Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep Sharma on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 87/2019
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019
FIR No. 457/2018
PS Karawal Nagar
U/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, 1860.
STATE VERSUS SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS
Date of Committal : 15.03.2019
Date of Arguments : 25.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
Table of contents
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. Brief details of the case & Memo of Parties 2
2. Brief case of the Prosecution 3
3. Prosecution Evidence 7
4. Plea of the Accused Persons & Defense Evidence 33
5. Submissions made on behalf of the State 35
6. Submissions made on behalf of the Accused 37
Persons
7. Relevant Law & Case Laws 45
8. Appreciation of Evidence 70
9. Conclusion & Findings 94
Digitally signed by
ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date: 2025.03.11
11:03:55 +0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/11.03.2025
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 1/98
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 87/2019
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019
FIR No. 457/2018
PS Karawal Nagar
U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC, 1860.
Brief details of the case & Memo of Parties
STATE VERSUS SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS
Date of Committal : 15.03.2019
Date of Arguments : 25.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
Brief details of the case:
A) Case FIR No. : 457/2018
B) Charges framed under section : 498-A/304-B R/w
section 34 IPC, 1860.
C) Name of the complainant : Bhole Shankar @
Bharan Lal Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram
Bharose Lal Sharma
R/o H. No. 117, Arya
Nagar, Roop Nagar,
Ghaziabad,
UP-201102.
D) Name of the accused persons : (1) Sandeep Sharma
S/o Sh. Suresh Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 2/98 11:04:05
+0530
Sharma
(2) Pradeep Sharma
S/o Sh. Suresh
Sharma
(3) Rajeev Sharma
S/o Sh. Suresh
Sharma
(4) Suresh Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram
Murti Sharma
(5) Siya Devi
W/o Sh. Suresh
Sharma
All R/o H. No. 325,
Gali No. 4C, Phase-V,
Shiv Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi.
E) Plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
F) Final Order : Acquittal
G) Date of Order : 11.03.2025
JUDGMENT
( Pronounced on the 11th day of March, 2025)
Brief case of the prosecution:
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on 16.10.2018,
Digitally
signed by
when DD no.51B, Ex. PW1/D was registered at PS Karawal Nagar, after ATUL
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:04:13
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 3/98
the B-58 Operator had informed via telephone that “H. No. 325, Gali
No.4, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar yaha par ek lady ne fansi laga li hai jo
dead hai”. The said 100 number call was made from Mob. No.
9560913177.
2. The PCR call was attended by the PCR officials and the PCR van
reached the spot at 19:59:10 and the caller Suresh S/o Sh. Ram Murli
had informed the PCR officials that his daughter-in-law (bahu) Aarti,
who was married to his son Sandeep Sharma had hanged herself from
the fan on the ceiling of the room, with the help of a saree. He further
informed the police officials that the deceased was brought down prior to
him reaching there. There was no suicide note found and the PCR
officials found that there were no signs of any injury present on the body
of the deceased.
3. After registration of the DD No. 51B, Ex. PW1/D, the said call
was marked to ASI Yashpal, who reached the spot with Ct. Ankit. The
Inquiry Officer ASI Yashpal found that the dead body of the deceased
was found hanging from a ceiling fan of a room situated on the 1 st floor
of H. No. 325, Gali No. 4C, Phase-V, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
The body was brought down and was made to lie on the floor. The IO
had called the Crime Team on the spot, which had later inspected the
spot and the Crime Team Report, Mark-ZA was prepared by the Crime
Team Incharge SI Manish Kumar, wherein, the modus operadi was
recorded as “Alleged suicide by hanging” . The weapon/tool suspected to
be used was recorded as a “Saree” and the IO was advised to get the
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 4/98 2025.03.11
11:04:21
+0530
postmortem conducted to ascertain the cause of death.
4. The IO ASI Yashpal then prepared the site plan, Ex. PW11/A and
he seized the ligature material i.e. the saree, Ex. PW8/A. The date of
marriage was found to be 18.02.2017 and since, the death had occurred
within 7 years of the marriage of the deceased, under suspicious
circumstances, the IO informed the senior police officials and the then
Executive Magistrate Sh. R. L. Meena.
5. On the next day i.e. 17.10.2018, IO ASI Yashpal and the other
police staff produced the parents of the deceased before the office of the
concerned SDM, for conducting the proceedings u/s 176 Cr.PC, 1973.
The concerned Executive Magistrate then recorded the statements of the
parents of the deceased, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A, respectively. The
inquest papers including the request for postmortem, Ex. PW5/B were
prepared and the postmortem of deceased Bharti was conducted at GTB
hospital, vide PM Report, Ex. PW12/A. Upon the endorsement made by
the concerned Executive Magistrate on the statement of Sh. Bhole
Shankar (father of the deceased), Ex. PW2/A, the present case FIR was
registered u/s 304-B/498-A/34 IPC, 1860.
6. In the statement recorded before the Executive Magistrate, PW2
Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma had stated that the deceased Bharti
was his daughter and she was having four elder siblings and two siblings
were younger to her. He had married the deceased Bharti with accused
Sandeep Sharma on 18.02.2017. He had further stated that his daughter
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 5/98 11:04:28
+0530
was an intelligent girl, however, she was ill treated by her husband and
in-laws. Accused Sandeep Sharma used to get drunk and would give
beatings to his daughter Bharti.
7. It was further stated by the father of the deceased, PW2 Bhole
Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma that on 16.10.2018, at about 07:00 PM he
received a phone call from his son Arjun, who had informed him that his
daughter Bharti had hanged herself. Thereafter, he alongwith his wife
Kiran went to the matrimonial house of his daughter situated at H. No.
325, Gali No.4C, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He had further
deposed that around 6-7 months, after the marriage of his daughter
Bharti, the accused persons started harassing her on account of dowry
demands. The accused persons used to demand Rs. 50,000/- cash and
money for purchasing a vehicle. He had further deposed that on
09.10.2018, he had given Rs. 30,000/- cash to accused Sandeep Sharma.
He had further stated that he suspected the accused persons had killed his
daughter and wanted strict action against them, as per the law.
8. The Executive Magistrate went on to further record the statement
of the mother of the deceased, namely Kiran, Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, the
said statements, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A were handed over to IO ASI
Yashpal for taking further necessary action as per the law. Upon the
endorsement of the SHO PS Karawal Nagar, made upon the statement,
Ex. PW2/A, present case FIR, Ex. PW1/A was registered by the Duty
Officer HC Dev Raj Singh u/s 304-B/498-A/34 IPC, 1860.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:04:35
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 6/98
9. After the registration of the FIR on 17.10.2018, the investigation
was conducted by the IO SHO Inspector Ravi Kant and after completion
of the same the chargesheet was filed before the court of Ld. MM. After
compliance of section 207/208 Cr.PC, the case was committed by the
Court of Ld. MM before this court on 15.03.2019. Thereafter, the
charges were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 08.05.2019, u/s
498-A/304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty and they had claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:
10. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Thirteen (13)
witnesses, including four Public Witnesses; two Forensic/Medical
Witnesses; and seven Formal Witnesses including the two Investigating
Officers and the Executive Magistrate.
11. Public Witnesses:
(11.1.1) PW-2 is Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma and he is the
father of the deceased and the complainant of the present case. He had
deposed that around 1 ½ years prior to recording of his testimony before
this Court on 25.07.2019, his daughter Bharti was married to accused
Sandeep Sharma on 18th February. Accused Rajeev Sharma and Pradeep
Sharma were the brother-in-laws (devars) of his daughter. Accused Siya
Devi was the mother-in-law (saas) and accused Suresh Sharma was the
father-in-law (sasur) of his deceased daughter Bharti. He correctly
Digitallyidentified the accused persons at the time of his examination-in-chief. ATUL
signed by
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:04:45
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 7/98
(11.1.2) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma went on to
depose that accused Sandeep Sharma, Suresh Sharma, Rajeev and
Pradeep used to drink liquor and they used to then quarrel with his
daughter Bharti. He further categorically deposed that about 2 months
after the marriage of his daughter, he went to her matrimonial house and
brought her back to his house, where he was informed by his daughter
Bharti that her husband, father-in-law and devars used to quarrel with
her and they used to give beatings to her, after consuming alcohol.
(11.1.3) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma went on to
further depose that 2-3 days thereafter, accused Sandeep Sharma came to
his house and he alongwith his other son-in-law had consumed drinks on
the terrace of his house. He had advised accused Sandeep Sharma to not
consume liquor, however, he did not pay any heed to the said advice.
Thereafter, accused Sandeep Sharma took his daughter Bharti back to
her matrimonial home.
(11.1.4) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma went on to
further depose that about 1 year after the marriage of his daughter,
accused Sandeep Sharma started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from them for
purchasing a motorcycle. He further categorically deposed that accused
Sandeep Sharma had asked him and his wife many times to give him Rs.
50,000/- and one month prior to the death of his daughter Bharti, his wife
had given Rs. 30,000/- to accused Sandeep Sharma.
(11.1.5) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma went on to Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:04:59
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 8/98 +0530
further depose that on 16.10.2018, at about 07:00 PM, someone from the
family of the accused persons had telephonically informed his son Arjun
that his daughter had committed suicide, by hanging herself. Thereafter,
he alongwith his wife, sons, younger brother and other relatives reached
the house of the accused persons and met the police officials there. At
that time, the dead body of his daughter Bharti was lying on the 1 st floor
of her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the postmortem was conducted
upon the body of his deceased daughter Bharti.
(11.1.6) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma went on to
further depose that on 17.10.2018, the police officials took him and his
wife to the office of SDM, where the Executive Magistrate Sh. R. L.
Meena recorded his statement, Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that he
had identified the dead body of his daughter vide identification memo,
Ex. PW2/B.(11.1.7) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that the marriage was solemnized through a mediator namely
Guddi. Prior to the marriage he had verified the education and
employment status of accused Sandeep Sharma and he found out that
accused Sandeep Sharma was working as a carpenter on contractual
basis and before accepting the proposal of marriage, he had satisfied
himself about the financial status and background of the groom. He
further deposed that even the father of the groom, accused Suresh
Sharma was working as carpenter. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:05:07
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 9/98 +0530
(11.1.8) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that accused persons had not made any demand of dowry prior
to the marriage. He further deposed that they had given an almirah, some
gold and silver jewelry articles, utensils etc., to the accused persons at
the time of marriage. He further deposed that around 60 persons had
attended the marriage between his daughter and accused Sandeep
Sharma. The food served in the marriage was prepared by a Halwai and
he had also made arrangement of a tent. He further categorically deposed
that he could not tell the exact or even approximate amount of money
spent by them in the marriage.
(11.1.9) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that his wife had given Rs. 30,000/- to accused Sandeep
Sharma, however, he could not tell about the source from where she had
arranged the said money.
(11.1.10) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that his daughter Bharti visited their house around 4-6 times
after her marriage and he had visited her matrimonial house twice prior
to her death. On one such occasion, the devar of his daughter had taken
him to their house and on the other occasion, he went there alone. He
further categorically admitted the suggestion that prior to the death of his
daughter, he never went to her matrimonial home with his wife. He Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:05:15
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 10/98
further deposed that his daughter herself told him that accused Sandeep
Sharma used to give beatings to her, after consuming liquor.
(11.1.11) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that although, it was correct that his daughter got pregnant after
the marriage, however, he did not knew whether she had suffered a
miscarriage in the month of July 2017, and it was not within his
knowledge as to whether his daughter Bharti remained under depression,
due to the said miscarriage.
(11.1.12) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that he used to work as a carpenter at the time of the marriage of
his daughter and he was earning around Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per
month, however, he did not earn anything for at least one month prior to
the marriage of his daughter Bharti. He further deposed that he could not
tell the exact or even approximate monthly household expenses of his,
prior to the marriage of deceased Bharti. He further categorically
deposed that whatever his family members and him used to earn, they
used to spend the same on the household expenses and there were no
savings of their family. However, he went on to voluntarily depose that
they had purchased a piece of plot admeasuring 25 sq. yards and they
were paying EMIs to the property dealer during the said time of the
marriage of his daughter Bharti with accused Sandeep Sharma.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:05:24
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 11/98
(11.1.13) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that he was having 7 children in total, including the deceased.
His sons, Shiv Om, Arjun and Surjeet were all working at the time of
marriage of deceased Bharti. Before the marriage of Bharti with accused
Sandeep Sharma, his other 3 daughters and son Shiv Om were already
married. At that time, his son Shiv Om was working separately as a
carpenter and was making around Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month,
however, he could not produce any documentary proof qua the same.
(11.1.14) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that his son Arjun was training to cut clothes at that time and
was earning about Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. His other son
Surjeet was working as a daily wage labour and was making around Rs.
800/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month. His wife Kiran was working as a rakhi
maker and she used to work on seasonal basis and during the rakhi
season, she used to make around Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- in the entire
season. He further categorically deposed that none of them including him
could save anything out of their earning during the relevant period.
(11.1.15) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
deposed that accused Sandeep Sharma had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for
purchasing a motorcycle on 2-3 occasions, however, he could not tell the
exact date, month or year of the said demand. He went on to depose that Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:05:34
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 12/98
the said demand was raised from his wife Kiran. He further categorically
deposed that he could not tell the exact date, month or year, when his
wife paid Rs. 30,000/- to accused Sandeep Sharma and that the said
amount was not paid in his presence.
(11.1.16) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
categorically deposed that he had not knowledge whether his daughter
Bharti being harassed or maltreated or subjected to beatings, 8-10 days
prior to her death.
(11.1.17) PW-2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had
categorically deposed that his son Arjun was still in talking terms with
the accused Sandeep Sharma and his family members, however, he had
no knowledge if his son Arjun was visiting accused Sandeep Sharma at
Mandoli Jail or not.
(11.2.1) PW-3 is Satish Chand Sharma and he is the uncle of the
deceased. He had deposed that on 17.10.2018, after being informed by
his nephew Arjun, he had visited GTB Hospital mortuary and identified
the dead body of his niece Bharti, vide identification statement, Ex.
PW3/A. After conducting the postmortem, the dead body was handed
over to him and to the brother of the deceased namely Shivam, vide
handing over memo, Ex. PW3/B.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:05:41
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 13/98
(11.3.1) PW-6 is Kiran and she is the mother of the deceased. She
had deposed that around 1 ½ years prior to recording of her testimony
before this Court on 27.07.2019, her daughter Bharti was married to
accused Sandeep Sharma on 18th February. Accused Rajeev Sharma and
Pradeep Sharma were the brother-in-laws (devars) of his daughter.
Accused Siya Devi was the mother-in-law (saas) and accused Suresh
Sharma was the father-in-law (sasur) of his deceased daughter Bharti.
She correctly identified all the accused persons at the time of her
examination-in-chief, except accused Rajeev, since accused Rajeev was
permanently exempted through his counsel and his identity was not
disputed.
(11.3.2) PW-6 Kiran had further deposed that her daughter Bharti
was initially kept properly for about 1-2 months after her marriage,
however, thereafter, the accused persons started harassing and
maltreating her. Accused Sandeep Sharma used to give beatings to her
daughter after consuming liquor and that she had complained about the
same to the mother-in-law of her daughter, however, accused Siya Devi
claimed that her son started drinking due to the conduct of her daughter
Bharti.
(11.3.3) PW-6 Kiran had further deposed that about one year after
her marriage, her daughter Bharti had called her over a telephone and
informed her that accused Sandeep Sharma had given beatings to her
under the influence of liquor. On the same day, she sent her son Shiv Om
to the matrimonial house of the deceased and she was brought back to Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:06:07
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 14/98
her parental house. Her daughter then showed the red and blue marks of
injuries on her body to PW6. After about 6-7 days, accused Sandeep
Sharma came to their house to take back Bharti to her matrimonial
house. PW6 had confronted accused Sandeep Sharma, to which he had
assured that he would not repeat the said acts in the future and on the
basis of the said assurances, they had sent back Bharti with him.
(11.3.4) PW-6 Kiran had further deposed that around 2-3 days, prior
to the Independence Day, in the year 2017, she had gone to a factory
situated near the matrimonial house of her deceased daughter, to collect
raw materials for making rakhi. She went to meet her daughter and
accused Sandeep Sharma hurled abuses upon her daughter, in her
presence. She complained about the same to the mother-in-law of her
daughter, to which she assured PW6 of resolving the issue and making
accused Sandeep Sharma understand that he should not drink liquor.
(11.3.5) PW-6 Kiran had further deposed that around 15 days prior
to the death of her daughter, accused Sandeep Sharma came to their
house and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her for purchasing a motorcycle.
After about 1 week of the said demand, she gave Rs. 30,000/- in cash to
accused Sandeep Sharma at her home, in the presence of her daughter
Bharti, when during shradh period, around 1 week prior to her death,
she had called accused Sandeep Sharma and Bharti to her house and they
came during the day time and left around 09:00 PM.
(11.3.6) PW-6 Kiran had further deposed that on the day when her
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 15/98 2025.03.11
11:06:34
+0530
daughter Bharti had expired, accused Sandeep Sharma had
telephonically informed her son Arjun that her daughter Bharti had
committed suicide by hanging herself. At that time, her son Arjun was at
his office and her son had directly reached the matrimonial house of her
daughter and from there he came back home and informed PW6 and
other family members. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband and other
family members except her son Arjun reached the house of the accused
persons and saw the dead body of her daughter Bharti lying on the 1 st
floor of the said house.
(11.3.7) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that the marriage was fixed
through the mediator namely Guddi, however, they had not verified
about accused Sandeep Sharma and his family members, prior to the
marriage. She categorically deposed that there was no demand of dowry
made by the accused persons prior to the marriage.
(11.3.8) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that they had spent around
Rs. 50,000/- in the marriage of her daughter Bharti with accused
Sandeep Sharma and the said money was arranged after withdrawing Rs.
5,000/- from the bank account, Rs. 15,000/- from the chit fund
committee and the rest was arranged from the savings made by her, her
husband and her son.
(11.3.9) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:06:41
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 16/98 +0530
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that at the time of marriage
of her daughter Bharti, she was earning around Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-
per month. Her elder son was earning around Rs. 16,000/- to Rs.
17,000/- per month and her younger son was around Rs. 4,000/- to Rs.
5,000/- per month. She categorically admitted that no cash was given to
the accused persons in the said marriage and approximately 100 persons
in total, including the baratis had attended the said marriage.
(11.3.10) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that after about 7-10 days
of her marriage, her daughter Bharti came to her house and stayed there
for around 6-7 days and during that period, she made no complaints
against the accused persons and PW6 had visited the matrimonial house
of her daughter, around 1-2 months thereafter, and even then her
daughter had not complained against the accused persons.
(11.3.11) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that she did not knew if her
daughter Bharti had conceived in the month of July 2017 or that her
miscarriage took place within 1-1 ½ months. She categorically deposed
that she could neither admit nor deny the suggestion that due to the said
miscarriage, her daughter used to remain tense and upset.
(11.3.12) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that out of the total Rs.
30,000/- given to accused Sandeep Sharma by her to purchase a ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 17/98 Date: 2025.03.11
11:06:56 +0530
motorcycle, 15 days prior to the death of her daughter. She had borrowed
Rs. 20,000/- from one Chander Pal, who was their relative and the
remaining money was arranged from their savings. She further
categorically deposed that she gave the said money to accused Sandeep
Sharma without informing her husband and sons.
(11.3.14) PW-6 Kiran during her cross examination conducted by Ld.
Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that it was correct that after
her marriage and prior to her death, her daughter Bharti stayed with them
in her parental house only once for 6-7 days. She categorically went on
to depose in the voluntarily part that she had two daughter-in-laws
(bahu) of hers and her daughter-in-laws were not having good terms with
her daughter Bharti and whenever Bharti intended to stay with her, her
daughter-in-laws used to tell her daughter Bharti to return back to her
matrimonial home and for that reason, her daughter Bharti did not stay
with them.
(11.4.1) PW-10 is Arjun and he is the brother of the deceased. He
had deposed that he had four sisters including the deceased and two
brothers. His sister Bharti was married to accused Sandeep Sharma on
18.02.2017. He categorically deposed that he did not knew as to what
happened with his sister Bharti after her marriage, at the matrimonial
home.
(11.4.2) PW-10 Arjun was declared hostile by the State and he was Digitally
signed by
subjected to rigorous cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for ATUL
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:07:05
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 18/98
the State. During his cross examination, he had categorically deposed
that although accused Sandeep Sharma used to consume liquor and
would quarrel with his sister, however, he had no knowledge as to
whether he used to give beatings to his sister or not.
(11.4.3) PW-10 Arjun further categorically deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that he had not told
the IO that after 6-7 months of the marriage of his sister Bharti, accused
started demanding dowry from her or that the accused persons demanded
Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a vehicle or thereafter, in consultation with
his parents, they arranged Rs. 30,000/- and handed over the same to
accused Sandeep Sharma on 09.10.2018. He categorically deposed that
he had no knowledge of any such money being paid to the accused
person.
(11.4.4) PW-10 Arjun further categorically deposed during his cross
examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that on 16.10.2018,
at about 07:00 PM, while he was present his house, accused Sandeep
Sharma called him over telephone and informed that his sister Bharti had
committed suicide by hanging herself. Thereafter, he told his parents
about the said call and they all reached the matrimonial house of his
sister Bharti.
(11.4.5) PW-10 Arjun during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that the marriage of his
sister Bharti with accused Sandeep Sharma was fixed through one ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
11:07:17 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 19/98
Guddi, who was the mediator. He could not tell the exact or approximate
of money spent in the said marriage. He categorically deposed that they
had given only one almirah at the time of the marriage. He further
categorically deposed that the entire expenses of the tent and food served
in the marriage was borne by accused Suresh Sharma and not by his
family members.
(11.4.6) PW-10 Arjun during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that although he had
the knowledge of his sister being given beatings prior to her death,
however, he had no knowledge whether there were any demands of
dowry from the end of the accused persons. Furthermore, his knowledge
relating to the beatings received by his sister was on the basis of what
was told to him by his parents. He further categorically deposed that he
used to visit the matrimonial house of his sister and no quarrel or
beatings were given in his presence and nor did his sister ever personally
told him about the same.
(11.4.7) PW-10 Arjun during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had admitted sending a message on
Whatsapp, Ex. PW10/DX to one Kuldeep, who is the jija of accused
Sandeep Sharma. He further deposed that he could not say whether his
sister had committed suicide, due to the trauma or that the said suicide
was not due to the family members of accused Sandeep Sharma.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:07:30
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 20/98
12. Medical Witnesses:
(12.1.1) PW-4 is Dr. Saurabh Uniyal, CMO, Casualty, GTB
Hospital. He had deposed that on 16.10.2018, he was posted as CMO at
GTB Hospital Casualty and at about 09:32 PM, patient Bharti W/o
Sandeep Sharma, 27 years female was brought by ASI Yashpal with
alleged history of hanging at H. No. 325, Gali No.5, Phase-V, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi at 07:00 PM, as stated by ASI Yashpal.
(12.1.2) PW-4 Dr. Saurabh Uniyal further deposed that he had
medically examined the patient and on examination, she was found
unconscious and in an unresponsive state. The blood pressure, pulse was
not traceable. No heard sound was present. There was no respiratory
sound was found present and both the bilateral pupils were fixed and
dilated. She conducted the ECG, however, she was declared as brought
dead at 09:38 PM. The body was advised to be sent for postmortem, so
as to ascertain the cause of death. She prepared the MLC, Ex. PW4/A.(12.2.1) PW-12 is Dr. Ankit Kumar, Sr. Resident, Department of
Forensic Medicines and Toxicology, AIIMS, Rishikesh. He had deposed
that on 17.10.2018, he was posted in Department of Forensic Medicines
& Toxicology at UCMS & GTB hospital, Delhi. On that day at 2:00 PM,
dead body of Bharti D/o Bhole Shankar was received alongwith inquest
papers filled by the Executive Magistrate, Mr. R. L. Meena, PS Karawal
Nagar with history of hanging at H. No. 325, Gali No. 5, Phase-V, Shiv
Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi at around 7:00 PM on 16.10.2018, General ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 21/98 11:07:37 +0530
observations: Dead body wrapped in white sheet wearing red blue colour
printed kurta, pink bra and blue salwar. Eyes and mouth were closed. All
other natural orifices, no abnormality detected. Postmortem staining
present over back and fixed. Rigor mortis present over bilateral upper
limb. Greenish black discoloration present over right iliac fossa (right
side of lower abdomen).
Details of external injuries:-
Redish abraded, dry hard parchmentised (paper like) ligature
mark present over thyroid cartilage on front of neck
incompletely, obliquely encircling the neck. The ligature mark is
5 cm wide, 5 cm below chin and 4 cm above suprasternal (part
of body) notch. Further, the mark goes backward, upward on left
side of neck and is 4 cm wide and 1 cm below angle
of mandible. Further, the mark goes backward and upward and
the mark is 3.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm below mastoid process.
Further, the mark is absent for a distance of 8 cm over back of
neck. On right side of neck, the mark is 2.2 cm wide and
touching mastoid process (bone behind the ear) Further going
forward, the mark is 4 cm wide and 1.5 cm below angle of
mandible and merges with the front midline mark.
Internal examination:-
Scalp and skull- no abnormality is detected.
Brain- 1120 grams and congested.
Neck and vertebra- bruising of bilateral carotid sheath present
Digitally
signed bywith extravasation of blood present in neck muscle and adjacent ATUL
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:07:44
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 22/98
soft tissue. Epiglottis is congested. All other bony structures of
neck are intact.
Ribcage- no abnormality is detected.
Lungs- left 280 grams and right 315 grams. Petechial
hemorrhage is present on interlobar surface of both lungs.
Heart- 215 grams, no abnormality is detected in coronaries.
Petechial hemorrhage present on epicardial surface and base of
aorta.
Stomach- contains about 50 ml of yellowish colour fluid, walls-
no abnormality detected.
Intestines- distended with gases of putrefaction and contains
fluid and feces. Walls- No abnormality detected.
Liver- 1200 grams, congested, greenish discoloration present
over inferior surface.
Spleen- 115 grams.
Kidneys- left and right both 80 grams and congested.
Urinary bladder- Empty.
Uterus- Empty, walls- No abnormality detected.
Pelvis and vertebra- no abnormality detected.
Opinion- “cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem
hanging.” Time since death was about “3/4 of a day or 18 hours” before
postmortem examination. My abovesaid postmortem report is now
Ex.PW12/A which bears signature at point A.Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:07:51
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 23/98
13. Formal Police Witnesses:
(13.1.1.) PW- 1 is HC Dev Raj and he was the Duty Officer. He had
deposed that on 17.10.2018, he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar and on
that day he was working as DO from 4.00 PM to 12.00 AM. The SHO
PS Karawal Nagar, Inspector Ravi Kant had produced the rukka at about
05:50 PM and he made the DD entry no. 8A, in this regard. Thereafter,
he made an endorsement Ex. PW1/B and thereafter he had got the
contents of the rukka fed in the computer through CIPA operator and got
registered the present case FIR no. 457/2018 u/s 304-B/ 498-A/34 IPC,
1860, Ex. PW1/A. The certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, was brought on record as Ex. PW1/C.(13.1.2) PW-1 HC Dev Raj has further deposed that, as per the
record maintained at the PS, on 16.10.2018 at 07:02 PM, a call was
received through wireless operator B-58 that “Gali No. 4, Shiv Vihar, H.
No. 325, Karawal Nagar, yanha per ek lady ne fansi laga li he, jo dead
he.” The said DD no. 51-B dated 16.10.2018 was exhibited as Ex.
PW1/D and the inquiry of the same was marked to ASI Yashpal Singh.
(13.2.1) PW-7 is Ct. Mukul and he had deposed that on 17.10.2018,
he had joined the investigation with IO ASI Yashpal and both of them
alongwith other staff reached the mortuary of GTB Hospital, where the
postmortem of the dead body of deceased Bharti was conducted and after
the postmortem, the body was handed over to the father of the deceased.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:07:59
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 24/98 +0530
(13.2.2) PW-7 Ct. Mukul had further deposed that on 17.10.2018
itself, he alongwith IO Inspector Ravi Kant reached the matrimonial
house of the deceased, where accused Sandeep Sharma was found
present. The accused Sandeep Sharma was then interrogated and arrested
by the IO vide arrest memo, Ex. PW7/A and his personal search was
conducted vide memo, Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, accused Sandeep Sharma
made disclosure before the IO and the same was recorded vide
statement, Ex. PW1/C. Accused was brought to the PS and after getting
his medical examination conducted, he was lodged in the lockup.
(13.3.1) PW-8 is Ct. Ankit Malik and he had deposed that on
16.10.2018, he was on emergency duty as a constable from 08:00 AM to
08:00 PM and at about 07:02 PM DD No. 51-B, Ex. PW1/D was
registered regarding the death of one lady by hanging and the same was
marked to IO ASI Yashpal. Thereafter, he alongwith IO ASI Yashpal
reached the spot and found the dead body of a female was lying on the
floor of a room situated on the 1st floor. The IO then called the Crime
Team to the spot and the Incharge Crime Team inspected the spot and the
photographer took the photographs from different angles. The SHO PS
Karawal Nagar and the Executive Magistrate Sh. R. N. Meena were
informed telephonically.
(13.3.2) PW-8 Ct. Ankit Malik had further deposed that the Incharge
Crime Team SI Manish handed over the ligature material i.e. saree of red
colour having five knots, Ex. PW8/Article-1 to the IO ASI Yashpal, who
had then seized the same after putting it in a polythene, vide seizure Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:08:36
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 25/98 +0530
memo, Ex. PW8/A. In the meanwhile, SHO Inspector Ravi Kant reached
the spot and at the instructions of the SHO and the IO, he removed the
dead body to GTB Hospital mortuary.
(13.3.3) PW-8 Ct. Ankit Malik had further deposed that on
25.10.2018, he joined the investigation with IO Inspector Ravi Kant and
he reached the house of the accused persons alongwith a notice prepared
by the IO, where accused Suresh Sharma and Siya Devi were found
present and he produced both of them before IO Inspector Ravi Kant.
The IO interrogated them and prepared their interrogation reports. The
previous involvement of accused Suresh Sharma and Siya Devi were
checked from the record room, however, they were having no previous
involvement in any other case. After their interrogation, accused Suresh
Sharma and Siya Devi were allowed to leave by the IO.
(13.3.4) PW-8 Ct. Ankit Malik had further deposed that on
25.10.2018, he joined the investigation with IO Inspector Ravi Kant and
he reached the house of the accused persons alongwith a notice prepared
by the IO, where accused Pradeep Sharma and Rajeev were found
present and he produced both of them before IO Inspector Ravi Kant.
The IO interrogated them and prepared their interrogation reports. After
their interrogation, accused Pradeep Sharma and Rajeev were allowed to
leave by the IO. He had correctly identified the accused persons and the
case property i.e. the saree, Ex. PW8/Article-1.
(13.4.1) PW-9 is ASI Ishwar Singh and he had deposed that on Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:08:44
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 26/98
17.10.2018, he was posted as Duty Officer from 12:00 AM till 08:00 AM
and at about 07:00 AM, ASI Yashpal and Ct. Ankit returned back to the
PS after attending to PCR call which was registered vide DD No. 51B,
Ex. PW1/D and he recorded their arrival entry in the General Diary vide
GD No. 002A dated 17.10.2018, Ex. PW9/A.
(13.5.1) PW-5 is Sh. R. L. Meena and he is the then Executive
Magistrate, North East District. He had deposed that on 16.10.2018, at
about 05:00 PM, he was telephonically informed by ASI Yashpal that
one lady namely Bharti had committed suicide by hanging herself at H.
No. 325, Gali No. 4C, Phase-V, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and that the she
was taken to GTB Hospital, wherein, she was declared as brought dead.
He instructed the IO to bring the parents of the deceased to his office, as
and when they reach Delhi.
(13.5.2) PW-5 Sh. R. L. Meena had further deposed that on
17.10.2018, at about 11:00 AM IO ASI Yashpal produced the parents of
the deceased at his office and he made inquiries from the father of the
deceased, namely Bhole Shankar and recorded his statement, Ex.
PW2/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the mother of the
deceased, namely Kiran and same was exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. Since,
the parents of the deceased was suspecting the involvement of the
accused persons in the death of their daughter, he directed the IO to take
necessary action as per the law and made endorsements to the said effect
on their respective statements.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:08:50
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 27/98
(13.5.3) PW-5 Sh. R. L. Meena had further deposed that on
17.10.2018, at about 02:00 PM he visited the Mortuary, GTB Hospital,
where IO ASI Yashpal and the family members of the deceased were
already present. The uncle and father of the deceased identified the dead
body vide identification statement, Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW2/B,
respectively. He prepared the request for conducting the postmortem, Ex.
PW5/B and the inquest papers i.e. Form 25.35 (I) (B), Ex. PW5/C was
also prepared.
(13.5.5) PW-5 Sh. R. L. Meena during his cross examination
conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that the
statements of the parents of the deceased, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A,
respectively, were both recorded by his assistant namely Mohit, under
his dictation and supervision. He also categorically deposed that the said
statements does not contain any note that the said statements were not
recorded by him in his own hand or that the same was recorded by his
assistant Mohit. He also admitted that the said statements do not bear the
signature or even initials of his assistant Mohit and the IO ASI Yashpal
had not recorded the statement of his assistant Mohit at that time or at
any later stage.
(13.5.6) PW-5 Sh. R. L. Meena during his cross examination
conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that
while the statements of the parents of the deceased were being recorded,
IO ASI Yashpal was present there.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:08:56
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 28/98
(13.6.1) PW-11 is ASI Yashpal and he is the 1st IO of the present
case. He had deposed that on 16.10.2018, he was on emergency duty as
ASI and at about 07:02 PM DD No. 51-B, Ex. PW1/D was registered
regarding the death of one lady by hanging and the same was marked to
him. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ankit reached the spot and found the
dead body of a female was lying on the floor of a room situated on the 1 st
floor. He then called the Crime Team to the spot and the Incharge Crime
Team SI Manish inspected the spot and the photographer Ct. Mohit took
the photographs from different angles. The SHO PS Karawal Nagar and
the Executive Magistrate Sh. R. N. Meena were informed telephonically
by him, since, the death of the deceased took place within 7 years of her
marriage.
(13.6.2) PW-11 ASI Yashpal had further deposed that the Incharge
Crime Team SI Manish handed over the ligature material i.e. saree of red
colour having five knots, Ex. PW8/Article-1 to the IO ASI Yashpal, who
had then seized the same after putting it in a polythene, vide seizure
memo, Ex. PW11/B (earlier also exhibited as Ex. PW8/A). In the
meanwhile, SHO Inspector Ravi Kant reached the spot and at the
instructions of the SHO, he alongwith Ct. Ankit, removed the dead body
to GTB Hospital Mortuary and the dead body was got preserved.
(13.6.3) PW-11 ASI Yashpal had further deposed that on 17.10.2018,
at the directions of the concerned Executive Magistrate, he produced the
parents of the deceased before him and their statements, Ex. PW2/A and
Ex. PW5/A, respectively, were recorded. Thereafter, he alongwith the
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 29/98 11:09:03
+0530
Executive Magistrate and the parents of the deceased went to the
Mortuary of GTB Hospital, where he prepared the inquest papers and
request for postmortem, Ex. PW5/B. The dead body was identified by
the uncle of the deceased, namely Satish Chand Sharma and the father of
the deceased, vide statements, Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW2/B, respectively.
After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father of the
deceased vide memo, Ex. PW3/B.(13.6.4) PW-11 ASI Yashpal had further deposed that he handed over
the statements of the parents of the deceased, recorded by the Executive
Magistrate to the SHO and upon the statement of the father of the
deceased, Ex. PW2/A, the SHO made an endorsement and got the
present case FIR registered through the DO and the investigation was
taken up by the SHO himself. He had then identified the case property
i.e. the saree, Ex. PW8/Article-1.
(13.7.1) PW-13 is Inspector Ravi Kant and he is the 2nd Investigating
Officer of the present case. He had deposed that on 16.10.2018, he was
posted as SHO PS Karwal Nagar and ASI Yashpal had called him to the
spot i.e. H. No. 325, Gali No. 4C, Phase-V, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi and he alongwith his staff reached there and found that the dead
body of the deceased was lying on the floor. He noticed that there was a
ligature mark on the neck of the dead body of the deceased. He met the
1st IO ASI Yashpal and the parents of the deceased and the accused
persons. On his instructions, ASI Yaspal sent the dead body to the GTB
Hospital Mortuary through Ct. Ankit.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:09:08
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 30/98
(13.7.2) PW-13 Inspector Ravi Kant had further deposed that on
17.10.2018, 1st IO ASI Yashpal produced the statement of the father of
the deceased, namely Bhole Shankar, Ex. PW2/A, which was recorded
by the Executive Magistrate and he made the endorsement at point X and
got the present case FIR registered. He got the copy of the FIR and the
original complaint/statement and started investigation of the present
case.
(13.7.3) PW-13 Inspector Ravi Kant had further deposed that on
17.10.2018, he went to the spot alongwith Ct. Mukul and accused
Sandeep Sharma was found present there, who was interrogated and later
arrested by him vide arrest memo, Ex. PW7/A. He conducted the
personal search of the accused vide memo, Ex. PW7/B and recorded the
disclosure statement, Ex. PW7/C.(13.7.4) PW-13 Inspector Ravi Kant had further deposed that during
the investigation, he collected the PCR call form, Mark-X and DD No.
2A, dated 17.10.2018, Mark-Y. He collected the photographs pertaining
to the marriage of the deceased with accused Sandeep Sharma, Mark-Z1
and Mark Z2. He thereafter, collected the postmortem report, Ex.
PW12/A and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also collected
the Scene Of Crime Report prepared by the Crime Team, Mark-ZA and
the photographs of the deceased and the Scene of Crime, Mark-ZB
(colly) (18 photographs).
(13.7.5) PW-13 Inspector Ravi Kant had further deposed that he had Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:09:17
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 31/98
interrogated accused Suresh Sharma, Siya Devi, Rajeev Sharma and
Pradeep in the PS, however, they were not arrested in the present case.
He prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned
Court. He correctly identified all the accused persons at the time of his
examination-in-chief conducted on 19.04.2024.
(13.7.6) PW-13 Inspector Ravi Kant during his cross examination
conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that on
16.10.2018, he had reached the spot at around 07:00 PM and had met the
accused persons there. He categorically deposed that he could not say
whether accused Sandeep Sharma was present at the spot, when
deceased Bharti had hanged herself. He further categorically deposed
that he had not recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased on
16.10.2018 and went on to voluntarily deposed that they were not in
position to give their statements on the said dates.
(13.7.7) PW-13 Inspector Ravi Kant during his cross examination
conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he
had not gone to the SDM office for getting the statement of the parents
of the deceased recorded and voluntarily deposed that he had deputed
ASI Yashpal for the said task. He further categorically deposed that he
made inquiries from the neighbours of the house of the deceased,
however, he did not record the statement of any such neighbour(s).
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:09:22
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 32/98
Plea of the Accused Persons and Defense Evidence:
14. After completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed. The
statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
1973, in which they had pleaded their innocence.
15. The accused persons chose to lead Defense Evidence and in the
support of their case they have examined one (1) witness:
(15.1.1) DW-1 is Guddi Devi and she is the mediator of the marriage
between the deceased Bharti and accused Sandeep Sharma. She had
deposed that she had mediated the said marriage, which took place in the
month of February, 2017. She deposed that both the families were
known to her from earlier and she was aware about the financial
background of both the families.
(15.1.2) DW-1 Guddi Devi had further deposed that the family members
of the deceased had given one almirah, full of clothes and one trunk
containing gifts to the deceased at the time of her marriage. In her
knowledge, there was no demand of dowry ever made by the accused
persons, prior to the marriage or even after that. She further categorically
deposed that after the marriage of deceased Bharti, she used to
frequently visit her matrimonial house and that she was kept nicely by
the accused persons.
(15.1.3) DW-1 Guddi Devi had further deposed that the bhabhi of
ATUL
AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 33/98 Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
11:09:31 +0530
deceased Bharti used to quarrel with her, whenever, she used to come to
her paternal house. The deceased had a miscarriage prior to her death
and her bhabhi and other family members used to trouble her and as far
as her knowledge, the same was the reason for deceased Bharti to
commit suicide.
(15.1.4) DW-1 Guddi Devi during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State had deposed that it was correct that
she was not visiting the paternal house of deceased on regular basis and
her family members were also not coming to her house regularly. She
further deposed that the mother of the deceased was her distant bua and
their respective families would meet each other on birthdays and similar
occasions. She further deposed that the deceased used to call her on her
mobile phone in about 15-20 days time, till her death.
(15.1.5) DW-1 Guddi Devi during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State had deposed that it was correct that
she did not always used to accompany the deceased, when she used to
visit her parental house prior to her death and stated that she had
accompanied her around 1-2 times. She further deposed that deceased
Bharti would go and return back from her parental house on the same
day and she would never stay there overnight.
(15.1.6) DW-1 Guddi Devi during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State had deposed that she was not given
any gifts for getting the said marriage fixed. She further deposed that Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:09:38
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 34/98 +0530
accused Siya Devi was her distant sister, although, she was not related by
blood, she always considered her as a sister, since, they belonged to the
same village.
(15.1.7) DW-1 Guddi Devi during his cross examination conducted by
Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State had deposed that she had not taken
the deceased Bharti to the hospital, prior to her death, when she had
suffered a miscarriage. She further categorically deposed that the said
miscarriage did not take place in her presence and she was informed
about it by the deceased herself.
16. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Kamal Akhter, Ld.
Additional PP for the State and Sh. Devender Singh and Sh. Gaurav
Kumar, Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. I have also minutely gone
through the evidence brought on record and the material aspects of the
case.
Submissions made on behalf of the State:
17. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in the
present case the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden that
the death of deceased Bharti was caused otherwise than under normal
circumstances and such death had occurred within 7 years of her
marriage with accused Sandeep Sharma. Furthermore, it has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt from the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses that soon before her death, deceased Bharti was subjected to
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 35/98
2025.03.11
11:09:45
+0530
cruelty and harassment by her husband (accused Sandeep Sharma) and
other relatives of the husband namely accused Suresh Sharma, Siya
Devi, Rajeev Sharma and Pradeep Sharma. Furthermore, the prosecution
has also discharged the burden that such cruelty and harassment was
meted out to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry.
Therefore, all the essential ingredients of section 304-B IPC, 1860 have
been fully satisfied in the present case.
18. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the
presumption enshrined u/s 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a
presumption of law and once the prosecution was able to establish from
the facts of the present case, the essential ingredients of the offence
punishable u/s 304-B that the death took place within 7 years of marriage
and soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty relating
to dowry demands was duly proved by the prosecution, therefore, a duty
was cast upon this court to raise a presumption that the accused persons
had caused the dowry death of Bharti. The testimony of the star
prosecution witnesses PW2 Bhole Shankar @ Bharan Lal Sharma (father
of the deceased) was fully corroborated by the testimony of PW6 Kiran
(mother of the deceased).
19. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that prior the deceased
Bharti hanging herself by tying a saree around her neck and by tying
other end of the saree from the ceiling fan of her room and she was
subjected to harassment and cruelty on the basis of dowry demands. The Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:09:54
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 36/98 +0530
prosecution has also been able to prove that the offence was committed
in the dwelling house, where the accused persons also resided and in the
present case, the offence took place behind the closed doors of the
matrimonial house of the deceased and therefore, the burden of proof
upon the prosecution was lighter, In view of section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, since the circumstances around the death of the
deceased was especially within the knowledge of the accused persons,
therefore, the burden of proving that fact rested on them, which they
have miserably failed to discharge in the present case.
20. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the
identity of the accused persons was fully established in the present case
as they were duly identified by all the prosecution witnesses before the
Court.
21. In support of his contentions, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State had
relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra” 2007 (1) JCC 147,
“Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand” 2023
LiveLaw SC 341 and “Sunil Kundu & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand“
(2013) 4 SCC 422.
Submissions made on behalf of the Accused Persons:
22. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
ATUL
persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 37/98 11:10:06 +0530
present case, after the parents of the deceased had leveled false and
concocted allegations against them, after the deceased who was suffering
from depression had committed suicide.
23. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that the brother of the deceased, PW10 Arjun had not supported
the case of the prosecution and he had turned hostile at the time of his
testimony. The said deposition of PW10 Arjun has brought forward the
falsity of the allegations leveled against the accused persons. It has
created reasonable doubts upon the veracity of the prosecution version
and the benefit of the said doubt must go to the accused persons.
24. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that there are inherent inconsistencies and incoherencies in the
inter-se testimonies of the star public witnesses examined by the
prosecution. As per the statement of the father of the deceased, recorded
u/s 161 Cr.PC, he had stated that the husband, father-in-law and mother-
in-law of his daughter Bharti started harassing her after 6-7 months of
her marriage and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- from them. However,
when her father Bhole Shankar stepped into the witness box as PW2, he
had categorically deposed that it was only accused Sandeep who had
demanded the said amount for purchasing a motorcycle and the said
demand was raised after about 1 year of the marriage of his daughter
Bharti with accused Sandeep.
25. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 38/98 11:10:14
+0530
persons that the testimony of PW2 Bhole Shankar is also suffering from
material improvements, since he had not stated before the Executive
Magistrate or before the IO in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that 2 months
after the marriage of his daughter, he had brought her back from her
matrimonial house and his daughter informed him that accused Sandeep
Sharma, Suresh Sharma and Siya Devi used to quarrel with her and also
used to give beatings to her, after consuming alcohol. There is no
specific date or month mentioned by PW2 and he has leveled general
and cryptic allegations against the accused persons, furthermore, no
specific role is attributed to any of the accused persons.
26. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that the father of the deceased, namely Bhole Shankar had stated
in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that he alongwith his wife Kiran had
given Rs. 30,000/- to accused Sandeep Sharma on 09.10.2018, however,
when he entered into the witness box, he had changed the version and
deposed that his wife had given Rs. 30,000/- to accused Sandeep
Sharma, one month prior to the death of his daughter.
27. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that PW2 Bhole Shankar was cross examined in detail by the
accused persons and during his cross examination conducted on
27.07.2019, he had categorically deposed that he could not tell from
where did his wife arranged the said money.
28. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:10:20
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 39/98
persons that the financial background of the complainant and his other
family members was extremely humble, which is evident from the cross
examination of PW2 Bhole Shankar, wherein, he had deposed that he
was working as a carpenter and was earning around Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.
3,000/- per month and in the entire month preceding the marriage of his
daughter Bharti, he could not earn a single penny. He further deposed
that whatever little he and his family members were earning at that time,
used to be spent on household expenses and they could not save any
money.
29. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that PW2 Bhole Shankar had leveled allegations that accused
Sandeep Sharma had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a
motorcycle on 2-3 occasions, however, he could not get any specific
date, month or year of the said demands, after he was specifically asked
about the same during his cross examination conducted on 27.07.2019.
30. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that it is highly improbable that the family members of the
deceased, who were fighting for their survival and could barely make
enough to feed themselves, managed to arrange a hefty sum of Rs.
30,000/- and gave the same to the accused Sandeep Sharma.
31. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that PW2 Bhole Shankar had categorically deposed during his
cross examination that he had no knowledge, if his daughter Bharti was
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:10:26
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 40/98 +0530
harassed or maltreated or beaten up, 8-10 days prior to her death.
32. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that the testimony of PW2 Bhole Shankar becomes highly
untrustworthy, in the background of the testimony of the mother of the
deceased, PW6 Kiran. It was categorically deposed by PW6 Kiran that
15 days prior to the death of her daughter, accused Sandeep had come to
her house and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her for purchasing a
motorcycle. One week thereafter, i.e. around one week prior to the death
of her daughter, she gave the amount of Rs. 30,000/- in cash to accused
Sandeep at her home, in the presence of her daughter Bharti. When she
was cross examined on 21.01.2020, she had categorically deposed that
the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was given to the accused, about 15 days prior
to the death of her daughter and the said money was given by her to
accused Sandeep, without informing her husband and her sons. This
testimony of hers is running counter to the testimony given by her
husband, PW2 Bhole Shankar.
33. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that it had come in the testimony of PW6 Kiran that prior to her
death, her daughter used to regularly talk to her over a telephone and that
around 2-3 days prior to her death, PW6 Kiran spoke with Bharti. The
said testimony further weakens the case of the prosecution, since, it is
highly unbelievable that a person who is on a verge of suicide, would not
complain about the harassment meted out to her, to her mother. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:10:32
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 41/98
34. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that it had come in the cross examination of PW6 Kiran,
conducted on 21.01.2020 that she had borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from her
relative Chander Pal and the remaining Rs. 10,000/- was from their
savings. However, the IO never made inquiries from the said Chander
Pal and he was not made a prosecution witness. Even her deposition that
Rs. 10,000/- were sourced from their savings, does not add up in the
light of categorical admissions made by her husband PW2 Bhole
Shankar that their family could not save anything at all at that time.
35. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-laws of the
deceased were falsely implicated in the present case and neither PW2
Bhole Shankar nor PW6 Kiran could give any specific role played by the
remaining accused persons, regarding the dowry demands and
harassment meted out by them to the deceased prior to her death. The
categorical admissions made by both PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6
Kiran during their respective depositions that the accused persons did not
raise any dowry demands before the marriage. Furthermore, they had
also deposed that they had not given any cash to the accused persons in
the said marriage. Their testimonies are made further less trustworthy in
light of the testimony of their son, PW10 Arjun that the expenses of the
tent and food served in the marriage were borne by accused Suresh
Sharma and not by the family members of the deceased.
36. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
11:10:38 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 42/98
persons that the mother of the deceased, namely PW6 Kiran had
categorically admitted in her cross examination that the relations of her
daughter Bharti with her two daughter-in-laws were sour and they never
used to allow Bharti to stay at her parental home. The said testimony is
in line with the defense of the accused persons that the deceased was
suffering mentally by the ill treatment received by her from her own
sister-in-laws (bhabhis).
37. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that PW6 Kiran had also admitted during her cross examination
that she had never given the list of dowry articles and their bank
statements to the IO during the investigation. Neither could she give any
corroboration regarding the source of the money, which she allegedly
paid to accused Sandeep Sharma. Therefore, her entire testimony is
nothing but bald allegations, which is not supported by the testimony of
any other witness of sterling quality or by any documentary evidence.
38. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that it had categorically come in the testimony of the brother of
the deceased, PW10 Arjun that between the period of the marriage and
death of his sister, she did not stay at her parental home for 20 days in
total, substantiates the defense of the accused persons that prior to her
death, deceased Bharti was receiving hostile treatment at her parental
home. He had further deposed that he used to regularly visit his sister at
her matrimonial home and yet he never saw any quarrel or any incident
of his sister being beaten up by the accused persons. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:10:45
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 43/98
39. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that both PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran had deposed that
on 16.10.2018, accused Sandeep had telephonically informed their son
Arjun about their daughter committing suicide. PW6 Kiran had
categorically deposed that at about 07:00 PM, when the said call was
made, her son Arjun was in his office and he directly reached the house
of accused persons and from there he came to his home and inform them
about the incident. Thereafter, they went to the house of the accused
persons. However, when PW10 Arjun stepped into the witness box, he
had categorically deposed that when he received the said call at 07:00
PM, he was present at his house only and that he informed his parents
about the same. Therefore, further doubt is created upon the character of
the PW6 Kiran as a witness and her testimony must be disregarded in
toto.
40. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that the testimony of the defense witness, DW-1 Guddi is highly
trustworthy and she had categorically deposed that the bhabhis of the
deceased used to quarrel with the deceased, prior to her death and they
never used to allow Bharti to stay at her parental home. Furthermore,
Bharti had suffered a miscarriage and she had herself informed DW1
about the same and she was under the depression due to the loss of her
child in the womb. The said defense of the accused persons was not
denied by her parents and brother during their cross examination, in spite
of specific suggestions being put to them. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:10:51
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 44/98
41. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsels for the accused
persons that in the present case, the prosecution could not prove any
demand of dowry nor there being any cruelty or torture meted out to the
deceased soon before her death, relating to the said dowry demands.
There is not even a single direct evidence of the said cruelty or
harassment and there is no circumstantial evidence either. There were no
marks of injury, except for the ligature mark, found on the body of the
deceased, therefore, even the physical cruelty being meted out to the
deceased is ruled out.
42. The Ld. Defense Counsels had relied upon the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand”, Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 713, “Chabi Karmarkar &
Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal” Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 665 and the
decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in “Santoo @ Santosh
Kumar Vs. State of UP“, 2016 III AD (CRI.) (ALL) 525.
Relevant Law & Case Laws:
43. Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution on merits, this court deems it necessary to discuss the law
and the judgments passed by the superior courts in this regard.
44. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian
ATUL
Penal Code, 1860 the prosecution is required to prove that the accused AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 45/98 11:11:04 +0530
had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the
section. For this purpose, the provision of Sec. 498A IPC, 1860 is
reproduce as under:-
“Sec. 498A IPC, 1860. Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty means”–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
45. It is clear from a bare reading of the said provision in conjunction
with the ‘Explanation’ appended to the said section, that it is not every
cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 46/98 2025.03.11
11:11:12
+0530
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, has necessarily to be a willful
conduct, which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to
commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health.
The use of the expression “willful” in the explanation to Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, indicates that the conduct attributed to the
accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing
injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the
accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is
likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman
or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb
or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient
of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the
husband or his relative, as the case may be.
46. It is easily believed that everyone is presumed to intend the natural
consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be
drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the
woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to
cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of
factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of
awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health,
physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a
behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her
relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:11:17
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 47/98
47. The expression “Cruelty” takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well
as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a
woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her
living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and
safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in
Section 498A of IPC, 1860.
48. If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the
failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or
valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of
Section 498A of IPC. The expression “harassment” has not been defined
in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is ‘to subject
someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other
unpleasantness, etc’. However, it is not harassment of every nature
which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract
criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive
acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman
or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable
security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her
relative to meet such a demand
49. It is also pertinent to reproduce the provision u/s 304B IPC, as
under:-
” Sec. 304B. Dowry Death
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:11:24
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 48/98
normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.”
50. It is clear from the said provision that in order to establish a charge
under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is
described as “dowry death”, the prosecution must necessarily prove the
following ingredients:
i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or
bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her
marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her
husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with
demand for dowry; Digitally
signed by
ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:11:30
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 49/98
v. Such cruelty or harassment should have been meted out to the
woman soon before her death.
51. The term “Dowry” has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC,
but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 it is required to be given the same meaning for the
purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in “Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.” 2001 (4) Crimes 45
(SC). Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
“….Definition of ‘dowry’. In this Act, “dowry”
means any property or valuable security given or
agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by
one party to a marriage to the other party to the
marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to either party to
the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or
any time after the marriage 4in connection with the
marriage of the said parties, but does not include
dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies….”
52. Dowry would include property or valuable security which is
actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage
of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given
or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage
or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:11:44
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 50/98
marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or
agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time
of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person
related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or
property to her husband or in-laws after marriage, that also would be
covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in
such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage
and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which
is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the
husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him,
demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person
related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded
by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in
marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry
because even though such an article may not have been agreed or
promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have
been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on
account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time
of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a
demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage
has been solemnized.
53. Even demands of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewelry, clothes,
furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our
country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by
incorporating Section 304B in IPC, 1860 and enacting Dowry
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:11:50
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 51/98 +0530
Prohibition Act, 1961, fall within the purview of Section 304B of IPC,
1860 .
54. In the case of “Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana“, AIR
1998 SCC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held that demand of T.V.,
Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded
prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the
purpose of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. If cash or some property,
etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage,
saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in
marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or
connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall
within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage,
would nevertheless be referable to the marriage, having been made with
a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after
marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was
not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in
contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of
such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in
connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute
demand of dowry.
55. In the case of ” Satbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab“, 200 14 Crimes 45
(SC) while dealing with this issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter
alia, observed as under:
“……. Thus, there are three occasions related to
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:11:57
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 52/98
dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the
time of marriage and the third is “at any time” after
the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be
an unending period. But the crucial words are “in
connection with the marriage of the said parties”.
This means that giving or agreeing to give any
property or valuable security on any of the above
three stages should have been in connection with
the marriage of the parties. There can be many other
instances for payment of money or giving property
as between the spouses. For example, some
customary payments in connection with birth of a
child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different
societies. Such payments are not enveloped within
the ambit of “dowry”. Hence the dowry mentioned
in Section 304B should be any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given in connection
with the marriage……”
56. In the case of “Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra” , AIR
2007 SC 763, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“…… In view of the aforesaid definition of the word
“dowry” any property or valuable security should be
given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage
and in connection with the marriage of the said Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:12:04
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 53/98
parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property
or valuable security must have some connection
with the marriage of the parties and a correlation
between the giving or taking of property or valuable
security with the marriage of the parties is essential.
Being a penal provision it has to be strictly
construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social
custom or practice in India. It is well settled
principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act
is passed with reference to a particular trade,
business or transaction and words are used which
everybody conversant with that trade, business or
transaction knows or understands to have a
particular meaning in it, then the words are to be
construed as having that particular meaning…….. A
demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be
termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is
normally understood. The evidence adduced by the
prosecution does not, therefore, show that any
demand for “dowry” as defined in Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants
as what was allegedly asked for was some money
for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing
manure…..” Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:12:17
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 54/98 +0530
57. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, are both remedial and penal statutes. As such, Courts are expected
to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through
and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is
established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the
culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the
obligation of the legislative enactment a success, have also to keep in
mind that the charge should be made out.
58. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under
Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, are (i) unnatural death of a
woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in
connection with any demand of dowry.
59. The words “it is shown” occurring in Section 304B IPC, 1860, are
of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving the
circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC, 1860, do exist on the
prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In
other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence
Act, the necessary ingredient that need to be shown is that soon before
the death of the girl, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in
connection with the demands of dowry, has to be proved. Only when
these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 55/98 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:12:23
+0530
304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of
the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after
the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty
and harassment envisaged by Section 304B IPC is to be ‘soon before the
death’ of a woman.
60. The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully
because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and
then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is
demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short
span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to
assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because
ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and
harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are,
however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the
harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the
deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any
reason whatever it might be.
61. Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person
would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or
mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide
may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs
and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to
person. Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others
even on petty points bring an end to their life. Reliance is placed upon
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 56/98 11:12:40
+0530
the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported as “Gurditta
Singh v. The State of Rajasthan“, 1992 Crl. L. J. 309.
62. The importance of Proximity Test is both for the proof of an
offence of ‘dowry death’ as well as for raising a presumption under
Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her
death” used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B
Evidence Act is impregnated with the idea of proximity test. No definite
period has been indicated with respect to the expression ” soon before”
used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, however, Illustration (a) of the
Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within
the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the Courts, depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to
indicate that the expression “soon before” would normally imply that the
interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or
harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a
proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. It
is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a
substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as “State of Punjab v.
Bhajan Singh and Ors.” AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as under:
“……… The circumstances of this case undoubtedly
create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 57/98 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:12:47
+0530
itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to
take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt
of the accused…..”
63. Further more, in another case reported as “Mousam Singha Roy &
Ors. v. State of West Bengal” , 2003 (3) JCC 1358 , it was observed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:
”……Before we conclude, we must place on record
the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of
agony and frustration that may be caused to the
society in general and the families of the victims in
particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this
goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit
the courts to punish the accused on the basis of
moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden
of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is
always the burden of the prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of
acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this
Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs
State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul
cold blooded and cruel murder should go
unpunished. There may also be an element of truth
in the prosecution story against the accused.
Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
11:12:52 +0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 58/98
be true; but between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’
there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the
whole of this distance must be covered by the
prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable
evidence before an accused can be convicted…..”
64. Further more, in another case reported as “Sher Singh @ Partapa
v. State Of Haryana,” 2015 (3) SCC 724, it was observed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court as under:
“7…..It is noteworthy that whilst Section 113A of
the Evidence Act reposes discretion in the Court to
draw a presumption so far as the husband’s
abetment in his wife’s suicide, Parliament has
mandated the Court to draw at least an adverse
inference under Section 113B in the event of a
dowry death. It seems to us that where a wife is
driven to the extreme step of suicide it would be
reasonable to assume an active role of her husband,
rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Court.
Xxxxx
9. Death can be accidental, suicidal or homicidal.
The first type is a tragedy and no criminal
complexion is conjured up, unless statutorily so
devised, as in Section 304A; but even there the
culpable act is that of the person actually causing
the death. It seems to us that Section 304B of the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:12:59
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 59/98 +0530
IPC, inasmuch as it also takes within its
contemplation “the death of a woman ….. otherwise
than under normal circumstances”, endeavours to
cover murders masquerading as accidents.
Justifiably, the suicidal death of a married woman
who was meted out with cruelty by her husband,
where her demise occurred within seven years of
marriage in connection with a dowry demand
should lead to prosecution and punishment under
Sections 304B and/or 306 of the IPC. However, if
the perfidious harassment and cruelty by the
husband is conclusively proved by him to have had
no causal connection with his cruel behaviour based
on a dowry demand, these provisions are not
attracted as held in Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh
(2007) 11 SCC 205, although some reservation may
remain regarding the reach of Section 306.
10. It is already empirically evident that the
prosecution, ubiquitously and in dereliction of duty,
in the case of an abnormal death if a young bride
confines its charges to Section 304B because the
obligation to provide proof becomes least
burdensome for it; this is the significance that
attaches to a deeming provision. But, in any death
other than in normal circumstances, we see no
ATUL
justification for not citing either Section 302 or AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
11:13:06 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 60/98
Section 306, as the circumstances of the case call
for. Otherwise, the death would logically fall in the
category of an accidental one. It is not sufficient to
include only Section 498A as the punishment is
relatively light. Homicidal death is chargeable and
punishable under Sections 302 and 304B if
circumstances prevail triggering these provisions.
This Court has repeatedly reiterated this position,
including in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, 1991 (3)
SCC 1 and quite recently in Jasvinder Saini v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2013 (7) SCC 256.”
65. The Court analyzed the provision of Sec. 304B IPC considering it
as a deeming provision and observed that the word ‘ shown’ in Sec. 304B
IPC would connote ‘prove’. It further observed as under:-
“14. …..It seems to us that what Parliament
intended by using the word ‘deemed’ was that only
preponderance of evidence would be insufficient to
discharge the husband or his family members of
their guilt. This interpretation provides the accused
a chance of proving their innocence. This is also the
postulation of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The
purpose of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and
Section 304B of the IPC, in our opinion, is to
counter what is commonly encountered – the lack or
Digitally
the absence of evidence in the case of suicide or signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 61/98 11:13:14
+0530
death of a woman within seven years of marriage. If
the word “shown” has to be given its ordinary
meaning then it would only require the prosecution
to merely present its evidence in Court, not
necessarily through oral deposition, and thereupon
make the accused lead detailed evidence to be
followed by that of the prosecution. This procedure
is unknown to Common Law systems, and beyond
the contemplation of the Cr.P.C.”
66. In the background of the above, I shall now discuss the evidence
brought on record in the present case. It is trite law that the accused
persons can be convicted on the basis of credible evidence brought on
record and the appreciation of the said evidence must be done in correct
and true perspective manner and in the natural course of events, what
would have been occurred. Appreciation of evidence beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean that it should be assessed beyond any iota of doubt.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt means that the prosecution is required to
place evidence at a higher degree of preponderance of probabilities
compared to what is degree of preponderance of probability in civil
cases. The theory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt means expecting higher
degree of preponderance of probabilities and the natural conduct of
human beings, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in “State
of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh @ Venkappa & Anr” , Criminal Appeal No.
100492 of 2021, decided on 18.12.2023.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:13:22
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 62/98
67. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines “evidence”. The
evidence can be broadly divided into oral and documentary. “Evidence”
under the Act can be said to include the means, factor or material,
lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the
existence of a fact. It is an adjective law highlighting and aiding the
substantive law. Thus, it is neither wholly procedural nor substantive,
though trappings of both could be felt.
68. The definition of the word “proved” though gives an impression of
a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act.
This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the
“matters before it”. The importance is attached to the degree of
probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters
before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence
of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical
inference.
69. Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact.
All “evidence” would be “matters” but not vice versa. In other words,
matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a
species. Matters also adds strength to the evidence giving adequate
ammunition in the Court’s sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the
definition of “matters” is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that
of “evidence”. However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to
consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is
barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 63/98 11:13:29 +0530
of a fact.
70. Matters, do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in
deciding the existence of a fact. They also include all the classification of
evidence such as circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence,
derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay
evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence,
presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary
evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.
71. In addition, they supplement the evidence in proving the existence
of a fact by enhancing the degree of probability. As an exhaustive
interpretation has to be given to the word “matter”, and for that purpose,
the definition of the expression of the words “means and includes”,
meant to be applied for evidence, has to be imported to that of a “matter”
as well. Thus, a matter might include such of those which do not fall
within the definition of Section 3, in the absence of any express bar.
72. What is important for the court is the conclusion on the basis of
existence of a fact by analyzing the matters before it on the degree of
probability. The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come
to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by
which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can
come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the
matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of
the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:13:35
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 64/98 +0530
Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from
the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it
exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court
to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the
matters before it.
73. The word “prudent” has not been defined under the Act. When the
court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of
believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of
a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point
of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a
prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the
matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking
the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in
the case.
74. The aforesaid provision also indicates that the court is concerned
with the existence of a fact both in issue and relevant, as against a whole
testimony. Thus, the concentration is on the proof of a fact for which a
witness is required. Therefore, a court can appreciate and accept the
testimony of a witness on a particular issue while rejecting it on others
since it focuses on an issue of fact to be proved. However, the evidence
of a witness as whole is a matter for the court to decide on the
probability of proving a fact which is inclusive of the credibility of the
witness. Whether an issue is concluded or not is also a court’s domain.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:13:42
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 65/98
75. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters
attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly
namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters
surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue,
it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case
where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and
in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in
other matters. The aforesaid principle of law has been enunciated in the
authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Vadivelu Thevar v.
State of Madras “, 1957 SCR 981 wherein it is held as under:
“In view of these considerations, we have no
hesitation in holding that the contention that in a
murder case, the court should insist upon plurality
of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section
134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically
laid it down that “no particular number of witnesses
shall in any case, be required for the proof of any
fact”. The legislature determined, as long ago as
1872, presumably after due consideration of the
pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for
proof or disproof of a fact to call any particular
number of witnesses. In England, both before and
after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
Digitallythere have been a number of statutes as set out in
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:13:48
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 66/98
Sarkar’s Law of Evidence — 9th Edn., at pp. 1100
and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony
of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not
insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the
general rule recognized in s.134 quoted above. The
section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that
“Evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. Our
Legislature has given statutory recognition to the
fact that administration of justice may be hampered
if a particular number of witnesses were to be
insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been
committed in the presence of only one witness,
leaving aside those cases which are not of
uncommon occurrence, where determination of
guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If
the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of
witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single
witness only could be available in proof of the
crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the
discretion of the presiding judge comes into play.
The matter thus must depend upon the
circumstances of each case and the quality of the
evidence of the single witness whose testimony has
to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony
is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is
no legal impediment to the conviction of the ATUL
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:13:56
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 67/98
accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of
an accused person may be proved by the testimony
of a single witness, the innocence of an accused
person may be established on the testimony of a
single witness, even though a considerable number
of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the
truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our
opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of
law that the court is concerned with the quality and
not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for
proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking,
oral testimony in this context may be classified into
three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have
no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way
— it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of
a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach
or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or
subornation. In the second category, the court,
equally has no difficulty in coming to its
conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that
the court has to be circumspect and has to look for ATUL
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:14:01
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 68/98
corroboration in material particulars by reliable
testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another
danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses.
Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a
single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of
witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be
indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.
Situations may arise and do arise where only a
single person is available to give evidence in
support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to
weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is
satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from
all taints which tend to render oral testimony open
to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such
testimony. The law reports contain many precedents
where the court had to depend and act upon the
testimony of a single witness in support of the
prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for
example, in cases of sexual offences or of the
testimony of an approver; both these are cases in
which the oral testimony is, by its very nature,
suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But,
where there are no such exceptional reasons
operating, it becomes the duty of the court to
convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a
single witness is entirely reliable. We have, Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:14:06
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 69/98
therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the
testimony of the first witness, which is the only
reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.”
Appreciation of Evidence:
76. In the present case, the accused persons are facing the charges of
the offences punishable u/s 498A/304-B/34 IPC, 1860, for having
committed the dowry death of the deceased Bharti and for committing
cruelty upon her soon before her death, on the account of dowry
demands.
77. In the present case, the date of marriage between the deceased and
her husband accused Sandeep Sharma is not disputed by the accused
persons or that deceased Bharti was not married to accused Sandeep
Sharma as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 18.02.2017. Furthermore,
it is also not disputed that the deceased Bharti expired on 16.10.2018, as
proved by the prosecution through the MLC, Ex. PW4/A and
postmortem report Ex. PW12/A. Therefore, it is established beyond
reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased Bharti took place within
7 years of her marriage.
78. So as to attract the presumption of law enshrined under section
113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from the statements of the
parents of the deceased namely PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran,
recorded before the concerned Executive Magistrate were not enough ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 70/98 11:14:12 +0530
and the prosecution had to discharge the initial burden of proof after
establishing the essential ingredients mentioned in Section 113-B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which the prosecution had sought to
discharge through the testimonies of PW2, Bhole Shankar and PW6
Kiran.
79. The death of the deceased Bharti was duly proved by the
prosecution through the MLC Ex. PW4/A, wherein, she was declared
brought dead at 09:38 PM on 16.10.2018, after she was brought to the
main casualty, GTB Hospital in unconscious and unresponsive state with
alleged history of hanging. Upon local examination, the B.P. and pulse
were not recordable, heart sound was not present, no respiratory sounds
were present and both the bilateral pupils were fixed and dilated.
80. The postmortem report no. 1901/18, Ex. PW12/A is also
categorical in nature and as per the said report, upon the neck of the dead
body, the concerned doctor found bruising of bilateral carotid sheath
with extravasation of blood present in neck muscles and adjacent soft
tissues of neck, the epiglottis was found to be congested and other bony
structures of the neck were found to be intact. As per the opinion of the
concerned doctor, the cause of death was “Asphyxia as as result of ante-
mortem hanging”.
81. It is also not disputed in the present case that the deceased had
hanged herself by tying an end of the saree, Ex. PW8/Article-1 around
her neck and the other end of the saree around the ceiling fan of the room ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed by
ATUL AHLAWAT
Date: 2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 71/98 11:14:20 +0530
situated on the 1st floor of the matrimonial house of the deceased. It is
not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was killed by the
accused persons or that she was hanged after she had been already killed.
There are no allegations of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, 1860
against the accused persons. The fact that the deceased committed
suicide by hanging, has not been disputed by the accused persons.
Therefore, the prosecution has been able to fully establish that the
deceased Bharti had died otherwise then in normal circumstances, since
committing suicide is not the end of the human life under normal
circumstances. Furthermore, since the date of marriage is also not
disputed by the accused persons, therefore, the death of the deceased
Bharti, which has been established through the PM report Ex. PW12/A
and MLC, Ex. PW4/A took place on 16.10.2018 at 09:38 PM and it is
established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died within 7
years of her marriage and her death had occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances. Therefore, the only thing that needs to be now
appreciated from the evidence brought on record, is that whether the
prosecution is able to establish that soon before her death, deceased
Bharti was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband, for or in connection with any demands of
dowry?
82. The prosecution was relying heavily on the testimony of star
witnesses i.e. PW2 Bhole Shankar (father of the deceased), PW6 Kiran
(mother of the deceased) and PW10 Arjun (brother of the deceased), to
establish that soon before her death, the deceased Bharti was subjected to ATUL
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:14:28
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 72/98
cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demands. However,
out of the said witnesses belonging to the family of the deceased, her
brother PW10 Arjun had completely turned hostile, at the time of his
deposition before this Court and he had not supported the case of the
prosecution.
83. The present case FIR was registered upon the statement of the
father of the deceased Bhole Shankar recorded before the Executive
Magistrate on 17.10.2018. The said statement, Ex. PW2/A became the
basis of the prosecution’s case and in the said statement the father of the
deceased had leveled general and cryptic allegations against the accused
Sandeep Sharma (husband of the deceased), Suresh Sharma (father-in-
law of the deceased) and Siya Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased), that
they used to quarrel with his daughter before her death. He had further
alleged that her husband accused Sandeep Sharma used to give beatings
to his daughter, after consuming alcohol.
84. In the statement, Ex. PW2/A, the father of the deceased had
further leveled the allegations of dowry demands being raised after
around 6-7 months of the marriage of his daughter Bharti. He had also
alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for buying a vehicle and
he alongwith his wife Kiran had given Rs. 30,000/- to accused Sandeep
Sharma on 09.10.2018. Moreover, he had further leveled general
allegations that all the accused persons had killed his daughter.
85. Similarly, the mother of the deceased, namely Kiran also gave her Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:14:34
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 73/98
statement, Ex. PW5/A, before the Executive Magistrate and exactly
same allegations were leveled in the said statement, as mentioned in the
statement, Ex. PW2/A.
86. As per the case of the prosecution, the said statements, Ex. PW2/A
and Ex. PW5/A were recorded by Sh. R. L. Meena, the then Executive
Magistrate, North East District on 17.10.2018, after the parents of the
deceased were produced before the SDM office by the IO ASI Yashpal.
The veracity of the said statements took a hit after the Executive
Magistrate Sh. R. L. Meena entered into the witness box as PW5. During
his cross examination, conducted on 27.07.2019, he had categorically
deposed that “The statements Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A were recorded
by my Assistant namely Mohit under my dictation and supervision. Said
statements were not recorded in the sequence of facts as were told by the
parents of the deceased and while recording the same, same were made
to appear sequencewise for the sake of better understanding.” He had
further stated that the said statements were silent on the fact that they
were recorded by the assistant of the Executive Magistrate and that the
said statement did not bear the signatures or initials of the said assistant.
He also went on to depose that even the IO ASI Yashpal did not record
statement of said assistant of his, on that day or at any other subsequent
date.
87. He had further categorically deposed that “ASI Yashpal (1st IO of
the case) (emphasis supplied is mine) was present when said two
statements were recorded.” Therefore, as per the categorical testimony of Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:14:41
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 74/98
the Executive Magistrate, the IO was himself present at the time when
the alleged statements, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A were recorded and
the said statements being recorded by the assistant of the Executive
Magistrate and there being no statement to the said effect in the said
statements, thus, creating reasonable doubts upon the recording of the
said statements and the veracity of the allegations leveled in them, as
chances of tutoring by the IO cannot be ruled out.
88. There have been material improvements and contradictions in the
testimony of both PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran from their earlier
statements made before the Executive Magistrate and the IO. While it
was the case of the prosecution that the parents of the deceased had
given Rs. 30,000/- to the accused Sandeep Sharma on 09.10.2018, after a
demand of Rs. 50,000/- was being raised for purchase a vehicle.
However, when PW2 Bhole Sharma entered into the witness box, he had
changed his stand and had deposed that about one month prior to the
death of his daughter (who died on 16.10.2018), his wife had given Rs.
30,000/- to accused Sandeep Sharma. During his cross examination,
PW2 Bhole Shankar had categorically deposed that his wife gave Rs.
30,000/- to accused Sandeep Sharma, however, he could not tell from
where did she arrange the said amount. He had further deposed that
accused Sandeep had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a
motorcycle, from them on 2-3 occasions, however, he could not tell the
exact date, month or year of the said demands. Thereafter, he had yet
again changed his stand by deposing that the said demands were raised
from his wife Kiran and it was about 2-3 months prior to the death of his Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:14:48
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 75/98
daughter Bharti that the said demands were raised. Therefore, he has
retracted his version that demands were raised directly from him.
89. PW2 Bhole Shankar went on to further categorically depose that
he could not tell the exact date, month or year, when the sum of Rs.
30,000/- was given by his wife to accused Sandeep Sharma. He further
went on to categorically depose that the said amount was not paid in his
presence and that his daughter Bharti and wife later informed him about
the same.
90. The testimony of PW2 Bhole Shankar was contradicted in
essential particulars regarding the dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/- and the
amount of Rs. 30,000/- being paid by them, in the testimony of PW6
Kiran. PW6 Kiran went on to depose that 15 days prior to the death of
her daughter, accused Sandeep came to their house and demanded Rs.
50,000/- from her, for purchasing a motorcycle. She further deposed that
one week thereafter, she gave Rs. 30,000/- in cash to accused Sandeep at
her home, in the presence of her daughter Bharti. However, during her
cross examination, she had deposed that she had borrowed Rs. 20,000/-
from one Chander Pal, who was their relative and remaining Rs. 10,000/-
were paid from their savings. She further categorically deposed that the
said money was given by her to accused Sandeep, without informing her
husband and sons. Therefore, the contradiction in the testimonies of
PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran in this regard and the inherent
improvements and contradictions from their previously recorded
statements, has further cast serious doubts about their credibility as
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 76/98 2025.03.11
11:15:00
+0530
witnesses and the veracity of the allegations leveled by them as a whole.
91. The testimonies of PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran were
further left in dire straits by the deposition of their son, PW10 Arjun,
who had categorically deposed before this Court that he had never told
the IO that after 6-7 months of the marriage of his sister, accused started
demanding dowry from his sister or that they demanded Rs. 50,000/- for
purchasing a vehicle (gadi) or that thereafter, in consultation with his
parents, they arranged Rs. 30,000/- and on 09.10.2018 gave the same to
accused Sandeep. He voluntarily went on to depose that he had no
knowledge of the said facts.
92. The testimonies of PW2 Bhole Shankar, PW6 Kiran and PW10
Arjun with respect to the financial conditions of their family, also did not
support the case of the prosecution. They had all deposed of their family
members were having meager earnings and were not having any savings
of a worthwhile sum. Furthermore, the testimony of PW2 Bhole Shankar
that he had no knowledge of the source of the funds arranged by his wife
Kiran and the testimony of PW6 Kiran, that she had borrowed Rs.
20,000/- from their relative Chander Pal, furthermore, the said Chander
Pal not being examined before this Court to substantiate the testimony of
PW6 Kiran, did not help the prosecution’s case.
93. The material contradictions in the inter-se testimonies of material
prosecution witnesses, wherein, PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran had
deposed that they had arranged for Halwai and Tent etc., and the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:07
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 77/98
payments to the said vendors were made by PW6 Kiran. Furthermore,
PW6 Kiran categorically deposing that they had spent about Rs. 50,000/-
on the marriage of their daughter Kiran and the said amount was
arranged after they had withdrawn Rs. 5,000/- from their bank account,
Rs. 15,000/- from Chit Fund Committee, and remaining Rs. 30,000/-
were from the savings made by her, her son and her husband. However,
when PW10 Arjun entered into the witness box, he had categorically
deposed that “It is correct that the expenses of tent and food served in
marriage were borne by accused Suresh Sharma (father-in-law of the
deceased).” Therefore, further doubts are created upon the prosecution’s
story as a whole.
94. It has also categorically come in the testimony of all the star
prosecution witnesses, namely PW2 Bhole Shankar, PW6 Kiran and
PW10 Arjun that there was no demand of dowry raised prior to or at the
time of marriage and that no cash was paid by them to the accused
persons at the time of the said marriage, does not help the prosecution
case as well.
95. In yet another material improvement from her previous statements,
PW6 Kiran had deposed that about one year after the marriage of her
daughter Bharti, her daughter had called her and informed that accused
Sandeep Sharma had given beatings to her after consuming liquor. On
the same day, she had sent her son Shiv Om to the matrimonial house of
the deceased and she was brought back to her parental home. Thereafter,
the deceased had shown the red and blue marks on her body, received Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:15
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 78/98
after the injuries she had suffered at the hands of accused Sandeep
Sharma. PW6 had not stated about the said allegations in her statement,
Ex. PW5/A recorded before the Executive Magistrate and her statement
recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.PC on 17.10.2018. It is also pertinent to
point out here that the IO had not made the son of PW6, namely Shiv
Om as a prosecution witness and the said allegations could not be
corroborated. Furthermore, no complaint was made by her to the police
and there is no MLC to substantiate the said allegations.
96. The prosecution’s case was dealt a further knock-out blow by the
testimony of PW10 Arjun, wherein, he had had categorically deposed
that he had no knowledge, whether there were any demands of dowry
raised by the accused persons. He had further categorically deposed that
he had knowledge that his sister was given beatings between the period
of her marriage and her death, however, the source of said knowledge
was what was being told to him by his parents. Therefore, even this part
of his testimony became hearsay in nature.
97. PW10 Arjun had further deposed that he was visiting the
matrimonial house of his sister on regular occasions and he had never
seen any quarrel or any incident of his sister being given beatings by the
accused persons and the deceased also never disclosed about any such
incident to him, prior to her death. He further categorically admitted the
suggestion that his sister was kept properly by the accused persons and
she was living there happily. Thus, his testimony is more in line with the
defense of the accused persons and completely opposite to the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:24
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 79/98
testimonies of his parents.
98. It has also come in the testimony of PW10 Arjun that he had sent a
Whatsapp message, Ex. PW10/DX, to one Kuldeep, who is the jija of
accused Sandeep Sharma. The printout of the said whatsapp chat was
shown to him at the time of his cross examination and after he had
admitted the same, the same was brought on record. In the said message,
PW10 Arjun had categorically stated that he was aware that the accused
persons could not do any such thing to his sister and that his family
members were pumped by his chacha and that even he was helpless in
this regard.
99. The testimony of PW10 Arjun, when appreciated in the light of the
cross examination of PW2 Bhole Shankar conducted on 27.07.2019,
where PW2 Bhole Shankar had categorically deposed that “I have no
knowledge if my son Arjun visits Mandoli Jail to meet accused Sandeep.
It is correct that Arjun still on talking terms with family members of
accused Sandeep” , had further raised doubts upon the entire prosecution
version, since, the act and conduct of the brother of the deceased is
making the allegations leveled against the accused persons highly
unbelievable.
100. All the three family members of the deceased, namely PW2 Bhole
Shankar, PW6 Kiran and PW10 Arjun were given specific suggestions at
the time of their respective cross examination conducted by the accused
persons that the deceased Bharti committed suicide due to being in
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 80/98
ATUL
AHLAWAT
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:31 +0530
trauma, after she had suffered a miscarriage or that the accused persons
had no say in the said suicide. None of them denied the said suggestion,
which is the main defense raised by the accused persons. The said
defense was further substantiated by the testimony of DW1 Guddi Devi,
who was the mediator of the said marriage that she was informed by the
deceased herself that the deceased Bharti had suffered a miscarriage.
101. The second line of defense taken by the accused persons was that
the deceased was not having cordial relations with her bhabhis (sister-in-
laws), who used to not like her coming to her parental house and this had
also contributed to the stress and trauma leading up to her suicide. The
said question was put to the mother of the deceased, PW6 Kiran at the
time of her cross examination conducted on 21.01.2010, wherein, she
had categorically deposed that she had two daughter-in-laws, were not in
good terms with his daughter Bharti and whenever her daughter Bharti
intended to stay with them, her daughter-in-laws used to ask her to return
back to her matrimonial house and for that reason the deceased could not
stay with them. This line of defense was further substantiated by DW1
Guddi Devi, wherein, she had categorically deposed that the bhabhi of
the deceased used to quarrel with the deceased, whenever, the deceased
used to go to her parental house. The deceased had a miscarriage and she
was being troubled by her bhabhi and other family members and the
same was the reason for her committing suicide. She had further denied
the suggestion being put to her by Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State
that she had never seen the bhabhi of deceased Bharti fighting with the
deceased in her presence. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:39
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 81/98
102. The inherent inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies
of the public witnesses, is further accentuated with the lapses in the
investigation conducted in the present case and further lapses on the part
of the prosecution.
103. The IO, in his own wisdom, chose not to make the concerned
official who had recorded the 100 number call as a prosecution witness.
Furthermore, the PCR call Form-I, could not be proved, since the
relevant witness from the PCR HQ was never made a prosecution
witness, to prove the said PCR call Form-I. The said PCR call Form was
marked after it was merely deposed by the IO PW13 Inspector Ravi
Kant, that during the investigation he had collected the said form.
104. For the reasons best known to the IO, the Incharge of Crime Team
namely SI Manish, the finger print expert HC Pramod Kumar and the
Crime Team Photographer, Ct. Mohit Kumar were never made
prosecution witnesses and the IO never recorded their statements u/s 161
Cr.PC. The Crime Scene Report was never proved and it was merely
marked as Mark-ZA during the testimony of IO PW-13 Inspector Ravi
Kant.
105. The photographs taken by the Crime Team expert photographer
were merely filed alongwith the chargesheet, without the same being
proved as per the law, since the Crime Team photographer Ct. Mohit
Kumar was never examined by the prosecution and the negatives of the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:47
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 82/98
said photographs and the mandatory certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, was never furnished before this Court. Therefore,
another essential link in the case of the prosecution could not be proved,
in accordance with the law.
106. As far as the allegations against accused persons are concerned,
they are cryptic and vague in nature and the prosecution story as brought
forth by the testimony of prosecution witnesses, does not inspire any
confidence. The initial burden of proof lied on the prosecution and the
burden would not shift on the accused persons, merely on the fact that
unnatural death had occurred within 7 years of marriage, without even
proving the dowry demand prior to the incident in question. All the
allegations against them are cryptic in nature and no specific allegations
with the specific role played by the accused persons or any specific date,
time etc., of the alleged incidents, could be brought on record by the
prosecution.
107. Since, the star prosecution witnesses namely PW10 Arjun had
turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution, this
court deems it appropriate to discuss the law laid down in dealing with
the testimony of a witness over an issue, the matter is decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.“,
(2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein it is held as under:
“81. It is settled legal proposition that:
“6 . … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot
be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:15:55 +0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 83/98
chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined
him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be
treated as effaced or washed off the record
altogether but the same can be accepted to the
extent their version is found to be dependable on a
careful scrutiny thereof.”
(Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1
SCC 389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa,
(1976) 4 SCC 233, Syad Akbar v. State of
Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30 and Khujji v. State of
M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627, SCC p. 635, para 6.)
82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra [(1996)
10 SCC 360: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1278] this Court held
that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile
witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in
favour of the prosecution or the accused but
required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that
portion of the evidence which is consistent with the
case of the prosecution or defence can be relied
upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this
Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
[(2002) 7 SCC 543: 2003 SCC (Cri) 112], Gagan
Kanojia v. State of Punjab [(2006) 13 SCC 516:
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 109], Radha Mohan Singh v. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:02
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 84/98
State of U.P. [(2006) 2 SCC 450: (2006) 1 SCC
(Cri) 661], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh
[(2007) 13 SCC 360: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 188] and
Subbu Singh v. State [(2009) 6 SCC 462: (2009) 2
SCC (Cri) 1106].
83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect
that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be
discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof
which are admissible in law, can be used by the
prosecution or the defence.
84. In the instant case, some of the material
witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW 86) and R. Maruthu
(PW 51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been
taken into consideration by the courts below strictly
in accordance with law. Some omissions,
improvements in the evidence of the PWs have been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in
nature.
85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there
are some omissions, contradictions and
discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be
disregarded. After exercising care and caution and
Digitally signed
by ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:07 +0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 85/98
sifting through the evidence to separate truth from
untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court
comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary
evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus,
an undue importance should not be attached to
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which
do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the
basic version of the prosecution’s witness. As the
mental abilities of a human being cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of
the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur
in the statements of witnesses.”
Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., [(1972] 3 SCC 751 :
(1972) SCC (Cri) 819 : AIR 1972 SC 2020], State
of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, [(1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985
SCC (Cri) 105], Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v.
Sate of Gujrat, [(1983) 3 SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri)
728 : AIR 1983 SC 753], State of Rajasthan v. Om
Prakash, [(2007) 12 SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
411], Prithu v. State of H.P., [(2009) 11 SCC 585 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1502], State of U.P. v. Santosh
Kumar, [(2009) 9 SCC 626 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
88] and State v. Saravanan, [(2008) 17 SCC 587 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580].
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:16:13
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 86/98
108. It is trite law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in catena of judgments that section 304-B IPC must be interpreted
keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride
burning and dowry demand. The prosecution must at first establish the
existence of the necessary ingredients constituting an offence punishable
u/s 304-B IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable
presumption of causality, provided u/s 113-B of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 operates against the accused persons.
109. As discussed above, the phrase “soon before” as appearing in
section 304-B IPC cannot be construed to mean ” immediately before”.
The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link”
between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand
by her husband or relatives of the husband.
110. Section 304-B IPC does not provide a pigeon hole of an offence in
categorizing the death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The death
of the deceased could fall under any of the three scenarios yet it could
amount to occur “otherwise than under normal circumstances”.
111. Conjoint reading of section 304-B IPC and section 113-B Indian
Evidence Act, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to
unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two sections, by direct
and convincing evidence, so as to avail the presumption engrafted under
the law against the accused persons. Proof of cruelty or harassment by
the husband or his relatives charged is thus the sine qua non to invoke
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:22
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 87/98 +0530
the spirit of the said statutory presumption. If the prosecution fails to
demonstrate with cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove the
same, the accused persons cannot be held guilty of taking refuge only
upon the presumption to cover up the short fall in its efforts to prove the
case of the prosecution.
112. The presumption of law as laid down in section 113-B of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 was upon the wisdom of the legislature of relieving
the prosecution of the rigor of proof, of often practically inaccessible
evidence, which was guarded within the closed confines of the
matrimonial home. However, in absence of cogent evidence spelling out
the ingredients of the offence, especially the most essential ingredient of
harassment/cruelty soon before the death, against any of the accused
persons, does not shift the burden to meet the reverse onus upon them.
113. In the facts of the present case, it seems that accused Pradeep
Sharma and Rajeev Sharma have been roped in only because of their
close relationship with accused Sandeep Sharma (husband of the
deceased). Accused Pradeep Sharma and Rajeev Sharma were the devars
of the deceased and younger brothers of accused Sandeep Sharma. There
are no specific allegations against accused Pradeep Sharma and Rajeev
Sharma in the statements of the parents of the deceased, Ex. PW2/A and
Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, when PW2 entered into the witness box, he had
leveled general and cryptic allegations against them of quarreling with
the deceased after consuming liquor or that his daughter Bharti told him
that her husband, sasur and devars used to quarrel with her and also used Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:32
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 88/98
to give beatings to her, after consuming liquor. However, when the
mother of the deceased, PW6 Kiran entered into the witness box, she
leveled no such allegations against accused Pradeep Sharma, Suresh
Sharma and Rajeev Sharma. Similarly, no allegations were leveled
against them by the brother of the deceased, PW10 Arjun. Therefore, no
single specific role was assigned to the accused persons and even in the
testimony of PW2 Bhole Shankar, only general and cryptic allegations
were leveled against the accused Suresh Sharma, Rajeev Sharma and
Pradeep Sharma. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish through
cogent and coherent evidence of accused Suresh Sharma, Rajeev Sharma
and Pradeep Sharma of had committed the cruelty/harassment upon the
deceased Bharti, soon before her death. Therefore, no reverse onus could
be introduced against them to refute the case of the prosecution and to
prove their innocence.
114. Similarly, there are no specific allegations leveled against the
accused Siya Devi (saas of the deceased) by PW2 Bhole Shankar. During
his testimony, PW2 had not deposed even a single word against the
accused Siya Devi. Similarly, nothing against her was deposed by PW10
Arjun. Furthermore, the only allegation leveled against accused Siya
Devi by the mother of the deceased, PW6 Kiran was that after accused
Sandeep used to give beatings to her daughter, she had complained about
the same to accused Siya Devi, however, even she did not take any
action against the deeds of her son. Even these allegations were material
improvements, since, the same were not stated by PW6, in her statement,
Ex. PW5/A, recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, the Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:38
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 89/98
prosecution could not establish through cogent and coherent evidence of
accused Siya Devi of having committed the cruelty/harassment upon the
deceased Bharti, soon before her death. Therefore, no reverse onus could
be introduced against her as well to refute the case of the prosecution and
to prove her innocence.
115. When the court is convinced with the quality of the evidence
produced, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural,
adding to the degree of probability, the court has to make reliance upon
it in proving a fact. There is no doubt that the trial court is the best court
to decide on material aspect of a case as no mathematical calculation or
straitjacket formula can be made on the assessment of a witness, as the
journey towards the truth can be seen better through the eyes of the trial
judge. In fact, this is the real objective behind the enactment itself, which
extends the maximum discretion to the court. Each case must be judged
on its own facts. There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to
appreciate evidence given by witnesses, who are partisan or interested or
hostile, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or
not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence
strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the
evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. It
is settled law that the evidence of the hostile witness would not be totally
rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but
required to be subjected to close scrutiny and if on such scrutiny, his
evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable &
wholly trustworthy and that portion of the evidence that is consistent Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:44
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 90/98
with the case of the prosecution or defense can be relied upon but each
case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
116. From the evidence brought on record, the prosecution has
miserably failed to satisfy the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s
304-B IPC, 1860. From the record, it is clear that the prosecution could
not bring home the guilt of the accused persons for having subjected the
deceased to cruelty. There is nothing on the record, as brought in through
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that there was any willful
conduct of such nature as is likely to drive the deceased to commit to
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether
mental or physical. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses could not
establish that the deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her or any
person related to her, to made any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such a demand. In the present case, it is not the case of the
prosecution that the deceased had committed suicide or that the accused
persons had abetted the said suicide. There is no evidence brought on
record to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and
therefore, the accused persons cannot be convicted for committing the
offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC, 1860.
117. Therefore, the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the
deposition of the star witnesses PW2 Bhole Shankar and PW6 Kiran has
cast serious doubts upon the veracity of the statements of the said
witnesses before the SDM/Executive Magistrate, especially when it is Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:16:51
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 91/98
clear from the testimony of the PW-5 Sh. R.L. Meena (the then
Executive Magistrate), that he did not record the inquest proceedings in
his own hand and in fact, his clerk/assistant Mohit had recorded the
same, especially when there is no such mention in the statements Ex.
PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A or the testimony of PW2 Bhole Shankar and
PW6 Kiran, respectively. The further fact that the IO ASI Yashpal was
present while the said statements were allegedly being recorded, did not
help the case of the prosecution either. Furthermore, the hostile nature of
the testimony of PW10 Arjun is going into the root of the matter and in
light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ” State of
Rajasthan Vs. Abdul Manan ” (2011) 8 SCC 65, such discrepancies
cannot be overruled.
118. In the present case, the conduct of the accused persons is also
relevant. The call on 100 number, which led to registration of DD No.
51B, Ex. PW1/D, was made by the accused Suresh himself, wherein, he
had told the responder police official of PCR van that his bahu had
committed suicide by hanging. Furthermore, it had also categorically
come in the testimony of the IO PW13 Inspector Ravi Kant that when he
reached the spot at 07:00 PM, the accused persons i.e. the in-laws of the
deceased were found present there and he had met them. Therefore, one
of the accused persons informing the police and the remaining accused
persons being found present at the spot, when the police officials arrived
there and they had not tried to escape away from the place of occurrence,
also becomes relevant.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:17:05
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 92/98
119. Although, the phrase “otherwise than under normal
circumstances” is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death. However,
for the presumption u/s 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to kick in,
what is extremely important that the said presumption is not with respect
to commission of an act of cruelty or harassment, in connection with any
demand of dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of ‘dowry
death’. The presumption, however, is in respect of commission of
offence of dowry death, only when all the essential ingredients are
proved beyond reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence which
mean that to prove the essential ingredients of an offence of ‘dowry
death’, the burden was on the prosecution. In the present case, it was not
disputed that the deceased died otherwise then under normal
circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage. However, the moot
question was whether the accused persons had subjected the deceased to
cruelty or harassment, soon before her death, in connection with any
demands of dowry, which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt. Since, the demand of dowry was not
established, there cannot be any presumption u/s 113-B of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
120. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it could not be
said that the accused persons had abetted the commission of suicide by
the deceased, therefore, even though there were no charges framed u/s
306 IPC, 1860, however, the same being a minor offence, compared to
section 304-B IPC, 1860, upon careful appreciation of the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution, even the essential ingredient of
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 93/98 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:17:12
+0530
abetment of commission of suicide or not satisfied. Therefore, the
accused persons cannot be held guilty for committing the offence
punishable u/s 306 IPC, 1860 as well.
121. There is no evidence brought on record to establish that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and therefore, the accused persons
cannot be convicted for committing the offence punishable u/s 498-A
IPC, 1860.
Conclusion & Findings:
122. As per the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra” AIR 1984
SC 1622, the five golden rules of circumstantial evidence were
elucidated, wherein, it was held that the onus remains on the prosecution
to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly come
towards the guilt of the accused persons and it shall rule out any other
hypothesis that may point in the favour of the accused. Each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and
clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must form a chain of
events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of
accused should be safely drawn and no other hypothesis in favour of the
accused persons must be there. Reliance is placed upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Wakkar Vs. State of UP ” (2011)
3 SCC 306 and “Sahadeven Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ” AIR 2012 SC
Digitally
2435. signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:17:19
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 94/98
123. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that
the circumstantial from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be
fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be
no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances
must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and totally inconsistent with his innocence, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Hanuman Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of
MP” AIR 1952 SC 343, “Bodh Raj Vs. State of J&K” AIR 2002 SC
3164 and “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra” AIR
1984 SC 1622 and “C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P.” (1996)
10 SCC 193.
124. It is also settled law that accused has to only proboblize the defense
and he is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty.
Suspicion, however, strong can never take place of proof. There is
indeed a long distance between accused “May have committed the
offence” and “Must have committed the offence”, which must be
traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable evidence. Emphasis is
supplied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Kailash Gaur Vs. State of Assam” (2012) 2 SCC 34 and “Padala Veera
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” AIR 1990 SC 79.
125. There is another golden thread which runs through the web of
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
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:17:26
+0530CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 95/98
the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “Kali Ram Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh” AIR 1973 SC
2773.
126. The improvements and the inherent contradictions in the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses had certainly raised doubts in the mind of
the Court and the effort of the Criminal Court is not to be prowl for
imaginative doubts, unless is doubt is of a reasonable dimension and is
what judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity,
otherwise no benefit can be claimed by the accused. In the present case
the doubts raised from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot
be set to be merely imaginative and the same has been borne from the
record of the present case. The said doubts are not merely imaginary or
trivial in nature and it has dented the entire case of the prosecution. The
burden of proof cast upon the accused person is governed by the
principle of “preponderance of probabilities” and in light of the
discussion above, the accused person in the present case has been able to
raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution version of events and the
hypothesis as propounded by the accused person that the deceased was
suffering from trauma and depression and that she had committed
suicide. Thereafter, her family members have falsely implicated the
accused persons in the present case. With the evidence brought on
record, it cannot be said that the chain of prosecution witnesses and the
evidence brought on record was so complete, so as to not leave any
reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 96/98 11:17:33
+0530
127. When the entire evidence of the present case is cumulatively read
and appreciated in the background of the settled principle of law and in
the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not worthy of
acceptance and there is a serious shadow of doubt cast upon the case of
the prosecution, that the accused persons had committed dowry death of
deceased Bharti. The brother of the deceased, PW10 Arjun had not
supported the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. Even
after detailed cross examination conducted on behalf of the State,
nothing material came out from his testimony to substantiate the
prosecution’s case. Furthermore, from the testimony of the PW2 Bhole
Shankar, PW6 Kiran, PW10 Arjun and DW1 Guddi Devi, it has raised a
reasonable doubt that the deceased Bharti was suffering from depression
and trauma, after she had suffered a miscarriage and that she was not
having good relations with her bhabhis, who did not use to allow her to
stay with her parents, had further struck a final nail in the coffin of the
prosecution’s case. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no
doubt that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused persons had caused dowry death of the
deceased Bharti and it is a case of suicidal death. Furthermore, from the
evidence brought on record, the prosecution could not satisfy its burden
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband or the relatives
of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry or otherwise.
Hence, accused Sandeep Sharma, Suresh Sharma, Siya Devi, Pradeep
Sharma and Rajesh Sharma are acquitted of the charges for committing
the offences punishable u/s 498A/304-B/34 IPC, 1860 and they shall be
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 97/98 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.03.11
11:17:41
+0530
set at liberty.
128. The accused persons have already filed their bail bonds u/s 437A
Cr.PC and the same shall remain in force for a period of six months from
today. All the other bail bonds/surety bonds stands canceled and the
earlier sureties except for sureties given u/s 437A Cr.PC stands
discharged. The original documents, if any, be released to the rightful
owner.
129. The case property, if any, be released to the rightful owner as per
the law and the applicable rules.
130. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 11.03.2025.
This judgment consists of 98 pages and all
of them have been digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
AHLAWAT
ATUL Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.03.11
11:17:54
+0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/11.03.2025
CNR No. DLNE01-001155-2019 State Vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors. FIR No. 457/2018 Page no. 98/98