A woman, within three years of her second marriage, died by suicide at her matrimonial home on August 4, 2015, in Vishnu Garden locality in the Khyala police station area of west Delhi.
Published Date – 30 January 2024, 08:50 AM
Representational Image
New Delhi: A Delhi Court on Monday acquitted a man, his mausi (aunt), his sister, who holds a Master’s degree in civil engineering from the US, and her husband in a dowry death case.
A woman, within three years of her second marriage, died by suicide at her matrimonial home on August 4, 2015, in Vishnu Garden locality in the Khyala police station area of west Delhi. While acquitting the accused, the court doubted the testimony of the minor son of the deceased.
The court acquitted all the accused, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The court stated that the prosecution failed to prove that dowry demands were made to the deceased or her family members by the accused.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shivali Sharma acquitted the accused–Ashok Kumar Toor, Urmila, Rinku, and Vimal Prakash–for offences under sections 498A, 304B, and 34 of the IPC, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The court let off the accused after considering all the evidence that was put on record, including the depositions of Sanjay Mehendiratta, and Rajesh Mehendiratta, two key witnesses in the case.
“I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record beyond any reasonable doubt that any dowry demands were ever made by the accused persons from the deceased or her family members,” ASJ Sharma said in the judgement passed on January 29.
The court held that when the factum of dowry demands is not duly proved on record, the harassment of the deceased to coerce her or any of her parental family members to meet the unlawful dowry demands has also not been proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt.
ASJ Shivali Sharma ruled, “I have no hesitation in holding that essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC have not been proved on record by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.” “Neither the demands of dowry are duly proved on record, nor it is proved on record that the harassment given to deceased Neetu was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health,” he added.
The court observed that although the deceased, Neetu, died by suicide as per the medical evidence, the evidence on record is highly deficient for holding that it was because of the cruelty suffered by her at the hands of any of the accused persons.
“Admittedly, none of the accused persons were present along with the deceased Neetu at the time of the incident or immediately before that. Accused Ashok Kumar Toor (husband) was also in Kolkata at the relevant time, the judge observed, adding, “Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Toor, Urmila, Rinku and Vimal Prakash are entitled to acquittal for offence under Section 498A of IPC.”
The court clarified that Section 304B IPC mandates drawing of a presumption that the husband or relatives of the husband of the victim girl had caused her death in case the essential ingredients provided by the Section are proved on record. The court further noted that in the present case, it is duly proved on record that the death ofdeceased Neetu was caused by circumstances which are not normal within 7 years from the date of her marriage.
“However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record that deceased Neetu was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demands of dowry soon before her death by either of the accused persons,” the court held.
It stated that neither prosecution witness Sanjay Mehendiratta nor Rajesh Mehendiratta (brothers of the deceased) deposed about any incident to show that soon before her death, the deceased, Neetu, was subjected to cruelty or harassment by any of the accused persons for or in connection with any demand of dowry. The testimony of the deceased’s son also fails to prove the said essential requirement of the offence of dowry death as defined under Section 304-B of IPC, the court ruled.
“In the absence of evidence to this effect, it is difficult to presume that the suicide of deceased Neetu was a dowry death or that any of the accused persons were responsible for the same,” the court observed, adding, “Thus, all the accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Toor, Urmila, Rinku and Vimal Prakash are entitled to acquittal for an offence under Section 304-B of IPC.”
The court noted that in July 2015 Neetu (since deceased) had tried to harm herself not because of any harassment beatings or dowry demands made by her husband accused Ashok Kumar Toor, but on account of her dissatisfaction with the work profile of her husband and his insufficient income.
The testimonies of the deceased’s brothers are highly insufficient to prove the fact that Neetu was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands raised by the accused persons, the court stated. The court added that it also doubts the testimony of the deceased’s minor son. It said It is difficult to believe that a child of merely 10 years of age was involved in the talks of the second marriage of his mother to such an extent that he knew what representations were made by the family members of the boy at the time of the marriage. It further stated that he also deposed that various clothes and jewellery were given to the accused persons in the marriage.
“His testimony regarding these details about the marriage talks and gifts clearly shows that he had repeatedly heard about these things from the adults in his family, which may be his mother (since deceased) or his mother’s maternal family members,” the judge observed.
In the victim’s defence, it was submitted by Rinku Toor that she was married before the marriage of his brother Ashok Kumar Toor with Neetu (since deceased) and was residing separately at her matrimonial home. She had never resided with accused Ashok Kumar Toor or his wife Neetu at their house. She had been pursuing her masters in Civil Engineering from California State University of Fullerton, USA from August 2014 till May 2017 and was residing in the USA during that period and had visited Delhi only for short durations in her semester breaks, Rinku Toor had submitted. Advocate Amit Kumar argued that two parallel stories have been put forth by the prosecution witnesses.
First is the story of dowry demands but the same are not duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt. It was also argued that the prosecution witnesses are giving contradictory statements regarding the alleged dowry demands made by the accused persons. There are contradictions not only regarding the actual demands made but also how and the person who had made the alleged demands. “The second story is regarding the deceased being disturbed and unhappy with the low income of the husband. This kind of unhappiness can by no stretch of imagination be covered under section 498A or 304B IPC,” the counsel argued.
It has also come on record that on one previous occasion, the deceased had consumed Lizol being unhappy with the irregular work of accused Ashok Kumar Toor, advocate Amit Kumar added. The present FIR was registered on August 5, 2015, on the statement of Rajesh Mehendiratta, the brother of the deceased Neetu. After completion of the investigation, accused Ashok Kumar Toor, husband of deceased Neetu and accused Urmila alias Guddi, her mausi saas were charge-sheeted for the offence under section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Accused Rinku Toor, sister-in-law of deceased Neetu, accused Vimal Prakash, a relative of the deceased and Vidya Devi, her mother-in-law, were kept as suspects and not charge-sheeted. In the supplementary chargesheet filed on 12.07.2016, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences under section 498A/304B/34 IPC. During the trial, the accused Vidya Devi (mother-in-law) expired on October 15, 2020, and proceedings against her were abated on November 26, 2021.
