Raja @ Ram Pal vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2011 Latest Caselaw 786 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       Judgment reserved on: February 02, 2011
                       Judgment delivered on: February 09, 2011


+      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1072/2008


       RAJA @ RAM PAL                                ....APPELLANT

                   Through:   Ms. Rakhi     Dubey,   Advocate/Amicus
                              Curiae.

                       Versus

       STATE (NCT) OF DELHI                   .....RESPONDENT
               Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.



        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated

06.12.2007 in Sessions Case No.337/06 FIR No.184/04 under Section

498A/304B/34 IPC P.S. New Usmanpur and the consequent order on

sentence dated 14.12.2007 whereby the appellant Raja @ Rampal was

convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B IPC

and sentenced under Section 304B IPC to undergo RI for the period of

10 years and also to pay fine of `10,000/- , in the event of default, to

undergo RI for a further period of six months and for the offence under

Section 498A IPC, to undergo RI for the period of two years and to pay

a fine of `10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for a

further period of six months. It was ordered that substantive sentences

awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently.

2. Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that Ms.Beena (deceased)

was married to the appellant Raja @ Rampal in the year 2000. After

marriage, she initially stayed at her matrimonial home at Sonia Nagar,

Beheta Hazipur, Loni, Ghaziabad. In March 2005, she along with the

appellant, shifted to House No.H-32, Street No.5, Brahm Puri, Delhi. In

the morning of 24th June, 2004, the deceased Beena was found hanging

from the ceiling fan in her tenanted room. The landlady Ms.Susheela

(DW-2) informed the police on telephone and aforesaid information was

recorded at P.S. Usman Pur at 11.52 a.m. as DD No.7A(Mark-3). Copy

of the DD report was entrusted to ASI Kamal Singh (PW-3) who left for

the spot of occurrence with Constable Shiv Raj(PW-4). ASI Kamal Singh

found the deceased hanging from the ceiling fan with her `chunni'.

One drum was lying at the spot of occurrence. SDM was informed and

Crime Team, as well as photographers, was called. Photographs of the

spot of occurrence were taken from various angles and other

formalities of investigation were done. SDM Shri R.K.Chauhan (PW-11)

conducted the inquest proceedings. He also recorded statements of

the parents of the deceased, namely, PW-1 Rajwati and PW-2 Raj

Bahadur.

3. Raj Bahadur, father of the deceased in his statement to the SDM

claimed that the deceased was married to the appellant Raja @

Rampal in the year 2000. She was not liked by the appellant and his

parents as she had a dark complexion. Father of the deceased claimed

that appellant and his parents started harassing the deceased six

months after the marriage. She was turned out of her matrimonial

home after 2 years of marriage and she reached her parental house

alone. On this, he (the complainant) called the in-laws of the deceased

to resolve the matter and on that visit, they demanded `10,000/- from

him. To ensure the well being of his daughter, he arranged and paid

`10,000/- to them and they took the deceased Beena to her

matrimonial home. He further stated that 15 days before the incident,

the appellant demanded `10,000/- from him on telephone saying that

he needed money to meet the expenses of marriage of his sister. The

appellant also threatened that in case demand was not met, he would

send the deceased to her parental home. Complainant Raj Bahadur

further stated that he showed his inability to meet the demand and on

24th June, 2004 at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant informed him on

telephone that deceased Beena had committed suicide by hanging. He

expressed his suspicion against the appellant and his parents. On the

basis of aforesaid statement of Raj Bahadur(Ex.PW-2/B), formal FIR was

registered against the appellant and his parents under Sections 498A

and 304B IPC and the investigation was taken up.

4. During investigation, rough site plan was prepared, post-mortem

of the dead body was got conducted, statements of witnesses were

recorded and the accused persons were arrested. On completion of

investigation, the appellant and his parents were challaned and sent

for trial.

5. All the three accused persons were charged by learned Additional

Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and

304B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has

examined 13 witnesses including PW1 Rajwati and PW2 Rajbahadur,

parents of the deceased to establish the dowry demand and the

harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased by the appellant for

and in connection with the dowry demand.

7. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied

the prosecution version and claimed to be innocent. He submitted that

the deceased was not keeping well, therefore, she committed suicide

due to frustration. In defence, the appellant examined two witnesses.

DW1 Murali Lal is the employer of the appellant, who at the relevant

time was running a readymade garment business at Karol Bagh. He

has stated that on the relevant day, the appellant had come to work at

around 10:30 am and he left the work with his permission after getting

a telephone call about the death of his wife by hanging. He also stated

that in the month of June, 2004, the appellant had sought assistance

from him in respect of the marriage of his sister. DW2 Susheela has

testified that the appellant along with his wife shifted to a room in their

house as tenants and during their stay, they were residing peacefully.

She also stated that on the day of incident, the deceased had cooked

food for the appellant and he left for his job. Thereafter, the deceased

told her that she was not feeling well and she advised her to take rest.

At around 11:00 am, her daughter-in-law Priyanka went upstairs and

found that the deceased was hanging from the ceiling fan with the help

of a chunni. On being informed by her daughter-in-law Priyanka, she

informed the Police Control Room. She denied the suggestion given by

learned APP that the deceased committed suicide on account of torture

caused to her by the appellant and his parents.

8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying upon the

testimony of the parents of the deceased, convicted the appellant on

charges under Section 498A as well as 304B IPC.

9. Case of the prosecution is essentially based upon the testimony

of PW1 Rajwati and PW2 Rajbahadur. It would be useful to have a look

upon their testimony before adverting to the submissions made by the

respective parties.

10. PW1 Rajwati is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the

deceased was married to the appellant on 09.03.2000. The appellant

and his parents used to harass the deceased on account of dowry and

once they made a specific demand of `10,000/-. Said demand was

fulfilled by her husband Raj Bahadur and the deceased was sent back

to her matrimonial home with the appellant. One and a half years

later, appellant, in collusion with his parents, again demanded

`10,000/- from them, which they could not fulfil and one and half

months thereafter, they received information that their daughter Beena

has died.

11. PW2 Rajbahadur, father of the deceased stated that on

09.03.2000, deceased was married to the appellant Raja. After the

marriage, the appellant and his parents started harassing and taunting

the deceased on account of her dark complexion and they used to say

that appellant would desert her. On many occasions, the deceased

was sent to her parental home alone. Witness further stated that the

appellant demanded `10,000/- from him, failing which he threatened to

leave the deceased and on this he arranged `10,000/- and fulfilled the

demand. Thereafter, the appellant took the deceased with him. One

and half years later, the appellant and his parents again demanded

`10,000/-, but he refused to fulfil the demand because of financial

incapacity. One and a half months later, he received information from

the accused person on telephone that Beena has died due to hanging.

He stated that his statement Ex.PW2/B was recorded by the SDM.

12. Learned Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate for the appellant referred to

the judgment of Supreme Court in Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. State

of M.P., (2010) 9 SCC 73 and contended that in order to succeed,

prosecution was required to prove not only the dowry demand but also

that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty prior to her

committing suicide. Learned counsel contended that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant is

a victim of suspicion and testimony of PW1 Rajwati and PW2

Rajbahadur does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel contended

that the prosecution has failed to prove either the demand for dowry or

cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased, as such the appellant is

entitled to acquittal.

13. On the contrary, learned APP has canvassed in favour of the

impugned judgment and submitted that the trial court has rightly

appreciated and relied upon the testimony of the parents of the

deceased, namely, PW1 Rajwati and PW2 Rajbahadur to conclude that

there was a dowry demand and the deceased was subjected to

harassment and cruelty for and in connection with the dowry demand.

Thus, she has urged for dismissal of the appeal.

14. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material

on record. On careful appreciation of the evidence, I find that the

evidence of the star witnesses, namely, PW1 Rajwati and PW2

Rajbahadur, parents of the deceased, does not inspire confidence. If

they are to be believed, only two demands were made by the appellant

and his parents, both demands being for `10,000/- each. So far as

testimony regarding the demand of dowry is concerned, it is vague and

neither of the witnesses has given the dates or months in which the

demands were made. PW2 Rajbahadur in his statement Ex.PW2/B

made to the SDM, which is the basis for registration of FIR, stated that

he met the first demand of `10,000/- after borrowing money from

someone. In the said statement or in his testimony, PW2 neither

disclosed the name of the person from whom he borrowed the money

nor has the said person been examined by the prosecution to

corroborate the version of PW2 Rajbahadur. Further, the version of

above witnesses appears to be unnatural to be believed for the reason

that both of them in their respective statements Exhibits PW2/B and

PW1/A made before the SDM had stated that the appellant and his

family members did not like the deceased because of her dark

complexion and for that reason they used to harass her. According to

PW2 Rajbahadur, the appellant and his parents used to harass and

beat the deceased and they started doing so six months after her

marriage with the appellant, whereas according to PW1 Rajwati, they

started harassing and beating the deceased two months after the

marriage. If they are to be believed, harassment of the deceased

started before the first demand was met. Both PW1 and PW2, in their

cross-examination have admitted that at the time of marriage, no

demand for dowry or cash was made by the appellant or his family

members. If the appellant and his parents had not demanded dowry at

the time of marriage, it is highly improbable that they would have

started demanding money 1½ years after the marriage. As regards

second demand of `10,000/-, both PW1 and PW2 in their testimony

have stated that said demand was made 1½ months before the death

of the deceased. Neither of the witnesses has deposed about the

purpose for said demand. Therefore, even if aforesaid version is

believed, it falls short of proving that the second purported demand

was a demand for dowry. Thus, I find it difficult to rely on the

testimony of PW1 or PW2, which does not inspire confidence.

15. Coming to the issue of harassment and cruelty meted out to the

deceased. In this regard PW1 Rajwati in her cross-examination

testified that 1½ years after the marriage of the deceased, she came to

know from the deceased herself that she was subjected to harassment

by the appellant and his parents. This version is contradictory to the

version given before the SDM in her statement Ex.PW1/A, wherein she

stated that the appellant and his family members started harassing the

deceased two months after the marriage. Further, PW1 Rajwati stated

in her cross-examination that the deceased used to write about

harassment in her letters addressed to her (witness). No letter,

however, has been produced to corroborate the aforesaid version.

Therefore, in my view, even the story of cruelty and harassment

caused to the deceased is doubtful.

16. Ex.PW7/A is the post mortem report of the deceased. On perusal

of post mortem report, it transpires that no external injury, except

ligature marks on the neck of the deceased, was found. This

circumstance rules out any possibility of the deceased having been

subjected to physical torture by the appellant shortly before her death.

Further, landlady Susheela (DW2), who is an independent witness, has

categorically stated that the appellant shifted to a room in their house

along with the deceased in the month of March, 2004 and during their

stay in the house, they were residing peacefully in their tenanted

accommodation. She denied the suggestion that the appellant and his

parents used to torture the deceased, which pushed her into

committing suicide or that they demanded dowry from her. I find no

reason to disbelieve the above referred testimony of DW2 Susheela.

Thus, it appears that at least during the period w.e.f. March, 2004 to

24.06.2004, the date of death of the deceased, she was not subjected

to harassment or cruelty by the appellant.

17. In view of the above, I do not find it safe to rely upon the

testimony of PW1 Rajwati and PW2 Rajbahadur. I am of the view that

prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant under

Section 498A and 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

18. Appeal is accordingly accepted. Impugned judgment and

consequent order on sentence are set aside and the appellant is

acquitted of charges under Section 498A and 304B IPC, extending him

benefit of doubt.

19. Appellant is in custody. He be released forthwith, if not required

in any other case.

20. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 09, 2011 ks/pst