Delhi District Court
State vs . 1). Malkhan Singh on 11 May, 2012
1 FIR No. 472/08
PS Mangol Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI
Sessions Case No. 76/09
Unique I.D No. 02404R0030592009
State Vs. 1). Malkhan Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sukh Ram
R/o M767/768
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
2). Dhirender @ Billu
S/o Malkhan Singh
R/o M767/768,
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
3). Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu
S/o Sh. Malkhan Singh
R/o M767/768,
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
4). Jai Prakash @ Ronu
S/o Sh. Malkhan Singh
R/o M767/768,
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
5). Satbir
S/o Sh. Malkhan Singh
R/o M767/768,
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
1 of 28
2 FIR No. 472/08
PS Mangol Puri
FIR No. : 472/2008
Police Station : Mangolpuri
Under Sections : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of committal to session court : 27.01.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved: 07.05.2012
Date of which judgment announced: 11.05.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C is as under: That on 20.09.2008 on receipt of DD No. 31B ASI Krishan Singh reached at SGM Hospital where vide MLC No. 11818/08 doctor had declared deceased Kunti W/o Dhirender, R/o M767, Mangolpuri brought dead with alleged history of hanging with chunni and the deadbody was shifted to mortuary. Since the deceased Kunti was married on 06.05.2007 Executive Magistrate, Shri Sukhbir Singh was informed. The photography of the spot as well as of the body of deceased was got done by 2 of 28 3 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri private photographer and the spot was also got inspected by the crime team. On 22.09.2008 Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh recorded the statement of Sh. Ram Charan S/o Sunder, father of the deceased Kunti and Sh. Roshan Lal, brother of the deceased. In his statement Sh. Ram Charan has deposed that he resides at H.No. C751, Mangolpuri, Delhi and has ten children out of them kunti is of third number who was married with Dhirender @ Billu S/o Sh. Malkhan Singh on 06.05.2007 according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies and as per his capacity he had given the dowry but soon after the marriage the dowry demands were made and his daughter was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry. On her being severely harassed, after marriage he gave Rs. 50,000/ cash to his soninlaw (accused Dhirender @ Billu) despite this his daughter continued to be subjected to cruelty on account of dowry and in the yesterday evening they received a phone call from the inlaws of Kunti, to immediately come to SGM Hospital as the condition of Kunti is very bad. When they reached at SGM Hospital they found that Kunti was already dead. His daughter has been killed by Malkhan Singh, Dhirender @ Billu, Bhagwati Parsad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu, Satbir and legal action be taken against them. The Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on the basis of said statement gave direction for the registration of the case and an FIR was registered in the Police 3 of 28 4 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri Station Mangolpuri, U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and its further investigation was handed over to Insp. Manoj Sharma, who prepared the site plan of the spot of incident, recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the chunni and arrested the accused Malkhan Singh and Dhirender @ Billu . Postmortem report was collected from Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Manoj Dhingra in which it is opined that cause of death Hypoxia Ischemia Consequent to Hanging and the injuries on the dead body of the deceased B/L Hands have multiple nails marks and abrasion over Rt. Hand below elbow joint of size 3x2 cm. (2) Bruising over Rt. Chin of size. (3) Bruising over Rt. Thigh of size 2cm. X 2 cm. Accused Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir were absconding and proclamation proceedings were initiated against them.
Upon completion of necessary further investigation challan was prepared for the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC against accused Dhirender @ Billu and Malkhan Singh and was sent to the court for trial.
2. Accused Bhawati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir later on surrendered in the Court and against them supplementary chargesheet was prepared for the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and was filed in the Court.
