Beena without any kind of dowry. He deposed that they have a
custom in their society that the groom party gives some amount of
money as a gift to the girl/bride party. He deposed that his father in
pursuance of said custom gave Rs. 52000/- to the father of his wife.
29.1 He deposed that at the time of marriage, his wife was 12 th
passed and after his marriage, he got her admitted for B.Com course
through correspondence from Delhi University but she could not pass
the exam of B.Com and consequently failed in said exam.
29.2 He identified the photocopy of demand letter Annual
Examination Form 2008/Admit Card as marked as Mark A. He
deposed that he can file the original of Mark A and other documents as
soon as same are traced in his house. He deposed that on 18.12.2009, a
baby girl was born from their wedlock and they were living happily.
He further deposed that around 8-9 months prior to the death of his
wife, he noticed that he was under inferiority complex and she used to
complain that his father got arranged government job to his other
brothers but he was doing a petty private job.
29.3 He further deposed that he had also noticed that his wife
had some doubt that he was having illicit relations with the wife of his
younger brother Sandeep, however nothing was like that. He deposed
that his wife also used to say him not to talk to his younger brother’s
wife. He deposed that he tried to make her understand that she should
not think so and his younger brother wife is just like his sister but even
then she was having some suspicion on this aspect.
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:01:43 +0530
57
29.4 He deposed that in the marriage of his younger brother
Sandeep, his wife Beena was mediator. He further deposed that on the
day of incident i.e. on 14.07.2013, he alongwith his wife were at
ground floor with his wife where Sangeeta wife of Sandeep was also
present there. He further deposed that his father was not present at
home at that time and he had gone to attend some meeting.
29.5 He deposed that his wife had asked him to bring some
vegetables from market. He further deposed that his younger brother
Sandeep’s wife Sangeeta also asked him to bring Paneer for her. He
further deposed that to that, his wife objected and told him not to
bring anything for her. He deposed that he had made her understand
that she should not object like this and when he was going to market
to bring something then there was no harm to bring some articles to
Sangeeta also.
29.6 He deposed that upon which his wife became annoyed
and she went upstairs at third floor and thereafter at about 10.45 am,
he went to market to bring vegetables for his family and Paneer for
Sangeeta and after purchasing the items, he came back to his house at
about 11.15 am. He deposed that after handing over the Paneer to
Sangeeta, he went upstairs to 3rd floor.
29.7 He deposed that he found that his wife Beena was
hanging in the room. He further deposed that after seeing this, he
made hue and cry. He further deposed that his other family members
also came at the third floor and thereafter, he went downstairs to fetch
some taxi/auto to take his wife to hospital. He deposed that as soon as
he reached near Janta Store, Block no.8/12 Dakshinpuri, he made a
call from his mobile No. 8860180705 to his father in law on his mobile
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:01:50 +0530
58
No. 9953325984 for informing him about the incident of hanging of
his wife and there immediate after his father in law also made a call
back to him.
29.8 He deposed that after hiring an auto, he came back to his
house and took his wife to Saini Nursing Home in the locality of
Madangir for her treatment but the doctors of Saini Nursing Home
referred his wife to some better hospital without admitting her in their
nursing home. He further deposed that thereafter, he again took
another auto and took his wife to Saket City Hospital. He deposed that
on the day of incident except the above mentioned facts no other
dispute or quarrel took place between his family and his wife/
deceased Beena.
29.9 During cross examination made on behalf of the State by
Ld. Additional PP for the State, witness replied that there are 10
houses only between H.No.13/147 & 13/136. He further replied that
he resides at the 3rd floor adjacent to the H.No.13/147, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that marriage between him and
deceased Beena was solemnized without any dowry. He further denied
the suggestion that there was no custom of giving gifts from
bridegroom side to the bride side at the time of marriage and therefore
he had neither disclosed anything about his community or any
evidence be it documentary or oral evidence in that regard.
29.10 He further replied that the distance between his house and
the market was about 200 meter. He replied that he had gone to the
market by foot. He further replied that it took him around 10-15
minutes in going to the market. He further denied the suggestion that
he had not gone to the market on the date and time of the incident.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 15:01:58 +0530 59 29.11 He further denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely
being accused in this case in order to save himself and his family
members. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately making
false claims regarding custom of giving gifts to the bridal side at the
time of marriage or that he had cooked up a false story of going to the
market at the date and time of the incident.
29.12 He further denied the suggestion that his family
members and himself used to harass and torture his deceased wife over
the unlawful demand of dowry. He denied the suggestion that due to
said harassment and cruelty the deceased was very upset. He further
denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to cruelty and
harassment given to her by them. He denied the suggestion that he
deposed falsely or that deceased was not suffering from any inferiority
complex.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF
STATE BY LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
STATE
30. It is submitted that the marriage between the deceased
Beena and accused Rahul was solemnized on 25.10.2007. It is further
submitted that the incident pertains to 14.07.2013 and the incident was
within seven years of the marriage. It is submitted that total 20
witnesses were examined and three defence witnesses were examined
in the present case during the trial.
30.1 It is further submitted that there are allegation against the
accused persons regarding demand of dowry, they harassed the
deceased Beena and forced her to commit suicide.
30.2 It is submitted that PW-7 Jagdish Parsad/father of
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar
Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:02:05 +0530
60
deceased, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11 were the relatives of the victim and
they had deposed against accused persons categorically. It is further
submitted that witness PW-7 had categorically deposed towards
harassment and cruelty caused to their daughter and also the dowry
demand made by accused persons.
30.3 It is further submitted that witness PW-9 Deepa had also
corroborated the evidence given by her parents. She deposed that she
had received the call of the deceased Beena soon before her death and
therefore, the presumption against the accused persons as provided U/s
113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act applies against accused persons and
ingredients of Section 304-B/34 IPC is duly proved against accused
persons.
30.4 It is further submitted that the postmortem report also
corroborate the manner in which victim had expired. It is submitted
that witness PW-18 Sh S.K Gupta, the then SDM who had recorded
the statement of mother of victim and on the basis of which, the FIR
was registered had duly proved the fact that he recorded the statement
of the mother of the victim.
30.5 It is further submitted that the second defence as taken by
accused persons are that they belongs to the community where dowry
used to be given by the grooms side and not from the bride side.
However, there is nothing on record to show that such a customary
procedure was followed by the community from which the accused
persons were belonging and no evidence came on record to prove such
customary procedure as allegedly followed by the accused persons.
30.6 It is further submitted that the said demand of dowry was
continued till the death of victim. It is submitted that the another
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:02:12 +0530
61
defence which was taken by the accused persons through the defence
witness DW1 Sangeeta, that the marriage between victim Beena and
accused Rahul was solemnized by her efforts and she was very much
aware about the family affairs. However, during her cross examination,
she has categorically stated that she did not know any monetary
transaction between the parties prior to the marriage and she also
stated that she did not use to visit the house of deceased Beena and no
material evidence came on record through the examination of DW1
Sangeeta to corroborate the defence as taken by the accused persons.
30.7 It is further submitted that DW1 Sangeeta had admitted
that she was not having talking terms with the deceased Beena and the
record reflect that she was a planted witness in order to create false
defence.
30.8 It is further submitted that witness DW2 Anil Kumar
(tenant residing in the house of accused persons since 1999) stated that
he had not seen any family member of accused Rahul regarding
demand of dowry from the family of the deceased victim Beena.
However, the fact that he was tenant in the house of the accused
persons at the time of incident or prior to the date of incident has not
been proved and witness had not produced any such document during
his examination in the Court. He had also admitted in cross
examination that he was not acquittance or in talking terms with the
accused persons and deceased Beena.
30.9 It is further submitted that similarly, the accused Rahul
had come in the witness box and being the interested witness, he
cannot be relied upon without corroboration. It is further submitted
that in his cross examination, he had stated that he had neither
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:02:18 +0530
62disclosed about his community or oral evidence in that regard.
30.10 It is further submitted that the conduct of accused persons
also support the case of prosecution. It is submitted that the dead body
of deceased was taken by his relative Om Prakash alongwith parents of
deceased and this fact was proved through the document i.e. handing
over memo Ex. PW7/A.
30.11 It is further submitted that some contradictions are bound
to occur when the witness was cross examined, so the minor
contradictions are of not much relevance and does not wash away the
case of prosecution. It is further submitted that the case of prosecution
against the accused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,
accused persons are liable to be convicted for commission of offence
punishable U/s 304-B/498-A/34 IPC.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
BY LD. COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE
31. It is submitted on behalf of the accused persons that on
the basis of statement of mother of deceased Smt. Asha Devi, the FIR
of the present case was registered. It is further submitted that the
marriage was solemnized without any dowry or dowry demand and the
accused Jhankaru Lal had approached to the parents of the deceased
for the marriage proposal of his son with the deceased Beena. It is
submitted that marriage between deceased Beena and accused Rahul
was solemnized on 25.10.2007. It is further submitted that the
allegations were falsely levelled after the death of deceased/victim
Beena. It is submitted that the marriage between deceased Beena and
accused Rahul was the arranged marriage. It is further submitted that
no prior complaint was lodged of any nature regarding any harassment
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:02:25 +0530
63
of demand of dowry at any point of time by the victim or her parents
or by her relatives.
31.1 It is submitted that it was admitted fact that before
registration of FIR, all the accused persons were detained in the police
station Ambedkar Nagar and prior to registration of FIR, the accused
persons were detained and later on the accused persons were arrested
after registration of the FIR of the present case.
