Delhi District Court
State vs . Arjun Paswan Etc. Page 1 Of 27 on 20 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. SC No. 57674/16 FIR No.288/11 U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC P.S. Aman Vihar STATE Versus 1.
Arjun Paswan, S/o Sh. Kameshwar Paswan
2. Kameshwar Paswan, S/o Late Sh. Ramji Paswan
3. Smt. Shail Devi, W/o Kameshwar Paswan All R/o A40 & 42, MangolpuriII, Delhi.
Date of institution : 03.02.2012 Date of arguments : 12.03.2018 Date of judgment : 20.03.2018 J U D G M E N T :
1. All three accused persons were arrested by the Police of State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 1 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) Police Station Jahangir Puri, Delhi and were challaned to the Court for trial for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.09.2011 on receipt of DD No.41A regarding hanging of daughter of the caller, IO/SI Virender Singh reached at the spot i.e. E87/8, Niti Vihar, Delhi, where a girl was lying in dead condition on the floor and it was revealed that she had hanged herself with the help of a chunni with ceiling fan. It was submitted that the deceased was married with Arjun Paswan on 20.02.2011 and, hence, SDM was informed. Statement of father of deceased was recorded. As per statement of father of the deceased made to SDM, he got married her daughter with accused Arjun Paswan in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs on 20.02.2011 and during the course of marriage, her inlaws demanded car and Rs.1.5 lacs but he was not able to fulfill the demand of her inlaws. However, he gave Rs.1.30 lacs in cash, 1.5 tola gold and other articles in the marriage. After one and half month of marriage, inlaws of his daughter started taunting her stating that they had not given anything. His daughter told him on telephone that her inlaws are harassing her and so he should come and take her to her parental home. His son Rakesh brought her back to her parental home after two months of the marriage. His daughter was State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 2 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) mentally disturbed and was in bad condition. He got treated his daughter from RML Hospital. He asked several times to inlaws of his daughter to take her back to her matrimonial home but they refused stating that unless their demand of car is not fulfilled, they would not take her back. He made a complaint with CAW Cell. He further stated in his statement that about one week prior to the death of his daughter, his wife Reena made a telephonic call to accused Arjun Paswan and asked him to take Seema back to his house as she was well but accused Arjun Paswan refused to take her back by stating that unless their demand of car would not fulfilled, he would not take her back. His daughter heard said conversation. As a result of the same, she remained disturbed and on 22.09.2011 she hanged herself. On this statement of father of the deceased Sh. Ram Shakal Paswan, FIR was got registered against all the three accused persons. During investigation, site plan was prepared and chunni with which the deceased had hanged herself, was seized. All three accused persons were arrested on 09.12.2011. Postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and as per postmortem, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court for commission of offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
3. After supplying copies of documents to all the three accused State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 3 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) persons U/s 207 Cr.PC, ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the present case to the Court of Sessions.
4. Vide order dated 16.04.2012, charge U/s 498A/304B IPC was framed against A1 (accused Arjun Paswan) and charge U/s 498 A/34 IPC was framed against A2 & A3 (accused persons Kameshwar Paswan and Smt. Shail Devi respectively) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They were accordingly put to trial.
5. Trial proceeded further and in the course of trial, prosecution in order to substantiate its case against all the three accused persons, examined sixteen witnesses in total.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence, which had come on record during trial against all the three accused persons, was put to them and an opportunity was given to all of them to explain about the same. They pleaded that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They further pleaded that no demand of dowry was made by them at the time of marriage or thereafter. No harassment was also made by State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 4 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) them. They pleaded that deceased Seema stayed in their house only for about 56 days because her behaviour was not normal and her nature was also very violent. She was mentally sick before the marriage and this fact was not disclosed by parents of the deceased Seema. They did not lead evidence in their defence.
7. I have heard Sh. J. S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Dhaneshwari, ld. Counsel for all the three accused persons. I have also perused the material on record.
8. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has contended that there are glaring contradictions in the statements of witnesses PW1, PW7 & PW
10. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the deceased had hanged herself at her parents' house. A complaint was made with CAW Cell but same was later on withdrawn by the deceased. No telephone record was produced in order to substantiate the version. It is further submitted by ld. Defence Counsel that the deceased had suicidal tendency. All the three accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case and are innocent.
9. Per contra, ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that there is State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 5 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) not an iota of doubt in coming to the conclusion that all the three accused persons have committed the offences, and, hence, they are liable to be convicted in this case.
10. The depositions made by the witnesses are :
i) PW1, Mr. Ram Shakal Paswan is the complainant, who is also father of the deceased. He has deposed about the marriage of his daughter and repeated the allegations made by him at the time of registration of FIR. He further deposed that he had given Rs.1,30,000/ in cash and 1½ tola gold alongwith other household articles. He further deposed about the harassment and torture given by the accused persons to his daughter, which was disclosed to him by his daughter. He further deposed that after two months, his son Rakesh brought Seema back on his asking as her condition was miserable and she was mentally harassed by her inlaws and she was not able to live there any more. He has proved the OPD card regarding treatment of his daughter as Ex. PW1/B and its seizure memo as Ex.PW1/A, complaint dated 09.05.2011 lodged with CAW Cell by his daughter as Ex. PW1/C; his statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 23.09.2011 regarding this case as Ex.PW1/D;
marriage invitation card as Ex. PW1/E and photographs of the marriage as Ex. PW1/F (collectively).
State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 6 of 27(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) He was crossexamined at length by the ld. Defence Counsel.
ii) PW2 HC Hardev Singh is the Duty Officer. He has proved DD No.41A dated 22.09.2011 as Ex. PW2/A. He has also proved copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/B; his endorsement made on the rukka vide kaimi DD No.38A as Ex. PW2/C and copy of DD No.38A as Ex. PW2/D. Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged during crossexamination.
iii) PW3 is Ct. Shantnu, who has proved the computer generated copy of PCR form as Ex. PW3/A. His testimony is also remained unchallenged during cross examination.
iv) PW4 Inspector Manohar Lal is the draftsman, who deposed that on 19.11.2011 he was called by the IO Inspector Anil Kumar at the spot and at his instance, he prepared rough notes. On 20.11.2011 he prepared scaled site plan and proved the same as Ex. PW 4/A. During crossexamination, he deposed that he reached at the spot at about 3.00 PM on 19.11.2011.
v) PW5 HC Harish Kumar is the photographer, posted with Crime Mobile Team. He has proved the photographs taken by him as Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/11 and 12 negatives collectively as Ex.
State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 7 of 27(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) PW5/A. In his crossexamination he has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or had not taken any photograph.
vi) PW6 is Inspector Anil Kumar. He has deposed that he alongwith Ct. Harish/photographer, ASI Manish/fingerprint proficient went to the spot where IO/SI Virender and other police staff of PS Aman Vihar met them. He deposed that dead body of the deceased Seema was lying on the floor and ligature material i.e. chunni was also lying on the bed. The place of occurrence is parental house of deceased. He further deposed that at his instance, photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He inspected the spot and proved his report as Ex. PW6/A. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he alongwith crime team did not visit the spot or that he prepared the report while sitting in his office.
vii) PW7 Smt. Reena Devi is the mother of deceased and wife of PW1. She deposed similar to the deposition of PW1 and has proved her statement as Ex. PW7/A. In her crossexamination she has deposed that her daughter was not under any medical treatment in RML Hospital prior to her marriage but she was under medical treatment after her marriage. She deposed that her daughter visited her house firstly after two days after her State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 8 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) marriage, second time after about one month of her marriage and thirdly accused Arjun dropped her daughter at their house. She further deposed that when Arjun finally dropped her daughter at their house, there was no demand of Rs.1,50,000/ and car by the family of accused persons. She further deposed that neither her husband nor her sons ever went to drop Seema at her matrimonial home. She denied the suggestion that false complaint was made by them with CAW Cell. Suggestion was given to her that no demand was ever made by accused persons at any point of time or that since her daughter was mentally sick, she was not sent to her matrimonial home, which were denied by her.
viii) PW8 is Sh. Sajjan Kumar, who identified dead body of Seema Devi alongwith father of the deceased Seema at the mortuary of SGM Hospital and has proved the handing over memo of the dead body as Ex. PW8/A. His testimony remained unchallenged during cross examination.
ix) PW9 is Ct. Prahlad, who had participated in the investigation alongwith IO. He deposed that on 22.09.2011, when he was posted at PS Aman Vihar, on receipt of DD No.41A regarding daughter of caller hanged herself in his house, had accompanied the IO/SI Virender to E87/8, Niti Vihar, Delhi where one dead body of female was found lying on the floor of the house. He further deposed that SI Virender State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 9 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) called the crime team and informed the SDM. Crime team reached at the spot; inspected the same and photographer took the photographs of the crime scene from different angles. He further deposed that father of deceased presented one chunni of mehandi colour and dark gray colour and shining flowers in the middle of chunni to SI Virender, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that on 23.09.2011, he alongwith SI Virender went to SGM Mortuary, Mangol Puri, Delhi where postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted on moving an application by SDM and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her relatives. He further proved the seizure memo of duly sealed wooden box alongwith sample seal of SGM Mortuary as Ex. PW 9/A and also identified the chunni as Ex. P1.
In his crossexamination he denied the suggestion that the dupatta was not produced by the father of deceased.
x) PW10 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Paswan is the brother of deceased and son of PW1 & PW7. He has corroborated the version given by PW1 & PW7. He has proved the identification memo and handing over memo of the dead body of his sister as Ex. PW10/A and already Ex. PW8/A. In his crossexamination he has deposed that there was demand of a car when Seema first time came to her parental home after marriage and they had given 1½ tola of gold in the marriage on the State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 10 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) demand of accused persons. He has admitted that his sister was mentally disturbed when she came to their home after marriage but he explained that she was mentally disturbed but not so much. He denied the suggestion that his sister was mentally disturbed before the marriage or that she was already under treatment for mental illness or that she committed suicide due to her mental illness. He further denied the suggestion that there was no demand from the side of accused persons or that the accused persons never harassed her or that he has deposed falsely.
xi) PW11 Sh. Ramphal Singh is the SDM. He deposed that on 22.09.2011, on receipt of a message from PS Aman Vihar regarding one lady Seema having hanged herself, he directed the officer concerned to keep the dead body in mortuary of SGM hospital and also directed to prepare the inquest papers. He further deposed that on 23.09.2011 he went to SGM hospital and recorded statement Ex. PW1/D of Ram Shakal Paswan i.e. father of the deceased and proved his attestation on the same at point Ex.PW11/1. He further deposed that he had directed the SHO PS Aman Vihar to take necessary action as per law and had also attested the inquest papers at PointR. He had also proved the imprint of his signature on Ex.PW8/A at PointR. In his crossexamination, PW11 has denied the suggestion that statement of Ram Shakal had not been recorded in his presence or State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 11 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) that he had merely made his endorsement Ex.PW11/1 on already prepared document at the instance of police official or that he had also similarly signed the inquest papers at the instance of police officials.
xii) PW12 is retired SI Jagbir Singh, who has deposed that on 10.05.2011 one complaint dated 09.05.2011, made by Smt. Seema was assigned to him. Both parties were called on 16.05.2011 but none appeared on that day and thereafter, on 30.05.2011 only complainant had appeared, who was asked to produce her marriage documents/ photographs including list of stridhan articles. He further deposed that on 15.06.2011, both parties appeared but on behalf of the complainant, it was stated that the complainant was not mentally well. Therefore, she had been produced before inspector CAW Cell and on 20.07.2011, the complaint had been temporarily closed due to mental illness of the complainant. He proved the inquiry proceedings conducted at CAW Cell as Ex.PW12/1.
In his crossexamination he has deposed that no medical papers regarding mental illness of the complainant had been produced before him during CAW Cell inquiry proceedings.
xiii) PW13 is WCt. Sudesh, who has joined the investigation with IO on 09.12.2011. She deposed that she alongwith IO and complainant Ram Sakal Paswan had gone to H.No. A40, Mangolpuri, Delhi where all three accused persons were found present State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 12 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) and IO had made interrogation from them and had arrested them in the present case. She further deposed that she had conducted personal search of accused Shail Devi and has also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Shail Devi as Ex. PW13/1 & Ex. PW13/2 respectively.
In his crossexamination, PW13 deposed that she does not remember as to whether arrest documents of accused persons had been prepared inside the house or outside it. She deposed that statement of complainant had not been recorded in her presence. She denied the suggestion that she had never joined investigation of this case or that she had not visited H. No.A40, Mangolpuri or that none of the accused persons had been arrested in her presence or that she had put her signatures on arrest documents of accused Shail at PS subsequently on the asking of IO.
xiv) PW14 Dr. Shalini Girdhar has deposed that on 23.09.2011, she had conducted postmortem examination on the body of one Seema Devi and has proved her detailed postmortem examination report as Ex. PW14/1. She has further deposed that in her opinion, cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
Her testimony remained unchallenged during cross examination.
xv) PW15 Inspector Anil Kumar is the IO of the case. He State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 13 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) has deposed that SI Virender after conducting necessary initial proceedings on 22.09.2011, handed over statement of Sh. Ram Shakal Paswan, father of deceased, recorded by SDM, to him. He further deposed that he made his endorsement Ex.PW15/1; got registered FIR and had collected copy of the same from duty officer. SI Virender had also handed over to him seizure memo of ligature material i.e. Chunni and inquest papers. He had deposed about the proceedings conducted by him and had proved the seizure memo of photographs and wedding card of the marriage as Ex. PW15/2, handed over to him on 08.10.2011. He has further proved the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused Arjun Paswan as Ex. PW15/3 & Ex. PW15/4 and of accused Kameshwar Paswan as Ex. PW15/5 & Ex. PW15/6 respectively. He further deposed that after conclusion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
After taking permission of Court, ld. Addl. PP has conducted the crossexamination of PW15 and he has proved the site plan Ex. PW 15/7 prepared by him at the instance of complainant.
In his crossexamination by ld. Defence Counsel, he has deposed that the arrest papers of accused persons were prepared while sitting at their house. He denied the suggestion that he has not conducted the investigation in a fair and proper manner or that he had twisted the facts just to create evidence against the accused persons.
State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 14 of 27(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) xvi) PW16 SI Virender is the first IO of the case and has corroborated the version of PW9, Ct. Prahlad. He further deposed that the Executive Magistrate had handed over original inquest papers and original statement of Sh. Ram Shakal Paswan, father of deceased, to him which he further handed over to IO Inspector Anil Kumar alongwith seizure memo of the articles seized by him i.e. Chunni and Viscera. Articles seized by him were deposited in malkhana by him. He further deposed that on 09.12.2011, he again joined investigation of this case and had accompanied IO, lady Ct. Sudesh Kumari and complainant Ram Shakal Paswan to A40, Mangla Puri, PartII, Delhi. All three accused were found present at said house. IO made interrogation from all three of them and after interrogation, all three accused were arrested in this case. He further deposed that personal search of accused Shail Devi was conducted by WCt. Sudesh and had also proved the arrest documents of accused Arjun Paswan and Kameshwar Paswan.
In his crossexamination, he had deposed that articles seized by him were deposited in the malkhana on the same day. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited the place of occurrence or that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting at the police station.
State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 15 of 27(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE :
11. In the present case, Mrs. Seema got married on 22.02.2011 with A1. She committed suicide by hanging herself with fan on 22.09.2011. Ex. PW1/B is the OPD Card of the deceased issued from Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi, which bears the date of 19.05.2011 wherein there is mention of violent behaviour of the deceased. It is further deposed by PW1 that on 22.09.2011 when his wife went on the first floor of his house to give juice to his daughter, she found that her daughter Seema (deceased) had committed suicide by hanging herself with fan. PW1 further deposed during crossexamination that his wife was having some mental problem for about four years. Therefore, his daughter Seema did not pursue her study further. If this piece of testimony read with Ex. PW1/B, then this Court is of the opinion that possibility of abnormal behaviour and mental problem of the deceased cannot be ruled out.
12. Ex. PW12/1 is perused. It was dated 09.05.2011. On 15.06.2011 it was recorded by CAW Cell that the complainant was going under treatment in RML Hospital. It was further recorded that there was some mental problem, with which the deceased was suffering from and State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 16 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) she was getting treatment. On 18.06.2011, it was noted that as per family members of the deceased, the deceased was mentally ill and she was getting treatment. Therefore, permission was sought for temporarily closing of the case. Marriage was solemnized between the parties on 22.02.2011 i.e. in less than four months, the deceased had suffered with mental illness. In Ex. PW1/C nothing had been mentioned by the deceased about any specific harassment or torture given by the accused persons. No specific date or occasion had been mentioned when she had suffered any beatings. Only vague allegations are there.
13. It is further deposed by PW1 that when A1 refused to take his daughter at her matrimonial home, his daughter consumed Phenyl but she survived. This incident took place on 07.07.2011. No complaint was filed against the accused persons at that time.
14. Wife of PW1 appeared as PW7. In her examinationin chief, she has deposed that on 22.09.2011 her daughter hanged herself and died in waiting for A1 at her house but the testimony of PW1 has not been supported by her as PW1 in his examination deposed that on 22.09.2011 when his wife i.e. PW7 went on the first floor of his house to give juice to his daughter then she had found that her daughter had State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 17 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) committed suicide by hanging herself with fan. However, the testimony of PW1 and PW7 both have differed in as much as it is not the testimony of PW7 that she had found that her daughter had committed suicide. She has also not deposed that she had gone to give juice on the first floor of her house. Similarly, PW10, who is brother of the deceased, had also not deposed that he had observed that his mother had found the deceased had hanged herself, as deposed by PW1 in his testimony. In the entire testimony, PW1, PW7 & PW10 had not deposed the sequence of events or incident which took place on 22.09.2011. Even there is no deposition about any event or sequence of events prior to few days of committing of suicide by the deceased. It creates doubt in the mind of this Court.
15. Moreover, there is no investigation regarding said glass of juice. There is no recovery of said glass by the IO. The Court can take notice of the fact that if PW7 i.e. mother of the deceased would have taken the glass of juice to her daughter, she would have seen her daughter was hanging then definitely that glass of juice should have been available in the said room. No such evidence has been brought and, therefore, the version given by PW1 does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court.State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 18 of 27
(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar)
16. Moreover, PW1 deposed that about the demand of dowry he came to know from the phone call of his daughter but no such date or occasion when the phone call had been made, has been deposed in the entire testimony of PW1.
