Delhi District Court
State vs . Raghu Rai Etc. on 8 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 378/07)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0546952007
State Vs. Raghu Rai etc.
FIR No. : 1188/07
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC
P.S. : Sultan Puri
State Vs. 1. Raghurai
S/o Baragi
R/o House no. 130, Aman Vihar,
Delhi.
2. Samrathi
W/o Raghurai
R/o House no. 130, Aman Vihar,
Delhi.
3. Ramesh
S/o Raghurai
R/o House no. 130, Aman Vihar,
Delhi.
Permanent address of all the accused :
Village Mangadpur,
Tehsil Joanpur Sadar,
P.S. Jarai Khana Nigam,
Joanpur, UP.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 1/60
2
Date of institution of case 05.10.2007
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 05.05.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment 08.05.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution as is borne out from the charge sheet is that on 17.07.20007, ASI Ranbir Singh received DD no. 11 B, which found mention that at about 5.45 am, Dr. R.B. Singh had informed telephonically from Brahm Shakti Hospital that one Sushma wife of Ramesh r/o H103, Aman Vihar had consumed some unknown poison and was brought by the family members and was declared as brought dead. Dr. R.B. Singh further requested that some officer be sent for investigation. On receipt of said DD, ASI Ranbir Singh proceeded to Brahm Shakti Hospital along with Ct. Joseph. On inquiry, it was revealed that Sushma had got married on 28.05.2007 to Ramesh son of Raghrai. He accordingly, informed Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh, who directed that family members of deceased be called. In the meantime, ASI Ranbir Singh called the crime team on the spot and got the same inspected and photographed. On 19.07.2007, Smt. Shanti Devi and Sh. Samar Bahadur parents of deceased were produced before the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh. Smt. Shanti Devimother of the deceased gave statement to the SDM that she had married her daugher Sushma with Ramesh son of Raghurai on 28.05.2007 and had given dowry much beyond her capacity in S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 2/60 3 the marriage of her daughter. However, her soninlaw (damad) Ramesh, his mother Samarthi and father Raghurai used to demand gaddi and Rs. 35,000/, which demands the parents of deceased were unable to meet and due to this, the deceased was harassed and finally done away with by these three persons. It appears that statement of Samar Bahadur, father of the deceased was also recorded, who stated that he had read the statement of his wife and agreed with the said statement. After completion of the inquest proceedings and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the parents of the deceased. The Executive Magistrate vide order dated 19.07.2007 directed that a case u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC be registered against all the three accused persons namely Rameshhusband, Sh. Raghurai/father inlaw and Smt. Shantimotherinlaw. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
2. Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charge for the offence under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed on 26.03.2008 against the accused Raghu Rai, Smt. Samarathi and Ramesh. However, all the three accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. As there was some typographical error in the charge, the said charge was amended on 29.02.2012. Neither ld. Addl. PP nor counsel for accused wanted any witness to be recalled for examination/crossexamination pursuant to amendment of charged and as such, arguments were heard.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 3/60 4
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 20 witnesses in all. Public witnesses :
4. The PW1 Smt. Shanta Devi is the mother of the deceased. She is also the complainant in the present case. She deposed as per the averments made in her complaint Ex. PW1/B, however, with some additions and alterations. She stated that accused Ramesh, Raghu Rai, Smrathi Devi, Mahender, wife of Mahender, Nanad Meena and Dharmender used to harass her daughter for meeting demand of Rs. 35,000/ and one splendor motorcycle made from her husband and that she came to know of this fact through her husband.
The PW1 further deposed that she came to know about death of her daughter on 17.07.2007 and that she reached Brahm Shakti Hospital along with her husband and jethani Sita Devi and found dead body of her daughter Sushma lying in the mortuary, which was identified by her vide memo Ex. PW1/A on 18.07.2007. She also proved her complaint/statement recorded by the SDM as Ex. PW1/B. PW1 further deposed that after seeing the dead body of her daughter at Mortuary, she had became unconscious and thereafter SDM asked her to give statement and that at that time the SDM did not record the names of the remaining accused persons, whose names were disclosed by her in her deposition in the court. She also deposed that when she came out of the mortuary, she found all the accused persons and the others, who had been named by her in the Court, were present outside the mortuary and she had asked the accused persons 'bhai yah kya S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 4/60 5 kiya'. One Kamlesh, son of bua of Ramesh, who was also present in the hospital with accused persons exhorted, 'Jo mane karna tha woh kar diya or tumene jho karna hai woh karlo".
The PW1 then deposed that her daughter had made a telephonic call to her husband on 07.07.2007 twice and told him that accused persons were demanding a motorcycle and cash amount of Rs. 35,000/ and were harassing her for that and this fact was told to her by her husband and that on 13.07.2007, her daughter had made a telephonic call to her and that at that time, PW1's daughter asked her why she was not sending her father to her house along with money and requested PW1 to send her father immediately to her house and that PW1 assured her daughter that she would send her father to her house after arranging for money and that she should not be worried.
During her crossexamination, PW1 stated that her deceased daughter had studied upto 12th. She denied the suggestion that they were informed before marriage that accused Ramesh had studied only upto 7th class. PW1 further deposed that marriage between the deceased Sushma and accused Ramesh was mediated by her Nanad Shiv Kumari. She denied that being informed by her nanad Shiv Kumari that family of the accused was a very good family like their family. The PW1 also denied that after the marriage, they came to know that accused Ramesh was not working anywhere and that family of the accused is a poor family. PW1 denied that her daughter wanted to marry with someone else or that PW1 and her husband were not ready for the said marriage or that there used to be quarrels in S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 5/60 6 their house due to this reason or that in order to prevent their daughter from marrying with someone else, they hastily got her married to accused Ramesh.
From further crossexamination of PW1, it is brought out that accused Ramesh and deceased Sushma had not met prior to the marriage. PW1 denied that said marriage was a simple one and claimed that around 21/2 to 3 lacs rupees had been spent in the said marriage and that they had given TV, double bed, fan, other household utensils and clothes and jewellery in the said marriage. PW1 could not state about the worth of jewellery given to deceased Sushma in her marriage and volunteered to state that her husband may be knowing about it. It is also brought out from the crossexamination of PW1 that photographs of the marriage of deceased and accused Ramesh had been taken and that photographs of dowry articles was also taken at that time. When questioned about the said photograph, PW1 that they were not with them, hence the same were not handed over to the police.
During her further crossexamination, PW1 termed it correct that after marriage, Sushma had gone to village Mangatpur, UP, which was the native village of the accused persons and that there was a custom in their family that many persons went to the matrimonial home of their daughter to fetch her back for the first time after marriage and that Sh. Panna Lal and Foofa of Sushma, along with other persons, went to the matrimonial home of their daughter to fetch her for the first time after marriage and that said persons did not inform PW1 about S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 6/60 7 any maltreatment meted out to their daughter on account of insufficient dowry. PW1 denied that no dowry demand was made prior to the marriage of Sushma and Ramesh. She volunteered to state that demands were made at the time of Sagan also and that she had informed the SDM about the said demand, but police had not asked about the same.
During her further crossexamination, PW1 stated that after death of their daughter, when they came to Delhi, they did not meet the accused persons and that at that time, body of their deceased daughter was lying in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial (SGM) Hospital. She also deposed that neither accused persons nor any of their family members met them at SGM hospital and that her statement was recorded by the SDM between 1011 A.M. The PW1 admitted that she had not made any complaint to the police or CAW Cell about the dowry demands raised by the accused persons before death of their daughter. She volunteered to state that she had asked for a week's time from the accused persons to meet their demands. PW1 also admitted that she had not brought any panchayat or neighbours to the house of the accused persons regarding dowry demand, before death of her daughter. PW1 was also confronted with addition and alterations in the names of the accused persons, who were alleged to have made demands of dowry as well as regarding demand of splendor motorcycle and exhortation made by one Kamlesh, son of Bua of accused Ramesh, about which she had deposed during her chiefexamination in the court. PW1 claimed that she had disclosed all these facts to the SDM, but when confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/B, PW1 S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 7/60 8 clarified that she had made complaint to the Superior Officers that SDM had not recorded her statement properly. However, she admitted that she had not refused to sign the statement recorded by the SDM.
It is also brought out from crossexamination of PW1 that accused Ramesh was not present, when she came out of the mortuary and on inquiry, it was revealed that he was admitted in the hospital. PW1 stated that this fact was told to her by her nanad Shiv Kumari and that neither she nor her husband had gone to meet Ramesh in the hospital. She was also confronted with her statement Ex. PW1/B, wherein the fact that a telephone call was made by her daughter on 07.07.2007 twice to her husband and her daughter telling him that accused persons are demanding a motorcycle and a cash amount of Rs. 35,000/ and assurance given by PW1 to her daughter to arrange for the same, were not recorded. PW1 also stated that her husband had not informed her whether he was aware of the purpose of demand of Rs. 35,000/ by accused persons and that she herself was not aware of the same. PW1 admitted that her daughter had not written any letter to her regarding the dowry demands made by her husband and inlaws. PW1 denied the suggestion that accused persons did not have any telephone connection installed in their house at that time, however, she could not tell number thereof. She admitted that no mobile phone was given by her to her daughter.
The PW1 denied that her daughter was not happy with the marriage with accused Ramesh as she was having superiority complex due to higher educational qualifications or that since accused Ramesh was unemployed and S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 8/60 9 inlaws of the deceased were from a poor family, her daughter did not adjust with accused Ramesh and other inlaws or that deceased used to pressurize accused Ramesh to obtain divorce and threatened that if she was not given divorce, the accused persons would have to face the consequences. PW1 was put a specific suggestion, in response to which, she stated that she was not aware, whether accused Ramesh had asked for water from deceased during the intervening night of 16/17.07.2007 or that after drinking the said water, he became unwell and started vomiting on the roof or that due to his condition, he had to be admitted in Brahm Shakti Hospital. PW1 denied that her daughter had given some poisonous substance to accused Ramesh in the water or that when her daughter felt that accused Ramesh may die due to the said poisonous substance, she got frightened and consumed something. PW1 denied that accused persons had never demanded any dowry from her daughter, nor her daughter was maltreated due to insufficient dowry.
5. PW8 Sh. Samar Bahadur is the father of the deceased. He deposed on the same lines of his wife Shanti Devi, who was examined as PW1. He also deposed that when his daughter came to parental home for one week after 10 days of marriage, she told that her husband Ramesh, her fatherinlaw Raghurai and her motherinlaw Samarthi had started demanding Rs. 35,000/ cash and a Super Splendor motorcycle in dowry and that when accused Raghurai came along with his sons Mahender and Dharmender to take his daughter back to S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 9/60 10 her matrimonial home, they repeated the said demand, upon which, PW8 assured them that he would fulfill the same later on and sent back his daughter to matrimonial home. PW8 further deposed that on 07.07.2007, he received the call from his daughter Sushma, who asked him as to why he had not visited her matrimonial home to fulfill the demand of the dowry made by accused persons and that all the accused persons were persisting with their demand of cash of Rs. 35,000/ and vehicle and that she was mentally tortured and that Sushma made a similar call to him on 13.07.2007 and at that time, PW8 assured her that he would pay a visit to her matrimonial home within 34 days to fulfill their demands.
The PW8 further deposed that on 17.7.2007, he received a telephonic call from his nephew Suresh and sister Shiv Kumari that condition of his daughter Sushma was very serious and that he should come to Delhi immediately. On this information, PW8, his wife and Sita Devi rushed to Delhi and when they reached house of sister of PW8, they came to know that Sushma was admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. When they reached there, PW8 saw dead body of his daughter Sushma. The PW8 further deposed that on seeing the dead body of his daughter, he became perturbed and his wife became unconscious. He alleged that his daughter Sushma had been given poison by accused Ramesh, Raghu Rai and Samrathi Devi as he could not fulfill their dowry demands. The PW8 then deposed that a case was registered after SDM recorded statement of his wife Shanti Devi and that when he came outside hospital, he met all the three accused S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 10/60 11 persons and when he asked accused Raghu Rai, what have you done, all of them replied that since PW8 had failed to fulfill the dowry demand, he had to face the consequences and they had done whatever, they had said. PW8 stated that he had identified the dead body of his daughter vide Identification Memo Ex. PW8/A and had received the same after postmortem for cremation. He also deposed about having handed over marriage card of his daughter to IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B and proved the marriage card as Ex. PW8/C. The statement of PW8, which had been recorded by the SDM was also proved as Ex. PW2/B. During his crossexamination by ld. Defence counsel, PW8 stated that he was running an Electro homeopathy clinic in the village since year 1998 and had income ranging from Rs. 2,000/ to 3,000/ per month to Rs. 15,000/ per month and that he had never paid Income Tax, nor was he holding a PAN Card.
When questioned about his deceased daughter, PW8 stated that she had studied upto intermediate and wanted to study further. He denied that deceased Sushma used to help him in his clinic or that she brought homeopathy medicine from the market. During his further crossexamination, PW8 stated that his sister Shiv Kumari, who stayed in Sultan Puri, was the mediator in the marriage between Sushma and Ramesh. He denied that his sister Shiv Kumari and Kamlesh Kumar, son of Bua of accused Raghu Rai, had informed PW8 that accused Ramesh had studied only upto 7th class. He volunteered to state that he had been informed that accused had studied upto intermediate. PW8 denied that financial status of family of accused persons was not very good or that all the three accused were working as S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 11/60 12 daily wagers or that Smt. Shiv Kumari had told PW8 prior to marriage that financial condition of accused persons was not good. He denied that deceased Sushma wanted to marry elsewhere due to which, there were altercation in the family or that to prevent Sushma from doing so, they married her to accused Ramesh against her wishes and so, she was not happy with her marriage.
On the issue of expenditure in marriage, PW8 stated that he had spent a sum of Rs. 3.5 to 3.75 lacs in the marriage and that he had arranged for the said amount of his own, without taking loan from any one and that he had given jewellery worth Rs. 72/73 thousand to deceased Sushma and jewellery worth Rs. 90,000/ to accused Ramesh. PW8 admitted that he had not handed over the receipt thereof to the police. He further claimed to have given TV, Fan and various gifts, 65 in number, to deceased Sushma in her marriage. He also stated that photographs of said gifted articles were not taken at the time of marriage, nor any videography was done. PW8 denied that he did not have capacity to spent such a amount of money in the marriage of his daughter or that he had performed his daughter's marriage in a very ordinary manner without giving any gift articles as stated by him.
From the further crossexamination of PW8, it is brought out that sagai and Tilak Ceremony of deceased Susham were performed by Panna Lal, elder brother of PW8 and that PW8 was not present at the time of said ceremonies. Though, PW8 had earlier stated that deceased Sushma was his only daughter, he S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 12/60 13 later stated that Sindoor Dan and Bhawar Ceremonies in marriage of deceased Sushma with Ramesh were performed by his daughter Sangeeta and not his sister Shiv Kumari.
The PW8 admitted that after the marriage, deceased Sushma had gone to village Mangatpur and remained there for seven or ten days and that thereafter, 5 to 7 persons including PW8 had gone to fetch her from her matrimonial home after the marriage for the first time and that PW8 was accompanied by his brother Panna Lal, two jijas Prem Chand and Tirath Raj Gautam and Parasnath and Vijay Bahadur. He admitted that no person from village Mangatpur informed them at that time that his daughter was being tortured by accused persons. PW8 volunteered to state that his daughter herself told him about the same.
When questioned regarding the statement given before the SDM , PW8 also claimed that his statement had not been recorded as per version given by him and that he had moved two applications firstly on 24.7.2007 and secondly on 30.07.2007 in the SDM's office in this regard and had also made complaint to the Commissioner of Police and Woman Commission against the SDM. He denied that he had told the SDM that he was adopting the statement given by his wife and claimed that he was very perturbed at that time and had signed whatever papers were given to him by the SDM. PW8 was also confronted with his statements made to the police i.e Ex. PW8/DA and Ex. PW8/DB, wherein words 'Splender Motorcycle' had not been mentioned and only the word 'Gaddi' was mentioned. Similarly, he was confronted regarding the demand of Rs. 35,000/ as stated by him S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 13/60 14 during his chiefexamination in the court. During further confrontation with the said statements, it was brought out that the factum of telephonic calls dated 7.7.2007 and 13.7.2007 was also not recorded in the said statements. The PW8 also deposed that accused persons were having mobile phone at the time of marriage and that he had not given deceased any mobile phone in her marriage. When confronted further with Ex. PW8/DA and Ex. PW8/DB, PW8 stated that neither police nor the SDM had recorded his statement. He rather stated that police may have recorded his statement on its own. PW8 could not give number of mobile phone of accused persons. He also stated that his family too had mobile phone at the time of marriage of his daughter. Further cross examination of PW8 brings out that he did not tell about the alleged dowry demands to Kamlesh, son of bua of accused Raghu Rai, or his neighbours or his brother Panna Lal. He admitted that deceased Sushma had not written any letter to him regarding harassment meted out to her by the accused persons. He volunteered to state that she had only made telephone calls. PW8 denied that his brother Panna Lal and his wife Sita Devi had not been made witnesses in the case as they had refused to depose falsely about the alleged dowry demands by the accused persons. PW8 could not tell the purpose, for which the accused persons were demanding Rs. 35,000/ in cash from him.
PW8 was questioned about hospitalization of accused Ramesh and showed his lack of awareness about it. PW8 denied that his deceased daughter Sushma was having superiority complex due to her higher qualification or that she S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 14/60 15 was pressurizing the accused Ramesh for divoce and threatened him that in case, he did not act as per her bidding, he would have to face consequences. The PW8 denied having knowledge of the fact that on the day of incident, accused Ramesh had asked deceased Sushma for water or that after drinking the said water, accused become unwell and went upstairs to the roof, where he vomited as the water given to him contained some poisonous substance or that due to deterioration of his condition, accused Ramesh was admitted in Brahm Shakti Hospital, where he remained admitted for 3/4 days. He also denied that when deceased Sushma came to know about the serious condition of the accused Ramesh, she got scared and consumed poison.
6. The PW16 Tirath Ram Gautam is the uncle (phoopha) of the deceased Sushma. He deposed that deceased was residing at her matrimonial home at H130, Aman Vihar and when, he visited matrimonial home of Sushma, she told him that her husband Ramesh Kumar, her motherinlaw Samarthi Devi and fatherinlaw Raghu Rai used to harass and mentally torture her to bring more dowry. He further deposed that on 17.07.2007, he received a telephonic call from Shiv Kumari, bua of deceased that Sushma had consumed some poison and on receiving this information, he reached Brahm Shakti Hospital and found the dead body of Sushma.
From the crossexamination of PW16, it is brought out that fact that Shiv Kumari had made telephonic call to him on 17.7.07 and he had gone to Brahm Shakti Hospital are not mentioned in his statement Ex. PW16/DA made to the S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 15/60 16 police. It is also brought out from crossexamination of PW16 that he resided in Nangloi and that he did not know the family of accused prior to marriage. PW16 was crossexamined on the point of visit to Mangat Pur, native village of accused persons, to fetch Sushma first time after marriage. PW16 stated that he had not gone to Mangatpur at that time as he had gone to Pune on 30.06.2007 and returned back after 3/4 days. When asked to give exact date of his visit to matrimonial home of deceased, PW16 stated that he might have gone on 05/06.07.2007 and that he had gone alone and that at that time, he had not told Shiv Kumari or Panna Lal (tau of deceased) that husband and inlaws of deceased were demanding dowry and that, he also did not talk to accused persons regarding their demand and nor did he made any complaint to the police regarding the said demands. PW16 also admitted that he had not made any complaint regarding the said dowry demands even after death of Sushma and made no efforts to meet the SDM in this regard. PW16 denied that he had not visited the matrimonial home of deceased Sushma at any point of time.
7. The PW17 Smt. Shiv Kumari is the bua of deceased, who had acted as mediator in marriage of deceased Sushma with accused Ramesh. PW17 deposed about the factum of marriage of deceased Sushma and accused Ramesh on 25.5.2007 and that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry, however, after the marriage, when Sushma went to her matrimonial home, S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 16/60 17 accused persons started demanding dowry from her. The PW17 deposed further that on 10.07.2007, when she visited matrimonial home of Sushma, she told her that accused Ramesh, Raghurai and Samarthi Devi used to torture her mentally and demanded dowry and that PW17 made Sushma to understand that when her father would come, they would talk in this regard with her husband and inlaws and that on 17.7.2007, Kamlesh, Sunita, Rita, Meena and Mahender and their neighbours came to house of PW17 at about 6.00 am and told PW17 to accompany them to Brahm Shakti Hospital as Sushma and Ramesh had consumed something. When, PW17 reached hospital, she was not allowed to meet Sushma and was told by Security Guard of the hospital that lady who was admitted was expired and the male patient was alive. PW17 then went to the accused Ramesh and asked him what they had done and on this, he told her "hamne jo karna tha kar liya, tumne jo karna hai kar lo"
During her crossexamination, PW17 stated that she was told about the match by one Kamlesh and had gone with Kamlesh to house of accused Ramesh to talk with his family and that she had not inquired about the educational qualification of accused Ramesh, but knew that he was not in govt. service. PW17 denied that Sushma wanted to marry someone else and due to this, quarrels took place in her house of that her brother had asked her to look for a boy for Sushma on priority basis. She also deposed that her brother had spent more than 3.5 lacs rupees in the marriage. From further crossexamination of PW17, it is S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 17/60 18 brought out that she did not give any statement to the police on 17.07.2007 or
18.07.2007. She rather stated that her statement was never recorded by the police. She denied having made any statement dated 24.07.2007 to the police. PW17 clearly stated that she had not disclosed either to the police or to the SDM that when she went to hospital, she was not allowed to meet Sushma and that accused Ramesh had told her "hamne jo karna tha kar liya, tumni jo karna hai kar lo". PW17 denied that deceased Sushma was not happy with her marriage with accused Ramesh or was pressurizing him for divorce and that when she had gone to meet accused Ramesh in the hospital, he had told PW17 that Sushma had given him some poisonous substance. PW17 denied that she had never visited the matrimonial home of Sushma, nor was she informed about any demand of dowry.
Official Witness :
8. The PW2 Sukhbir Singh is the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the family members of deceased Sushma, conducted inquest proceedings and directed registration of the FIR. He deposed that on 17.7.07, he had received a call from ASI Ranbir Singh of PS Sultan Puri that one Sushma wife of Ramesh r/o H130, Aman Vihar, had been brought to Brahm Shakti Hospital and was declared "brought dead" due to consuming some poisonous substance and that he directed ASI Ranvir to preserve the dead body at SGM S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 18/60 19 Hospital and to inform the parents of the deceased for the purpose of recording their statements. PW2 further deposed that on 18.07.2007, he went to SGM Hospital mortuary after receiving the information about the arrival of the parents of the deceased and that he got dead body of deceased identified by her parents and also recorded Ex. PW1/B i.e. the statement of Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of deceased through ASI Ranvir Singh and Ex. PW2/A i.e. Statement of Samar Bahadur @ Munna, father of deceased, who adopted statement of his wife Shanti Devi. He thereafter made endorsement regarding recording of both these statements in his presence Ex. PW2/C. He identified his signatures on Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/C at point A and signatures of ASI Ranvir Singh, who had recorded the said statement at point E thereupon. He also proved endorsement Ex. PW2/D vide which he had directed SHO of PS Sultan Puri to register a case against the accused persons. The inquest proceedings were proved as Ex.PW2/E and request made in writing to Incharge, Department of Forensic Medicine, SGM Hospital Mangolpuri to conduct postmortem on the dead body of deceased Sushma was proved as Ex. PW2/F. During his crossexamination, PW2 deposed that he had not been informed by the IO that accused Ramesh, husband of deceased was also admitted at Brahm Shakti Hospital and was unfit for making statement at that time. It is also brought out that PW2 did not make endorsement, regarding his visit to the spot of incident or his having got statements and proceedings recorded through ASI Ranvir Singh, due to pain in his hand, on endorsement made for registration of the case. In response to a specific question, S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 19/60 20 PW2 stated that neither Shanti Devi nor Samar Bahadur had made any complaint to him that their statements had not been recorded properly. PW2 could not remember, if said persons had made any complaint against him to his superior officers. PW2 specifically stated that he had recorded in his endorsement that statement of Shanti Devi was read over to her and she stated the same to be correct. PW2 denied that entire proceedings had been conducted by ASI Ranbir Singh at PS. Police witnesses :
9. PW3 Ct. Sanwar Mal Meena deposed that on 16.07.2007, on receipt of DD no. 11 B, he along with ASI Ranbir went to Brahma Shakti Hospital and found the dead body of deceased Smt. Sushma wife of Ramesh and that dead body was shifted and deposited at mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital in his custody. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with IO ASI Ranbir went to H. No. 130, Aman Vihar and on checking the said house, one glass containing blue coloured liquid was found and said glass as well as blue coloured liquid, lifted from the floor, was sealed, seized and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. During his crossexamination, PW3 expressed his inability to state, if accused Ramesh was also admitted in Brahm Shakti Hospital on that day. He also could not state as to how the dead body of deceased was got removed to SGM mortuary. From crossexamination of PW3, it is brought out that after seizing, glass and blue coloured liquid from the spot, IO ASI Ranbir Singh, had kept S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 20/60 21 the seal with him and had not handed it over to PW3 or any other witness.
10. PW18 ASI Ranbir Singh deposed that on 17.7.2007, on receipt of DD no. 11B Ex. PW18/A, he along with Ct. Sanwar Mal reached at Braham Shakti Hospital, where he found Sushma w/o Ramesh admitted there and that the doctor had declared her brought dead and he got preserved the dead body of Sushma in the mortuary of SGM Hospital and gave information to concerned SDM namely Sukhvir Singh. He further deposed that on 18.7.2007, parents of the deceased namely Smt. Shanti and Samar Bahadur reached the PS and he accordingly informed the SDM and took the parents of deceased to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where SDM Sukhbir Singh recorded the statements of Shanti Devi Ex. PW1/B and Samar Bahadur Ex. PW2/A and thereafter, SDM made endorsement on the statements of parents of deceased and gave directions to the SHO, PS Sultan puri to proceed as per law. He further deposed that after the postmortem, doctor handed over a sealed parcel, sealed with the seal of SGMH, containing viscera of deceased and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW11/A. He also deposed that initially he had reached the spot and a steel glass having some blue coloured liquid and some liquid which was lying on the floor and some substance of vomiting which were lying on the floor was taken into possession after sealing the same with the seal of RS vide memo Ex. PW3/A and that he had also called the crime team, who inspected the site and photographed the spot. He further deposed that on 19.7.2007, on the directions of SDM, a case was S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 21/60 22 registered and accused Raghu Rai and Samarthi Devi were arrested by IO Ins. Mohd. Iqbal vide arrest memos Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW14/A and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW14/B. He further deposed that on 31.08.2007, he along with SI Manohar Lal went to H. No. 130, Aman Vihar and there, SI Manohar took the rough notes at his instance.
From the crossexamination of PW18, it is brought out that he has not mentioned the fact that Ct. Sawarmal accompanied him to Brahm Shakti Hospital or the fact that Smt. Soorviri Devi, bua of deceased had given him address of parents of the deceased or that he had sent constable Sawarmal for the preservation of the body of the deceased or that he had seized articles/exhibits from the spot in his statement Ex. PW18/DA recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C by the IO. It is also brought out from the crossexamination of PW18, he had not joined any person from neighbourhood in the investigations of the case and even though, 3/4 ladies were present at the spot of occurrence, when he reached there, he did not make any inquiry from them.
When specific questions were put to PW18 regarding accused Ramesh, he deposed that he had come to know from the hospital that husband of deceased was also admitted in the hospital. He denied that he had received DD no. 8 prior to receiving DD no. 11B or that pertaining to present case or that he had gone to hospital on receiving DD no. 8 and found accused Ramesh, husband of deceased admitted there or that said accused was found unfit for S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 22/60 23 statement. He also denied that the doctor had handed over the gastric lavage, fluid and sample seal qua accused Ramesh to him in the hospital. PW18 was confronted with Mark DX, i.e. MLC of accused Ramesh, however, he denied the receipt of receiving of these articles thereupon. During his subsequent crossexamination, PW18 stated that he had handed over MLC of accused Ramesh to the IO and shows his inability to state, if the same had been placed on record by the IO. PW18 admitted that he did not make effort to make inquires from accused Ramesh, during the period investigations of the present case remained with him, and that he had not informed the SDM regarding admission of accused Ramesh in the hospital. PW18 denied that he had deliberately withheld from placing DD no. 8 and MLC of accused Ramesh on record or that he had deliberately concealed the fact of admission of accused Ramesh in the hospital from the SDM.
In his further crossexamination of PW18 corroborated the statement of PW2 Sh. Sukhbir regarding the fact that the statement of Smt. Shanti Devi, Samar Bahadur and the inquest proceedings were written by PW18, who stated that he had done so upon the dictation given by the SDM. PW18 however, could not give any reason, why PW2 had not prepared these documents. He denied that the SDM had not come to mortuary on that day or that he had not recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased or that PW18 himself had recorded the statement of parents of deceased, which were later got attested from the SDM by him.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 23/60 24
11. PW20 Ins. Iqbal Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case and he deposed about investigations carried by him and various documents prepared by him during the course of investigations. He also deposed about arrest of accused Raghu Rai and Samarthi on 19.07.2007. He also deposed that on 20.07.2007, he had gone in search of accused Ramesh and that he found that accused Ramesh was admitted in Brahm Shakti Hospital since 17.7.2007 and that when he and Ct. Sunil reached near Brahm Shakti Hospital on 20.07.2007, accused Ramesh was seen coming from hospital and that said accused tried to slip away from there on seeing the police, but was overpowered by Ct. Sunil and was thereafter arrested.
During his crossexamination, PW20 also admitted that 2/4 public persons were present at the spot, when he reached there on 17.7.2007. He did not clarify, if he had made any efforts to join said public persons in investigation. He also deposed that he had been informed by ASI Raghbir Singh on 17.7.2007 that accused Ramesh was admitted in hospital. He however, stated that he did not try to contact Ramesh on that day or on 18/19.7.2007. PW20 expressed his ignorance if any DD had been lodged at his PS regarding admission of accused Ramesh in Brahm Shakti Hospital. He admitted that he had not collected MLC of accused Ramesh. He volunteered to state that treatment summary of accused was obtained from concerned hospital and was placed on police file.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 24/60 25 During his further crossexamination, PW20 deposed that ASI Ranbir never produced DD no. 8A before him and he himself had not inquired about the MLC of accused Ramesh from ASI Ranbir and that ASI Ranbir had not produced sample seal or any exhibits collected from the hospital before PW20 in respect of accused Ramesh and that he had neither made inquiry from MHCM regarding deposit of any such exhibits and sample seal, nor were any such exhibits or sample seal sent to FSL Rohini. It is also brought out from the crossexamination of PW20 that he had met Samar Bahadur, father of deceased on 19.7.2007 and that during the period from 19.7.07 to 23.7.07, he did not record statement of any relative of Samar Bahadur.
12. PW14 HC Sunil Dutt deposed that on 19.7.2007, he joined the investigation in the present case with Ins. Mohd. Iqbal and ASI Ranbir Singh and reached at H. NO. 130, Aman Vihar, where accused Raghurai was found present and after interrogation, accused Raghurai was arrested vide memo Ex. PW14/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW14/B and on interrogation, accused Raghurai made a disclosure statement Ex. PW14/C. He further deposed that on 20.07.2007, he again joined the investigation of this case with the IO and reached in front of Brahm Shakti Hospital, Kanjhawala and from there, accused Ramesh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW14/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW14/E and on interrogation, accused S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 25/60 26 Ramesh made a disclosure statement Ex. PW14/F. He further deposed that on 6.9.2007, he again joined the investigation of the present case with the IO and in his presence, complainant Samar Bahadur @ Munna had handed over three photographs Ex. PW14/G1 to G3 and marriage card to IO and same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/B. Crime team witnesses :
13. PW6 Ct. Dalbir Singh, photographer of Mobile Crime Team deposed that on 17.07.2007, on the request of IO, he along with I/C crime team SI M.D. Meena reached at House no. H130, Aman Vihar, Sultan Puri, Delhi and on the instructions of IO, he took six photographs Ex. PW6/A1 to A6 from different angles, developed the same and handed over to the IO and negatives of which are Ex. PW6/B1 to B6.
14. PW7 SI MD Meena, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team deposed on the same lines as of PW6 Ct. Dalbir Singh. He further deposed that on inspection of the spot, he found that there was a cot in the room and one steel glass containing some liquid of blue colour and some of it, was scattered on the ground and on the ceiling (roof) of the room, contents of vomiting were scattered. He further deposed that he gave suggestions to the IO to seize the same and send for expert opinion and on his directions, the photographs were taken. He proved his Inspection report as Ex. PW7/A. S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 26/60 27 FSL Expert :
15. PW15 Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry) deposed that on 24.08.2007, he had examined the contents of four sealed parcels and proved his report as Ex. PW15/A and deposed that Ex. 1A was found to contain aluminium phosphide, Ex. 1B and 1C were found to contain phosphide and exhibits 2, 3 and 4 were found to contain 'copper sulphate'. Formal witnesses :
16. PW10 Ct. Joseph Kutti deposed that on 24.8.07, on the instructions of IO, he took the exhibits of the present case in sealed condition along with FSL form to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 291/21/07 and deposited the same there and on return, he handed over the receipt to MHCM. He further stated that so long as the exhibits remained in his custody, he did not tamper the same.
17. PW9 W/HC Runa Rathore had joined the investigation of the present case on 19.7.07 and she deposed that on that day she along with ASI Ranbir Singh, Ct. Sunil and IO went to House No. H130, Aman Vihar, where accused Samarthi w/o Raghu Rai and accused Raghu Rai were found present and after interrogation, accused Samarthi Devi was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A and PW9 conducted her personal search vide memo Ex. PW9/B and disclosure statement of accused Samarthi Devi was recorded, which is Ex. PW9/C. S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 27/60 28
18. PW11 Ct. Shree Chand deposed that on 15.7.2007, he joined the investigation of the present case with ASI Ranbir Singh and reached at Mortuary of SGM Hospital and after postmortem, doctor handed over three sealed pullandas along with sample seal and same were handed over to IO and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A and later on, IO deposited the exhibits with MHCM.
19. PW12 HC Dal Chand deposed that on 19.7.2007, he was working as duty officer at PS Sultan Puri and on that day, at about 4.10 pm, on receipt of rukka from SHO, PS Sultan Puri, he recorded the FIR No. 1188/07 u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC of this case and he has proved the computer generated copy of the FIR as Ex. PW12/A and endorsement made by him on rukka as is Ex.PW12/B.
