MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Acquitted in 306/498A IPC


Sessions Case CNR No. DLSW01-­005806­-2017
Registration no. 308/2017

S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh
R/o D­203, Nawada Housing Complex, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.

FIR No. : 105/2017
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
U/s : 306/498A IPC
Date of Institution : 03.05.2017
Date when arguments
were heard : 25.10.2018
Date of Judgment : 25.10.2018

1. Adumbrated in brief the case of prosecution is that during the period of marriage of accused Amit with Rekha (since deceased) in the year 2014 till her death on 03.03.2017 at matrimonial home i.e. D­203, Nawada Housing Complex, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, accused under the influence of liquor used to beat deceased Rekha and subjected her to cruelty, harassment, physically and mentally and by such willful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive Rekha to commit suicide and thereafter Rekha committed suicide on 03.03.2017 after 8.40 P.M. at her matrimonial home aforesaid, for which by the aforesaid elicited acts the accused intentionally aided Rekha to commit suicide.

2. On completion of investigation, charge sheet for offence under Sections 306/498A IPC was filed.

3. After completion of requirements of Section 207 Cr.P.C., matter was committed to the court of Sessions.


4. Charge for offences under section 306/498A IPC was framed against the accused to which accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.


5. To connect the accused with the offences charged, prosecution has examined 3 witnesses.

6. PW1 first informant Arvind Kumar on entering witness box resiled from his previous statement Ex. PW1/PX and did not support the case of prosecution in any manner despite his cross examination at length by Ld. Addl. P.P. for State. PW1 testified that deceased Rekha was her elder sister and her relation with accused husband was cordial. As per PW1, on 03.03.2017 he received phone call of his minor niece PW3 who told PW1 that her mother had fallen from balcony. At that time, PW1 was just to have his meal but went running to place of deceased, saw her there lying on ground, with the help of accused and few persons of locality, PW1 took Rekha to Tarak Hospital when Rekha was somewhat breathing and from there she was taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, Delhi where she expired. PW1 stated that there were only some petty disputes between Rekha and her husband Amit. PW1 denied of being informed by his sister Rekha and PW3 regarding routine quarrels between her and accused. PW1 also denied of having received phone call of deceased at 8.30 P.M. on 03.03.2017 saying accused was quarreling with her. PW1 also denied that when he had reached at home of deceased then altercation between deceased and accused was going on. PW1 also denied that deceased was shouting loudly or saying she was fed up with daily quarrel or threatened to jump from railing or had ran towards balcony or jumped from balcony or PW1 and PW3 having ran after deceased.

See also  Whether jurisdiction of court depends on plea taken by defendant that he is tenant of suit premises?

7. PW2 Kamlesh is the mother of deceased who testified that after divorce from her first husband Neeraj in year 2009 or 2010, deceased was married second time with accused. PW2 stated that in the night of 03.03.2017, her son PW1 made phone call to her saying “Rekha ka paer rapat gaya hai, aa jao”. When PW2 reached Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Doctor declared Rekha dead. PW 2 stated that she was not knowing the reason of death of deceased and she stated that she did not used to visit the residence of deceased frequently so she did not knew the said reason. In cross examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for State, PW2 denied of having told SDM that accused did not do any work, came to home daily after consuming liquor and then quarreled with deceased and her daughter PW3, abused them and gave beatings to them. PW2 also denied of having told SDM that deceased was fed up with behaviour of accused or deceased was subjected to cruelty, physically or mentally by accused due to which deceased took extreme step. PW2 stated that she was not knowing the reason of death of deceased, so she could not treat accused being responsible to it. PW2 was cross examined at length and confronted with her previous statement Ex. PW2/PX but PW2 did not support the case of prosecution in any manner whatsoever.

8. The minor girl, the vulnerable witness PW3 was given name Ms. S and was examined in terms of “Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters” issued by Delhi High Court. In her deposition, PW3 has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner whatsoever despite having been cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. P.P. for State. PW3 stated that the deceased had gone to balcony to get the clothes dried when floor was wet there and grill of steel was also wet and the deceased had also held the grill but due to wetness, the deceased got slipped and fell down from the second floor to down below the house. In the hospital the deceased expired. PW3 denied of any quarrel having taken place between deceased and accused that day. PW3 also denied of the accused used to coming home after consuming liquor always or daily beating her or deceased.

See also  Whether court should grant interim relief if final relief can not be granted?

9. No iota of evidence is borne out from deposition of PWs 1, 2 and 3 that (1) during the period of subsistence of marriage of deceased with accused, deceased was ever subjected to physical or mental cruelty by accused by any willful conduct which was likely to drive deceased to commit suicide; (2) accused intentionally aided deceased in committing suicide by any act of harassment or mental or physical cruelty.

10. In the backdrop of resiling of the cited material witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 on record, deposition of other prosecution witnesses viz., police officials, Doctor as well as of Investigation Officer shall be an exercise in futility for trial of accused as no fact incriminating accused for offences charged has been deposed by these material witnesses. After hearing the Ld. Prosecutor and the accused and his counsel, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose shall be served for adjourning the matter for further prosecution evidence. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

11. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Prosecutor and the accused and his counsel and have perused the record.

12. For want of incriminating material pointing towards guilt of the accused for offences charged, examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was accordingly dispensed with.

13. After hearing the Ld. Prosecutor, accused Amit, Sh.Kapil Chaudhary, Ld. counsel for accused Amit in attendance, perusal from the material on record, I have reached the conclusion that the edifice raised by prosecution has crumbled to ground due to afore elicited resiling of cited and examined material witnesses, since on record of this matter, there is no iota of admissible evidence of accused having either (1) subjected the deceased Rekha to cruelty and harassment, physically and mentally; or (2) intentionally aided deceased Rekha to commit suicide. For want of evidence, arraigned accused Amit is held not guilty as prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Amit is acquitted. Bail bond of accused Amit is cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Accused Amit is directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/­ with one surety in like amount, under section 437 A Cr.P.C for period of 6 months with undertaking to appear before Appellate Court or this Court, if so called for.

See also  Whether joint owners of property can be given unequal share in partition?

14. File be consigned to record room after digitization of records.

Digitally signed by GURVINDER GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2018.10.25 11:12:31 +0530

Announced in the open court
(GURVINDER PAL SINGH) on 25th October, 2018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Breakup is not cheating. Malicious, baseless IPC.406, 417, 420, 506(i) quashed.
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation