It is trite that general and vague allegations of dowry demands
and beatings given to the deceased without detailing specific
instances, vague and inconsistent statements of interested witnesses
such as parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased, bald statements
made by prosecution witnesses which fall short of evidence to prove
that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and
harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, and
improved versions of statements made by prosecution witnesses for
the first time in Court disclosing things not disclosed during
investigation, are liable to be viewed with suspicion and the
presumption of dowry death cannot be raised therefrom, and the
accused cannot be convicted on the strength of such statements
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. L.P. NO.367/2012
STATE
versus
NARESH & ORS
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
Citation; 2014(1)crimes 697 delhi
Dated;February 10, 2014
1. Leave granted.
2. Registry shall register and number the Appeal.
Crl. A. No._______/2013
1.
This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.12.2011
in Sessions Case
No.82A/2011 acquitting the Respondents Naresh, Suresh, Nirmala,
Niyadher Singh and Harnandi for the offences punishable under
Section 498A IPC and 304B read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by
the aforesaid judgment, the State has preferred the present Appeal.
2.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the Appeal are that on
28.5.2005, on receipt of DD No.14A, ASI Ishwar Dutt
(PW11)
reached All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where the
deceased (Hema) was admitted and was being given treatment. The
deceased was declared unfit for statement by the doctors.
3.
On 30.5.2005 at 2.35 pm, information of the death of Hema
was received in PS Sarojini Nagar and the same was recorded in DD
No. 17A (Ex.PW4/A). ASI Ishwar Dutt (PW11) reached AIIMS and
informed the SHO and the SDM. The SDM Sh. R. Chopra (PW8)
conducted inquest proceedings and sent the dead body for
postmortem. ASI Ishwar Dutt (PW11) recorded the statement of Smt.
Rajrani (PW3) as Ex. PW3/A in the presence of the SDM Sh. R.
Chopra who made endorsement Ex.PW8/C thereon. Thereafter, ASI
Ishwar Dutt (PW11) scribed tehrir Ex.PW11/A and got registered FIR
No.266/05 – Ex.PW6/A, under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. Post-
mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted and
Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW12) who conducted the investigation
directed that viscera with sample seal collected by ASI Ishwar Dutt
(PW11) be sent for chemical analysis. On receipt of Viscera Analysis
Report, the Autopsy Surgeon PW1, Dr.Arvind Kumar gave
subsequent opinion that the cause of death in the case was:
“Pulmonary edema consequent upon poisoning due
to aluminium phosphide ingestion”.
4.
On 30.5.2005, Sh. Hukam Chand (PW2), father of the
deceased, gave his statement Ex.PW2/A in his own writing to the
SDM, Sh. R. Chopra (PW8).
5.
On 2.6.2005, Ms. Karuna (PW7), cousin of the deceased and
Smt. Rajrani (PW3), mother of the deceased gave their written
statements Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW3/B respectively to the SDM.
6.
The accused persons were arrested and their personal search
was conducted. The disclosure statement of accused Naresh was
recorded as Ex.PW11/E.
7.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against
all the accused persons for offences under Sections 498A/304B/34
IPC.
8.
On 6.2.2007, charge for offences punishable under the
aforesaid Sections was framed against the accused persons by the
learned Sessions Court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
9.
In order to connect the accused with the offences charged, the
prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Out of these witnesses, Shri
Hukam Chand (PW2), Smt. Rajrani (PW3), Ms. Karuna (PW7) and
Shri Pradeep Kumar (PW10) are the material witnesses.
The
evidence of the remaining witnesses is formal in nature.
10.
The statements of all the accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the course of which all the incriminating
material in evidence was put to the accused persons. While denying
the incriminating material against them, the accused persons pleaded
innocence and claimed that no demand of dowry was ever made by
them at any point of time during the lifetime of the deceased nor was
the deceased harassed by any of them during her lifetime. Accused
also stated that despite being treated, the deceased could not conceive
and that is why she was in depression and under the influence of that
depression, she committed suicide.
11.
After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty.
In the impugned judgment, reference was specifically made by the
learned Trial Court to the inconsistencies and contradictory versions
of the material witnesses, namely, PWs 2, 3, 7 and 10 with regard to
the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased and demands for dowry made
by the accused, the introduction of „coloured versions‟ of the
prosecution witnesses and the concoction of facts belatedly made
under legal advise by the material witnesses. The learned Sessions
Judge accordingly found that there existed reasonable doubt about the
genesis of the prosecution story due to the embellishments, infirmities
and contradictions in the evidence on record going to the root of the
matter, which were sufficient to shake the core of the prosecution
case. The learned Trial Court also found that there was a reasonable
possibility of the deceased having committed suicide as she could not
conceive on account of which fact she was in depression.
12.
We have scrutinized the evidence on record and considered the
rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. At the
outset, we note a glaring feature in this case which throws
considerable suspicion on the prosecution version and which was
pressed into service by Mr. B.S. Rana, learned counsel for the
Respondents with all vehemence at his command. Mr. Rana contends
that there was an inordinate delay in the registration of the First
Information Report. There is no dispute as to the fact that PW2 and
PW3, the parents of the deceased, as also PW7, the cousin of the
deceased, and PW10, the uncle of the deceased were present in
AIIMS when the deceased was admitted there on 28.5.2005. There is
also no dispute to the fact that
the father of the deceased PW2
Hukam Chand is an Inspector in the Delhi Police and PW7 Ms.
Karuna and PW10 Shri Pradeep Kumar are both Head Constables in
the Delhi Police and had knowledge of the requirement of prompt
reporting of all offences to the authorities including the police and the
SDM at the earliest possible point of time.
Yet, not only on
28.5.2005 but also on 29.5.2005 and even on 30.5.2005 till the
deceased expired at 2.35 pm on 30.5.2005, it was not found fit by any
of the prosecution witnesses to complain to the authorities about the
harassment being meted out to the deceased by her husband and in-
laws. The learned counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Rana contends
that there is an inherent improbability in such conduct of the near and
dear ones of the deceased, for which no explanation has been
rendered by the prosecution, let alone a plausible one.
In such
circumstances, the likelihood of the Respondents having been falsely
implicated cannot be ruled out. [This becomes all the more significant
in the light of the fact that the deceased has left behind no dying
declaration or any suicide note before consuming the tablets of
aluminium phosphide.]
After her admission to AIIMS, she was
declared unfit for statement as is apparent from the endorsements
made by the concerned doctor on the application of the Investigating
Officer, one of which endorsements was recorded at 11.15 a.m. on
28.5.2005, i.e., soon after the admission of the victim in the hospital
at 10.05 a.m., then again at 5.00 p.m. on 28.5.2005 as well as on the
following day, i.e., on 29.5.2005 (Ex.PW5/B) similar endorsements
were recorded. Thus, we do not have the advantage of having before
us the version of the victim herself nor is there any other writing
placed on record by the victim during her lifetime complaining about
harassment or demands for dowry made by her husband and in-laws.
13.
Mr. Rana has also drawn our attention to the fact that in the
MLC of the deceased (Hema) dated 28.5.2005, annexed as Mark A1
with the chargesheet, the arrival time at AIIMS is mentioned as 10.01
a.m. and there is also mention of the name of Mrs. Sushma, resident
of 162, Humayupur, New Delhi as the name of the relative or friend
accompanying her, which address is the same as the address at which
the victim was residing with the accused persons.
Therefore, it can
safely be assumed that said Mrs. Sushma was a member of the family.
Yet, said Mrs. Sushma was neither joined in the investigation nor
cited or examined as a prosecution witness.
14.
Yet another aspect of the case which deserves to be noted is
that in the MLC there is no mention of any external injuries on any
body part of the deceased. There is also no mention of the deceased
being unconscious at that time.
Even in the postmortem report
(Ex.PW1/A), there is no mention of any fresh external injury seen
over the body of the deceased except intravenous canula injection
marks seen over left and right cubital region with slight bluish
extravassation of blood in surrounding tissue.
15.
Mr. Narender Kumar Choudhry, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor strongly contended that the learned Trial Court had
patently erred in appreciating the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW7 and
PW10 and the impugned judgment suffers from the vice of the
perversity. Mr. Choudhry has taken us through the testimonies of the
aforesaid witnesses, who are stated to be the material witnesses for
bringing home the guilt of the Respondents/accused persons.
16.
Mr. Hukam Chand (PW2), father of the victim, deposed that
sufficient articles were given in dowry in the marriage of his
daughter. Yet, after marriage, the accused persons used to comment
that nothing was given in the marriage and taunt about why a car
had not been given in dowry in place of motorcycle. When his
daughter Hema visited her parental home for the second time after
the marriage, she conveyed demand of ` 51,000/- alongwith a gold
bracelet on behalf of the accused persons. When she left after this
visit for her matrimonial home, she was given clothes and other
articles worth ` 60,000/-. However, accused persons kept on
harassing his daughter on account of dowry. He further deposed
that in August, 2002 his younger brother Pradeep (PW10) had
visited Hema and met accused persons. On his visit, Pradeep
(PW10) was told by Hema that accused persons used to give her
beatings on account of dowry. On this occasion, the accused persons
sent Hema (the deceased) along with her brother Pradeep (PW10)
back to their parental house where she remained for about one year.
On 18th July, 2003, he alongwith other relatives visited the house of
accused persons and in that meeting the accused persons promised to
mend their behaviour and thereafter Naresh (husband of Hema) took
Hema to her matrimonial home on 20.7.2003. On 23.5.2005, Hema
was sent to attend the marriage of the daughter of her father‟s
brother by the accused persons on the condition that a demand of `
20,000/- will be met by her family. However, that much amount
could not be arranged by her family and she was sent with PW10
Pradeep (her paternal uncle) to her matrimonial home, with a sum
of ` 5,000/-. On 28.5.2005, he (PW2) received a call from ASI
Ishwar Dutt (PW11) from PS Sarojini Nagar informing him that
Hema was admitted at AIIMS Hospital.
17.
PW2 Shri Hukam Chand was confronted with his statement
made before the SDM (Ex.PW2/A) in respect of the demand of `
51,000/- along with gold bracelet as no such fact had been stated by
him to the SDM.
He was also confronted with his statement
Ex.PW2/A before the SDM in respect of his assertion that when his
daughter left after her visit for her matrimonial home, she was given
clothes and other articles worth ` 60,000/-, where it was not so
stated by him.
Even for the allegation made by him that his
younger brother Pradeep (PW10) visited Hema and met accused
persons at their house and on this visit Pradeep was told by Hema
that accused persons used to give her beatings on account of
demand of dowry, he was confronted with his statement made
before the SDM as no such fact had been mentioned therein. He
was also confronted with his statement recorded before the SDM
that on 18.7.2003, he alongwith his other relatives visited the house
of the accused persons and in that meeting accused persons
promised to mend their behavior and thereafter accused Naresh took
Hema to her matrimonial home on 20.7.2003, as he had not stated
all these facts before the SDM. He was further confronted with his
statement before the SDM that on 23.5.2005 there was a marriage of
the daughter of his brother which was not attended by any of the
accused persons, but instead Hema was sent with the condition that
the demand of Rs.20,000/- would be met by her parents and that on
the next day of the marriage his brother Pradeep (PW10) had gone
to the matrimonial home of Hema, as none of these facts were
narrated by him before the SDM.
18.
We advert next to the statement of PW3 Rajrani, the mother of
the victim, on whose statement the First Information Report
(Ex.PW6/A) was registered after the death of the victim. Rajrani
(PW3) deposed that her daughter Hema had got married with accused
Naresh in the month of February, 2002 and had come back on
18.2.2002 first time from her matrimonial home and started
weeping. She (Hema/deceased) told her that the accused persons
were harassing her on account of money and they used to comment
“tere baap ne kya diya hain, aise kangle hamare palle pad gaye”.
However, she (Rajrani) pacified her and sent her back to her
matrimonial home. Thereafter, a fresh demand was made by the
accused persons of bracelet and ` 60,000/- in cash. Upon this, they
(Hema‟s parents) visited her matrimonial home and accused
persons promised that such things will not happen again. However,
harassment of her daughter for dowry continued and her sister-in-
law (jethani), her mother-in-law, her husband and her brother-in-
law (jeth) gave her beatings. She (PW3) further deposed that her
brother-in-law Pradeep (PW10) also visited Hema and she also wept
before him telling him that accused persons did not give her anything
to eat and used to lock the phone. However, her brother-in-law
(PW10) brought back Hema from the house of the accused and
thereafter, she stayed at their house for about one year. Thereafter,
they (parents of Hema) sent their relatives to the accused persons‟
house and finally Hema was taken in, but behaviour of the accused
persons remained the same. Hema visited her parental house on the
occasion of the marriage of the daughter of her (PW3‟s) jeth and on
that occasion she demanded a sum of ` 20,000/- in order to give
the same to the accused persons. She was not having that much
money but a sum of ` 5,000/- was given to her. On one occasion,
Hema was also given beatings by accused persons when she (PW3,
mother of Hema) alongwith her husband and son visited Hema.
Later the accused persons promised that such things will not happen
again. However, harassment of Hema continued.
PW3 then
deposed that on 28.5.2005 she received a call from the police that
her daughter was admitted at AIIMS. PW3 further stated that Hema
died on 30.5.2005. The statement of PW3 was recorded by the SDM
Ex.PW3/A.
Subsequently, another statement of PW3 was also
recorded being Ex.PW3/B
19.
In her cross-examination, PW3 Smt. Rajrani was confronted
with her statement Ex.PW3/A recorded before the SDM with regard
to the demand of ` 60,000/- and bracelet where it was not so
recorded.
She was also confronted with her statement recorded
before the SDM that Pradeep (PW10) had visited Hema and Hema
had wept before him telling him that the accused persons did not give
her anything to eat and used to lock the phone. To be noted that this
finds mention in her subsequent statement Ex.PW3/B dated
02.06.2005. To be also noted that the SDM Shri R. Chopra (PW8) in
his testimony categorically stated that on the said date, i.e., on
02.06.2005 Smt. Karuna (PW7) and Smt. Rajrani (PW3) gave him
their “already written statements” which were signed by them before
him (Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW8/D). In cross-examination, PW8 (the
SDM) further clarified that on 2.6.2005 Smt. Karuna and Smt. Rajrani
had come to his office and they gave him their written statements
which they had signed before him.
20.
It is deemed appropriate at this stage to reproduce the relevant
part of the cross-examination of PW3 Smt. Rajrani to enable proper
appreciation of her evidence:-
“It is correct that I had not stated in my statement
dated 30.05.2005 to the SDM regarding the demand
of Rs.60,000/- and a bracelet. It is correct that I had
not stated in my statement dated 30.05.2005 to the
SDM regarding the visit of Pradeep at the
matrimonial home of my daughter and regarding the
fact that she wept before Pradeep and stated that her
in-laws are not even giving her food to eat. I had
stated before the SDM that Pradeep had brought my
daughter from her in-laws house to my house. It is
correct that I had not stated in my statement dated
30.05.2005 to the SDM regarding that my daughter
demanded Rs.20,000/- in order to give the same to
accused persons. I do not remember if I had stated
to the SDM in my statement dated 30.05.2005 that
on one occasion Hema was also given beatings by
accused persons when I along with my husband and
son visited her. Confronted with the statement
Ex.PW3/A, where it is not so recorded. It is wrong to
suggest that accused persons had never gave any
beatings to my daughter Hema and so I did not state
this fact before the SDM on 30.05.2005. I do not
remember if I stated to the SDM in my statement
dated 30.05.2005 that accused persons had
promised that such things will not happen again.
Confronted with the statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is
not so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that my
daughter was not beaten by the accused persons so I
did not state these facts before the SDM on
30.05.2005. I do not remember if I stated to the SDM
in my statement dated 30.05.2005 that when I visited
AIIMS Hospital my daughter told me that she was
being poisoned by the accused persons. Confronted
with the statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is not so
recorded. I do not remember if I stated to the SDM
in my statement dated 30.05.2005 that my daughter
told me that accused persons also got her stomach
washed at Mahindra Hospital prior to her admission
to AIIMS Hospital. Confronted with the statement
Ex.PW3/A, where it is not so recorded.”
21.
As regards PW7 Ms. Karuna, this witness in her testimony
stated that on 23.5.2005, Hema had come to attend the marriage of her
younger sister Shabnam and Hema told her that she was still not living
well with her husband and her in-laws, i.e., mother-in-law, father-in-
law, jeth and jethani, who were harassing her and were demanding
more money from her parents, like ` 5,000/- and ` 10,000/-. She
(Hema) further told her (PW7) that she was beaten up by her husband
Naresh and by her mother-in-law about 20/25 days earlier and her
parents had also gone to her in-laws house in this regard and thereafter
she was being harassed more by her husband and in-laws. With regard
to the incident, she (PW7) first stated that when she went to see Hema
in the hospital on 28.5.2005, she came to know that Hema was made to
eat “some medicine”, but subsequently stated that she had come to
know that Hema had consumed some medicine of her own. Yet again,
she stated that Hema was made to eat medicine. In the course of her
(PW7) cross-examination, however, she admitted that she did not tell
the facts narrated by her in her examination-in-chief to any person
including the parents of Hema. She also did not give any statement to
the police or SDM on 28.5.2005 when she went to see Hema at the
AIIMS Hospital. She denied the suggestion that she had brought her
statement Ex.PW8/D already written by her from her house to the
office of the SDM (it may be noted that as per the SDM, the statement
was brought to him at his office in writing and only signed in his
presence).
22.
PW10 Shri Pradeep Kumar (uncle of the deceased) deposed
that on the next day after her marriage, when Hema returned to her
parents‟ house, she informed that she was made to hear a lot of
bad things on account of dowry given in the marriage by her
husband and other family members. Later on, after about 1–2
months of marriage, his brother Shri Hukam Chand (PW2)
informed him that the in-laws of Hema were again harassing her
for dowry. Thereafter about 5–6 months from the date of
marriage, he (PW10) along with his brothers Shri Hukam Chand
(PW2), Shri Narayan Singh and two or three more relatives had
gone to the house of accused persons to talk to them regarding
harassment of Hema and were assured that they would not give
any further chance of any complaint in future. In the year 2003,
he (PW10) had taken articles meant for „Teej‟ festival to the
matrimonial house of Hema, when she told him that her husband,
mother-in-law, father-in-law, jeth and jethani had beaten her for
bringing insufficient dowry, after which he (PW10) took her back
to his brother‟s house at Timar Pur. After some days, his brother
told him that Naresh (husband of Hema) had come and had taken
her back after tendering unconditional apology. On 28.5.2005, he
received a call from his brother (PW2 Hukam Chand) that Hema
was admitted in the ICU at AIIMS.
In cross-examination, he
admitted that he did not know the date, month and year when his
brother told him about the harassment to Hema or when he had
gone with his relatives to the matrimonial home of Hema. He
also did not remember the date, month and year when he took
„Teej‟ to Hema‟s matrimonial home.
23.
A careful analysis of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses unequivocally establishes that although PW2, PW3, PW7
and PW10 were informed about the incident on 28 th May, 2005 and
promptly reached AIIMS Hospital where the victim was admitted in
ICU, they did not lodge any complaint with the police or the SDM till
after the death of the victim on 30.5.2005. This despite the fact that
the father of the victim PW2 Hukam Chand admittedly is an Inspector
in the police force while PW7 Ms. Karuna and PW10 Pradeep Kumar
are Head Constables and are thus fully aware of the fact that prompt
reporting of the incident was required. No explanation has been
given by them as to why they chose to remain silent till the victim
breathed her last. The sequence of events further shows that they
chose to implicate the accused persons by improving upon and
embellishing their versions from time to time. For instance, the story
that the accused persons had conveyed a demand of ` 51,000/- along
with the gold bracelet does not find mention in the initial statement
given by PW3 Rajrani before the SDM nor it finds mention in the
statement made by PW2 Hukam Chand before the SDM and is quite
obviously an afterthought.
Then again, PW2 Hukam Chand
categorically stated that to meet the said demand they had given
clothes and other articles to the victim worth ` 60,000/-, which fact
too was not stated by him in his statement recorded before the SDM
nor it finds mention in the statement of his wife PW3 Rajrani. PW3
Rajrani has also given three different versions - one before the SDM
recorded on 30th May, 2005 (Ex.PW3/A), the other in her written
statement given in the office of the SDM (Ex.PW3/B) and the third
before the Court.
All three versions fall foul of each other.
Significantly, she nowhere deposed that PW7 Ms. Karuna had told
her (PW3) that the victim had told her (PW7) that her in-laws were
harassing her for demand for dowry when she came to attend the
marriage in the family on 23rd May, 2005.
So far as PW7 is
concerned, she did not give a statement before the SDM even on
30.5.2005. Rather, she gave her written statement in the office of the
SDM much later, i.e., on 2nd June, 2005 and appears to us to have
been introduced as a prosecution witness as an afterthought. The
same applies with equal force to PW10 Shri Pradeep Kumar, who
neither gave his statement before the police nor before the SDM on
30th May, 2005 and has given his statement for the first time in the
office of the SDM on 2nd June, 2005.
