Delhi District Court
State vs Gajraj Singh @ Govind on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (POCSO)
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Himanshu Raman Singh
Sessions Case No. 440744/2016
CNR No. DLSW010017972016
FIR No. : 441/2015
Police Station : Dwarka Sector-23
Under Section : 498A/304B/34 IPC
In the matter of :
State
versus
Gajraj Singh @ Govind,
S/o Sh. Prem Pal Singh,
R/o H. No. 264, Near Old Holy Chowk,
Dharambir ka Makan,
Village Barthal, New Delhi.
Permanent Resident of :-
Village Maharajpur,
Post Himmatpur, Tehsil Tundla,
District Firozabad, UP.
Date of institution : 01.02.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.01.2026
Date of judgment : 13.02.2026
Decision : Accused Gajraj Singh @
Govind is convicted for the
offences punishable under
Section 498A/304 B IPC
This judgment is being pronounced in terms of note mentioned at
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 1 of 38
serial no.2 of Order No. 08/D-3/Gaz.-1A/DHC/2026 dated
06.02.2026, as the matter was reserved for judgment by the
undersigned while presiding as Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Court), South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind was sent up to face trial in
the instant case FIR no. 441/2015 PS Dwarka Sector-23 for commission
of offence under Section 498A/304B IPC on the allegations that he was
married to Ms. Deepti (since deceased) on 16.02.2014 and that he had
subjected the deceased to cruelties and harassment to meet his unlawful
demands of dowry and that even soon before the death of Ms. Deepti,
she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and that the
deceased Ms. Deepti was found dead otherwise than in normal
circumstances on 16.02.2014 i.e. within seven years of her marriage.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.11.2015, on
receipt of DD no. 60 B, regarding suicide of one Ms. Deepti, SI Jagdish
alongwith Ct. Dharamveer reached at the Artims Hospital, where he
found that the deceased had already been declared dead vide MLC no.
950. Since the deceased had expired within seven years of her marriage,
the area SDM was informed. The spot was got inspected and
photographed from the Crime Team. On 03.11.2025, the SDM inspected
the spot, whereafter the IO SI Jagdish seized the ligature material and
the scissor. One diary and a pen were also seized by the IO from the
spot. On the next day, the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased
was got conducted. SI Jagdish seized the visera and clothes of the
deceased on being handed over by the Autopsy Surgeon. On the same
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 2 of 38
day i.e. 04.11.2015, the SDM recorded the statement of the brother of
the deceased and on the directions of the SDM concerned, the present
FIR was registered U/s 304B/498 A IPC and investigation was marked
to SI Jagdish. During investigation, SI Jagdish prepared the site plan,
arrested the accused, collected/seized the admitted handwriting of
deceased Ms. Deepti, collected the Post Mortem Report and recorded
the statements of witnesses.
3. Further investigation was marked to Inspector Sunil Kumar
who visited the native place of the deceased where he recorded the
statements of mother and brother of the deceased and the shop-keeper
who had sold the dowry articles to the complainant, collected the
documents/bills/invoices etc. and sent the exhibits i.e. suicide note
alongwith admitted signatures and the viscera to the FSL for expert
examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed in the Court against accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind. On receipt of
FSL result, the same was also filed in the Court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
5. In light of the police report and the documents filed
alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated 02.02.2016
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of
Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated
09.02.2016, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 3 of 38
7. Vide order dated 22.03.2016 passed by Sh. Anil Kumar,
the then learned Additional Sessions Judge (South West)-03, Dwarka
Courts, Delhi, charge for the offences punishable under Section 498A
and Section 304B IPC was framed against accused Gajraj Singh @
Govind. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. The prosecution in all examined 16 (sixteen) witnesses to
prove its case.
9. PW-1 Mr. Jatin Bodwal is the doctor who had conducted
post mortem on the dead body of deceased Ms. Deepti.
10. PW-2 Mr. Rajesh Singh @ Deepak is the
complainant/brother of the deceased, PW-3 Smt. Radha Devi is the
mother of the deceased and PW-5 Mr. Pankaj is the uncle of the
deceased. Their testimonies in detail shall be discussed in the later parts
of this judgment.
11. PW-4 ASI Pramod Tyagi is the Duty Officer who had
registered the present FIR and made his endorsement on the rukka.
12. PW-6 Smt. Sanju Karan and PW-9 Smt. Sita were the
neighbours of the deceased and the accused, being tenants in the same
premises.
13. PW-7 Ms. Apurva Sharma is the then SDM who had
inspected the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Mr.
Rajesh Singh.
14. PW-8 Smt. Nirmala is the wife of the owner of the house in
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 4 of 38
which the accused and the deceased used to reside on rent and where the
deceased committed suicide.
15. PW-10 Retired SI Surender Singh was the Incharge of the
Crime Team that inspected the spot.
16. PW-11 Ct. Sandeep Kumar Yadav had joined investigation
with the IO SI Jagdish on 03.11.2015 and 04.11.2015.
17. PW-12 Ct. Parvesh had joined investigation with the IO on
04.11.2025 at the time of arrest of accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind and
seizure of admitted handwriting of the deceased.
18. PW-13 HC Suresh was the Crime Team Photographer who
had clicked the photographs of the spot.
19. PW-14 ASI Ramakant is the DD writer who had recorded
DD no. 60 B.
20. PW-15 SI Jagdish is the investigating officer who deposed
in the court regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present
case.
21. PW-16 SI Inspector Sunil Kumar is the part investigation
officer of the present case. He also deposed in the court regarding the
investigation conducted by him in the present case.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
22. Vide order dated 19.05.2023 and 09.08.2024, in compliance
with the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., accused Gajraj Singh
@ Govind was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of MLC
no. 180950/2015, MLC no. 950/2015, the FSL reports bearing no.
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 5 of 38
FSL/2016/c-0483 dt. 26.04.2016 and FSL report bearing no.
FSL/2016/D-841 dt. 29.04.2016 which were admitted by the accused
and in view of the admissions made, the evidence of the concerned
witnesses were dispensed with.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
23. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, vide
order dated 25.01.2025, accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind denied the
entire incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against
him and stated that his marriage with the deceased was a simple
marriage and that he never demanded any dowry articles from the
parents of his wife. He stated that he came to know that the grandfather,
bua and the uncle of his wife had also committed suicide by hanging. He
suspected that since number of suicides took place in the family of the
deceased, she also might have had suicidal tendency. The accused,
however, chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
24. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that none of the
witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any specific date or
time of the instances stated by them in their testimonies and therefore,
their testimonies cannot be believed. It has also been contended that
there are various inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and
PW-5 and that they have widely improved their earlier versions given to
the police and have given an exaggerated versions before the Court. It
has also been argued on behalf of the accused that there are various
contradictions in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 and that in
view of the improvements, inconsistencies and the contradictions in the
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 6 of 38
testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, their testimonies ought to be
discarded by the Court. It has also been contended that PW-6 Ms. Sanju
Karan and PW-9 Smt. Sita (neighbours of the deceased and accused) as
well as PW-8 Smt. Nirmala (wife of the land-owner) have deposed in
the Court that they never heard any quarrel between the accused and the
deceased and that the deceased Ms. Dipti never made any complaint to
them regarding any ill-treatment by the accused. It is argued by the Ld.
Defence Counsel that from the testimonies of PW-6, PW-9 and PW-8, it
has been proved on record that the prior to her death, the deceased was
residing peacefully with her husband i.e. accused Gajraj. It has been
argued that since PW-2 i.e. brother of the deceased has denied that the
handwriting and signatures on the suicide note are that of his deceased
sister Dipti, the suicide notes have not been duly proved on record and
cannot be read against the accused. It is contended that even as per the
suicide note, the deceased had committed suicide of her own will. It is
asserted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and the
accused is, therefore, liable to be acquitted.
25. Per contra, it is contended by learned additional public
prosecutor for the state that the prosecution witnesses i.e. brother and
the mother of the deceased have consistently deposed regarding the
demands of dowry which were being made by the accused and the
cruelties to which the deceased was being subjected to by the accused,
since after her marriage till the date of her death. It is contended that
PW-2 and PW-3 have remained firm on their stand despite grilling
cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel and nothing could be
brought on record to disbelieve their versions. It is stated that all the
ingredients of Section 304 B IPC have been successfully proved on
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 7 of 38
record and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted in the instant
case.
26. The respective submissions of Mr. Girish Kumar Manhas,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Vinay Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel for accused persons have been duly considered.
The record of the case has been carefully perused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. In the instant case, the accused has been inter-alia charged
for the offences punishable under Section 498A & 304B IPC.
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty. – Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation. – For the purposes 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;
(b). harassment of the woman whether such
harassment is with a view to coercing her to 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. Cruelty has been defined by the explanation added to the
Section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498A IPC are cruelty and
harassment.
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 8 of 38
29. In Mohd. Hoshan Vs. State of A.P (2002) 7 SCC 414,
Hon’ble Apex court held that “Whether one spouse has been guilty of
cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impart of
complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty
depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim
concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc.
Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the
intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to
withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be
decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was
established or not.”
30. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR
2002 SC 2078 Hon’ble Apex court held that “cruelty has to be
understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section
498A IPC and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of
torture by one to another.”
31. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A IPC is to be
established in the context of Section 498A IPC as it may be different
from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by
considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness
of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been
subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close
proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be
termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.
Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be
termed as cruelty”.
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 9 of 38
32. It is clear from the above settled law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that for cruelty to come
under Section 498A IPC, mental or physical torture has to be
continuously practiced by the accused on his wife. Cruelty has to be
understood having a specific statutory meaning provided under Section
498A IPC and there should be a continuous state of affairs of torture by
one to another. For proving cruelty, it is to be established that the
woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at
least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint.
33. To establish charge under Sec.304B IPC, it is incumbent
upon prosecution to prove the ingredients of section 304 B.
Sec.304-B of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
304B. Dowry death. – (1). Where the death of a
woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury 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 demand for dowry, such death shall be called
“dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section,
“dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section
2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2). Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life.
34. A legal fiction has been created in the said provision to the
effect that in the event it is established that soon before the death, the
deceased as subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 10 of 38
his relative; for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death. The parliament has also inserted
Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act by Act No. 43 of 1986 with
effect from 1.5.1986 which reads as under:-
“113 B- Presumption as to dowry death. – When the
question is 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.”
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “dowry
death”, shall have the same meaning as in section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”.
35. From a conjoint reading of Section 304-B of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is apparent
that a presumption arising thereunder will operate if the prosecution is
able to establish the circumstances as set out in Section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code.
36. The ingredients of the aforementioned provisions are:-
(i). That the death of the woman caused by any burns or
bodily injury or in some circumstances which is not
normal;
(ii). Such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her
marriage;
(iii). That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv). Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry; and
(v). It is established that such cruelty and harassment was
made soon before her death.
37. Adverting to the present adjudication, it is not disputed that
the deceased Ms. Dipti got married to accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 11 of 38
on 16.02.2014 and that she died on 04.11.2015 i.e. within seven years of
her marriage. It is also not disputed that the death of the deceased Dipti
occurred under unnatural circumstances i.e. by hanging. Thus the first
two ingredients of the aforesaid provision stand fulfilled in the instant
case.
Ingredient (iii) and (iv) :- That the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and that such
cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry.
38. In order to prove that the victim was subjected or cruelty or
harassment by her husband i.e. accused Gajraj Singh and that such
cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry,
the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses i.e. PW-2 Mr.
Rajesh Singh @ Deepak (brother of deceased), PW-3 Smt. Radha Devi
(mother of deceased) and PW-5 Mr. Pankaj (uncle of deceased).
39. PW-2 Sh. Rajesh Singh @ Deepak, brother of the deceased
deposed that deceased Deepti was his younger sister and she was
married with accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind on 16.02.2014 according
to Hindu rites and customs. He further deposed that after 10 days of
marriage of his sister Deepti, they went to her matrimonial home and
brought her to their home, where she remained for about one month. He
stated that after about one month, the accused came to their house and
took his sister with him to her matrimonial home and that after a few
days, his sister telephoned him on his mobile phone and while taking to
him and his mother, she informed them that she was being harassed and
tortured by the accused and his family members. He stated that she also
told them on the phone that the accused and his family members wanted
to marry her sister-in-law and for that purpose they were demanding
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 12 of 38
more dowry articles and a four-wheeler vehicle (car) from her.
40. PW-2 further asserted that after about three months of the
marriage, his sister visited their house and told his mother and them that
the accused and his family members used to taunt her on petty matters
and that on many occasions, she was slapped by her mother-in-law. He
added that she (his sister) also told them that she was tortured and that
the accused Gajraj used to visit his house at Maharajpur once or twice in
a month. He deposed that prior to the marriage, the accused used to
reside at Village Bharthal, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi. He stated
that after about 3-4 months of the marriage, his sister visited them she
again complained about ill-behaviour and maltreatment by the accused
and his family members. He stated that his mother consoled his sister
and told her that she would make her husband and his family members
understand. PW-2 asserted that on the asking of his mother, his sister
Deepti told his mother that she wanted to live in the same house and that
there was no need to talk at that time, and if anything would happen
again, she would inform them.
41. PW-2 further deposed that when the accused Gajraj visited
their house to take his sister back, his mother made the accused
understand and told him that whatever they were capable of, they had
already given in the marriage, and that they were not in a position to
fulfill any further demands and that thereafter the accused took his sister
to her matrimonial home. He further deposed that after about 20-25
days, his sister made a call from the mobile phone of her matrimonial
house and told him while weeping that after 10 days of her return, her
mother-in-law had broken her mobile phone. He stated that she further
told him on the phone that he (PW-2) should take her from there,
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 13 of 38
otherwise they would kill her.
42. PW-2 asserted that thereafter he along with his uncle
Pankaj went to the matrimonial home of his sister and made the accused
and his family members understand not to torture and maltreat her and
that thereafter he and his uncle returned to their village along with his
sister Deepti. He further deposed that when they returned home, his
mother inquired from his sister and she disclosed that the wife of her
jeth was killed by her in-laws and that the same would be faced by her.
PW-2, however, again stated that the wife of her jeth had left the
company of her husband. He further stated that his sister told his mother
that she was still being tortured by her in-laws.
43. PW-2 further deposed that after about one month, the
accused again visited their house and was again made to understand not
to torture and maltreat his sister and that thereafter, the accused took his
sister to her matrimonial home. He further stated that after 3-4 days, the
accused took his sister from Maharajpur to his residence at Delhi and
that when his sister reached Delhi, she telephoned his mother and told
her that she was being harassed and tortured by her mother-in-law and
bua at her matrimonial home at Maharajpur. PW-2 asserted that the bua
of the accused had asked him to take Deepti to Delhi, otherwise her
mother-in-law and sister-in-law would kill her.
44. PW-2 stated that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, his
sister Deepti and the accused visited their house and that he noticed two
abrasion marks on her neck, and when he asked her about the same, she
made an excuse that she had fallen from the stairs. He further stated that
when his mother asked, Deepti told her that the accused used to beat her
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 14 of 38
for demand of a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.3 lakhs, and that if their
demand was not fulfilled, they would kill her. He further deposed that
thereafter his mother made the accused understand not to misbehave or
maltreat Deepti and told him that according to their capacity, they had
already given everything in the marriage. He stated that thereafter the
accused took his sister to Delhi, where she remained with him. He
further deposed that during her stay at Delhi, his sister used to talk on
phone but the accused used to remain present, and therefore she did not
disclose any misbehaviour. He stated that when his uncle Gajan Singh
expired, accused and Deepti came to attend the last rites, and on the
second day of demise, they returned back. He stated that during that
period no conversation took place regarding the behaviour of the
accused or his in-laws. He further deposed that about one month after
the death of his uncle, his sister telephoned their neighbour Roshni and
requested her to make her talk with his mother and that Roshni handed
over the phone to his mother, who talked to Deepti, and that within 4-5
minutes he also reached home. He further stated that when he took the
phone, his sister was weeping and told him that they used to beat her a
lot. PW-2 further asserted that on asking the reason, she told him that
she was being harassed and tortured by her husband, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law for dowry, and that they were sitting outside, after which
the phone got disconnected. He further deposed that thereafter he
contacted the accused on his mobile phone and the accused replied that
he could do whatever he wanted and that they would kill his sister that
day, and thereafter the phone was disconnected. He stated that he tried
to contact the accused 3-4 times, but the phone could not be connected.
He further stated that when the phone was finally connected, the mother
of the accused informed him that his sister was in hospital in dead
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 15 of 38
condition and she asked him to take her from there.
45. PW-2 further deposed that thereafter some relatives
informed his uncle Inderpal Singh at Sagarpur, Delhi, as they were in
shock and trauma. He further deposed that on 04.11.2015, he along with
his mother, relatives and neighbours came to Sagarpur, Delhi and
reached the house of his uncle at about 4-5 a.m. He stated that on
inquiry, his uncle told him that Deepti was serious and hospitalised and
that they could meet her at about 9 a.m. He further deposed that when
they reached DDU Hospital, they came to know that Deepti had already
expired, and on seeing the dead body, he noticed swelling and abrasion
marks on her neck and throat. He stated that his statement was recorded
by the SDM in the hospital. PW-2 identified his signatures on his
statement Ex.PW2/A. He stated that he also identified the dead body of
his sister vide his statement Ex.PW2/B. PW-2 had also handed over one
invoice of motorcycle and four other receipts as mentioned in
Ex.PW2/C to the IO. PW-2 stated that accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind
was arrested on 04.11.2015 vide memo Ex.PW2/D.
46. To prove its case, another relevant witness examined by the
prosecution is PW-3 Smt. Radha Devi, mother of the deceased. While
appearing in the witness box, PW-3 deposed that her daughter Ms.
Deepti was married to accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind according to
Hindu rites and customs. She further deposed that after the marriage,
when her daughter came to their house for the second time, her daughter
told her that she was being tortured by her husband, her mother-in-law
and sister-in-law on account of demand of dowry. She asserted that that
whenever her deceased daughter used to talk to her over phone, she used
to tell her that she had not brought a four-wheeler car. PW-3 added that
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 16 of 38
this was despite the fact that they had given every utensil and gold and
silver jewellery in the marriage.
47. PW-3 further deposed that when the accused brought her
daughter to Delhi, during that period her daughter used to talk to her on
phone and tell her that her mother-in-law used to pressurized her to
fulfill their demand of a car. She stated that her daughter also told her
that her mother-in-law used to exhort that they would make her
condition as that of her Tau as her parents had got the land of her tau
transferred in their name.
48. PW-3 further deposed that her daughter also told her that
the accused was having a physical relationship with some other girl in
Delhi and that her daughter was murdered by the accused due to this
reason. She further deposed that when she and her family members
came to Delhi at the house of the accused, she had noticed some black
signs of belt on the back of her daughter and that her daughter was
murdered by the accused and his family members due to non-fulfilment
of their unlawful demand of dowry. She asserted that after the post-
mortem, they took the dead body of her deceased daughter to their
native village where she was cremated.
49. Besides PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. brother and mother of the
deceased, the prosecution has also examined PW-5 Mr. Pankaj, uncle of
the deceased and PW-2 to corroborate the allegations of demand of
dowry and cruelties/harassment on account of demand of dowry.
50. PW-5 Mr. Pankaj while appearing in the witness box
deposed that Dipki was married with accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind in
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 17 of 38
the year 2014. He further deposed that once after about one year of the
marriage of Dipki, Deepak came to him and requested him to visit the
matrimonial home of Dipki. He stated that when he inquired about the
reason, Deepak told him that Dipki had telephoned him and that she was
weeping, and that after visiting her matrimonial home the matter would
become clear. He further deposed that when they inquired from Dipki
about the matter, she told them that her in-laws used to taunt her and
that her mother-in-law demanded Rs.3 lakhs and a car. He stated that
she further told them that her mother-in-law wanted to marry her
daughter and that since the marriage of Dipki was solemnized with
Gajraj, her brother did not give her a penny.
51. PW-5 further deposed that thereafter they brought Dipki to
her parental home, and after about one month, Gajraj Singh @ Govind
came to the parental home of Dipki and took her with him to her
matrimonial home. He further deposed that about 10-15 days prior to
Deepawali in the year 2015, they received a telephone call from Delhi
through which they came to know that Dipki was no more.
52. From the testimonies of PW-2 Mr. Rajesh Singh @ Deepak
(brother of deceased), PW-3 Smt. Radha Devi (mother of deceased) and
PW-5 Mr. Pankaj (uncle of deceased), it is clear that the deceased Ms.
Dipti on various occasions had informed them that she was being
subjected to cruelties by the accused and his family members on account
of demand of dowry. As per PW-2 Mr. Rajesh Singh specifically
deposed that after ten days of the marriage of his sister Deepti, they
brought her and that she stayed with them for about one month,
whereafter accused Gajraj came and took her to her matrimonial home.
PW-2 asserted that after few days, his sister telephoned him and told
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 18 of 38
that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused and his family
members and that the accused and his family members had to marry her
sister in law and that for that they demanded more dowry articles and a
four wheeler from her. Further PW-2 has elaborated multiple instances
when his sister complained to him and/or his mother regarding the ill
behaviour and mal-treatment she was being subjected to by the accused
and his family members. He even asserted that when Gajraj visited their
house to take his sister back, his mother made him understand that
whatever was in their capacity, they had already given in the marriage
and that they were not in a position to fulfill their demand. PW-2 also
narrated an incident where his sister called him and while weeping she
asked him to take her otherwise, they would kill her. As per the case of
prosecution and as deposed by PW-2 Mr. Rajesh (brother of deceased)
and PW-5 Mr. Pankaj (uncle of deceased), on receipt of the aforesaid
call, PW-2 and PW-5 went to the matrimonial house of Dipti brought
her to their village.
53. In his testimony, PW-2 also described an incident of
Raksha Bandhan. He stated that his sister Deepti had visited their house
on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and that at that time he had noticed
abrasion marks on her neck. He stated that when he asked, she made an
excuse that she had fallen from the stairs, however, when his mother
asked, Deepti told her mother that accused still used to give her beatings
and demand a four wheeler vehicle and Rs.3 Lakhs in cash and that if
their demand is not fulfilled, they would kill her.
54. As per the case of prosecution and PW-2, thereafter, Deepti
was brought to Delhi by accused Gajraj. PW-2 stated that after about
one month of the death of his uncle, his sister telephoned on the mobile
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 19 of 38
phone of his aunt and talked to his mother. He added that in the
meantime, he also reached and took the phone from his mother and
talked to Deepti, who was weeping and told him ‘bhaiya ye log mujhe
bahut marte hain’. He asserted that when he asked the reason, she told
him that she was being harassed and tortured by her husband, mother in
law and sister in law for their unlawful demand of dowry. As per the
case of prosecution, soon after the said phone was disconnected the
deceased Ms. Deepti had committed suicide.
55. The testimony of PW-2 also finds corroboration from the
testimony of PW-3 Smt. Radha Devi, mother of the deceased, who in
her testimony stated that after the marriage, when Deepti visited for the
second time, she informed that she was being tortured by her husband,
her mother in law and sister in law for demand of dowry and that
whenever her daughter used to talk to her she used to tell that she had
not brought a four wheeler car.
56. Although PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. brother and mother of the
deceased have been cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused
persons, nothing material could be elicited to discredit their versions and
they have maintained their stand impeccably.
57. Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that none of
the witnesses could give any specific date or time of the instances stated
by them in their testimonies and therefore, their testimonies cannot be
believed. It has also been contended that there are various
inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 and that
they have widely improved their earlier versions given to the police and
have given an exaggerated versions before the Court. It has also been
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 20 of 38
argued on behalf of the accused that there are various contradictions in
the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 and that in view of the
improvements, inconsistencies and the contradictions in the testimonies
of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, their testimonies ought to be discarded by
the Court.
58. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled
preposition of law on this point. In the judgment titled as Kuriya v.
State of Rajasthan reported as (2012) 10 SCC 433 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed:
“……30. This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the
discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the
case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis
for doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not
concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The
purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and
find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does
not affect the core of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should
not be attached undue significance. The normal course of human
conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, there may
occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in law
render credential to the depositions. The improvements or variations
must essentially relate to the material particulars of the prosecution
case. The alleged improvements and variations must be shown with
respect to material particulars of the case and the occurrence. Every
such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is not a
ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The credibility of a
definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot be weakened
with reference to such minor or insignificant improvements.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of this Court in
Kathi Bharat Vajsur v. State of Gujarat [(2012) 5 SCC 724 : (2012) 2SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 21 of 38
SCC (Cri) 740], Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546], Gura Singh
v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] and
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 5 SCC 100 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 961].”
59. Furthermore, in the judgment titled as Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat reported as (1983) 3 SCC 217 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“………We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon
a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the
minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned Counsel for
the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor
discrepancies”. The reasons are obvious :
“(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not
as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The
witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has
an element of surprised. The mental faculties therefore cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one
may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss
its image on one person’s mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the
part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can
only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to
expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an
occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work onSC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 22 of 38
the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such
matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which
varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short
time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the
court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by
counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding
sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of
the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so
operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved
though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him — Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological
defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment”.
60. The law is thus well settled that discrepancies which do not
go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses
cannot be annexed with undue importance. Trivial discrepancies ought
not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Furthermore, one
cannot come across a witness whose evidence does not contain some
exaggeration or embellishments. Court can sift the chaff from corn and
find out truth from the testimony of witnesses. Evidence is to be
considered from the point of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied,
and the witnesses are found to be trustworthy, their evidence ought to
inspire confidence in mind of the court.
61. Also, it is to be seen that ordinarily a witness cannot be
expected to recall accurately after lapse of time the exact date and time
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 23 of 38
wise sequence of events which took place long ago. A witness is liable
to get confused, or can mix up sequence or particulars of events when
interrogated later on. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the somber court atmosphere and the piercing cross
examination made by the defence counsel and out of nervousness can
mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of the moment. It is to be observed
that the sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates by
embellishing or embroidering details on account of the fear of looking
foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and
honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Sometimes there
could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment perhaps due to
over-anxiety and the witness may give slightly exaggerated account.
However, the same would not imply that the testimony of the witness is
to be brushed aside and cannot be relied upon. In this regard, reliance
may be placed upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in case titled as Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 680, Hari
Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) 4 SCC 551), Leela Ram (Dead) through
Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 588,
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753,
Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2020 and State of U.P.
v. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998.
62. Furthermore, to my mind, the discrepancies, as pointed by
Ld. Counsel for accused, are natural and bound to occur on account of
passage of time and lapse of memory. Human memories are apt to blur
with passage of time. A person cannot be expected to give a parrot like
version or depose with mathematical precision at the drop of a hat as
and when called to depose. Only a tutored witness can depose so. Errors
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 24 of 38
due to lapse of time and resultant lapse of memory have to be given due
allowance. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory or to recall the minutest details of an incident and
to depose about the same with mathematical precision at the drop of a
hat.
63. It is also relevant to note here that though Ld. Defence
Counsel has tried to discredit the testimony of PW-2 on the ground that
he has given an improved and exaggerated version of his earlier
statement in the Court, during the entire cross-examination, PW-2 was
not confronted with his earlier statement. Reliance in this regard can be
placed on the pronouncement in V.K. Mishra And Another v. State Of
Uttarakhand And Another, (2015) 9 SCC 588 , wherein it was held as
under :-
“17. The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to
police not proved and ask questions with reference to them
which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the
court. The words in Section 162 CrPC “if duly proved” clearly
show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be
admitted in evidence straightaway nor can be looked into but
they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by
eliciting admission from the witness during cross- examination
and also during the crossexamination of the investigating
officer. The statement before the investigating officer can be
used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with
Section 145 of the Evidence Act that is by drawing attention to
the parts intended for contradiction.
18. Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as under:
“145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in
writing.–A witness may be cross-examined as to previous
statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and
relevant to matters in question, without such writing being
shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to
contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the
writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which areSC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 25 of 38
to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”
19. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act when it is
intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement
reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be
called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose
of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While
recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of
the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement
with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to
the notice of the witness in his cross-examination. The
attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect
in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness
admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and
there is no need to further proof of contradiction and it will be
read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made
that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that
statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this
process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is
yet to be proved. Thereafter when investigating officer is
examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the
passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then
be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer who
again by referring to the police statement will depose about the
witness having made that statement. The process again
involves referring to the police statement and culling out that
part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be
contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part
of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict
him, then the court cannot suo motu make use of statements to
police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the
Evidence Act that is, Printed by licensee : GIRISH kumar
Page 8 of 16 by drawing attention to the parts intended for
contradiction.
20. In the case at hand, PW 1 was not confronted
with his statement recorded by the police under Section 161
CrPC to prove the contradiction nor his statement marked for
the purpose of contradiction was read out to the investigating
officer. When neither PW 1 nor the investigating officer were
confronted with the statement and questioned about it, PW 1’s
statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be looked
into for any purpose much less to discredit the testimony of
PW 1 and the prosecution version.”
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 26 of 38
64. It has also been contended on behalf of the accused that
PW-6 Ms. Sanju Karan and PW-9 Smt. Sita (neighbours of the deceased
and accused) as well as PW-8 Smt. Nirmala (wife of the land-owner)
have deposed in the Court that they never heard any quarrel between the
accused and the deceased and that the deceased Ms. Dipti never made
any complaint to them regarding any ill-treatment by the accused. It is
argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that if the deceased was being
subjected to any cruelties in relation with demand of dowry, her
immediate neighbors would have known about it. The said argument of
the Ld. Defence Counsel is, however, liable to be rejected as generally
the demands of dowry or cruelties in households are confined within the
four walls of the house and are generally not known to the neighbor or
distant relatives, which is why the Legislature has introduced Sections
113A and 113B in the Indian Evidence Act by permitting presumption
to be raised in certain circumstances.
65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view
that by way of the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, the prosecution has
successfully proved on record that the deceased was regularly being
subjected to cruelty and/or harassment by her husband i.e. accused
Gajraj @ Govind and that such cruelty or harassment was for or in
connection with demand of dowry. Thus, the ingredient nos. (iii) and
(iv) have also been proved against the accused herein.
Ingredient :- (v). That such cruelty and harassment was made soon
before her death.
66. Before proceeding further to analyse as to whether the
deceased was being subjected to harassment and cruelties with regard to
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 27 of 38
demand of dowry, soon before her death, it is relevant to note the
observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Satbir Singh
and Another vs. State of Haryana, reported as (2021) 6 SCC 1, regarding
the interpretation of the phrase ‘soon before death’, which read as
follows :-
“9. The first contentious part that exists in the
interpretation of Section 304-B, IPC relates to the phrase
“soon before” used in the Section. Being a criminal statute,
generally it is to be interpreted strictly. However, where strict
interpretation leads to absurdity or goes against the spirit of
legislation, the courts may in appropriate cases place reliance
upon the genuine import of the words, taken in their usual
sense to resolve such ambiguities. [refer Commissioner of
Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company,
(2018) 9 SCC 1, State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai
Shah, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 412]. At this juncture, it is
therefore necessary to undertake a study of the legislative
history of this Section, in order to determine the intention of
the legislature behind the inclusion of Section 304 B, IPC.
10. Section 304-B, IPC is one among many legislative
initiatives undertaken by Parliament to remedy a long-
standing social evil. The pestiferous nature of dowry
harassment, wherein married women are being subjected to
cruelty because of covetous demands by husband and his
relatives has not gone unnoticed. The Parliament enacted the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as a first step to eradicate this
social evil. Further, as the measures were found to be
insufficient, the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act,
1983 (Act 46 of 1983) was passed wherein Chapter XX-A
was introduced in the IPC, containing Section 498-A.
11. However, despite the above measures, the issue of
dowry harassment was still prevalent. Additionally, there was
a growing trend of deaths of young brides in suspicious
circumstances following demands of dowry. The need for a
stringent law to curb dowry deaths was suo motu taken up by
the Law Commission in its 91st Law Commission Report.
The Law Commission recognized that the IPC, as it existed at
that relevant time, was insufficient to tackle the issue of
dowry deaths due to the nature and modus of the crime. They
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 28 of 38
observed as under:
“1.3 If, in a particular incident of dowry
death, the facts are such as to satisfy the legal
ingredients of an offence already known to the
law, and if those facts can be proved without
much difficulty, the existing criminal law can be
resorted to for bringing the offender to book. IN
practice, however, two main impediments arise-
(i) either the facts do not fully fit into the
pigeon-hole of any known offence; or
(ii) the peculiarities of the situation are such that
proof of directly incriminating facts is thereby
rendered difficult.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid Law
Commission Report, and the continuing issues relating to
dowry related offences, the Parliament introduced
amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the IPC
by enacting Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act
43 of 1986). By way of this amendment, Section 304-B IPC
was specifically introduced in the IPC, as a stringent
provision to curb the menace of dowry death in India.
Shrimati Margaret Alva, who presented the Amendment Bill
before Rajya Sabha observed as follows:
“This is a social evil and social legislation, as I
said cannot correct every thing. We are trying to
see how and where we can make it a little more
difficult and therefore we have increased the
punishment. We have also
provided for certain presumptions because upto
now one of our main problem has been the
question of evidence. Because the bride is
generally burnt or the wife is burnt behind
closed doors in her inlaw’s home. You have
never really heard of a girl being burnt while
cooking in her mother’s house or her husband’s
house. It is always in the mother-in-law’s house
that she catches fire and is burnt in the kitchen.
Therefore, getting evidence immediately
becomes a great bit problem. Therefore, weSC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 29 of 38
have brought in a couple of amendments which
give certain presumptions where the burden of
proof shifts to the husband and to his people to
show that it was not a dowry death or that it was
not deliberately done.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. There is no denying that such social evil is persisting
even today. A study titled “Global study on Homicide:
Gender-related killing of women and girls”, published by the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, highlighted that
in 2018 female dowry deaths account for 40 to 50 percent of
all female homicides recorded annually in India. The dismal
truth is that from the period 1999 to 2016, these figures have
remained constant. In fact, the latest data furnished by the
National Crime Records Bureau indicates that in 2019 itself,
7115 cases were registered under Section 304-B, IPC alone.
14. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a
strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it
was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the
legislature used the words, “soon before” they did not mean
“immediately before”. Rather, they left its determination in
the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment
differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite
varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even
emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket
formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define
what exacts the phrase “soon before” entails. The aforesaid
position was emphasized by this Court, in the case of Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein the three-
Judge Bench held that:
“15. … “Soon before” is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down by fixing any time-
limit. … In relation to dowry deaths, the
circumstances showing the existence of cruelty
or harassment to the deceased are not restricted
to a particular instance but normally refer to a
course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread
over a period of time. …. Proximate and live
link between the effect of cruelty based on
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 30 of 38
dowry demand and the consequential death is
required to be proved by the prosecution. The
demand ofdowry, cruelty or harassment based
upon such demand and the date of death should
not be too remote in time which, under the
circumstances, be treated as having become stale
enough.” (emphasis supplied)
A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
15. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to
determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and
the death of the victim would come within the term “soon
before”. What is pivotal to the above determination, is the
establishment of a “proximate and live link” between the
cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.”
67. Thus, after a detailed discussion and analyzing the very
spirit of the legislature, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the concerned
trial Courts have to use their discretion to determine if the period
between the cruelty and harassment and the death of the victim would
come within the term ‘soon before’ and that there is no straitjacket
formula to calculate/assess the period of ‘soon before’, in cases of dowry
deaths.
68. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as has already
been observed hereinabove, the deceased had expired within one year
and nine months of her marriage with the accused. It is relevant to note
that it is an unfortunate fact that deceased Ms. Dipti died otherwise than
under natural circumstances i.e. by hanging within only about one year
and nine months of her marriage with the accused. However, what is
more unfortunate is that as per the Post Mortem Report Ex.PW1/A, she
was two months pregnant at the time of committing suicide. It is also
worth noting that suicide is not easy for anyone but for a young girl who
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 31 of 38
was two months pregnant, it must have been even tougher as she was
not only taking her life but also the life of the child in her womb, and
she must have taken this decision to end her life and the life of the child
in her womb under compelling circumstances.
69. In the instant case, besides the ocular testimonies of PW-2,
PW-3 and PW-5, the prosecution has also relied upon a suicide note
alleged to have been written by the deceased.
The suicide note reads as under : –
“मैं अपनी मरजी से अत्महत्या कर रही हूँ ”
“भइया इन्हे हार और झाले दे देना plz भइया किसी से कुछ मत
कहना ये समझ लेना तुम्हारी एक बहन गलती मुझसे भी हो जाती है
भइया मैं गुस्से में ज्यादा बोल देती हूँ जो बोलना चाहिए वो भी जो
नहीं बोलना चाहिए वो भी ”
“मेरी लाश देखने से पहले ये डायरी के पेज अलग कर देना एक भाई
को दे देना ज़रूरत पड़े तो दस
ू रा पुलिस को/ तुम्हारी दीप्ती”
70. The exact english translation of the suicide note is as
under :-
“I am committing suicide of my own free will.”
“Brother, please give them the necklace and the ear-
ring. Brother, please don’t tell anyone. Consider that I
am your sister. I also make mistakes, brother. I say too
much when I’m angry. I say what I should say and
what I shouldn’t say.”
“Before seeing my dead body, separate these pages of
the diary and give one to my brother and if needed, theSC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 32 of 38
other to the police. Your Deepti”
71. As per the FSL result Ex.A-3, admitted by the accused
herein, the aforesaid suicide notes marked as Q1 to Q3 were written by
the person who had written the admitted handwriting A1 to A30,
provided to the police by the accused himself.
72. Needless to say that these notes were written by the
deceased just before taking the extreme step of suicide and therefore,
what was going on in her mind right before the suicide is to be accessed
from the words written in the aforesaid notes. Although, in the said note,
the deceased has stated that she was taking her life on her own,
however, it is relevant to note that in the suicide note, she is not
addressing her husband who was most likely to see her dead body first
of all, but is addressing her brother who is admittedly living at a distant
place. If the relationship between the deceased and the accused were
cordial and if she was taking her life for some other reason, she could
have addressed her husband in the suicide note, however, this is not the
case in hand and she had chosen to address her brother. Further, what is
heart-wrenching is that even in the suicide note, she is asking/requesting
her brother to give ‘हार’ i.e. necklace and ‘झाले’ i.e. earring in local
language to ‘इन्हे’ i.e. the accused. The reason of presuming that ‘इन्हे’ is
the accused is that in our country the girls generally do not take the
names of their husbands and call them in such ways. Thus, right before
committing the suicide, the deceased was requesting her brother to give
a necklace and ear-rings to the accused, which is clearly suggestive of
the fact that even before her death, she was being subjected to cruelties
either physical or verbal or mental in relation to demand of dowry.
Before parting with, it is relevant to note that this Court has also
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 33 of 38
considered the other possibilities of the aforesaid line i.e. Whether the
deceased was requesting her brother to give her necklace and earring
gifted to her by her in laws, which were probably lying with her brother,
to the accused? However, during the cross-examination of PW-2 Mr.
Rajesh Singh, he was not given any such suggestion. In fact, PW-2 was
suggested by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the in laws of the deceased
had gifted her four gold bangles, one gold ring, one gold chain of 1.5
tolas, one gold mangalsutra and 12 sarees in the marriage. Thus, it is not
the case of the accused that the deceased was talking about the necklace
or earrings gifted to her by in laws.
73. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that since PW-2
i.e. brother of the deceased has denied that the handwriting and
signatures on the suicide note are that of his deceased sister Dipti, the
suicide notes have not been duly proved on record. However, in view of
the fact that the accused had himself given/provided the admitted
handwriting to the police and has also admitted the FSL result U/s 294
Cr.P.C., the FSL result Ex.A3 stand proved on record. This argument of
Ld. Defence Counsel is accordingly rejected.
74. It is also relevant to note that PW-2 Mr. Rajesh Singh in his
testimony recorded in the Court stated that after about one month of the
death of his uncle, his sister telephoned on the mobile phone of his aunt
and talked to his mother. He added that in the meantime, he also reached
and took the phone from his mother and talked to Deepti, who was
weeping and told him ‘bhaiya ye log mujhe bahut marte hain’. He
asserted that when he asked the reason, she told him that she was being
harassed and tortured by her husband, mother in law and sister in law
for their unlawful demand of dowry. As per the case of prosecution,
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 34 of 38
soon after the said phone was disconnected the deceased Ms. Deepti had
committed suicide. However, neither PW-2 was cross-examined on this
aspect nor any suggestion was given to him. Thus, the testimony of PW-
2 with regard to the fact that soon before committing the suicide, the
deceased had talked to her mother and brother over phone and had told
them that she was being subjected to cruelties in relation with demand
of dowry, has remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.
75. Therefore, in view of the fact that during the short span one
year and nine months of the marriage of the deceased with the accused,
number of incidents have been enumerated by her brother and mother,
wherein she had complained to them regarding the cruelties she was
being subjected to by the accused on account of demand of dowry,
including the incident of Raksha Bandhan and the phone call made by
the deceased to her mother and brother soon before her death, as have
already been discussed hereinabove, the fact that the deceased was two
months pregnant at the time of incident and the understanding of the
excerpts of the suicide note, this Court is of the view that prosecution
has established that the deceased was being subjected to cruelties in
relation with demand of dowry even soon before her death.
76. Thus the (v) ingredient of Section 304 B IPC has also been
fulfilled in the present case.
77. Now, since as discussed hereinabove, all the ingredients of
Section 304 B IPC have been successfully proved by the prosecution, it
is to be seen whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption
under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that
when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 35 of 38
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.
78. In this regard, it is relevant to note that in his statement
recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed that he came to know
that the grandfather, bua and the uncle of his wife had also committed
suicide by hanging and that he suspected that since number of suicides
took place in the family of the deceased, she also might have had
suicidal tendency. However, during the entire trial, none of the
witnesses were suggested that the deceased had suicidal tendencies nor
it is the case of the accused that at any point of time during the
subsistence of their marriage, he had noted anything in the behaviour of
the deceased suggesting that she was under depression or that she had
suicidal thoughts/tendancy. The defence taken by the accused in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. is vague and found to be without
any basis.
79. PW-2 Mr. Rajesh Singh, brother of the deceased was
suggested on behalf of the accused that he and his uncle Inderpal had
demanded money from the accused and that on his refusal, he had given
statement against the accused. However, there is nothing on record to
suggest that at any point of time, the accused had made any complaint in
this regard, either to the police or the Court, during the course of
investigation and even trial. Contrary to this, PW-3 Smt. Radha, mother
of the deceased was suggested that her deceased daughter was short
tempered or that there was no role of the accused in the ‘murder’ of her
daughter. Despite the fact that the accused is not facing trial for having
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 36 of 38
committed the murder of the deceased, the witness was suggested that
the accused had no role in the murder of her daughter.
80. Neither PW-2 nor PW-3 i.e. brother and mother of the
deceased were suggested that no dowry was ever demanded by the
accused or that the deceased was never subjected to any cruelties in
ration with demands of dowry. Thus, having gone through the
testimonies of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, no
consistent stand/defence of the accused could be ascertained.
81. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view
that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption U/s 113 B of the
Indian Evidence Act.
82. Thus, this Court unflinchingly holds that the prosecution
has been able to prove on record that the deceased Ms. Dipti, who was
married with the accused Gajraj @ Govind on 16.02.2014 was subjected
to cruelties by the accused to meet his unlawful demands of dowry and
that the deceased Ms. Dipti was found dead, otherwise than under
natural circumstances i.e. by hanging, on 04.11.2015 i.e. within seven
years of their marriage and that soon before her death also, she was
subjected to cruelties on account of demand of dowry by the accused.
83. Accordingly, accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind is hereby
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498 A and Section
304 B IPC.
84. Let accused Gajraj Singh @ Govind be heard separately on
the point of sentence.
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 37 of 38
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
on 13th February, 2026. RAMAN RAMAN SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.02.13
14:25:12 +0530
(Himanshu Raman Singh)
Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO)
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
It is certified that this Judgment contains 38 (Thirty Eight)
pages and each page bears my initials / signatures.
Digitally signed by
HIMANSHU HIMANSHU RAMAN
RAMAN SINGH
Date: 2026.02.13
SINGH
(Himanshu Raman Singh)
14:25:20 +0530
Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO)
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.440744/16 State Vs. Gajraj Singh @ Govind Page 38 of 38