4 of 28 5 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri
3. Since the offence u/s 304B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Session u/s 209 Cr.P.C.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Court of Session, after hearing of charge prima facie a case u/s 498A/304B/302/34 IPC against accused Malkhan Singh, Dhirender @ Billu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu, Satbir and Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu was made out. Charge was framed accordingly which was read over and explained to all the five accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. PW1 Sumitra Devi, PW2 Ct. Manish, PW3 Ct. Rajeev Kumar, PW4 Roshan Lal, PW5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, PW7 SI Madan Lal, PW8 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, PW9 Ram Charan, PW10 Surjeet, PW11 Ct. Dharmender and PW12 Insp. Manoj.
6. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under: 5 of 28 6 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW1 Sumitra Devi is the mother of the Kunti (since deceased) who deposed regarding the incident.
PW2 Ct. Manish is the photographer of the crime mobile team who proved the negatives of the photographs of the spot Ext. PW2/A1 to Ext. PW2/A4 and the positive photographs Ext. PW2/B1 to Ext. PW2/B4.
PW3 Ct. Rajeev Kumar is the DD writer, who recorded the DD No. 31B dated 20.09.2008 and proved the copy of DD No. 31B Ext. PW3/A. PW4 Roshan Lal is the brother of deceased Kunti, who deposed regarding the incident and proved his statement Ext. PW4/A. PW5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, MOIC Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Kunti and proved the postmortem report Ext. PW5/A, subsequent opinion Ext. PW5/B and the chunni Ext. P1.
6 of 28 7 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, is the Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar who went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and gave directions to the IO to shift the body in mortuary and call the parents of the deceased. He visited the spot i.e MBlock, H.No. 767, Mangol Puri, Delhi and directed to the IO to call the crime branch. He proved the statements regarding the identification of the dead body in the hospital of Roshan Lal and Ram Charan Ext. PW6/A Ext. PW6/B respectively, inquest papers Ext. PW6/C, statement of Ram Charan Ext. PW6/D, letter for autopsy of the dead body Ext. PW6/E and also proved the facts of the case prepared by him Ext. PW6/F. PW7 SI Madan Lal, who deposed that on 22.09.2008 he was posted at Police Station Mangolpuri and was working as Duty officer from 5.00 PM to 1.00am (night) and at about 5.30 pm he was called by the SHO and handed over a rukka to him, on the basis of which he recorded FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the computerized copy of the FIR and original tehrir were handed over to Insp. Manoj Sharma as per direction of SHO. He also proved his endorsement vide Kyami DD No. 24A on the tehrir at PointY signed by him at Point Y1.
7 of 28 8 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW8 Sh. Dinesh Kumar is the private photographer who took the photographs of the spot and proved the same Ext. PW8/A1 to Ext. PW8/A8 and their negatives Ext. PW8/B1 to Ext. PW8/B8. He also proved the negatives of three photographs which were not properly developed Ext. PW8/B9 to Ext. PW8/B11. He also proved the photographs of the dead body at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Ext. PW8/C1 to C4 and negatives Ext. PW8/D1 to D4.
PW9 Sh. Ram Charan who is the father of deceased Kunti, who was turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
PW10 Surjeet who is the neighbour of accused Dhirender @ Billu who deposed that he does not know date, month and time but it was in the year 2008 at about 1.30 PM he was standing with his friend Budh Vachan in front of his house and was talking with him. He heard the cries of Dhirender coming from his house situated adjoining to the house of Budh Vachan in MBlock, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He has further deposed that on hearing the cries they went there and saw that Dhirender was pushing the 8 of 28 9 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri door while crying. In the meantime, Dhirender S/o Malkhan Singh had broken the windows of his (Dhirender) house situated in the room besides the door by stone. He has further deposed that they saw that his (Dhirender) wife was hanging with the help of chunni on the ceiling fan. She was put down by Dhirender on the ground and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital in a rickshaw by Dhirender and they had seen him while taking his wife in a rickshaw to the hospital.
PW11 Ct. Dharmender who has deposed that on 22.9.2008 he was working as motorcycle rider of Addl. SHO Insp. Manoj Kumar in Police Station Mangolpuri, and on that day he alongwith Addl. SHO went to the H.No. M767/768, Mangolpuri, Delhi where ASI Krishan was found present. Inspector Manoj Sharma and ASI Krishan went inside the room where on the floor a blue and red colour chunni was found having a knot on one side which was taken into possession after preparing a pullanda sealed with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ext. PW11/A and the chunni is Ex.P1.
PW12 Inspector Manoj is the IO of the case who deposed on the investigational aspects and proved the copy of DD No. 28A Ext. PX, MLC of deceased (Kunti) Ext. PX1, DD No.21A Ext. PY, site plan Ext. PW12/A, 9 of 28 10 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri seizure memo of chunni Ext. PW11/A, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Dhirender @ Billu Ext. PW12/B & Ext. PW12/C, disclosure statement of accused Dhirender @ Billu Ext. PW12/D, scaled site plan Ext. PW12/E. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Malkhan Singh Ext. PW12/F & Ext. PW12/G respectively, disclosure statement of accused Malkhan Singh Ext. PW12/H, application for taking the opinion Ext. PW12/J, arrest memos of accused Satbir Singh, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu and Jai Prakash @ Ronu Ext. PW12/K, Ext. PW12/L, Ext. PW12/M respectively and their disclosure statements Ext. PW12/N1 to Ext. PW12/N3 respectively. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed the supplementary challan against accused Satbir, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu and Jai Prakash @ Ronu in the court.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detailed during the course of appreciation of evidence.
7. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some 10 of 28 11 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
8. Statements of accused Malkhan Singh, Dhirender @ Billu, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication and did not opt to lead any defence evidence.
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
10. While the Ld. Addl. PP for the state on the other hand submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
11. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record.
12. The whole case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of 11 of 28 12 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW1 Sumitra Devi, PW4 Roshan Lal, PW9 Ram Charan and PW10 Surjeet.
Now let me perused and analyse the testimonies of PW1 Sumitra Devi, PW4 Roshan Lal, PW9 Ram Charan and PW10 Surjeet.
PW1 Sumitra Devi, who is the mother of Kunti (since deceased) in her examination in chief has deposed that all the accused namely Malkhan, Satvir, Dhirender, Happu and Roni used to treat her daughter with cruelty with demand of dowry. Even the sisterinlaws (Devrani & Jethani) of Kunti used to treat her with cruelty. She has further deposed that after the marriage her husband handed over Rs. 50,000/ to accused Dhirender when Dhirender was accompanied with their mother and his elder brother as they were treating Kunti with cruelty and the same was demanded for running a photo studio. She has further deposed that at the time of visit of her daughter Kunti (since deceased) before 2/3 days of her death Kunti stated that she was treated badly by her inlaws and all the members of her inlaws are beating her and are harassing her. She has further deposed that she does not remember anything because she (PW1) was not in her complete senses on that day and she was suffering from illness. She does not remember further what she had told to her daughter in the hospital.
During her crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused 12 of 28 13 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri recorded on 20.03.2012 PW1 Sumitra Devi has admitted it to be correct that she had never given any statement before any police official against the accused persons and admitted it to be correct that her statement was read out to her on 01.07.2010 outside the court as well as today before she deposed in the Court. She has further admitted it to be correct that the accused persons knew that they had no capacity to give the dowry, therefore, the accused persons had never made any dowry demands from them. She has further admitted it to be correct that in the marriage or thereafter nothing was given as dowry either to her daughter or to the accused persons. She has admitted it to be correct that her daughter Kunti (since deceased) was living with her husband Dhirender separately from other relatives of her husband. She has further admitted it to be correct that her daughter Kunti (since deceased) was a high tampered girl and did not want to marry with Dhirender. She has further admitted it to be correct that her daughter Kunti (since deceased) was in the know that she cannot conceive (kabhi maa nahi ban sakti), therefore, she used to remains under constant pressure and tension. She has further admitted it to be correct that her daughter Kunti (since deceased) was never beaten up by the accused persons in connection with dowry demands. She has further admitted it to be correct that her daughter Kunti (since deceased) was never harassed by the accused persons in connection with dowry 13 of 28 14 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri demands. She has further admitted it to be correct that on 18.09.2009 in the hospital nothing was told by her daughter Kunti (since deceased) against the accused persons. She has further admitted it to be correct that in her (PW1) presence an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was never paid to the accused persons.
Permission was sought by Ld. APP to reexamine PW1 Sumitra Devi with regard to the change of her stand during crossexamination which was though opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused yet the objection so raised was disposed of with reasons and permission was granted to Ld. APP to reexamine the witness.
PW1 Sumitra Devi during her reexamination as was conducted by the Ld. APP for the state negated the suggestion as to what she has deposed during crossexamination today with regard to payment of Rs. 50,000/ or with regard to visit of her daughter Kunti (since deceased) to the hospital or with regard to demand of money by her inlaws or about her beating and asking her (PW1) to meet out the demands of her inlaws in the hospital by her daughter is an after thought. She further negated the suggestion that she was not apprised about her statement by anyone before deposing in the court on 01.07.2010 or on today. She further negated the suggestion that she has been won over by the accused persons or that she is deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons or that she was 14 of 28 15 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri threatened by the accused persons to depose in their favour.
PW4 Sh. Roshan Lal, who is the brother of Kunti (since deceased) who proved his statement Ext. PW4/A and has deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines as has been deposed by PW1 Sumitra Devi.
During his crossexamination recorded on 20.03.2012 he admitted all the statements of facts/suggestions put to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel. It is pertinent to reproduce his part of crossexamination as was conducted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused which he reads as under: "It is correct that I have not made any statement against the accused persons to any of the police officials or the senior police officials. It is correct that police had obtained my signatures on some papers in which some were blank and on some papers something was written. It is correct that the papers on which something was written and which were made me to sign by the police, the contents thereof were not read out to me. It is correct that on the last date on 6.8.2011, my statement was read out to me outside the court before I deposed in the court. It is correct that the accused persons were in the know that I was not in the capacity to give the dowry therefore, the accused persons had never made any dowry demand to me. It is correct that my sister Kunti (since deceased) was living with her husband Dhirender separately from other accused persons. It is correct that my sister Kunti (since deceased) was a high tampered lady and did not want to marry with 15 of 28 16 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri accused Dhirender. It is correct that my sister Kunti was in the know the she cannot conceive therefore, she used to remain under tension. It is correct that in my presence an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was never paid to the accused persons. It is correct that my sister Kunti had no talk with my mother in the hospital two or three days before her (Kunti) death. It is correct that my sister Kunti (since deceased) was never harassed by the accused persons."
Permission was sought by Ld. APP to reexamine PW4 Roshan Lal with regard to the change of his stand during crossexamination which was though opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused yet the objection so raised was disposed of with reasons and permission was granted to Ld. APP to reexamine the witness.
PW4 Sh. Roshan Lal during his reexamination as was conducted by the Ld. APP for the state negated the suggestion as to what he has deposed during crossexamination today with regard to the payment of Rs. 50,000/ or with regard to visit of her sister Kunti (since deceased) to the hospital or with regard to demand of money by her inlaw in the hospital by her sister is an after thought. He further negated the suggestion that he was not apprised about his statement by anyone before deposing in the court on 06.08.2011. He further negated the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons or that he is deposing falsely in order to save the 16 of 28 17 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri accused persons or that he was threatened by the accused persons to depose in their favour.
PW9 Sh. Ram Charan, who is the father of Kunti (since deceased), who in his examination in chief has deposed that his daughter Kunti had been married with Dhirender according to Hindu Rites & Customs in the year 2007. He does not remember the date and month. He has further deposed that he had given dowry as per his capacity and custom in the marriage. After marriage her daughter started living in the house of her in laws. His daughter was never tortured or harassed by her husband or any other family member. He has further deposed that he does not want to say anything further. Kunti has committed suicide because she was not capable to conceive a child. He is not aware whether his statement was recorded by the SDM or any police official after the incident.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement made to the police Ld. APP requested to crossexamine him and permission was granted for the same.
During the crossexamination by Ld. APP PW9 Ram Charan deposed that his statement was not recorded by the SDM on 22.09.2008. He denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP. It is pertinent to 17 of 28 18 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri reproduce the crossexamination of PW9 as was conducted by Ld. APP which reads as under: "My statement was not recorded by the SDM on 22.9.2008. It is wrong to suggest that my statement Ex. PW6/D was recorded by the SDM and I had put my thumb mark at point B on the same. It is incorrect to suggest that I had put my thumb impression after going through my statement that after the marriage of my daughter, she was tortured for demand of dowry and I have given Rs. 50,000/ cash to accused Dhirender. (Confronted from portion A to A1 of the statement Ex.PW6/D where it is so recorded). I have not stated to the SDM that even thereafter, they continued to harass my daughter but I cannot fulfill their demand due to my incapacity. (Confronted with portion B to B1 of the statement Ex.PW6/D where it is so recorded). I have not stated to the police that I have given the statement before SDM to take action against all the accused persons as my daughter died because of cruelty done on her by all the accused persons because of dowry. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons or that I have been allured by the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is further wrong to suggest that I was threatened by the accused persons to depose in their favour. It is correct that I have seen and correctly identified the dead body of my daughter Kunti and my statement Ext. PW6/B thumb marked by me at PointB was also recorded by the SDM before postmortem. It is correct that after postmortem the dead body was handed over to me vide memo Ext. PW9/A thumb marked by me at PointA. It is wrong to suggest that a compromise has been effected and a huge sum has been given to us or that I am deposing falsely to favour the accused persons."
18 of 28 19 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri The PW9 Ram Charan was not crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite grant of opportunity.
From the above said narration by PW1 Smt. Savitri Devi and PW4 Roshan Lal as to what they have deposed in their examinationin chief with regard to the allegations of dowry demands are very vague unsubstantiated and general in nature. There is no specific allegation against the accused persons. The kind of harassment meted out to the deceased has also not been explained. Neither any specific date of harassment or how she was treated badly has been stated by the witnesses. Further the testimony of PW1 Smt. Savitri Devi, that after the marriage an amount of Rs. 50,000/ was paid by her husband (PW9 Ram Charan) to accused Dhirender @ Billu when accused Dhirender @ Billu was accompanied by his mother and his elder brother for running a photo studio has not been corroborated by PW9 Ram Charan. Moreover, PW9 Ram Charan did not support the prosecution and was turned hostile. There is also nothing in his crossexamination as conducted by the Ld. APP so as to rescue the case of the prosecution.
19 of 28 20 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri In the entire testimonies of PW1 Sumitra Devi, PW4 Roshan Lal and PW9 Ram Charan there is nothing to indicate to infer on the part of accused persons, a wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive Kunti (since deceased) to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or health whether mental or physical.
Moreover, during the crossexamination of PW1 Sumitra Devi, PW4 Roshan Lal and PW9 Ram Charan as conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused it has come on the record, that Kunti (since deceased) was high tampered girl and did not want to marry with Dhirender and she was in the know that she cannot conceive (kabhi maa nahi ban sakti), therefore, she used to remains under constant pressure and tension. Further there is nothing in the testimonies of PW1 Sumitra Devi, PW4 Roshan Lal and PW9 Ram Charan to indicate that soon before her (Kunti, since deceased) death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, accused Dhirender @ Billu, or by coaccused, the relatives of her husband Dhirender @ Billu for or in connection with dowry demands. Moreover, as I have discussed herein above, at the cost of repetition, whatever the allegations of dowry demands are they are very vague, unsubstantiated and general in nature.
20 of 28 21 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW10 Surjeet, who is the neighbour of the accused Dhirender @ Billu, who in his examination in chief has deposed that he does not know date, month and time but it was in the year 2008 at about 1.30 PM he was standing with his friend Budh Vachan in front of his house and was talking with him. He heard the cries of Dhirender coming from his house situated adjoining to the house of Budh Vachan in MBlock, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He has further deposed that on hearing the cries they went there and saw that Dhirender was pushing the door while crying. In the meantime, Dhirender S/o Malkhan Singh had broken the windows of his (Dhirender) house situated in the room besides the door by stone. He has further deposed that they saw that his (Dhirender) wife was hanging with the help of chunni on the ceiling fan. She was put down by Dhirender on the ground and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital in a rickshaw by Dhirender and they had seen him while taking his wife in a rickshaw to the hospital.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement made to the police Ld. APP requested to crossexamine him and permission was granted for the same.
During the crossexamination by Ld. APP PW10 Surjeet admitted it to be correct that the incident is of dated 20.09.2008 when he was 21 of 28 22 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri standing in front of the house no. M769, Mangolpuri, Delhi and was talking to Budh Vachan.
During his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused PW10 Surjeet has admitted it to be correct that when Dhirender was taking his wife in a rickshaw to the hospital, the wheel of the rickshaw fell in the pit on the way as a result of which wife of Dhirender fell down from the rickshaw on the ground and thereafter, she was removed in TSR to the hospital on that day.
From the testimony of PW10 Surjeet although the fact regarding the incident dated 20.09.2008 stands established on the record but from the narration of PW10 Surjeet it is also clearly indicated that the room where the deceased Kunti was found hanging was locked from inside.
His testimony is also corroborated by PW5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Kunti and proved the postmortem report Ext. PW5/A and his opinion Ext. PW5/B on the chunni Ext. P1 and in the postmortem report Ext. PW5/A he has opined that "The death is due to hypoxia ischemia consequent to hanging."
22 of 28 23 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri In the subsequent opinion Ext. PW5/B he has opined that this chunni (Ext. P1) or similar such weapon is used for hanging and the injury mentioned in PM report (Ext. PW5/A) is antemortem in nature and be caused by blunt force impact.
In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands established on the record that the death of Kunti (since deceased) was suicidal and not homicidal in nature.
13. The remaining prosecution evidence pertains to investigational aspects. PW2 Ct. Manish, who is the photographer of the crime mobile team who proved the negatives of the photographs of the spot Ext. PW2/A1 to Ext. PW2/A4 and the positive photographs Ext. PW2/B1 to Ext. PW2/B4.
PW3 Ct. Rajeev Kumar is the DD writer, who recorded the DD No. 31B dated 20.09.2008 and proved the copy of DD No. 31B Ext. PW3/A. 23 of 28 24 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW6 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, is the Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar who went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and gave directions to the IO to shift the body in mortuary and call the parents of the deceased. He visited the spot i.e MBlock, H.No. 767, Mangol Puri, Delhi and directed to the IO to call the crime branch. He proved the statements regarding the identification of the dead body in the hospital of Roshan Lal and Ram Charan Ext. PW6/A Ext. PW6/B respectively, inquest papers Ext. PW6/C, statement of Ram Charan Ext. PW6/D, letter for autopsy of the dead body Ext. PW6/E and also proved the facts of the case prepared by him Ext. PW6/F. PW7 SI Madan Lal, who deposed that on 22.09.2008 he was posted at Police Station Mangolpuri and was working as Duty officer from 5.00 PM to 1.00am (night) and at about 5.30 pm he was called by the SHO and handed over a rukka to him, on the basis of which he recorded FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, the computerized copy of the FIR and original tehrir were handed over to Insp. Manoj Sharma as per direction of SHO. He also proved his endorsement vide Kyami DD No. 24A on the tehrir at PointY signed by him at Point Y1.
24 of 28 25 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri PW8 Sh. Dinesh Kumar is the private photographer who took the photographs of the spot and proved the same Ext. PW8/A1 to Ext. PW8/A8 and their negatives Ext. PW8/B1 to Ext. PW8/B8. He also proved the negatives of three photographs which were not properly developed Ext. PW8/B9 to Ext. PW8/B11. He also proved the photographs of the dead body at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Ext. PW8/C1 to C4 and negatives Ext. PW8/D1 to D4.
PW11 Ct. Dharmender who has deposed that on 22.9.2008 he was working as motorcycle rider of Addl. SHO Insp. Manoj Kumar in Police Station Mangolpuri, and on that day he alongwith Addl. SHO went to the H.No. M767/768, Mangolpuri, Delhi where ASI Krishan was found present. Inspector Manoj Sharma and ASI Krishan went inside the room where on the floor a blue and red colour chunni was found having a knot on one side which was taken into possession after preparing a pullanda sealed with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ext. PW11/A and the chunni is Ex.P1.
PW12 Inspector Manoj is the IO of the case who deposed on the investigational aspects and proved the copy of DD No. 28A Ext. PX, MLC of deceased (Kunti) Ext. PX1, DD No.21A Ext. PY, site plan Ext. PW12/A, 25 of 28 26 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri seizure memo of chunni Ext. PW11/A, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Dhirender @ Billu Ext. PW12/B & Ext. PW12/C, disclosure statement of accused Dhirender @ Billu Ext. PW12/D, scaled site plan Ext. PW12/E. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Malkhan Singh Ext. PW12/F & Ext. PW12/G respectively, disclosure statement of accused Malkhan Singh Ext. PW12/H, application for taking the opinion Ext. PW12/J, arrest memos of accused Satbir Singh, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu and Jai Prakash @ Ronu Ext. PW12/K, Ext. PW12/L, Ext. PW12/M respectively and their disclosure statements Ext. PW12/N1 to Ext. PW12/N3 respectively. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed the supplementary challan against accused Satbir, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu and Jai Prakash @ Ronu in the court.
14. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The hostility of PW1 Sumitra Devi, mother of the deceased Kunti, PW4 Roshan Lal, brother of deceased Kunti and PW9 Ram Charan, father of the deceased Kunti, has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on the record to indicate that after the marriage dated 26 of 28 27 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri 06.05.2007 of deceased Kunti with Dhirender @ Billu till the date of her death on 20.09.2008 at her matrimonial house at M767/68, Mangolpuri, Delhi all the accused in furtherance of common intention treated her with mental and physical cruelties in connection with dowry demands or that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death on 20.09.2008 or that all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention committed murder of Kunti by intentionally causing her death.
15. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion as far as the involvement of accused Malkhan Singh, Dhirender @ Billu, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir in the commission of the offences u/s 498A/304B/302/34 IPC is concerned, the same has not been sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis the prosecution has miserably failed to bring the guilt home to the accused Malkhan Singh, Dhirender @ Billu, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is a room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused Malkhan Singh, Dhirender @ Billu, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir. I, therefore, acquit Malkhan Singh, 27 of 28 28 FIR No. 472/08 PS Mangol Puri Dhirender @ Billu, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir for the offences u/s 498A/304B/302/34 IPC after giving them the benefit of doubt. Accused Malkhan Singh, Bhagwati Prasad @ Happu, Jai Prakash @ Ronu and Satbir are on bail. However u/s 437A Cr.P.C, the bailbonds of the said accused persons shall remain in force for six months and they to appear before the Hon'ble Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any petition filed against this judgment. Accused Dhirender @ Billu is in JC. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. However, on his release accused Dhirender @ Billu shall appear in the court and shall execute a bailbond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ Under Section 437A IPC.
Announced in the open Court today on 11th Day of May, 2012 (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer District Rohini/Delhi.
28 of 28