24.
The learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment has
disbelieved the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has given
detailed reasoning for the same, which is not being repeated by us in
order to avoid prolixity. Suffice it to state that the improvements,
embellishments and concoctions made by the material prosecution
witnesses after due deliberation have rendered the entire prosecution
case doubtful.
25.
It is trite that general and vague allegations of dowry demands
and beatings given to the deceased without detailing specific
instances, vague and inconsistent statements of interested witnesses
such as parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased, bald statements
made by prosecution witnesses which fall short of evidence to prove
that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and
harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, and
improved versions of statements made by prosecution witnesses for
the first time in Court disclosing things not disclosed during
investigation, are liable to be viewed with suspicion and the
presumption of dowry death cannot be raised therefrom, and the
accused cannot be convicted on the strength of such statements [see
Jagdish & Ors. vs. State, 2010 (28.5.2005) JCC 943; Sunil Bajaj vs.
State of M.P., AIR 2001 SC 3020; Nepal Singh vs. State of
Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 2913 and Durga Prashad & Anr. vs. State of
M.P., 2010 (3) JCC 1852].
26.
In the case of Sham Lal vs. State of Haryana, 1997
Crl.L.J. 1927, it was held that when after resolving of disputes the
wife is taken back to the nuptial home and there is no evidence that
she was treated with cruelty or harassment in the context of dowry
during the period between her being taken back to the nuptial home
and her tragic end, the presumption of dowry death cannot be raised
and accused cannot be convicted under Section 304B IPC. We are
noting this law laid down by the Supreme Court for the reason that
none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased was
treated with cruelty on account of dowry “soon before” her death
except PW7 Ms. Karuna, the cousin sister of the deceased, who, as
we have noted above, gave her statement for the first time to the SDM
in written form on 2nd June, 2005 to the effect that she had met the
deceased at a wedding where the deceased had disclosed to her that
she was being harassed by her in-laws for dowry. This witness,
however, admitted that she did not communicate this information
even to the mother of the deceased nor the mother of the deceased has
professed knowledge of the same. The improbability of this when the
mother of the deceased and PW7 Ms. Karuna were together not only
at the wedding but also at AIIMS Hospital where the deceased was
admitted renders the testimony of this witness unworthy of credence.
27.
In the case of Naraini Devi vs. State, DRJ 1992 22, which is a
case identical to the present one immediately after the death of the
victim, the brothers of the deceased and her mother reached the spot
and when they reached there the police officials were already present
but none of them made any complaint or report to the police officer
about the harassment by the accused or their persistent demand of
dowry which led to the incident. The Supreme Court opined that the
long and unexplained delay in recording of the FIR casts grave doubt
on the credibility and truthfulness of the prosecution version.
28.
Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 CAR 280
(SC), where the Supreme Court observed that in a criminal case FIR
is a very vital document and very often delay in lodging the FIR
results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. The
relevant headnote is as under:-
“First information report in a criminal case is an
extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for
the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence
adduced at the trial. The importance of the above
report can hardly be overestimated from the
standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting
upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in
respect of commission of an offence is to obtain
early information regarding the circumstances in
which the crime was committed, the names of the
actual culprits and the part played by them as well
as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of
occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information
report quite often results in embellishment which is
a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the
report not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of
coloured version, exaggerated account or connected
story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It
is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging
of the first information
satisfactorily explained.”
29.
report
should
be
As stated above, in the present case no explanation has
been given for the delay in lodging in the FIR, let alone a
satisfactory one. Even otherwise, even if the prosecution story is
believed in its entirety and the improved versions are also
believed, it was only on her first and second visit to her parental
home that demand for dowry was made, which was nowhere near
the date of her death. There is not even an allegation that there
was any demand for dowry “soon before” the death.
30.
To conclude, we are of the considered opinion that in the
instant case there has not only been considerable delay in the
lodging
of
the
FIR
but
there
have
been
major
improvements/embellishments in the prosecution case, which
cannot be brushed aside for the reason that the substratum of the
prosecution version has been shaken.
We thus hold that the
Respondents have been rightly given the benefit of doubt and
uphold the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. Resultantly,
the Appeal fails and is dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGE
February 10, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment