Delhi District Court
Court Of Punjab And Haryana In Balraj ... vs . The State Of on 14 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
SC No.95/11
FIR No.182/11
PS Shalimar Bagh
U/s.498A/304B/302/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Sanjeev Kumar s/o. Rajinder Nayak
r/o. BC205A, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
2. Sunil Nayak s/o. Rajinder Nayak
r/o. BC205B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
3. Renu Nayak w/o. Sunil Nayak
r/o. BC205B, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
4. Umesh Nayak s/o. Rajinder Nayak
r/o. BC206D, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
5. Priti Nayak w/o. Umesh Nayak
r/o. BC206D, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
6. Sagar Kumar Nayak s/o. Rajinder Nayak
r/o. BC206D, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
And also at:
117/1H/374, Flat No.304,
Kaka Deo Kanpur North, UP.
Date of Receipt : 30.08.2011
Date of Decision : 14.01.2013
FIR No.182/11
Page
1
of
14
2
JUDGMENT :
1. The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.05.2011, at BC205A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, Ritu, wife of accused Sanjeev, was found hanging on the ceiling fan in a room of the said house. Father of deceased Ritu, namely, Kamal Pachauri was informed and he reached the spot. He made statement to the SDM that his daughter, namely, Ritu was got married with accused Sanjeev in the year 2009 and after their marriage, deceased Ritu was subjected to harassment and was also beaten up by the accused persons for the fulfillment of demand of dowry. In his statement, Kamal Pachauri alleged that the death of his daughter Ritu was not natural and she hanged herself due to the harassment and torture meted out to her from the hands of accused persons. He further alleged that, after the marriage of his daughter, she went to her parental home and accused Sanjeev came there to take Ritu back to his home and at that time, he was paid Rs.21,000/ by them. He further alleged that, Ritu, while telephoned her parents, told them about the demand of dowry and the cruelty meted out to her by the accused persons and even her mobile phone was snatched by the accused persons. Postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted and, thereafter, the dead body was handed over to her relatives. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Ld. M.M. after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC, committed the case to the Sessions Court, as the offence punishable U/s.304B IPC, is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
2. Accused persons were charged for the offences punishable U/s.498A/304B/302/34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed FIR No.182/11 Page 2 of 14 3 trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for PE.
3. Prosecution examined HC Pawan Kumar, as PW1, who was working as Duty Officer and got recorded the FIR. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka, as Ex. PW1/B. He further proved the DD no.39B, as Ex. PW1/C.
4. Ct. Subhash, was examined as PW2, who was posted in Mobile Crime Team, as photographer and he proved the photographs taken by him at the spot, as Exs. PW2/A1 to PW2/A13 and negatives thereof, as PW2/B1 to PW2/B13.
5. Ct. Bal Kishan, was examined as PW3. He was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh and on 17.06.2011, on the instruction of IO, he collected a sealed parcel of viscera Peti from MHCM, sealed with the seal of BJRM, for depositing the same to FSL Rohini and he accordingly, deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No.46/21/11.
6. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Nodal Officer, from BSNL, was examined as PW4.
He proved the call details record as Ex. PW4/A and certificate U/s.65 Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW4/B, but as he did not bring the CAF and other documents, therefore, his further examination in chief was deferred.
7. Kamal Pachauri, father of deceased Ritu, was examined as PW5. He deposed that on 15.02.2009, his daughter, namely, Ritu (since deceased), was got married with the accused Sanjeev and she was residing at her matrimonial home in Delhi, with her inlaws i.e. fatherinlaw, namely, Rajender Nayak, motherinlaw, namely, Phoolan Devi, Jeth, namely, Sunil Nayak, Jethani, namely, Renu Nayak, another Jeth, namely, Umesh and Jethani, namely, Preeti FIR No.182/11 Page 3 of 14 4 and Devar, namely, Sagar Nayak. PW5 deposed that his daughter Ritu was blessed with a son. He further deposed that his daughter was living happily in matrimonial home and there was no harassment given to her by her inlaws. The witness identified accused Sunil Nayak, Renu Nayak, Umesh Nayak, Preeti and Sagar Nayak in the Court. PW5 deposed that he gave cash and other articles, of his own, in the marriage of his daughter and there was no such demand from the side of her inlaws or from the accused persons. He further deposed that his daughter was never harassed by her fatherinlaw, namely, Rajender Nayak, or her motherinlaw, namely, Phoolan Devi and that they never made any demand from him. He deposed that, on 19.05.2011, he received information regarding the death of his daughter Ritu at her matrimonial home. He came to know that she committed suicide at her matrimonial home. He handed over photographs of the marriage to the police, which were proved as Exs. PW5/A1 to PW5/A8 and he also handed over the marriage card of his daughter Ritu with accused Sanjeev and proved the same as Ex. PW5/B. PW5 identified the dead body of his daughter Ritu in the Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, vide identification memo Ex. PW5/C, in the presence of SDM. He deposed that at that time, he was nervous as many public persons were present there and one of them, whose name he did not remember, wrote a letter and PW5 signed the same and handed over the same to the police. He further deposed that he was having heart problem and was operated once and he was also having blood pressure and diabetes problem and also having cervical problem. The said letter was proved as Ex. PW5/D. He deposed that he didn't know the contents of that letter. PW5 further deposed that SDM recorded his statement of his own FIR No.182/11 Page 4 of 14 5 and it was not read over and explained to him and he was asked to sign the same. The said statement was proved as Ex. PW5/E. He voluntarily deposed that some of the officials prepared the said statement and obtained his signature and, subsequently, the said letter was handed over to the police. He further deposed that the SDM never recorded his statement in his own handwriting and the police officials also told him that they also had recorded his statement, but the said statement was also never read over to him. He deposed that he was told that since one death had been caused, that is why police was trying to pacify the matter of death, by preparing a false case. He deposed that he had no grievances with the accused persons. He also deposed that his daughter was having tension and depression problem and it might be possible, that she could commit suicide, due to that problem. Thereafter, he was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He denied the suggestion that his statement Ex. PW5/E, was recorded on his dictation, before the SDM and he told the SDM that accused persons, namely, Sanjeev, Sunil, Renu, Rajender Nayak and Preeti demanded dowry from his daughter Ritu, or that they also gave physical and mental harassment to her. He further denied the suggestion that he told the SDM in his statement that once accused Sanjeev came to his house for taking back his daughter Ritu (since deceased) and at that time, he paid Rs.21,000/ to him. The witness voluntarily deposed that once, he gave Rs.21,000/ of his own to accused Sanjeev and it was not a demand. He denied the suggestion that all the inlaws of his daughter Ritu (since deceased) had demanded money as dowry, or that his daughter requested her parents on phone to pay the money, or that she told them that her Jeth, Jethani i.e. Sunil Nayak and Renu Nayak and FIR No.182/11 Page 5 of 14 6 her husband Sanjeev Nayak and Devar Sagar, used to give beatings to her, or that this fact was told by his daughter on phone. He further denied the suggestion that whenever his daughter used to talk with them on telephone, then he felt that she was nervous. He deposed it to be correct that she used to talk him from her mobile phone to his mobile phone. He further denied the suggestion that he told the SDM in his statement that two hours prior to her death, his daughter telephoned him and told that she was very nervous and also told that they may take her to Jhansi, otherwise, some incident could take place with her and, thereafter, her inlaws snatched her mobile, and due to that, further talks could not be made. PW5 also denied the suggestion that inlaws of his daughter Ritu, namely, accused Sanjeev Nayak husband, Sunil Nayak Jeth, Renu Jethani, Umesh Jeth, Preeti Jethani, Rajender Nayak fatherin law, Smt. Rajender Nayak i.e. Phoolan Devi motherinlaw, had demanded dowry and also gave physical and mental harassment to his daughter Ritu. He further denied that he made correct statement to the SDM. He voluntarily deposed that his statement was never recorded on his dictation and never explained to him by the SDM. He further denied that he was deliberately denying the statement Ex. PW5/E, regarding the allegation. However, he deposed it to be correct that, he moved an application to the SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh, which was already proved as Ex. PW5/D. He voluntarily deposed that it was moved by him on the asking of his relatives and also due to his illhealth. He further deposed it to be correct that he spent a sum of Rs.8 lakhs in the marriage of my daughter Ritu with accused Sanjeev. He further deposed it to be correct that he did not gift any car in FIR No.182/11 Page 6 of 14 7 the marriage. He denied the suggestion that the inlaws of his daughter, Ritu harassed them for the demand of dowry, or that they also got changed the place of marriage of their own wish. He further denied the suggestion that he did not give any Santro car or any cash amount of Rs.1,66,000/ to the accused persons. He denied that due to non payment of said amount, the fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, accused Sunil and Umesh used to give beatings to his daughter and harassed her to bring Rs.1,66,000/ and pay them. He also denied that his daughter used to telephone them and told them about the harassment and beatings given to her with respect to demand of dowry of Rs.1,66,000/, or that she told him to arrange a car and cash and gave the same to her inlaws, otherwise, the accused persons would kill her, or otherwise, she would commit suicide. He voluntarily deposed that his daughter was living happily in her matrimonial home and somebody had asked him to give the said application Ex. PW5/D, after its preparation, or that he without going through the contents of the same, signed the same and gave the same in the PS. He denied that at the first time after the marriage, they brought Ritu, after three months, to their home at Jhansi, or that his daughter was brought by his son from Delhi, from her matrimonial home, or that at the time of sending back his daughter, all her inlaws asked Ritu, to bring Santro car and cash of Rs.1,66,000/, otherwise, they will not allow her to enter in her matrimonial home, or that they had given threat that, in case of FIR No.182/11 Page 7 of 14 8 nonfulfillment of demand, she will remain with her parents at Jhansi. He further denied that he tried to pacify the matter, or that he called accused Sanjeev to Jhansi and requested him not to harass his daughter Ritu, on which accused Sanjeev told him that he will fulfill his demand within one year. He also denied that when his daughter was blessed with a son, they tried to give many gifts and other articles, but the inlaws of his daughter were not happy and satisfied with said gifts and articles and he spent Rs.1,50,000/ in the said function. The witness voluntarily deposed that they spent Rs.1,50,000/ at their own. He further deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police on the facts as told by him, and they wrote the same of their own and during the investigation, he told to the police regarding the false allegations of Ex. PW5/E and regarding the statement Ex. PW5/D and he initially told the police that his daughter was happy at her matrimonial home and she was having problem of depression and she used to remain nervous. He deposed that it may be possible that she committed suicide due to said problem. He further deposed that initially police told him, that since the life of a human being has been finished, that was why it was necessary for them to make a case and, that was why, they prepared this case and obtained his signatures on various papers and he was also tutored by the police to file the said complaint Ex. PW5/E. FIR No.182/11 Page 8 of 14 9
8. Sh. Pradeep Baijal, SDM (retired), was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 19.05.2011, he was working as SDM, Model Town and received information from PS Shalimar Bagh that Ritu, a married lady, had committed suicide at her matrimonial home BC205A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He reached the spot and found that one lady was hanging on the celling fan and her legs were bent upon on the bed. Police officials were already present there. PW6 directed the IO to get the dead body brought down from the celling fan to the ground and directed the IO for preserving the dead body in the mortuary and also calling the parents of deceased. On 20.05.2011, statement of Kamal Pachauri, father of deceased Ritu, was recorded vide Ex. PW5/E. Statements regarding identification of dead body were recorded, which were also proved as Exs. PW6/A and PW5/C. PW6 prepared brief facts Ex. PW6/B. Form 25(35) was filled up, which was Ex. PW6/C. Inquest for autopsy was proved as Ex. PW6/D. He also made endorsement on the request of postmortem, to hand over the dead body after postmortem to its relative, which was proved as Ex. PW6/E. Thereafter, PW6 made endorsement on the statement of Kamal Pachauri, which was proved as Ex. PW6/F and directed the SHO for registration of FIR. He was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel. In cross examination, PW6 deposed that he went to the spot in the government vehicle. He further deposed that he did not make any entry in log book of the government vehicle. He deposed that the lady was found hanging with FIR No.182/11 Page 9 of 14 10 a Chunni of Sleti colour with pink strips and after bringing down the dead body, it was sent to BJRM Hospital. He deposed that he did not prepare any request letter for autopsy, however, he signed the same, which was filledup by the police official, whose name he didn't remember. He deposed it to be correct that he did not record any statement on 19.05.2011. He deposed that he did not record the statement in his own handwriting, however, it was recorded on his dictation by the staff, or some relative of the deceased. He deposed that the statement of Kamal Pachauri was recorded before the postmortem and he made endorsement on the statement, after postmortem and that in the finding of the postmortem, the cause of death was pending, till chemical report of viscera. PW6 gave directions to the police, as per the statement of Kamal Pachauri, to register the case U/s.498A/304B. He further deposed it to be correct that in the statement of Kamal Pachauri, there was no mention of the killing their daughter Ritu, since deceased.
9. PW7, W/Ct. Babli, from PCR, Police Head Quarter, deposed that on 19.05.2011, she was posted at Police Control Room, PHQ. On that day, she received information at about 12.50:22 PM, and after receiving the information, she filledup the PCR form and sent it for circulation. She proved the certified copy of the PCR Form as Ex. PW7/A.
10. PW8, Rekha Pachauri and PW9, Ankur Pachauri, are the mother and brother, respectively, of deceased Ritu. Their testimony is identical to FIR No.182/11 Page 10 of 14 11 the testimony of PW5, Kamal Pachauri, as they also did not support the case of prosecution in any manner and have deposed nothing incriminating against the accused persons, even after the detailed cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, as done in the testimony of PW5.
11. On the request of Ld. Addl. PP, witnesses, namely, Anil Pachauri and Neelam Sengar were allowed to be examined and Anil Pachauri was examined as PW10, who was cousin of deceased Ritu, but he also did not support the case of prosecution and deposed nothing incriminating against any of the accused. Neelam Sengar was summoned and despite service of processes, she did not appear in the Court to depose.
12. Rest of the witnesses, who are yet to be examined, are formal in nature and their testimonies are of no help to the case of prosecution, since the public witnesses in this case, have not supported the case of prosecution in any manner and deposed nothing against the husband, Sanjeev Kumar, fatherin law, namely, Rajender Nayak, motherinlaw, namely, Phoolan Devi, Jeth, namely, Sunil Nayak, Jethani, namely, Renu Nayak, another Jeth, namely, Umesh and Jethani, namely, Preeti and Devar, namely, Sagar Nayak, and no useful purpose would be served by examining them.
13. Since, there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on many aspects, as discussed above, the story of prosecution appears to be false and creates doubt about the commission of offence by the accused persons in the present case.
FIR No.182/11
Page 11 of 14 12
14. It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1471 (DB) (Punjab) in which it was observed as follows: "The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted".
15. It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. FIR No.182/11
Page 12 of 14 13 Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in, Tika Vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 155, wherein it has been held that "One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view, in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases, is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless, that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged".
16. In Bhikari Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1, the Supreme Court has held that "Undoubtedly, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence with the requisite mens rea. Once it is done, the accused can rebut this presumption either by leading evidence or by relying on the prosecution evidence itself. If upon evidence adduced in the case, either by prosecution or by defence, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court, regarding one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea, then he would be entitled to be acquitted".
FIR No.182/11
Page 13 of 14 14
17. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances of this case, I don't find that any useful purpose would be served by keeping the trial pending of this case and accordingly, the evidence in this case was closed. However, Ld. Addl. PP argued that remaining witnesses be examined in this case to prove the case of prosecution, but his request has been turned down, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence, which has come on the record file. Accordingly, statement of accused has been dispensed with. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. I, therefore, acquit all the accused, namely, Sanjeev, Sunil Nayak, Renu Nayak, Umesh, Preeti and Sagar Nayak. for the offences, alleged against them. Personal bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons are cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in open Court (RAMESH KUMAR)
on 14.01.2013 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No.182/11
Page
14
of
14