State vs Lal Mani & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3536 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                         RESERVED ON: 27.05.2011
                                                       PRONOUNCED ON: 26.07.2011

                             CRL.L.P. 163/2011

       STATE                                                         ..... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.

                                     versus


       LAL MANI & ORS                                                 ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

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

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?           YES

3.     Whether the judgment should be               YES
       reported in the Digest?

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
%

1. The State has, by this Petition, sought leave to appeal against a judgment and order of

the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.09.2010 in S.C. No. 14/2008, by which the

three accused (hereafter referred to as "the respondents") were acquitted of the charge of

having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B read with Section 34

IPC.

2. The prosecution alleged that the accused respondents tortured and harassed, and

demanded dowry which led to the death of Anju. The allegations of torture, harassment and

demand for dowry were made by PW1 Dharmender Prashad, PW2 Ravinder Kumar and PW3

Crl.L.P. No.163/2011 Page 1 in the statements to the Police after Anju's death. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused

due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witnesses' statements.

3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Anju got married to accused Vinay Kumar

on 02-07-2006. PW1 (brother of deceased Anju), Dharmender Prashad and PW2 Ravinder

Kumar deposed that the mother-in-law Lal Mani Devi, brother-in-law (husband's younger

brother) Arun Kumar, together with her (the deceased's) husband Vinay Kumar used to beat

her and demand dowry. It was alleged that the accused Arun Kumar misbehaved and tried to

rape the deceased Anju. On 09-11-2006 the deceased Anju took her own life by hanging

herself by a chunni from the ceiling fan in her room, in her in laws house. On 12-11-2006

brother of Anju, PW1 Dharmender Prasad made a statement to Sub Divisional Magistrate

(Delhi Cantt) and Anju's body was sent to Mortuary Safdarjung Hospital. An FIR was

registered and accused persons, i.e. Vinay Kumar, Smt Lal Mani and Arun Kumar were

arrested and charge sheet was filed. Thereafter the Trial court framed the charges and in order

to prove its case the prosecution examined 16 prosecution witnesses. The defence examined

one witness, Mrs Anita. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charges

framed against them.

4. The Trial court reasoned that several facts and circumstances improbabilised the

prosecution story. It was held that the phone call allegedly made by Anju to PW-1 her brother

telling him about the torture and demand for dowry was not on record at all; no complaint

was made by PW-1 or PW-2 to the police regarding the alleged torture or demand for dowry

and PW3 Ranjan Prasad stated that he never knew about his daughter Anju being mistreated

in any way by her mother in law Lal Mani Devi. The statements made by PW1, PW2 and

PW3 accusing Lal Mani Devi, Vinay Kumar and Arun Kumar of cruelty and torture and

demand for dowry were vague. PW1 Dharmender's statement mentioning the telephone

conversation with the deceased when she told him about the torture and demand for dowry

Crl.L.P. No.163/2011 Page 2 was not corroborated independently and was merely an allegation. Therefore due to

insufficient documented evidence and lack of independently corroborated statements, the

Trial court acquitted the accused of all charges.

5. It is urged that the Trial Court has fallen into error in not appreciating the evidence on

record, which clearly implicated the respondents. The learned APP argued that the Trial court

failed to appreciate that PW1 Dharmender Prashad had deposed that the deceased had

informed him about the dowry demand, torture and harassment one month prior to the

incident and that the statement had been corroborated by PW2 Rajinder Kumar and PW3

Rajan Prasad. It was urged, in this context that the court ought to have appreciated ground

realities, since no one rushes to the police, when some harassment or ill treatment is meted

out.

6. The APP next argued that the Trial Court overlooked the material, and erred in not

appreciating that PW1 in his statement clearly said that accused Arun had attempted to rape

the deceased. It was submitted that the cumulative effect of the witnesses' depositions was

that the Court should have drawn the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act,

in which event, the respondents would have been under the onus to show that they had not

committed the crime.

7. The cause of death in this case, was by hanging. PW1, the deceased's brother stated

that Anju (the deceased) married the accused Vinay on 22.07.2006. For two months Anju

resided happily in her matrimonial home but thereafter she was tortured and harassed by

Vinay who said that he did not like her. He taunted her, stating she was from a beggar's

family as her parents had not given any dowry during their marriage. About a month prior to

her death Anju telephoned PW-1 and said that Vinay used to beat her and told her to leave

her matrimonial home. PW-1 visited his sister's matrimonial home to reason with accused

Crl.L.P. No.163/2011 Page 3 Vinay and his mother Lal Mani Devi. Lal Mani Devi assured him that she and Vinay would

not torture and harass Anju in the future. He went back home and the next day he received a

call from a weeping Anju who said that the accused persons were demanding ` 20,000 as

dowry. She also said that accused Arun, Vinay's younger brother, misbehaved with her and

tried to rape her. Upon hearing this Dharmender was trying to arrange for his fare to Delhi

when he received a call on 09.11.2006 from Delhi Police informing him that his sister Anju

had killed herself by hanging. He then went to Delhi with his brother-in-law Ravinder on

11.11.2006 and he was told he would get Anju's body on 12-11-2006. In his cross

examination Dharmender deposed that Anju and Vinay had an arranged marriage in a temple

due to her family's poor financial status. He said that the accused had demanded ` 20,000

from him when he visited their house after his sister's complaints. This contradicted his

previous statement where he clearly stated that a weeping Anju had told him about the

demand for ` 20,000 as dowry payment on the telephone. He also said that Anju and Vinay

had met each other before marriage and had been agreeable to it.

8. PW-2, Ravinder Kumar deposed that the deceased Anju was had been his sister in

law. He said that when he had spoken to Anju on the telephone she had told him that accused

Vinay used to beat her quite severely and at one point of time caused severe injury to her

ears. He said that he had accompanied PW1 Dharmender to Anju's marital home to reason

with Lal Mani Devi, Vinay and Arun but PW1 Dharmender did not corroborate this in his

statement. He stated having been told about the demand for dowry payment by Anju and that

he in turn had mentioned this to PW1 Dharmender. He corroborated PW1 Dharmender's

statement that he had accompanied him to Delhi after being informed of Anju's death. He

also corroborated the statement made by PW1 Dharmender regarding Anju mentioning that

she was unhappy in her marital home and that she was teased and taunted by accused Lal

Mani Devi and her sons Vinay and Arun because she had not brought any dowry with her

Crl.L.P. No.163/2011 Page 4 during her marriage. However he was unable to corroborate PW1 Dharmender's statement

that accused Arun had misbehaved or attempted to rape Anju. He further corroborated the

fact that PW1 Dharmender had wanted to take the deceased Anju home with him but she was

unwilling due to family prestige.

9. In cross examination PW-2 Ravinder deposed that he used to call Anju after her

marriage at a neighbour's house who used to then call Anju. He did this as Anju's in laws

(husband's parents i.e. accused Lal Mani Devi) did not like her talking to him. Initially the

deceased Anju said she was fine but during their third conversation she mentioned an injury

on her nose to him. He mentioned this to PW-1 Dharmender and when Anju was assaulted

five or ten days later both of them decided to go to Delhi and meet Anju in her matrimonial

home of their own accord. The statement of the injury on the nose has not been corroborated

by PW-1 Dharmender even though he supposedly knew about it. During their visit to Anju's

matrimonial home, both PW1 and PW2 stayed for about one or one and a half hours and Anju

spoke to them in her mother in law, accused Lal Mani Devi's presence. He then said there

was no talk of taking Anju to her parent's home which is a direct contradiction to his earlier

statement. He once again contradicted himself when he said no special talks had taken place

during their third conversation, which he had said was when she had told him about the injury

to her nose which he had then told PW-1 Dharmender. He further contradicted himself while

saying that PW-1 Dharmender had told him about the demand for dowry and not about a

weeping Anju on the telephone. He further says that the police had called PW-1

Dharmender's native place and the information of Anju's death was conveyed to PW1 who

then told him. This is in direct contradiction to what PW-1 Dharmender had said since he said

he received a call from the Delhi Police directly. He contradicted his previous statement once

again when he said that PW-1 Dharmender had never told him about the fact that Anju was

unwilling to go to her parent's home due to question of family prestige. He mentioned that he

Crl.L.P. No.163/2011 Page 5 and PW-1 Dharmender never made any official complaint for demand of dowry or torture

and harassment against the accused.

10. PW6 Dr Gaurav Vinod Jain Asstt Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine,

Safdurjung Hospital, said that on 12.11.2006 he conducted the post mortem examination of

Anju, with an alleged history of hanging. The clothes on the body were all intact and there

was a light coloured chunni tied around the neck with a knot under the left side of the chin.

The only injury found was a reddish abraded ligature mark, 3 to 4 cm wide narrower and

deeper on the right side of the neck. The mark was absent on the left side of the neck with an

imprint under the chin. His findings indicated that Anju died by hanging and the absence of

any other external injuries indicates that it is unlikely she was tortured or physically beaten

by the accused.

11. It is well established that the High Courts while considering the petitions for grant of

leave to appeal, have to be satisfied that the impugned judgment discloses substantial and

compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal, against an acquittal recorded by the Trial court.

The acquittal recorded by a competent court is an affirmation of the presumption of

innocence which every accused is entitled to claim in this country. Therefore, unless the

High Court is satisfied that the Trial Court has committed a substantial error in the

appreciation of evidence, application of law or has returned the findings which are glaringly

erroneous, as would cause miscarriage of justice, leave would not be granted.

12. We have carefully considered the findings of the Trial court, as well as its record, which

was summoned, for purposes of these proceedings, as well as the submission of counsel. In

view of the statement of all the witnesses and the evidence submitted, having regard to the

material inconsistencies in witnesses' statements, the fact that no prior complaint was made

against Anju's in-laws, lack of corroboration of PW1's statement of the phone call during

which he was told about the torture and demand for dowry by Anju; no sign of prior injuries

Crl.L.P. No.163/2011 Page 6 due to alleged physical abuse of Anju (as mentioned by witnesses' depositions), and having

regard to the evidence of the forensic doctor PW6, we are of the view that the Trial Court's

findings and judgement are unexceptionable. This Court is satisfied that the petition is

lacking in merit; it is, therefore, dismissed.

                                                                   (S.RAVINDRA BHAT)
                                                                                 JUDGE




JULY 26, 2011                                                             (G.P. MITTAL)
                                                                                   JUDGE




Crl.L.P. No.163/2011                                                                 Page 7