STATE OF DELHI Vs. JITENDER GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30th July, 2005 of acquittal passed by the Court of the learned addl. Sessions Judge in case F. I. R. No. 215/ 2000, under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 IPC, police Station Shakarpur, Delhi.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell are that four accused persons, namely, Jitender Garg (husband of the deceased), Mr. Rajinder kumar Gupta (nandoi of the deceased), ms. Kusum" (nanad of the deceased) and pawan Kumar (jeth of the deceased) were charge-sheeted for the offence of having caused the death of Smt. Rajni, the wife of jitender Garg, It is not in dispute that Rajni died by strangulating herself with a 'chunni' after bolting the door of her room from the inside. Her MLC Ex. PW-2/a prepared by Dr. Anant Kumar in Walia Nursing Home shows that a ligature mark was found around her neck, but no other external injury or mark was seen. The postmortem report further confirms the finding of the ligature mark on the neck, and the fact that no external injury was seen on the body of the deceased by Dr, K. Goel (PW-1) who conducted the post mortem. The cause of death was opined by Dr. K. Goel to be asphyxia, consequent upon pressure over neck. Thus, the postmortem findings were consistent with suicide by hanging and the ligature mark was specifically opined to be ante-mortem in nature.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State forcefully contended that the death of Rajni having taken place within 11 months of her marriage with Jitender Garg and she being pregnant with first child at the time of her death, the death must be attributed either to the commission of a crime or to the fact that the deceased was subjected to continuous torture which impelled her to commit suicide. According to the learned counsel, the statements of PW-4, PW-5, pw-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are consistent on one point that during the period of 11 months of marriage, the demand for dowry was continuously made and continued to be made till soon before her death. He submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses were of no significance, and, wrongly declined to convict the accused despite clear and cogent evidence against them. The learned counsel for the State also submits that the defence plea that the deceased was pursuing the career of modelling without the permission of the accused/husband in no manner discharges the burden placed on the accused persons to prove that the death of the deceased was not due to any cruel treatment/harassment for dowry. The modelling photographs of the deceased, the learned counsel urged, do not discharge the presumption enshrined in Section 113 (B)of the Evidence Act.