Liberate men from Responsibilities

In continuation with my article, "Allow Daughters to take Responsibility legally" and in response to 24 Million Chinese Men Will Remain "Bachelors" by 2020 gender roles are being revisited here. While feminists have always argued for concessions for women, often at the expense of men, citing skewed gender-ratio against girls and have been successful in getting them as well, but men at the same time have been facing tougher and tougher times.

Selective sex abortions and male-preference has been viciously twisted by feminists to unleash male-hatred and piggyback their sinister agenda onto it. As a result boys and men have to live a life without "FREEDOM of CHOICES" and they are forced to don the role of a PROTECTOR and a PROVIDER popularly known as the FREE ATM MACHINE and the UNPAID BODYGUARD.

At the same time, the most risky, menial and dangerous jobs are heaped on to men and the burden of responsibilities of maintaining the family – parents, siblings, wife, children, in-laws, etc. has also been thrust onto men leading to ever increasing and skyrocketing expectations from them and nose-diving acceptance levels for their shortcomings and weaknesses.

And it is because of this skewed balance of responsibilities between men and women, that the society prefers male children over female children. After all, everyone wants someone to take care of in the dusky days and why to have an offspring that cannot be imposed upon with responsibilities. It is not because of some over-flowing extra love for men that male children are preferred.

The situation can be very well explained in terms of economics. Because of preference and because of natural birth ratio of 950 females for every 1000 males, there is an over-supply of men and under-supply of women. As a result, obviously, women have become the prized asset enjoying aggravated levels of protection, pampering and concessions whilst men have become the surplus asset presumed to require no protection and something that can be disposed off with. This phenomenon, which is worldwide and irrelevant of culture or country, has led to the establishment of the Male Disposability as defined below,

Male Disposability is a psychological behavioral and attitudinal syndrome that considers Men as "Disposable and Expendable" and invests very low emotional resources with males which ultimately leads to an environment insensitive to the problems of the male world or one that automatically eliminates weak men (or men finished off with their utility) viewing them as liability,

An explanation of the above definition with statistics is also available at Male Disposability – Myth or Reality.

From a pure economical point of view, the dynamics between returns and risks is a direct function of the investments. Higher the investment, higher the returns and higher the risks involved as well. Big Corporate Houses have a lot of corpus fund to put into business, commerce and trade and as a result they make a lot of money as well but at the same time they do carry heavy risks and the needed potential to absorb huge losses as well.

Similarly since the society invests heavily in women (in terms of social, legal, emotional, economic and academic resources), the returns as well as the risks are extremely high. The returns are available in form of a very balanced and strong emotional health of women that gives many a positive results and the risks are in the form of extra precautions and laws needed for them and the negative results of strong emotional health of women and enhanced expression abilities.

Similarly, for men, as the investment is low (actually very close to zero), both the returns and risks are low. The low returns are manifested in the form of lack of expression from men, reduced capability of emotional confrontation, deformed and mutilated psycho-emotional health and low risks are obviously visible in the various instances of "Male Disposability" and expectation of high risk appetite from men.

However, society is facing a lot of problems. And each problem seems to stem from a string of such problems and also leads to multiple such strings and the whole situation looks like an entangled mesh of problems where each thread is stuck. And if things continue in this way, then it won’t be longer before societal structures crumble and societal power equations dissolve for all time to come with little or no scope of repair.

But as the old adage goes, "World lives on hope", so is the case here. Still the choice lies with the society to "LIBERATE MEN from RESPONSIBILITIES", increase its investment in men – socially, legally, emotionally, economically, and academically – and in turn get high returns.

However, one may argue that when things are running, what is the need to take higher risks? It is pertinent to mention here that things are definitely running, but where are they heading to? Are we to wait seeing things run to end? Or take a stand now and alter the future forever, because, nothing in life comes for free. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH AVAILABLE. Everything comes associated with a price tag and many a times the price can be way costlier and precious than money or financial price; a loss that may not be recoverable at all if we do not prevent it now by LIBERATING MEN FROM RESPONSIBILITIES.

How will it help?

Liberating men from responsibilities and dissolving the freedom of choice of responsibilities across both the genders has many advantages.

First and foremost, it will provide men with the much needed space and time that they need for them to do something in life that interests them rather than just donning the humdrum role of a PROTECTING and PROVIDING male. This role often requires men to enter into a rat race and makes the male world extremely competitive, insensitive and violent and in such a case the possibility of the violence and aggression spilling over to other areas of life cannot be ruled out.

In other words, liberating men from responsibilities and giving them the freedom of choice will actually reduce the violent behavior of men to a large extent as opposed to the current style of punishing men. It is but obvious that the methodology is not working because rather than improving the lives of men and the society in general, it is reducing the quality of life. This is clearly evident from the enormously high stress levels in the life of men corroborated by an extremely high and exponentially growing suicide rate of men, reduced life expectancy and mostly men becoming victims of diseases like cardiac arrest, high blood pressure, diabetes – all of which are the direct consequence of abnormally high stress levels.

Lack of expressional capabilities, is a serious and known problem with men; a problem with which even the most renowned psychological counselors are grappling but unable to solve. Liberating men from responsibilities will give men the emotional space needed to develop expressional capabilities as they will move closer to their experiential domain. This will improve the life-quality of men in general and society at large. And this is something that needs to be implemented with our current generation of boys for they are the MEN of the FUTURE.

Liberating men from responsibilities will also mean giving an equal opportunity to women to take upon the same. This will be true empowerment of women as opposed to current and proposed ones which specifically target at punishing men – and it has already been shown above that it is not working.

Entrusting someone with responsibility is a true recognition of capabilities and an undisputed sign of empowerment. This will also lead to increased preference of female children and will solve the problem of gender ratio as well.

Hence, as we see, with a slight change in our attitudes and social perceptions of gender, we can solve some of the most difficult problems the current society is plagued with as opposed to the current way of formulating a new law for every social problem faced.

So do we agree to LIBERATE MEN FROM RESPONSIBILITIES?

The Indian men’s movement

History of Movement

The Indian men’s movement started some 20 years back by Mr.Ramprakash Chugh, a Lawyer in Supreme Court of India and he started giving free help to men who faced problems from their wives. He carried on in spite of ridicule. His movement mainly remained in Delhi and he fought for rights of men in legal system. It took at least another decade for the movement to pick speed when an organisation called Purush Hakka Samrakshan Samiti (PHSS) was formed in Nasik with branches in couple of cities in Maharastra including Mumbai in 1997. Its name meant ” Men’s Rights Protection Organisation”. It fought against detention of men and his families in false complaints of 498a. It fought for granting bail to people who were innocent. It interacted with judiciary and politicians. The media covered them well. But, they faced extremely hostile reactions for local feminists who lobbied to ban this organisation. Most
probably, they could not digest that there can also be men’s rights movement. Of course, they did not succeed.

Almost at the same time, an organisation called “Pirito Purush Poti Parishad”(PPPP) started in Kolkatta. Not much information about this
organisation and its achievements.

It took another 5 more years for something substantial to happen. The internet changed the way people communicate. Techies in Bangalore could feel the heat on them as feminism started taking its first casualities in Bangalore.

That led to Sangyabalya in 2003 and this time it was different. More than 50% of its members are women and it was no longer a men’s movement, but a movement which discussed both men’s and women’s issues. It is sensed that men’s issues and women’s issues are not opposite of each other, but they run in parallel. That was a pathbreaking approach. For the first time in the history of India, a helpline was launched for giving completely free support to men, woman and elders who are jailed due to false complaints by impulsive
daughters-in-law or her family.

Soon techies from Wipro, Infy, TCS, GE, HP, CISCO and many more companies started lining up for help and giving help. The helpline was followed up by a strongly bonded community. So, strong was the commitment that this organisation ran without any funds. For any new victim and his family, help of all kinds (moral, emotional, legal, strategic counselling) poured in.

As Media knew the real issues faced by men and their families, they extended a surprisingly warm welcome to this organisation and covered it well.Click Here for News Article in REDIFF. This coverage led to chain reaction. Every days on an average 4 to 5 people from various parts of country and also from abroad started calling the Helpline for support and counselling. In no time, there were two hundred members.

By late 2004, the avtivists operating in Bangalore became very influential and that slowly started changing the attitude of judges and counsellors. A famous high court judge warned feminists, if they do not behave themselves, then men’s rights organisations will take over the social movement. The need for diversity of organisations to fight against misuse of law, led to decision of creating multiple organisations. This led to creation of India’s first women’s organisation Asha Kiran which fights for men’s rights. Many mothers and sisters of men started fighting full time for their rights which are violated by the draconian, dysfunctional Indian legal system.

http://www.asha-kiran.org

In the meanwhile, by end of 2003, the internet activism was given a major boost by the activity spear headed by D’Souza and Gokul.

D’Souza’s Site: http://misuseof498a.clawz.com/
 
Gokul’s site: http://Gokul.go.toAt the same time, the talented NRIs, Techies, Engineers of India suddenly rose up to give power via the Yahoogroup Misusedowryact. By Jan 2005, Activists D’Souza, Sathakka and others were already working on Search Engine Optimisation. By Jan 15th, the website http://www.saveindianfamily.com was established. Large number of articles were written which put holes in the entire feminist theory.By March, the activism shifted in a bigger way to Yahoogroup SaveIndianFamily. Activists from Delhi and Haryana joined in a big way and that led to creation of Pariwarik Suraksha Sanstha(PSS) in Delhi in May 2005.On 9th July 2005, PSS conducted a major seminar in Constitution club in Delhi which was covered by Doordarshan. On 15th July, Doordarshan conducted a 30 minute program on Misuse of Dowry laws in India. Seminar in Delhi:

http://www.saveindianfamily.org/blogs/2005/08/13/pss-seminar-july05/

Now we have another very professional site with lot of information for every member and non-member : www.498a.org
Best Regards
Gorky

Misuse of DOWRY LAW (498A) Victims Story

Sunday, February 20, 2005

I'm one of the dowry Prohibition Act (IPC-498A) victim.
We got married on 26th April 1997.
Ours was arranged marriage, Since beginning she was not ready to mingle with my Family, only one week we stayed with my parents then we went to Bombay, where I was working. In the 2nd week of marriage she demanded DIVORCE, which I was not ready to give, then she and her family started to harass me, After one year our 1st child born; I found out, that she had affair with other man, and she wanted to marry him. But I never questioned her about it. After she come back from delivery, she started act strange, her words were sharp, and she was doing as her mother/sister tell her. Even once her mother told her in front me, NOT to cook. And she did that. I fought with her that day. She was complaining I was not doing, as she wanted.