31.2 It is submitted that the arrest of accused persons were
illegal as they were detained prior to registration of FIR. It is submitted
that in the month of December 2009, a baby girl was born to the
deceased Beena and a function was organized in that regard. It is
submitted that all the previous functions of birthday of the daughter of
the victim were attended by the parents and other family members of
the deceased/victim and no allegation of any nature was made by the
deceased/victim to the parents of the deceased/victim or any other
family members.
31.3 It is further submitted that in the year 2012, the marriage
of the accused Sandeep (brother in law of the deceased/victim/devar)
was solemnized and deceased/victim acted as mediator in the said
marriage.
31.4 It is further submitted that the wife of the accused
Sandeep was in relation with the parents of the deceased/victim. It is
submitted that the cause of death of deceased/victim Beena was
hanging and as per MLC, there were no other injury marks on the body
of the victim. It is submitted that the other baby girl was born in the
family of the accused persons i.e. daughter of the accused Sandeep in
the month of May, 2013 and the birthday of the girl born in the family
SC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:02:50 +0530
64
was celebrated and attended by the deceased/victim Beena.
31.5 It is submitted by Ld counsel for accused persons that in
the end of June 2013, the deceased Beena alongwith her husband
Rahul had travelled to Taj Mahal, Agra and other places and no
complaint regarding any such harassment was made by the
deceased/victim or her family members against the accused persons
and photographs of such travel also reflect the fact that victim was
happy in her matrimonial life at that time also i.e. prior to the incident.
31.6 It is further submitted that in the first week of June, 2013,
the parents of deceased went to their native place and at that time the
accused Rahul and deceased were resided at the address of the parents
of the deceased in District Ghaziabad, U.P to look after the house of
the parents of the deceased and even at that time also, no complaint
was lodged regarding any type of harassment with the
deceased/victim.
31.7 It is further submitted that witness PW-7 and PW-8 had
deposed that accused persons were present in the hospital. It is further
submitted that the deceased Beena was firstly taken to a nearby
hospital i.e. Saini Nursing Home by the husband of deceased and later
on, she was referred to better hospital. It is further submitted that at the
time of taking the victim to hospital, she was alive.
31.8 It is further submitted on behalf of accused persons that
the victim was admitted later on in Saket City Hospital by the husband
of the deceased and the said hospital was one of the best hospital of
Delhi. It is submitted that the parents of deceased was informed
regarding the admission of deceased and incident by accused persons.
31.9 It is further submitted that the statement of Smt Asha and SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY KUMAR Date: PANDEY 2024.12.24 15:03:02 +0530 65
statement of her husband was recorded but thumb impression of Smt.
Asha was obtained.
31.10 It is submitted that no external injury was found on the
body of deceased Beena which was contrary to the complaint in which
it was alleged that deceased Beena was beaten up by the accused
persons. It is submitted that during entire investigation, no specific
incident has been mentioned by any of the witnesses with regard to
demand of dowry or with regard to harassment on account of demand
of dowry.
31.11 It is submitted that there was no detail in the complaint
and statements of witnesses regarding specific and particular instances
of the dowry demand, date, month and year of the alleged beatings
given by the accused persons to victim as alleged in the complaint and
in the statements of the witnesses. It is submitted that the death of
deceased Beena was caused by hanging.
31.12 It is further submitted that witness PW-7 and PW-8 had
deposed that there was no demand of dowry, it was simple marriage
without any dowry and marriage was solemnized in very cordial
manner and deceased Beena lived happily in her matrimonial home.
31.13 It is further submitted that witness PW-7 Sh Jagdish
Parsad, father of deceased, PW-8 Smt. Asha, Mother of deceased,
PW-9 Smt. Deepa, she was the sister of deceased, PW-11 Satender and
PW-12 Sanand Kumar, they are uncle of deceased. It is submitted that
witness PW-7 Sh. Jagdish Parsad deposed that the victim resided
happily in the company of accused persons including her husband for
2-3 years and thereafter, he alleged that victim was harassed by the
accused persons. However, it was admitted fact that victim delivered a
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:03:10 +0530
66
baby girl in the month of December 2009 and in the Naamkaran
Sanskar, all the family members of the deceased had participated and
nothing was alleged regarding any such harassment by accused
persons.
31.14 It is further submitted that first birthday of baby girl was
solemnized on December, 2010 and in that function also family
members of the deceased had participated and nothing was alleged
regarding any harassment as alleged and photographs also corroborates
the same. It is further submitted that similarly, the birthday was also
celebrated in the year 2011.
31.15 It is further submitted that in the year 2012, the marriage
of co accused Sandeep was solemnized and victim acted as mediator in
the said marriage and the marriage proposal was from the side of the
victim’s family relatives.
31.16 It is further argued that all the functions were attended by
the family members of the deceased and no allegation of any kind of
harassment was alleged at that time and this fact can be corroborated
from the photographs produced during the examination of the
prosecution witnesses.
