Vineet Vats vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 1117 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                              Date of Decision: 03.03.2014

+                             CRL.A. 360 of 2010

VINEET VATS                                          ..... Appellant
                         Through:    Mr. Raman Sahney, Adv.

                                      versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                   ..... Respondent
              Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                    JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

In the night intervening 6/7.2.2000, deceased Vimmi was brought

by the appellant, who is her husband, to Sodhi Nursing Home, she

having consumed insecticide. Vimmi died in the aforesaid nursing

home. Since, Vimmi died within seven (7) years of marriage, the

concerned SDM was informed, who reached the spot and recorded the

statement of Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, father of the deceased. In the

aforesaid statement, Shri Ram Kumar Sharma inter alia stated that his

daughter Vimmi @ Vimla was married to the appellant Vineeet Vats on

9.11.1995. He further stated that on being informed by his son-in-law at

about 5:00 a.m., he reached Sodhi Nursing Home where his daughter

was found dead. He alleged that Vimmi had been murdered by her

father-in-law, Gyan Chand; mother-in-law, Kamla; and brother-in-law,

Sunit @ Kalu. He also alleged that earlier the aforesaid three persons

used to beat his daughter and harass her in connection with dowry. He

desired legal action against the aforesaid three persons as well as against

the appellant Vineet though there was no allegation of cruelty or

maltreatment against him.

2. On 8.2.2000, the SDM recorded the statement of Smt. Santosh

Sharma, mother of the deceased. In the aforesaid statement she inter

alia stated that after April, 1997, her daughter and son-in-law were

turned out of the matrimonial home of her daughter, by her in-laws, who

asked them to bring Rs.3.00 lakh from the parents of Vimmi.

Thereafter, both of them came to her and she got them a house on rent in

Ashok Vihar. The pagri (premium) for taking the aforesaid house on

rent was paid by her. She alleged that even thereafter the brother, etc. of

her son-in-law used to beat her daughter. She claimed that they kept on

paying money to her son-in-law who thereafter said that he needed a car

for his business, whereupon they spent Rs.2.00 lakh for purchase of a

car for him. She further stated that her son-in-law then sold the car and

deposited the sale proceeds in FDR. She thereafter got them another

premises on rent in Guru Harkishan Nagar, Pashchim Vihar. She also

alleged that they used to meet the expenditure of her daughter and son-

in-law.

3. Smt. Santosh Sharma alleged that her younger daughter Usha got

married on 9.12.1999, seeing which the appellant complained that lesser

expenditure had been incurred on his marriage and wanted a similar

amount to be given to him. She further alleged that Vimmi came to

meet her on 13.12.1999, and she gave Rs.20,000/- to her, promising to

pay the rest of the amount at a later date. She further alleged that on

6.2.2000, she received a telephone call from Vimmi, informing her that

they were going to change the house. On 07.02.2000 at 5:00 a.m. they

received a telephone call from the appellant who started weeping on the

telephone and called them. When they reached the nursing home they

came to know that Vimmi had already expired. She also alleged that

when they reached the hospital, the appellant confessed that he had

poisoned Vimmi and expressed willingness to be punished for his act.

She also alleged that the appellant had apologized to the dead body of

Vimmi. She specifically alleged that Vimmi had been poisoned by her

son-in-law and his friends.

4. On 9.2.2000, the learned SDM recorded the statement of Shri

Radhey Shyam, brother of deceased Vimmi. In his statement to the

SDM, he inter alia stated that while agreeing to live separately from his

parents, the appellant had put forward a condition that his entire

expenditure would be incurred by his in-laws and for the future of his

sister they had accepted the said condition, till the time the appellant

was able to earn of his own. He also alleged that Kalu @ Sunit, brother-

in-law of Vimmi had one day, poured petrol in their house and set it on

fire and the matter was reported to the police and thereafter also he

continued to threaten them. He claimed that on 13.12.1999, Vimmi

came alone to their house and informed her mother that Vineet wanted

that much money as was spent on the wedding of Usha. His mother

gave Rs.20,000/- to Vimmi. Even thereafter Vimmi came to them a

number of times and complained that the appellant was asking for

money to be arranged and was not willing to give more time for this

purpose. He also claimed that when they reached hospital on 7.2.2000,

the appellant Vineet confession to having poisoned Vimmi.

5. On completion of investigation charge sheet under Section 498A

and 304B of IPC was filed against as many as seven (7) persons

including the appellant Vineet. However, other accused were

discharged by the learned trial court vide order dated 2.12.2000. The

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order discharging the

other accused persons was challenged before this Court but the

challenge did not succeed.

6. Smt. Santosh Sharma, mother of the deceased came in the witness

box as PW2 and inter alia stated that mother-in-law and father-in-law of

Vimmi had asked the appellant to bring Rs.3.00 lakh from his in-laws

and had turned her daughter and son-in-law out of the house. She then

arranged a rented accommodation in Ashok Vihar and paid Rs.25,000/-

as pagri. She further alleged that the brother-in-law of Vimmi and other

relatives continued to harass her even at the rented house in Ashok

Vihar by beating her and insisting that she should bring more money.

She also alleged that they used to receive telephone calls from the

father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased who alleged that

Vimmi and her husband had taken away Rs.25.00 lakh from their house.

The witness claimed that the appellant told them that he cannot

pull without a car and thereupon they gave Rs.2.00 lakh to him for

purchasing a car, which he actually purchased. However, after 2-3

months the car was sold by him and they were informed that the sale

proceeds had been invested in an FDR.

She further stated that on 9.12.1999, her younger daughter Usha

got married and they spent more money in that marriage compared to

the money that was spent in the marriage of Vimmi. Thereafter the

appellant Vineet started harassing her daughter and asked her to bring

equal amount from her parents. Vimmi came weeping and told them of

this demand whereupon she gave Rs.20,000/- to her, promising to give

the rest of the money later on.

7. It would, thus, be seen that according to this witness, the appellant

did not harass the deceased in any manner and did not subject her to

cruelty prior to the wedding of her younger daughter. Though, it has

come in her deposition that the appellant had demanded a car and the

demand was satisfied by giving Rs.2.00 lakh to him, she does not claim

that her daughter Vimmi was subjected to any kind of cruelty or

harassment by the appellant in connection with the demand of a car.

Mere demand of a car, without subjecting the deceased to any cruelty or

without harassing her in any manner in connection with the said demand

does not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC

particularly when it was not linked to the marriage and was sought for

the purpose of convenience alone though it may possibly constitute an

offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

8. The main allegation against the appellant is that noticing the

expenditure on the wedding of the younger sister of Vimmi, he wanted

an equal amount to be given to him. The aforesaid demand, according

to the witness, was conveyed through her daughter. However, there is

no allegation of the appellant having subjected the deceased Vimmi to

any kind of cruelty or harassment in connection with the aforesaid

demand of money. As noted earlier mere demand of money unless it is

coupled by some kind of cruelty or harassment of the deceased would

not constitute the cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code. The complainant when she came in the witness box alleged that

Vineet started harassing Vimmi and asked her to bring money

equivalent to the money spent on the marriage of Usha, but she did not

specify in what manner Vimmi was harassed by the appellant. In her

statement to the SDM this witness did not claim any kind of harassment

by the appellant in connection with the demand of cash equivalent to the

expenditure incurred by them in the wedding of Usha, though she did

allege the aforesaid demand. Therefore, the vague allegation of

harassment during her deposition in the court, without indicating in what

manner Vimmi was harassed, coupled with her having not made any

such allegation in the statement to the SDM, would indicate that the

aforesaid allegation of general nature is only an afterthought. In fact,

the entire focus of the allegaionts made before the SDM was that the

deceased had been murdered by the appellant by administering poison to

her and when they reached the hospital, the appellant confessed to the

aforesaid crime. However, neither the appellant was charged under

Section 302 of IPC nor is there any evidence which would show that it

was he who had administered insecticide to the deceased.

9. The father of the deceased Vimmi came in the witness box as

PW3. During his deposition in the court he only alleged that her

daughter used to tell him that her in-laws used to harass her, raise

demand of dowry and beat her. He specifically named the father-in-law,

mother-in-law, husband and younger brother of the appellant alleging

demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased by them. However,

he did not specify when and in what manner, deceased Vimmi was

harassed by the appellant. It would be appropriate to note here that in

his statement before the SDM Ex.PW3/A this witness had not made any

allegation whatsoever of any demand of dowry or harassment of the

deceased at the hand of the appellant Vineet. In the aforesaid statement

he had blamed only the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law

of the deceased and had alleged that the aforesaid persons used to harass

her and had killed her pursuant to a pre-planning. Though he wanted

legal action against the appellant as well not a single allegation

constituting cruelty with or without harassment of Vimmi was made by

him against the appellant.

10. The brother of the deceased, Shri Radhey Shyam came in the

witness box as PW5. He inter alia stated that on 13.12.1999, Vimmi

came to their house alone and informed her mother that the appellant

Vineet wanted money equal to the expenditure incurred by them on the

wedding of Usha and that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by his mother

to the appellant with an assurance to pay more. He further alleged that

after the aforesaid incident Vimmi visited them several times and

wanted money as desired by the appellant Vineet. Thus, according to

this witness, there was repeated demand of cash by the appellant, after

5.12.1999.

11. The sister-in-law of the deceased, namely Meenu Sharma, came

in the witness box as PW4. She inter alia stated that Vineet and coaxed

her (deceased) for a Maruti Car from his in-laws, which they purchased

and gave to Vineet. She further stated that after shifting to Guru

Harkishan Nagar house, Vimmi used to come to them and tell them that

her in-laws, and her husband used to assemble at the said house and

threat/harass her and pressurize her to bring Rs.3.00 lakh and withdraw

the criminal cases which Vimmi had lodged against them. She further

stated that in the last week of November, 1999, Vimmi came to their

house and told her that the previous night her parents-in-law, brother-in-

law, maternal uncle of Vineet, his aunt, Satyawati and Purender had

come to their house in Guru Harkishan Nagar tortured her, and given her

beatings so that she would bring Rs.3.00 lakh and withdraw the criminal

cases. However, the aforesaid allegations do not find any mention in the

depositions of the parents or the brother of the deceased. The aforesaid

part of the deposition of this witness, to my mind, cannot be believed for

the reason that it finds no corroboration from the parents and brother of

the deceased. Had Vimmi made such a complaint to this witness, she

would have immediately brought it to the notice of her mother-in-law

and her husband. It would be difficult to accept that the aforesaid

witness would not bring such a serious incident involving her sister-in-

law to the notice of the parents and brother of the aggrieved person. The

aforesaid witness was examined by the Investigating Officer on

13.2.2000, i.e., six (6) days after her death, and there is no explanation

from the prosecution for not examining her soon after she had died. In

any case, I am not inclined to accept that the witness would not have

brought the incident to the notice of her parents and brother even after

the death of Vimmi. Had she done that her parents and brother would

have stated so in their statement to the SDM as well as during their

deposition in the court.

12. The following allegations against the appellant primarily emerge

from a careful analysis of the testimony of the witnesses as discussed

hereinbefore:

a. The appellant demanded a car from his in-laws and they either

gave Rs.2.00 lakh in cash to him for the purpose or they purchased a car

and gave it to him.

b. Seeing the expenditure incurred in the wedding of his sister-in-

law, Usha, the appellant demanded an amount equal to the expenditure

incurred in the wedding of Usha and the said demand was conveyed to

the in-laws through deceased Vimmi.

c. According to PW5 Radhey Shyam, the aforesaid demand of cash

equivalent to the expenditure incurred in the wedding of Usha was not

only made once but repeatedly.

13. As regards purchase of car, the case of the appellant is that it was

an old car which he had purchased through a car dealer. The said car

dealer has been examined as DW7. In his deposition DW7 Satish

Chander inter alia stated that in the year 1997, the appellant Vineet

purchased a Maruti car from him through delivery receipt Ex.DW7/A

for a consideration of Rs.1.25 lakh. He also stated that Vineet had paid

Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/- by way of a cheque and rest of the amount

was financed through V.K. Mohan Leasing & Finance, Karol Bagh, a

finance company which has since closed. He also stated that most

probably the cheque was paid by the appellant from his own account.

On the other hand, the prosecution has not given any documentary proof

of either the car having been purchased by the parents of the deceased or

a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh having been paid to the appellant for the purpose.

The father of the deceased Shri Ram Kumar stated in his deposition that

his salary in the year 2000 was Rs.15,500/- per month. He also claimed

that he was earning about Rs.1.00 lakh to Rs.1.25 lakh per annum from

the agricultural land he had in the village. Thus, the total income of this

witness at the relevant time would not be more than about Rs.25,000/-

per month even if his statement in this regard is taken as wholly correct.

It is difficult to accept that a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh would be available in

cash with a person of such limited means in the year 2000. This was not

the case of the witness that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2.00 lakh was

withdrawn by him from some bank account nor has the prosecution

produced any documentary evidence of the father of the deceased

having that much money with him in cash. A salaried person having

limited means such as PW3 Ram Kumar Sharma would not like to keep

a huge amount of Rs.2.00 lakh in the year 2000 in his house. He would

rather prefer to invest the said amount either by keeping it in a bank or

some other financial instrument so that money does not remain idle and

he is able to get some return on it by depositing it in a bank or investing

in some other financial instrument. Considering the deposition of DW7,

coupled with the above-referred facts & circumstances, it would be

difficult to say that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh was paid to the appellant for

purchasing a vehicle. As noted earlier according to one of the witnesses

Smt. Meenu Sharma the car was purchased by them and given to the

appellant. However, the name of the seller of the car has not been given

by any of the witnesses nor has the seller been examined. In these

circumstances, it would be difficult to accept that the in-laws of the

appellant purchased the car and handed it over to the appellant.

14. Coming to the alleged demand of cash, equivalent to the

expenditure incurred by the parents of the deceased on the wedding of

her younger sister, Usha, it would be seen from Ex.PW3/A the statement

made by Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, father of the deceased to the SDM

on 7.2.2000, that no such demand was alleged in the aforesaid

statement. The aforesaid demand surfaced only in the statement of Smt.

Santosh Sharma recorded by the SDM on the next day. However, none

of the witnesses told the court as to how much was the expenditure

incurred in the wedding of Usha or how much precisely was the money

demanded by the appellant. This is not the case of the prosecution that

the aforesaid demand was not in the knowledge of the father of the

deceased. Therefore, had there been any such demand, Shri Ram

Kumar Sharma would certainly have stated in his statement to the SDM

recorded on 7.2.2000. Even in his deposition in the Court, Shri Ram

Kumar Sharma, father of the deceased did not refer to the alleged

demand of money equivalent to the expenditure incurred by him on the

wedding of his younger daughter. Considering that no such allegation

was made by Shri Ram Kumar Sharma to the SDM, it would not be safe

to rely upon the deposition of other witnesses in this regard because

primarily it is the father of the deceased who could have arranged the

money alleged to have been demanded by the appellant and, therefore,

he could not have been unaware of any such demand.

15. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the appellant

attempted to commit suicide on 9.2.2000 and a case under Section 309

of IPC was registered against him. PW8 Constable Sunder Lal has

admitted this in his deposition when he stated that the appellant was in

hospital because of case under Section 309 of IPC. The aforesaid

conduct of the appellant is also an indicator of his being innocent, the

inference being that finding false accusations against him in the

statement of his mother-in-law and brother-in-law, he attempted to take

his own life by committing suicide.

16. A perusal of the seizure memo Ex.PW6/B would show that when

the Investigating Officer went to the spot he found amongst other

articles a piece of newspaper which was burnt from corners and a saree

which had been partially burnt. The case of the appellant, as spelt out in

his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is that in the night

intervening 6/7.2.2000, deceased Vimmi was pressurizing him to change

the house by the very next day and when he expressed his inability to do

so she, in a fit of anger put fire on the articles lying in the room,

whereupon he left the house saying that he would prefer to live on

footpath and when he returned, he found Vimmi lying on the bed and

having consumed insecticide. It has also come in evidence that Vimmi

had told her parents in the night of 6.2.2000, that they would be shifting

to a new house. The explanation given by the appellant, therefore, finds

some support from the recovery of the burnt piece of newspaper and

burnt saree from the spot and the information which the deceased had

given to her parents in the night of 6.2.2000.

17. Admittedly, the criminal case, which the deceased had got

registered was against her in-laws, and the present appellant, was in fact

a witness of prosecution in that case.

18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appellant, who otherwise

has spent about six years in custody is given benefit of doubt and is

acquitted.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

One copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail

Superintendent for information and necessary action.

The LCR be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order.

MARCH 03, 2014                                            V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh