CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 1 of 45 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on March 22, 2010 CRL. A. No. 280/2001 # Phool Singh and Anr. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv Awasthi, Adv. Versus The State .... Respondent Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Adv. CRL. A. No. 333/2001 # Smt. Dropti and Ors. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Rajiv Awasthi, Adv. Versus State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 2 of 45 G.S. SISTANI, J. 1. Two appeals have been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 7.4.2001 and order on sentence dated 18.4.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Appeal bearing No.280/2001 has been filed by the uncle and aunt (MAUSA AND MAUSI) of the husband of the deceased. They have been convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for the offence under section 498-A, IPC. In default of the payment of fine, appellants have been directed to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Appellants in Appeal bearing No.333/2001 are the mother-in-law, husband and father-in-law of the deceased, who have been convicted for the offence under section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. The appellants have also been convicted under section 498-A, IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of the payment of fine, appellants are to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. It may be noticed that as per the report received from the Registry, trial court record has been misplaced. As jointly agreed by counsel for parties, counsel for appellants handed over a compilation comprising of the judgment and copies of the evidence to the Court as well as to counsel for the State. Since the CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 3 of 45 matter was ripe for hearing as agreed by counsel for parties, matter has been heard on the basis of compilation handed over to Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Rajbala was married to one Jaiprakash on 17.06.1990. She gave birth to a male child on 18.6.1991. However, within seven years of marriage and barely after one month of giving birth to a son, Rajbala (deceased), died in unnatural circumstances on 19.7.1991. On 18.7.1991 Rajbala sustained more than 80% burn injuries and was admitted to LNJP hospital at 2:20 a.m. on 19.7.1991. She succumbed to her injuries on 19.7.1991 at 7:45 a.m. Ram Singh, S.I. was handed over a copy of D.D. No.61-B which was recorded at 12:45 a.m. in respect of the burning of a girl at A-18, Hanuman Mandir Park, Moller Band Extension. As Rajbala had been declared unfit to make a statement, her statement could not be recorded by the SDM who had also reached the hospital. After Rajbala succumbed to her injuries, statements of her parents were recorded by the SDM and accordingly a case was registered. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C., however, no evidence was led in defence. It would be useful to refer to the evidence of some of the material witnesses in this case. 5. PW-1 (Smt. Shish Kaur, mother of the deceased) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that Raj Bala was her daughter and was married to appellant Jai Prakash on 17.6.1990. On 18.7.1991, her daughter telephoned her and asked PW-1, her husband and their son to come to the house of the in-laws as the appellants were threatening her. On receipt of the said telephone call, PW-1 along with her husband CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 4 of 45 and Bicholia, Ram Swaroop and her son, Harbans went to the house of her daughter. When they reached there, all the appellants as well as her daughters were present there. PW-1 further deposed that the appellants at that time demanded five rings, five chains, five ear- rings, five saries and a cash of Rs.20,000/-. PW-1, deposed that she told them that whatever would be possible would be given. Thereafter they came back and at 4:00 p.m. appellant, Jai Prakash came to their house and threatened them by saying that what they had told to their daughter and that she had died of burning. 6. In her cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-1 deposed that she went to the hospital along with her husband and two sons, namely, Harbans and Raj Kumar. At that time her daughter was admitted in the emergency ward. PW-1 voluntarily deposed that when they reached the hospital, their daughter had already died. Police did not record her statement in the hospital and that her statement was recorded by the SDM. PW-1 further deposed that in her statement recorded by the SDM, she had duly mentioned that Bicholia, Ram Swaroop had also gone with them on receipt of a telephone call received by her from the deceased on 18.7.1991. PW-1 was confronted with her statement, Ex.PW- 1/D2, wherein it was not so recorded. PW-1 was further confronted that except the demand for Rs.20,000/- in cash, no other demand regarding any other articles was mentioned. PW-1 was also confronted that it was not mentioned in her statement Ex.PW-1/D2 that Jai Prakash had come to their house at 4:00 pm. PW-1 deposed in her cross-examination that except on 18.7.1991, she had never gone to the house of the appellant and it was correct that appellant, Phool Singh and Kanta were living separately from the other appellants. As per PW-1 her daughter had CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 5 of 45 come to their house to meet them for about 8 or 10 times after her marriage or before her death. Further her sons used to go to the matrimonial home of the deceased to meet her once in a month or two, but the appellants never allowed them to meet the deceased. Her daughter Raj Bala never stayed with them and she used to go back on the same day. Except on 18.7.1991, her daughter never telephoned them. PW-1 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that none of the appellants had ever raised any demand and that it was wrong to suggest that the appellants never harassed or tortured her daughter for or in connection with dowry. 7. PW-1, in her cross-examination further deposed that Ram Swaroop was the mediator in the marriage of her daughter and appellant, Jai Prakash and it was correct to suggest that he was on visiting terms with them. It was Ram Swaroop who had proposed the marriage. PW-1, further deposed that her daughter had come to the parental house on the eve of Raksha Bandhan and Bhaiya Dooj. On these occasions, the deceased did not stay with them and on the same day went back to her matrimonial house. PW-1 voluntarily deposed that on both these occasions, appellant, Jai Prakash did not allow her to even take food at the parental house. PW- 1, deposed that neither her daughter nor appellant, Jai Prakash came to the parental house after the discharge of her daughter from the hospital and further that the appellants set her on fire after three days of her discharge from the hospital. However, it was correct that she was not set on fire in her presence. After the death of her daughter, PW-1 had never gone to the house of the appellants, to meet her grand-son. Appellant, Jai Prakash came to the parental house at 3:00 am. in the night and asked ―AAP LOG RAT KO GAYE THE. RAJ BALA SE MILKAR AAYE THEY. USSE KYA KAH KER AAYE HO. VEH JAL KAR MAR GAI HAI.‖ PW-1 deposed that CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 6 of 45 it was correct that she had gone to the house of the appellants with her eldest son, husband and mediator, Ram Swaroop. PW-1 further deposed that a telephone was installed in the house of appellant and her daughter used to talk to her on the telephone installed at the residence of her neighbour. Again said that her daughter used to talk to her on telephone with her sons and husband. However, Rajbala never wrote any letter to them till her death. PW-1 also deposed that she had not stated in her statement recorded by the court that when they returned, at about 4:00 p.m. Jai Prakash had come to their house and threatened them by saying as to what they had told to their daughter and that she had died of burning. 8. PW-2, Raj Kumar, brother of the deceased deposed that Raj Bala was married to appellant, Jai Prakash on 17.6.1990. On 18/19th July, 1991 police came to their house at about 3:00 a.m and informed their father that Raj Bala had been burnt by appellant, Jai Prakash. 6-7 photographs and a list of dowry articles were handed over to the police which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW-2/1. PW-2 identified his signatures. 9. PW-2 was cross-examined by counsel for the appellants wherein he stated that his statement was recorded by the I.O. on 20.10.1991 and in that statement he had stated that on 18th/19th July, 1991 police came to their house at 3:00 am and informed his father that Raj Bala had been burnt by appellant Jai Prakash. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW-2/DA wherein it was not so recorded. As per PW-2 Ram Swaroop was the mediator in the marriage. PW-2 was on visiting terms with the in-laws of the deceased Raj Bala. Till her death, PW-2 visited the matrimonial home of Raj Bala on three or four occasions and his father went to the matrimonial home on three-four occasions. Apart from this, he had also CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 7 of 45 gone to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Diwali, Bhaidooj, Raksha Bhandhan and Holy. Till her death, Raj Bala came to the parental house on 20/22 occasions. He denied the suggestion that the articles taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/3 belonged to the appellants. 10. PW-3, Sh. Harbans Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 18.07.1991, at 2.00 p.m. he received a telephone message from his sister, Raj Bala, that she was being harassed by her in-laws and they should immediately come to her matrimonial home. Therefore, PW-3 along with his father, mother and mediator Ram Swaroop and two/three other family members reached the house of appellants at Badarpur, New Delhi. There Jai Prakash, father of Jai Prakash, Phool Singh, Dropadi and Kanta were present. As per PW-3, they asked them that they had not given sufficient dowry in the marriage of Raj Bala and now a son had been born to the couple about 20 days back, therefore, they should give Rs.20,000/-, in cash, 15/20 fine sarees, 5/6 gold chains, 5 gold rings, one gold earring and other articles on this occasion. They told the appellants that they would make the decision after going back to their house and asked the appellants to send Raj Bala with them, but they refused. PW-3, further deposed that as soon as they reached back to their house, Jai Prakash also came there and informed that Raj Bala had set herself on fire and was admitted to JPN Hospital. They went to the hospital and saw that Raj Bala had been badly burnt and was breathing her last. She died after some time. PW-3 identified the dead body in the mortuary at the hospital. 11. PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the appellants, wherein he deposed that Raj Kumar was his real brother and was present in the house when he (PW-3) received the telephone message from Raj Bala. However, Raj Kumar did not go with them to the house of the appellants. CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 8 of 45 The House of mediator, Ram Swaroop, was at a distance of 15/20 steps from their house and they were in continuous touch with him. PW-3 deposed that Jai Prakash was running a readymade garment‘s shop. He volunteered to say that whenever appellant, Jai Prakash, did not have goods in his shop, he used to come to them to demand money. PW-3 deposed that he never informed either the police or the Magistrate that he had received the telephone message from deceased, Raj Bala, in the night intervening 18/19.07.1991. PW-3 voluntarily deposed that SI Ram Singh had made enquiries from him at the time of handing over the dead body of Raj Bala and that PW-3 had informed him that he had received telephone message from Raj Bala at about 2.00 p.m. and thereafter they had gone to her in-laws house. He had also informed him that the appellants had demanded Rs.20,000/-, in cash, and jewellery, but did not give the details of the jewellery. Subsequently, SI Ram Singh, informed that he had reduced the substance of PW-3‘s statement in writing, however, the same was not read over to him by SI Ram Singh. PW-3 further deposed that till the death of Raj Bala they had not given any shagun on the occasion of the birth of his son to the couple. When he received a telephone message from his sister that she was being tortured by her in-laws, PW-3 did not report the matter to the police as he wanted to settle the matter amicably. He denied the suggestion that 2/3 days prior to the incident, his mother had gone to the house of the appellants and he further denied the suggestion that his mother had been instigating his sister to arrange for a separate house. He also denied that appellants never demanded Rs.20,000/-, in cash, and also jewellery artices. 12. PW-4, Sh. Hardwari Lal, deposed that telephone no.XXX was installed in his house. About 6/7 years ago, at about 9.45/10.00 a.m., Raj Bala telephone him and requested him to call her father Sh. Kedar Nath. PW-4 CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 9 of 45 called Sh. Kedar Nath to his house and who had a chat with his daughter on the telephone. As per PW-4, he did not ask anything from Sh. Kedar Nath and on the next day, he came to know that Raj Bala had died and she had been burnt. 13. PW-5, Sh. Ram Swaroop, has deposed that he performed the role of mediator in the marriage of Raj Bala with Jai Prakash. After the marriage, Sh. Kedar Nath never contacted him and also did not tell anything to him. At this stage, learned APP for the State requested to cross-examine the witness, as he was resiling from his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. 14. In the cross-examination by learned APP, PW-5 deposed that it was wrong to suggest that his statement was recorded by the police or that in the statement he had stated that on 18.07.1991, Sh. Kedar Nath had come to his house and informed that a telephonic message had been received from Raj Bala that her life was in danger and that on hearing this news he along with Kedar Nath and other relatives went to the house of the in-laws of Raj Bala. PW-5 denied having made any statement to the police. 15. In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-5 deposed that Raj Bala was happy with her in-laws and he had never received any complaint from her parents against the appellants. 16. PW-7, Ram Gopal, deposed in his cross-examination in chief that Kedar Nath, father of Raj Bala, was his neighbour. About 6-7 years ago, it was in winter season and he along with Kedar Nath had gone to the Police Station Badarpur. Kedar Nath showed some photographs of the marriage of Raj Bala to the police. Police recovered the dowry articles from the house at Molarband. PW-7 denied the suggestion in his cross- examination that nothing was recovered from the house of the appellants in his presence. CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 10 of 45 17. PW-8, Kedar Nath (father of the deceased) deposed that appellant Jai Prakash was his son-in-law and had married his daughter, Raj Bala, on 17.06.1990. On 18.07.1991, at about 10-10.15a.m. his daughter, Raj Bala, telephoned at the residence of their neighbour, Hardwari Lal, who thereafter called PW-8. PW-8 was informed by his daughter that her husband and parents-in-law were beating her and therefore they should immediately come to her matrimonial house. The deceased also informed that there was a danger to her life from her husband and parents-in-law and perhaps she might be killed on that very day. At about 2.30 p.m., PW-8 along with his son, Harbans Singh, his wife and mediator Ram Swaroop proceeded towards the house of the appellants and reached there at about 5.30 p.m. due to traffic jam. All the five appellants were sitting there. As per PW-8, the appellants asked them that since a son had been born to Raj Bala what would be given on this occasion. The appellants further asked to give sarees, chains, rings and Rs.20,000, in cash, in chuchak ceremony. PW-8 and others informed the appellants that they would think about it at their house. 18. At about 3 a.m., appellant Jai Prakash came to their house and asked as to what they had told to Raj Bala. Jai Prakash also informed that he and his family members had sprinkled kerosene oil on Raj Bala and set her on fire. In the meanwhile police also came the house of PW-8, alongwith appellant Sohan Lal. PW-8 further deposed that they went to JPN Hospital along with the Police and saw that Raj Bala was unable to speak as she was in a critical state and after sometime she died. The SDM recorded the statement of PW-8 vide Memo Ex.PW-8/1. PW-8 identified the dead body of his daughter in the hospital and handed over some photographs Ex.P/1. He also stated that police recovered some dowry articles from the house of appellant, Jai Prakash and his parents. CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 11 of 45 19. PW-8, in his cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, deposed that Ram Swaroop acted as a mediator in the marriage. PW-8 deposed that Ram Swaroop was his neighbour and knew him since a long time. Ram Swaroop had brought the proposal for the marriage of appellant Jai Prakash with Raj Bala. PW-8 further deposed that he did not make any enquiry about the character or antecedents of the appellants from their neighbours. He admitted as correct that his daughter Raj Bala stayed at the house of the appellants after her marriage, for about 13 months. During this period she came to the parental house twice or thrice. After the marriage PW-8 did not have any chat with Ram Swaroop and after the marriage of Raj Bala and till her death, Ram Swaroop never went to the house of the appellants with PW-8. PW-8 further deposed that it was correct that before or at the time of marriage, appellants did not make any demand for dowry. Thereafter he stated that at the time of marriage, appellant Phool Singh demanded a two-wheeler scooter and a cash of Rs.12,000/- or Rs.13,000/-. As per PW-8 he had given all these things to Phool Singh. However, he did not give the purchase receipt of the scooter to the police. He voluntarily deposed that it was given by PW-8 to appellant Phool Singh. As per PW-8 in his statement recorded by the police, he had informed them that a two-wheeler scooter had been given by him to Phool Singh at the time of marriage. PW-8 was confronted with statement Ex-PW-8/D-1 where it was not so recorded. PW-8 deposed that he went to the house of appellants once or twice and that his wife never went to the house of the appellants, till her death. His younger son visited the house of the appellants on the occasion of festivals so as to give customary items to the appellants. The other two sons never went to their house till the death of Raj Bala. CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 12 of 45 20. In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-8 deposed that he did not have a telephone connection at his house and a telephone was installed at the house of his neighbour, Hardwari Lal. There were four houses between his house and the house of Hardwari Lal. When the message regarding burning of his daughter was received on telephone at about 3:30 AM, PW-8 was present in his house. PW-8 thereafter stated that he came to know about the burning of his daughter from police officials for the first time who had come to his house in a jeep at about 3:30 AM. On 18.07.1991, Raj Bala had contacted him on telephone of Hardwari Lal, at about 10:00 AM in the morning. Except this call, PW-8 deposed to have never received any telephone call from his daughter nor his daughter ever wrote any letter to him. PW-8 deposed that it was correct that a male child was born to his daughter Raj Bala one month prior to the incident. As per the custom prevailing in their society, the in- laws of his daughter had to come to the parental house of Raj Bala to inform about the birth of male child and also to inform about their demand on this occasion. However, none of the family members or the appellants came to the parental house to inform about the birth of a child. At the time of delivery of child, PW-8 and his wife were present in the hospital. 21. PW-8 was confronted with his statement, Ex-PW-8/A-1 wherein the time was not mentioned. Further PW-8 stated to not remember whether in his statement recorded by the Court on 26.08.1997, it was stated by him that his daughter Raj Bala had informed him that her husband and her parents-in-law were beating her. PW-8 deposed that he did not state this fact to the police or to the SDM because his daughter never told any such fact to him on telephone. In his statement recorded by the police and the SDM, PW-8 deposed that his daughter had informed him that her life was CRL. A. No. 280/2001 and CRL. A. No. 333/2001 Page 13 of 45 in danger from her husband and parents-in-law and perhaps she might be killed on that very day. PW-8 was confronted with the statement Ex-PW- 8/D-1 and PW-8/1 where it was recorded that the deceased had informed the witness that her life was in danger. As per PW-8 he had also stated before the SDM and the police that Harbans Singh & Ram Swaroop had also gone to the house of the appellants along with him and his wife and that they had reached at about 5:30 PM due to traffic jam. PW-8 was yet again confronted with his statements Ex-PW-8/D-1 and PW-8/1 where it was only recorded that PW-8 had gone along with his wife to the house of the appellants. PW-8 was also confronted that in his statement it was not