17. PW1 in his deposition deposed that after two months of the marriage, his son Rakesh, who visited the matrimonial house of his sister (deceased), informed him about the miserable condition and mental harassment of his daughter given by her inlaws. Thereafter, PW1 asked his son Rakesh to bring her back. PW10, who is son of PW1, deposed that after 1½ months of the marriage of his sister, her inlaws harassed his sister and demanded a car. He visited the matrimonial house of his sister and his sister accompanied him as her inlaws made clear that when their demand was fulfilled only then his sister would be allowed to live in the matrimonial home. PW7, who is wife of PW1, deposed that after the marriage, her daughter had visited the parental home on two occasions with A1 and on third time A1 visited their house and brought her daughter when he demanded a car from them. Thus, there are contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses. PW1 & PW10 have not deposed that A1 had dropped the deceased to their house while PW7 deposed that A1 had dropped her at their house. PW7 has not State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 19 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) deposed that PW10 visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and saw the miserable condition of the deceased. Therefore, the deposition of PW1 itself demolishes as PW10 has not supported about the miserable condition of the deceased at her matrimonial home. Ex. PW1/C is the complaint made by deceased to CAW Cell. She has given another version in that complaint wherein she had stated that on 09.05.2011 after beatings, she was thrown out from her matrimonial home wherein neither PW1 nor PW7 nor PW10 deposed that she was given beatings and was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Even PW1, PW7 or PW10 has not deposed about any date such as 09.05.2011. Ex. PW1/C also mentioned about a conspiracy when something was mixed in the food by which deceased lost her mental balance but nothing has been deposed about this fact by PW1, PW7 or PW10.
18. PW10 further deposed that he took his daughter Seema to CAW Cell, Rohini on 09.05.2011 where she lodged a complaint against her inlaws and the said complaint is Ex. PW1/C but the fact remains that it was deceased Seema, who had mentioned that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home after giving beatings on 09.05.2011. No specific incident at the instance of cruelty in Ex. PW1/C was mentioned by the deceased. Said complaint also bears the date 09.05.2011 but PW1 deposed that when A1 refused to take her back thereafter, he took his State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 20 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) daughter to CAW Cell on 09.05.2011.
19. PW1 further deposed that prior to 10 days of the incident of this case when he tried to talk to A1 for taking her back, then mother of A1 made a demand. None of the witnesses deposed about the date or any specific occasion when the demand of car was made by the accused persons.
20. PW1 deposed that when he talked to the accused persons to take the deceased in the matrimonial home, then accused persons told that until the demand of car is fulfilled, they would not take back the deceased in the matrimonial home but PW1 has not deposed that they made demand in the presence of his other family members whereas PW7 deposed that accused told them about the demand of car. PW10 deposed that parentsinlaw of the deceased told that they did not allow the deceased to live in the matrimonial home unless their demand of car is fulfilled. There are contradictions in testimonies of all the material witnesses i.e. PW1, PW7 & PW10 in this respect.
21. PW1 deposed that his wife had also talked to A1 regarding demand of car but he repeated the same thing whereas PW7 has not State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 21 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) deposed about any specific talk between her and A1 in this regard. No date of the conversation between A1 and PW7 has been mentioned.
22. PW1 deposed that prior to 10 days of the incident, he tried to talk to A1 when motherinlaw Smt. Shail Devi snatched the phone from A1 and repeated the demand of car. Again this fact has not been corroborated by the testimonies of PW7 & PW10.
23. In Ex. PW1/D nothing as such has been mentioned that "Prior to 10 days of the incident of this case, any talk took place between A1 and PW1". Thus, PW1 has improved his version in the testimony given before this Court. Even in Ex. PW1/D, there is nothing mentioned about the conversation between PW1 and Smt. Shail Devi. It is mentioned in Ex. PW1/D that the deceased had heard the conversation which took place between PW1 and A1. This version did not inspire confidence as how the deceased heard the conversation that took place on phone between two persons only.
24. During crossexamination, PW7 deposed that neither her husband nor her sons ever went to drop Seema at her matrimonial home whereas PW1 deposed that when his son Rakesh saw Seema in her State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 22 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) matrimonial home, she was under depression. Thus, this is again a material contradiction between testimonies of PW1 and PW7.
25. PW10 during crossexamination admitted that she was mentally disturbed when his sister came to her parental home after her marriage whereas PW7 deposed that her daughter visited her house firstly after two days of her marriage and she has not deposed about the fact regarding the mental condition of the deceased. Again this is a contradiction between the testimonies of PW7 and PW10.
26. PW1 deposed during crossexamination that after about 1 1½ months accused persons started taunting his daughter Seema. He also not deposed that when his daughter came to her parental home then she was mentally disturbed. PW1 concealed about the mental illness of his daughter.
27. PW10 further clarified that she was mentally disturbed but not so much. He denied the suggestions that the deceased was mentally disturbed before marriage or that she was already under treatment for mental illness or that she committed suicide due to mental illness.State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 23 of 27
(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar)
28. PW16 deposed that when he reached at the spot then at the first floor he saw dead body of a young lady lying on the floor. He was informed by family members of the deceased that they had removed dead body from ceiling fan and had made it lie on the ground. Parents and brother of deceased were present there. Thus, when IO reached at the spot, after the death of the deceased, the crime scene was disturbed. He further deposed that father of the deceased handed over a chunni stating that deceased had committed suicide with the help of that chunni. No other person except parents and brother of the deceased were present in the house. Therefore, these people had given the version which has been recorded by the IO and SDM. Their versions are full of contradictions which are already discussed hereinabove.
29. During crossexamination PW16 deposed that crime team had reached at the spot at about 9.40 PM and there were 34 officials in the Crime Team. Incharge Crime Team was SI Anil Kumar and photographer was Ct. Harish. He further deposed that he did not remember how many photographs were taken by the photographer at that time. Photographs Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/11 perused carefully. In none of the photographs, which are proved as Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW 5/11, Chnni Ex. P1 by which deceased had committed suicide, was State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 24 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) visible in the photographs. In the room below the ceiling fan, it appears that there is double bed. The said double bed is above the ground floor, which appears to be about 1012 inches, as the double bed made elevated by putting object below the legs of the double bed. In Ex. PW1/D, there was no mention who had seen the deceased first and raised alarm and who had brought the body of the deceased on the ground.
30. Neither any photograph nor by any testimony of either of the witnesses, it has been explained how the deceased made her reach to the ceiling fan, hanged herself and to commit suicide by removing the said object such as stool etc. No evidence has been brought on record by either of the witnesses. Even in Ex. PW15/7 which is the site plan of the spot, nothing has been shown which suggests the link or the object, at the spot by which the deceased had made her approach up to the ceiling fan.
No eye witness has explained as such. Though in Ex. PW4/A, which is the scaled site plan wherein at PointD - where the plastic chair was found lying - but in Ex. PW15/7 chair has not been shown. Thus, it creates contradictions in two site plans itself, produced by the prosecution. Moreover, no witness has come before this Court and deposed about the presence of the chair at the spot where the deceased had committed suicide. Missing of this material link creates suspicion over the prosecution story.
State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 25 of 27(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar)
31. In view of observations made herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which indicate that the prosecution is not able to discharge its duty to prove its case beyond any doubt.
CONCLUSION :
32. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to discharge the burden of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons. Even demand of dowry soon before the death is also not proved.
33. Therefore, in view of the observations made herein above and in the interest of justice, all the three accused persons are given benefit of doubt and, thus, acquitted of the offences leveled against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties/counsel and endorsement on the documents, if any, be cancelled. In terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., all the accused are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for a period of six State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 26 of 27 (FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar) months for their appearance before the High Court of Delhi in the event the prosecution wishes to file an appeal challenging the present judgment. Ahlmad is directed to page and bookmark the file so as to enable the digitisation of the entire record.
File be consigned to Record Room.
JITENDRA Digitally signed by
JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
KUMAR Date: 2018.03.28 12:04:15
MISHRA +0530
Announced in open Court (JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA)
today i.e. on 20.03.2018 Special Judge (NDPS)/North
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Arjun Paswan etc. Page 27 of 27
(FIR No.288/11 PS Aman Vihar)