SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State vs B.Raj Sharma & Ors. on 20 February, 2017

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.L.P. 74/2016

                   Judgment reserved on : 10th January, 2017
                   Date of decision : 20th February, 2017

       STATE                                                   ..... Petitioner

                          Through:    Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for State.

                          versus

        B.RAJ SHARMA  ORS.                             ..... Respondents

                          Through:    Mr.Jitender Sethi, Mr. Naveen Kumar
                                      and Mr.A.Rohen Singh, Advocates for
                                      R-1 and R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

                                     JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. Notice of this petition Crl.L.P. No.74/2016 seeking leave to appeal and
seeking condonation of delay in institution of the appeal was issued to the
respondents in terms of order dated 9th February, 2016, pursuant to which the
respondents have put in appearance. The delay of 21 days in institution of the
Criminal Leave to Appeal petition was condoned vide order dated 22nd March,
2016 whereby Criminal Leave Petition was allowed. The trial court record
having been requisitioned, has been received, perused and considered.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 1 of 88

2. Through Criminal L.P. No.74/2016 which is treated to be one under
Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C, the State has sought leave to file an appeal against
the impugned judgment dated 16th September, 2015 of the Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Rohini Courts in State Case No.67/2012 in relation to FIR 95/12
registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, whereby, respondents No. 1 and
2, Sh.B. Raj Sharma S/O Sh. B. Shahi Sharma, i.e., the husband of the deceased
(Smt.Reena Goyal) and Ms. Chanchan D/o Sh. B. Shahi Sharma (Sister of
respondent No.1 Sh. B. Raj Sharma and sister-in-law of the deceased Reena
Goyal) were acquitted in relation to the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Section 498A/304B of the IPC, 1860 and also for the
alternative charge framed on 4th September, 2012 under Section 302/34 of the
IPC, 1860.

3. Arguments were addressed on behalf of the State by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Aashaa Tiwari and on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 by Mr.Jitender Sethi, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2.

4. Through the charge-sheet, the State sought the prosecution of the two
accused, i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for the alleged commission of the
offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC. The alternative charge
under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 was framed in terms of order dated 4.9.2012
by the learned Trial Court in view of the verdict of the Supreme Court in
SLP(Crl.) No.9507/2010 titled Rajbir @ Raju Anr. v. State of Haryana.

PROSECUTION VERSION

5. As per the facts put forth through the charge-sheet instituted on 5th July,
2012 in the Court of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi
and taken up by the Court of Sessions of the Additional Sessions Judge (North-
West) Rohini, on committal on 16th August, 2012, an enquiry entrusted to SI

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 2 of 88
Sanjay Tomar was initiated pursuant to DD No.35A lodged at Police Station
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi on 3rd April, 2012 (EX.PW-1/A) (Page 43 of the
TCR) recorded by HC Ved Pal on receipt of information from Ct. Dhirender
No.2212 of the PCR at 10:35 p.m. that the operator of the OMEGA-64 had vide
intercom informed the PCR that a girl had fallen from her house No.364, Indira
Vihar and had been injured. As per EX.PW-1/A, a telephonic information of
the same was given to SI Sanjay Tomar to whom the enquiry was entrusted.

6. SI Sanjay Tomar, as per the charge-sheet, on reaching house No.364,
Indira Vihar, Delhi learnt that the lady who had fallen from the building had
been injured and shifted to the Trauma Centre Hospital and thus SI Sanjay
Tomar deputed Ct. Phool Kumar No.1133 (NW) for preserving the scene of the
incident and himself went to the Trauma Centre Hospital where he got the MLC
No.147501 of Reena Goyal wife of B.Raj Sharma , aged 32 years, resident of
House No. 364, Indira Vihar, IIIrd Floor, on which it had been mentioned by the
doctor `alleged history of fall from third floor’ and that the patient had been
declared ‘ brought dead’. The dead body was got preserved in the mortuary of
the BJRM Hospital and thereafter SI Sanjay Tomar, the initial Investigating
Officer, came back to the spot and lifted exhibits from the scene of the incident,
that is, the earth control with blood and earth control without blood, which were
both sealed with the seal of TS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-20/A. A
mobile phone of the deceased, a pair of slippers, a key of EON car and the EON
Car No. DL-8C-88 1572 were also taken into police possession by SI Sanjay
Tomar vide seizure memos Ex.PW-20/C. The Crime team of the North-West
District was also called to the spot and the spot was inspected/investigated and
the photographs of the place of the occurrence were got taken by the said crime
team at the instance of SI Sanjay Tomar. The charge-sheet further indicates that
the father of the deceased Reena Goyal Sh. Sita Ram Goyal S/O Late Fakir

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 3 of 88
Chand Goyal, R/o 36-37, Grand Hotel Building, 2 Under Hill Road, Civil Lines
Delhi, reached the mortuary at the BJRM hospital where he identified the dead
body of his daughter and also gave his statement to Mr. M.P.Kushwaha, the
Executive Magistrate, Model Town.

A- AVERMENTS IN FIR

7. The statement made by Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, the father of the deceased
Reena Goyal, to Mr. M.P. Kushwaha the Executive Magistrate, Model Town,
Delhi is placed along with the charge-sheet on the record of the Trial Court as
Ex.PW-11/A (Page 533). The said statement of the father of the deceased dated
4th April, 2012 was to the effect that his daughter Reena Goyal, an Advocate,
was married to Mr.Raj B. Sharma (respondent No.1), a native of Manipur, who
was living at Indira Vihar, Delhi. As per Ex.PW-11/A, Sh.Raj B. Sharma, i.e.,
the respondent No.1 and husband of the deceased had taken the deceased Reena
Goyal on 7th March, 2012, a Wednesday, to his tenanted accommodation at
Indira Vihar. On 8th March, 2012, respondent No.1 (the husband of the
deceased) along with his mother and along with his sister Chanchan
(respondent No.2) had left Reena Goyal (the deceased daughter of Sh. Sita Ram
Goyal, the complainant) at his house. As per Ex. PW-11/A, the statement made
by Sh. Sita Ram Goyal to the Executive Magistrate, Mr. M.P. Kushwaha, after
leaving his daughter, the deceased, on 8th March, 2012, at his house, the
respondents, that is the husband and in-laws of the deceased never came to take
her back and further that the respondent No.1 went away to Manipur with his
mother.

8. As per Ex.PW-11/A, the first statement made by Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, the
father of the deceased Reena Goyal, stated to the Executive Magistrate that on
3.3.2012 at about 9:30 p.m. his daughter had taken her car to the house of
Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 to make enquiries in relation to respondent

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 4 of 88
No.1 and at about 10:30 p.m. Chanchan (i.e. respondent No.2) telephoned on
the land line at the house of the complainant, i.e., the father of Reena Goyal (the
deceased) had fallen down and that he should come soon, whereafter another
call was received to the effect that Sita Ram Goyal should go to the Trauma
Centre and then his family members reached the Trauma Centre. Ex.PW-11/A
dated 4.4.2012, the first statement made by the father of the deceased (Reena
Goyal) to the Executive Magistrate, further indicated that after the marriage of
his daughter, the deceased, with the respondent No.1, he was compelled to give
an EON Car. PW-11, Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, the father of the deceased further
stated vide Ex.PW-11/A that he felt that his daughter could not commit suicide
and that B. Raj Sharma and Chanchan, the respondents No.1 and 2, were
responsible for the deceased having fallen down.

9. As per Ex.PW2/B the endorsement made by the Executive Magistrate,
the SHO of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar was directed to take legal action as
per law, whereafter pursuant to the direction of the SHO PS Mukherjee Nagar
dated 4.4.2012, the FIR was registered under Section 498A/304B of the IPC at
Police Station Mukherjee Nagar and the investigation was directed to be
handed over to Inspector Subhash Chand. DD No.14A and 15A are thereafter
indicated to have been registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, dated
4.4.2012 in relation to registration of FIR 95/12.

B – INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED

10. As per the charge-sheet, vide his supplementary statement under Section
161
Cr.P.C. 1973, Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, the father of the deceased, stated that he
had borne all the expenses of the marriage of his daughter Smt.Reena Goyal, the
deceased, and had also given an EON car after the marriage, on the demands of
his daughter’s in-laws’ and that thereafter also her in-laws demanded money
many times. Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, through his supplementary statement, also

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 5 of 88
alleged that his daughter Smt.Reena Goyal had died as a result of atrocities
inflicted upon her by her husband and Chanchan (respondents No.1 and 2 ) and
her mother-in-law.

11. The charge-sheet further indicates that Ms.Chanchan/respondent No.2
was arrested on 5.4.2012 from her house in the presence of a lady constable and
was thereafter produced before the Court. The accused/respondent No.1/
husband of the deceased, was arrested on 7.4.2012 from House No.364, Indira
Vihar, Delhi where he came after learning of the demise of the deceased. The
charge-sheet further indicates that a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was
served on the complainant for providing necessary documents/information. It is
also stated that no eye witness could be traced out as the incident was in the odd
hours of the night. The charge sheet indicates that evidence was collected
during investigation and the exhibits were sent to the FSL Rohini, GNCT of
Delhi for an expert opinion. The FSL result was filed vide a supplementary
charge sheet filed on 23.3.2013 which was committed to the Court of Sessions
on 25.3.2013 and the said FSL result is Ex.PW-12/B which indicated that on
chemical and TLC examination of Ex.1A, the viscera of the deceased
containing pieces of the small intestine and of the stomach kept in a jar and Ex.
1B pieces of the liver, spleen and kidney kept in a sealed jar and Ex.1C blood
sample kept in a sealed vial, it was indicated that no metallic poison, ethyl and
methyl alcohol, cynide phosphied, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and
pesticides could be detected in the same. The biological report Ex.PW-18/A and
the serological report Ex.PW-18/B as per which blood was detected on
Exhibits.1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2, 3 and 4 indicate the presence of blood on the
clothes of the deceased and on the blood stained earth soil

12. Ex.PW24/B placed on record is an application of Inspector Subhash
Chand of the Crime Investigation Team addressed to the Chief Medical Officer,

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 6 of 88
Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri requesting that the cause of death be
given; as in the post-mortem report dated 4.4.2012 No.277/12 conducted on
4.4.2012 at the mortuary at the BJRM Hospital, the doctor had stated that the
cause of death could be given after examination of the viscera report Ex.PW-
12/C. The opinion given by Dr.Bhim Singh MD (Forensic Medicine), Incharge
Mortuary of the BJRM Hospital, Jahagir Puri, is to the effect that the viscera
analysis report had negated any common poison and that the death was due to
coma and shock consequent upon multiple injuries and could be caused by
blunt/surface impact due to fall from height as alleged. As per the charge-sheet,
no eye-witness could be traced as the incident had taken place at odd night
hours.

CHARGES FRAMED

13. The charge of allegations framed against the two respondents vide order
dated 4.9.2012 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II (NW), Rohini, was to the
effect that between 2.11.2011 and 3.4.2012, the respondents No.1 and 2, i.e., the
husband and the sister-in-law (nanad) of the deceased, in furtherance of their
common intention had subjected the deceased Smt. Reena Goyal to cruelty by
making illegal demands of dowry of a house and harassed her and given her
beatings at house No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of
Police Station Mukherjee Nagar and had committed an offence punishable
under Section 498A/34 of the IPC, 1860. The two respondents were also
charged with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section
304B/34 of the IPC, 1860 to the effect that both of them in furtherance of their
common intention had caused the death of Smt. Reena Goyal otherwise than in
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that soon before
her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the
respondent No.1, her husband, and respondent No.2, the sister-in-law for, or in

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 7 of 88
connection with the demand of dowry and an alternative charge was also framed
against the two respondents to the effect that they in furtherance of their
common intention committed the murder of Smt.Reena Goyal and had
committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC,
1860. The two respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge of allegations and
claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

14. In support of the prosecution version, the State examined twenty four
witnesses. In terms of order dated 4.9.2012 of the learned trial court, the formal
witnesses at serial Nos. 7 to 10 and 12 to 16, as detailed in the list of witnesses
submitted by the prosecution with the charge-sheet, were directed to be
examined by way of affidavits, in terms of Section 296 Cr.P.C., 1973. The
affidavits of the following witnesses were submitted by the State on 19.10.2012:

Sr. No.                Name
1.                ....
2.                ....
3.                ....
4.                ....
5.                ....
6.                .....
7.                DO/HC Vedpal
8.                DO/WHC Regina Tirki
9.                Ct.Parminder No. 1540/NW
10.               SI Sanjeev Verma
11.               Ct. Joginder No.727/NW
12.               Ct. Phool Kumar No.1133/NW
13.               HC Jagdish No.395/PCR
14.               L/Ct. Kuldeep No. 1093/NW
15.               MHC(M) CP HC Kailash No.1762/NW

16. MHC(M) with case property PS Mukherjee Nagar Delhi.

17. ….

18. …..

19. …..

20. …..

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 8 of 88

21. …..

FORMAL WITNESSES EXAMINED

15. PW-1, HC Ved Pal No.984/NW through his affidavit Ex.PW1/1
tendered by him through his testimony on 19.11.2012 deposed to having
recorded the call received from the Control Room, when he was working as
Duty Officer at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, regarding one girl having
fallen from House No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi and having been injured on
3.4.2012 and testified to the effect that he recorded the call vide DD No.35A
and entrusted the same to SI Sanjay Tomar telephonically as he was already
attending a call related to a quarrel. On being cross-examined, this witness, the
Duty Officer at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on the date of the incident
3.4.2012 stated that the SHO was present in the police station at that time,
though he had not brought this intimation to the knowledge of the SHO. PW1
HC Ved Pal, however, denied that DD No.35 A had been ante timed.

16. PW-2, W/HC RejinaTirkey No.536/NW, through her affidavit
Ex.PW2/1 tendered by her through her testimony dated 19.11.2012 on which
she identified her signatures testified to having registered FIR No.95/12 under
Section 498A/304B of the IPC at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi on
4.4.2012 when she was posted as a Duty Officer at the said Police Station from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., which FIR, she stated was registered on receipt of a complaint
from Sh. Sita Ram Goyal s/o Late Fakir Chand Goyal, R/o 36-37, Grand Hotel
Building, 2 Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, along with an endorsement of
Mr.M.P.Kushwah, SDM Model Town. She further stated through her affidavit
Ex.PW-2/1 that the original tehrir and copy of the FIR was given to Inspector
Subhash Chand, the Investigating Officer of the Police Station Mukherjee
Nagar. Through her cross-examination, this witness stated that the SHO had
made his endorsement on the statement of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal , i.e., the
Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 9 of 88
complainant which was brought to her by Ct. Joginder. This witness denied that
the FIR was ante timed and also denied that the document was manipulated.

17. PW-3, Ct. Parminder No.1540/NW tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-3/1
in examination-in-chief (examined by the State was) through his testimony
dated 19.11.2012, on which he identified his signatures vide which he testified
to having taken many photographs of the spot at house No.364, Indira Vihar,
Delhi from different angles on the instructions of SI Sanjay Tomar who arrived
at 1.20 a.m.. He testified to having submitted the photographs after their
preparation. This witness also testified through his affidavit Ex.PW-3/1 that he
had reached the spot at the house No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi along with SI
Sanjeev Verma, Chief-Incharge Crime Team on receipt of call at 1:10 a.m. on
04.04.2012 where Ct. Phool Kumar No.1133/NW was already present securing
the scene of the crime.

On being cross-examined on behalf of the respondents, the witness stated
that he had not taken the photographs of the entire complex where the house
No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi on the third floor was situated and from the outside
and he had taken a photograph only of the third floor portion leading to the
entry at the said flat. He denied that the photographs did not indicate that the
portion was of the third floor. He also denied having not visited the spot on the
date and time testified by him and denied having taken the photographs after
manipulation of the scene of the incident.

18. PW4 examined was SI Sanjeev Verma, who tendered his affidavit
Ex.PW-4/1. Through his examination-in-chief he testified to the said affidavit
bearing his signatures thereon. Vide Ex.PW-4/1, the witness testified to having
been posted in the Crime Team (North-West) and stated that on 4.4.2012 at 1.10
a.m. on receipt of the call, he along with Ct. Parminder No.1540/NW reached
the spot at house No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi where Ct. Phool Chand

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 10 of 88
No.1130/NW was already present securing the scene of the crime. He further
testified that at 1:20 a.m. SI Sanjay Tomar arrived at the spot and on his
instructions Ct. Parminder took many photographs from different angles and an
inspection report Ex.PW4/A bearing the signatures of PW-4 SI Sanjeev
Verma was handed over to the Investigating Officer.