31.17 It is further argued that in the year 2013, one daughter
was born to the accused Sandeep and the mundan ceremonies related
to the said daughter took place in the month of May, 2013 at Kalkaji
Mandir and photographs reflect that the victim was very happy at that
time also.
31.18 It is further submitted that there was no allegation or
complaint against any of the accused persons prior to the death of the
deceased/victim. It is further submitted that there are various evidence
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:03:24 +0530
67
on record which reflect that victim was having no grievance with her
matrimonial life and she was living happily at her matrimonial home.
31.19 It is further submitted that victim was having doubt about
illicit relationship between Rahul/husband and her devrani/wife of
accused Sandeep. It is submitted that the victim was also having
grievance against accused Jhankaru Lal/father in law that her husband
was unemployed/small private job and other two brothers in laws were
having government job as arranged by her father in law.
31.20 It is further submitted that at the time of incident, all the
three brothers were living separately and accused Jhankaru Lal and his
wife used to reside with the accused Sandeep separately at ground
floor. It is further submitted that on the date of incident, accused
Rahul was asked by deceased to bring some grocery articles and
simultaneously wife of the accused Sandeep had also requested to the
accused Rahul to bring some articles for her also and due to that
deceased got annoyed and objected to the Rahul. However, accused
Rahul ignored that objection and when accused Rahul came back, he
found that victim committed suicide at upstairs i.e. at third floor where
they were residing.
31.21 It is further submitted that accused Rahul immediately
called to the parents of the deceased regarding the incident and he also
hired one vehicle and took the victim to the hospital for her treatment
wherefrom she was referred to Modi Hospital and at Modi Hospital,
victim was declared as brought dead.
31.22 It is further submitted that during cross examination dated
20.09.2014, it came on record that accused Jhankaru Lal, Sanjay and
Rahul were under custody in the police station when they went to the
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:03:44 +0530
68
police station for the registration of the FIR meaning thereby the
illegal arrest and apprehension were effected against the accused
persons even prior to any complaint against the accused persons of any
nature.
31.23 It is submitted that the FIR was ante time and ante dated.
It is further submitted that the parents of the deceased did not
participated in the last rites of the victim and her last rites were
conducted by the relatives of the accused persons.
31.24 It is submitted that no offence was committed by the
accused persons and they were falsely implicated in the present case
by the family members of the victim.
31.25 It is further submitted that marriage proposal was moved
on behalf of the accused persons by accused Jhankaru Lal to the family
members of the victim and there was no occasion to demand any
dowry of any nature. Further, the victim’s family was not in a position
to give any dowry to the accused persons.
31.26 It is submitted that financial condition of the victim’s
family was not as such to give any dowry to the accused persons and
there was no demand of dowry as both the parties were known to each
other prior to the marriage proposal as once during childhood time of
the victim, the family of the victim had resided as tenant in the house
of the accused persons.
31.27 It is submitted that witness PW-8 mother of deceased did
not corroborate the allegation as alleged by PW7, father of victim. It is
further submitted that it was alleged that victim was beaten up by the
accused persons. However, there was no injury mark of any nature on
the body of the victim at the time of Postmortem /MLC of the victim.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed by RAVINDRA FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: PANDEY 2024.12.24 15:03:52 +0530 69 31.28 It is further submitted that there is material contradiction
in the statement of PW-7 and PW-8 and there are also improvement in
their respective statements. It is submitted that the Jitender, son of the
complainant was allegedly beaten by the accused persons. However,
this is material improvement in the statement of witness PW8 and no
such information was given to the police.
31.29 It is further submitted that witness PW8 gave evasive
reply on the pretext of not recollecting the fact about the allegation or
disclosure made to the police/SDM by her or other allegation as
disclosed to the SDM. It is further argued that the witness PW8 was
not a truthful witness and her cross examination clearly reflect that she
was not consistent with her examination in chief regarding the
allegation.
31.30 It is submitted that PW- Deepa, sister of the deceased
deposed in her cross examination that her statement was recorded by
the police after one month of the incident. However, during her
examination in chief, she disclosed that her statement was recorded on
16.07.2013. It is further submitted that none of the statement of any of
the witness were in typed form. However, as per the statement of the
witnesses, their statements were reduced into writing by IO in his
handwriting and not through the typing method.
31.31 It is further submitted that PW-11 Satender, uncle of the
deceased disclosed new fact which were never disclosed by the parents
of the deceased regarding the alleged dowry demand and harassment
of the incident of last May of 2013.
31.32 It is further submitted that no call was received at about
11.30 am as alleged by PW-11. It is further submitted that witness
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:04:01 +0530
70
PW-11 is a planted witness and in order to corroborate the case of
prosecution, he deposed on the same pattern as deposed by PW-7 and
PW-8. However, he was not residing with the parents of the deceased
and he was residing separately. It is further submitted that parents of
the victim did not attend the last rites of the victim.
