Delhi High Court
State vs Vikas Sharma on 16 April, 2012
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 16th April, 2012
+ CRL.L.P. 544/2011, CRL.M.A. 17890-17891/2011
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sanjay Lao, APP.
SI Sachin Yadav, PS Subzi Mandi,
Delhi.
versus
VIKAS SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Adarsh Saini, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Open Court)
1. By this Leave Petition the State seeks leave to appeal against
the judgment and order of the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge dated
19.04.2011 in SC No.71/2010 by which the Respondent was acquitted for
having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B
IPC.
2. The deceased Kiran had married the Respondent/accused
Vikas Sharma on 10.11.2008. The prosecution had alleged that the
couple's engagement had taken 9 months prior to the incident. After
solemnizing the marriage, the couple went to Vaishno Devi for 6 days.
Later Kiran went to her parental house for 3 days. Thereafter, she joined
her husband. It was alleged that the body of Kiran was found at around 4-
5 P.M. On 25.11.2008; she was found to be hanging in the matrimonial
home, which is situated on the 2nd floor of the premises owned by PW-12.
It was alleged that the accused was responsible for this on account of
constant cruelty meted out by him, in connection with dowry harassment
which ultimately led to the unnatural death.
3. After conclusion of investigation - during the course of
which the accused was arrested, the police filed a charge-sheet. The trial
Court framed the charges; the accused denied his guilt and claimed trial.
During the course of the trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies
of fifteen witnesses besides other materials as such as post-mortem report,
forensic laboratory report etc. On an overall consideration of this Trial
Court found that the prosecution was unable to establish the accused's
guilt and accordingly acquitted him.
4. It is urged by the APP that the Trial Court overlooked the
singular feature that the death occurred within 15 days of the marriage
itself and there was no apparent cause. If this was to be connected with the
statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 and PW-2
about the demands for car made by the accused, there could be no room
for doubt that constant demands for dowry had led Kiran to end her life.
In overlooking these aspects, the Trial Court fell into error.
5. The Trial Court records were considered by this Court for the
purpose of examining whether the State ought to be granted leave. The
substratum of its reasoning in the impugned judgment is reproduced
below :
"27. The relatives of the deceased particularly her mother
and brother are the crucial witnesses to give the details of the
circumstances leading to the incident. They have been
examined as PW5 and PW4 respectively and also the
maternal aunt and uncle of the deceased have been examined
as PW1and PW2. All these witnesses have different versions
to put forth on the aspect of alleged dowry demands.
According to PW1 (Meena)accused demanded car from
Manish ( PW4) when he went to take the deceased on
20.11.08. Again on 23.11.08, when accused came to the
parental home to take her wife back, he repeated his demand
of car but the mother of deceased expressed her inability and
convinced the accused not to harass the deceased. However,
Manish(PW4) and Smt Maya Devi (PW5) mother of the
deceased have not stated that any demand of car was raised
on 20.11.08 or 23.11.08 by the accused or his family members
in their presence. Admittedly PW1 was not present on both
these occasions. PW2 Rajesh, maternal uncle of the deceased
stated that on 23.11.08 he went to the house of his sister and
found the deceased Kiran in sad mood and she told that
accused and his family members were demanding car in
dowry. On 24.11.08, PW2 again visited the house of his sister
and was informed that accused and his family members have
been harassing Kiran for car. During cross-examination, it is
admitted by PW2 that engagement ceremony took place nine
months prior to the marriage and first time the demand of car
was disclosed to him on 23.11.08. Now considering the
testimony of mother and brother of the deceased, it is not
mentioned by them that PW2 Rajesh was present on 23.11.08
when the accused came to parental home of the deceased to
take her back. Therefore, the presence of this witness becomes
doubtful at the relevant time at the parental home of the
deceased. It is admitted by PW1 and PW2 that till the date of
marriage, no dowry demand was ever raised by the accused
persons. It is further evident from their testimony that no
demand of car was raised by the accused or his family
members in their presence.
28. The testimony of brother and mother of the deceased is
most important to ascertain the truth of the circumstances.
PW4 Manish Kumar (brother) is the complainant and gave
his statement to the police EXPW4/A and also to the SDM
EXPW4/B. In his statement before the police, Manish Kumar
stated that demand of car was raised by accused and his
brothers. When he went to the matrimonial home of his sister,
her mother in law taunted his sister and even misbehaved with
him for not giving the car in dowry. PW4 further stated that
when accused came to take the deceased back to matrimonial
home, he taunted the deceased in presence of her mother for
not bringing the car. On 24.11.08 the deceased called her
mother and asked her to call her back otherwise she would be
killed by her in laws. In her statement before SDM, Manish
Kumar stated that her sister has taken this extreme step being
fed up with the taunts of her in laws and the in laws were
demanding car in dowry. In his testimony as PW4, Manish
kumar has not deposed anything about the alleged demands
raised on 20.11.08 and 23.11.08 by the accused and his
family members. He simply stated that on 23.11.08 his mother
told him that Kiran was not willing to go back to her
matrimonial home. On 25.11.08, a call was received from the
accused and they were instructed to visit their home
immediately. On visiting matrimonial home of his sister, he
found her dead. His statements were recorded by the police
and also by SDM. It is nowhere stated by PW4 in his
testimony that any dowry demand was ever raised by the
accused or his family members or that the mother of the
accused taunted the deceased for not bringing the car in
dowry. In this way, PW4 has totally confronted his statement
recorded before the police and failed to confirm the specific
allegations made therein. It is clear that no demand of dowry
was witnessed by PW4 from the accused or his family
members nor the deceased ever disclosed to her about any
such demands.
29. Coming to the testimony of mother of the deceased Maya
Devi (PW5), she stated before SDM that on 23.11.08 her
daughter disclosed to her that her husband and in laws have
been demanding car. During her cross-examination before
the court she stated that her daughter told her on 20.11.08
that she was scared of her in laws and on inquiry she stated
that her in laws were demanding car from her. PW5 further
stated that accused Vikas came on 23.11.08 and took Kiran
alongwith him. On 24.11.2008 her daughter informed her on
phone that she was feeling frightened but she did not disclose
any reason for the same. On 25.11.08, the phone call was
received from the accused and on reaching the matrimonial
home, they found the deceased lying dead. PW5 did not state
that accused raised demand of car at any point of time in her
presence. She did not state that accused taunted her daughter
on 23.11.08. However, on cross-examination by Ld APP she
stated that her son Manish told her about the demand of car
raised to him on 20.11.2008. She also stated that on 23.11.08
accused taunted her and deceased for not giving the car.
30. On careful evaluation of the testimony of all the above
witnesses, I find that they are inconsistent and contradictory.
No witness has testified before the court that accused or his
family members raised the demand of car in his or her
presence. According to PW1 and PW2 demands were raised
from PW4 but PW4 has not supported this. PW4 has not
stated anything about dowry demand made to him as alleged
by him in FIR. Statements of the witnesses are contradictory
and do not support the version put forth by each other. No
witness has stated in convincing and confident manner that
accused or his family members raised the demand of car
either on 20.11.08 or 23.11.08. Witnesses have failed to
support their previous statements recorded by the police or
the SDM. In this way the witnesses have failed to remain
consistent on the aspect of dowry demand allegedly raised on
behalf of accused or his family members."
6. This Court further notices that the couple had been engaged
for 9 months. If, in fact, there had been any reason for the accused to
make a demand for dowry, he would have done at any time before the
marriage. Furthermore, the absence of clarity as to the time when the
demand was made and more crucially the silence of the deceased's nearest
relatives i.e. PW-4 (deceased's brother) and PW-5 (deceased's mother)
about this demand for a car, completely knocks out the prosecution
allegations with regard to dowry demand. The allegations with regard to
cruelty also lack in material particulars.
7. Applying the well settled standards in examining petitions for
grant of leave of appeal i.e. existence of substantial or compelling reasons,
occasioning failure of justice, this Court is of the opinion that no such
elements exist in the prosecution case wanting a second review in the
appeal. The petition being unmerited is therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
S.P.GARG, J
APRIL 16, 2012
tr
