CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 1 of 42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on January 15, 2010 CRL. A. No.76/2001 # Smt. Har Devi and Ors. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Adv. Versus State of Delhi .... Respondent Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Adv. CRL. A. No.87/2001 # Ravinder Rana ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Adv. Versus State 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 G.S. SISTANI, J. CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 2 of 42 1. Both the appeals have been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment dated 30.01.2001 and Order on Sentence dated 31.01.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session's case No. 22/1999, FIR No. 444/97, sections 498-A/304-B/34, Police Station Rohini of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, the ―IPC‖). Both the appeals were heard together and are accordingly, being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Vide Order on Sentence dated 31.01.2001 passed by the trial court, Ravinder Rana (appellant in CRL. A. No.87/2001) was sentenced to seven years R.I. under section 304-B IPC. Har Devi, Kuldeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh (appellants in CRL. A. No.76/2001) as well as Ravinder Rana were sentenced to two years of imprisonment under section 498-A IPC. A fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed upon each of them. In case of default in the payment of fine, appellants were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In case of Ravinder Rana, the sentence was directed to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge are that Smt. Suman was married to Sh. Ravinder Rana on 08.07.1992. On 13/14.08.1997, Smt. Suman was found hanging with a ceiling fan and chunni was tied around her neck. When Sh. Hukam Chand Verma, (father of Smt. Suman) reached her house and found her to be dead, he dialed number 100 and informed the police officials. On such information, police arrived at the spot. Investigation was conducted and challan was filed against four persons namely Ravinder Rana (husband of Suman), Har Devi (mother-in-law), Jagjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh (brothers-in-law of Suman). Post-trial, all the four appellants were convicted by the learned trial court. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined fourteen (14) witnesses. Statement of all the four appellants was recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C wherein they denied the allegations leveled against them. CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 3 of 42 Appellant, Ravinder Rana also got himself examined as a defence witness. It would be appropriate to analyse the evidence of the material witnesses. 5. Sh. Anupam Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants while impugning the judgment and order on conviction passed against the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is based on surmises and conjectures and that the trial court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in light of the settled position of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed in asmuchas, there was gross delay in lodging of the FIR (Ex. PW-7/B). He submits that it is the case of the prosecution that Hukum Chand Verma (PW-1) reached the spot at around 7:15 am and it was after about 15-20 minutes that the police arrived at the spot. Learned counsel submits that however, the statement of PW-1 was not recorded at that time and it was only after the post-mortem of the deceased, that the statement of PW-1 was recorded. It is submitted by learned counsel that it is the case of the prosecution that statement of PW1 was recorded at 1:00 p.m. and the FIR (Ex. PW-7/B) was registered at 4:30 p.m. Counsel submits that however no justifiable reason has been given for the delay of three and half hours in recording the FIR or statement and if in case the statement was recorded at 1:00 p.m., there was no reason to delay lodging of FIR. Further the corresponding entry i.e. DD no. 8A, vide which the FIR was registered, has not been proved nor any evidence has been produced by the prosecution regarding sending of the copy of FIR to senior officers including the concerned Magistrate. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined Sh. Hukum Chand Verma (PW-1), Smt. Kamlesh (PW-2), Sh. Shamsher Singh (PW-3) and Smt. Chander Kala (PW-4). However, they cannot be believed in view of the fact that a note (Ex. PW1/DA) written and signed by the deceased was found CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 4 of 42 wherein it was clearly stated that ―nobody is responsible for my death‖. The said note was opined by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to be in the handwriting of Suman (deceased) vide report Ex. PW14/A. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has convicted appellant, Ravinder Rana under section 304-B, IPC as well as 498-A, IPC. He submits that to bring a case within the fold of section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients: i. that the death of a woman was caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under natural circumstances. ii. that the death has taken place within 7 years of her marriage. iii. that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. iv. that the said cruelty and demand of dowry was meted out to her, soon before her death. 8. Learned counsel contends that, had the appellants tortured, harassed or maltreated the deceased, she would not have exonerated them and would have definitely mentioned the torture meted (if any) out to her, in the suicide note. Learned counsel submits that the deceased (Suman) had further mentioned in her suicide note that a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. three lacs only) taken from her father as well as the jewellery, be returned to her father. Learned counsel submits that by no stretch of imagination, can a loan be equated with a demand of dowry. It is submitted by him that even if it is assumed that some money was taken by Ravinder Rana from his in-laws, so as to purchase a property, such a loan cannot be said to be covered under the provisions of section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon the case of Baskar Ramappa Madan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported at 2009 (3) JCC 1622 (SC) and Satbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported at 2004 (2) JCC 274 (SC). 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the case of the prosecution with regard to demand of a car is baseless and without any foundation. The letters written by Suman dated 20.09.1993 (Ex. CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 5 of 42 PW1/C); dated 10.01.1994 (Ex. PW1/D) and her reply to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) dated 05.04.1994 (Ex. PW1/F) do not mention anything regarding the demand of a car, as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the story of the demand of car was cooked up by the prosecution witnesses only with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellants. Learned counsel submits that no complaint whatsoever, has ever been made by the deceased regarding any harassment or torture meted out to her by the in-laws, either to the police or any other authority. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the statements of prosecution witnesses namely, Kamlesh (PW2) and Shamsher Singh (PW3) were recorded on 19.08.1997, which is after a delay of 5 days. The statement of Chander Kala (PW4) was recorded after a delay of 32 days, although these witnesses met the police at the spot on the day of the incident and also the SDM at the mortuary. Learned counsel submits that the recording of the statements of prosecution witnesses was deliberately delayed so as to give time to the prosecution to fabricate a false case against the appellants. He submits that the prosecution witnesses are totally unreliable in view of the fact that their statement was recorded after undue and un-explained delay of days together. Learned counsel submits that since PW-2 and PW-4 had nothing against appellant Ravinder Rana, thus did not give any statement immediately after the incident and any statement made subsequently is nothing but a result of fabrication and due deliberations. It is submitted by the counsel that the statement of PW4 was only recorded after his bail application had been heard on 10.09.1999 and apparently the same was done so as to fill the lacunae in the case of the prosecution. 11. Learned counsel for appellant, Ravinder Rana submits that there are material discrepancies as well as improvements in the evidence led by prosecution witnesses and which go to the root of the matter. Learned counsel points out that Smt. Kamlesh (PW2) and Smt. Chander Kala CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 6 of 42 (PW4) have deposed before the Court that they became unconscious at the house of the deceased and did not go to the mortuary. However, Bhag Singh, SI (PW10) and Phulwari Singh, SI (PW12) have categorically stated that the mother, brother as well as the sisters of the deceased also accompanied the dead body to the mortuary. Even as per the brief facts (Ex. PW8/DA) recorded by the SDM at the mortuary, it is clearly established that parents of the deceased were present. Learned counsel also points out that Shamsher Singh (PW3) in his statement before the SDM had said nothing about the demand of dowry or car and in his evidence before the Court he stated that SDM had asked him to restrict himself to the incident of 14.08.1997, which fact was categorically denied by Sh. Vinay Bhushan, SDM (PW8). Even otherwise it does not seem probable that the SDM would restrict the statement of PW-3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of the prosecution witnesses that on the next date of marriage, Suman disclosed that a car was demanded and that she was taunted by her in-laws is apparently not true as neither this fact was mentioned in the FIR nor in the statement of any other witness. All the witnesses were confronted with the said contradiction. Further while PW-1 stated that this fact was told to him by Suman herself, PW-2 stated that Suman had instructed them not to disclose this fact to their father (PW-1). Furthermore, none of the prosecution witnesses have alleged that there was any demand of dowry at the time of marriage. The next allegation of PW-1 and PW-2 that after a few days, Suman came to her parental house as she had been harassed and beaten by the appellants, was not only confronted to the witnesses but PW-3 and PW-4 have not alleged any such incident against the appellants. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that when Suman had left the matrimonial home on two different occasions, it was Ravinder Rana who had filed applications (Ex. DW4/A dated 06.10.1993 and Ex. DW4/F dated 01.03.1994) before the DCP, seeking her return to CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 7 of 42 the matrimonial home. He submits that infact, on 17.09.1993, Ravinder Rana had been transferred to Vijaywada and Suman was taken away by PW1 on 26.09.1993 only to pressurize Ravinder Rana to live in AzadPur and to not go to Vijaywada. It was done at a time when the mother of Ravinder Rana was admitted in hospital for operation on 11.09.1993. It is argued that to pressurize Ravinder Rana further, PW1, admittedly got Suman transferred to a school in Ashok Vihar and it was only after Ravinder Rana had resigned from his job of Executive Officer in the ‗Food and Vegetable Project‘, Mother Dairy and he started living separately from his parents, did Suman rejoin his company. Ravinder Rana as DW-4 has also proved the order (EX. DW-4/B) dated 17.09.1993 regarding his transfer to VIjaywada, his resignation letter (Ex. DW-4/D) and acceptance thereof. Ravinder Rana had thereafter filed application, Ex. DW4/A dated 06.10.1993 to the DCP and upon his advice Suman returned to the matrimonial home on 18.10.1993. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact PW1 and PW2 denied any knowledge regarding the transfer or resignation by Ravinder Rana or that his mother was admitted in hospital. Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel submits that it is very much apparent that the said witnesses were deliberately hiding these material facts, although the letter (Ex. PW1/C) allegedly written by Suman, clearly mentions this fact. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is very likelihood that letters Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D were infact fabricated subsequently only to create some evidence which the prosecution witnesses could only in case of need, and the same is evident from the fact that the friend to whom letter Ex. PW1/C was addressed by Suman, was not listed as a prosecution witness nor any verification of the genuineness of the seal affixed on letter, Ex. PW1/D was carried out. Learned counsel submits that if these letters were actually sent on the dates alleged, then there was no reason why their reference was not given at the time when Suman gave her reply (Ex. PW-1/f) dated 05.04.1994 to the application (Ex. PW-1/f) of CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 8 of 42 Ravinder Rana to DCP, Ashok Vihar. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even if the letters examined by prosecution and allegedly written by deceased are admitted at their face value, the same do not advance the cause of the prosecution in asmuchas, the allegations levelled therein, do no make out a case against appellant, Ravinder Rana under section 498A, IPC. Even otherwise, the allegations were deemed to have been condoned by Suman when she joined the matrimonial home post conciliation. 13. It is next submitted that Suman had left her matrimonial home for the second time on 11.02.1994 along with her father as appellant, Ravinder Rana had not shifted to Azad Pur. However, it is PW1‘s own version that Ravinder Rana had brought Suman back to the matrimonial home. Ravinder Rana had also moved an application (Ex. DW-4/F) to DCP on 01.03.1994 and he had stated the actual reason as to why Suman had left the matrimonial home. The prosecution did not suggest to Ravinder Rana (DW4) that the averments made in Ex. PW1/E or Ex. PW4/F were wrong. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon reply (Ex. PW1/F) dated 05.04.1994 filed by Suman, to the application of Ravinder Rana, and submits that it is nowhere stated that any car was ever demanded by the appellants or she was harassed in regard to the same. Learned counsel submits that the said reply clearly brings out that Suman was never harassed by her in-laws. Learned counsel further points out that it was appellant, Ravinder Rana who had filed an application (Ex. PW2/DJ) before the Legal Aid Cell for re-conciliation. Thus it is apparent that Ravinder Rana had tried his best to reconcile the matrimonial disputes. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation levelled against appellant, Ravinder Rana that in March 1997, he had requested PW1 for arranging an accommodation near the school for which the entire payment of Rs. 3.25 lacs was made by PW1, was false and appellant, Ravinder Rana (DW4) has proved agreement to sell (Ex. CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 9 of 42 DW4/H), pertaining to the said property to which PW1 was a witness and showed that the flat was purchased not for Rs. 3.25 lacs but for Rs. 6.45 lacs. Ravinder Rana also proved documents Ex. PW4/J and Ex. PW4/L inter alia showing that all the money regarding the said flat was arranged by Ravinder Rana from his own sources. Learned counsel submits that prosecution has alleged that on 13.08.1997 (in the morning of 14.08.1997 Suman was found hanging) at around 8:30 p.m., Suman had made a telephone call to PW-1 and informed him that she had been beaten on that day as well and that her in-laws were demanding a car. It is submitted that it is an unnatural conduct on the part of PW-1, to not go to the house of his daughter, Suman immediately and to tell her that he would visit her the next day. 15. Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the apparent and major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, no presumption can be drawn against appellant, Ravinder Rana under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that the prosecution has been unable to prove that Suman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry, leave alone that the said cruelty and demand of dowry was meted out to her, soon before her death. Learned counsel submits that infact Ravinder Rana has stood up and narrated true facts before the Court. He has withstood incisive cross- examination and the prosecution was unable to dent his credibility. Ravinder Rana as DW-4 has categorically narrated the sequence of events immediately before the death of Suman, and as per which on 13.08.1997 Ravinder Rana had prepared khichri for Suman which she vomited and asked Ravinder to sleep in the drawing room. In the morning, when Ravinder Rana went to wake her up, he found her hanging with the ceiling fan. Therafter, Ravinder gave a telephonic call to his in-laws, who reached the spot. Counsel contended that appellant, Ravinder Rana had tried his level best to make Suman adjust to the CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 10 of 42 village atmosphere, and photographs Ex. PW-2/D, E, F, G and H with her husband and other relations are testimony to the fact that she was happy in her matrimonial home. However, all went in vain due to the constant interference of her parents. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of section 498A, IPC and no case is made out against appellant, Ravinder Rana under section 498A, IPC much less under section 304B, IPC. 16. Sh. Anupam Sharma, while arguing on behalf of appellants Kuldeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh (appellants in CRL. A. No.76/2001; appellants are real brothers of Ravinder Rana, husband of the deceased) submits that while these two appellants were convicted under section 498A, IPC, no case is made out against them also. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that the deceased was residing with her husband in a joint family house, which was very large. He contends that one of the appellants (Sh. Kuldeep Singh) never jointly resided with the deceased and her husband in asmuchas, he was residing 15 kilometers away at Rani Bagh. Appellant, Sh. Jagjit Singh, although was residing in the same house, had a separate kitchen. It is also submitted that since brothers-in-law were staying separately, no benefit from the dowry could have been derived by them, they had no role to play in the day to day affairs of the house and they have thus been falsely implicated in this matter. 17. While relying upon the arguments advanced for and on behalf of appellant Ravinder Rana, Sh. Anupam Sharma (counsel) submits that there are no allegations of any demand of dowry or harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellants Kuldeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh, in the FIR (Ex. PW-1/A) or the brief facts (Ex. PW8/A) recorded by the SDM on the date of occurrence of the incident. Counsel points out that even in the statement (Ex. PW3/A) of Shamsher Singh (PW-3) recorded after a delay of 5 days and Chander Kala (PW-4; Ex. PW4/A) recorded CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 11 of 42 after a delay of 32 days, no allegations have been levelled against the two appellants, Kuldeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh. 18. Sh. Anupam Sharma, arguing on behalf of appellants, Kuldeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh further submits that even in the letters allegedly written by Suman, dated 20.09.1993 (Ex. PW1/C) and dated 10.01.1994 (Ex. PW1/D), there are no allegations against the two appellants that they ever harassed the deceased. No role has been ascribed to them leave alone any specific incident of harassment having been related to them. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants (Ravinder Rana, Kuldeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh) further points out that both PW-1 and PW-2 have admitted in their cross-examination that Suman had received grievous injuries in an accident in March 1996. A tyre of a truck had passed over her and she had suffered multiple fractures. Suman received treatment for accidental injuries till July 1997 and the discharge slip (Ex. PW-1/DZ) from Hindu Rao Hospital is ample testimony to this fact. Learned counsel has relied upon a certified copy of a petition filed before MACT by Suman wherein she had given the correct and true position of the injuries suffered by her and submits that infact the medical papers (Ex. PW-2/DZ) pertaining to Suman were deliberately removed and found in the possession of PW-1. The same was done with an intention to hide the actual reason for the death of Suman. Learned counsel submits that PW-1 has himself admitted in his cross-examination that Suman was suffering from unbearable pain and that she used to have suicidal thoughts. Learned counsel further points out that even as per the post mortem report of the deceased, there were no signs of any beating on her person. Learned counsel submits that Suman had committed suicide as she was tired of her illness and unbearable pain. In view of the arguments advanced, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no case is made out against any of the appellants and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. CRL. A. No.76/2001 and CRL. A. No.87/2001 Page 12 of 42 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the three appellants on all fronts and there is no anomaly in the judgment rendered by the trial court. Learned counsel submits that immediately on the next day of the marriage, Suman had complained that her in-laws were demanding a car and were taunting her that these days even an LDC brings a car in dowry whereas Ravinder Rana was an officer. In May, 1993, a daughter was born to Suman and Ravinder Rana, however, the parents of Suman were not called to join the celebrations. 21. Learned counsel for the State submits that on 20.3.1993 the deceased had also addressed a letter to her sister Kamlesh, wherein she had specifically stated that she was being subjected to constant torture and harassment by her in-laws and that on 26.9.1993, Suman went back to the house of her parents because of the repeated demands of a car and the constant harassment by her in-laws. On 16.10.1993, Ravinder Rana made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and on 18.10.1993 a settlement was arrived at between Ravinder Rana and Suman whereafter the latter came back to the matrimonial home. Learned counsel submits that the fact that Suman had left the matrimonial home at the first instance goes to show that all was not well within the family and that