All she wanted is; I have to do as she says
I have to give money to her brothers, whenever they want, and never ask it to return.
I have to give all my salary in her hand to manage home
I Should not ask, where she goes at night
I have to wish her all Family members on occasion, but she never done same to my Family.
Her Father was threatened me that I have to cook for her Even After coming back from Office
I have to bring Good Expensive whisky when Family members come home, when I refuse to do coz I'm not drinking and I'm against alcohol; she made to promise to our neighbor that i will start drinking [I see women who pray/do pasting for their husband to STOP drinking.]
She was insulting me when I drink Pepsi in get-together, saying its Childs drink.
She was telling smoking was style of society- coz I was not smoking.
She was telling she was not SLAVE to do house hold work.
I was doing my laundry
I can challenge any women in cooking (she never been to kitchen till her marriage)
She never know how to hold a needle - I was stitching kids cloths and buttons
She Demanded to write my Flat to her name
She always demanded to make more new gold ornaments-now she took all my gold with her.
My Relatives should not come to my house.

On 18th June, At Night 11.30 she called 7/8 relatives to my house, and threatened me, Almost 2 hours they harassed me, threatened me, try to beat; As a Christian I took this matter to Church, on 1st July Church Priest arranged meeting but they walked away insulted, After 2 days at night she came with some women relatives took all my money/gold insurance by force. I did`t went to police, thinking it should not made public, but next morning she lodged false complaint of dowry harassment on me. When I came back from office police were waiting for me. I was charge sheeted, I never took or demanded single paise as dowry, and even I gave half of the money as wedding expenses.

Many times I tried to make her understand, our church priest also called her so many times, she was not ready to listen anything, at last our church priest said I'm going abroad, on new job so she came back only for one night to find out, the truth that I'm going aboard or not. As I was not sure about my project, so next day she just fade away as she came.

After 4 months when I requested in court to verify the case, she came to the court Second time and asked for compromise, on condition that I've to take her back from her house, still I agreed for that and I went to her parents house in Mangalore, but she or her parents were Angry and were not ready to talk, Her Father tried to hit me, so I came back Empty handed 5th Time.

On 28th October night 3 men came to my Flat, to threaten me, I did`t opened the door; I knew who they are and sent by whom. Her sister Husband was arrested/convicted for murder of his Brother-in-law for 7 years, and they have criminal background, in Bombay for just 1000Rs they murder someone. I did`t went to police because before that, also I went to lodge complaint, when her Family members threatened me to break my arms and limbs, Police made me to wait for 2 hours, and took my statement, but did nothing. Next day everyone advised me to leave the city.
On 30th Oct 2000 I left India
without telling whereabouts to my parents even.
I was contacting my friend through Email and asking for the court date.

After 5 years, this case is still going on, she never came to the court, but LAW turn blind eye on that, if I'm not present for one court date, they issue Arrest warrant for me. Even my lawyer is not doing anything, he try to get more money, I paid so much money, and totally I spent 3 Lakhs of Rupees in last 5 years. Still nothing happened.
Court issued 4 Warrants against me so far, After Every Warrant i went to indian and Cancelled it, my lawyer says Court sent summons to her; she never came to the court to prove her complaint; unless she comes i cann`t prove my innocence. Law / Court / Judge is not doing anything than give dates after dates.

Meanwhile i wrote to President of india and he forwarded my mail to Karnataka State Legal Authority, as i`m native of Karnataka; They Adivced me to approch Maharashtra State legal Authority as my case is in Vasai - Thane - Maharashtra. i wrote to them and went to meet too but concerned Officer was not in his office for 2 days.

Now After MSLA order my case is Transferd to Deputation Court,and new judge gave me another date.

If her complaint was true, why she is not coming to court.

If i ever took or Demanded single paise as dowry, i would have never dare to write to President of india or any Law Authorities.

In india women do anything thats right,they have Law support Even Misuse of law.

If women ask for Divorce and her husband is not coming to court,court send strickt notice and finish this divorce within 6 months; If same man do and women is not coming,court give date after date,and he will not get divorce for 6 years unless he goes to higher Court.

This is our Great Law.


A victim
Rudolph Dsouza
http://misuseof498a.clawz.com

Supreme Court of India quashed 498A

ITEM NO.50                    COURT NO.6                   SECTION II

             S U P R E M E       C O U R T   O F    I N D I A                              RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).8668/2009

(From the judgement and order dated 16/09/2009 in                   SBCRMP   No.
1505/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

HARSHA TIWARI & ANR.                                         Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.                                    Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay of arrest)


Date: 30/07/2010    This Petition was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR



For Petitioner(s)         Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya,Adv.


For Respondent(s)         Mr. Ashok Bhan, Adv.
                          Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Adv.for
                          Mr.Milind Kumar, Adv.

                          Mr. Ajay Choudhary ,Adv
                          Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Adv.

             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R


              Leave granted.

              The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.




      (Parveen Kr. Chawla)                             ( Renuka Sadana )
          Court Master                                    Court Master

                [signed order is placed on the file]
                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1384 OF 2010
         (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 8668 of 2009)


Harsha Tiwari & Another                            ..Appellants

                          versus

State of Rajasthan & Another                       ..Respondents




                          O R D E R


         Leave granted.

         Heard learned counsel for the parties.


         This Appeal has been filed            against the impugned

judgment and order dated 16th September, 2009 of the High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

         The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment

and hence we are not repeating the same here.

         It   appears   that the aggrieved wife Shilpa Sharma

lodged an F.I.R., inter alia, under Section 498A, IPC in

which she not only made the husband accused but also the

present appellants and the mother-in-law.            Appellant No.1

appears to be the husband's sister and appellant No.2 is

the alleged match-maker.

         It is well known that in Section 498A, the net is

spread    wide    and   people     who   are    innocent   are    also

implicated.
        On the facts of the case, no case is made out



                             -2-



against the appellants.

       Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside     the

impugned judgment of the High Court and quash the criminal

case against the appellants herein only.




                             ..........................J.
                             [MARKANDEY KATJU]


NEW DELHI;                   ...........................J.
JULY 30, 2010                [T.S. THAKUR]
 

Write a WILL now-don't let 498a gang to celebrate your death (Sample Will)

 Go Below for Sample Will for Members


I have given a rough idea to write a will -It is very easy and it is a must for all 498a victims. Please do it today (VERY IMPORTANT). Donot let your 498a gang to celebrate your death with the property and money that you and your family inherited and hard earned for years and for generations. Write a Will and give it to your parents to use if some thing untold happens.... Every one should write one (NRI or Non NRI)

1. In India you need not need any format to write any WILL. You need to write mentioning the properties you have in your name and the money in your name and to whom you wish to give.
Better you write like this. All my immovable property including my ancestral property 1. xxx, 2.xxx, and the properties 1.xxx, 2.xxx and all my valuables including money in all my bank account including 1.xxx a/c in xx bank, 2. xxx a/c in xx bank. Any compensation amount or insurance payments are any other payment for me after my death or disability including 1.xxx, 2.xxx etc should go to these persons 1. xxx my father, 2. xxx my mother , 3. xxx my sister in equal shares. In case any of the above person is dead at the time of execution of this will then the above benefits should go to the rest of the person mentioned in this will.
2. Clearly mention that none of your property or money or any other benefits should go to your wife Mrs xxx as there is no trust prevail between us and she has initiated a false criminal case against me and my family and has harassed me and my parents.

The following is points you need to keep in mind while writing the will. There is no formal regulation to write a will in India. Write this in a legal size paper and get 2 witness with their address and better notarize it. I preferred to write it on my one hand with a blue/black pen instead of typing to give more authenticity.

Here are the absolutely minimum items in a Will. Otherwise, your Will, will not be valid.
1. Date. The Will must be dated clearly. Without a date, the Will is of no use. The date is used to determine which Will takes precedence.

2. Opening clause to identify yourself. This includes name and address.

3. Appointing executor and trustee. Name the person, again make their identity clear, so some form of identification is needed.

4. Distribution. Who gets what. You might want to specify certain items to somebody. If you are in a rush, you might just want to give everything to one or two person.

5. If you have children, you may want to appoint guardians preferrably your father or your mother or your sister/brother or it can be your best friend.

6. Residual clause. This is to take care of your assets that you did not mention in the distribution above. A residual clause is very important because if you forgot to specify items, it acts like an umbrella clause to ensure your assets are distributed. Otherwise, there will be partial intestacy.

7. Attestation. This means signed and witness by others.

The opening clause

1.In all Wills it is traditional to have an opening clause that identifies the testator (the person making the Will), their full name and address, as well as any other names by which they have been known. This makes it easier to identify the person who made the Will should any problems arise. The opening clause usually includes the current address of the testator being the last address where the testator lived.

2.The opening clause further states that the Will is ‘the testator's last Will and testament’ and that helps to demonstrate that the testator intended the document to be a Will.

Residual clause

Residual clauses have been used to bequeath money or gifts to charitable organizations or extended family. Typically, a residual clause is written to say: All the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, wherever situated, I give, devise, and bequeath to the XYZ Foundation or person. It is the left over after you write the property or money to the specific person.

I don't think this is a must in the Will. Make it simple and valid.

Registration of will is not compulsory in India however it is a very good idea to get it registered - only to make it fool proof from some one disputing the will. 
But it is equally valid if the Will is written and is not registered. What is necessary for a will to be valid is that is must be witnessed in the presence of two attesting witnesses, and the person making the will must be of sound mind. One suggestion (Personal) write the will on your own hand writing and get that Witnessed by two neutral person who is well known and would come and give proof if some one disputes the authenticity of the Will.  

A sample WILL for SIF members: Personalize it as per your needs

Taking liberty to copy this. I apologize for copying this here. Only intention is to help our members.

WILL

I, HUSBAND S/O --- R/O aged (DATE) 28 YEARS, right now presently
residing at ADDRESS do hereby declare and execute on this 10TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY'2008 AT DELHI my solemn WILL AND TESTAMENT as follows:

1. WHEREAS, I AM A Hindu by religion and got
married with WIFE D/O X R/O Y on DATE OF MARRIAGE according to the
Hindu Marriage Customs & Rites at Delhi and out of the wed lock I got
one male child on DATE who expired after 13 days of his birth i.e. on
DATE.

2. Due to some matrimonial disputes by my
estranged wife WIFE D/O X R/O Y has deserted me in her own volition
on DATE. For these circumstances and regular threats of my wife and
her parents regarding adopt a property and jail (as per their own
words), my father disowned me and my wife from his Movable /
Immovable Property(s) and published an add for the same in Dainik
Jagran newspaper on DATE with the help of a Lawyer i.e. Shri Moti Lal
Jain R/o 29-C Ram Nagar New Delhi – 55 (Chamber No.45 Patiala House
Courts New Delhi – 01).

3. My estranged wife has been of quarrelling and
violent nature and had even been physically assaulting me besides
abusing me regularly on one pretext or the other and she has
ultimately left the matrimonial home and deserted in 06.03.2006 and
since then she is residing in her father's house at WIFE D/O X R/O Y.
Despite her various drawbacks, I still wanted to improve her with my
constant love and affection and made all out efforts along with my
different relatives to bring her back to our matrimonial home for the
same.

4. She instead filed various false cases against
me my parents and other family members. Her cruelty is increasing day
by day. Due to these circumstances my life is full of danger and I
feel that my life is but short and God knows when it may come to an
end. Hence, I with my free WILL and without any pressure make this
WILL with my sound predisposition mind. To several places that WILL
be a risk to my life.

5. I herby bequeath and make it very clear in no
uncertain terms that my estranged wife WIFE D/O X R/O Y do not have
any rights whatsoever in any manner of the Property(s) I leave behind
after my death.

6. I have executed this WILL on my volition and
without coercion signed and attested in the presence of the witnesses
after it was read over to me.

7. Hence I have decided to EXECUTE this WILL in
favour of MY ELDER SISTER AND ELDER BROTHER-IN-LAW who will have
absolute right of all my Property(s) and / or Rights after my death
with regard to my BANK ACCOUNT(S) INSURANCE POLICY(S) CPF (IIFT) AND
MOVABLE / IMMOVABLE PROPERTY(S) as described below on the following
terms and conditions:

1
I have been operating Bank Account(s)
OR
Status of Bank Account(s)
NOT APPLICABLE
2
I have been holding Insurance Policy(s)
OR
Status of Insurance Policy(s)
NOT APPLICABLE
3
I own Movable / Immovable Property(s)
OR
Status of Movable / Immovable Property(s)

NOT APPLICABLE
4
I have my own CPF Account in my office (IIFT – NEW DELHI)
OR
Status of Provident Fund

NOT APPLICABLE
5
I own Vehicle(s)
OR
Status of Vehicle(s)
NOT APPLICABLE



8. Hence all the above balance amounts in the
above mentioned Bank Account(s) Insurance Policy(s), amounts,
Movable / Immovable Property(s) mentioned above and other benefit(s)
if any shall go to MY ELDER SISTER & ELDER SISTER-IN-LAW (SMT.
SATYAWATI & SHRI ASHOK KUMAR) in case of my death.

9. I authorize hereby MY ELDER SISTER AND ELDER
BROTHER-IN-LAW to withdraw the necessary amounts from the above said
account(s) for the purpose of (CHILDREN OF ELDER SISTER AND ELDER
BROTHER-IN-LAW) education, donation, hostel & other miscellaneous
expenses on maintaining proper account.

10. In case of death of one nominee the other one
will take charge by default.

11. This is my last WILL AND TESTAMENT executed on
my own accord with mental stability without threat fear or influence
or force and further I declare that I have not executed any WILL in
favor of anybody sofor.

12. The copy of this WILL shall be in the custody of
my mother's brother i.e. MY MAMA S/O --- R/O.

13. The copy of this WILL may also be forward to
President of India, Prime Minister of India, Chief Justice of India,
Home Minister of India, UPA Chief Hon. Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Women and
Child Minister Hon. Ms. Renuka Chowdhary, Chairperson of Central
Women Commission, Chief Minister of Delhi, Commissioner of Police,
Deputy Commissioner of Munirka Village Area, SHO of Munirka Village
Area i.e. Vasant Vihar Police Station.

14. In case anyone raises any objection and
challenges this WILL the objection shall be treated as null and void.

15. And in the last & final wish, after death, my
dead body give to AIIMS, Director immediately, because I want to
donate my whole body / whole body parts to All India Institute of
Medical Science for recovery / transplant / deliver my body parts to
another needy persons / people / patient so that MAR KAR BHI ZINDA
RAHOON. No one can claim my body or body parts. It is sole / full
authority to AIIMS, Director who will take charge. I request to
AIIMS, Director you may do as per your criteria and your decision
will be the final one.

16. IN WITNESS AND EXECUTION WHERE OF I the above
said HUSBAND S/O – R/O have set my hand here under and on all the
proceeding pages on the date month and year at the place first above
written in the presence of the following witnesses:


WITNESS NO.1



TESTATOR



WITNESS NO.2

The contents of this WILL make and drafted by an ADVOCATE SHRI. 

(Judgment) Wear and tear is not valid ground for divorce IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5010 OF 2007