19. The said crime team inspection report was testified by PW-4 is Ex.PW-
4/A. This witness on being cross-examined on behalf of the accused stated that
there was no public person found at the spot when they reached there and that
only police officials were present. He also stated that SI Sanjay Tomar has not
made any enquiry from the neighbourhood and remained at the spot for about
30 minutes and the photographs were taken by a digital camera of the Crime
team. It was stated by him further that his statement was not recorded by the
Investigating Officer at the spot and that the same was recorded subsequently.
The witness further denied that he had not visited the scene of crime and denied
that he had not joined the proceedings.

20. PW5 examined was HC Jagdish, who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW5/1
bearing his signatures in examination-in-chief dated 19.11.2012. Through his
affidavit Ex.PW-5/1, it was stated by this witness that he was the I/c
Commnder-8 in the PCR Van from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m on 3/4-4/2012 and at 10:40
p.m. Commnder-1 entrusted a call received from 9899744216, about a girl lying
at House No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi in an injured condition and he, i.e., PW-5
along with the staff reached the spot in a government vehicle and from there the
injured was taken to the Trauma Centre. As per Ex.PW-5/1, after reaching the
Trauma Centre information about the call was given to the Commnder-1, – that
Reena Goyal W/o B.Raj R/o 36/37, Grand Hotel Building, 2 Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi, aged 33 years had come to meet her sister-in-law (Bhabhi)
Ms.Chanchan at H. No.364, Indira Vihar, and had fallen from the third floor

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 11 of 88
unknowingly. Through Ex.PW-5/1, the witness said that the injured had been
admitted to the Trauma Centre in an unconscious state by Ct. Shishupal,
No.1470/N and that the call was entrusted to SI Sanjay Tomar of Police Station
Mukherjee Nagar.

21. On being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, the
witness stated that he had received a call from the PCR that Reena Goyal had
gone to meet her sister-in-law Chanchan at H. No.364, Indira Vihar , Delhi and
that when he reached the spot many public persons had already gathered there.
The witness further stated that the accused Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 had
accompanied them to the hospital. He further stated that he had reached the
Trauma Centre at about 11.07 to 11.08 minutes and that the local police had not
come to the Trauma Centre in his presence.

22. PW-6 putforth in the witness box by the State is W/Ct. Sudesh No.8567/
NW, who through her testimony dated 19.1.2012 vouched to Ex.PW-6/1 being
her affidavit bearing her signatures. She testified through Ex.PW-6/1 that on
5.4.2012 she was posted at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar Delhi and on the
direction of Inspector Subhash Chand she had joined the investigation of the
case and that the Investigating Officer had visited the residence of the father of
the deceased Sh. Sita Ram Goyal and had recorded his statement under
Section
161
of the Cr.P.C. whereafter she along with the Investigating Officer had
reached the spot at House No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi where the Investigating
Officer arrested the accused Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 and she conducted
her personal search in which nothing was found. She testified further to the
preparation of the arrest memo Ex.PW-6/A, personal search memo Ex.PW-6/B
and the disclosure statement of the accused Chanchan Ex.PW-6/C having been
conducted and recorded by the Investigating Officer Inspector Subhash Chand.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 12 of 88

23. She further stated that the accused Chanchan was got medically examined
at the BJRM Hospital during her custody and that of Ct. Phool Kumar, and
then the accused / respondent No.2 had been taken to the Rohini Courts and
produced before the Court where she was remanded to judicial custody for the
purpose of investigation.

24. On being cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, PW-6 stated
that they reached the house of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal at about 8:30 a.m. where
there was a lady present in the house but she could not tell about her relation
with Sh. Sita Ram Goyal nor could she recollect if the Investigating Officer had
told Sh. Sita Ram Goyal to call the other members of the family so that they
could be interrogated. She further admitted that there was a large number of
persons gathered at the house of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal but she did not know
whether they were related or not but the Investigating Officer recorded the
statement of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal only, but the witness could not recollect as to
how many statements of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal were recorded on 5.4.2012. She
further stated that they remained at the house of Sh.Sita Ram Goyal and that she
could not recollect the exact time and the Investigating Officer had sent the
tehrir to the police station after recording the statement of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal
through some police officer.

25. The witness further stated that when they reached the house of the
accused / respondent No.2 Chanchan at about 9:30 a.m., the Investigating
Officer did not join any neighbour or any public person in the proceedings when
the accused Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 herein, was arrested and she further
stated that apart from Chanchan, there was a gentleman present in the house at
the time of the arrest but she (PW-6) did not know whether he was the father or
someone else but the Investigating Officer had not obtained the signatures of
that person on any of the documents present at the house of accused Chanchan.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 13 of 88

This witness denied that she had not been joined in the proceedings at any time
and denied that all the documents were prepared at the police station or that all
proceedings were conducted at the police station itself. She also denied that the
signatures of the accused Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 herein, were obtained
on a blank paper to falsely involve her in a case.

26. PW-7 examined was Ct. Kuldeep, No.1093/NW, who testified through
his testimony dated 19.11.2012 to affidavit Ex.PW-7/1 bearing his signatures
vide which he deposed that on 29.5.2012 on the instructions of the Investigating
Officer he had taken the exhibits of the case from the MHC(M) CP vide RC
No.37/21/12 (Ex.PW-7/A) and 38/21/12 (Ex.PW-7/B) to be deposited at the
FSL, Rohini where he had deposited the exhibits. He stated further that he
handed over the copy of the RC and the acknowledgement FSL-2012/C 3857
FSL-2012/B3836 dated 29.05.2012 to the Investigating Officer. The witness
also stated that the exhibits were safe and sealed and intact till they remained in
his custody.

27. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, the witness denied
that the case property had been tampered with the whilst exhibits were in his
custody.

28. PW-8 put forth in the witness box by the State is HC Kailash
No.1762/NW who in his testimony on oath on 9.10.2012 tendered his
examination-in-chief vide his affidavit Ex.PW-8/1 on which he identified his
signatures. This witness placed reliance on entries in Register No.XIX vide No.
2864/12 and 2865/12, i.e., Ex.PW-8/A Ex.PW-8/B and vide which it was put
forth that HC Kailash had made the entries in Register No.XIX on the receipt of
the exhibits/case property from the Investigating Officer on 4.4.2012. This
witness further testified to the effect that on 29.5.2012 on the instructions of the
Investigating Officer Inspector Subhash Chand, the exhibits of the case were

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 14 of 88
handed over by him to HC Kuldeep No.1093/NW with the sample seal for
depositing in the FSL Rohini vide RC No.37/21/12 (Ex.PW-7/A) and RC
No.38/21/12 (Ex.PW-7/B) which were taken from the Maalkhana of Police
Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and copy of the RC and the case receipts were
handed over to Ct. Kuldeep, the receipts being Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/D.
This witness further testified to the effect that the exhibits were safe, sealed and
intact till the case property remained in his custody. On being cross-examined
on behalf of the accused, the witness denied that the case property was tampered
with whilst it was in his custody.

TESTIMONIES OF RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED

29. Apart from the formal witnesses PW-1 to PW-8 who formed part of the
investigation and were examined during the trial of the case, the State put forth
in the witness box PW-13 Sh. Sita Ram Goyal (the father of the deceased Smt.
Reena Goyal), PW-14 Smt. Veena Goyal (the mother of the deceased), PW-15
Smt. Mamta Goyal (step sister-in-law of the deceased), PW-16 Tanjeev Kumar
Goyal and PW-17 Sh. Manjeev Goyal (both step brothers of the deceased) as
relatives of the deceased to put forth the prosecution version of alleged
maltreatment and harassment for dowry and alleged cruelty inflicted on the
deceased soon before her marriage by the respondents.

C- TESTIMONY OF FATHER OF THE DECEASED

30. PW-13 Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, the testimony of the father of the deceased
brings forth that his daughter Smt.Reena Goyal (deceased) was a practicing
Advocate at Delhi and had initiated practice with Ms. Kusumlata and Mr.Javed
Akhtar, Advocates. The marriage of the deceased was stated to have been
solemnized on 2.11.2011 at Civil Lines Delhi with B.Raj Sharma, the
respondent No.1 herein and original resident of Manipur. PW-13 deposed that
Chanchan, the respondent No.2 herein, is the sister of B.Raj Sharma. As per the

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 15 of 88
testimony of PW-13 the accused, i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 herein, were
residing at 364, Indira Vihar, Delhi along with another sister of theirs named
Sujata and after her marriage, the deceased was residing with the accused, i.e.,
respondent No.1 B. Raj Sharma at the said house with his two sisters, i.e.,
Chanchan (respondent No.2) and Sujata. The parents of the respondents were
stated to be visitors to the said house.

31. The testimony of PW-13 brings forth that on 7.3.2012, B. Raj Sharma,
i.e., respondent No.1 came to the house of PW-13 (Sh. Sita Ram Goyal) father
of the deceased and took the deceased from the house of PW-13 to the house of
respondent No.1 at 364, Indira Vihar, Delhi (as to where the deceased and B.
Raj Sharma lived from the date of marriage 2.11.2011 till death 7.3.2012 is not
explained on the record). The testimony of PW-13, Sita Ram Goyal further
states that on 8.3.2012, (i.e., one day after the date 7.3.2012 when the
respondent No.1 had taken the deceased from her father’s house to his house),
in the morning hours, Chanchan (respondent No.2 herein) informed PW-13 Sita
Ram Goyal (father of the deceased) that the condition of Reena Goyal was not
good and thereafter the accused, i.e., the respondent No.1 herein, and Chanchan,
respondent No.2 and their mother brought Reena Goyal to the house of PW-13
Sh. Sita Ram Goyal, and left her at his house. PW-13 stated that his daughter
Reena Goyal was not in a good condition at that time and she was not able to
stand and was mentally and physically disturbed. The witness further stated in
his testimony on oath that the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 and 2 herein, told
him that they would take Reena Goyal only if they (i.e., Sita Ram Goyal and his
family members) provided a house to the respondents at Sant Nagar, Burari.
PW-13 further stated that they (i.e. Sh. Sita Ram Goyal and his family
members) took Reena Goyal to the doctor for medical treatment but she was not
treated there and thereafter they took Reena Goyal to the Hindu Rao Hospital

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 16 of 88
where she was medically treated for 15-16 days and had stayed in the hospital
for one or two days also for treatment. As per PW-13, the accused persons, i.e.,
respondents No.1 and 2 and their mother did not visit Reena Goyal in the
hospital, despite Sh. Sita Ram Goyal and his family members having informed
them about the condition of Reena Goyal. It was also stated by PW-13 that
thereafter the accused did not come to their house to take back his daughter and
that on 12.3.2012, the respondent No.1 went to Manipur along with his mother.
Through the testimony of PW-13 in examination-in-chief it has been testified
that on 3.4.2012 at around 9:30 p.m. Reena Goyal went to the house of the
respondents No.1 and 2, i.e., house No.364 , Indira Vihar, Delhi, as respondent
No.1 was not responding to Reena Goyal by any means. He further stated that
at about 10:30 p.m. the respondent No.2, Chanchan, informed PW-13 on a
landline phone that Reena Goyal had fallen down and called him to her house
immediately. The witness PW-13 further stated that after 3 to 5 minutes he
again received a call of the respondent No.2 asking him to go to the Trauma
Centre and thereafter he along with his family members reached the Trauma
Centre and found that Reena Goyal was in dead condition at the Trauma Centre,
Met Calf Road and stated that the police was also present at the hospital.

32. The witness further testified to the effect that on 4.4.2012, i.e., the next
day, the Executive Magistrate Mr.Kushwaha met him at the hospital and made
enquiries from him and recorded his statement Ex.PW-11/A bearing his
signatures and that he, i.e., PW-13, was in a state of shock at that time and he
did not give a statement to the Magistrate and could not state all the facts
about cruelties and demand of dowry by the accused persons to the Executive
Magistrate. Inter alia the witness stated that after the marriage on 5.11.2011,
the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 demanded a car and thus on his demand, PW-
13, purchased the EON Car for approximately for a sum of Rs.3,46,758/- and

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 17 of 88
handed over the same to respondent No.1 on 7.11.2011. Inter alia, PW-13
testified to the effect that the accused persons were responsible for the death of
his daughter.

33. PW-13 further stated that on 9.10.2011, the engagement ceremony had
taken place at his house and he gave cash of Rs.1.5 lacs to respondent No.1, and
his son Bharat Goyal gave one gold ring, gold chain and wrist watch to B. Raj
Sharma and that PW-13 had spent about Rs.15-20 lacs on the engagement and
in the marriage ceremony.

34. This witness further testified to the effect that on 22.11.2011, the accused
B. Raj Sharma, respondent No.1 went to Manipur and his daughter went to
Manipur on 27.11.2011 and he along with his wife and son went to Manipur
and the marriage also took place according to the customs of the accused, i.e.,
respondent No.1 at Manipur. PW-13 further stated that he also handed over
Rs.30,000/- to the accused B. Raj Sharma at Manipur and thereafter on
02.12.2011, he along with his wife and his son had returned back to Delhi. PW-
13 further stated that on 8-9.12.2011 his daughter Reena Goyal informed that
the accused, B. Raj Sharma, respondent No.1 had beaten her at Manipur for
more dowry and demanded three gold sets for his three sisters and the gold rings
and gold chains for his parents and also demanded one gold chain for his
brother-in-law (Jija). The witness has further stated that on 21.1.2012 the
accused, i.e., respondent No.1 came to his house and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in
the absence of PW-13 from his wife and his wife informed him about the same
and thereafter, the wife of PW-13 paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 on
his persistent demand. This witness inter alia stated that after one or two days,
the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 left his daughter Reena at his house.

35. The witness further stated that in the month of February, 2012 his
daughter Reena Goyal became pregnant and on 12.2.2012 his daughter went to

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 18 of 88
her matrimonial home at H. No. 364, Indira Vihar, Delhi where the accused
Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 caught hold of his daughter by her hairs and
gave her beatings and she fell down on the ground. As per the testimony of
PW-13, the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e, respondent No.1 slapped Reena Goyal
and gave leg blows on her stomach. As per PW-13, on 13.2.2012, the accused
B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 left Reena Goyal at the house of PW-13
and said that they would not take care of a pregnant lady. PW-13 further
testified to the effect that on 29.02.2012, the accused B. Raj Sharma came to his
house and took Reena Goyal to the Hans Hospital for abortion of her pregnancy
and she aborted there and after abortion the accused, i.e., respondent No.1, said
“aaj main bahaut khush ho aur mere sar se ek bhoj utar gaya”. The witness
further testified that on 25.3.2012 he asked his daughter Reena Goyal about her
matrimonial life and about her health and asked the deceased to make
complaints to the police against the accused and on his persistent asking she told
him that she loved B. Raj Sharma a lot and wanted to live with him and wanted
to make a good matrimonial life with B. Raj Sharma.

36. The witness further testified that on 9.4.2012, the police checked the
EON car at the Police Station and seized the documents of the car with
insurance papers vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/A, bearing his signatures and
testified to the documents in relation thereto being exhibits Ex.PW-13/B,
Ex.PW-13/C and Ex.PW-13/D. Inter alia PW-13 testified to having handed
over the marriage invitation card, engagement and marriage photographs, list of
dowry articles and expenses, RC of the car, photographs of the engagement and
photographs of the marriage. Inter aila, the witness stated that on 3.3.2013, he
found a note on a paper in the handwriting of Reena Goyal under the newspaper
in an almirah of his house during the cleaning and dusting which is Mark PW-
13/N and stated that it was in the handwriting of Reena Goyal bearing her

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 19 of 88
signatures (The learned trial court has observed during the recording of the
testimony of PW13 that this document Mark PW-13/N was not the part of
the charge sheet). Mark PW-13/N reads to the effect:-

“Agar mujhe kuch bhi hua to uska jymedar Raj aur
Chanchon honge in dono ne meri zindagi hell bana di.”

Inter alia, PW-13 testified to the effect that during the post-mortem and
last rites of the deceased, no one from the family of the accused were present.

37. Through his cross-examination PW-13 testified to the effect that he had
married for the second time with Veena Goyal during the life time of his first
wife Smt. Kamla Goyal . He further stated that the reason for his second
marriage was that his first wife was not mentally matured at that time but that he
had not got his wife Kamla Goyal treated for the said ailment. PW-13 further
stated that after some time of the second marriage, his second wife and his
children from her, i.e., Manjeev, Tanjeev, Sanjeev and Rajeev started living
separately in the separate portion in the house. PW-13 further testified that he
had two sons, namely, Bharat Goyal and Gaurav Goyal from his second wife
Veena Goyal. He further stated that his sons namely Sanjeev and Manjeev had
separate motor parts business at Malkaganj. He further stated that his son
Bharat Goyal was in employment with some publisher. The witness further
denied that there was a family dispute between his children from his first wife
and himself and his children from his second wife with regard to the property
and denied that there were many complaints in this regard that had been made at
the Police Station Civil Lines. The witness also denied that the deceased had
lodged a complaint at the police station Civil Lines against him and his son
Sanjeev Goyal after a quarrel between them and denied that she had
expressed an apprehension to her life also from them in the complaint.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 20 of 88

38. PW-13, further stated that he was not aware of the relationship between
the accused, i.e., respondent No.1and his daughter prior to their marriage nor
was he aware whether the deceased had met the respondent No.1 during the
period of 13 years and also stated that he was not aware whether the respondent
No.1 was known to his daughter, i.e., the deceased, prior to the marriage. Inter
alia PW-13 further stated that his daughter had not told him nor any family
member that she had any love affair with the respondent No.1 and stated that
since his daughter had developed a relationship with respondent No.1, he learnt
of the respondent No.1 being a Manipuri, i.e., the culture, traditions and food
had been different from us in August, 2011.

39. PW-13 further stated that he himself was a vegetarian but was not aware
that the respondent No.1 and his family members were non-vegetarian and
stated that the respondent No.1 was the only son of his parents and both his
parents were government servants at Manipur and his father had since retired.
He further stated that his wife Smt. Veena Goyal, his grandson, namely, Harshit
Goyal and his daughter, Reena Goyal , the deceased, had already accepted the
marriage proposal of respondent No.1 in May, 2011 itself and this fact was not
disclosed to him at that time by his family members for the reason that his
daughter, i.e., the deceased was growing old and thus he learnt of the proposal
only in August, 2011 when he met respondent No.1 for the first time at his
house when he was taken by surprise. PW-13 further stated that he was not in a
position to oppose this alliance on account of the fact that the same was already
accepted by the family and the preparation of the marriage was being made and
that the deceased had become old, i.e., aged about 32 years at that time. PW-13
further stated that the he had gone to Imphal between 22 nd – 25th August, 2011
but had not made any enquiries with regard to the family of respondent No.1.
PW-13 further stated that he was given an average treatment by the family

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 21 of 88
members of respondent No.1 and even after his return to Delhi he did not
oppose this alliance and volunteered that everything had been settled by that
time. PW-13 further stated that he was not aware if his wife was happy with
this alliance but she never opposed the alliance after return from Imphal. He
further stated that he had never verified the financial status or educational
qualifications of respondent No.1 and that he did not make enquiries from his
wife Veena Goyal, grandson Harshit Goyal and his daughter Reena Goyal (the
deceased) of their satisfaction of the financial status of the respondent No.1 as
he had accepted the proposal already. PW-13 stated that he, however, asked
respondent No.1 about his earning and the respondent No.1 had informed him
that he was in the finance business.

40. The witness PW-13 further stated that the marriage of the deceased with
the respondent No.1 took place as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and also as
per Manipuri culture on 30th November, 2011 at Manipur, where five family
members had gone and the parents of the accused, i.e., the respondent No.1 had
made arrangements for their stay in Hotel at Manipur, the payment of which
was made by the deceased. Inter alia, the witness stated that he did not see
the original bills regarding the payment made by the deceased at any time.
PW-13 further stated that the deceased had gone to Manipur on 27.11.2011 and
stayed there for about 19 to 20 days and the marriage at Manipur was as per
Manipuri traditions and it was a simple marriage. PW-13 further stated that he
made no enquiries from persons gathered there about respondent No.1. He
further stated that the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was at Manipur for 19-20
days.

41. PW-13 further stated that he came back to Delhi on 2.12.2011 and his
granddaughter came back to Delhi on 5.12.2011. He further stated that he
had purchased an EON car in the name of his daughter, the deceased, which

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 22 of 88
vehicle used to be driven by his daughter and the respondent No.1. PW-13
further stated that he had obtained this vehicle on superdari after the death
of Reena Goyal and it was with him. The witness PW-13 further stated that
he could not recollect whether he had informed the SDM when he made
statement on 4.4.2012 that on 7.3.2012 the accused, i.e, the respondent No.1,
came to his house and took his daughter Reena Goyal from the house of PW-13
to the house of respondent No.1, i.e., at H. No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi.

42. The witness further stated that he could not recollect whether he had
informed the SDM that the condition of Reena Goyal was not proper and that
the said fact was informed to him on telephone by the accused Chanchan, i.e.,
respondent No.2. PW-13 further stated that he had informed the SDM that the
accused persons, i.e., respondent No.1 and 2 had left Reena Goyal , the
deceased, at his house and told that he had a copy of the statement with him
which had been given to him by Sh. Javed, Advocate with whom Reena Goyal ,
the deceased was previously working. He further stated that apart from the
statement made to the SDM, he had also made a statement to the police in
writing on 2.5.2012 of which he had an acknowledgement but that statement
was not made part of the charge-sheet. He further stated that he had also given
an application to the Commissioner of Police, to the Special Commissioner and
also to the Assistant Commissioner of Police for highlighting and investigating
the aspects not investigated by the police. He further stated that he did not go
again to the SDM for making any statement. The witness further in cross-
examination stated that he did not go again to the SDM for making a statement
as he was not aware that he could make the statement to the SDM to highlight
the issues which had not been highlighted earlier and was also not informed
about the same by Sh. Javed, Advocate.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 23 of 88

43. The witness further stated that he had been repeatedly requesting the
police officials to record his statement but they did not do so and that no
statement was recorded by the police on 5.4.2012 which was the day on which
the last rites/cremation of the deceased had taken place nor did the police record
the statement of Smt. Veena Goyal and his sons. PW-13 further stated that
they (i.e. Smt. Veena Goyal and his sons) were not aware of the various facts
and the SDM had not asked him to produce his wife or other relative for
recording of the statement. PW-13 further stated that the police recorded the
statement of Smt. Veerna Goyal on 27.04.2012 and that too after he i.e. PW-13
had compelled them to do so. The witness further stated that the police did not
record his statement on 27.4.2012 despite his repeated requests. It was further
stated that the witness did not tell the SDM vide his statement Ex.PW-11/A
that when the deceased had come to his house she was not in a good
condition and that he was not able to stand or walk and was mentally and
physically disturbed at that time. PW-13 stated that he was not aware that
he was required to give all this history in the statement.

44. Inter alia, PW-13 denied that he had not told the SDM that the
respondents No.1 and 2 had told him that they would take the deceased
respondent only if he provided a house to them at Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi. But he stated that he had informed the police in his written
communication about this. Inter alia , the witness stated that he had not
informed the SDM that they had taken the deceased to Dr. Mukesh Yadav
for treatment and thereafter they took her to Hindu Rao Hospital wherein
the deceased was medically treated for 15-16 days after her admission in
the hospital for one or two days. The witness further stated that he had not
informed the SDM that the accused persons and their mother did not visit
the deceased at the hospital to see her condition, despite they having been

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 24 of 88
informed by him about the same nor did they come to take his daughter
back from his house. The witness further stated that he had not told the
SDM that his daughter Reena Goyal , the deceased, had gone to house of
respondent No.2 as the respondent No.1 was not responding to her by any
means and that he had not told the SDM or the police that he was in a state
of shock at that time and that he had not given any detail to the Magistrate
about the cruelties and demands of dowry from the deceased by the
accused.

45. He further stated that he had not stated in the statement to the SDM
or to the police on 7.11.2011 that he gave a car to the respondent No.1 on
his demand of dowry or that the accused were responsible for the death of
his daughter. He further stated that he did not state to the SDM that on
9.10.2011 the engagement ceremony took place at his house and he gave
Rs.1.5 lacs cash to respondent No.1 and his son Bharat Goyal gave the
accused, the respondent No.1, a gold ring, gold chain and wrist watch. The
witness further stated that he did not state in the statement that he spent
Rs.15 to 16 lacs in the engagement ceremony and marriage ceremony and
also stated that he did not tell to the police that after the marriage on
5.11.2011 the accused, B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 demanded a
car on dowry and he purchased an EON car and handed over the same to
the accused on 7.11.2011. Inter alia PW-13 stated that he did not state in his
statement that on 22.11.2011, the respondent No.1 went to Manipur and his
daughter Reena Goyal went to Manipur on 27.11.2011 where his daughter
handed over Rs.30,000/- to accused B. Raj Sharma. The witness further
stated that he did not state in his statement that on 08/09-12-2011his
daughter had informed them that the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e.,
respondent No.1 gave beating to her at Manipur for dowry and demanded

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 25 of 88
three gold chains for his three sisters and gold rings and gold chains for his
parents and also demanded one gold chain for his brother-in-law (jija).
The witness further stated that he did not state in the statement that on
21.01.2012 the respondent No.1 came to his house and demanded Rs.1 lac
from his wife in his absence and his wife paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused on
his persisting demands. PW-13 further stated that he did not state in his
statement that in the month of February, 2012, the deceased became
pregnant and also did not state in the statement that on 12.02.2012 his
daughter went to her matrimonial house at House No.364, Indira Vihar,
Delhi where the accused Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2 caught hold of his
daughter by her hairs and gave beatings to her and she fell down on the
ground and accused B. Raj Sharma slapper his daughter and also gave leg
blows on her stomach. The witness further stated that he did not state in
his statement that on 13.2.2011, the respondent No.1 had left his daughter,
the deceased, at his house and told them that they would not take care of a
pregnant lady. He further stated that the did not state in his statement that
the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 came to his house and took the deceased
to the Hans Hospital for abortion of her pregnancy and she aborted there
and after abortion the accused again left his daughter at his house and told
that he was very happy and he was now free and relieved from a
problem.(aaj main bahout khush ho aur mere sar se ek bhoj utar gaya). The
witness further stated that he had not stated in his statement that on
25.3.2012 he asked his daughter Reena Goyal, the deceased, about her
matrimonial life and about her health and asked her why she was not
making the complaints to police against respondent No.1, she hesitated and
on his persistent asking told him that she loved the accused, i.e., respondent
No.1 a lot and wanted to live with him and would make her good

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 26 of 88
matrimonial life with the accused, respondent No.1. He further stated that
he was not aware that he was required to give these details to SDM and
even the SDM did not inquire him about the details or else he would have
told about the same.

46. The witness further stated that the SDM inquire him about the cause
of suicide of his daughter. He further stated that it was the SHO Inspector
R. S. Meena who was present along with the SDM in the same room along
with one doctor when he i.e. PW-13 told that his daughter could not
commit suicide. He further stated that Inspector R.S. Meena advised him
not to take that stand for it would be difficult to prove in evidence that
there was some kind of physical cruelty and force used on his daughter on
which he got perplexed as he was already in grief on account of his
daughter’s death and he told the SDM whatever he was advised by
Inspector R. S. Meena. The witness denied that Inspector Meena was not
present in the room when his statement was recorded by the SDM. He further
denied that he was not advised by Inspector Meena and on legal advice he was
stating this. Inter alia PW-13 stated that he did not hand over Mark PW-
13/N to the police and before the SDM but denied that the document was a
false and fabricated. PW-13 further stated that on 12.2.2012 his daughter
had gone to meet her husband at her matrimonial home in the evening but
could not tell the exact time and whether the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e.,
respondent No.1 was in Delhi or in Manipur on 12.2.2012. PW-13 denied
that the pregnancy of his daughter ws aborted on account of her weak physical
condition as his daughter was under weight around 36 kg and voluntarily stated
that she was around 42-44 kg at the time of her marriage and it was because of
the harassment that she had lost weight. The witness denied that the deceased
had made any complaint to the police or any authority regarding the harassment

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 27 of 88
meted out to her. It is further stated by the witness that he had been residing in
a joint family and they wanted to sort out this issue amicably as they did not
want that the matrimonial life of his daughter be spoiled beyond reconciliation.
The witness further stated that he had not filed any medical document
regarding the treatment of his daughter in Hindu Rao Hospital nor to the
Court and the Investigating Officer. The witness further denied that his
daughter was suffering from mental stress/depression on account of her dispute
between him and his other sons. PW-13 further denied that no harassment was
meted out by her and there no demand of cash, gold, car or house as alleged by
him. He further denied that the car was given as a voluntary gift to his daughter
on account of love and affection for her personal use. The witness further
denied that being aggrieved by the death of his daughter, he i.e. PW-13 had
falsely implicated the accused persons in the case.

47. PW-14 is the mother of the deceased Reena Goyal and the wife of Sh.
Sita Ram Goyal i.e. PW-13. This witness stated that her daughter was married
to the respondent No. at Civil Lines, Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs
and that they had spent Rs.15 lacs in the marriage and after the marriage her
daughter Reena Goyal resided at H.No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi with her
husband, Chanchan i.e., the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Sujata and that the parents
of the respondents No.1 and 2 also used to visit Delhi and that the respondent
No.1 was an original resident of Manipur.

48. PW-14 further stated that the deceased was not welcomed in her
matrimonial house in a good manner and was also taunted ” tere ma baap itne
kangle hai ki shadi mein ek gari bhi nahi di”. The witness further stated that
these facts were informed by the deceased to her on 5.11.2011 and that the
deceased was weeping and told her that the respondent had demanded a car and
thereafter her husband had purchased the EON car on 7.11.2011 and the same

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 28 of 88
was handed over to the accused, i.e., respondent No.1, who took the deceased to
her matrimonial home. The witness further stated that the respondent No.1 also
performed the marriage ceremony according to Manipur customs in which she
also participated. PW-14 further stated that on 8/9.11.2011, the deceased had
informed her telephonically that respondent No.1 had given her beatings for
dowry and had demanded gold sets for his three sisters, gold ring and chains for
his parents and also the gold chain for his brother-in-law (jija). The witness
further stated that the accused persons, i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 had
demanded a house in the area of Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi by saying that the
parents of the deceased had a roaring business of motor parts and her parents
had a house at Civil Lines. The witness further stated that they had tried to
persuade the respondents No. 1 and 2 to understand but the respondents No.1
and 2 insisted on their demand. PW-14 further stated that on 21.1.2012 the
respondent No.1 came to their house and demanded Rs.1 lac from her and that
her relatives Neeraj @ Bobby and Neeraj Manocha were present at her house
and on the persistent demand of respondent No.1 she had given Rs.50,000/- to
the accused by taking the same from her daughter-in-law Mamta. PW-14
further testified to the effect that after one or two days the respondent No.1 left
her daughter Reena Goyal at her house. She further stated that in the last days
of December, 2011 she learnt that her daughter Reena was pregnant and that on
12.02.2012 her daughter Reena Goyal had gone to her matrimonial house but
on the next morning, i.e., on 13.2.2012 Reena Goyal was left at their house by
respondent No.1 and that the deceased had informed PW-14 that on 12.2.2012,
the respondent had given beatings to her and that respondent No.2 had caught
hold of her by her hair and gave beatings to Reena Goyal and she fell down on
the ground. The witness further stated that the deceased had informed her that
the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 gave leg blows on her stomach

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 29 of 88
while she was pregnant. The witness further stated that on 29.2.2012, the
accused, i.e., respondent No.1 took the deceased to the hospital for medical
treatment but her pregnancy was aborted and that the respondent No. 1 left the
deceased at her house saying that he was very happy that he i.e. the accused
No.1 had solved his major problem. The witness further stated that on
7.3.2012, the respondent No.1 came to their house and took his daughter to their
house and on the next date, i.e., 8.3.2012, the respondent No.1 and 2 and their
mother came to their house and left the deceased at her house in a semi-
unconscious condition and they found the deceased in a very disturbed state and
she was not in a position to stand and the accused told her that they would take
the deceased to her matrimonial house if they would purchase a house for them
and never came back to take the deceased with him and even did not respond to
their phones.