31.33 It is submitted that the witness PW-11 was not truthful in
his statement regarding the presence of the accused persons in the
hospital and it is admitted case of prosecution that accused persons
were present in the hospital when victim was admitted in the hospital.
31.34 It is further submitted that statement of the witness PW-11
was merely hearsay as he was not a witness of the incident in any
manner and he was the planted witness of prosecution and he deposed
only at the instance of the parents of the victim.
31.35 It is further submitted that he disclosed that his statement
was recorded on 14.07.2013 which was contrary to the record as per
which the statement of the witness PW11 was recorded on 16.07.2013.
31.36 It is further submitted that witness PW-11 deposed on the
basis of information given by Jagdish and he admitted this fact in his
cross examination and on that basis only he presumed that victim was
killed by the accused persons.
31.37 It is submitted that witness PW-9 Ms. Deepa/sister of the
deceased. However, there were no CDR or mobile number referred in
the statement to show that she was having conversation with the
victim.
31.38 It is submitted that the other witnesses PW-13, PW-14,
PW-16, PW-17, PW-19 are the police officials involved in the
investigation of the case.
Digitally signed
SC No. 6848/2016 by RAVINDRA
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
15:04:07 +0530
71
31.39 It is further submitted that witness PW-15 was the witness
who had produced the CDR of the accused Rahul. It is submitted that
the witness produced the record of mobile of accused Rahul which
reflect that accused Rahul had called from his mobile number on
14.07.2013 to the mobile no. 9953325984 i.e. mobile number of father
in law Sh. Jagdish/PW-7.
31.40 It is submitted that witness PW-18 was the SDM who had
recorded the complaint on the basis of statement of mother of the
deceased Ex. PW8/A. It is further submitted that witness PW-18 had
put leading questions to the complainant during his inquiry with the
mother of the victim which was contrary to law.
31.41 It is further submitted that no other material incriminating
evidence came in the examination of other prosecution witnesses to
attract the fact that accused persons had committed any offence against
the victim. It is submitted that no case is made out against the accused
persons to implicate them in the present case and they were falsely
implicated in the case, so they are liable to be acquitted from the
present case.
31.42 Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the
following case law in support of his averments:-
i) Narender Singh Arora Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.
Criminal Revision Petition NO. 555/2003, passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi.
ii) Asha & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhan, Criminal Appeal No. 1894 of
2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2924 of 2011, passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
iii) Baijnath & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR
KUMAR
PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:04:23 +0530
72
1097 of 2016 arising out of SLP (C.R.L) No. 9718 of 2014, passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
iv) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand,
Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2012, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.
31.43 It is submitted that defence witness DW-1 Sangeeta, who
was the wife of Sandeep i.e. brother of the accused Rahul and
Sangeeta were relatives of the deceased and Sangeeta’s marriage was
mediated by the deceased. It is further submitted that defence witness
DW-1 Sangeeta deposed in favour of the accused persons and as per
her statement, no dowry demand was raised by any of the accused
persons against the victim at any point of time.
31.44 It is submitted that defence witness DW1 had explained
the reason for committing suicide by the victim as on the date of
incident, witness asked his brother in law Rahul/accused Rahul who
was going to market to purchase some articles upon which, victim got
annoyed and she ultimately committed suicide.
31.45 It is further submitted that defence witness DW-2 Anil
Kumar was the tenant of the accused Jhankaru Lal, father in law of the
victim/accused and as per his statement, he had not seen any dowry
demand ever raised by the accused persons or had not seen any quarrel
between accused persons and deceased Beena.
31.46 It is submitted that defence witness DW-3 Rahul stated
that all the three accused persons/brothers and accused Rahul were
residing separately and he also explained the probable reason for
commission of suicide by his wife.
31.47 It is further submitted that there was no dowry demand or SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY Date: PANDEY 2024.12.24 15:04:29 +0530 73
harassment by the accused persons soon before the death to attract the
commission of offence for dowry death or allegation of offence
punishable U/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, so the accused persons are liable
to be acquitted from the present case.
THE REASON FOR DECISION
32. In order to prove the charge of offence punishable U/s
304-B/498-A/34 IPC against the accused persons, the prosecution has
mainly relied upon the last seen evidence and circumstantial evidence.
32.1 The legal position regarding the admissibility and
corroborative value of last seen evidence and circumstantial evidence
is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judicial
pronouncements. Some of the judicial pronouncements are reproduced
herein as under:-
CIRCUMSTANCE OF LAST SEEN:
33. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Nizam &
Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan”, Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided on
04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory. It was observed: –
“Elaborating the principle of “last seen alive” in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi
Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- “23. It is not necessary
to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in
laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last
seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he
parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court
to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have
discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts
within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon himSC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:04:37 +0530
74by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial
evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge
of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the
chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the
burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It
lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon
facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support
any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can
consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which
completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina
Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)” The above judgment was relied upon and
reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319.”
33.1. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State Of
Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
had held as follows:-
“It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of
incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the
circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit
no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances
cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion,
however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts
shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of
the circumstantial evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003)
9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the
time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were
last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility ofSC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR
KUMAR
PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:04:43 +0530
75any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration.”
33.2 In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of
2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held as under:-
“The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between
the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and
when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person
other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It
would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased
was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of
other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive
evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen
together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those
cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the
accused were seen together by witnesses.”
LEGAL POSITION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
34. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as ”
Anwar Ali and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh”, Crl
Appeal No. 1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020 has held as under:-
” 5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a
case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of
decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances,
taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial
evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and
incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guiltSC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:04:52 +0530
76of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with
the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
In the case of Babu (supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 to
24 as under:
“22. In Krishan Vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court after
considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as
follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15)
“15. … This Court in a series of decisions has consistently
held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none
else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than
that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with
his innocence. (See Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC
351)”
34.1 In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has
been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain
SC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:04:59 +0530
77is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured
by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction
could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned
“must” or “should” and not ” may be” established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
34.2 A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of
U.P Vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan Vs. State of Uttaranchal
(2009) 15 SCC 259.
5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this Court has in
paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
“23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to
be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this
principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:05:06 +0530
78basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on
the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge
the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact
and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an
inference of guilt of accused person should be considered. In dealing
with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt
applies. Although, there should not be any missing links in the case,
yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface
of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be
inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court
must have regard to the common course of natural events and to
human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case.
The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the
purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative
effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the
conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken
together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the
conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more
of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one
sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution
can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it
must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused,
howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a
chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
Date:
PANDEY 2024.12.24
15:05:12 +0530
79
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves
complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid
only to lend assurance to the court”.
34.3 In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl.
Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021, Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as under:
“11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence has been very well crystallized in the judgment of this Court
in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicted that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between ” may be proved” and ” must be or should be proved” as was
held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made:
[ SCC para 10, p. 807; SCC (Cri) p. 1047.
“19…. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and
not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental
distance between ‘ may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:05:19 +0530
80
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
154. These golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”
34.4 Further, in State of Odisha Vs. Banabihari Mohapatra and
Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There
has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable
doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the
Accused.
“36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 158 ,
this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused based on
circumstantial evidence are:-
“10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
proved must be cogently or firmly established.
SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 PANDEY 15:05:25 +0530 81
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete
that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability,
the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of
the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent
with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that the Trial
Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a strong
possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the doctor who
performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have accidentally
touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned
judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay
does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court
that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This
proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in
AIR 2013 SC 3817″.
34.5 In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC
2773, this Court observed:-
“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible
on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accusedSC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signedFIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:05:31 +0530
82should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in
the guilt of the accused is sought is to be established by circumstantial
evidence.”
34.6 In the case titled as “Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of
Assam” (2017) 14 SCC 359, it was observed:
“(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’
not and ‘may be’ established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not the explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of tendency; (4)
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
provided; and(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must shown that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR
1963 SC 200).”
34.7 The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial
evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab
(2016) 13 SCC 516.
Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial
dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and
such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc.
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:05:44 +0530
83
circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in
the chain of events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable
likelihood of innocence of accused. The missing of important link
snaps the chain of circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in
any manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
34.8 In the present case, the marriage between victim Beena
and accused Rahul Kumar was solemnized on 25.10.2007 and the
victim had committed suicide on 14.07.2013. As per the statement of
PW-7 Jagdish Parsad/father of the victim, the victim Beena had resided
happily at her matrimonial house with the accused persons for 2-3
years after her marriage on 25.10.2007. It is also averred by PW-7
that after 2-3 years of the said marriage, the deceased Beena had
complained regarding the harassment and beating given by the accused
persons. It is also averred by PW7 that accused Jhankaru Lal/father in
law of the deceased used to instigate the accused persons namely
Rahul/husband of the deceased, accused Sanjay/Jeth of the deceased,
accused Sandeep/devar of the deceased to harass the victim and to give
beatings to the victim. It is also stated by the PW-7 that accused Rahul
Kumar/husband of the deceased had also demanded bike/motorcycle
as well as cash of Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1.5 Lakhs and the said harassment
and demand continued till the death of the deceased/victim Beena.
34.9 It is also averred by PW-7 that on 14.07.2013 at around
11.00 to 11.30 am, the deceased Beena had made a call to her parents
and the said call was received by the witness Deepa who was informed
by the deceased that accused Rahul, Sanjay and Sandeep had beaten up
the deceased at the instance of accused Jhankaru Lal for demand of
SC No. 6848/2016
Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2024.12.24
15:05:52 +0530
84dowry. It was asked by the deceased to the witness Deepa during the
said conversation to send her mother and father to her matrimonial
house and they were planning to visit the house of the deceased.
It is also averred by PW7 that at around 01.00 to 01.30
pm, he had received a call of one Om Parkash i.e. mama of the accused
Rahul who had requested them to reach to the Modi Hospital as soon
as possible and on their way to the Modi Hospital, they had received a
call from accused Jhankaru Lal regarding death of her daughter Beena.
It is also alleged by PW7 that in the Modi Hospital, the deceased was
lying dead and police had also reached there and accused persons fled
away from that place.
34.10 The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of
PW8 i.e. Smt Asha, mother of the deceased/victim who deposed that
the deceased/victim lived happily for about one year after her marriage
and thereafter, accused persons namely Jhankaru Lal, Rahul, Sanjay
and Sandeep had started harassing the deceased/victim Beena for more
dowry and cash and that fact was informed by the victim to her sister
Deepa when she used to visit her parental home.
34.11 It is also averred by PW-8 that on 14.07.2013 at around
11.30 am, the deceased/victim Beena had made a call which was
received by witness Deepa and during the said conversation deceased
had asked to send mother and father to her matrimonial home as
accused persons were harassing and beating her and they were in the
process of going to the matrimonial home of the deceased and in the
meantime, at around 01.00 to 01.30 pm, they had received a call of Om
Parkash, Mama of the accused Rahul who asked them to reach at Modi
Hospital, Saket, where Beena was admitted. It is also deposed bySC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:06:00 +0530
85PW-8 that when they had reached to the Modi Hospital, Saket, they
saw deceased Beena lying dead and at that time accused persons had
beaten up to the Jitender son of the witness PW8. She deposed that her
statement was recorded by SDM on 15.07.2013 Ex. PW8/A bearing
her thumb impression at point A.
34.12 The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of
PW-9 Deepa/sister of the deceased/victim and she deposed that after
the marriage of the deceased Beena with the accused Rahul, deceased
Beena remained happily at her matrimonial house for about 2-3 years
and thereafter, accused persons had started harassing her and they used
to give beatings to the deceased on account of demand of
bike/motorcycle and cash from the deceased Beena. She also deposed
that her parents tried to intervene, however, the behaviour of the
accused persons remained unchanged.
It is also deposed by PW-9 that the accused persons
namely Sanjay, Jhankaru Lal and Sandeep used to give beatings to the
deceased Beena and accused Sanjay, Rahul and Sandeep used to harass
and gave beatings to the deceased Beena on the instigation of accused
Jhankaru Lal. She further deposed that on 14.07.2013 at around 11.30
am, the deceased had made a call which was received by the witness
and in the said conversation, the deceased had requested to send her
mother and father to her matrimonial home as soon as possible as
accused persons were harassing and beating to the victim. She also
deposed that she had informed this fact to her parents and they had left
the house. She also deposed that later on she came to know from her
father about the death of her sister Beena. She deposed that on
15.07.2013, the SDM had made inquiry from her as well as from her
SC No. 6848/2016 Digitally signed
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:06:08 +0530
86
parents and later on police had recorded her statement on 16.07.2013.
34.13 The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of
PW-11 Satender. However, his testimony is mere hearsay and during
cross examination, it came on record that he was not the witness of the
last seen or circumstantial evidence in the present case.
34.14 As per the submission of the State, the witness PW7, PW8
and PW9 were the witnesses related to the circumstantial evidence and
last seen evidence regarding the charge of offence punishable U/s 304-
B/498-A/34 IPC. As per the averment of these witnesses, the
deceased/victim Beena used to inform about the alleged dowry
demand and harassment caused to her by the accused persons namely
Rahul Kumar/husband, Jhankaru Lal/father in law, Sanjay
Kumar/brother in law (jeth) and Sandeep/Brother in law (Devar).
34.15 The marriage between deceased/victim Beena and
accused Rahul was solemnized on 25.10.2007 and as per the averment
of PW7/Jagdish Parsad, he had given sufficient dowry to the accused
persons at the time of marriage. However, he did not allege that any
dowry demand was made by the accused persons at the time of the
marriage neither any detail has been furnished by PW7 regarding the
dowry articles allegedly given at the time of marriage between
deceased/victim Beena and accused Rahul.
34.16 The testimony of PW7, PW8 and PW9 discloses the fact
that victim Beena had resided happily initially for about 2-3 years at
her matrimonial home in the company of her husband Rahul and other
accused persons.