Gurbux Singh …. Appellant (s)
Versus
 Harminder Kaur …. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) The appellant, a Principal in ITI College, Sirhali, Amritsar, has approached this Court against the judgment  and final order dated 11.05.2007 of the High Court of  Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 252-M of  2006 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the  appeal filed by him against the judgment and order dated  11.10.2006 of the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Amritsar, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13 of  the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as  "the Act") for a decree of divorce against the respondent- wife, who is working as a Librarian in Government  Institute DIET at Verka, Amritsar on the ground of  `cruelty’. Both the courts have rejected the claim of the  appellant herein on the ground that he has failed to prove  `cruelty’ sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce.
The case of the Appellant
2) (a) On 23.11.1997, the appellant got married with the
respondent at Amritsar according to Sikh rites and
customs. Even on the date of marriage, the respondent
had been working as a Librarian in a Government
Institute DIET at Verka, Amristar. From the very
beginning, the respondent expressed her dislike towards
the appellant and his family and gradually started
misbehaving with them. She started exhibiting short-
tempered behaviour and treated the parents of the
appellant with cruelty and disrespect. The father of the
appellant is aged about 80 years and his mother is more
than 75 years. In the month of January 1998, on the first
Lohri festival after their marriage, the respondent being
annoyed with the appellant on a trivial issue, abused his
mother in filthy language in the presence of their relatives
and neighbours causing immense pain to the entire
family. Since then, the respondent started insisting that
she cannot live with the parents of the appellant who are
mental and nuisance in her life and pressed upon the
appellant to have a separate abode from his parents.
(b) On 15.05.1999, a male child was born out of the
wedlock. Even after the birth of the child, there was no
improvement in the behaviour of the respondent. She
always insisted that she being financially independent is
not in need of the appellant and his family.
(c) Just five days before the third birthday of their child
i.e. on 10.05.2002, the respondent, without any justifiable
reason left the matrimonial home leaving the child
unattended and went to her parents house and staying
there since then. The appellant having failed in his efforts
to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home
and in view of the consistent cruelty filed HMA Case No.
19 of 2003 before the Addl. District Judge, Amritsar,
praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act.
The stand of the Respondent
3) In reply to the divorce petition, while denying all the
averments made by the appellant, the respondent has
stated that the appellant is a greedy person and not
satisfied with the dowry articles received in marriage. He
always misbehaved and maltreated her and abused on
several occasions. She alleged that the appellant is a
habitual drinker and used to threaten her to kill with
poison. She also alleged that the appellant pulled her hair
and gave merciless beatings in the presence of his
parents.
Decision of the District Court and High Court
4) By judgment dated 11.10.2006, the Additional District
Judge, Amritsar, after analyzing the plea of both the
parties, oral and documentary evidence concluded that
the appellant-husband failed to substantiate the
allegations of `cruelty’ and dismissed his divorce petition.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the High
Court by filing FAO No. 252-M of 2006. The learned single
Judge of the High Court, by the impugned order dated
11.05.2007, while agreeing with the conclusion of the
Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by
the appellant. Questioning the above said orders, the
appellant has filed the present appeal by way of special
leave petition.
5) Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Seeraj Bagga, learned counsel for the
respondent.
6) The only question for consideration in this appeal is
whether the appellant-husband has made out a case for
divorce on the ground of `cruelty’ by the respondent-wife.
7) Section 13 of the Act specifies the grounds on which a
decree for divorce may be obtained by either party to the
marriage. Though in the divorce petition filed before the
Additional District Judge, Amritsar in HMA No. 19 of
2003, the appellant had sought divorce merely mentioning
Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by decree
of divorce, and did not specify the grounds on which he is
entitled to decree of divorce. In the petition, the appellant
has highlighted only one aspect, namely, that after the
marriage, in the month of January 1998, on first festival
of Lohri, when they were enjoying the festival, the
respondent-wife abused his mother and the father in the
presence of relatives and neighbours. In para 6 of the
petition, the appellant has alleged that:
"…..She called nuisance, idiot and mental to the parents of
the petitioner and the respondent openly said that she did
not want to live with the petitioner if he live with his old
parents."
In para 10, the appellant has stated:
"That on 10th May of 2002, the respondent left her
matrimonial home without giving any information to any
member and she also left her child in the matrimonial home
this shows that the respondent did not have any love and
affections towards petitioner and his family members. She is
living in her parental house for the last more than one year.
Hence, the necessity has been arisen to file the present
petition….."
Except the above allegations, the appellant has not
highlighted any other instance(s) about cruelty by the
respondent. Though learned counsel for the appellant
attempted to argue "desertion", in the absence of any
plea/evidence and material, we disallowed him to pursue
the said point.
8) In the reply to the petition under Section 13 of the Act,
the respondent has highlighted her stand and in fact
denied all the allegations against her. She also projected
her case that the custody of the child was forcibly taken
by the appellant when she returned from her matrimonial
home. She also highlighted that the appellant used to
force her to bring cash from her parents as he wanted to
purchase a car in the month of February 2000. When she
refused to bring cash, she was mercilessly beaten by the
appellant. She also stated that in February 4, 2000, her
parents gave Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant and thereafter
the appellant agreed to keep the respondent in her
matrimonial home. She also alleged that the appellant is
habitual of taking liquor and under influence of liquor, he
used to beat her. She further alleged that the appellant’s
maternal uncle’s daughter used to interfere in their family
affairs.
9) Apart from the above pleadings, both parties filed
statement in the form of an affidavit/petition and also let
in evidence reiterating their respective pleas. As
discussed earlier, the only instance highlighted by the
appellant for divorce was that the respondent-wife abused
his parents on the day of festival of Lohri in the presence
of relatives and neighbours.
10) In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511,
a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act laid down certain guidelines.
The analysis and ultimate conclusion are relevant which
reads as under:-
"98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of
this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite
conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive
definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which all
kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in
our considered view should even attempt to give a
comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human
behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity
has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human
behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is
cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case.
The concept of cruelty differs from person to person
depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity,
educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs,
human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot
remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time,
impact of modern culture through print and electronic media
and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now
may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or
vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or
fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in
matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to
adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar
facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors
in consideration.
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not
make possible for the parties to live with each other could
come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life
of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is
such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to
put up with such conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner,
indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it
makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely
intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused
by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental
cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of
the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one
spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant
danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for
grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of
the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not
be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few
isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to
cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly
lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an
extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse,
the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the
other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilisation without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife
undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or
without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an
act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to
cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie,
the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,
it may lead to mental cruelty."
11) A Hindu marriage solemnized under the Act can only
be dissolved on any of the grounds specified therein. We
have already pointed out that in the petition for
dissolution of marriage, the appellant has merely
mentioned Section 13 of the Act and in the body of the
petition he highlighted certain instances amounting to
cruelty by the respondent-wife. Cruelty has not been
defined under the Act. It is quite possible that a
particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one case but
the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty
due to change of various factors, in different set of
circumstances. Therefore, it is essential for the appellant,
who claims relief, to prove that a particular/part of
conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him. No prior
assumptions can be made in such matters. Meaning
thereby that it cannot be assumed that a particular
conduct will, under all circumstances, amount to cruelty,
vis-`-vis the other party. The aggrieved party has to make
a specific case that the conduct of which exception is
taken amounts to cruelty. It is true that even a single act
of violence which is of grievous and inexcusable nature
satisfies the test of cruelty. Persistence in inordinate
sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be
cruelty if it injures the other spouse. There is no such
complaint by the appellant. In the case on hand, as stated
earlier, the appellant has projected few instances in
which, according to him, the respondent abused his
parents. We have verified all the averments in the
petitions, reply statement, written submissions as well as
the evidence of both parties. We are satisfied that on the
basis of such instances, marriage cannot be dissolved.
12) The married life should be assessed as a whole and a
few isolated instances over certain period will not amount
to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly
lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to
an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a
spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with
the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty.
Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and
expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of
elders may not be characterized as cruelty. Mere trivial
irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life
which happens in day to day life in all families would not
be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct
affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse
may lead to mental cruelty. Both the appellant and
respondent being highly qualified persons, the appellant
being Principal in ITI College, the respondent working as a
Librarian in a Government Institute, an isolated friction
on some occasion like festival of Lohri even in the presence
of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the
marriage.
13) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant by
drawing our attention to certain allegations made by the
respondent-wife in the reply to the petition under Section
13 of the Act before the Addl. District Judge submitted
that by considering all these aspects it is just and
reasonable to consider and grant divorce on the ground of
cruelty. In support of the same, he relied on the decision
of this Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs.
Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334. No doubt,
in that decision, this Court has held that allegations made
in the written statement or suggested in the course of
examination and by way of cross-examination satisfying
the requirement of law has also to be taken note of while
considering the claim of either party. In the case on hand,
it is true that the respondent-wife has made certain
allegations against her husband-appellant. However,
admittedly based on the same, the trial Court has not
framed any issue and no evidence let in in support of the
same. In such circumstances, the said decision is not
helpful to our case. Admittedly, no such issue was framed
by the trial Court or any point determined by the High
Court based on such averments in the reply/written
statement. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
14) As regards the allegations about beating her child
and not feeding him, the High Court, after analyzing the
entire materials, disbelieved the same. It is also brought
to our notice that the appellant condoned the alleged act
of cruelty as he wanted to bring back the respondent to
his house. As such, the allegations of cruelty do not
appear to be truthful. It is also proved that the appellant
is not interested to keep the respondent as his wife and he
wants divorce by any means. As observed earlier, except
the grounds enumerated in Section 13, a Hindu marriage
solemnized under the Act cannot be dissolved on any other grounds.
15) Finally, a feeble argument was made that both the
appellant and respondent were living separately from 2002
and it would be impossible for their re-union, hence this
Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution their marriage may be dissolved in the
interest of both parties. Though, on a rare occasion, this
Court has granted the extraordinary relief de hors to the
grounds mentioned in Section 13 in view of the fact that
the issue has been referred to a larger Bench about
permissibility of such course at present, we are not
inclined to accede to the request of the appellant. If there
is any change of law or additional ground included in
Section 13 by the act of Parliament, the appellant is free to
avail the same at the appropriate time.
16) In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
accept the claim of the appellant, on the other hand, we
are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by
the Addl. District Judge as well as the High Court.
Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed
with no order as to costs.

……………………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………J.
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 8, 2010.

Tags: Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, Gurbux Singh, Harminder Kaur, Hindu Marriage Act, P. SATHASIVAM

Cross examination shatters 498a 304B case- U-turn by deceased’s(wife) parents who deny their own allegations- Aquittal of husband and family members

IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN

 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,


P(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.146/09
FIR No.39/07
U/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC
PS C.R.Park
State
Vs.
1. Sandeep Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
2. Sonika Chopra w/o Sanjay Chopra
3. Chaman Lal Chopra s/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal Chopra
4. Sanjay Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
5. Vipin Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
6. Ekta Chopra w/o Vipin Chopra
7. Sudesh Chopra w/o Chaman Lal Chopra (Since expired)
............Accused
Challan filed on : 10.05.07
Received by Fast Track Court on:30.11.09
Reserved for Order on : 27.08.2010
Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2010
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on
09.02.07 on receipt of DD no.13A regarding hanging of one lady at D-
720 CR Park, Delhi, SI Tika Ram alongwith Ct. Azad reached at the spot
and found one Shefali W/o Sandeep hanging with dupatta with ceiling
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 1 of 36fan. Crime team was summoned at the spot and HC Giriraj took some
photographs. The Executive Magistrate was informed and he also
reached at the spot and dead body was removed from the ceiling fan
after cutting the dupatta. The Executive Magistrate recorded the
statements of parents of deceased. The statement of Smt. Anita Bhatia is
Ex.PW2/A in which she has alleged that the engagement ceremony of
her daughter Shefali was solemnized with Sandeep Chopra on
10.02.2006 and they spent about Rs.10.00 in the engagement ceremony
and they spent about Rs.30.00 lacs on the marriage of her daughter
Shefali. After marriage Sandeep came to their residence and stated asked
as to why they have not called his friend Raju and uttered that he is
everything for him. After that Sandeep started quarreling with their
daughter. He is a drunker and also a gambler. They were under the
impression that Sandeep will improve after birth of child. On 18th
Jan.
2007, a male baby has been born out of the wedlock and on that
occasion, Sandeep demanded Skoda Car from them. In the marriage they
had given Accent Car of red colour bearing no. HR 29P 4907 to accused
Sandeep but he had passed on this car to his sister. They went to the
matrimonial house of their daughter and urged the parents of Sandeep to
make him understand but they also paid no heed and inturn started
uttering to Shefali that she should perform her work properly. Sandeep
had a fight with his own brothers because of Raju. He used to utter that
he will not leave Raju but he can leave Shefali. Whenever they visited
the matrimonial house of Shefali, her father in law, mother in law,
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 2 of 36Sandeep and his brothers used to given them a long list of items and ask
them that they have to give those items otherwise it will not be in their
interest. Sandeep uttered to them that if their demands will not be
fulfilled and they did not take care of his friend Raju, he will leave
Shefali at her parents house. He used to come to home after 11 p.m after
consuming liquor and he used unparliamentary language to Shefali. He
used to beat her by giving leg blows during pregnancy. All the accused
persons Chaman Lal Chopra, Sandeep Chopra, Raju, his wife Neetu,
Sonika Chopra, Vipin Chopra, Ekta Chopra and Anju Chopra have killed
her daughter and thereafter hanged her with fan and it was informed to
them at about 9.15 p.m that Shefali has committed suicide. On this
statement SDM has directed the SHO PS C.R Park to register the case
u/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC. The case was registered and investigation
was done. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of
investigation challan was filed.
2. Being the case of the category exclusively triable by the court
of Sessions, after committal proceedings, it was assigned to the court of
sessions and charge against accused persons u/s 304B/498A/406/34 IPC
has been framed on 22.02.08 against accused Sandeep Chopra, Chaman
Lal, Sudesh Chopra(Since deceased), Vipin Chopra, Ekta Chopra,
Sanjay Chopra and Sonika Chopra to which all the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 3 of 363. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused persons
has  examined in all 16 witnesses.
4. The incriminating evidence against the accused persons were
put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they
have denied each and every allegation and stated that they have been
falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter the case was fixed for final
arguments.
5. I have heard Sh Inder Kumar Ld. APP for the State as well as
Sh Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate for the accused persons.
6. In view of the submissions made by Ld.Counsel for defence
as well as Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the documents and
testimonies of each witness carefully. During the course of arguments
Ld. counsels for the accused persons have drawn the attention of the
court on the testimonies of each witness and stated that the statements
given by the relatives of the deceased are contradicting to each other and
they have made glaring improvements in their testimonies. It has further
been stated that no demand for dowry was ever made by the accused
persons and the deceased was never harassed for dowry. Ld. counsel has
drawn the attention on the testimonies of each and every witnesses and
stated that  no case is made out against the accused persons and they may
kindly be acquitted.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 4 of 367. On the other hand Ld.APP for the State has stated that no
improvement have been made by the PWs because they has stated as per
the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the statement recorded by the
SDM. The relatives of the deceased have made specific allegations
against the accused persons for demand of dowry and harassment due to
which Shefali committed suicide. It has been further submitted that
accused persons may kindly be punished in accordance with law.
8. In view of the submissions made by the Ld.defence counsels
as well as Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the testimonies of
witnesses.
9. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased Shefali. He has
stated that SDM has recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He
identified the dead body of his daughter vide staetment Ex.PW1/B and
received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He handed over the list
of dowry to the police which is Ex.PW1/D and photographs which are
Ex.PW1/E & F.
10. PW2 Anita Bhatia is the complainant and mother of
deceased Shefali. She has stated that SDM has recorded her statement
which is Ex.PW2/A. She has stated that accused persons demanded
Skoda from her at the time when her daughter gave birth to a male baby.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 5 of 3611. PW3 Dr. Akhilesh has stated that Dr. MG Jai and Dr.
Raghvender had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shefali.
the post mortem report is Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal uncle of deceased Shefali
and he has stated that Raju demanded skoda car from Anita Bhatia and
Kuldeep Bhatia. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
13. PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased Shefali and he
has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared
hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the
State but in vain.
14. PW6 Ct. Azad Singh reached at the spot with SI Tika Ram
and he has stated that they found one lady hanging with ceiling fan with
the help of chuni. The executive Magistrate came there and he recorded
the statements of the parents of deceased. The dead body was sent to
Mortuary. IO prepared the rukka and got the case registered through him.
He further deposed about seizure of articles from the spot vide memo
Ex.PW5/A,B and C. He further deposed that accused Sandeep was
arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/A and his personal search was conducted
vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed about arrest of accused
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 6 of 36Chaman Lal on 10.2.07 vide memo Ex.PW6/C and conducting of his
personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/D. He recorded the disclosure
statement of accused Sandeep Chopra which is Ex.PW6/E. He identified
the chappal, key with chhalla as Ex.Pw6/Article1 and Ex.PW6/article2.
15. PW7 Ct. Gopal Prasad has deposed that on 9.2.07 he reached
at the spot with SI Tika Ram. He was sent by SI Tika Ram with dead
body to mortuary of AIIMS. He handed over the pulland given to him in
the hospital to IO which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A.
16. PW8 HC Sarjeet Singh has deposed that he was posted in
control Room, PHQ on 9.2.07 and he received telephone call from no.
9811111118 from Vipin Chopra that his sister in law has killed herself
and he recorded the same in form which is Ex.PW8/A.
17. PW9 HC Giriraj is the witness from crime team and he took
photographs which are Ex.PW9/A6 to A10 and negatives are
Ex.PW9/A1 to A5.
18. PW10 HC Rajeev has recorded the FIR of this present case.
The copy of FIR is Ex.PW10/A.
19. PW11 SI Naveen Kumar has deposed that on 9.2.07 he was
posted in crime team and after inspecting the spot he prepared his report
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 7 of 36which is Ex.PW11/A.
20. PW12 Ct.Tejpal has deposed that he delivered the copies of
FIR to Joint CP, ACP and area ACP on 9.10.07 (should be 09.02.07).
21. PW13 SI Tika Ram is the first IO and he reached at the spot
with Ct. Azad where they found one lady Shefali hanging from Ceiling
fan with dupatta. He called Executive Magistrate and crime team. He has
stated that Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of the parents of
the deceased on the basis of which he got the case registered. He seized
the articles lying at the spot vide memo Ex.PW5/A, B and C. He
prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B. He arrested accused Sandeep,
conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. He
got conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shefali and after post
mortem handed over the dead body to her father and brother vide memo
Ex.PW1/C. He arrested accused Chaman Lal and conducted his personal
search. He got prepared the scaled site plan. He identified the case
property.
22. PW14 Sh. RK Saini is the Executive Magistrate who
recorded the statements of Kuldeep Bhatia and Anita Bhatia Ex.PW1/A
and Ex.PW2/A and he has instructed the SHO to take legal action vide
endorsement Ex.PW14/A.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 8 of 3623 PW15 SI Mahesh has prepared the scaled site plan which is
Ex.PW15/A.
24. PW16 Insp. Jogender Kumar is the second IO and he
formally arrest accused Raj Kumar vide memo Ex.PW16/C. He seized
the photographs and marriage invitation card vide memo Ex.PW16/D.
He also seized the accent car vide memo Ex.PW16/E.
25. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the PWS it is
revealed that PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased, PW2 Anita
Bhatia is the mother of deceased, PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal
uncle of deceased and PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased
Shefali. PW2 Smt. Anita Bhatia is the complainant and mother of the
deceased. These witnesses including PW14 Sh RK Saini, the then
Executive Magistrate are the main star witnesses of the prosecution.
PW1,2,4 & 5 are the near relatives of the deceased.
26. To bring the guilt of the accused persons u/s 498A/ 304 B
IPC it is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions. Section 304B
relates to dowry death. The same was introduced in the Indian Penal
Code and it reads as under:-
304 B (1)
Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 9 of 36injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for or in connection with any demands for dowry such death
shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
For the purpose of this sub section dowry shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the dowry prohibition Act 1961.
'Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life'.
And if the ingredients of section 304B have been completed
then the presumption u/s 113 B in the Indian Evidence Act is required.
Section 113 B
Presumption as to dowry death - when the question whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that
soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry,
the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
In a case of dowry death cruelty on part of husband towards
his wife by prosecution has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
section 113 B of Evidence Act does not alter this requirement of stick
proof.
And section 498 A IPC reads as under:-
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 10 of 36'Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her
to cruelty – Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband or
a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be
liable to fine'.
27. There is explanation for the purpose of this section cruelty
means:-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life ,limb
or health (whether mental or physical ) of the woman or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
28. In the normal circumstances though cruelty at any time after
marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and
harassment envisaged by section 304B is to be seen before the death of
a woman and it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence
carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is
demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then