49. PW-14 further stated that on 3.4.2012, at about 8.30 p.m. her daughter,
the deceased, informed her that she was called by her sister-in-law Chanchan,
i.e., the respondent No.2, at Indira Vihar, Delhi and at about 9.30 p.m. the
deceased went to her matrimonial home by her EON car and at about 10:30 p.m.
they received a call from the respondent No.2 that Reena Goyal had fallen
down and they were going there but she again received a call from respondent
No.2 that they should go to the Trauma Centre and thereafter she along with
her family members reached there and found their daughter in dead condition at
the Trauma Centre. The witness stated that she did not make any complaint
earlier against the respondent because their daughter had stated that she was in
love with her husband and wanted to live a good matrimonial life but the
accused, i.e., the respondent No.1 (her husband) used to continuously harass her
for dowry. Furthermore, PW-14 identified the respondents present in the court.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 30 of 88

50. On being cross-examined on behalf of the respondents, the witness stated
that she has good relations with the children of the first wife of her husband Sita
Ram Goyal and that they had been got married by her and that she has two
sons and a daughter from her wedlock of whom her daughter had expired. Inter
alia PW-14 stated that respondent No.1 was in the same school as her daughter
and she had heard his name from her daughter. PW-14 further stated that there
was no love affair between her daughter Reena Goyal and the accused No.1 and
the sister of accused, i.e, Chanchan, respondent No.2, was a teacher in a school
in which her grandson was studying and she mediated the marriage between her
daughter Reena Goyal , the deceased, and the accused B. Raj Sharma and
accused Chanchan, respondent No.2, introduced the deceased to the accused B.
Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 as a prospective alliance. The witness further
stated that she was aware that the accused B. Raj Sharma belonged to Manipur
and she had explained to her daughter that there was a difference of culture
between them as the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 belonged to
Manipur. The witness further stated that it was the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e.,
respondent No.1, who had stated that he would be adjusting and would ensure
that there would be no problem because of difference of culture.

51. PW-14 further stated that her husband Sita Ram Goyal had also objected
to that alliance on account of difference of culture but she made her husband
understand that in case Reena Goyal (i.e. the deceased) was agreeable there was
no point in objecting. The witness further stated that the she had gone along
with her husband i.e., PW-13 to Manipur to verify the credential and status of
the family of the respondent No.1 and further stated that even the first wife of
her husband and her children had objected to the alliance on account of
difference of culture but she, i.e., PW-14 had made them understand that in case

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 31 of 88
if the deceased Reena Goyal was agreeable, there was no point in objecting and
that the decision of the deceased ought to be respected.

52. Inter alia, PW-14 stated that the first wife of her husband and her
children had not gone with them to Manipur and stated that at Manipur they met
the parents of the respondent No.1. PW-14 further stated that the deceased was
32 years of age when she got married and denied that the respondent No.2 had
not initiated for talks of marriage between the respondent No.1 and her daughter
and denied that they initiated the talks themselves.

53. The witness further stated that the first time that the deceased told her
about the harassment was when the deceased came for Pagphera after the
marriage and when the deceased had taken her aside along with her son and told
them that the respondent No.1 was taunting her for not bringing a car. The
witness had further stated that they had tried to search for a suitable match for
the deceased in their community but somehow it did not materialize.

54. The witness PW-14 further stated that the SDM never called her for the
recording of her statement nor did she go to the SDM for the same. The witness
further stated that she was not aware if the SDM had recorded the statement of
any members or recorded the statement of her husband on 4.4.2012. She further
stated that she remained sick and even on that date she was unwell and even on
the date of her testimony recorded on 4.2.2014 she was unwell and had come
with assistance. The witness further stated that her children told her that
their statements had been recorded but she was not aware of the details.

55. PW-14 further stated that the car was purchased in the name of the
deceased who used to drive a car. She further stated that the said car was now
with her husband i.e. PW-13. She further stated that it was not in the knowledge
of her husband that the accused / the respondent No. 1 B. Raj Sharma had come
to her house on 21.01.2012 and only after the death of her daughter she i.e. PW-

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 32 of 88

14 informed her husband i.e. PW-13 about her having given Rs.50,000/- to the
accused B. Raj Sharma. The witness further stated that she did not inform her
sons Bharat Goyal and Gaurav Goyal about handing over of Rs.50,000/- to the
accused B. Raj Sharma, the respondent No.1 and admitted that this amount was
not arranged by her through her sons nor by her husband and she did not ask
any family member for this amount since she feared that if they learnt of the
same, it would affect the matrimonial life of her daughter, the deceased. The
witness further submitted that she also did not disclose this fact to Reena that
the accused B. Raj Sharma had taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- nor the accused, i.e.,
respondent No.1 disclosed this fact to the deceased. The witness further
submitted that she did not inquire from the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 as to
why he required that money, but that after 21.1.2012 after two three days she
had told the deceased that the accused,i.e., respondent No.1 had taken that sum.
PW-14 further submitted that the deceased did not ask the accused,i.e.,
respondent No.1, as to why he had taken that amount of Rs.50,000/- in her
presence. The witness further submitted that she had not returned this amount
of Rs.50,000/- to her daughter-in-law Mamta and stated that Mamta had told her
that she would take this amount back whenever she required it and that it was a
family affair. The witness further submitted that when she took this amount
from Mamta, Manjiv, the husband of Mamta, was not at home. She further
stated that she was not aware if Mamta had disclosed to Manjeev about giving
this amount of Rs.50,000/- to her and that Manjeev did not ask her at any point
of time what she had done with Rs.50,000/-. The witness further submitted that
Manjeev had not talked to her husband about giving of Rs.50,000/- to her. The
witness further denied that she had not paid any sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
accused B. Raj Sharma,i.e., respondent No.1 on 21.01.2012 and denied that she
had concocted a story against the accused persons to falsely involve them.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 33 of 88

56. The witness further submitted that on 12.2.2012, the deceased had gone
to Indira Vihar at about 7:00 p.m. but the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was not
in Delhi on 12.2.2012 and the deceased had gone at her house at Indira Vihar
after having a telephonic talk with accused B. Raj Sharma. The witness further
stated that she did not mention to the police that on 12.2.2012 the accused
persons, i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 had given beatings to her daughter. The
witness further stated that on 13.3.2012, the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 left
her daughter at her house and stated that she did not inform the police about this
and stated that she had told the police that the respondent No.2 had caught hold
of the deceased by her hair and gave beatings to her daughter on which the
deceased fell down and accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 also gave
a leg blow on her stomach when the deceased was pregnant. The witness was
confronted with the statement Ex.PW-23/E, where the said aspects were
not recorded.

57. The witness further stated that she had told the police when the police
recorded her statement on 29.2.2012 that the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e.,
respondent No.1 took her daughter Reena Goyal to the hospital for medical
treatment of her daughter but her pregnancy was aborted by him and the
accused, i.e., respondent No.1 left her daughter at her house saying that he was
very happy and that he resolved his major problem. The witness was
confronted with her statement EX.PW-23/E and Ex.PW-14/DX-1 where the
said aspect was not recorded. The witness was also duly confronted with
her statement EX.PW-23/E and Ex.PW-14/DX-1 qua the aspects of the
testimony made in examination-in-chief in relation to the demands of
dowry, jewellery, assaults on the deceased having not been detailed by her
to the police though testified in Court. Likewise, the witness was

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 34 of 88
confronted with the statement EX.PW-14/DX-1 in relation to the following
aspects:

 That on 8.9.2011 the deceased Reena Goyal had informed her
on phone that her husband B. Raj Sharma had given beating to
her for the dowry and demanded gold sets for his three sisters,
gold ring and chains for his parents and also the gold chain for his
brother-in-law (jija);

 She PW-14 had told the police in her statement that they tried
to make the accused B. Raj Sharma and his sister Chanchan, i.e.,
respondents No.1 and 2 understand but they insisted on their
demands;

 That she had told the police in her statement that after one or
two days, the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 left her daughter
Reena Goyal to their house;

 She had told the police in her statement that they did not make
a complaint earlier against the respondent because her daughter
said that she was in love with her husband and wanted to live with
him and she wanted a good matrimonial life but the accused
persons continuously harassed her for the dowry;
 That even after the marriage Reena Goyal used to meet her son
Bharat Goyal and that he was aware of the demand of the car
though not of other demands and harassment and that she had
told this to the police. (the witness, however, further stated that
her son Bharat only knew about the incident of the demand of the
car but not of other demands and harassment and she was not
aware if he had been questioned by the SDM or by the police)

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 35 of 88

58. Inter alia, the witness PW-14 stated that Manjiv and Mamta, her son and
daughter-in-law had shifted to Hardev Nagar, Burari in the month of September,
2012 and previously they used to reside in a property belonging to PW-13, i.e.,
her husband Sita Ram Goyal. She further stated that now Manjiv and Mamta
had shifted after taking their share in the property after the death of their
daughter Reena Goyal and that they did not ask her to return Rs.50,000/- when
they shifted and separated and that was personal between her, i.e., PW-14 and
them.

59. Inter alia, the witness stated that the deceased, Reena Goyal, was doing
law from Poona but she completed the same from Agra as she stated that she did
not like to stay at Poona. The witness denied that her daughter became addicted
to drugs at Poona on account of which she completed her second year at Poona
and completed her law from Agra. PW-14 further stated that the accused B.
Raj Sharma was the only son of his parents whose parents were residing at
Manipur. She stated that she was not aware if Mamta and Manjeev were aware
of the business of the accused B. Raj Sharma and she further stated that when
they were themselves not aware of the same how Manjeev and Mamta would be
aware of the same. The witness denied that there was any property dispute
within the family or that there was a dispute between Tajiv, Manjiv , Rajiv on
one hand and her husband and Reena Goyal on the other hand. She further
denied that there were complaints to the police with regard to the property.
However, she volunteered that there was a landlord/tenant dispute in the
property but as far as the family members are concerned there were no internal
disputes. She could not recollect the name of the landlord and stated that the
only dispute was between the landlord and other residents on account of some
‘tor-phor’.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 36 of 88

60. The witness further admitted during cross-examination that even after the
marriage of her daughter and respondent No.1, they i.e. PW-14 and her family
had gone to Manipur and stayed there in a hotel but that she was not aware who
made the payment for the stay in the hotel. They had given Rs.25,000/- to the
deceased and over and above they had also spent Rs.40,000/- in the
performance of various customs. The witness further stated that she did not
remember whether the police had recorded her two statements on 27.1.2012 but
stated that she had signed her statement on 27.01.2012. She denied that her son
Bharat had not been cited as a witness as he was not aware of any allegations of
harassment or demand raised by the accused as alleged by her nor her daughter
had ever informed him about any such harassment or demand. She denied
further that the accused persons had not demanded any car on 5.11.2012. She
further denied that the incidents of 12.2.2012, 13.2.2012 and 29.2.2012 of
causing beating to her daughter by the accused persons had not happened. She
denied further that the deceased was depressed on account of property disputes
between her step sons and between her daughter and her husband. She denied
that her daughter Reena Goyal could not adjust herself to the different culture,
habits and environment at the Manipur and denied that since accused B. Raj
Sharma was residing mostly in Manipur with his parents as such on these
accounts her daughter was feeling depressed and had committed suicide.

61. PW-15 put forth by the prosecution was Mamta who testified that the
deceased was her sister-in-law (Nanad) and was married to respondent No.1 on
2.11.2011. She further stated that PW-15 was earlier residing with her in-laws
at 36-37/2, Underhill Roads, Civil Lines, Delhi and since August, 2012 she had
been residing at A-14, Hardev Nagar, Jaroda Majra, Burari Road, Delhi. This
witness testified to the effect that on 21.1.2012 the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e.,
respondent No.1 came to her matrimonial house Civil Lines and demanded

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 37 of 88
Rs.one lac from her mother-in-law and thereafter on asking of her mother-in-
law she i.e. PW-15 gave Rs.50,000/- to PW-14, her mother-in-law, who gave
the same to the accused B. Raj Sharma in her presence. She also stated at that
time Neeraj @ Bobby and another Neeraj were also present at their house. She
further stated that her mother-in-law used to give money to the accused B. Raj
Sharma on his demand regularly. She further stated that the accused B. Raj
Sharma used to demand money regularly and gold sets and a car. She further
testified to the effect that being a family member she knew that the respondent
was continuously harassing the deceased for gold sets, money and a car and had
also demanded that a house be purchased in Delhi.

62. On being cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons i.e.,
respondents no.1 and 2, the witness testified to the effect that respondent No.1
and the deceased had studied together in the school and had been in a friendship
since long even prior to marriage. She stated that the deceased was well aware
of the fact that the accused B. Raj Sharma belonged to Manipur and his parents
were also residing permanently at Manipur and they were government servants
at Manipur and all these facts were known to them as well as to the deceased
and that they were also aware that the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was the
only son of his parents. She further stated that PW-15 and her family including
the deceased were vegetarian but she could not say whether the accused and his
family were non-vegetarian. She stated that she knew that the culture, language
and traditions of the accused were different than theirs. She further stated that
she was not aware whether the respondent No.1 had a business of electric goods
in Manipur itself, but stated that the accused had a good finance business and
was earning handsomely from the said business. She stated that the accused B.
Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 used to go to Manipur occasionally for his
business purposes as well as for other purposes also.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 38 of 88

63. Inter alia, the witness stated that the deceased weighed about 45 kg
before her marriage and she had not suffered any memory loss for which she
was to be admitted at the Hindu Rao Hospital. The witness admitted that the
deceased was her step sister-in-law and Bharat was the son of Sita Ram Goyal
and was residing with his father and was the son of Sita Ram Goyal and Veena
Goyal. She further stated that she could not state why Sita Ram Goyal had gone
in for the second marriage during the life time of his first wife. She further
stated that her mother-in-law had come alone in her house to ask her for money
and stated that her relatives were there at that time at her house. She further
stated that the said money had not been returned to her till date by her mother-
in-law. She also stated that neither she nor her husband asked for the money to
be returned by her mother-in-law. She stated that after 5-6 days her father-in-
law inquired from her whether she had paid Rs.50,000/- to her mother-in-law
but that she was not aware whether this fact had come to the knowledge of the
deceased. PW-15 also stated that she was not aware for what purpose the
money had been asked for.

64. On being confronted with the statement Ex.PW-15/DA allegedly made to
the police, PW-15 categorically stated that the police had not interrogated her in
this case, but stated that in her statement to the police she had stated that Neeraj
@ Bobby and another Neeraj were present at their house and that she had also
stated to the police that her mother-in-law used to give money to accused B. Raj
Sharma on his demand regularly. She also stated that in her statement that she
had stated to the police that the accused used to regularly demand money and
gold sets and also a car and she knew that the accused B. Raj Sharma
continuously harassed the deceased for gold sets, money and car and also a
house to be purchased at Delhi for them. The witness was then confronted
with her statement EXPW-15/DA where the said aspects were not

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 39 of 88
recorded. The witness also testified to the effect that she had made a complaint
at the Police Station Civil Lines regarding a quarrel with Sanjeev and Sita Ram
Goyal and with regard to a threat from them and such complaints were being
regularly made at the Police Station Civil Lines on account of their property
dispute. She further denied that she had not made any payment for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to her mother-in-law to be paid to the accused, i.e., respondent
No.1.

65. PW-16 put forth in the witness box was Tanjeev Kumar Goyal, step
brother of the deceased, who stated that the deceased was married to the
accused, i.e., respondent No.1 on 2.11.2011 and that the accused persons, i.e.,
respondents No.1 and 2 demanded the car immediately after the marriage and
thereafter his father, i.e., PW-13 purchased the same and handed over the same
to respondent No.1. He further stated that the respondent No.1 also demanded
from the deceased, gold sets and a house to be purchased at Delhi and that the
accused / respondent No.1 also demanded Rs. One lac and his mother handed
over Rs.50,000/- to the accused after taking the same from his bhabhi Mamta.
He further stated that the respondent No.1 used to continuously demand money
from them.

66. Inter alia, the witness testified to having identified the dead body of his
sister Reena Goyal at the BJRM Hospital and his statement was recorded by the
police

67. On being cross-examined on behalf of the respondents, the witness i.e.
PW-16 stated that he was not aware it the deceased had a love affair with the
accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 before her marriage and was also
not aware how the marriage proposal of the deceased with the respondent No.1
came to them and was not aware of the same even on the date of his testimony.
He also stated that he was aware that accused B. Raj Sharma belonged to

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 40 of 88
Manipur and he did not enquire either from his sister Reena Goyal or from his
parents as to how the marriage proposal has come and through whom. He
stated that his sister Reena Goyal was residing in H. No. 36/37, Grand Hotel,
Under Hill road, Civil Lines, Delhi and that he was living separately from his
parents. He testified also that there were total seven rooms in H. No. 36/37,
Grand Hotel Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. On being questioned why he
was living separately from his parents and sister despite there being sufficient
accommodation in H. No.36/37, Grand Hotel Under Hill Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi, he stated that he could not give any reason for the same. He further
stated that PW-14 Veena Goyal was his step mother and he had a separate
business of motor parts separate from his father at Kashmiri Gate. He admitted
that the deceased was quite weak and her weight was about 36 kg. He further
stated that his mother Kamla Goyal (on the date of his testimony) was alive
and was living with him since the beginning. He stated that his mother had
objected to his father marrying on second time to Veena Goyal. However, he
denied that for that reason he and his mother used to have quarrel with his father
and step mother and their children. He stated that he did not attend the marriage
of his step sister Reena Goyal at Manipur with the accused B. Raj Sharma. He
stated that he came to know that the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was working
as a financer but later on it was not confirmed. He stated that he was not aware
if the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was doing the business of electronic goods
at Manipur. He stated that he was not aware if the accused, i.e., respondent
No.1 used to purchase electronic goods from Delhi.

68. Inter alia, the witness testified to the effect that the police had not
recorded his statement and he had not sated to the police at any point of time
that the accused and his sister, i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 demanded the car
immediately after the marriage and thereafter his father purchased the same and

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 41 of 88
handed over the same to the accused. He further stated that he had not stated to
the police that the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 had demanded
Rs.1 lac and his mother handed over Rs.50,000/- to him after taking the same
from his Bhabhi Mamta nor had he stated to the police that the accused
continuously demanded money from them. He further stated that on 4.4.2012 he
had identified the dead body of his sister but his statement was not recorded by
the SDM on that day and also stated that the statement of his father was
recorded by the SDM in his presence.

69. PW-17 put forth in the witness box was Sh. Manjeev Goyal, the other
step brother of the deceased, whose testimony was also to the effect that the
respondents No.1 and 2 demanded a car immediately after the marriage of the
deceased with the accused, i.e., respondent No.2 and that his father purchased
the same and handed over the same to accused B. Raj Sharma. This witness
also stated that earlier they used to reside with their parents at Civil Lines and
since August 2012 he along with his wife and children had been residing at
Jaroda Majara. He testified that the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 also
demanded Rs. 1 lac from his mother who handed over Rs. 50,000/- to the
accused, i.e., respondent No.1 after taking the same from his wife Mamta and
that the accused B. Raj Sharma had been continuously demanding money from
them.

70. Inter alia, the witness testified to having identified the dead body of his
sister Reena Goyal at the BJRM Hospital and testified that the police had
recorded his statement EX.PW-11/C. On being cross-examined on behalf of the
accused, the witness stated that he was aware that the respondent No.1 belonged
to Manipur and culturally and traditionally their family was much different from
the family of accused B. Raj Sharma. He further stated that the said alliance
was through accused Chanchan, i.e., respondent No.2, teacher in the Apex

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 42 of 88
School. He testified that he had gone to the Apex School for getting his
daughter admitted and when he met Chanchan and during the course of
conversation she told him that her brother was not married and that the talk of
the proposal had arisen. He stated that he was not aware if the deceased knew
the respondent No.1 before marriage and also deposed that they had not
objected to the said proposal on the ground that there were vast cultural,
linguistic and food habit differences between both the two families. He stated
that there were marriage proposals coming for the deceased from their own
community and there was no special reason for marrying his sister to B. Raj
Sharma. He further admitted that after the marriage it was agreed that the
deceased had to stay at Manipur as the parents of the accused, i.e.,
respondent No. 1, who was the only son of his parents and had a permanent
residence at Manipur. He further stated that his parents had made all
their satisfaction regarding the family and financial status of the accused,
i.e., respondent No.1 and even they had visited to Manipur for making all
the enquiries and after satisfying themselves the marriage was solemnized.
He stated that he had not gone to Manipur to attend the marriage of his sister.
He further stated that after about 10 to 12 years of the deceased leaving the
Apex School, the said marriage had taken place. He further stated that he was
not aware as to how long the deceased had stayed at Manipur. He further stated
that he was not aware if the accused B. Raj Sharma, i.e., respondent No.1 had a
business of sale and purchase of electronic goods at Manipur. He further stated
that the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was the only son of his parents. The
witness admitted that PW-13 Veena Goyal was his step mother who had three
children, namely, Reena Goyal , Bharat Goyal and Gaurav Goyal . The witness
further admitted that both Bharat Goyal and Gaurav Goyal are his step brothers
and are married and living with his father Sita Ram Goyal . He further stated

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 43 of 88
that his statement was never recorded by the police in the case and that he had
not stated to the police at any point of time that the accused persons, i.e.,
respondents No.1 and 2 demanded the car immediately after the marriage and
his father had purchased the same and handed over the same to the accused B.
Raj Sharma. He further stated that he had not stated to the police at any point of
time that the accused B. Raj Sharma had also demanded gold sets and the house
to be purchased at Delhi from the deceased and that the accused demanded Rs.1
lac from his mother who handed over Rs.50,000/- to the accused after taking the
same from his wife Mamta nor had he stated to the police that the accused had
continuously demanded money from them. The witness further stated that the
SDM was sitting in a room when he had gone for identification of the dead body
of his sister. He stated that he had not met the SDM on that day and that the
statement of his father was recorded on 4.4.2012 by the SDM but the same was
not recorded in his presence. He stated that the police had never met him nor
was his statement recorded by the police at any point of time. He denied that he
was deposing falsely.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

71. PW-18 put forth in the witness box was Dr. Rajender Kumar, Deputy
Director, FSL Rohini who testified to his report Ex.PW-18/A (running into two
pages) and serological report ExPW-18/B having been prepared by him and
bearing his signatures.

72. PW-19 put forth by the prosecution was Sh. Santosh Tripathy,
SSO(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi who testified to his report Ex.PW-12/B
having been prepared by him bearing his signatures whereby he opined that the
pieces of small intestine with contents in a sealed jar (Ex 1A), pieces of liver
spleen and kidney in a sealed jar (EX 1B) and the blood sample in a sealed vial
(Ex.1C) were given to him for examination in a sealed condition and the seal

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 44 of 88
was found to be intact and tallied with the sample seal and the same were found
to contain no common poison.

WITNESSES TO INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED

73. PW-20 put forth in the witness box was Ct.Jogender, No. 727/NW who
testified to the effect that on 3.4.2012 while he was posted at the Police Station
Mukherjee Nagar on emergency duty from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. at about 11 p.m.
after receiving the DD No.35 A, he along with SI Sanjay Tomar reached at the
house No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi and learnt that the PCR had already taken the
injured lady to the Trauma Centre. The witness testified that Ct. Phool Kumar
also reached there and thereafter he along with SI Sanjay Tomar had left Ct.
Phool Kumar at the spot for preservation of the place of the incident. This
witness inter alia testified to the collection of the MLC of the deceased by SI
Sanjay Tomar at the Trauma Centre and sending the dead body to the BJRM
Hospital through him for post-mortem. He stated that he went to the mortuary
of the BJRM Hospital and deposited the dead body of the deceased and returned
back at the spot, i.e., house No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi. He stated that SI
Sanjay Tomar also lifted blood earth control vide the seizure memo Ex.PW-
20/A from the spot and a pair of ladies leather chappals and a mobile phone No.
9312234952 in a working condition and the key of the EON car, with a black
remote belonging to the deceased from the balcony of House No.364, III Floor,
Indira Vihar vide seizure memo Ex.PW-/20/C and seized the EON car bearing
No.1572 vide seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B. The witness also testified to the
handing over of the viscera and two pullandas in a sealed condition with the seal
of the hospital with the sample seal to SI Sanjay Tomar who seized the same
vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/D.

74. On being cross-examined on behalf of the accused/respondents No.1 and
2, the witness stated that the statement of Sita Ram Goyal , i.e., the father of the

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 45 of 88
deceased, was recorded at the BJRM hospital and he had not seen the mother
and brothers of the deceased in the hospital that day. He stated that he remained
in the hospital for about one and one and a half hours but did not know if SI
Sanjay Tomar made enquiries from the mother and brothers of the deceased in
the night of 3/4.4.2012 regarding the death of the deceased. He further stated
that he returned back at the spot at about 1:30 a.m. from the BJRM Hospital
mortuary and at that time he had not seen the mother, father and brothers of the
deceased.

75. Inter alia PW-20 denied that he had not joined the proceedings of the
case. He further stated that the mobile phone was lying on the ground floor at
the spot and was in an intact condition and the Chappal and the keys of the car
were also lying on the ground floor and from there they were seized.

76. PW-21 put forth in the witness box was Ct. Phool Kumar No.7298/PCR
who testified to the effect that on 3.4.2012, he was posted at PS Mukherjee
Nagar and was on beat duty in that area and at about 10:40 p.m. he received a
telephone call from the Duty Officer that one girl had fallen from the house
No.364, Indira Vihar and he reached the spot where he met SI Sanjay Tomar
and came to know that the injured girl had already been removed to the hospital
by the PCR. He further stated that SI Sanjay Tomar left for the Trauma Centre
and left him at the spot. Meanwhile, the SHO Inspector Meena reached at the
spot and left the spot. He further stated that SI Sanjay Tomar again reached at
the spot and at about 1:15 a.m. and that the crime team officers also reached the
spot and they conducted their proceedings and took photographs. He stated that
SI Sanjay Tomar lifted the blood stained earth from the spot and kept the same
in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of TS. He stated that SI
Sanjay Tomar also lifted the earth control from the spot and kept the same in a
plastic container and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-20/A. The witness

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 46 of 88
further testified that SI Sanjay Tomar also seized one mobile phone and one pair
of slippers and one key of car from the balcony of the house vide seizure memo
EX.PW-20/C and he also seized one EON Hyundai Car bearing No.DL-8C AA
1572 from the gali near the house at Indira Vihar vide seizure memo Ex.PW-
20/B.

77. Inter alia the witness testified to the effect that he had again joined the
investigation with Inspector Subhash Chand on 7.4.2012 and reached the house
No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi at about 8 p.m. and searched the accused B. Raj
Sharma who met them there and was interrogated by the IO and thereafter the
IO arrested the accused B. Raj Sharma vide arrest memo Ex.PW-21/A and took
his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW21/B and also recorded
his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW-21/C.

78. On being cross-examined on behalf of the accused, the respondent No.1,
the witness sated that though the public witnesses were present there but they
did not make any inquiries from the public witnesses at the spot. The witness
further stated that when he again visited the spot along with Inspector Subhash
Chand, no public witness was joined and no interrogation was done from
anybody. The witness denied that he had not joined the investigation.

79. PW-22 examined was Inspector R.S. Meena who testified to the effect
that on 11.6.2012, he was posted as the SHO at the Police Station Mukherjee
Nagar and he perused the case file and after completion of investigation
submitted the charge-sheet before the Court against the accused persons, i.e.,
respondents No.1 and 2. He further stated that he had collected the chemical
examination report Ex,PW-12/B, biological report Ex.PW-18/A and serological
report Ex.PW-18/B. He further stated that, on his directions, Inspector Subhash
obtained the subsequent opinion of the autopsy surgeon Ex.PW12/C and

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 47 of 88
thereafter submitted the supplementary charge-sheet against the accused
persons, i.e., B. Raj Sharma and Chanchan.

80. PW-23 SI Sanjay Tomar examined in the witness box was the initial
Investigating Officer of the case. SI Sanjay Tomar who put forth the
prosecution version as detailed in the charge-sheet through his examination-in-
chief stated further that inter alia he came to know that the deceased had
expired within seven years of her marriage and he had immediately informed
the SHO about this fact. He further testified to the effect that he had sent the
dead body of the deceased to the mortuary at the BJRM hospital through Ct.
Joginder in a private van with an application to preserve the dead body and had
informed the Executive Magistrate from the hospital vide Ex.PW-23/B. He
further stated that he returned back at the spot at about 1.15 a.m. when the
Crime team officer SI Sanjeev Verma came there with his staff and they
inspected the scene of crime and took photographs. He further stated that he
found one mobile phone of Samsung of white colour, one pair of ladies slippers
and a key of a car from the balcony of the house No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi
which had been seized by him. Apart from that he lifted the blood stained earth
from the place where the injured girl had fallen, with the help of cheni and
hammer. He stated that he kept the blood stained earth in a plastic container
and sealed the same with the seal of TS. The witness also testified to the seizure
of the EON Car vide seizure memo ExPW-20/B.

81. Inter alia, this witness testified to the effect that on 4.4.2012 at about
10:00 a.m. he reached the mortuary at BJRM Hospital where Sh. M.P.
Kushwaha, Executive Magistrate, SHO and relatives of the deceased were
present. He further stated that Sh.M.P.Kushwaha, Executive Magistrate
conducted the inquest proceedings and on his directions, he filled the inquest
form and prepared the identification documents of the dead body according to

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 48 of 88
the statements, prepared the brief facts and filled the request form for post-
mortem on direction of Sh. M.P.Kushwah, Executive Magistrate. He further
stated that on the directions of Sh. M.P.Kushwah the post-mortem was
conducted. He further stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased
to the relatives of the deceased. Inter alia, the witness testified to the
preparation of the site plan Ex.PW-23/D by Inspector Subhash at his instance.

82. On being cross-examined on behalf of the accused, i.e., respondents No.1
and 2, the witness stated that he reached the Trauma Centre and had made
inquiries from Veena Goyal regarding the marriage of the deceased with the
accused but did not record her statement. He further stated that he met the other
relatives along with Veena Goyal but they had left the hospital. He stated
further that he did not record their statement and could not tell the details of the
other relatives whom he had met in the hospital and only informed the SHO
from the hospital. Inter alia, the witness stated that no relative of Reena Goyal
accompanied him to the spot and no public witness was joined at the time of
lifting of articles from the spot and their seizure. The witness further stated that
he did not record the statement of any relative of the deceased on 4.4.2012. The
witness further stated that since he is not the IO of the case, he could not tell if
Veena Goyal had come to the Police station between 3.4.2012 till 27.4.2012 and
stated that on the directions of the IO he had gone to the house of Veena Goyal
to record her supplementary statement on 27.4.2012. The witness further
denied that he did not participate in the investigation.

83. PW-24 Inspector Subhash Chand in the witness box is the subsequent
Investigating Officer to whom the investigation was entrusted after registration
of the FIR on the statement of Sita Ram Goyal with the endorsement of
Executive Magistrate and also the endorsement made by the SHO Inspector
Meena. He further stated that he along with Ct. Joginder reached the spot of the

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 49 of 88
incident and had called SI Sanjay Tomar. He further stated that he inspected the
scene of crime and at the instance of SI Sanjay Tomar prepared the site plan
Ex.PW-23/D. He further stated that he returned back to the Police station and
collected the DD No.35A,i.e., Ex.PW-1/A and recorded the statement of the
witnesses including PCR officials and crime team officials.

84. Inter alia, the witness testified to the arrest of the accused Chanchan vide
Ex.PW-6/A , her personal search vide Ex.PW-6/B and recorded the disclosure
statement of the accused Chanchan Ex.PW-6/C. He further testified that he
arrested the accused B. Raj Sharma i.e the respondent No. 1 on 7.4.2012 vide
Ex.PW-21/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-21/B
and further also recorded his disclosure statement ExPW-21/C. He further
testified that he collected the post-mortem report and inquest proceedings and
gave a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to Sita Ram Goyal vide Ex.PW-13/E
and received a reply from Sita Ram Goyal , i.e.., Ex.PW-13/F who also handed
over the marriage card, list of guests Ex.-13/H, receipt of stridhan items Ex.Pw-
13/11 to Ex.PW-13/18. The witness further testified that the documents i.e.,
Ex.PW-13/J and Ex.PW-13/K were also verified from the transport authority.
Inter alia, the witness testified to having obtained the subsequent opinion of the
doctor about the cause of death of the deceased vide Ex.PW-24/B and stated
that the autopsy surgeon gave his opinion Ex.PW12/C and that he handed over
the same to the SHO Inspector R.S.Meena.

85. On being cross-examined on behalf of the accused, i.e., the respondents
No.1 and 2, the witness stated that he did not record the statement of any other
family member except Sita Ram Goyal and also made no enquiries from any
other family members except Sita Ram Goyal. The witness further submitted
that he made enquiries from the land lord of the house of the accused Sardar
Surender Singh where the accused, i.e., respondent No.1 was residing. He

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 50 of 88
further stated that he had not made any enquiry from the neighbour. He further
stated that he was aware that the accused B. Raj Sharma belonged to Manipur
but he did not go to Manipur at any point of time though he admitted that the
accused had claimed that he was at Manipur at the time of the incident and had
returned back on 4.4.2012. The witness further admitted that the respondent
No.1 had handed over a boarding pass in this regard and he had confirmed the
same from the authority. The witness further submitted that the boarding pass
had been given to him in the court and subsequent to that, he had conducted the
inquiries. He further stated that he learnt during the investigation that the
accused B. Raj Sharma and the deceased were having an affair before the
marriage and this alliance was finalized thereafter and both the parties were
agreeable to the said alliance.

86. The witness further admitted that during investigation he learnt that
the father of the deceased had married twice and stated that the said fact
came to his knowledge at the last stage. He further admitted that the
deceased was the daughter born out of the second marriage of PW-15, but
he made no inquiries with regard to the first wife of Sita Ram Goyal and he
also made no inquiries qua the aspect if there could have been some civil
dispute with regard to the property in which Sita Ram Goyal was residing.
He stated that he did not make any inquiry with regard to the first
marriage of Sita Ram Goyal and the children out of the said marriage and
relationship between the family of the first wife and the second wife of Sita
Ram Goyal. The witness denied that he had deliberately not inquired into
and investigated this aspect despite being known to him as he had learnt
that the deceased was in depression on account of the family problems of
her father and the property dispute. The witness further denied that he

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 51 of 88
deliberately did not visit Manipur and concealed the evidence with regard
to the business of the accused/respondent No.1 B. Raj Sharma.

87. Inter alia, the witness stated that the father of the deceased had not
handed over to him any complaint in his handwriting during the time, the
investigation remained with him. He further stated that the accused did
not inform him at any point of time that the deceased was mentally
disturbed and was also under going treatment for the same. He further
denied that he had not carried out investigations in a free and independent
manner and also denied that the investigations were led by the family of the
deceased. He further denied that he deliberately did not collect the relevant
document of the treatment as the same would have confirmed the treatment
which the deceased was receiving for her mental ailment. He further denied
that he deliberately did not make any inquiry regarding the business details of
the accused as it would falsify the case of the complainant regarding the demand
of dowry. The witness stated that he made no inquiries as to how many times
after marriage, the accused had gone to Manipur and also on how many
occasions the deceased had accompanied him further nor of the place where
they had stayed. The witness further denied that he deliberately withheld this
material from the Court because it would have proved that the deceased was
happily residing with the accused and visiting various places including his
relatives. He further denied that he obtained the signatures of the accused on
blank documents after pressurizing him and converted the same into various
memos to connect him with the present case. He further denied that the accused
had made no disclosure statement or that he was deposing falsely.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 52 of 88

STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS NO. 1 2 UNDER
SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C. 1973

88. The accused, i.e., the respondent No.1 categorically stated that he was not
aware of the deceased having fallen down from a height from the House
No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi and having expired thereby, and stated that he was
not in Delhi and was in Imphal. He also categorically stated to the effect that he
himself surrendered in the police station. He further stated that he made no
disclosure statement at the place and while admitting the factum of marriage
with the deceased on 2.11.2011 at Civil Lines according to Hindu rites
and ceremonies as per the deceased customs, he stated that the marriage
ceremony was also conducted at Imphal according to his customs. The accused
further categorically denied that he was residing at H. No.364, Indira Vihar,
Delhi and stated that he was residing at H. No. 309, Indira Vihar, Delhi on rent.
He further stated that after marriage, the deceased had stopped practicing as an
Advocate and stated that his father never visited them after his marriage in
Delhi whereas his mother visited them only once at the house of his sister at H.
No.364, Indira Vihar, Delhi. The accused, i.e., respondent No.1 further stated
that the deceased had been taking treatment for depression. The accused, i.e.,
respondent No.1 also denied that he had not declined to take the deceased to his
house when she was unwell stating that he would take her only if the father of
the deceased gave a house to him and to the accused, i.e., respondent No.2 at
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. The accused, i.e., respondent No.1also denied that
he and his sister and his mother did not visit the deceased when she was
hospitalised for 15-16 days. Inter alia, the accused/respondent No.1 denied that
he had ever made any demands of money or of a car and stated that the car had
been given in the name of the deceased which she had obtained as gift from her
parents and she was using the said car at Delhi for her own purposes. The

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 53 of 88
accused also denied that he had made any demand of three gold sets for his
three sisters, gold rings and gold chains for his parents and also demanded one
gold chain for his brother-in-law (jija). The accused also denied that he had
demanded Rs. 1 lac from the mother of the deceased in relation to which she
had given Rs.50,000/- to him on his persistent demand. The accused/respondent
No.1 also denied that he had beaten and assaulted the deceased on 12.2.2012 at
Indira Vihar when the co-accused Chanchan had caught hold of the deceased by
her hair’. He denied giving beatings to her and she fell down on the ground, and
he slapped the deceased and also gave leg blows on her stomach. The
accused/respondent No.1 in reply to query to Question No.33 which is to the
effect that:

Q. 33: It is in evidence against you that according to
PW13 Sh. Sita Ram Goyal that on 13.02.2012 you accused
B Raj Sharma left his daughter Reena Goyal at his house
and told that they will not take care of a pregnant lady
and on 29.02.2012 you accused B Raj Sharma came at his
house and took Reena to Hans hospital for abortion for
her pregnancy and she was aborted there and thereafter
you accused B. Raj Sharma again left his daughter Reena
at his house and told him that you accused B Raj Sharma
was very happy and you were now free and relieved from
a problem (” aaj main bahaut khush ho aur mere sar se
ek bhoj utar gaya). What you have to say about it.

” Respondent: the abortion had taken place because she was
feeble body weight i.e. only 36 kg and the doctors said that
she could not conceive baby as it could be dangerous for her
health if the abortion is not done.

89. The accused/respondent No.1 further stated that he and his wife, the
deceased were very much in love and were residing happily and thus there was
no question of any complaint by Reena Goyal (the deceased) and also claimed

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 54 of 88
that it was a simple marriage ceremony and after his marriage he was residing
with the deceased at House No. 309, Indira Vihar and his sister Chanchan used
to reside at H. No.364, Indira Vihar. Inter alia, the accused /respondent NO.1
stated that a false complaint was filed by the parent of the deceased, being
aggrieved by her unnatural death. He further stated that he was innocent and
has been falsely implicated. He stated that he had known the deceased since
1993 and as a friend, and in the year 2003 they fell in love with each other and
decided to get married with the blessings and permission of their parents. He
stated further that the marriage was a simple ceremony which first took place at
Delhi according to customs and rituals of Reena Goyal and after 28 days of the
same, the marriage ceremony again took place at Imphal according to their
customs and traditions and all the expenses at Imphal were borne by him. He
further stated that after the marriage, he and Reena were living happily and no
demand of dowry was made either at the time of marriage or thereafter from
their side.

90. He further stated that there was a property dispute going on between PW-
13 Sh. Sita Ram Goyal and they were on the verge of eviction from the said
property where they were residing. He further stated that Reena was ill treated
by her step mother and step brothers. The accused further stated that at the time
of the marriage, he had communicated to the deceased that he was the only son
of his old aged parents since his father had already retired and thus he needed to
settle down at Imphal itself. He further stated that he was doing the business of
electronic goods at Manipur and for that purpose he used to come to Delhi to
take the goods and sold the same at Manipur for which the deceased and her
family members also agreed. He further submitted that after the marriage, the
deceased remained at Imphal for 15 days. She could not adjust to their customs,
rituals, traditions or the atmosphere at Manipur. Because she had lived her life

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 55 of 88
at a Metropolitan city, as such she could not adjust to the atmosphere to at
Manipur. He further stated that he had given all his love and affection to his
wife Reena Goyal besides and so had his sister and parents.

91. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Chanchan,
i.e., respondent No.2 the sister of the accused No.1 and sister-in-law of the
deceased (Nanad) stated that she had been arrested on false allegations and
that she did not make any disclosure statement to the police and stated that
after the marriage the deceased used to live with the respondent No.1 at
their house at 309, Indira Vihar whereas, she, the respondent No.2 used to
reside at house NO.364, Indira Vihar.

92. Inter alia, the accused/respondent No.1 categorically denied that she had
called Reena Goyal to come to her place on 3.4.2012 but stated that she did
make a call to the mother of the deceased to come to the hospital after the
incident. Inter alia, the accused no.2 denied that there were any demands of
dowry. Inter alia, the accused/respondent No.2 claimed innocence and stated
that she had been falsely implicated and her brother, i.e., accused B Raj Sharma
and the deceased were married happily and used to reside at 309, Indira Vihar,
Delhi in a peaceful manner and that the deceased never resided with her, i.e., the
respondent No.2 and that thus there is no question of any physical or mental
torture upon the accused on her part.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE LED

93. Both the accused persons, i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 sought to lead
evidence in defence and the accused No.1/respondent No.1 B. Raj Sharma, the
husband of the deceased put himself forth in the witness box and was thus
examined on oath under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.

94. Through his testimony under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 on oath,
the accused/respondent No.1 stated that he was married to Reena Goyal on

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 56 of 88
2.11.2011 and after his marriage they had gone to Imphal, where they got
married again according to the local customs and the parents of Reena and her
brother Bharat had also gone to Imphal and stayed there and attended the
ceremonies. He further stated that he made the payment for their stay and
accommodation. He further submitted that during the ceremonies, traditional
dress and jewelleris had been given to Reena and he made payment for the
same. The accused played reliance on the bills regarding the payment of
accommodation and stay of family of Reena and also regarding the purchase of
various gifts, the bills of jewellery and furniture Ex.DW-1/A (collectively 04 in
number), the bills of traditional dress, i.e., Fanek Ex.DW-1/B (collectively 6 in
number) and the bills of hotel accommodation and stay of family of Reena
Ex.DW1/C (collectively 15 in number) were also put forth for evidence by the
accused in support of his plea of innocence.

95. Through the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the State, it was
stated by this witness that he had not handed over these bills to the Investigating
Officer but stated that he had obtained them after his arrest, but denied that
these bills had been fabricated only to create the defence. The witness further
denied that the parents of Reena were the ones who had made the payment in
cash to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- which they gave to him with
regard to their stay in Imphal and also for the other miscellaneous expenses
connected with the customary dress and jewellery. The witness further denied
that he deliberately did not hand over the said bills to the IO as it would have
exposed the fact of fabrication on their verification and denied that he was
deposing falsely.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT

96. Vide the impugned judgment the learned trial court concluded to the
effect : –

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 57 of 88

 that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 got married to Reena
Goyal on 2.11.2011;

 that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 belongs to Manipur and
was the only son of his parents and had two sisters;
 that the parents of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 were
Government Servants, living in Manipur;

 that the death of the deceased took place on 3.4.2012 i.e. within
seven years from the date of her marriage;

 that the deceased was an advocate by profession;
 that the deceased knew the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 /
respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 since school days;
 that the deceased had a love affair with the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 and the deceased was fully aware about the
different customs and cultures;

 that the parents and brothers of the deceased knew about the love
affair between the deceased and the accused no. 1 / respondent no.
1 much before their marriage and had accepted the said alliance;
 that PW-13 PW-14, parents of the deceased had visited Manipur
in August, 2011 before the marriage;

 that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had a good finance
business and was earning handsome amount from that business;
 that the parents of the deceased had satisfied themselves regarding
the family background and financial status of the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 before the marriage;

 that it could be held that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 was a
qualified person and was earning an handsome amount and once

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 58 of 88
the parents of the deceased were satisfied with the background and
the financial status of the accused, they gave the final nod;
 that the demand of Rs.1.5 lacs and gold items as dowry from the
parents and brothers of the deceased at the time of the engagement
was not proved by the prosecution;

 that the prosecution had also failed to prove that PW-13 i.e. father
of the deceased had incurred Rs.15 to Rs.16 lacs on the marriage as
expenses;

 that though the EON car was given by the father of the deceased, it
was purchased in the name of the deceased and remained in the
possession of the deceased to use and even after the death of the
deceased, the car was released on superdari to PW-13 i.e. father of
the deceased, which established that the car, which was registered
in the name of the deceased had not been used by the accused no. 1
/ respondent no. 1 and the claim of the prosecution that the accused
no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had raised a demand of a car as dowry
from the deceased or her parents, does not inspire the confidence;
 that the claim of PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased that he gave
Rs.30,000/- to the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and claim of
PW-14 i.e. mother of the deceased that she gave Rs.25,000/- to the
deceased in addition to what they had spent i.e. Rs.40,000/- on the
ceremony had not been proved;

 that the marriage of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had been
performed at Manipur according to Manipur customs, but it had not
been established that Rs.30,000/- was paid to the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 as a dowry demand and furthermore, PW-13 i.e.
father of the deceased had admitted that the arrangement of the stay
Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 59 of 88
in the hotel was made by the parents of the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 and that the father of the deceased had stated that
he had not seen the original bills regarding the payment made by
the deceased at any time nor was he aware what amounts were paid
by the deceased in relation to the customary rights at Manipur.

97. The learned trial court thus held that the prosecution had failed to prove
that PW-13 had paid any amount to the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 during
his visit in Manipur as dowry and observed that it was rather the parents of the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1, who had made all arrangements of the stay and
also borne the expenses for the same.

98. The learned trial court concluded that the deceased left for Manipur on
27.11.2011 and stayed there for 19-20 days when PW-13 i.e. father of the
deceased came back with his family at Delhi on 02.12.2011 and the deceased
stayed at Manipur for 10-11 days more after 09.12.2011 and it was observed
thus that according to PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased, on 08/09.12.2011, the
deceased informed them that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had given
beatings to her to bring more dowry and demanded gold items for his family
members and in relation to this, PW-14 i.e. mother of the deceased had deposed
that the deceased had informed her about the said demands on telephone and it
was thus observed by the learned trial court that there was a contradiction, as to
whom, the deceased had informed about the said demand.

99. The further conclusions drawn by the learned trial court were to the effect
that the deceased was an advocate by profession and thus it was highly
improbable that the deceased being an advocate and having sufficient money
with her, stayed with the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 at Manipur even
thereafter, without any protest against his alleged cruel acts; that it was not
claimed by the prosecution that even after the deceased came to Delhi, either

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 60 of 88
she visited her parents or her parents visited her to console her for the said
incident and that they had even not talked to the accused no. 1 / respondent no.
1 to that effect. The learned trial court further held to the effect that it was not
the prosecution version that the parents of the deceased had talked to the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 in relation to the maltreatment made to the
deceased at Manipur and that the allegations levelled by the prosecution against
the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1, thus did not inspire any confidence. In
relation to the alleged claimed by PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased that a sum
of Rs.50,000/- had been paid to the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 on his
demand on 21.1.2012 when he demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh from PW-14,
mother of the deceased PW-13 i.e. father of deceased had claimed that PW-14
i.e. mother of the deceased had informed him about this demand though PW-14
i.e. mother of the deceased had deposed that PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased
did not know that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had come to their house
on 21.01.2012 and that she had told the factum of payment of Rs.50,000/- to the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 after the death of the deceased. It was
concluded by the learned trial court that the giving of the amount of Rs.50,000/-
by PW-14 i.e. mother of the deceased was wholly circumspect in view of the
evidence led.

100. As regards the claim of the prosecution that on 12.02.2012, the accused
no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had slapped the deceased and gave leg blows on her
stomach and the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had caught hold of her by hair
and also gave beatings to her, it was observed by the learned trial court that
there was a contradiction in the testimony of PW-13 and PW-14, in as much
as, PW-14 had deposed that on 13.02.2012 the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1
had left the deceased at her parental home, and at that time the deceased had
informed her about beatings and that PW-13 while claiming that the said assault

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 61 of 88
was given on 12.02.2012, had not disclosed as to when and how he came to
know of the said facts. It was also observed by the learned trial court that in her
cross-examination, PW-14 had deposed that the accused no. 1 / respondent no.
1 was not in Delhi on 12.02.2012 and it was thus concluded by the learned trial
court that there were contradictions in the statements of PW-13 and PW-14 and
the prosecution version and the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused
no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had given
beatings to the deceased on 12.02.2012.

101. As regards the claim of the prosecution that on 29.02.2012, the accused
no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had got the deceased taken to the Hans Hospital for her
abortion and got her aborted, the learned trial court observed to the effect that
PW-13 in his cross-examination had deposed that in February, 2012, the
deceased got pregnant and on 13.02.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1
had left the deceased at her parental home and had stated that he would not take
care of a pregnant lady and resultantly on 29.02.2012, he got her aborted,
whereas PW-14 remained silent about any such talk by the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 on 13.02.2012. The learned trial court further observed to the
effect that PW-14 had deposed that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had
taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment on 29.02.2012 and had got her
aborted but also stated that in December, 2011, she came to know about the
pregnancy of the deceased and thus it was observed by the learned trial court
that it was implicit that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 was also aware of
the pregnancy from December, 2011 till 13.02.2012 and that he had not made
any grievance in relation to the pregnancy of the deceased.

102. It was also observed by the learned trial court that there were
contradictions in the version of PW-13 and PW-14 in relation to the aspect as to
for what purpose the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 herein had taken the

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 62 of 88
deceased to the Hans Hospital, for whereas PW-13 had stated that she had been
taken for an abortion, PW-14 had stated that it was for treatment. It was further
observed by the learned trial court to the effect that if the version of PW-13 was
believed to be correct, it implied that PW-13 had learned on 13.02.202 that the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 was not happy with the pregnancy of the
deceased and thus on 29.02.2012, he was sure that the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 had taken the deceased for an abortion, then it was not
explained by PW-13 why he remained silent and had not protested and how he
had allowed the deceased to go to the hospital with the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1. The learned trial court also observed to the effect that the
prosecution had not led any evidence of any doctor from the Hans Hospital to
prove that the abortion had taken place that day too due to the malafide
intention of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and observed that it was the
specific case of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 that the deceased had got
aborted because of her weak condition.

103. PW-16 in her cross-examination had admittedly stated that the
deceased was physically weak and her weight was 36 kg. only and PW-12
also deposed that at the time of death, the weight of the deceased was 36 kg.
It was thus observed by the learned trial court that in the given
circumstances, the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was
responsible for the abortion of the deceased.

104. As regards the alleged demand of a house made by the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 from the parents of the deceased, it was observed by the
learned trial court that whereas PW-13 had deposed on 08.03.2012 that the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 alongwith his mother left the deceased at his
place because her condition was not good and she was mentally and physically
disturbed, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had told him that they would take

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 63 of 88
her back only when they would provide him a house at Sant Nagar, Burari and
PW-13 had taken the deceased to Dr. Mukesh Yadav but no treatment was
given there and thereafter, she was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital where she
was got admitted for one or two days and was treated for 15-16 days. The
learned trial court further observed to the effect that PW-14 i.e. mother of the
deceased had also deposed to the effect that according to PW-13 and PW-14,
the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 for the first time had raised the demand of a
house on 08.03.2012. It was also observed by learned trial court that there was a
contradiction in the statements of PW-13 and PW-14 in as much as PW-14 in
her statement Ex.PW23/E had stated that after one month of the marriage, the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had started harassing the deceased and had
demanded a new house at Sant Nagar, Burari and it can thus be held that on
08.03.2012, the demand of the house was not raised by the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 for the first time but had been raised just after a month of the
marriage. The learned trial court also concluded that the prosecution had not led
any evidence to establish that on 08.03.2012, the condition of the deceased was
not good and she was mentally and physically disturbed due to the acts of the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1. It was observed by the learned trial court in the
testimony of PW-13 that on 12.03.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1
along with his mother had left for Manipur and that it was not the prosecution
version that after 08.03.2012 till 03.04.2012, the deceased ever visited her
matrimonial house or the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 came to her parental
home to take her back.

INCIDENT OF 03.04.2012

105. In relation to the fateful night of the incident dated 03.04.2012, PW-
14 had testified on oath that the deceased informed her that she had been
called by the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 herein at the house and had

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 64 of 88
left for her place in her car about 9.30 p.m. and PW-13 had also deposed
that the deceased had gone at about 9.30 p.m. to the house of the accused
no. 1 / respondent no. 1 to make inquiries about him and at 10.30 p.m. the
accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had informed them about the deceased
falling down. It was also observed by the learned trial court that
admittedly, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 was not in Delhi on that
day. The learned trial court also observed to the effect that according to
PW-14, the deceased had not only informed her at 8.30 pm, that she had
been called by the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 but she waited up to
9.30 p.m. i.e. for an hour, to leave for that place and what was the exact
conversation between the deceased and PW-14 from 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m.
was within the specific knowledge of PW-14 but the same had not been
disclosed by the prosecution. It was thus observed by the learned trial court
that in the given circumstances, it could not be believed that the deceased
simply told her mother i.e. PW-14 that she was going to inquire about the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 as deposed by PW-13.

106. The learned trial court further observed to the effect that it was
evident from the record that at 9.30 p.m. the deceased had left her parental
home alone and this fact was within the knowledge of PW-13 and PW14
i.e. her parents and after that the deceased had left her parental home after
a gap of one hour, and there would have been some discussion between her
parents and deceased regarding going to that place and they would have
allowed her to go alone at 9.30 p.m. only once they were satisfied. It was
observed by the learned trial court that if there was any threat whatsoever
from the side of the accused or else the parents of the deceased would not
have allowed her to go alone or the deceased would have gone alone. The
learned trial court also observed to the effect that if there was a threat then

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 65 of 88
the prosecution had failed to explain as to why PW-13 and PW-14 had
allowed the deceased to go alone, and that the prosecution had failed to
explain that once the deceased and her parents were aggrieved by the
cruelties of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 on the deceased then why
they allowed her to go alone on that day and that too in the night and in her
own vehicle. The learned trial court also observed to the effect that there
was a time gap of one hour when the deceased left the home and when the
accused no. 2 informed about her falling down and that it was nowhere the
case of the prosecution that during the said period, PW-13 and PW-14 even
tried once to contact the deceased about her well being nor that the
deceased talked to her parents during the said period. It was also observed
by the learned trial court that this kind of conduct of the deceased and PW-
13 and PW-14 i.e. parents of the deceased, whose daughter had already
been treated cruelty by the accused, as claimed by the prosecution, was
unnatural. It was thus observed by the learned trial court that it can be
held that parents of the deceased were not apprehensive of the well being
of the deceased at the hands of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1. Rather,
accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had not only informed them about the
incident, but had also informed that the deceased had been taken to the
Trauma Centre and had asked them to come immediately and it was
observed by the learned trial court that if the accused no. 2 / respondent no.
2 was at fault then she would not have done so.

LACK OF COMPLAINTS MADE TO THE POLICE

107. The prosecution through witnesses, PW-13, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 and
PW-17 i.e. father, mother, step brothers and step sister of the deceased, brought
forward the allegation of demand of dowry and it was observed by the learned
trial court that though these witnesses had deposed about the alleged cruelties

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 66 of 88
meted out by the accused and allegedly noticed by them from time to time, they
made no complaint to the police against the accused till 04.04.2012. The learned
trial court also observed that PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased in his testimony
had stated that on 25.03.2012, he had asked the deceased as to why the deceased
was not making a police complaint and she had replied that she loved the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 a lot and for betterment of her matrimonial life,
she had hesitated to make any complaint to the police. The learned trial court
also observed to the effect that vide the statement Ex.PW11/A recorded on
04.04.2012, PW-13 had stated that the allegation made against the accused no. 1
/ respondent no. 1 was that after the marriage, he had made a demand of a car
and in his statement Ex.PW11/A, PW-13 had raised the suspicion only against
the sister of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 i.e. the accused no. 2 /
respondent no. 2 herein and not the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 herein.

108. It was also observed that PW-13 had only stated in his testimony on
oath that he i.e. PW-13 could not give the complete details of the cruelties
to the SDM as he was in a state of shock but despite the same the statement
Ex.PW11/A remained conspicuously silent as to why the name of the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 was not mentioned as suspect at that time.
The learned trial court further observed that even if it is presumed for the
sake of arguments that PW-13 was in the state of shock at that time but it
is highly improbable that he was in a shock to such an extent that he had
forgotten to mention the name of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 as
suspect.

VARIATIONS IN THE STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES AT
DIFFERENT STAGES

109. The learned trial court has also observed that in the supplementary
statement dated 05.04.2012 of PW-13 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 67 of 88
had stated that the in-laws of the deceased had demanded a car, which he
fulfilled and thereafter the in-laws of the deceased kept on raising their demands
which he kept on fulfilling to make the deceased happy and that on 08.03.2012,
the mother of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and the accused no. 2 /
respondent no. 2 had left the deceased at her parental home after harassing her
and the deceased allegedly died because of the harassment and demand of
dowry made by her in-laws. The learned trial court observed to the effect that
the statement dated 05.04.2012 i.e. supplementary statement of PW-13 recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when compared to the statement dated 04.04.2013
reveals that PW-13 made material improvements in his statement dated
05.04.2012 and had also included the in-laws of the deceased in the making of
dowry demands and alleged cruelties. It was also observed by the learned trial
court that the statement made by PW-13 in court also had material improvement
and apart from making improvements, PW-13 had gone to the extent of
bringing note Mark PW13/N and deposed that it was in the hand writing of the
deceased and if the said note was so vital and came to his notice at an early
stage then he had failed to give any explanation for his silence in relation
thereto till his deposition and thus it was observed that PW-13 had made
material improvements in his statements from time to time and that further
there was a failure of the investigating agency to record the statements of the
family members on 04.04.2012.

110. The learned trial court also observed to the effect that apart from the
statement of PW-13 recorded on 04.04.2012, the statement of no other person
was recorded by the investigating agency on that day and specifically the
statements of PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 were not recorded despite
their availability. The statements of PW-14 and PW-15 indicate that their
statements were recorded on 27-04-2012 and it was thus observed by the

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 68 of 88
learned trial court that even between 04.04.2012 and 27.04.2012, the
investigating agency did not attempt to record the statements of the family
members nor had they given their willingness to give their statements. The
learned trial court also observed that the statements of PW-14 and PW-15
recorded on 27.04.2012, were not their voluntary statements but it had been
made at the instance of PW-13 and it was observed by the learned trial court
also that the investigating agency had recorded the statements of PW-14 and
PW-15 which were undated with the sole objective of the prosecution to fill up
the lacunae in the prosecution case.

111. The learned trial court also concluded to the effect that the testimony
of PW-13 and PW-14 brought forward the existence of a wedlock between
the father of the deceased and Kamla Goyal through which four sons were
born out and that two sons namely Bharat Goyal and Gaurav Goyal and
one daughter i.e. the deceased were born of the second wedlock and that a
property dispute was going on between PW-13 on the one hand and his
children on the other hand and the deceased was disturbed and used to
remain under depression and had filed the complaint qua which aspect
investigation was not conducted by the investigating agency and thus it was
held that the deceased had committed suicide, in which the accused had no
role to play.

112. The learned trial court also concluded to the effect that the prosecution
had miserably failed to establish that the accused ever treated the deceased with
cruelty in terms of Section 498A of the IPC. The learned trial court further
observed to the effect that since the prosecution had failed to prove that the
accused had treated the deceased with cruelties within the meaning of Section
498A IPC, the presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act of
dowry death cannot be raised against the accused and thus it was observed that

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 69 of 88
the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had committed an offence
under Section 304B of IPC.

113. The learned trial court also observed to the effect that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature in which the accused had no role to play and
thus the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had committed the
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE

114. Through Criminal Leave Petition No. 74/2016, the State is aggrieved by
the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2015 of the learned trial court and has
submitted : –

(a) that the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises
and is against the facts and law;

(b) that the learned trial court had not dealt with the presumption of
dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in
relation to the death of the victim having taken place under unnatural
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and that the
presumption had been successfully rebutted;

(c) that the two material witnesses i.e. PW-13 Sh. Sita Ram Goyal and
PW-14 Smt. Veena Goyal, parents of the deceased had consistently stated
about the dowry demand and the death of the victim having taken place
within five months from her marriage with the accused no. 1 / respondent
no. 1 and thus the presumption of dowry death was attracted, which had
been rebutted by the accused;

(d) that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that there were
only minor contradictions in the statements of PW-13 Sh. Sita Ram
Goyal (the father of the deceased Smt. Reena Goyal), PW-14 Smt. Veena
Goyal (the mother of the deceased), PW-15 Smt. Mamta Goyal (step

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 70 of 88
sister-in-law of the deceased) and PW-16 Tanjeev Kumar Goyal and that
they were not of a nature as to be fatal to the case of the prosecution;

(e) that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the post-mortem
report which had clearly stated that the death was caused due to coma and
shock consequent upon multiple injuries that could be caused by blunt /
surface impact due to fall from a height;

(f) that the learned trial court had erred in observing that the deceased
had suicidal tendency and the same is based on conjectures and surmises
and that there was no evidence on record to show the same ;

(g) that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that there was no
occasion for the victim to commit suicide at the house of the accused no.
1 / respondent no. 1;

(h) that the learned trial court had erroneously disbelieved the
statement of PW-13 on the ground that there were improvements in the
statement made by PW-13 before the SDM and that PW-13 had duly
explained the improvements made at the time of giving his first statement
before the SDM submitting that he was in a state of shock and that the
same was a plausible explanation and ought not to have been described
by the learned trial court;

(i) that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that PW-13 had
deposed that he had handed over Rs.30,000/- to the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 at Manipur and that he had further deposed that on
8/9.11.2011, the deceased had informed him that the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 had given beatings to her at Manipur for more dowry
and had demanded three gold sets for his three sisters, gold rings and gold
chain for his parents and had also demanded on gold chain for his
brother-in-law ;

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 71 of 88

(j) that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the deposition of
PW-13 that on 21.01.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had
come to his house and had demand Rs.1 lakh from PW-14 in relation to
which a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the accused no. 1 / respondent no.
1 on his persistent demand;

(k) that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that PW-13 had
deposed that on 12.02.2012 the deceased had gone to her matrimonial
house at Indira Vihar where the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had
caught hold of the deceased by her hairs and had given beatings to her
and she had fallen down on the ground and that PW-13 had also deposed
that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had slapped the deceased and
had also given leg blows on her stomach;

(l) Interalia, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the learned trial
court had erred in disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses, in as much
as all the witnesses were persistent in relation to material particulars in
relation to the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 having demanded a car
and dowry and of that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 having made a
demand for gold sets and a sum of Rs.50,000/- and a house and also in
relation to the assault and maltreatment with the deceased and also in
relation to the abortion of the deceased having been got done of the
deceased child by the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and of his having
been happy about the same. It was further contended on behalf of the
State that merely because the complainant had not made any complaint
prior to 03.04.2012 by the deceased or any other family members about
the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty cannot be a ground for
discrediting the witnesses in view of the fabric of Indian society where
the foremost concern of the family is to ensure that the matrimonial

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 72 of 88
alliance is continued and generally police complaints are made. The State
thus had sought the conviction of the respondents under
Sections
498A/304B/34 of IPC.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

115. On behalf of the respondents is contended that there was no infirmity in
the impugned judgment of the learned trial court and that the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses were wholly variant in relation to material particulars. It
was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the record established that the
deceased had not been able to adjust herself to the difference in culture,
traditions, linguistic aspects besides food habits at her matrimonial home at
Imphal, Manipur, which is a small and different town in comparison to Delhi
where the deceased was an advocate by profession. It was also submitted on
behalf of the respondents that merely because the deceased had committed
suicide, did not bring the respondents under the ambit of Sections 304B and
498A of IPC, as the allegations of demand of dowry and consequently cruelty
and harassment for the same had not been proved on record and thus there was
no presumption that can be raised under Section 113(a) of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.

116. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that as per the
requirement of Section 304B of IPC, firstly there has to be a demand of dowry
and secondly, it had to be shown that the same had to be raised soon before the
death and thirdly, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by
her husband or his relations and it was thus submitted on behalf of the
respondents that qua the statement of PW-13 and PW-14 i.e. the parents of the
deceased, to the effect that the car was demanded on 05.11.20111 and was
given on 07.11.2011.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 73 of 88

117. It was further submitted on behalf of respondents that no averment had
been made in relation to any harassment or cruelty caused to the deceased for
that demand and that admittedly the Hyundai Eon car was in the name of the
deceased, who was driving the car throughout and even after her death the said
car was taken away by the father of the deceased i.e. PW-13. It was also
submitted on behalf of the respondents that the allegations of beating given to
the deceased on 12.02.2012 and of the pregnancy of the deceased having been
got aborted on 29.02.2012 were not made by PW-13 to the SDM in his
statement nor were they so stated by PW-13 to the police nor were they so
stated by PW-14. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the
evidence on record establishes that the deceased was physically and mentally
weak and was having 36 kg. weight and that no medical evidence had been
placed on record by the prosecution of any forced abortion.

VERDICTS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENTS

118. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdict of the
Supreme Court titled as
Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another
, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2828 to contend that the commission of
the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC was not even attracted in the
facts and circumstances of the instant case, in as much as, there was nothing on
record to indicate that there was any cruelty inflicted on the deceased soon after
her death which could establish that there was no perceptible nexus between her
death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted upon her.

119. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdict of
the Supreme Court in the case Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC
2790 to contend that the mere fact that a woman committed suicide within a
period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that she had been
subjected to cruelty by her husband does not automatically give rise to the

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 74 of 88
presumption and that the court is required to look into all the other
circumstances of the case and that one of the circumstances which has to be
considered by the Court was whether the alleged cruelty was likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or
health of the woman. It was thus contended on behalf of the respondents that
there were no circumstances brought forward on record in the instant case to
show that there was any cruelty at any stage inflicted on the deceased which
was likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
her life limb or health.

120. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdicts of
the Hon’ble Apex Court tiled as “Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (3)
JCC 1730 to contend that under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on the
proof of circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and merely because a married woman committed suicide within a
period of seven years from the date of her marriage, the presumption under
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply.

ANALYSIS

121. It is essential to observe that through the present Criminal Leave Petition
No. 74/2016, the State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of
the learned trial court whereby the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and the
accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 have been acquitted in relation to the alleged
commission of the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and
also of the alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC and thus it has
essentially to be borne under consideration that though an Appellate Court has
full powers to review and reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
an order of acquittal is founded and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 75 of 88
no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such powers and an
Appellate Court on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion both on
question of conviction and law as laid down in Chandrappa vs. State of
Karnataka Ors
. 2007(4) SCC 415 and Prandas vs. The State AIR 1954 SC
36, however, it cannot be overlooked that the verdict of the Supreme Court in
Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka Ors. 2007(4) SCC 415 also lays down
categorically that:

“(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.

(5) if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court.”

120. In the case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P. 2008(10) SCC 450 the
Supreme Court has laid down the following guiding principle, to be adhered
to before leave to appeal against an order of acquittal may be granted:

“. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has ‘very
substantial and compelling reasons’ for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate
court would have ‘very substantial and compelling
reasons’ to discard the trial court’s decision. ‘Very
substantial and compelling reasons’ exist when:

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 76 of 88

i)The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts
is palpably wrong;

ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an
erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in
“grave miscarriage of justice”;

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing
with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust
and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored material
documents like dying declarations/report of the
Ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper
weight and consideration to the findings of the trial
court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached-one that
leads to acquittal, the other to conviction-the High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the
accused.”

121. To similar effect is the verdict of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh Ors. JT 2013(8) SC 625.

122. Gauged on the above parameters laid down by the Supreme Court of
India in the afore-mentioned cases, it is apparent that there is nothing on the
record to indicate that the learned trial court’s decision was based on an
erroneous view of law or that the learned trial court had ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or had ignored the material documents. Rather,
the analysis of evidence put forth by the learned trial court is based on a

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 77 of 88
reasonable conclusion possible on the evidence on record and there are no
substantial and compelling reasons to discard the findings of the learned trial
court.

123. The factum that the presumption of innocence is available to an accused
in criminal jurisprudence where each person is presumed to be innocent unless
he is proved guilty by a competent court of law, and the aspect of the
presumption of his innocence being further reinforced and reaffirmed by his
acquittal by the trial Court strengthens the conclusion drawn on the evidence on
the record by the learned trial court and thus there is now in the present case the
double presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused / respondents.

124. The evidence before the learned trial court establishes that the deceased
and the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had married pursuant to a love affair
between them and that they were attached to each other even till the demise of
the deceased. This aspect reinforces the testimonies of the parents of the
deceased, who have categorically stated that the deceased had stated that she
loved the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and that she wanted a good
matrimonial life. The accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 has also stated that the deceased and he were very
much in love and that there was no problem between them. The factum that the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 of his own came back to Delhi on 04.04.2012
from Manipur immediately on learning of the demise of the deceased, who
expired on 03.04.2012 speaks volumes in favour of his innocence, in as much as
the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 made no attempt to abscond though he was
not even in Delhi at the time of the demise of the deceased.

125. The evidence on record also proves the weak physique of the deceased
which corroborates the plea of defence put forth by the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 that the abortion took place as it was advised medically in view

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 78 of 88
of the frail health of the deceased. As rightly observed by the learned trial court,
there is no evidence that has been led on the record to show that there was
coerced abortion.

126. The factum that there was no complaint made prior to the demise of the
deceased in relation to any demands for dowry, coupled with the factum that
even Mark PW-13/N the alleged hand writing of the deceased in which she
stated allegedly that her life had been made hell by the respondents was not
produced during investigation of the father of the deceased and he chose to
produce it only in the witness box when he was being examined, coupled with
the factum that the said hand writing of the deceased was not sent for any
forensic hand writing examination nor compared with any admitted hand
writing of the deceased in any manner lend credence to the observation of the
learned trial court that there were categorical improvements in the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses from the version put forth by them during the
investigation. Furthermore, the factum that the Mark PW-13/N is written in
English script with Hindi words makes it all the more circumspect.

127. The available record also establishes that the deceased was unable to
adjust to the life style at Manipur having lived in the Metropolitan City of Delhi
and was unable to adjust to the cultural differences between herself and her
upbringing and that of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and his parents were
residing at Manipur.

128. The available record further brings forth that the prosecution has been
unable to establish its claim that the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had
demanded an EON Car as dowry from the deceased and her parents which
purchased by the PW-13 i.e. the father of the deceased on 7.11.2011 for a sum
of Rs.3,46,758/- and was purchased in the name of his daughter i.e. the
deceased who continued to be in possession of the deceased and was driven by

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 79 of 88
the deceased who even drove to the house No.364, Indira Vihar on the fateful
day i.e. 03.04.2012 to the house of the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 and
thereafter the vehicle was handed over on superdari to the father of the
deceased.

129. The further contention of the State that there was a demand of a sum of
Rs.1 Lakh made to the mother of the deceased by the accused no. 1 / respondent
no. 1 is also not substantiated in view of the testimonies of PW-13, PW-15 who
allegedly gave Rs.50,000/- to her step mother-in-law i.e. PW-14 to hand over
the same to the accused, in as much as PW-14 stated that she gave Rs.50,000/-
to the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 when he demanded Rs.1 Lakh which she
took from PW-15, she did not even inform her sons namely Bharat Goyal and
Gaurav Goyal about the same and she did not arrange the same through PW-13
nor through her sons nor did she ask her own daughters-in-law and asked for the
amount from her step daughter-in-law and she did not even disclose the same to
her daughter (since deceased), are all aspects which cast a doubt on the veracity
of the prosecution version in relation to the alleged demand of Rs.1 Lakh,
especially as even PW-17 Sh. Manjeev Goyal and PW-15 Smt. Mamta Goyal
(his wife) did not ask for the money amounting to Rs.50,000/- when they shifted
and separated from PW-13 and PW-14.

130. The allegations against the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 of having
made demands of three gold sets for his three sisters and the gold rings and gold
chains for his parents and also of his having demanded one gold chain for his
brother-in-law (Jija), was also not conclusively established through the
prosecution evidence led. As regards the allegations levelled against the
respondents to the effect that on 12.02.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no.
1 / husband of the deceased had slapped her and had given her leg blows and the
accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had caught hold of the deceased by her hairs

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 80 of 88
and had given beatings, have also not been substantiated through the evidence
on record as it has not been brought forward on record as to when and how PW-
13 had learnt of the said fact. Furthermore, PW-14 had deposed that on
13.02.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had left the deceased at her
parental home and at that time he had informed about the said beatings and in
his cross-examination, PW-14 had deposed that the accused no. 1 / respondent
no. 1 was not in Delhi on 12.02.2012. The accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 in
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 had also categorically stated that
he reached at Delhi on 12.02.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. by an Air India flight
which the prosecution has been unable to refute thus casting a grave doubt on
the veracity of the prosecution version in relation to the allegations that have
been levelled against the accused / respondents of harassment and maltreatment
of the deceased for dowry demands.

131. As per the record, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had left the
deceased on 08.03.2012 at her parental home and did not come to take her back
at any stage. The prosecution has sought to contend that the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 told PW-13 that they would take back Smt. Reena Goyal (since
deceased) only when the family members of the deceased would provide him a
house in Sant Nagar, Burari. As per Ex.PW11/A, the statement of PW-13
recorded by the Executive Magistrate though it has been stated by Sh. Sita Ram
Goyal (father of the deceased) that the marriage between the deceased and the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 took place on 02.11.2011, he further stated that
his daughter was an advocate and that on 07.03.2012, a Wednesday, the accused
no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had taken his daughter (since deceased) to his rented
accommodation at Indira Vihar (the house number has not been mentioned)
and on 08.03.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1, his mother and the
sister of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 i.e. Ms. Chanchan / the accused no.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 81 of 88

2 / respondent no. 2 herein, left his daughter (since deceased) at his house i.e.
PW-13 and never came back to take her back thereafter and the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 went away with his mother to Manipur, there is not a whisper
of an averment in Ex.PW11/A in relation to any demand of dowry for any
harassment meted out to the deceased. That such facts were not stated by the
father of the deceased i.e. PW-13, to the SDM in the first statement made to the
Executive Magistrate renders circumspect the prosecution version in relation to
the alleged harassment, demand of dowry and maltreatment of the deceased by
the respondents and also in relation to the alleged demand of a house at Sant
Nagar, Burari.

132. The testimony of PW-13 also does not bring forth that between
02.11.2011 and 07.03.2012, the deceased had ever stayed at her matrimonial
home. The testimony of PW-13 also states that when the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 had taken his daughter on 07.03.2012 to his house at Indira
Vihar, the next day i.e. on 08.03.2012, the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 had
informed PW-13 i.e. Sita Ram Goyal that the condition of Smt. Reena Goyal
(since deceased) was not good and thereafter, the accused no. 1 / respondent no.
1, the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 and their mother had brought Smt. Reena
Goyal (since deceased) to the house of her father and had left her at her house at
which time she i.e. Smt. Reena Goyal was not in a good condition and was not
able to stand and was mentally and physically disturbed. The testimony of the
PW-13 also states that at that time, the accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 stated
that they would bring back the deceased only when her family members had
provided her a house at Sant Nagar, Burari. PW-13 further stated that he and his
family members had taken the deceased to Dr. Mukesh Yadav for medical
treatment but she was not treated there and thereafter they took her to Hindu
Rao Hospital wherein the deceased was medically treated for 15-16 days after

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 82 of 88
her admission in the hospital for one or two days. He further stated that the
accused persons and their mother did not visit the hospital to see the condition
of Smt. Reena Goyal despite having been informed about the condition of Smt.
Reena Goyal and that thereafter the accused did not come to the house to take
his daughter and on 12.03.2012, the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 went to
Manipur along with his mother.

133. As to what medical treatment was given to Smt. Reena Goyal d/o PW-13
i.e. Sh. Sita Ram Goyal at the Hindu Rao Hospital and for what she was
medically treated for upto 20 days, has not been explained anywhere on the
record. From the date 08.03.2012 till the date of her demise, admittedly there
was no contact between the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and the accused no.
2 / respondent no. 2 and the deceased.

134. The testimonies of PW-13 Sh. Sita Ram Goyal (the father of the deceased
Smt. Reena Goyal), PW-14 Smt. Veena Goyal (the mother of the deceased),
PW-15 Smt. Mamta Goyal (step sister-in-law of the deceased), PW-16 Tanjeev
Kumar Goyal and PW-17 Sh. Manjeev Goyal (both step brothers of the
deceased), the family members of the deceased, bring forth that there were
property disputes between PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased and her children, in
as much as the first wife of PW-13 i.e. father of the deceased and her children
were living separately and the children of PW-13 (i.e. father of the deceased)
born of the wedlock with PW-14 were living separately and that complaints
were regularly made at the Police Station Civil Lines on account of property
disputes are aspects which bring forth the probability of the deceased being
under depression on account of the disputes between PW-13 i.e. father of the
deceased and his other sons namely Bharat Goyal and Gaurav Goyal.

135. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer Inspector Subhash Chand i.e. PW-
24 also admittedly made no inquiries in relation to the aspect of property dispute

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 83 of 88
between the family members of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal in view of his two
marriages, he having stated that he learnt of the two marriages only at this last
stage and neither did he make any inquiries in relation to the aspect of the first
wife, nor in relation to the aspect whether there was some civil disputes in
relation to the property of Sh. Sita Ram Goyal.

136. Significantly, the Investigating Officer has also categorically stated that
he had not visited to Manipur and made no inquiries in relation to the business
of the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 or his alibi.

CONCLUSION

137. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-13 Sh. Sita Ram
Goyal (the father of the deceased Smt. Reena Goyal), PW-14 Smt. Veena Goyal
(the mother of the deceased), PW-15 Smt. Mamta Goyal (step sister-in-law of
the deceased), PW-16 Tanjeev Kumar Goyal and PW-17 Sh. Manjeev Goyal
(both step brothers of the deceased) bring forth that the accused no. 1 /
respondent no. 1 had a good finance business at Manipur. that the parents of the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 were Government servants and father of the
accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 had already retired. The evidence on the record
thus, as rightly held by the learned trial court does not establish any cruelty
meted out to the deceased by the accused no. 1 / respondent no. 1 and the
accused no. 2 / respondent no. 2 for dowry in terms of Sections 498A of IPC,
1860 as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment titled as “Kanwar Pal
vs. Shakuntala and Ors
.” reported in 2015 IV AD (Delhi) 450 that : –

“to establish the offence under section 304B IPC of dowry death,
the presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act cannot be
raised against an accused until independently the offence under
Section 498A IPC is proved by leading evidence qua the specific
allegation with regard to time and date of such demand and
cruelty and furthermore establishing the proximate live link

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 84 of 88
between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand (offence
under Section 498A IPC) and the death of the victim”

138. It is evident thus that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
nos. 1 and 2 / respondent nos. 1 and 2 had treated the deceased with cruelty
within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, 1860 and thus the presumption under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of a dowry death cannot be
raised against the accused nos. 1 and 2 / respondent nos. 1 and 2, as there is
nothing on record to establish any credible evidence led by the prosecution to
prove any specific allegation with regard to the time and date of any demands or
cruelty meted out to the deceased having not established any proximate live link
between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demands and the death of the
victim i.e. deceased.

139. It is essential to observe that to bring the accused nos. 1 and 2 /
respondent nos. 1 and 2 within the ambit of culpability under Sections 304B of
IPC, 1860, the prosecution has to established the following essential ingredients
of Section 304B of IPC, 1860: –

(i) that soon before her death, the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband / or in-laws,
which cruelty must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
and

(ii) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out
to the woman soon before her death.

140. The verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raman Kumar v. State of
Punjab
, 2009(3) JCC 1840 : (2009) 16 SCC 35 categorically lays down that
the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is a presumption of
law which can be raised only on proof of the following ingredients : –

(i) The death of a woman should be caused burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under a normal circumstance;

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 85 of 88

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage;

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband;

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with
demand of dowry;

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to
the woman soon before her death;

141. It was further laid down by the Supreme Court in the said verdict in para
16 to the effect : –

“16. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and
Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to show that
soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a
natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of
the “death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances”.
The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section
113B
of the Evidence Act and Section 304B IPC are pressed into
service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the
occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case
presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by
the prosecution. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would
depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait jacket
formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of
soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate
any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity
test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for
raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The expression “soon before for death” used in the substantive
Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is
present, with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has
been indicated and the expression “soon before” is not defined. A
reference to the expression “soon before” used in Section 114
Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a
court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods
soon after the theft, is either the thief who had received the goods
knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his
possession. The determination of the period which can come

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 86 of 88
within the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the
courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.
Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before”
would normally imply that the interval should not be much
between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in
question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link
between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in
time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be no
consequence.”

142. Tested on the anvil on the above parameters, the prosecution evidence
led, does not bring forth that there was any harassment or cruelty meted out to
the deceased soon before her death to compel her to commit suicide.

143. In view thereof, the submissions made on behalf of the State through the
Criminal Leave Petition No. 74/2016 seeking leave to appeal to contend that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge had not appreciated the evidence cannot be
accepted in as much as there is nothing on record to indicate that the learned
trial court has ignored any material evidence, nor to indicate that there has been
any misappreciation of evidence.

144. In view thereof, the Criminal Leave Petition No. 74/2016 whereby the
State seeks the setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2015 of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in
Session Case no. 67/12 in relation to FIR no. 95/12 registered at police station
Mukherjee Nagar, under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC whereby the accused no. 1
/ respondent no. 1 namely B. Raj Sharma and the accused no. 2 / respondent no.
2 namely Chanchan were acquitted in relation to the alleged commission of
offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC, 1860 and also for the
alternative charge framed under Section 302/34 IPC, 1860 is thus, – dismissed.

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 87 of 88

The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.

ANU MALHOTRA, J

GITA MITTAL, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2017/sv/mk

Crl.L.P.74/2016 Page 88 of 88

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation