Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 26.03.2012
+ Crl. A. 296/2011
STATE ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.
versus
SANJEEV JAIN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate.
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. This appeal by leave challenges an acquittal recorded by learned
Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.11.2006 whereby the respondents,
(arrayed as accused before the Court), were acquitted in respect of the
offences alleged against them, punishable under Sections 304B and 498 IPC.
2. The prosecution case was that Monika Jain (the deceased) was
married to the first accused, Sanjeev Jain, on 24.02.1998. Police Post Pitam
Pura received information on 24.04.2000 from Dr. S.D. Sharma, (PW-2), of
Sarvodaya Hospital that Monika Jain was admitted in the hospital, and died
due to poisoning. It is an undeniable fact that the accused Sanjeev Jain had
admitted her to the hospital. On receipt of information, SI Rajpal Singh
(PW-19) was told to investigate into the matter; he reached the hospital and
collected MLC. It is stated that since the case concerned the death of a
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 1
married woman within seven years of the marriage, he brought it to the
notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Model Town). He stated that the
SDM was informed about this aspect immediately upon the witness
becoming aware of it. The SDM proceeded to record the statements of the
deceased’s relatives, i.e. the father, PW-8; brother-PW-12; brother-in-law-
PW-13; mother (PW-14) and PW-21 (maternal uncle- Mama). The police
also seized several articles and took them into possession and proceeded
with the investigation during which the postmortem report, serological
report and other scientific evidence and reports were collected. The accused,
who had been arrested in the meanwhile, were charged with having
committed the offences they were ultimately tried for. They denied guilt and
claimed trial.
3. During the proceedings before the Trial Court, the prosecution relied
upon the testimonies of 23 witnesses and also produced several exhibits.
After recording these, the Trial Court put queries to the respondents under
Section 313 Cr.PC. The respondents relied on the testimony of one Manav
Sharma, DW-1. Upon an overall consideration of all these, the Trial Court
concluded that the prosecution had not been able to establish that any cruelty
on account of dowry harassment soon before the deceased’s death had been
perpetrated on her by any of the accused. The Trial Court was also
considerably influenced by the circumstance that though the incident was
reported on 24.04.2000, the First Information Report (FIR) and the
statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded on 25.04.2000.
According to the Trial Court, this delay was fatal; besides the prosecution
was unable to explain the cause for the delay. The Trial Court also noticed
that during the evidence, the suicide note setting-out the reasons for the
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 2
deceased taking her own life had been brought on record. The prosecution
witnesses had tried to explain that circumstance by stating that the note had
been obtained from the deceased in advance in the course of some
Panchayat held earlier to resolve the disputes between the deceased and the
in-laws. The Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution version and preferred to
rest its conclusions as regard the cause of death on the suicide note which
was proved to be that of the deceased.
4. Learned APP submits that in the present case, admittedly, the
unnatural death or suicide took place within two years of marriage and there
was sufficient material on the record to infer that the deceased was subjected
to repeated cruelty and dowry harassment. Learned counsel emphasized that
the rationale for the acquittal were some minor contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel argued that the main
reason for the acquittal, i.e. the delay, was something which ought not to
have influenced the Trial Court in concluding that the prosecution story was
unbelievable. In this context, it was submitted that the circumstance of
availability of the SDM, ought not to have been the reason why the
prosecution witnesses should have been disbelieved. On the other hand,
submitted learned counsel that all the material prosecution witnesses, i.e.
PWs-8, 9, 13, 14 and 21 supported each other, particularly as to the demands
made from the deceased and her family to prove dowry harassment, as a
condition for establishing offence under Section 304B IPC. They were also
consistent about the kind of cruelty meted out to her.
5. It was argued that the Postmortem Report clearly proved that the
deceased had died an unnatural death – a fact not disputed by any of the
accused. The postmortem was conducted on 25.04.2000 at around 12.00
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 3
Noon. According to the doctor conducting it, PW-1, the approximate time of
death was 24 hours before the commencement of the proceeding, i.e. around
12 AM on 24.04.2000. Since the accused were in the premises from where
the deceased’s body was taken, they owed an explanation how and under
what circumstances she committed the suicide. Besides, argued learned
APP, the deposition of PW-1 and the Postmortem Report, Ex. PW-1/A also
established that the stomach contained about 250 c.c. of oily fluid and
strongly smelt of kerosene oil. The doctor had furnished an opinion that the
death was due to some toxic substance – substantiated by the viscera report.
Learned counsel submitted in this regard that death was the result of
insecticide consumption. The deceased had apparently taken Baygon fluid or
spray, a commonly used insecticide.
6. Learned APP emphasized that the defence story about a suicide note
and letters could not be taken on the face value in the light of the prosecution
witnesses’ explanation recorded during the proceedings. It was submitted
that the cause of death was not really the one mentioned in the suicide note
and that the note produced during the trial, according to the prosecution
witnesses – i.e. the deceased’s relatives were the result of a panchayat
proceeding where some resolution of the disputes between the deceased’s in-
laws and her had taken place. It was properly explained and ought to have
been taken into account and not made the basis for the acquittal recorded by
the Trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the impugned
judgment does not disclose any substantial or compelling reason why the
Trial Court’s findings ought to be interfered with. Elaborating on this, it was
submitted that even though all the witnesses were available at the time of
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 4
death or soon thereafter, the statements of none of them were recorded by
the police. Learned counsel here emphasized that PW-19 specifically
deposed that the SDM had been informed soon after he became aware about
the death the same day, i.e. on 24.04.2000. It was submitted next that in
order to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC, not only was the
prosecution under an obligation to prove the guilt to the deceased but also
that it was coupled with dowry demands soon before the occurrence of the
unnatural death. Without proof of these foundational facts, the presumption
which every Court is entitled to draw, cannot be taken recourse to. It was
further submitted that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses were
coloured by the fact that they were close relatives of the deceased. If in fact,
they had any cause or grievance, nothing prevented them from approaching
the police earlier. Furthermore, they made no attempt to report the cause of
death soon after becoming aware about the unnatural death, on the date of its
recovery, i.e. 24.04.2000. Lastly, it was urged in this context that the Trial
Court also took note of the fact that the deceased was taken to the hospital
by the accused Sanjeev Jain himself which was not consistent with his cruel
behavior and alleged demand for dowry, being the reason for her suicide. It
was submitted that the Trial Court noticed major contradictions in the
testimonies of material prosecution witnesses. Most of them did not
corroborate each other or even what they stated during the investigation.
Moreover, argued counsel, lack of any specific details as to the approximate
time of the demand, put question marks over the allegations.
8. It was urged that the Trial Court was perfectly justified in returning
the finding that the deceased committed suicide for her own reasons. In this
regard, learned counsel relied upon the suicide note, Ex. PW-PY/B and
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 5
stressed the fact that no reason was given why she committed suicide. More
importantly, the note did not implicate any of the accused. Learned counsel
also submitted that the Trial Court took note of the fact that Ex. PW-Y/A
established that the admitted handwriting of the deceased (collected during
the investigation) and produced in the Trial Court as Ex. PX-1 to 3 had
matched with the handwriting of the suicide note, Ex. PW-Y/B.
9. The prosecution in this case, in order to prove dowry demand and the
attendant cruelty, relied upon the testimony of several witnesses, who were
the deceased’s relatives. These demands were that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh had
been asked from the deceased’s parents and relatives; a scooter was
demanded by Raj Rani Jain; golden ring and chain had been demanded by
the sisters-in-law of Monika Jain. It was also alleged that the mother-in-law
demanded a washing machine. The Trial Court analysed the evidence of
each material witness with regard to these demands separately. It was
noticed that PW-8, the deceased’s father had made improvements with
regard to the demand for Rs. 1 lakh, scooter and gold ring, which was the
reason why his deposition was not accepted. Likewise, PWs-9, 11, 12 and 21
did not depose with regard to demand for Rs. 1 lakh. So far as the washing
machine and other articles are concerned, the Court analysed that PW-8
could not specify when such demand was first raised. Importantly, in his
statement recorded before the SDM, Ex. PW-8/A, this aspect had been
omitted. The Court also observed that if a washing machine had been
purchased – (as alleged by the witness, who claimed that it was bought on
the basis of instalments) – there was lack of evidence in the form of
documentation to support the claim. Similarly, as far as the demand for other
articles are concerned, PW-8 was singularly silent about the statement
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 6
recorded before the SDM. As regards the articles demanded by sisters-in-law
and mother-in-law are concerned, the Court did not believe them at all. The
Trial Court has rendered an exhaustive and meticulous findings on all these
aspects from paras 18 to 21 of the impugned judgment.
10. On the question of harassment, the Court noted that PW-8 had
claimed that the deceased told him that she was not happy in her
matrimonial home and that her husband used to beat her at the instance of
his sisters. He also stated that the deceased had telephonically informed his
brother, Pramod that she was kept hungry for several days and she ought to
be taken back. The witness claimed that complaints had been written and
photocopies of some had been seized. In the cross-examination, PW-8
admitted that he was not on speaking terms with his brother because of
strained relations with him, which had existed even during the marriage, and
till the death of Monika. This improbabilized his testimony. The Court also
noticed that an attempt to co-relate the testimony about cruelty and beating –
allegedly narrated to Pramod Kumar, was unreliable since it apparently
occurred one year before the incident or death of Monika. Similarly, the
deposition of PW-9 was contrary to that of the father. PW-12 did not speak
about any telephonic talk between his uncle and his sister or that his uncle
had visited Monika’s matrimonial home. Having regard to these and the
testimony of PW-13, the mother, who also deposed in a manner inconsistent
with the other witnesses, the Trial Court held that the question of cruel
treatment had not been proved.
11. During the trial, the prosecution had produced the suicide note and an
attempt was made to explain it by saying that a Panchayat was held a year
earlier. The Trial Court noticed this part of the evidence and held as follows:
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 7
“XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
From the suggestions put to PW13 it would transpire that
prosecution version is that suicide note was written about a
year prior to the convening of Panchayat. Since Panchayat is
alleged to have been convened at the house of Kailash Chand
Jain, in the given facts and circumstances, testimony of Kailash
Chand Jain, the mediator was of much significance. But
prosecution has not examined the mediator, as already noticed
above and with his non examination there is no corroboration
from independent source on the story of prosecution that any
suicide note was shown by any of the accused in any such
Panchayat.
On behalf of the State, it has been contended that the
accused got written suicide note from Monika much prior to her
death so as to save themselves from legal punishment in case of
commission of suicide by Monika. This argument is without any
merit, when considered in view of the
evidence available on record.
Had any such note been got written by any of the
accused, either Monika or her parents or her brother or any
other relative could set the law into motion by informing the
police or filing a criminal complaint in this respect. But there is
nothing on record to suggest that anyone of them took any step
to set the law into motion against any of the accused.
Prosecution version is that after getting suicide note executed
from Monika, the accused persons kept the same with them. It is
not believable at all.
PW11 Pawan Kumar Jain deposed that once Sanjeev
Kumar had shown him one paper. But in the same sentence, the
witness stated that he had not gone through the paper.
Had any suicide note been got written by the accused one
year prior to the occurrence, PW12 Vishal Jain, brother of
Monika, would have been the last person not to depose about
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 8
suicide note. But the fact is that PW12 did not state anything
about any suicide note.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX”
12. On the question of cruelty soon before death, the Trial Court held as
follows:
“XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
CRUELTY SOON BEFORE DEATH:
25. Monika was brought to Sarvodaya Hospital on 24.04.00
at 12.50 p.m. There she was declared brought dead. Pw 14 Smt.
Promila Jain, mother of Monika deposed that on 24.04.00 at
about 8 am. her daughter told her telephonically that all was
well at her house. In view of this statement of PW14 and there
being nothing else on record to the contrary, it cannot be said
that Monika was subjected to cruelty or any kind of harassment
by any of the accused soon before her death.
It is true that PW14 Smt. Promila Jain deposed in court
that after receipt of telephonic message from Neetu, sister in
law of Monika, she reached her matrimonial home but she was
not allowed to enter the house. She further deposed that dead
body of her daughter was being dragged from third floor of the
house. In this respect, when we advert to the statement of her
son PW12 Vishal Jain, it appears that he had accompanied his
mother to the house of his sister Monika and found Monika Jain
being taken to hospital by her husband Sanjeev Jain.
Thereafter, he and his mother also reached Sarvodaya
Hospital. The witness displayed ignorance if anything else
happened in his presence. He could not say how his sister left
this world. He also did not state that dead body of his sister was
being dragged by anyone from the third floor of the house.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Smt.
Promila Jain when she deposed that dead body of Monika Jain
was being dragged.
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 9
Accused have examined DW1 Manav Sharma. According
to DW1, once he had accompanied Monika (since deceased) to
a Cinema Hall. At that time, husband of Monika all of a sudden
met them and gave him beatings. Husband of Monika then went
to his house and complained his parents. According to DW1, it
so happened 4/5 years prior to making of his statement in court
(statement of the witness was recorded on 12.05.2005). From
the statement of DW1, it appears that Monika accompanied him
to theatre to see a movie and her husband thrashed him (DW1)
as he was seen in the company of his wife.
In the given circumstances, simply because Monika Jain
died at her matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage,
no presumption within the ambit of Sections 113 A or 113 B of
Indian Evidence Act, can be drawn against any of the accused,
and the contention raised on behalf of the State to draw such a
presumption is without any merit.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX”
13. As regards the submission by the learned APP that delay in this case
ought not have been a determining or vitiating factor, we are of the opinion
that the findings of the Trial Court cannot be faulted as unreasonable.
Although there is a body of case law to the effect that the near relatives of a
young wife who takes her own life or dies an unnatural death would be
traumatized and cannot be expected to cover all the facts when the
statements are recorded, at the same time, the Court has to be conscious of
the fact about what is the earliest available opportunity for the police to
record such a statement. In this case, PW-19 stated that the SDM, PW-20
was informed on 24.04.2000 itself. The latter witness does not deny this fact.
Admittedly, the statements of all witnesses were recorded on the next day,
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 10
i.e. after discovery of the suicide note, on 25.04.2000. No explanation is
forthcoming about this significant aspect during trial (which is unbelievable)
that all relatives of the deceased (and not only the parents) were in such state
of shock as to not mention even once that they suspected the accused or any
of them. The failure to record the FIR earlier than 24 hours after the death,
is, therefore, most suspicious.
14. As far as the explanation given by the prosecution for the suicide note
was written, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court’s findings are sound.
The explanation of the prosecution witness apparently was that the note was
written much earlier and that all of them were aware of it. During the course
of trial, it transpired that many witnesses contradicted each other and were
also not specific as to who all were present when the note was written or
whether it was written in presence of strangers. No independent witness was
also produced, who acted as panch. The FSL report in this case established
that the handwriting on the suicide note matched with the admitted
handwriting of the deceased. This is an important circumstance which
weighed with the Trial Court in holding the cause of death was not unnatural
but something that the deceased took her own life. As far as the allegation of
facilitating consumption of insecticide is concerned, there is no doubt that
the FSL report confirms presence of right index finger print of one of the
accused Neetu Jain. However, the report also states elsewhere that none of
the prints collected were fit for comparison. Even if the Court were to take
the report at face value and assume that finger prints were that of the
accused, there is no denial of the fact that such an insecticide is normally
used in households and would have been there in the normal course of
events. Moreover, the viscera report does not confirm to the existence of
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 11
Orgophorum insecticide (Finit), which was found in the contents of the box
which contained finger prints of Neetu Jain. On the other hand, the viscera
report confirmed to traces of Baygon, i.e. Carbomate insecticide in the
deceased’s stomach.
15. This Court also notices that the deceased had given birth to an infant
male child just about a year before her death. Having regard to the totality of
the circumstances, and the extremely sketchy nature of evidence, we are of
the opinion that the mere circumstance that suicide was within seven years
of marriage, was an insufficient ground for the Court to have taken recourse
to Section 113-B, Evidence Act and relied on Section 304-B IPC. All the
other elements required, i.e. cruelty, harassment, demands for dowry and
cruelty soon before the unnatural death had not been proved, much less
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. This Court is bound to apply the mandatory yardstick while
considering the appeals and petitions challenging acquittals, i.e. existence of
substantial and compelling reasons ( Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P. AIR 2001
SC 3020; Gurucharan Kumar and Anr.v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC
992 and State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan and Others AIR 1989 SC 1519). The
prosecution had tried to rely upon the photocopies of two letters seized by
the police on 15.05.2000. The general purport and effect of these letters –
allegedly written by the deceased to her father was that she was being treated
with cruelty and harassed for dowry by the accused. The Trial Court
discarded this, holding that originals had not been produced and that the
prosecution made no attempt to match the handwriting on even these
photocopies with the admitted handwritings of the deceased. Also, the
photocopy of such alleged letters were seized much later – three weeks or so
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 12
after the event. We are satisfied that in the present case, the reasoning of the
Trial Court is sound and logical. Having regard to the nature of evidence
produced before it and the important circumstance of the delay in recording
the FIR as well as the existence of suicide note, this Court is of the opinion
that the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court was the only reasonable one
under the circumstances. The appeal consequently has to fail and is
dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P. GARG
(JUDGE)
MARCH 26, 2012
‘ajk’
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 13
Decided on : 26.03.2012
+ Crl. A. 296/2011
STATE ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.
versus
SANJEEV JAIN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate.
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. This appeal by leave challenges an acquittal recorded by learned
Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.11.2006 whereby the respondents,
(arrayed as accused before the Court), were acquitted in respect of the
offences alleged against them, punishable under Sections 304B and 498 IPC.
2. The prosecution case was that Monika Jain (the deceased) was
married to the first accused, Sanjeev Jain, on 24.02.1998. Police Post Pitam
Pura received information on 24.04.2000 from Dr. S.D. Sharma, (PW-2), of
Sarvodaya Hospital that Monika Jain was admitted in the hospital, and died
due to poisoning. It is an undeniable fact that the accused Sanjeev Jain had
admitted her to the hospital. On receipt of information, SI Rajpal Singh
(PW-19) was told to investigate into the matter; he reached the hospital and
collected MLC. It is stated that since the case concerned the death of a
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 1
married woman within seven years of the marriage, he brought it to the
notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Model Town). He stated that the
SDM was informed about this aspect immediately upon the witness
becoming aware of it. The SDM proceeded to record the statements of the
deceased’s relatives, i.e. the father, PW-8; brother-PW-12; brother-in-law-
PW-13; mother (PW-14) and PW-21 (maternal uncle- Mama). The police
also seized several articles and took them into possession and proceeded
with the investigation during which the postmortem report, serological
report and other scientific evidence and reports were collected. The accused,
who had been arrested in the meanwhile, were charged with having
committed the offences they were ultimately tried for. They denied guilt and
claimed trial.
3. During the proceedings before the Trial Court, the prosecution relied
upon the testimonies of 23 witnesses and also produced several exhibits.
After recording these, the Trial Court put queries to the respondents under
Section 313 Cr.PC. The respondents relied on the testimony of one Manav
Sharma, DW-1. Upon an overall consideration of all these, the Trial Court
concluded that the prosecution had not been able to establish that any cruelty
on account of dowry harassment soon before the deceased’s death had been
perpetrated on her by any of the accused. The Trial Court was also
considerably influenced by the circumstance that though the incident was
reported on 24.04.2000, the First Information Report (FIR) and the
statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded on 25.04.2000.
According to the Trial Court, this delay was fatal; besides the prosecution
was unable to explain the cause for the delay. The Trial Court also noticed
that during the evidence, the suicide note setting-out the reasons for the
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 2
deceased taking her own life had been brought on record. The prosecution
witnesses had tried to explain that circumstance by stating that the note had
been obtained from the deceased in advance in the course of some
Panchayat held earlier to resolve the disputes between the deceased and the
in-laws. The Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution version and preferred to
rest its conclusions as regard the cause of death on the suicide note which
was proved to be that of the deceased.
4. Learned APP submits that in the present case, admittedly, the
unnatural death or suicide took place within two years of marriage and there
was sufficient material on the record to infer that the deceased was subjected
to repeated cruelty and dowry harassment. Learned counsel emphasized that
the rationale for the acquittal were some minor contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel argued that the main
reason for the acquittal, i.e. the delay, was something which ought not to
have influenced the Trial Court in concluding that the prosecution story was
unbelievable. In this context, it was submitted that the circumstance of
availability of the SDM, ought not to have been the reason why the
prosecution witnesses should have been disbelieved. On the other hand,
submitted learned counsel that all the material prosecution witnesses, i.e.
PWs-8, 9, 13, 14 and 21 supported each other, particularly as to the demands
made from the deceased and her family to prove dowry harassment, as a
condition for establishing offence under Section 304B IPC. They were also
consistent about the kind of cruelty meted out to her.
5. It was argued that the Postmortem Report clearly proved that the
deceased had died an unnatural death – a fact not disputed by any of the
accused. The postmortem was conducted on 25.04.2000 at around 12.00
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 3
Noon. According to the doctor conducting it, PW-1, the approximate time of
death was 24 hours before the commencement of the proceeding, i.e. around
12 AM on 24.04.2000. Since the accused were in the premises from where
the deceased’s body was taken, they owed an explanation how and under
what circumstances she committed the suicide. Besides, argued learned
APP, the deposition of PW-1 and the Postmortem Report, Ex. PW-1/A also
established that the stomach contained about 250 c.c. of oily fluid and
strongly smelt of kerosene oil. The doctor had furnished an opinion that the
death was due to some toxic substance – substantiated by the viscera report.
Learned counsel submitted in this regard that death was the result of
insecticide consumption. The deceased had apparently taken Baygon fluid or
spray, a commonly used insecticide.
6. Learned APP emphasized that the defence story about a suicide note
and letters could not be taken on the face value in the light of the prosecution
witnesses’ explanation recorded during the proceedings. It was submitted
that the cause of death was not really the one mentioned in the suicide note
and that the note produced during the trial, according to the prosecution
witnesses – i.e. the deceased’s relatives were the result of a panchayat
proceeding where some resolution of the disputes between the deceased’s in-
laws and her had taken place. It was properly explained and ought to have
been taken into account and not made the basis for the acquittal recorded by
the Trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the impugned
judgment does not disclose any substantial or compelling reason why the
Trial Court’s findings ought to be interfered with. Elaborating on this, it was
submitted that even though all the witnesses were available at the time of
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 4
death or soon thereafter, the statements of none of them were recorded by
the police. Learned counsel here emphasized that PW-19 specifically
deposed that the SDM had been informed soon after he became aware about
the death the same day, i.e. on 24.04.2000. It was submitted next that in
order to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC, not only was the
prosecution under an obligation to prove the guilt to the deceased but also
that it was coupled with dowry demands soon before the occurrence of the
unnatural death. Without proof of these foundational facts, the presumption
which every Court is entitled to draw, cannot be taken recourse to. It was
further submitted that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses were
coloured by the fact that they were close relatives of the deceased. If in fact,
they had any cause or grievance, nothing prevented them from approaching
the police earlier. Furthermore, they made no attempt to report the cause of
death soon after becoming aware about the unnatural death, on the date of its
recovery, i.e. 24.04.2000. Lastly, it was urged in this context that the Trial
Court also took note of the fact that the deceased was taken to the hospital
by the accused Sanjeev Jain himself which was not consistent with his cruel
behavior and alleged demand for dowry, being the reason for her suicide. It
was submitted that the Trial Court noticed major contradictions in the
testimonies of material prosecution witnesses. Most of them did not
corroborate each other or even what they stated during the investigation.
Moreover, argued counsel, lack of any specific details as to the approximate
time of the demand, put question marks over the allegations.
8. It was urged that the Trial Court was perfectly justified in returning
the finding that the deceased committed suicide for her own reasons. In this
regard, learned counsel relied upon the suicide note, Ex. PW-PY/B and
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 5
stressed the fact that no reason was given why she committed suicide. More
importantly, the note did not implicate any of the accused. Learned counsel
also submitted that the Trial Court took note of the fact that Ex. PW-Y/A
established that the admitted handwriting of the deceased (collected during
the investigation) and produced in the Trial Court as Ex. PX-1 to 3 had
matched with the handwriting of the suicide note, Ex. PW-Y/B.
9. The prosecution in this case, in order to prove dowry demand and the
attendant cruelty, relied upon the testimony of several witnesses, who were
the deceased’s relatives. These demands were that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh had
been asked from the deceased’s parents and relatives; a scooter was
demanded by Raj Rani Jain; golden ring and chain had been demanded by
the sisters-in-law of Monika Jain. It was also alleged that the mother-in-law
demanded a washing machine. The Trial Court analysed the evidence of
each material witness with regard to these demands separately. It was
noticed that PW-8, the deceased’s father had made improvements with
regard to the demand for Rs. 1 lakh, scooter and gold ring, which was the
reason why his deposition was not accepted. Likewise, PWs-9, 11, 12 and 21
did not depose with regard to demand for Rs. 1 lakh. So far as the washing
machine and other articles are concerned, the Court analysed that PW-8
could not specify when such demand was first raised. Importantly, in his
statement recorded before the SDM, Ex. PW-8/A, this aspect had been
omitted. The Court also observed that if a washing machine had been
purchased – (as alleged by the witness, who claimed that it was bought on
the basis of instalments) – there was lack of evidence in the form of
documentation to support the claim. Similarly, as far as the demand for other
articles are concerned, PW-8 was singularly silent about the statement
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 6
recorded before the SDM. As regards the articles demanded by sisters-in-law
and mother-in-law are concerned, the Court did not believe them at all. The
Trial Court has rendered an exhaustive and meticulous findings on all these
aspects from paras 18 to 21 of the impugned judgment.
10. On the question of harassment, the Court noted that PW-8 had
claimed that the deceased told him that she was not happy in her
matrimonial home and that her husband used to beat her at the instance of
his sisters. He also stated that the deceased had telephonically informed his
brother, Pramod that she was kept hungry for several days and she ought to
be taken back. The witness claimed that complaints had been written and
photocopies of some had been seized. In the cross-examination, PW-8
admitted that he was not on speaking terms with his brother because of
strained relations with him, which had existed even during the marriage, and
till the death of Monika. This improbabilized his testimony. The Court also
noticed that an attempt to co-relate the testimony about cruelty and beating –
allegedly narrated to Pramod Kumar, was unreliable since it apparently
occurred one year before the incident or death of Monika. Similarly, the
deposition of PW-9 was contrary to that of the father. PW-12 did not speak
about any telephonic talk between his uncle and his sister or that his uncle
had visited Monika’s matrimonial home. Having regard to these and the
testimony of PW-13, the mother, who also deposed in a manner inconsistent
with the other witnesses, the Trial Court held that the question of cruel
treatment had not been proved.
11. During the trial, the prosecution had produced the suicide note and an
attempt was made to explain it by saying that a Panchayat was held a year
earlier. The Trial Court noticed this part of the evidence and held as follows:
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 7
“XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
From the suggestions put to PW13 it would transpire that
prosecution version is that suicide note was written about a
year prior to the convening of Panchayat. Since Panchayat is
alleged to have been convened at the house of Kailash Chand
Jain, in the given facts and circumstances, testimony of Kailash
Chand Jain, the mediator was of much significance. But
prosecution has not examined the mediator, as already noticed
above and with his non examination there is no corroboration
from independent source on the story of prosecution that any
suicide note was shown by any of the accused in any such
Panchayat.
On behalf of the State, it has been contended that the
accused got written suicide note from Monika much prior to her
death so as to save themselves from legal punishment in case of
commission of suicide by Monika. This argument is without any
merit, when considered in view of the
evidence available on record.
Had any such note been got written by any of the
accused, either Monika or her parents or her brother or any
other relative could set the law into motion by informing the
police or filing a criminal complaint in this respect. But there is
nothing on record to suggest that anyone of them took any step
to set the law into motion against any of the accused.
Prosecution version is that after getting suicide note executed
from Monika, the accused persons kept the same with them. It is
not believable at all.
PW11 Pawan Kumar Jain deposed that once Sanjeev
Kumar had shown him one paper. But in the same sentence, the
witness stated that he had not gone through the paper.
Had any suicide note been got written by the accused one
year prior to the occurrence, PW12 Vishal Jain, brother of
Monika, would have been the last person not to depose about
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 8
suicide note. But the fact is that PW12 did not state anything
about any suicide note.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX”
12. On the question of cruelty soon before death, the Trial Court held as
follows:
“XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
CRUELTY SOON BEFORE DEATH:
25. Monika was brought to Sarvodaya Hospital on 24.04.00
at 12.50 p.m. There she was declared brought dead. Pw 14 Smt.
Promila Jain, mother of Monika deposed that on 24.04.00 at
about 8 am. her daughter told her telephonically that all was
well at her house. In view of this statement of PW14 and there
being nothing else on record to the contrary, it cannot be said
that Monika was subjected to cruelty or any kind of harassment
by any of the accused soon before her death.
It is true that PW14 Smt. Promila Jain deposed in court
that after receipt of telephonic message from Neetu, sister in
law of Monika, she reached her matrimonial home but she was
not allowed to enter the house. She further deposed that dead
body of her daughter was being dragged from third floor of the
house. In this respect, when we advert to the statement of her
son PW12 Vishal Jain, it appears that he had accompanied his
mother to the house of his sister Monika and found Monika Jain
being taken to hospital by her husband Sanjeev Jain.
Thereafter, he and his mother also reached Sarvodaya
Hospital. The witness displayed ignorance if anything else
happened in his presence. He could not say how his sister left
this world. He also did not state that dead body of his sister was
being dragged by anyone from the third floor of the house.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Smt.
Promila Jain when she deposed that dead body of Monika Jain
was being dragged.
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 9
Accused have examined DW1 Manav Sharma. According
to DW1, once he had accompanied Monika (since deceased) to
a Cinema Hall. At that time, husband of Monika all of a sudden
met them and gave him beatings. Husband of Monika then went
to his house and complained his parents. According to DW1, it
so happened 4/5 years prior to making of his statement in court
(statement of the witness was recorded on 12.05.2005). From
the statement of DW1, it appears that Monika accompanied him
to theatre to see a movie and her husband thrashed him (DW1)
as he was seen in the company of his wife.
In the given circumstances, simply because Monika Jain
died at her matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage,
no presumption within the ambit of Sections 113 A or 113 B of
Indian Evidence Act, can be drawn against any of the accused,
and the contention raised on behalf of the State to draw such a
presumption is without any merit.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX”
13. As regards the submission by the learned APP that delay in this case
ought not have been a determining or vitiating factor, we are of the opinion
that the findings of the Trial Court cannot be faulted as unreasonable.
Although there is a body of case law to the effect that the near relatives of a
young wife who takes her own life or dies an unnatural death would be
traumatized and cannot be expected to cover all the facts when the
statements are recorded, at the same time, the Court has to be conscious of
the fact about what is the earliest available opportunity for the police to
record such a statement. In this case, PW-19 stated that the SDM, PW-20
was informed on 24.04.2000 itself. The latter witness does not deny this fact.
Admittedly, the statements of all witnesses were recorded on the next day,
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 10
i.e. after discovery of the suicide note, on 25.04.2000. No explanation is
forthcoming about this significant aspect during trial (which is unbelievable)
that all relatives of the deceased (and not only the parents) were in such state
of shock as to not mention even once that they suspected the accused or any
of them. The failure to record the FIR earlier than 24 hours after the death,
is, therefore, most suspicious.
14. As far as the explanation given by the prosecution for the suicide note
was written, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court’s findings are sound.
The explanation of the prosecution witness apparently was that the note was
written much earlier and that all of them were aware of it. During the course
of trial, it transpired that many witnesses contradicted each other and were
also not specific as to who all were present when the note was written or
whether it was written in presence of strangers. No independent witness was
also produced, who acted as panch. The FSL report in this case established
that the handwriting on the suicide note matched with the admitted
handwriting of the deceased. This is an important circumstance which
weighed with the Trial Court in holding the cause of death was not unnatural
but something that the deceased took her own life. As far as the allegation of
facilitating consumption of insecticide is concerned, there is no doubt that
the FSL report confirms presence of right index finger print of one of the
accused Neetu Jain. However, the report also states elsewhere that none of
the prints collected were fit for comparison. Even if the Court were to take
the report at face value and assume that finger prints were that of the
accused, there is no denial of the fact that such an insecticide is normally
used in households and would have been there in the normal course of
events. Moreover, the viscera report does not confirm to the existence of
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 11
Orgophorum insecticide (Finit), which was found in the contents of the box
which contained finger prints of Neetu Jain. On the other hand, the viscera
report confirmed to traces of Baygon, i.e. Carbomate insecticide in the
deceased’s stomach.
15. This Court also notices that the deceased had given birth to an infant
male child just about a year before her death. Having regard to the totality of
the circumstances, and the extremely sketchy nature of evidence, we are of
the opinion that the mere circumstance that suicide was within seven years
of marriage, was an insufficient ground for the Court to have taken recourse
to Section 113-B, Evidence Act and relied on Section 304-B IPC. All the
other elements required, i.e. cruelty, harassment, demands for dowry and
cruelty soon before the unnatural death had not been proved, much less
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. This Court is bound to apply the mandatory yardstick while
considering the appeals and petitions challenging acquittals, i.e. existence of
substantial and compelling reasons ( Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P. AIR 2001
SC 3020; Gurucharan Kumar and Anr.v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC
992 and State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan and Others AIR 1989 SC 1519). The
prosecution had tried to rely upon the photocopies of two letters seized by
the police on 15.05.2000. The general purport and effect of these letters –
allegedly written by the deceased to her father was that she was being treated
with cruelty and harassed for dowry by the accused. The Trial Court
discarded this, holding that originals had not been produced and that the
prosecution made no attempt to match the handwriting on even these
photocopies with the admitted handwritings of the deceased. Also, the
photocopy of such alleged letters were seized much later – three weeks or so
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 12
after the event. We are satisfied that in the present case, the reasoning of the
Trial Court is sound and logical. Having regard to the nature of evidence
produced before it and the important circumstance of the delay in recording
the FIR as well as the existence of suicide note, this Court is of the opinion
that the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court was the only reasonable one
under the circumstances. The appeal consequently has to fail and is
dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P. GARG
(JUDGE)
MARCH 26, 2012
‘ajk’
Crl.A. 296/2011 Page 13