again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of the husband
within the short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable
difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident
occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 11 of 36the torture and harassment is confined in the four walls of the house.
However, the courts are to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence
regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are
relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are
strained for any reason whatsoever it might be.
29. Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A
person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological
trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person
committing suicide may think that the life he or she is living is more
miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance
would vary from person to person. Some persons try to make the life
easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their
life. 
30. Reverting back to the testimonies of witnesses firstly I would
consider the testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution
who are related to deceased Shefali. PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal
uncle of deceased and he has stated that Shefali was got married to
Sandeep on 6.3.06 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and Accent car was
given to him in the dowry alongwith other gold and silver jewellery. His
brother in Law spent Rs.15 to 20 lac on the marriage of Shefali. One
friend named Raju @ Raj Kumar of accused Sandeep Chopra used to
demand more dowry from his brother in law Kuldeep Bhatia and
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 12 of 36whenever complaint has been made to Sandeep Chopra, he used to say
that whatever Raju says that is final. His niece was not kept well in the
house. Shefali told her that she is not happy in her in laws house. He has
further stated that at the time of delivery of first child Raju demanded
Skoda car from Kuldeep Bhatia. On receiving the message regarding
death of Shefali he reached in Chitranjan Park and found Shefali hanging
with fan. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he has admitted
that the accent car which was gifted in the dowry, the same was further
gifted to the sister in law nanad/sister in law named Gitanjali. He denied
that when his jija Kuldeep and his family reached at the house of accused
persons, some hot exchange took place between them and then accused
persons went away from their house. He denied that the half portion of
the dupatta which was cut down from the neck of Shefali was taken in
police custody alongwith two pair of lady's chappal and key with
chhalla. He did not state to the police that Shefali committed suicide due
to harassment and demand of dowry by the accused persons and she
expired due to harassment for demand of dowry. He cannot identify the
exhibits which were lifted by the police. I have also considered the cross
examination wherein he has admitted that he has never been to the house
of his sister after or prior to the marriage of his niece Shefali. When he
has not visited the house of his sister, it is not understandable as to how
he came to know that there was some demand for dowry from the side of
accused persons. He has further stated that once only his deceased niece
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 13 of 36disclosed him regarding the harassment otherwise his sister used to tell
him regarding the harassment by accused persons. Sandeep used to meet
him socially in normal way. It is correct that Sandeep never gave beating
to Shefali at the instance of Raju in his presence. In view of his statement
he has alleged that one Raju has demanded more dowry and even that he
demanded skoda car at the time when Shefali gave birth to first child. He
has not levelled allegations against any of the accused persons facing
trial before this court. Raju has already been discharged by the court
vide order dated 22.02.08. Considering the cross examination conducted
by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing incriminating could come out
against the accused persons. In cross examination he has admitted that
accused Sandeep never gave beating to Shefali at the instance of Raju in
his presence.
31. PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased Shefali and he
has stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized on 6.3.06 with
Sandeep Chopra and they present one accent car in the marriage. His
mother used to tell him about the harassment of his sister Shefali by her
in laws. As and when he used to visit the in laws house of Shefali, after
seeing her face he understand her problem but he did not involve in any
affair to avoid future relations. Thereafter he has stated about receiving
of information regarding death of his sister by hanging herself with
fan.During life time his sister was not happy in her in laws house. He has
been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 14 of 36APP for the State wherein he has stated that police did not record his
statement Ex.PW5/A. He has been confronted with his statement by the
Ld. APP for the State but he denied having made such statement to the
police. However, he admitted that on 10.2.07 he identified the dead
body of his sister in mortuary of AIIMS Hospital and he received the
dead body. In view of his statement he has stated that his mother used to
tell him about the harassment of his sister. He has deposed on hearsay
because it was told to him by his mother and not by his sister Shefali.
Secondly, he has not stated as to how the accused person caused
harassment to Shefali and what they used to utter and what they used to
demand. By conducting cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State,
nothing incriminating could come against the accused persons. PW5 has
not made any allegation that accused persons has ever demanded more
dowry or skoda car from his father. He has also not stated that Shefali
has ever told him about the harassment caused to her by her husband as
well as in-laws. 
32. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased Shefali and he
has staetd that he gave hyundai Accent car in dowry. As soon as his
daughter reached her matrimonial house her mother in law took all
jewellery from her and told that she will return as and when she would
require. After days Raju friend of Sandeep told his daughter that they
had to purchase one plot for Sandeep and they asked for Rs.5.00 lac. He
was shocked to know this fact. He was surprised that when he has spent
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 15 of 36so much money on marriage why they are asking for more money. He
told that he is unable to pay Rs.5.00 lac. His daughter was not allowed to
talk on phone and when his daughter prayed them to talk she was told
'bill kya tera baap bharega'. Seeing this, in August 2006 he gave her one
mobile phone. He has further stated that his daughter was not provided
proper food and accused her that from the day she had come, their
business had collapsed. When they received instruction from the side of
Sandeep “Raju mere bhai se bharkar hai aur jo cheez tum mujhey doge
tum Raju ko bhi doge'. Sandeep used to return back home at 11 p.m in
drunken condition. They pressurized for Rs.5.00 lac. In June 2006 he
gave Rs.2.00 lac to Sandeep Chopra in the presence of Raju and parents
of Sandeep Chopra and requested them with folded hand that he cannot
afford more money. Sandeep, Raju and his family members never liked
the food cooked by his daughter and they used to tell 'teri maa ne tujhe
kya sikhya'. In the presence of all the family members and Sandeep, Raju
slapped his daughter uttering the words 'tere ko khana banana nahi aata'.
In the same night Sandeep and Raju returned home after taking drinks
and went in the bedroom where his daughter was sleeping and Raju
started molesting his daughter. He has further stated that Shefali got
pregnant and during pregnancy she was beaten mercilessly. They used to
tell her that after birth of child everything will be settled down. On
18.1.07 Shefali gave birth to a son and at that time Sandeep asked him to
give him Skoda Car. He told the parents of Sandeep about this and they
told 'theek hai jo yeh kah raha hai puri kar do'. He was shocked to know
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 16 of 36that Sandeep has handed over the car Accent to Anjali Lekhi. He has
further stated that on 8.2.07 Sandeep, Raju and parents of Sandeep came
to their house and demanded Skoda Car and used filthy language. After
requesting them, they went back and thereafter Shefali made a call and
told 'mai bahut pareshan ho rahi hoo apki inse kya baat hui'. On 9.2.07
Sandeep, Raju and parents of Sandeep again came to their house and told
'hamari yeh demand puri kartey ho to theek hai nahin to apni ladki se
haath dho baithogey'. They told them 'agar aap police me galti se bhi
chaley gaye hum apko fasa denge kyunki hamari bahut unchi pahunch
hai'. On 9.2.07 at 1 p.m Shefali had a talk with her mother on telephone
and she told her mother -'Mami dil bahut ghabra raha hai samajh mai
nahi aa raha'. On the same day at about 9.15 p.m his wife received call
from Sandeep that Shefali had hanged herself. He alongwith his wife
reached at the house of Shefali and saw the body of Shefali hanging with
ceiling fan. Her feet were touching the ground. There was no stool near
the dead body one which she might have climbed. He was shocked that a
girl who was married only 11 months back having 22 days child would
never commit suicide. His daughter had not committed suicide as she
had 22 days son, in fact she had been killed by the accused persons.
SDM recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He identified the dead
body his daughter and received the same. He handed over the list of
dowry articles to police which is Ex.PW1/D, photographs Ex.PW1/E and
F and photocopy of marriage card Ex.PW1/G. He has further stated that
Sandeep Chopra, entire family and Raju are responsible for the incident
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 17 of 36with his daughter. In view of the above statement of PW1 he has made
certain allegations against the accused persons. So, first I have perused
the cross examined of this witness conducted by the Ld. defence counsel.
He has stated in cross examination that it is correct that he has not stated
in his statement Ex.PW1/A that the parents of Sandeep had asked that
the marriage should be performed as per their status and accordingly he
raised his budget by taking loan and financial assistance from his
relatives and friends. It is correct that he had gifted Accent Car in the
marriage with his own free will. So,the accent car has been given by
PW1 to accused Sandeep with his own free will in the dowry and it
cannot be terms as demand for dowry. He has further stated that it is
correct that he had not stated to the SDM that parents of Sandeep and his
friend told his daughter that they had to purchase one plot for Sandeep
and they asked for Rs.5.00 lac of that this fact was told by his daughter
to his wife. It is correct that his daughter did not told him directly for
demand of Rs.5.00 lacs. He admitted that no accused present in the court
made any demand of any nature directly from him at any time after the
marriage of his daughter Shefali. PW1 is the father of deceased Shefali
but he has clearly stated in his cross examination that no demand of any
nature has been made from him at any time after the marriage of his
daughter Shefali by the accused persons. Since he has admitted about no
demand by the accused persons, allegation made by him in the
examination in chief seems to be doubtful because he has not made
consistent statement in this respect. It seems that no demand for Rs.5.00
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 18 of 36lacs has been made by the accused persons. Further, PW1 has admitted
in cross examination that he has not stated to Magistrate that their
daughter was not allowed to use telephone and on request of his daughter
that she be allowed to use phone and she was told 'bill kya tera baap
bharega' on which he gave her a mobile phone. He admitted that he did
not stated to the Magistrate that she was not provided food and used to
be harassed for preparing food and that accused used to curse her that
from the day she has come, their business has collapsed.He admitted that
when he used to meet Sandeep and other accused, they used to meet
normally and in cordial manner as relative meets and respect each other.
He admitted that he has not stated that he was pressurized for Rs.5.00 lac
and Rs.2.00 lac was given by him to the mother of Sandeep in the
presence of Raju. He admitted that he did not state to the SDM in
statement Ex.PW1/A that family members of Sandeep never liked food
cooked by his daughter or that Sandeep slapped his daughter by saying
tere ko khana banana hain aata or that Sandeep and Raju returned home
after drink and Raju attempted to molest her daughter. He has not stated
to the SDM that Shefali was pregnant and she was mercilessly beaten.
Sandeep had not demanded Skoda car from him. IN examination in chief
he has alleged that skoda car was demanded from him but in cross
examination he has stated that it was not demanded from him by accused
Sandeep. However, he has stated that it was demanded by Raju (already
discharged). He further stated that it is correct that he has not stated in
his statement to Magistrate that he told the parents of Sandeep that Raju
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 19 of 36was demanding a skoda car and that they told 'theek hai jo yeh keh raha
hai puri kar do'. He has further stated that he has not stated to the SDM
that the car which was given by him has been given to Anjali Lekhi by
Sandeep. He had not stated in his statement that on 8.2.07 Sandeep and
his parents came to their house and demanded Skoda car and used filthy
language and thereafter Shefali called them and said 'mai bahut pareshan
ho rahi hu inse kaya baat hui'. He has further stated that he has not stated
in his statement that on 9.2.07 Sandeep and his parents again came to
their house and claimed that their demand may be fulfilled. He has not
stated that on 9.2.07 at 1 p.m Shefali had a talk with her mother on
telephone and she said 'mummy dil bahut ghabra raha hai samaj mai
nahin aa raha'. He has not stated that when he saw his daughter hanging
her feet were touching the ground and there was not stool nearby. He
made the statement Ex.PW1/A to the SDM in a very perplexed situation
as some of the relatives got it dictated and he just signed. He has further
stated that it is correct that Sandeep has a habit of consuming liquor and
beyond that they have no grievance against him or the accused present in
the court. From the deposition of PW1 who is father of deceased it is
revealed that he has made allegations against the accused persons in his
examination in chief but when he was put through cross examination his
testimony has been completely shattered by the Ld. defence counsel. He
has not been re-examined by the Ld. APP for the State when he denied
the allegations in cross examination. On perusal of his cross examination
it is revealed that the accent car has been given by him on his own free
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 20 of 36will. She has further stated that accused persons have made no demand
from him. So, his version that Rs.5.00 lacs and Skoda Car were demand
cannot be believed.
33. PW2 Anita Bhatia is the mother of the deceased and
complainant in this case. She has also stated in her examination in chief
that they had given hyundai accent car in dowry. She has stated that
after 3-4 days of marriage of his daughter , accused Sandeep told her
daughter that he has to purchase a plot for which he told her daughter to
demand Rs.5.00 lac from them. It was told to her in April 2006. He told
Sandeep that they cannot afford Rs.5.00 lac. They brought it to the notice
of parents of Sandeep who told that whatsoever Sandeep demanding,
they will have to give him. Thereafter they started harassing their
daughter. Her mother in law told to her daughter 'tumhari maa nai ghar
ka kaam nahi sikhya hai' and both bhabies and Sandeep used to take
entire household work from Shefali and used to torture her. Her daughter
used to weep bitterly whenever she called her up. Considering her
grievance they gave Rs.2.00 lacs on 28.6.06. On 10th
August Sandeep
took Rs.11,000/- from them. They were not allowed to meet their
daughter in the hospital and they were asked to bring Skoda car. Anjali
instigated Sandeep and told to give car and she took the car which was
given by them in the marriage. On 8.2.07 Sandeep Raju and parents of
Raju came to their house and demanded skoda car. They requested them
that they cannot give the same but their request was not accpeted. They
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 21 of 36tortured Shefali after reaching house. On 9.2.07 Sandeep, Raju and
parents of Sandeep came to their house and told that if she want to meet
her daughter and want to see her happy she should give skoda car. At
about 1 p.m she received call from her daughter and she was weeping
bitterly and told that Sandeep had not given anything to eat. At about
9.15 p.m Sandeep telephoned her that Shefali has committed suicide.
They had gone there and saw Shefali hanging from ceiling fan. He
further stated that no mother can commit suicide leaving her 20 days
child. Like PW1 father of deceased Shefali, PW2 Anita Bhatia has also
levelled allegation for demand of Rs.5.00 lac and Skoda car from the
accused persons. So, I have also perused her cross examination
conducted on behalf of the accused persons. She has stated in cross
examination that she has not stated in her statement that on the demand
of accused persons they have given accent car. She has not stated in her
statement Ex.PW2/A that Sandeep told her daughter to demand Rs.5.00
lacs for purchasing the plot. She has admitted that she has not stated in
her statement that she has stated that her mother in law told her daughter
'tumhari maa ne ghar ka kaam nahi sikhaya'. He further stated that it is
correct that she has not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A that whenever
she called her daughter she wept bitterly and considering her grievances,
Rs.2.00 lac was given to Sandeep in the presence of his mother on
28.6.06. She has not stated that Rs.11,000/- was taken by Sandeep for
purchase of mobile. She has also admitted that she has not stated in her
statement that Raju and Sandeep met them at the gate of the hospital and
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 22 of 36did not allow to meet Shefali after birth of male child and asked them to
bring skoda car first. She has not stated in her statement that Sandeep's
sister Anjali instigated Sandeep and told to give her car and she took the
car which was given in marriage. It is correct that she had not stated in
her statement Ex.PW2/A that on 8.2.07 at 6 p.m Sandeep, Raju and
parents of Sandeep came to his house and demanded skoda car and
abused despite their request with folded hands but they did not accept
their request and left their house or that they tortured Shefali after
reaching the house and she wept bitterly on phone. She has not stated in
her statement that she saw her daughter hanging with thin chuni and her
feet were touching the ground. It is correct that she had not stated in her
statement Ex.PW2/A that she beg to submit that no mother can commit
suicide leaving her 20 days old child. She has further stated that it is
correct that Sandeep had never demanded any money or dowry directly
from her or in her presence. Sometime mother of Sandeep used to taunt
Shefali in her presence regarding lack of dowry. It is correct that she has
not stated in her statement that her daughter Shefali was engaged with
Sandeep on 10.2.06. It is correct that she has not stated in her statement
Ex.PW2/A that her son in law used to fight with his brother because of
Raju. She has not stated that the family members of Sandeep gave a list
of articles that were to be given by her if she want to see her daughter
safe and happy. She has not stated in her statement that Sandeep used to
drink everyday and come back at home at 11 p.m and after coming home
he used to abuse and beat with legs during pregnancy. She denied that
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 23 of 36she was told by Shefali that Sandeep is in the habit of consuming liquor
vol. but in her presence he never took liquor. It is correct that Shefali
was a very sensitive girl. She admitted that all the accused persons have
never harassed Shefali in her presence nor demanded any money or
dowry. She admitted that Shefali has never complaint to her about any
harassment. She admitted that sister of Shefali has not taken Accent Car
in her presence. She admitted that accused persons have never demanded
any skoda car at the time of chuchak vol. it was demanded by Raju. PW2
Smt. Anita Bhatia has been re-examined by the Ld. APP for the state
wherein she has stated that she has stated the same whatever she was told
by the police on 25.8.08. In view of the statement of PW2 mother of
deceased and complainant she has also made allegation in her
examination in chief but in cross examination her testimony has been
shattered by the Ld. defence counsel. Considering her cross examination
the allegations made by her in examination in chief cannot be believed.
34. In view of the above discussions I would like to mention
here some case laws for the just decision of this case. In case law Sunil
Bajaj Vs. State of MP, 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 262 it is stated in head note:-
'Section 304B- It is pleaded that last letter of deceased did
not mention any allegation of dowry demand – The letter
of deceased does not speak of any demand of dowry and
there is totally absence of demand of dowry and so
sec.498A of IPC is not at all attracted – Thus the
necessary ingredients of the offence of sec.304B of IPC is
absence and so the conviction and sentence of the
appellant cannot sustain and so the appellant is acquitted
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 24 of 36of the conviction us/ 304B IPC. It is further stated that :
Both the courts below concurrently committed the
appellant – But out of so many witnesses of the neighbour
none could say that there was a dowry death and the
deceased was soon before her death was subjected to
demand of dowry which was necessary ingredient of the
offence u/s 498A of IPC committed by the husband or by
any of the family members or near relatives'.
In case law Baljeet Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) JCC
627 it is stated in headnote that :
'Evidence Act. 1872 – Sec.113B- Presumption- Dowry
death – Against accused persons to be drawn provided
the prosecution establishes that soon before her death if
the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
within 7 years of marriage'.
'Dowry death – Onus of proof- Preliminary facts – Proof
of – Onus lies upon the prosecution – High Court
erroneously shifted the burden upon the accused – About
the date of marriage – Prosecution is required to prove
that death occurred within 7 days of marriage – PW4
father of the deceased was not creditworthy – So were
other related PW5 – Prosecution failed to discharge its
initial onus of proof – PW5/ the mother stated that the
deceased was depressed – This indicated that woman
committed suicide in a state of depression – Hence
conviction is set aside and appeal is allowed'.
In case Law Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) JCC 1840 it
is stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sec. 113B – Dowry
Death – No incidence of demand of dowry or cruelty or
harassment 'soon before death' – Letter relied on shows
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 25 of 36demand of articles by her parents by her own and not on
the behalf of appellant – Improvements in the statements
of prosecution witnesses – Prosecution squarely failed to
establish accusations against appellant – Appeal allowed
– Conviction set aside'.
In case law Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463 it is
stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B – Dowry death – soon before the death,
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband for or in connection with demand of dowry –
Once this is established, a legal fiction is created under
section 304B IPC whereby such death would be called
dowry death – On facts held, ingredients of Sec.304B
IPC r/ sec. 113 B Evidnce Act not satisfied'.
In case law Appasaheb & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(1)
Crimes 110(SC) it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.304B – Dowry death- appellant convict under –
Deceased died as a result of insecticide poisoning –
Evidence of mother and father of deceased that when
deceased visited her parents she used to narrate all
treatment and beating for bringing money from her
parents – Conviction by Trial court and upheld in appeal
by High Court – Appeal – Both witnesses deposed that
deceased was receiving ill treatment as a result of
“domestic cause” as regards domestic cause they
explained that there was a demand for money to meet
expenses for mature and other domestic expenses –
Evidence did not show that any demand for dowry was
made – Essential ingredient of dowry death i.e. demand
for dowry was not established – Conviction could not be
sustained.
One Important point has been stated that :
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 26 of 36'A demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry and
conviction for dowry death on such demand could not be
sustained'.
In case law Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,
2009 (3) JCC 1622  it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.498A- Demand of dowry – The facts that husband
of deceased owned a truck which need heavy repairs –
The amount given for the purpose does not amount to
demand of dowry'.
In case law Tarsen Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) JCC 372 it is
stated in head note that:-
'One of the essential ingredients amongst others, is that
the woman must have been 'soon before her death'
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with the demand for dowry – Nothing on record to show
that any demand of dowry was made soon before her
death- The cause of action appears to be an ego problem
on the part of the appellant, namely the deceased had not
been coming to her matrimonial home – Conviction u/s
304B not proved'.
'Cruelty or harassment – When the name of the
appellant/husband and his parents were material in the
FIR – It is clear that all of them had been ill treating
deceased for non bringing of sufficient dowry and not
bearing a child- Not correct to contend that FIR does not
contain any statement of cruelty or harassment of the
deceased especially when death occurred within 7 years
of marriage and dead body was found in matrimonial
home'.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 27 of 36It is stated in case Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(1) JCC (SC
341 that:-
'Sec.302, 304B and 498A – deceased wife died of burn
injuries – No independent and reliable witness –
prosecution case based on evidence of interest witnesses
and members of the family of deceased and also on the
basis of dying declaration made to the mother of
deceased. Deceased remained at the house and could not
be admitted to hospital – parents of deceased informed –
Oral dying declaration made at home and not in presence
of any doctor or any other independent witness – Courts
below acquitting other family members of the
appellant/husband – Dying declaration not tained on
