State vs Shri Chander Mohan & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 101 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    CRL. A. No. 330/2001

                                    Date of Decision : 05.01.2012

STATE                                          ...... Appellant
                                 Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, APP

                       Versus
SHRI CHANDER MOHAN & ORS.         ......     Respondents
                      Through: Mr.Sanjay Suri and
                                Mr.Rishab Relan, Advs.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment

dated 18.12.1999 passed by Sh. A. K. Pathak, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (as His Lordship

then was) acquitting the respondents Chander

Mohan/husband (since deceased), Narender Pal/brother-

in-law and Chander Kala/mother-in-law for an offence

under Section 498A/306/34 IPC registered by P.S.

Mangolpuri, Delhi vide FIR No. 123/1986 .

2. At the outset, it may be pertinent here to mention that

Chander Mohan/husband has also expired, and therefore,

the proceedings against him stands abated and the

present appeal is pending against the respondents

Narender Pal (brother-in-law) and Chander Kala (mother-

in-law of the deceased).

3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that

Satwanti (since deceased) was married to Chander

Mohan (since deceased) according to Hindu rites on

20.01.1984. They were blessed with a son named

Lovely on 08.11.1984. On 06.05.1986, at about 12.35

p.m. both Satwanti and her son Lovely were admitted to

R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi with burn injuries. Lovely had

received 100% burn injuries while as the mother

Satwanti had received 80% burn injuries. Lovely

succumbed to the burn injuries at about 12.50 p.m. on

the same day, whereas Satwanti succumbed to burn

injuries at about 2.50 p.m. on 06.05.1986 itself. At the

time of receiving burn injuries, Satwanti was residing at

the matrimonial home along with Chander Mohan,

Narender Pal and Chander Kala. The inquest was

conducted by SDM, Punjabi Bagh(Ex.PW23/F) on

07.05.1986. The dead body of the deceased was

identified by her brother (Ex. PW-4/A). The post

mortem was done at Civil Hospital, Subzi Mandi, Delhi by

Doctor L.T. Ramani on 07.05.1986 at 4.30 p.m. In his

report (Ex. PW 26/B), the doctor has opined that the

death was due to shock resulting from burns which were

ante-mortem in nature and caused by fire. The SDM

had also recorded the statement Ex.PW2/A, Dilpat Singh,

father of the deceased, wherein it was stated that he had

married his daughter Satwanti with Chander Mohan on

20.01.1984 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It

was stated by him that after the marriage, in-laws of the

deceased Satwanti started beating her. Her husband

Chander Mohan (since deceased) was alleged to return

home from his office under the influence of liquor and at

the instigation of his mother and sister, he used to beat

the deceased. It was alleged by him that his daughter

was being subjected to demand of dowry on various

occasions, which at times were fulfilled while as, on other

occasions, they were not able to muster sufficient

financial sources to meet the same. It has also been

alleged by Dilpat Singh that his daughter was turned out

from her matrimonial home because of cruelty and the

beatings meted out to her, as a consequence of which,

she stayed with him. Subsequently, with the

intervention of 4-5 persons from the village Mangolpuri,

he went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and

persuaded Chander Mohan to accept the deceased

Satwanti afresh. Satwanti went back to her matrimonial

home. On 06.05.1986, he received information that his

daughter received burn injuries and she has been

hospitalized to Willington Hospital. On the basis of the

statement of the father of the deceased, the aforesaid

FIR No.123/1986, under Section 302/498A IPC was

registered by P.S. Mangolpuri, Delhi.

4. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and all the

three accused persons were charged for an offence under

Section 306/498A/34 IPC. The prosecution examined 26

witnesses in support of its case after which the statement

of the accused persons were recorded. The accused

persons, namely, the respondents also examined two

witnesses in their defence. The learned Trial Judge after

hearing the arguments, acquitted all the three

respondents of the offence under Section 306/498A/34

IPC by holding that there was no willful conduct on the

part of the respondents/accused persons which will

tantamount to any cruelty with a view to demand dowry

meeting the requirement of Section 498A IPC. Similarly,

the learned Trial Judge also came to the conclusion that

there was no instigation, goading, incitement and

provocation on the part of any of the respondents, which

could be termed as abetting her to commit suicide. On

the contrary, it gave a definite finding that there used to

be disputes between Chandra Mohan/ husband (since

deceased) and the Satwanti/wife (deceased) on trivial

matters. One of the basic issue on which there was a

difference of opinion which resulted in frequent quarrel

between them was that the deceased Satwanti did not

like to stay in joint family along with the mother-in-law

and the brother-in-law, which was opposed by the

deceased husband/Chander Mohan on account of the fact

that he was the sole bread earner of the family including

his widowed mother, younger brother and sister, who

were wholly dependent for finances on him. It was also

proved before the learned Trial Judge that Chander

Mohan was under a moral obligation to maintain his

family on account of the fact that his father, who was

working in the Ministry of Defence had died in harness

and the deceased Chander Mohan had got the

employment in the Ministry of Defence on compassionate

ground. It is urged that it was because of her inherent

temper incompatibility that the deceased had committed

suicide on her own which could not be said to be at the

instigation of any of the respondents.

5. I have heard the learned APP as well as the learned

counsel for the respondents and have gone through the

record including the impugned judgment passed by the

learned Trial Court.

6. There are two sets of witnesses whose testimony is

important from the point of view of examining the guilt of

the respondents. The first set of witnesses consists of

PW-2/Dilpat Singh (father of the deceased), PW-

3/Bhupinder Singh (brother of the deceased), PW-

7/Bharpai (mother of the deceased) and PW-12/Yogender

Singh (brother of the deceased). This forms one set of

the witnesses who have been examined by the

prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused for

an offence under Section 498A read with section 306/34

IPC. The second set of witnesses is the residents of the

same village where the father of the deceased was living.

These witnesses are PW-8/Mir Singh, PW-9/Mange Ram

and PW-11/Sher Singh. The second set of witnesses is

also examined by the prosecution in order to prove the

offence under Section 498A IPC by testifying that the

deceased Satwanti was being subjected to cruelty by her

husband Chander Mohan and his other family members.

7. So far as the testimony of the first set of witnesses is

concerned, the same has been discarded by the learned

Trial Judge on account of two reasons. Firstly, there are

many contradictions and improvements in the testimony

of these witnesses inter se and further contemporaneous

conduct and the documentary evidence which is

produced or purported to be produced by the prosecution

by way of letters and diary etc. which are allegedly

written by the deceased does not corroborate the oral

testimony of these witnesses. It is dealt with in detail

herein after.

8. PW-2/Dilpat Singh is the father of the deceased who had

deposed that he had visited the house of the deceased

two or three times, she informed him that her husband

used to say that she belongs to a family of beggars and

they have not given sufficient dowry on the occasion of

the birth of the child to the deceased. Her husband

Chander Mohan and his mother-in-law Chander Kala are

alleged to have demanded fridge, cooler and cash from

the father of the deceased. PW-2/Dilpat Singh is stated

to have given Rs.2,000/- in cash, some gold and silver

ornaments to the new born child which was not

considered to be sufficient by the respondents. He has

testified that his daughter was being harassed and mal-

treated by the accused persons. These facts are not

supported by the statement of the witness made to the

SDM, which is exhibited as PW 2/C. Had such an event

taken place, the most natural and contemporaneous

conduct of the witness would have been to make a

mention about these details before the SDM, which he

has not done, therefore, the allegations in this regard

made by the PW-2 in his statement before the Court

seem to be an afterthought. Such kinds of

improvements are bound to occur in the statement of the

witness when he has lost somebody in his immediate

family in an unnatural manner.

9. PW-3/Bhupinder Singh is the brother of the deceased

who has also stated that some presents were given on or

around 08.11.1984 when his sister was blessed with a

male child and he has also made a reference on the same

lines on which his father has made statement that

Chander Mohan/husband and her mother-in-law/Chander

Kala demanded fridge and cooler etc. It is also alleged

by him in his statement that the deceased had told him

that she was subjected to harassment on account of the

demand of the aforesaid items. His statement was

recorded and was exhibited as PW/3DA where none of

these facts were stated. He was confronted with the

said statement. Apart from this, the testimony of PW-3

is not corroborated by the purported diary and the letters

exhibited PW12/A to 12/C which are alleged to have been

written by the deceased herself. The testimony of PW-3

has not been accepted by the learned Trial Judge as

truthful on account of this discrepancy. I share the

same view which has been given by the learned Trial

Judge that PW-3 being the brother of the deceased and

having lost his sister is bound to feel the loss and in such

cases, a sense of revenge sets in and person tries to

make all kind of wild allegations without their being

contemporaneous corroboration from the documents, if

they are in existence.

10. PW-7/Barpai is the mother of the deceased, who did not

talk about the items like fridge, cooler, cash and cloths

which were alleged to have been demanded by the in-

laws of the deceased. This had been stated by PW-2,

PW-3 and PW-12. She has only stated that her

daughter had disclosed to her that a sum of Rs.10,000/-

or Rs.20,000/- was demanded from the deceased. In

her cross-examination, she was not able to give the

details of any harassment to which her daughter was

purportedly subjected. Her statement was not recorded

before the police and she was testified before the Court

straight away. So far as her statement is concerned,

this also does not get corroborated from the letters and

the diary of the deceased which are exhibited as PW-

12/A to 12/C, therefore, the testimony of this witness

also does not inspire confidence to be relied with regard

to the deceased being subjected to cruelty with a view

to demand dowry. More so somewhat proximate to the

date of death of the deceased.

11. PW-12/Yoginder Singh is the other brother who has

deposed that he along with his brother went to the

matrimonial home on 13.06.1984, his sister told them

that she was being subjected to harassment by her

husband/Chander Mohan with a view to demand dowry.

She has also stated that her husband/Chander Mohan

used to come home after consuming liquor, in the

evening and then he used to harass the deceased. It is

also alleged to have been stated to them that on one

particular occasion Chander Mohan allegedly tried to

strangulate the deceased. He also deposed that an

amount of Rs.10,000/-, fridge and cooler was demanded

by the respondents. The testimony of PW-12 was also

analyzed by the learned Trial Judge and he came to the

conclusion that this witness has made a considerable

improvement in his statement before the Court as

compared to his statement recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. with which he was confronted, exhibited as PW

12/A DA. There are number of facts which he has

testified regarding an amount of Rs.10,000/-

Rs.20,000/- or items like cooler, fridge etc. being

demanded from the deceased which have not been found

recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, his testimony was also not found to be

credible in nature which would make the Court to believe

the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased was

being subjected to cruelty with a view to demand dowry,

and therefore, the respondents being guilty for an

offence under Section 498A IPC.

12. I have minutely examined the testimony of all these

witnesses and I also share the same view which the

learned Trial Judge has opined that the testimony of all

the three witnesses, namely, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-12

who are interested witnesses, is not of such a sterling

quality which would inspire confidence and so far as PW-

7 is concerned, she does not say much against the

respondents. One important factor which makes the

Court to hold such a view is that the deceased is

purported to have written the letters and a diary upto

one year prior to the date of her death which does not

support the prosecution case as suggested by them.

The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that

immediately after the marriage, the demands of dowry

were made and consequently the deceased was

subjected to cruelty and harassment but none of the

entries which are alleged to have been made by way of

letters or the recordings made in the diary of the

deceased bears the recording of the said fact. In

addition to this, these letters and diary were curiously

produced by the brother of the deceased and not

recovered from the matrimonial home. It is

understandable that the relations of the deceased,

namely, PW-2 father and PW3 and PW-12 brothers and

PW-7 mother were distraught on account of the demise

of their daughter, who seem to have taken her own life

without their being any cogent reason for that. On the

contrary, it has been brought on record by way of ample

evidence that there used to be frequent quarrel between

the deceased and her husband/Chander Mohan on

account of sharing a common kitchen and living jointly

with the mother-in-law of the deceased and her younger

brother and sister. I have already mentioned that the

father of Chander Mohan (since deceased) was working

in the Ministry of Defence, who had died in harness and

Chander Mohan got the employment in the Ministry of

Defence on compassionate ground. There was no other

source of income in the family, and therefore, the

husband of the deceased was under a moral obligation to

maintain his widowed mother and other two family

members while as the deceased seems to be interested

in living separately. It has also come on record that the

deceased had actually persuaded her husband/Chander

Mohan to have a separate kitchen in the same building

15 days prior to the date of the incident however, that

decision had to be reversed as Chander Mohan

persuaded the deceased to revert to a joint kitchen again

which seems to be the reason because of which the

deceased was upset and she set herself ablaze. Such an

action of the husband of living along with his widowed

mother and brother etc. cannot be said to be the 'willful

conduct' within the explanation of Section 498A IPC

which would warrant the conviction of the respondents

for an offence under Section 498A IPC. The other set of

evidence which has been produced by the prosecution is

in the nature of hearsay evidence of three witnesses from

the village who are purported to have stated that the

deceased had told them that she was being subjected to

cruelty and harassment with a view to demand dowry but

on cross examination, it has come on record that none of

the witnesses has ever interacted with the deceased

directly or indirectly, and therefore, the information on

the basis of which they have testified with regard to the

demand of dowry etc. becomes a hearsay. These

witnesses are PW-8/Mir Singh, PW-9/Mange Ram, Pw-

11/Sher Singh. They were allegedly members of

panchayat which brought the reunion of the deceased

with her husband. Further, placing reliance on their

testimony has been held to be unsafe on account of the

fact that they are the members of the Panchayat, yet

each one of them were not able to give the names of

other member of panchayat. All these three witnesses

i.e. PW-8, Pw-9 and PW-11 have been termed as

doubtful so far as their testimony are concerned. I do

not have any reason to hold a different view then the one

which has been expressed by the learned Trial Judge.

13. I meticulously have gone through the evidence. I find

that there is no ground to reverse the order of acquittal

of the respondents, handed down by the learned Trial

Court. The prosecution has failed miserably, as has

been held by the Trial Court, to prove that there is an

unlawful conduct on the part of the respondents, which

could be said to meet the requirements of the demand of

dowry as envisaged under Section 498A IPC. So far as

the 'abetment to suicide' by the deceased is concerned,

there is absolutely no evidence that there was any act or

omission attributable on the part of the respondents to

persuade, incite, goad, compel or instigate the deceased

to commit the offence of taking her own life, and

therefore, no offence under Section 306 IPC for

'abetment to suicide' is made out.

14. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the appeal

is without any merit, and accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

January 05, 2012 KP