Delhi High Court
State vs Ramesh & Ors. on 15 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 11.09.2014
Judgment delivered on : 15.9.2014
+ CRL.L.P. 261/2009
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
along with SI Deepak.
versus
RAMESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Javed Hashmi, Adv.
+ CRL.REV.P. 416/2009 & Crl. M.A. No.3207/2011
HAWA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
along with SI Deepak.
Mr. Javed Hashmi, Adv.for R-2
to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 Crl. Leave Petition No.261/2009 has been preferred by the State.
Crl. Revision Petition No.416/2009 has been preferred by the
complainant in FIR No.680/2005 Hawa Singh. Both the parties are
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.07.2009 vide which the
Sessions Judge had acquitted the respondents Ramesh, Paras Ram and
Laxmi of the offence under Sections 306/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). Respondent Ramesh was the husband of the victim
Sulochna. Paras Ram and Laxmi were her father-in-law and mother-in-
law respectively.
2 Record reflects that on 08.12.2005, DD No. 15-A was recorded at
P.S. Narela giving information that inside the Air Force Station,
Ghogha, one girl had committed suicide. This DD discloses the time as
01:20 PM in the afternoon of 08.12.2005. Information was marked to SI
Suraj Bhan (PW-12) who along with Constable Niraj Kumar (PW-11)
reached the Air Force Station, to House No.96/97 where the deceased
Sulochna was found hanging from the ceiling fan. She was already
dead. Crime team was called. Crime team report was proved as
Ex.PW-12/B. The photographer Constable Sushil Kumar (PW-2) had
taken photographs of the scene of crime, which were proved as Ex.P-1
to Ex.P-6, and negatives of which were proved as Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-12.
3 The post-mortem on the body of the victim was conducted by Dr.
Anil Shandil, Senior Resident of DDU Hospital (PW-4). His opinion on
the cause of death, noted in the post mortem report (Ex.PW-4/A) was
that it was asphyxia as the result of ante mortem hanging. The statement
of the brother of the victim Hawa Singh (PW-3) was recorded. It was
this statement (Ex.PW-3/A) which had formed the basis of the FIR. This
statement was recorded on 09.12.2005. The statements of other brothers
of the victim namely Suresh Kumar (PW-5) and Sahabuddin (PW-6)
were also recorded. The statement of Smt. Jagwanti Devi (PW-8) sister-
in-law of the victim was also recorded. The statement of a neighbour
Jagbir Singh, who was also known to the family of her in-laws, was
recorded as PW-7.
4 In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC, they had pleaded innocence. Their submission was that the
victim had committed suicide primarily because of the reason that she
was not keeping good health.
5 No evidence was led in defence.
6 The trial Court on the basis of the aforenoted evidence both oral
and documentary had acquitted the accused. It was of the opinion that
abetment of suicide, which is the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC, was not made out and the allegations of
cruelty as detailed by the relations of the victim were by and large
general; there were vast improvements in their versions; their
depositions did not establish the offence either under Section 498-A or
Section 306 of the IPC.
7 The State as also the complainant brother (Hawa Singh) are
aggrieved by the impugned order. The first primary submission is that
there has been no improvement, and attention has been drawn to the
statement of Hawa Singh (Ex.PW-3/A) as also the statements of the
other witnesses of the prosecution which were recorded under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). It is pointed out
that all of them in unison had stated that a fridge and a scooter had been
demanded by the husband and in-laws of the victim right from the
inception of the marriage, and this was the reason for the harassment
and cruelty which was continuously meted out to the victim. The fact
was that she had given birth to a female child, and she had to undergo
abortion 3-4 times, and for which she was taunted by her in-laws and her
husband. It was for this reason also that the victim had committed
suicide. This death having occurred in the matrimonial home of the
victim and even presuming that it was after seven years of marriage, the
onus was upon the accused persons to explain as to how the death had
taken place in the matrimonial home in the afternoon hours. Their
defence that the victim was suffering from ill-health has not been
substantiated by any documentary evidence. On all counts, the
impugned judgment is perverse and liable to be set aside.
8 Arguments have been refuted by the learned counsel for the
respondents. It is pointed out that a judgment of acquittal cannot easily
be interfered with, and unless and until, there is a patent illegality in the
finding of the Court below, no interference is called for. Learned
counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon 2010 (4) LRC 268
(SC) Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported as
2013 (3) Crimes 8 (SC) S. Anil Kumar @Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of
Karnataka. It is pointed out that only in exceptional and compelling
circumstances where the appellate Court finds the judgment to be totally
perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal. On
merits it is pointed out that the testimony of the complainant was rightly
appreciated by the trial Court, and the trial Court had rightly noted that
there were major improvements in the versions of the prosecution
witnesses which destroy their credibility.
9 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
10 The complainant in this case was Hawa Singh. He was the brother
of the victim. His statement was recorded in the early morning of
09.12.2005 which had formed the basis of the FIR. This statement was
proved as Ex.PW-3/A. The gist of this statement was that the victim was
taunted by her in-laws from the beginning of her marriage for not
bringing a fridge and a scooter. She had given birth to a female child
(who at the time of the incident was four years of age); this was also a
bone of contention for the in-laws and husband of the victim who
wanted a male child. On oath in Court, PW-3 testified that they were a
family of 12 brothers and sisters, of whom four were sisters. The
deceased was his youngest sister. She had been married to Ramesh as
per Muslim rites on 04.04.1998.
11 The incident is dated 08.12.2005 i.e. more than seven years after
the date of the marriage. It was for this reason that the SDM had not
been summoned and the statements of the relations of the victim were
not recorded by the SDM but only by the Investigating Officer.
12 Further version of PW-3 is that after a few months of his sister's
marriage, her husband and his parents started harassing her for bringing
insufficient dowry. They had demanded a fridge and a scooter and it was
for this reason that his sister was continuously harassed and tortured by
physical beatings. A female child was born to his sister whose name was
Muskan. Since male child had not been born, his sister was harassed by
the accused. His sister had to undergo abortion 3-4 times. On
08.12.2005, he received information that she had died by hanging.
13 In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the marriage had taken
place in their village. He was evasive on the question as to whether his
brother-in-law Ramesh had purchased a scooter in the year 2002. He
was also evasive on the question as to whether the family of the accused
had a fridge or not, as well as on the question as to where his niece was
studying. Even on a specific question put to him that Muskan was
studying in Airforce Children School, he gave an evasive answer. In his
cross-examination, he however admitted that a panchayat had been
organized in the matrimonial home of his sister to settle the disharmony
between the couple. He did not remember the nursing home where his
sister had undergone an abortion. He admitted that he had not told the
Investigating Officer that his sister was made to undergo abortion 3-4
times.
14 The second brother of the victim Suresh Kumar (PW-5) had also
deposed on the same lines, his deposition being to the effect that the
accused persons were not behaving well with his sister because of
demand of dowry in the form of fridge and scooter and for this reason,
she was harassed. Between 09th and 20th September, 2005, they had
visited the house of their sister to work out an amicable settlement. In
his cross-examination, he admitted that to visit the house of his sister
which is located the Air Force Colony, entry has to be made in the
register but no such record was available. He admitted that respondent
Ramesh (husband of the victim) had purchased a Maruti van in the year
2003 and that he possessed a scooter before the marriage. He admitted
that he had not told the Investigating Officer that his sister was beaten
between 09th and 20th September, 2005 and that they had gone to the
house of the victim to settle their disputes.
15 The third brother of the victim Sahabuddin was examined as
PW-6. He had also reiterated the deposition that a fridge and a scooter
were the bones of contention with the respondents, and for not bringing
these two items, the victim was harassed by them. He admitted that a
sister was blessed by his daughter and on her birth, she was again
harassed. He also admitted that the birthday of Muskan (niece) was
celebrated whereas the other two witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-5 had
given evasive denials on this count. In his cross-examination, he also
admitted that for the cantonment area, permission is required to enter the
house. He was also evasive as to whether Ramesh had bought a Maruti
van in 2003.
16 PW-8 Jagwanti Devi was the sister-in-law of the victim, and the
wife of PW-3. She also deposed on the same lines stating that the victim
was harassed for not bringing a motor-cycle and a refrigerator. In her
deposition, motor-cycle has been introduced for the first time whereas in
the deposition of the other witnesses, it was a scooter. However, she
later corrected herself and clarified that the demand was of a scooter,
and not a motorcycle. She had also deposed that the victim was harassed
because she had given birth to a female child; the accused wanted a
male child and the victim was made to undergo abortions also.
17 In her cross-examination, PW-8 admitted that the victim used to
come to their house with Ramesh in a car. She denied the suggestion
that the victim was not harassed.
18 PW-7 Jagbir Singh, was a neighbour in the deceased's parental
village. He had also deposed that the victim was harassed for not
bringing sufficient dowry. He denied the suggestion that the victim was
harassed for not giving birth to a male child.
19 It was these depositions which had been noted by the Court to
draw a conclusion that there were vital improvements in their
deposition. This finding returned by the Sessions Judge suffers from no
infirmity.
20 There appear to be two reasons for the relations of the victim to
have deposed against the accused. They have stated that the victim was
harassed for not bringing a fridge and a scooter at the time of marriage.
However, this is countered in the testimony of PW-8 (the sister-in-law
of the deceased) who stated that respondent Ramesh used to visit their
home along with his wife Sulochana in a car. PW-5 (Suresh), brother of
the deceased had also stated that respondent Ramesh had bought a
Maruti van in 2003. Why would he demand a scooter? It is also difficult
to believe that a person who admittedly has a Maruti car would not have
a fridge in his house; a fridge is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity.
Thus the deposition of the witnesses that the victim was being harassed
for not bringing a fridge or a scooter appears to pale into insignificance.
21 That apart, all these witnesses had deposed that this harassment
was immediately after the marriage of the deceased, which was in the
year 1998. The incident as noted supra is of 08.12.2005 i.e. more than
seven years after the marriage of the victim. Did the harassment on this
count continue for almost 8 years? Logic also does allow the Court to
believe that in such a scenario, a persistent demand of a scooter would
be made. The demand of a fridge also does not appear to be plausible as
a man who owns a car could well be owning a fridge as well.
22 The second reason for the harassment was allegedly for the reason
that the victim was blessed with a female child; who was four years of
age at the time of incident; and being taunted by her in-laws and
husband for not giving birth to a male child, and she had been forced to
undergo abortion on several occasions for this reason. The details of the
abortions have not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. Be
that as it may, even otherwise the finding of the trial Court that this is an
improvement and the deposition qua the abortion suffered by the victim
did not find mention in the statements of the witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is substantiated. Although in one part of the
statement (Ex.PW-3/A), PW-3 stated that the victim had given birth to a
female child and this was the grievance of family members of the
husband, yet all the other witnesses only stated that Muskan, a girl child,
was born to the victim. There is no averment that the victim was
harassed on this count. There was no intention whatsoever of the
abortions.
23 All the witnesses in Court had made substantial improvements.
They all deposed that the victim was harassed for having given birth to a
female child and so much so, she had to undergo abortion 3-4 times. The
fact of abortion did not find mention by any of the witnesses in their
statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is also not the case of the
prosecution that this abortion had been suffered by the victim at the
behest of the accused and it was for the reason that they knew that this
was a female fetus as is now sought to be argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionist. These were thus rightly noted to be vital
improvements, going to the root of the matter.
24 Thus on both counts the arguments of the petitioner on the alleged
cruelty meted out to the victim fails.
25 That apart, this Court also notes that three statements of three
neighbours had been recorded by the Investigating Officer namely Sunil,
Virender and Sheetal Prashad. They were neighbours and living in the
same neighbourhood i.e. Air Force Colony, Ghogha. Their statements
are on record and have been marked in the version of the Investigating
Officer (PW-12). Their statements reveal that they had learnt that an
untoward incident had taken place in the house of Paras Ram who was
not present in the house at the relevant time. They all stated that the door
was bolted from inside and after great difficulty, they managed to break
open the door and on breaking it open, they found Sulochana (the
victim) hanging from a ceiling fan. Police was informed.
26 These persons were not cited as witnesses by the prosecution. The
explanation that since they were witnesses who would have not favoured
the prosecution and thus dropped again casts a doubt on the veracity of
the version of the prosecution. They were the first witnesses to have
reached the spot. True picture had been seen by them which was to the
effect that Paras Ram was not even present in the house at the time of
incident. The defence of the accused that the victim had died because of
ill-health was no doubt not expounded in the cross-examination of the
witnesses of the prosecution but it is well settled law of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, and it is
for the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt. The prosecution, in view
of this Court, has not discharged its onus. This was rightly noted by the
Sessions Judge.
27 The Apex Court in this context noting the powers of the appellate
Court in dealing with the judgment of acquittal had in (2003) 1 SCC 761
Shailendra Pratap & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. made the following
observations:-
"Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties we are of
the opinion that the trial court was quite justified in acquitting the appellants of the
charges as the view taken by it was a reasonable one and the order of acquittal
cannot be said to be perverse. It is well settled that the appellate court would not be
justified in interfering with the order of acquittal unless the same is found to be
perverse. In the present case, the High Court has committed an error in interfering
with the order of acquittal of the appellants recorded by the trial court as the same
did not suffer from the voice of vice of perversity. "
28 The impugned judgment calls for no interference. Crl. Leave
petition and revision petition are dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
A
