State v. Bhagwati & Ors

ORDER % i

27.07.2012 I Gila Mittal (Oral) r r ql.M.A.No.S87/2012 I For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. This application is allowed in the above terms. qRLLP. 27/2012 • 1· The instant petition has been filed u/s 378 of the CrPC praying fror leave to appeal againsl the judgment of acquittal dated 7th April, r 20n passed in SC NO.S3/10 arising out of FIR NO.27/10 registered I Iby the police station Nand Nagri u/s 498A/304B/34 of the IndiLln I IPenal Code. The case relates to an unfortunate death of illls. Sonl w/o Jai Prakash impleaded as respondent nO.3 herein. DO No.SA was recorded by the police station Nand Nagri pursuant whereto the po!ice proceeded to the house no. D-::i/100, Nand Nagri where they found Soni lying in an unconscious state on a bed in her roorn on eru.p.No.? 11)01? pg J ot 1 (j; the fir$t floor of the house. She was removed to the GTB Hospital.

¶3'it was undisputed before the police or the trial court that Soni 22 nd was rarried to Jai Prakash-respondent no.3 on November, 2004. From this marriage, the couple was blessed with two sons.

¶4~o far as her death is concerned, it is in the evidence of her moth~r Smt. Veena PW-3, that on 12th February, 2010, she .1 d recel'i'e a telephone call from her daughter on the telephone of PW-4i Sh. Manoj Kumar. There is considerable contradiction in what ! PW-3! Smt. Veena has said about the contents of the conversation I with her daughter in this phone call. I

¶51 In the court, PW-3 testified that in the telephone call received e at ~bout 1.40 p.m. on 12'h February, 2010 her daughter was weeping and has told her that her father-In-law, mother-In-law and hus~and were demanding RS.20,OOO/- to bring from parental house. She! had consoled her daughter and told her that she would go to her! PW-3 says that she asked her son Vishnu to go to the house of i the! deceased on his cycle and he reached there before PW-3 with thd other daughter Arti. When she reached the house, she saw her daughter hanging from the ceiling fan with the help of saree and her feet were touching the ground. As the deceased was found t br~athing, she had raised an alarm and people from the locality had ! • g~thered who helped her to get down her daughter.

6.1 PW·3 made general statements to the effect that Jai Prakash a~d his family or the in-laws of the deceased started haraSSing her after the marriage on account of insufficient dowry. It was alleged t~at they were harassing her daughter and asking her to bring ~oney for the purpose of marriage of their daughter Kanchan, that 1&i Prakash and his parents were accused of demanding a ~otorCYCle from her deceased daughter and that she had given a f" i;rILPNo.27/?0J? pg? 0 7 I ! (]; ! seconp hand two wheeler scooter.

¶7rW-3 Smt. Veena had also attributed a demand of Rs.20,000r to Jai iPrakash and his parents as disclosed by the deceased in the I phonEtI call made on 12'h February, 2010. PW-3 also stated that the dece~sed had made a complaint on 81h July, 2007 to the SHQ, Police I Statiqn Nand Nagri against her in-laws during her life time.

¶8lin the statement to the SDM who had conducted the inquest I prOc~edjngs, PW-3 had stated that the father-in-law had asked her to w~it for the police to bring her daughter down. She attributed a ! different statement to the father-in-law in the witness box.

¶9i PW-3 was confronted with the previous statement and it was I " fou~d that the allegation of demand with regard to the motorcycle i . as well as the demand of RS.20,0001-made in court was matenal ! improvements from her statement made earlier. I 10'1 The trial court has also carefully analysed the testimony on recbrd to the effect that PW-3 Smt. Veena was a widow whose i hu*band had expired ten years prior thereto and was not alive even : whlen the deceased was married to Jai Prakash. PW-3 had four ! children including the deceased who was her eldest child It is also in the evidence that she was working as a domestic servant. l{ The testimony of PW-3 also established that the deceased and h~r husband Jai Prakash were living separately on the first floor of I t t~e house while the parents of Jai Prakash lived on the ground floor. His younger brother with his wife was living in a separate wing on I tre second floor. PW-3 also submitted that the deceased had rhaintained a separate kitchen for her family on the first floor of the i ~ouse. rb. The most important witness examined by the prosecution in ! Ithe case was PW-5 Master Vishnu, the brother of the deceased who !crl.L.p.No.27120V pg 3 of ! I I ! I t h . G ad stated that it was the b' t 2010 k d h rr hday of his sister on 12th Febr rn t at he used to wish his 51st uary, On the date of the in 'd er every year on her birthday. I CI em, she had made the t I to the family calling h e ephone call prior I er and they wished h b' the telephone. He stated th t . er Jrthday greetings on the dfceased every year eit~e;:~Yt~:~rdhto celebrate the birthday of homel' by cookin' ome or at her matnmonial , 9 speCial food. The witness PW 5 ' h' b' . -also stated that IS 10ther-rn-law Jal Prakash was affectionate towards him and h was ~ot present there when he reached the house of th' e b e sister. He state! that her mother reached after about '17 hr after his arrival at the ~atr;monial home of his Sister. 13, ! So far as the telephone call received on the phone call of PW­ 4 M,enoj Kumar is concerned, the trial court has found the circ~mstances in relation thereto also suspicious inasmuch as he was; unable to disclose any!prior telephone calls or the number from which the cal' was' i received, There is clear testimony on record to the effect that after I rec~ipt of the phone calf on 12th February, 2010, PW-3 Veena corjtinued with her normal chores and dried clothes which she had wa~hed before she proceeded to the house of the deceased. Her co~duct displays no urgency commensurate with the alleged sdtement attributed to the deceased or her distress. , l~, So far as the police complaint of 2007 is concerned, the terrned trial judge has carefully scrutinized the complaint dated 8'h JUly, 2007 which referred to beatings given to her the night before b~ her mother~in-law; father~in·law and sister-in-law of the deceased Who had asked her to leave and were demanding dowry. The ~eceased had stated that her husband was very simple and relieved his parents, She had stated that if anything happened to CrILP,No.27j2017 pg 4 of I I I I i G: he" h~' in-law; wOuid be ,e;pon;ible_ No action wa; taken on 'he Compl~jnt. The deceased also had no grievance at all against her hU;ba~d. No o,he, inciden, ha; been Pointed ou, oc complained after at" July, 2007. 16, II i; in e'idence befo'e the (ciaIcourt in the te;timony of DW_J Sunita; as well as in the statement u/s 313 of the CrPc of jai Prakash to the/effect that the dece.,.d had taken op a job ;e'en day; pcio, to th~ incident through one Manoj who was Jiving in the neigh~ourhood of his wife's parental home. Manoj had taken his wife qn a motorcycle on the pretext of getting her some job in a mall. I As Manoj was known to his wife's parents (deceased's parents) and had also been a tenant in their home few years back, he h~d permitted the deceased to go with him. His wife had retur~ed In the evening and told him that she had got a job in the mall Opposite Anand Vihar terminal. However, she went to the job only for 23 days, whereafter she had informed Jal Prakash that the plae~ where she was going was not good and people there were 'bad He had, therefore, advised her to leave the job and she veryI . 'he does not want to continue had lealled Manoj and told him that sh four days' salary for which ' d ked him to get t e the job. She ha as h ' house on 11th February, . had come to t elr she had worked. ManoJ ,. , d taken the deceased with . , t the InCident, an , 20lh i.e, the day prior 0 th t she had worked In the r . _I lary for the days a him for getting t le sa f m the work, he had -h h d returned home ro ma/1. When Jai Prakas a " I manner, In answer ' t b haVing 111 a norma , found that his Wife was no e very upset and so he did • t t d that she was to !his query, she had s a e, the next morning, he went to f rther queslion. n t not ask her any u , ed telephone call abou • t 2 p m he recelv hik work where at abou ." h t he loved his wite very r 'H had stated t a the unfortunate inCident. e pg -" of I Cf1LPNO,2112012 I , / U? I much land he or his parents have never demanded dowry. DW-1 5unitai i.e. the sister-in-law (devrani) of the deceased had also deposed on oath that on lli:l February, 2010, she had found the deceafed crying. The deceased had disclosed that she had gone to her plbce of work where an incident of such nature had happened ! which IShe could not divulge to anybody and refused to divulge what was tHe matter. As she was in the family way, the witness had not ! questipned her further and returned to her room. ~t has been suggested on record that there was some occur1ence on 11th February, 2010 at the work place of the • decearsed which had traumatized her. 18, i~.Iven the evidence on record, the trial c . prose~ution had failed to ourt has held that the : prove that the deceaspd 5 . subjetted to cruelty or harassment by her husb ~ onl was • ! and or In-laws for or • I • ar as the eVidence In cornectior with the demand of dowry So f . with tegard to the alleged demands after marriage are concerned, it has ~een held that the allegations were vague and that pw-3 Veena had i!llade material improvements in the allegations by her daughter in h~r testimony. It was held that the prosecution has failed to prov~ the case beyond reasonable doubt entitling them to the ben~fit of doubt. In this background, vide the judgment dated 7th April, 2011, the respondents were "Quitted of the eMrgeS cgainst ~ them. 1 i The findings of the leorned triol ,udge ore based on the evi~ence led by the prosecution on record. The challenge to the iU1gment of the trial eourt is oot based on any legally tenable 09 6 of 7 CrjL.PNo.27/2012 • C~j groundb and is found to be devoid of any merit. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. ~~ JULY I 27,2012 Kr pg I of ! CritiP No.U!70 ] 2 -

([; $­ i '" IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I + tRL.L.P. 27/2012 ! ISTATE ..... Petitioner r Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the state versus BHAGWATI & ORS ..... Respondent Thr ough: None CORAM: HON'BlE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL e HON'BlE MR. JUSTICE j.R. MIDHA