basis of such dying declaration – No clearcut evidence of
dowry demand on record- no doctor's evidence – Benefit
of doubt extended to appellant'.
It is stated in case Sabar Bhatti & Ors. Vs. State, 2009(v) AD (Cr)
(DHC) 209 that :-
'Improvements of material nature in depositions of
parents of M – No Particulars of dates when dowry
demands made and amounts paid, given – Conviction of
Z, Mother in law, and S u/s 498A, set aside'.
In case law Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995(1) Crimes 611 it is
stated in head note:
'Sec.304B & 498A – Deceased, Wife of appellant, was
married to appellant two and half year prior to incident –
cause of death as per post mortem was asphyxia due to
organo phosphorus poisoning – Evidence of father of
deceased that deceased used to complain that her in laws
maltreated and harassed her and taunted for insufficient
dowry – Significant omission in FIR and statement
before police regarding demand of motor cycle by
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 28 of 36appellant – Evidence regarding cruelty and maltreatment,
quite vague, inconsistent and untrustworthy –
Independent two witnesses, neighbours not produced –
Co-accused acquitted by trial court on same evidence –
Conviction of appellant is unsustainable'.
In case Law Kalyan & Ors. Vs. State of UP, 2001(2) JCC (SC) 203 it
is stated in head note that :
'Appreciation of evidence -Incident stated in FIR, being
the first version of the occurrence has to be given due
weightage – The case of the prosecution, as sought to be
proved at the trial, appears to be different than the one as
narrated in the FIR – view taken by trial court in
acquitting the appellants herein is justified'.
'Prosecution setting out a new case in evidence, which is
in contradiction to the version stated in FIR – Witnesses
are partisan witnesses and also inimical towards one
accused – Conflict in oral evidence as against medical
evidence-Was High Court right in disturbing the order of
acquittal – Held (NO)'.
In case law Babita Vs. State, 2009(2) JCC 1247 it is stated in head note
that :
'Sec.304B and 498A- no specific demand have been
made except the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- which
according to the father of deceased was made at the time
of marriage – Cannot make out a case of harassment soon
before the death – No dying declaration of deceased was
recorded – Not a single instance of harassment by
petitioner who is sister in law of deceased soon before
her death – No basis to frame charge against petition'.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 29 of 3635. Ld. APP for the state has relied up case law titled Alamgir
Vs. State of Assam, 2003(3) SRJ 461 it is stated in head note that :
'IPC 1860 Sec 304B -Indian Evidence Act 1872 –
Sec.113B- Dowry Death- Injuries not self inflicted –
Deceased was with appellant in the bedroom –
Deceased wife was in bathroom for a long time and
appellant showed no anxiety – Some witnesses are
independent witnesses and some are the friends of both
family – Held – No reason to disbelieve the witnesses –
Death having taken place within 7 years of marriage –
Sufficient evidence of demand of dowry – Presumption
u/s 113B of Evidence Act get invoked'.  
Ld. APP for the State has also relied upon case law Pawan
Kumar & ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 1998(2) CC Cases 12 (SC).
36. In view of the testimonies of PW1,2,4 & 5,it is revealed that
PW4 Rajan Bhatia and PW5 Sahil Bhatia who are maternal uncle and
brother of deceased Shefali have not made any allegation against any of
the accused persons. PW5 has also been declared hostile by the
prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia, father of deceased and PW2 Anita Bhatia, mother
of deceased and complainant in this case, both have made main
allegations that accused persons have demanded Rs.5.00 lacs and Skoda
car and they also harassed & tortured Shefali by uttering different
words. But in cross examination both PW1 and PW2 have admitted that
they have not stated about these allegation to the Magistrate in their
statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A. All the above PWS have made
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 30 of 36inconsistent statements in this case. So, their versions cannot be
believed. It is held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Raj Kumar
Vs. State 1997(2) CC Cases HC 291 that:-
'Where the PW has been absolutely inconsistent and has
been changing his stand from time to time, he cannot
be regarded as reliable and trust-worthy witness of the
occurrence'
It is also held by Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. Delhi Admn.
1997 Criminal Law Journal 108(SC) CC Cases that :-
'When the prosecution witness gives two different
statements in their testimonies either at one or two suggest,
therefore the testimony become unreliable and unworthy of
credit and in the absence of any circumstances no
conviction could be made therein'.
37. Considering the above discussion, to prove the case u/s 304B
IPC three ingredients have to be proved (i) unnatural death (ii) within 7
years of marriage and (iii) soon before death she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband (iv) such cruelty
must be in connection with demand of dowry (v) such cruelty is shown
to have been meted to the woman soon before her death. In this case the
death of Shefali was unnatural death and it was within 7 years of
marriage. Now it is necessary to find out as to whether the deceased was
being harassed soon before her death by subjecting her to cruelty and
demand of dowry. In this case only PW1&2 Kuldeep Bhatia and Anita
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 31 of 36Bhatia who are father and mother of deceased have stated that deceased
Shefali made call to them on 9.2.07 i.e. the alleged day of incident and
she was weeping bitterly and stated that family members of Sandeep had
not given anything to eat and thereafter the phone was disconnected. It
has not been stated by them as to what the accused persons were saying
at that time. Allegedly the call for hanging of Shefali was made at 9.15
p.m by Sandeep on 9.2.07. But in cross examination PW2 mother of the
deceased has stated that she has not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A
that at about 1 p.m she received call from deceased Shefali and at that
time she was weeping bitterly and told her that family members of
Sandeep had not given her food to eat and thereafter the phone was
disconnected. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia who is the father of deceased has
also stated the version of PW2 in this respect. Further both the witnesses
in cross examination have stated that accused persons had never
demanded any money or dowry directly from them. It has been stated
that sometime Sandeep used to taunt Shefali. But they have not stated as
to how the accused persons have caused taunt to Shefali. Even PW2 who
is complainant in this case has admitted that Shefali has never complaint
to her about any harassment meted to her by the accused persons. So, in
my view there is no evidence available on file in this case that deceased
Shefali was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of
dowry soon before her death. Hence, ingredients of Sec.304B IPC are
not complete in this case.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 32 of 3638. In this case at the first blush I found that there was force in
the testimonies of PW1 & 2 (father and mother of deceased) but on
perusal of their cross examinations, I am astonished to see their changed
version. Both these witnesses have deposed entirely different in their
cross examination than from their examination in chief. So, I am of the
view that their contentions deposed in examination in chief are not
reliable.
39. I have also perused the testimony of other witnesses. PW3
Dr. Akhilesh has been examined by the prosecution to prove the post
mortem report which is Ex.PW3/A. This report has been prepared by Dr.
Raghvender Kumar and Dr. MG Jai. The cause of death has been opined
as asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging by ligature. The doctor who
prepared the Post Mortem Report has not been produced by the
prosecution. PW3 has only identified the hand writing of doctors who
prepared the post mortem report. PW8 HC Surjeet is the formal witness
who recorded the information in form Ex.PW8/A regarding hanging of a
lady. PW9 HC Giriraj is the photographer who clicked photographs
Ex.PW9/A6 to A10 at the spot and PW11 SI Naveen from Crime team
has inspected the spot and gave report which is Ex.PW11/A. PW10 HC
Rajeev has recorded the FIR of this case copy of which is ex.PW10/A
and PW12 Ct. Tejpal delivered the copies of FIR to Sr. Police officials.
PW15 SI Mahesh has prepared the scaled site plan which is
Ex.PW15/A and he is also a formal witness. PW14 Sh RK Saini, SDM
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 33 of 36visited the spot and recorded the statements of parents of deceased and
conducted inquest proceedings. In cross examination he has stated that
he does not recollect which police official recorded the statement of
Anita Bhatia and Kuldeep Bhatia vol. same was recorded by the police
officer on his direction. Both the statements are in different hand
writings. From this version of PW14 it seems that he has not recorded
the statement of Anil Bhatia (complainant) and Kuldeep Bhatia, parents
of deceased at the spot with his own handwriting and it was recorded by
some police officer there. He could not tell the name of the police
officers who recorded the statements of both Anita Bhatia and Kuldeep
Bhatia. As per version of PW14 the statements Ex.PW1/A and
Ex.PW2/A were recorded on his direction. It seems that he was not
aware as to what was recorded in the statements because he has not
stated that he was recorded under his dictation. So, it create doubt in the
case of the prosecution. PW16 Insp. Jogender Kumar is the second IO
and he arrested accused Raju (since discharged) and Nitu (set free). He
seized the list of articles, photographs and marriage card and also seized
the car. PW6 Ct. Azad, PW7 Ct. Gopal Prasad and PW13 SI Tika Ram
reached at the spot together and found a lady Shefali hanging from the
ceiling fan. PW7 has been sent to mortuary with the dead body and
PW13 got recorded the case through PW6 Ct. Azad. But PW6 Ct. Azad,
in cross examination has stated that he did not take rukka to PS. PW13
has seized the articles lying at the spot and arrested the accused persons.
Both PW6 and PW13 have deposed about the investigation carried out
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 34 of 36by PW13 at the spot. It is well settled principle of law that result of
investigation can never be a legal evidence. 
40. In view of the above overall analysis of the testimonies of the
witnesses and in brief the allegations levelled by complainant Anita
Bhatia (PW2) and PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia cannot be believed considering
the deposition made by them in cross examination because both the
witnesses have stated that the accused persons have not made any
demand of dowry from them. They have not levelled any allegation for
demand of any household items. PW2 has also stated that she did not
state to the Magistrate that Shefali called her up on 9.2.07 at 1 p.m and
at that time she was weeping bitterly and told her that family members of
Sandeep had not given her food to eat and thereafter the phone was
disconnected. She has not stated as to what they were uttering to her at
that time. There is no evidence for demand of dowry or harassment
considering the cross examination of both the witness during the period
6.3.06 to 9.2.07. So, in this case soon before death is also absent and
there is no allegation for soon before death of harassing for demand of
dowry of deceased Shefali. Even there is no evidence on file about
beatings given by the accused persons to deceased Shefali. So, I am of
the opinion that Shefali was not maltreated soon before death or even at
any time after marriage by the accused persons. 
41. In view of my above discussions and considering the case
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 35 of 36laws discussed above, this case does not fall under the category of
section 304B IPC and no presumption can be taken against the accused
persons u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused  u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
42. In over all analysis of the testimonies of the witnesses this
case does not fall under the category of 304B IPC and I also did not find
any evidence against the accused persons u/s 498A IPC keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case and cross examination of
PW1&2. So, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case against the accused persons. In such circumstances, the
accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. I therefore
give the benefit of doubt to accused Sandeep Chopra, Chaman Lal,
Vipin Chopra,Sanjay Chopra, Sonika Chopra and Ekta Chopra and I
therefore, hereby acquit all these accused persons from the charges
levelled against them u/s 304B/498A/406/34 IPC. All the accused
persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 31.08.2010.

(SURESH CHAND RAJAN)

ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
      (Fast Track Court-New Delhi and South East District)
       NEW DELHI

State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.

FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 36 of 36State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 37 of 36
 
SOURCE - http://judis.nic.in/dist_judis/pdf_retrieval_main.asp

 

------------------------------

Suggested reading

Delhi HC on mentality of wife’s parent in 304B 498a to rope in all members of husband’s  family and MISUSE of 304B @
http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/del-hc-misuse-of-304-b-dowry-death.html