STATE Vs. SANJEEV JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(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 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-lawPW-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 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.