Delhi District Court
State vs Sudhir Kumar on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
CNR No DLWT01-011126-2018
SC No.829/2018
FIR No.463/2018
PS Nihal Vihar
U/s 498A/304-B/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State
Versus
1. Sudhir Kumar
S/o Sh. Kirpal Singh
R/o H. No. E-2/45, Shiv Ram Park,
Nangloi, Delhi
2. Ram Sakhi
W/o Sh. Kirpal Singh
R/o H. No. E-2/45, Shiv Ram Park,
Nangloi, Delhi
......Accused Persons
Date of Institution of case :07-12-2018
Date of reserving Judgment :12-12-2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment :24-12-2024
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 1/28
Appearance:
For the State : Mr. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor.
For accused persons : Sh. Ankit Rai, Ld. Counsel.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused namely Sudhir Kumar and Ram Sakhi faced
trial for the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. A chargesheet was
filed against them SHO PS Nihal Vihar for the commission of
offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
The case of the prosecution:
2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on
28.07.2018, the police received an information that one married
woman, namely, Pooja W/o Sudhir had been brought to the SGM
Hospital in unconscious state. She had been declared brought
dead in the casualty by the doctors. On inquiry, police came to
know that the woman got married in the year 2017. Accordingly,
SDM Punjabi Bagh was informed. PW-1, Sh. Sitaram got
recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A to the SDM to the effect that
deceased Pooja was her youngest child. She was married on
08.05.2017 with accused Sudhir Kumar. In the marriage, he had
given dowry as per his capacity. The accused Sudhir Kumar was
working in Sehgal Hospital as the ultrasound technician. He
further stated that for about 1½-2 months there was no complaint
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 2/28
in the marriage. However, one day his daughter told him that
Sudhir had demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and one bullet
motorcycle for his transport. When he talked about this with the
parents of Sudhir, they stated that Sudhir was their son-in-law
and if they wished, they could give him the money. He told them
that they may sell their gold jewelery and satisfy the needs of
Sudhir Kumar and solve the problem. However, the father of
Sudhir did not accede with his request and on not receiving the
said amount, his son-in-law had started beating the deceased.
Due to the problems in the life of deceased, his wife had an heart
attack. About three months back, his deceased daughter had sent
a voice message through Whatsapp on the mobile phone of her
elder daughter Aarti, wherein she stated that accused Ram Sakhi
and Sudhir were demanding the money. Thereafter, on
14.07.2018 on the occasion of his marriage anniversary, Pooja
came to their house and told her mother that she would never
come back to his house. On 28.07.2018, one neighbour of in-
laws of deceased Pooja had called them to inform about the ill
condition of deceased and further that she was being taken to
SGM Hospital. When they reached at the hospital, they saw that
their daughter Pooja had expired.
On the aforesaid statement, an FIR u/s
304B/498A/34 IPC was registered. The postmortem of the
deceased was got conducted. In the postmortem, doctor opined
the cause of death as “asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem
hanging”. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over
to the family members of the deceased. During the investigation,
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 3/28
Aarti produced her mobile phone and one CD allegedly
containing the voice mail sent by deceased Pooja to her.
Accused Ram Sakhi was not arrested but was placed
in column no. 11. In the charge-sheet, it was stated that the
supplementary charge-sheet along with CDR of the mobile
phones of deceased and Aarti would be filed. Later on, the FSL
result dated 30.09.2019 was filed on the record. The said FSL
result pertains to one mobile phone make Karbonn and another
mobile phone make Micromax.
3. The Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
Sessions after compliance of the relevant provisions.
The charge against the accused:
4. The accused persons namely Sudhir Kumar and Ram Sakhi
did not plead guilty for offences u/s 498A/34, u/s 304B/34 as
well as for the alternate charge u/s 306/34 IPC framed and they
claimed trial.
The evidence by the prosecution:
5. To prove the afore-mentioned charge against the accused
persons, the prosecution got examined eight witnesses in all. For
the sake of convenience, a brief description of testimonies of all
the prosecution witnesses including the oral as well as
documentary evidence, in tabular form, is as under:-
(Oral evidence):
PW-1 Sh. Anil The then Tehsildar / Ex. Magistrate Punjabi
Chaudhary Bagh, who recorded the statements of Sh. SitaState Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 4/28
Ram and Smt. Savitri i.e. parents of deceased.
He conducted inquest proceedings in the case.
PW-2 Sh. Sita Father of deceased, who deposed about the
Ram instances of harassment and cruelty caused to
his daughter (since deceased) by accused
persons.
PW-3 Smt. Savitri Mother of deceased, who also deposed about
the instances of harassment and cruelty caused
to her daughter (since deceased) by accused
persons.
PW-4 Shri He, on the asking of IO, made videography of
Mukesh Kumar the postmortem proceedings conducted on
29.07.2018.
PW-5 HC Nemi He being the DD writer at PS Nihal Vihar,
Chand recorded DD No. 10A dated 28.07.2018. He
was also working as MHC(M) and deposed
about making the relevant entries in register
no. 19 regarding deposition of case property.
PW-6 Smt. Aarti She is the younger sister of deceased. She
deposed about receipt of a voice mail on her
Whatsapp from the mobile phone of deceased
wherein she had levelled serious allegations
against the accused persons.
PW-7 SI Hema He being the initial IO, deposed about the
Ram investigation done by him in the case
PW-8 Inspector He being the IO deposed about the further
Raj Pal Singh investigation done by him in the case.
(Documentary evidence):
Ex.PW-1/A Statement of Sh. Sita Ram, father of deceased.
Ex.PW-1/B Statement of Smt. Savitri, mother of deceased.
Ex.PW-1/C Order for postmortem examination on the dead
body of deceased Pooja.
Ex.PW-1/D Request to perform autopsy on the dead body of
deceased.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 5/28
Ex.PW-1/E Brief facts of the case prepared the IO, duly attested
by SDM.
Ex. PW-1/F Form no. 25.35(1) (B)
Ex.PW-1/G Statement of Sh. Sita Ram and Dinesh regarding
dead body identification of deceased.
Ex.PW-2/A Handing over memo of dead body.
Ex.PW-2/B Seizure memo of photographs of marriage
ceremony of deceased Pooja.
Ex.PW-2/C Seizure memo of marriage card of deceased Pooja.
Ex.PW-4/A Certificate u/s 65 B IEA regarding videography of
postmortem proceedings.
Ex.PW-5/A Copy of DD No. 10A dated 28.07.2018.
Ex.PW-5/B Copy of relevant entry in register no. 19 on
28.07.2018.
Ex.PW-5/C Copy of relevant entry in register no. 19 on
01.08.2018.
Ex.PW-6/A Seizure memo of mobile phone of Smt. Aarti, sister
of deceased.
Ex.PW-6/B One DVD/CD containing the voice message of
deceased.
Ex.PW-7/A Seizure memo of chunni used by deceased for
hanging.
Ex.PW-7/B Seizure memo of mobile phone of deceased.
Ex.PW-7/C Arrest memo of accused Sudhir.
Ex.PW-7/D Personal search memo of accused Sudhir.
Ex.PW-7/E Disclosure statement of accused Sudhir.
6. During the trial, Ld. Counsel for accused persons moved
an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C for recalling PW-8 Inspector Raj
Pal Singh. The said application was allowed and PW-8 Inspector
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 6/28
Raj Pal Singh was cross-examined u/s 311 Cr.P.C by the Ld.
Counsel for accused.
The statement of accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C:
7. Statement of the accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C was also
recorded, wherein they admitted the contents and genuineness of
following documents:-
i. FIR No. 463/2018, PS Nihal Vihar (Ex.P1)
ii. DD No. 10A dated 28.07.2018 (Ex.P2)
iii. MLC of deceased (Ex.P3)
iv. Rough Site plan (Ex.P4)
v. Crime Scene Report (Ex.P5)
vi. Photographs taken by Crime Team (Ex.P6) (colly)
vii. Marriage photograph (Ex.P7)
viii.Marriage card (Ex.P8)
ix. Dead body identification statement of Dinesh (Ex.P9)
x. Postmortem examination report (Ex.P10)
xi. CD of postmortem examination (Ex.P11)
xii FSL report prepared by Dr. Jagjeet Singh and FSL
report dated 30.09.2019 (Ex.AD-X)In view of the statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C of accused,
witnesses namely, HC Satish Kumar, Dr. Beena, Dr. Gursaran
Maan, Dr. Mahipal Dabas, ASI Shiv Charan, Ct. Umed, Sh.
Dinesh and Dr. Jagjeet Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer were
dropped from the list of witnesses.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 7/28
The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
8. The statements of both the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C
were recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against the accused were brought to their notice and
their explanations were sought. They denied the allegations
against them and stated that parents and elder sister of deceased
used to pressurize her to reside near their residence due to which
deceased used to remain in stress. Further, deceased was in
mental trauma, however the complainant falsely implicated
accused persons in the present case in order to extort money from
them. Accused persons wished to lead defence evidence.
However, later on in view of the submissions of Ld. Counsel for
both the accused at bar, DE was closed.
Submissions by Ld. Prosecutor:
9. Ld. Prosecutor while inviting the attention of the court
towards the oral as well as documentary evidence on record
argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges
framed against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He
vehemently contented that the prosecution has been able to prove
that the deceased had committed suicide within seven years of
her marriage due to cruelty and harassment in connection with
the demand of dowry committed by her mother-in-law and
husband and also that soon before death of the deceased, there
was a demand of dowry.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 8/28
Submissions by Ld. Counsel for accused persons:
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against
the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the
prosecution has failed to show on record that soon before her
death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
mother-in-law and husband in connection with dowry. He prayed
for the acquittal of the accused persons.
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl.
Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused
persons.
Analysis:
12. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove its defence on
preponderance of probabilities. What do we mean by the
expression ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?
13. The said expression ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ has been
defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various judgments.
In the judgment of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S.
Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a
criminal trial in the following terms:
“11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give
flight to one’s imagination or fantasy. Crime is an event in real life
and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions.
In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged
with commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by
the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus ofState Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 9/28
witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend
upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that “human nature
is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of
strong suspicions.” Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt
the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal
evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not
permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral
conviction or 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 fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof
required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict
the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel
and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the
evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce
an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the
facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh &
Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors.
Vs.State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta
& Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957
SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
“Considered as a whole the prosecution story may 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 legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an
accused can be convicted.”
14. Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and
Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003 ) 7 SCC 643, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court explained the term beyond reasonable doubt
and observed as under:-
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not
nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy
social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is
better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting
guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan
Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1)
RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and
every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 10/28
(SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common
sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is
proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some
flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued
that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous
hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished,
many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and
Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches
cannot take place of judicial evaluation. “A judge does not preside
over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is
punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties.” (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State
of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called
reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law
cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
15. Both the accused have been charged for the offences u/s
498A/304B/34 IPC and in alternative for the offence u/s 306/34
IPC.
16. Section 304 B which defines and provides the punishment
for dowry demand, reads as under:-
“304B. Dowry death. –(1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’,
and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death.
Explanation. –For the purpose of this sub section, ‘dowry’
shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
Section 304B (1) defines ‘dowry death’ of a woman. It
provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is
caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage,
and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 11/28
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Subclause
(2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry
death.
17. In Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the following essential
ingredients of 304B IPC. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereunder:-
“10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, the
following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily
injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’;
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of
her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection
with demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted
out to the woman soon before her death.”
18. Now, let us discuss if the prosecution has been able to
prove the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 304 B IPC
against the accused persons.
I. Death of a woman by burn or bodily injuries or
otherwise than a ‘normal circumstance’:
19. The first essential ingredient for the offence u/s 304 B IPC
is that the death of the woman should be caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’. As
per the postmortem report Ex.P-10 the cause of death was
opined by the doctor as “asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem
hanging and the manner of death as suicide”. The fact that the
deceased had committed suicide leaves no doubt that the
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 12/28
deceased had actually died by committing suicide and her death
was ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’. Therefore, the
first ingredient of Section 304 B IPC is satisfied.
II. The death should have occurred within seven years of
marriage:
20. The second requirement to frame charge for offence u/s
304 B IPC is that the death of the woman should have occurred
within seven years of marriage. From the oral testimonies of PW-
2 Sh. Sita Ram, PW-3 Savitri, the father and mother of deceased
respectively as well as the statements of both the accused u/s 313
Cr.P.C as well as the other documentary evidence i.e. marriage
card and the marriage photographs, it is not disputed that the
deceased was married with accused Sudhir Kumar on
08.05.2017. The deceased committed suicide on 28.07.2018 i.e.
within a span of one year only. Therefore, it is proved on the
record that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage.
Accordingly, it is held that the second ingredient of section 304B
IPC also stands proved.
III. The deceased woman must have been subjected to
cruelty or harassment ‘by husband or any relative of
husband’:
21. The third ingredient of offence u/s 304B IPC is that the
deceased woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by husband or any relative of husband. In the
judgment of State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh (2014) 9SCC 632,State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 13/28
the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the previous case law on
the subject and elucidated the concept of ‘relative of husband’ for
the purpose of section 304 B IPC. The relevant observations are
reproduced here as under :- (SCC page 636 and 637)
“9. It is relevant here to state that the expression “relative of
the husband” has been used in Section 498-A of the I.P.C.
While interpreting the said expression, this Court in the case
of U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr.(2009)
6 SCC 787 held it to mean a person related by blood, marriage
or adoption. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as
follows:
“10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term
“relative” must be assigned a meaning as is commonly
understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother,
husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or
niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the
spouse of any person. The meaning of the word “relative”
would depend upon the nature of the statute. It
principally includes a person related by blood, marriage
or adoption.”
10. The expression relative of the husband further came up for
consideration in the case of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of
Delhi (2010)11 SCC 618 and while approving the decision of
this Court in U. Suvetha (Supra), it was held that the word
relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the
relations by marriage. It is appropriate to reproduce the
following passage from the said judgment:
“12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word
“relative” and further relying on Ramanatha Aiyar’s,
Advance Law Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the Court went
on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penal
provision would deserve strict construction and unless a
contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute,
the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf
the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai vs.
CIT (2007) 7 SCC 162. A reference was made to the
decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma vs. State of M.P.
(2007) 15 SCC 369. After quoting from various decisions
of this Court, it was held that reference to the word
“relative” in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to
the blood relations or the relations by marriage.”
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 14/28
11. It is well known rule of construction that when the
Legislature uses same words in different part of the statute,
the presumption is that those words have been used in the
same sense, unless displaced by the context. We do not find
anything in context to deviate from the general rule of
interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the
word “relative of the husband” in Section 304 B of the IPC
would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage
or adoption.”
22. In view of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, it is to
be seen whether the accused persons are the husband or any
relative of the husband. There is sufficient material on the record
also the statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C, to hold that
accused Sudhir Kumar and Ram Sakhi are the husband and
mother-in-law of deceased. Accordingly, it is held that both the
accused fall within the purview of section 304B IPC. Thus, the
third essential ingredient of section 304 B IPC also stands
satisfied.
IV. Cruelty and harassment of the woman by husband or
relative for dowry in connection with the marriage :
AND
V. Such cruelty or harassment for or in connection with
any demand for dowry should have taken place soon before
death:
23. Now, let us discuss if the prosecution has been able to
prove the aforesaid two essential ingredients or not. For the said
purpose, the testimonies of PW-2, Sh. Sita Ram, PW-3, Smt.
Savitri and PW-6, Smt. Aarti are relevant. They are the father,
mother and sister respectively of the deceased.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 15/28
24. PW-2 Sh. Sita Ram, father of deceased, in his examination
in chief, deposed that the father of accused Sudhir did not
demand any dowry prior to the marriage of his daughter and the
marriage was performed according to his financial capacity and
there were no complaint by deceased for about one and half
month. However, after about two months of marriage, accused
persons started harassing his daughter and started demanding one
bullet motorcycle and Rs. 60,000/- for education of accused
Sudhir. PW-2 deposed that his daughter informed the said fact to
his wife i.e. PW-3 Savitri. PW-2 also deposed that after 9-10
months of marriage, his elder daughter Aarti received a voice
message from the deceased stating that she was very upset at her
matrimonial home and when after two days Aarti alongwith her
husband and brother went to the matrimonial home of deceased
and enquired about the reasons of sending the said voice
message, deceased told them that her mother in law had stated
something to her due to which she was upset and sent the said
message. PW-2 also deposed that 8-9 months after the marriage
of his daughter, he went to her matrimonial home where he met
the father of accused Sudhir and told him the fact that accused
Sudhir had been demanding bullet motorcycle and Rs. 60,000/-
and harassing his daughter. PW-2 also asked the father of accused
Sudhir to sell the jewellery given by him in the marriage and
fulfill the demand of accused Sudhir whereupon father of
accused assured PW-2 that he would make his son understand.
PW-2 further deposed that about 8-9 months after the marriage,
on one occasion, he had a telephonic conversation with accused
Sudhir and told him that PW-2 had already given him whatever
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 16/28
he had whereupon accused Sudhir said to PW-2 that “mere ko
aapse koi baat nahi karni aur mujhe to paise aur bullet chaiye”
However, he deposed that whenever he used to converse with his
daughter, she would reply that she was happy in her matrimonial
home.
PW-2, on being cross-examined by Ld. Prosecutor,
admitted that 3-4 days prior to 28.07.2018, when had gone to the
matrimonial house of his daughter, his daughter told him that
both the accused used to beat her and tell her that “agar hamari
mang puri nahi karwaigi mar tu sakti hai aur hamara pichha
chhoot jayega”. He also admitted that due to lapse of
considerable time, he could not remember certain facts earlier.
PW-2 was also cross-examined by accused at great length.
He admitted that accused Sudhir purchased a motorcycle about
two-three months prior to the death of his daughter and the said
motorcycle was bought by the accused on his own. He further
deposed that 5-10 days prior to the marriage, accused Sudhir
alongwith one Himanshu came to his house and demanded bullet
motorcycle or money in lieu of the same. However, PW-2
admitted that no demand of dowry was directly made by accused
Ram Sakhi, however, same was made through bicholiya
(mediator). He also deposed that his wife told him that their
daughter informed her about the demand of bullet motorcycle
and Rs. 60,000/- for education of accused Sudhir. PW-2 admitted
that whenever he used to go to the matrimonial home of his
daughter, she would that she was happy. He also admitted that he
did not state to the SDM that before the marriage, demand ofState Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 17/28
bullet motorcycle was made by accused Sudhir directly or
through Bicholiya Sandeep.
25. PW-3 Smt. Savitri deposed that after marriage of deceased
with accused Sudhir, for about 1½-2 months, everything
remained proper, but after that her daughter started complaining
about the harassment by her in-laws. PW-3 further deposed that
her daughter told her that accused Sudhir had demanded a bullet
motorcycle and Rs. 60,000/- for his study. She deposed that on
the occasion of her marriage anniversary on 14.07.2018, her
daughter and accused Sudhir visited her house and her daughter
told that accused Sudhir and Ram Sakhi did not allow her to visit
her parental house as they were repeatedly demanding money for
purchasing bullet motorcycle.
In her cross-examination by accused, she deposed that
before one week of marriage, the accused started making
demands. PW-3 admitted that after marriage, her daughter was
happy or that till the death of her daughter, she had never made
any complaint to the police even after receipt of voice message.
26. PW-6 Smt. Aarti, who is the sister of deceased, deposed in
her examination-in-chief that on 13.05.2018, she received a voice
message on Whatsapp wherein her sister levelled serious
allegations against accused Sudhir Kumar and Ram Sakhi.
PW-6 was cross-examined by the accused wherein she
admitted that her sister never made any complaint to her parents
regarding the cruelty. However, she denied that her sister was
living happily with her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial
house. She further admitted that there is nothing about the
beatings and cruelty caused by the accused to her sister in the CD
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 18/28
when played in the court. She also admitted that deceased never
made any compliant to her parents regarding the cruelty. She
denied that her parents used to pressurize the deceased to shift
nearby their house. PW-6 denied the suggestion that she had not
received any voice message from deceased or that she had
deposed falsely at the instance of her parents.
27. Since the prosecution is required that the cruelty or
harassment in connection with demand of dowry has to take
place ‘soon before the death’ of the woman, one needs to
understand as to what the said expression means. The term “soon
before death” is an elastic term and no straight jacket formula or
fix criterion can be laid down. In the judgment of Kans Raj vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. (26.04.2000-SC): MANU/ SC/ 0296/
2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the term “soon
before death” in the following observations:-
“14. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that
the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could
not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon
before her death. “Soon before” is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific circumstances of each
case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing
any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term “soon before” is not synonymous with
the term “immediately before” and is opposite of the
expression “soon after” as used and understood in Section 114,
Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply
that the interval should not be too long before the time of
making the statement and the death. It contemplates the
reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood
and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case.
In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances sowing the
existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not
restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course
of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.
If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to
have persisted, it shall be deemed to be soon before death’ if
any other intervening circumstance showing the non -existenceState Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 19/28
of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged
such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however,
mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate
and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the consequential death is required to be proved
by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or
harassment based upon such demand and the date of death
should not be too remote in time which, under the
circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.”
28. Hence, the term “soon before death” is an elastic term and
it does not specify any time duration before the death of the
bride. What it pre-supposes is that the demand of dowry must
have been a reasonable connection or nexus with the death and
the demand should have travelled for a reasonable period of time.
29. Now the prosecution is left to prove two more ingredients
which are that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the husband or his relatives for dowry in
connection with the marriage and further that such cruelty or
harassment must have taken place soon before the death of the
deceased.
30. Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence
on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the same due to the
following reasons:-
a. As per the record, the statement Ex.Pw-1/A of PW-2 Sh.
Sita Ram, the father of the deceased, was recorded on
28.07.2018. The said statement was proved as Ex.PW-1/A by
the SDM. In his statement, he stated that for about one and
half months, there was no demand of dowry from the accused
persons. However, in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated
08.10.2018, for the first time he stated that 3-4 days before herState Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 20/28
death, the deceased told him that the accused used to beat her
in lieu of demand of dowry and both accused used to tell her
that “agar hamari maang puri nahi karaege mar to sakti hai
aur hamara peechha chhoot jayga”. The witness, in his
examination-in-chief, did not state what he stated to the police
in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and it was only in cross-
examination by the Ld. Prosecutor, he admitted the same.
Though nothing adverse can be found regarding the same, but
still his statement is not believable as the same was one of
most important development which was not deposed by PW-2
in his statement Ex.PW-1/A. No reason has been assigned as to
why the said important fact was not mentioned by him in his
statement Ex.PW-1/A.
b. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief stated that before the
marriage, the father of the accused did not demand anything
and he performed the marriage accordingly to his financial
capacity and the problem started after one and half month of
the marriage. However, in cross-examination, he stated that
after 2-3 days of marriage when her daughter had come to his
house alongwith accused Sudhir, he demanded from him a
bullet motorcycle and Rs. 60,000/- for his education and
further that he would not take the deceased back to his home.
On explanation sought on two statements, he stated that his
both statements were correct. The same clearly shows that the
witness had improved at the time of his cross-examination
from his earlier statement and thus, cannot be relied upon.
c. In his statement Ex.PW-1/A, PW-2 stated that one day
after one and half month of marriage, his daughter told him
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 21/28
that accused Sudhir had demanded a Sum of Rs. 60,000/- and a
bullet motorcycle. However, in the cross-examination, he
admitted that deceased Pooja had informed him about the
aforesaid demand to her mother and her mother i.e. his wife
told him the same. Thus, the witness did not support his
version given in his initial statement Ex.PW-1/A.
d. PW-2 deposed that after 8-9 months of the marriage, he
called one Sandeep and father of accused Sudhir to his house
for settlement. Sandeep acted as a mediator in the marriage of
his daughter. They came at his house alongwith the deceased.
At that time, the father of accused received a phone call from
him which was handed over to him wherein Sudhir demanded
bullet and money. However, the prosecution has not produced
Sandeep as a witness in this case. Therefore, there is no
corroboration to the aforesaid statement of PW-2. Moreover,
the aforesaid statement appears to be an improvement as there
is nothing in the complaint Ex.PW-1/A in this regard.
Moreover, the prosecution has not proved on record any CDR
to corroborate the aforesaid deposition of the witness.
e. Furthermore, PW-2 had deposed that on 14.07.2018, on
the occasion of his marriage anniversary, her daughter and
accused Sudhir came to his house and his daughter told him
that she will not come back and when his wife inquired, her
daughter stated to him that she remained busy in household
work. However, in the cross-examination, he improved again
and stated that her daughter stated that uske ghar me kalesh
rehta hai.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 22/28
PW-3, the mother of the deceased also stated that till 1
and half months of the marriage, the things remained good, but
thereafter her daughter informed her that the accused Sudhir
demanded Rs. 60,000/- and one bullet motorcycle from her.
She did not depose that accused Ram Sakhi demanded any
dowry, but rather stated that she used to remain angry with the
deceased. However, she did not depose anything about the
alleged visit of her husband and her son to the matrimonial
house of the deceased 3-4 days prior to the death. Therefore,
the deposition of PW-2 did not find any corroboration from
PW-3.
f. PW-6 Ms. Aarti is the sister of the deceased. She had
placed on record a CD containing the voice message allegedly
containing the serious allegations by deceased against both the
accused persons. However, neither PW-2 nor PW-6 deposed
about the allegations in their testimonies to prove the alleged
voice message. The IO had sent two mobile phone of Karbon
and Micromax make alongwith the SIM cards. However, the
FSL report Ex.AD-X does not support the prosecution case as
no data could be found from the mobile phones and memory
cards. The mobile make Micromax could no be opened up as
it was found encrypted with the pattern lock. Therefore, no
scientific evidence has come against the accused on the record.
g. Another important aspect is that a careful perusal of
evidence of PW-2 would reveal that whenever he asked his
daughter as to how she was in his matrimonial home, she used
to say that she was happy and even when he went to his
matrimonial home, she stated that she did not face any
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 23/28
problem. He further stated that even after 14.07.2018,
deceased used to say that she was happy. He further stated that
on 27.07.2018, at about 1/ 1.15 p.m the deceased was happy
when he talked to her on the mobile phone. It is needless to
mention here that the deceased committed suicide on
28.07.2018. In the cross-examination also, he admitted that
whenever he had gone to the house of his daughter, she used to
say that she was happy. Therefore, the same demonstrates that
even one day before the death also, the deceased did not raise
any incident of cruelty or harassment.
h. Furthermore, it has come on the record in the testimony
of PW-2 that accused Sudhir already had two bikes before the
marriage and he was employed. PW-2 also did not specify as
to for what course the accused Sudhir was demanding money
from him. Thus, it does not appeal to the common sense that
when no demand of dowry was made before the marriage and
the groom had two bikes, he would still demand another bike
from his in-laws. The same is not believable.
i. PW-2 also deposed that accused Ram Sakhi never
demanded anything directly from him. PW-3 and PW-6 also
did not depose anything against accused Ram Sakhi. Thus, no
evidence has come against accused Ram Sakhi at all.
31. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the aforesaid two essential ingredients against the accused
persons and thus, failed to prove Section 304B/34 IPC.
Accordingly, accused persons stands acquitted from the
offence u/s 304B/34 IPC.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 24/28
32. As far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, it is to be seen
whether a married woman has been subjected to cruelty by her
husband or relatives of her husband either for harassment with a
view to coerce meeting a demand of dowry or willful conduct by
her husband or his relative of such a nature as is likely to lead the
lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb
or health. For the purpose of Section 498A, the cruelty can be
either physical or mental.
33. To decide whether the prosecution has been able to prove
Section 498A IPC, the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 are
important. However, none of the witnesses has deposed about
any cruelty or harassment having been committed by any of the
accused persons of such a nature which have been prescribed in
Section 498A IPC. Rather the testimonies of all the aforesaid
witnesses would show that there are no specific incidents of
cruelty or harassment. None of the witnesses have deposed
anything about the same. There is no evidence on the record to
suggest that the accused persons willfully conducted themselves
in such a manner which was likely to drive the deceased to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health and she was harassed with a view to coerce her or any
family member to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or the conduct was on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet any such demand. Thus, this
court has no hesitation in holding that not a scintilla of evidence
has come on record to prove the charge u/s 498A IPC against the
accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons also stand
acquitted for the offence u/s 498 A IPC as well.
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 25/28
34. Now remains section 306 IPC which provides the
punishment for the abetment of a suicide of a person. Abetment
has been defined u/s 107 IPC. It says that a person abates the
doing of a thing who instigate any person to do that thing or
engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing and intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
commission in the doing of that thing. The prosecution case at
best is covered under the first clause of section 107 i.e. of
instigation only.
35. It is not necessary that the actual words must be used to
that effect or what constitute instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of that consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt.
36. It is also settled law that whether the person has abetted the
commission of suicide of another or not is a question to be gath-
ered from the facts and circumstances of the case and to be found
out by the continuous conduct of the accused involving his men-
tal element.
37. In Amlendu Pal vs State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC
707, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the several ear-
lier pronouncements held as under:-
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with
no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to
be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement toState Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 26/28
the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegations of
harassment without there being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.”
38. Now, let us see the facts of the case in view of the
aforesaid propositions of law for offence u/s 306 IPC. At the cost
of the repetition, again the testimonies of aforesaid PWs need to
be taken into consideration. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 are the
relevant witnesses as they are the family members of the
deceased. Their testimonies have already been discussed
hereinabove. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses do not
show that the accused persons were indulged in such behaviour
or conduct towards the deceased that the same could have
amounted to any instigated to the commission of suicide by the
deceased. There is nothing on record that deceased was pushed
to the wall by the accused persons by their conduct to such an
extent that there was no other alternative left to the deceased, but
to commit suicide. I have already discussed the testimonies of
PWs. However, there is nothing in their testimonies that the
conduct of the accused led the deceased to commit suicide.
Hence, no evidence to prove section 306 IPC has come on the
record. Therefore, this court has no other option, but to acquit
the accused persons from the offence u/s 306 IPC as well.
Conclusion:
39. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove charges against both the
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 27/28
accused persons and thus, failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, both the accused persons namely
Sudhir Kumar and Ram Sakhi stand acquitted from the
offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and in alternative for the
offence u/s 306/34 IPC as well.
40. Earlier Bail bonds of both the accused persons stand
discharged. The original documents of their previous respective
sureties, if any be returned to them after cancellation of
endorsement and upon the identification of the sureties.
41. The bail bonds furnished u/s 437 A Cr.P.C of accused
namely Sudhir Kumar and Ram Sakhi are extended for a period
of six months for the purpose of Section 437A Cr.P.C. After the
expiry of six months, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and
surety bonds discharged. Original documents of sureties, if any
be returned after cancellation of endorsement and upon the
identification of the sureties. Case property, if any be destroyed
after the expiry of period of appeal.
42. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
HEM HEM RAJ
Date:
RAJ 2024.12.24
Pronounced in the open 16:07:51
+0530
Court on 24.12.2024 (HEM RAJ)
Addl. Sessions Judge-08 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
State Vs Sudhir Kumar & Anr SC No. 829/2018 FIR No.463/2018 28/28