34.17 As per the averment of PW7, PW8 and PW9, the
deceased/victim Beena had complained about the harassment and
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:06:14 +0530
87
beating given by the accused persons regarding their demand of
motorcycle/bike and cash of Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1.5 Lakh after about 2-3
years of the marriage dated 25.10.2007 and the said harassment had
continued till the death of the deceased on 14.07.2013. However, the
witness PW7/Jagdish Parsad/father of the deceased/victim had not
disclosed any specific date, month and time of alleged harassment or
beating given by the accused persons to the deceased/victim Beena
during her entire examination in chief neither he disclosed the reason
for not lodging any complaint with any of the authorities regarding the
alleged dowry demand or beating given by the accused persons to the
victim Beena.
34.18 Similarly, the witness PW-8 Smt. Asha/mother of the
deceased/victim also alleged that deceased/victim used to complain
about the harassment and beating given by the accused persons in
regard to their dowry demand. However, the witness did not disclose
the specific date, time, month and year when the said dowry demand
was made by the accused persons or any beating or harassment caused
by the accused persons against the victim.
The witness PW-8 also disclosed that the said information
regarding the dowry demand and harassment was used to be given by
the victim to her younger daughter/witness PW-9 Deepa. However, no
such fact was disclosed by witness PW7 during his examination in
chief recorded in the Court.
34.19 The witness PW-9 Ms. Deepa/sister of the deceased also
deposed on the same line as deposed by PW-7 and PW-8 regarding the
alleged dowry demand and beating given by the accused persons.
However, she did not disclose any specific date, month and year
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
KUMAR PANDEY
PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:06:26 +0530
88
regarding the instances of alleged dowry demand or beating given by
the accused persons against the deceased/victim Beena.
34.20 On considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 as deposed by them on record, the Court is of
the view that charges of curelty or harassment against the accused
persons are not supported by the legal evidence or corroborative or
circumstantial evidence on record. As per the averment of the PW-7,
PW-8 and PW-9 on the date of the incident dated 14.07.2013, when
victim had committed suicide by hanging herself, she had called to her
parents and the said call was received by PW-9 Deepa. However, no
evidence came on record regarding alleged conversation between the
deceased/victim Beena and witness PW-9 Deepa to corroborate the
version that on the date of incident, she had informed to Deepa about
the alleged harassment caused by the accused persons on the pretext of
their dowry demand.
34.21 There is no evidence on record to corroborate the fact that
any dowry demand was made by the accused persons for sum of Rs. 1
Lakh or Rs 1.5 Lakh as alleged by PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 just before
the death of the victim on 14.07.2013 and no evidence came on record
that any physical or mental harassment or cruelty was caused to the
victim just before her death on 14.07.2013 on the pretext of dowry
demand by the accused persons.
34.22 It is settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled as ” K. Prema S. Rao Vs. Yadla
Shriniwasa Rao” (2003) 1 SCC, 217 and ” Asha & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand” Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2013, that in order to prove
the charge of dowry death punishable U/s 304-B IPC, the prosecution
SC No. 6848/2016
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. Digitally signed
RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY
Date: 2024.12.24
PANDEY 15:06:32 +0530
89
must have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that demand of dowry
was made by the accused persons subsequent to the marriage and soon
before the death of the deceased”. However, in the present case, no
evidence came on record to show that deceased/victim Beena had been
subjected to any curelty or harassment by the accused persons in
connection with the demand of dowry of motorcycle/bike or cash of
Rs. 1 Lakh or Rs. 1.5 Lakh soon before her death. It is also not proved
from the evidence on record that any demand of dowry was made at
the time of marriage or subsequent to the marriage.
34.23 It is also alleged that accused persons used to beat the
victim occassionally and the same continued till the date of death of
the victim. However, no evidence came on record that any complaint
was made by the victim or her parents or by her sister to any authority
or police of any nature and the said averment of witnesses PW-7, PW-8
and PW-9 did not found any corroboration from any other evidence
produced during the trial.
35. The Court is of the considered view that the prosecution
has failed to prove the charges of offence punishable U/s 304-B/498-
A/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Rahul Kumar, Jhankaru
Lal, Sanjay Kumar and Sandeep. Accordingly, the accused persons
namely Rahul Kumar, Jhankaru Lal, Sanjay Kumar and Sandeep are
acquitted from the charges of offence punishable U/s 304-B/498-A/34
IPC.
36. The accused persons namely Rahul Kumar, Jhankaru Lal,
Sanjay Kumar and Sandeep are directed to furnish bail bonds/surety
bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of Section 481 of
BNSS, 2023.
Digitally signed
SC No. 6848/2016 RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
KUMAR
State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. KUMAR PANDEY
FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24
15:06:40 +0530
90
37. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA KUMAR KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2024.12.24 PANDEY 15:06:45 +0530 Announced in open Court (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) on 24.12.2024 Additional Sessions Judge-3 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 6848/2016 State Vs. Rahul Kumar Etc. FIR No. 310/2013: PS Ambedkar Nagar