20. PW13 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that he was working as MHCM at PS Sultan Puri during the relevant time and that pullandas, exhibits and personal search of the accused were deposited in the mal khana on different dated i.e. on 17.7.2007, 18.07.2007 and 19.07.2007 by police officials and that he made relevant entries in register no. 19. He proved the copies of different entries made by him in register no. 19 as Ex. PW13/A, Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW13/C. He further deposed that on 24.08.2007, exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Joseph vide RC no. 291/21/07 and he also proved the copy of RC as Ex.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 28/60
29
PW13/D. He further deposed that on 7.3.2008, FSL result was received along
with exhibits at PS Sultan Puri.
21. PW19 SI Manohar Lal deposed that on 31.8.2007, on the directions of IO Ins. Mohd. Iqbal, he along with ASI Ranbir Singh reached the spot i.e. H. No. H130, Aman Vihar, where he inspected the spot at the instance of ASI Ranbir Singh and took rough notes and measurements of the spot, on the basis of which, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW19/A and handed over the same to IO. Medical evidence :
22. PW5 Dr. R.B. Singh, CMO of Brahma Shakti Hospital deposed that on 17.07.2007, at about 5.30 pm, patient Sushma w/o Ramesh was brought by her motherinlaw and after examination, he declared patient Sushma brought dead vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. During his crossexamination, PW5 was put to Mark DX, i.e. photocopy of MLC dated 17.07.2007 of Ramesh son of Raghurai and admitted that it was in his handwriting and was signed by him. PW5 could not state anything about whereabouts of original of Mark DX. He admitted that he had not mentioned about any smell of Aluminium Phosphide on the MLC of patient Sushma, nor had he mentioned regarding presence of symptoms of Aluminium Phosphide in the said MLC. He also deposed that copper sulphate poisoning is totally different from Aluminium Phosphide poisoning. PW5 S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 29/60 30 could not remember, if he had informed the police regarding admission of patient Ramesh in hospital.
It is relevant to mention here that after examination of PW1 Shanti Devi, mother of the deceased Sushma, Ld. Addl. PP moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C for summoning Mahender, Dharmender and Meena as accused, but the said application was dismissed by learned Predecessor vide order dated 16.07.2008.
23. PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, CMO, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, deposed that on 18.07.2007 at about 11.30 pm, he conducted the postmortem on the body of Sushma vide PM report Ex. PW4/A, which was sent by SDM Sukhbir Singh and that on external examination, he found abrasions on left side of elbow point of size 1 x 1 cm and that he preserved the viscera and handed over the same to the IO. He further deposed that after examination of FSL report, he gave his opinion Ex. PW4/B regarding cause of death that death was due to aluminum phosphide (ALP), a solid fumigant pesticide, insecticide and poison.
During his crossexamination, PW4 stated that copper sulphate is different from Aluminium Phosphide (ALP) and that ALP has repugnant smell on the basis of which, it can be identified. The PW4 also stated that he had not mentioned about smell in his PM report.
24. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of accused persons were S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 30/60 31 recorded u/s 313 CrPC. The accused stated that they are innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. Accused Ramesh has stated that he belongs to a poor family and his wife was more educated than him and as such, she was having superiority complex due to her higher education and could not adjust in a poor family and that she was not happy with this marriage as she wanted to marry somewhere else and she used to pressurize him for divorce and when he refused, she used to threaten him of facing dire consequences. He further deposed that on the intervening night of 16/17.7.2007, he asked his wife for a glass of water and she gave him a glass of water and after taking water, he became unwell and went to the roof and started vomiting there. He further suspected that water contained some poisonous substance and due to deterioration of his condition, he was admitted in Brahm Shakti Hospital and after knowing his serious condition, his wife also consumed some poisonous substances. Accused wished to lead defence evidence and examined DW1 Dr. R.B. Singh and DW2 HC Dal Chand in order to prove the defence taken by him.
25. DW1 Dr. R.B. Singh, CMO, Braham Shakti Hospital deposed that on 17.7.2007, one Ramesh s/o Raghu Rai was brought to casualty at 4.20 am with alleged history of ingestion of some unknown substance i.e. unknown poison and after giving treatment, he was transferred to ICU. He further deposed that gastric lavage sample was sealed and was handed over to the police along with MLC and same was received by police official vide endorsement at point A on S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 31/60 32 MLC Ex. DW1/A and the patient was declared unfit for statement vide endorsement at point C. He further deposed that ASI Ranbir Singh came to the hospital vide DD no. 8 dated 17.7.2007.
26. DW2 HC Dal Chand brought the original DD no. 9B dated 17.7.2007, copy of which is proved as Ex. DW2/A, and deposed that vide the said DD, patient Ramesh s/o Raghurai r/o H block, Aman Vihar, was admitted in hospital by his father with alleged history of consuming of some unknown substance and this information was given by Dr. R.B. Singh of Brahm Shakti Hospital on telephone and said DD was sent to ASI Ranbir Singh through Ct. Sudhanshu.
27. Arguments have been addressed by learned defence counsel for the accused persons as well as learned Additional PP for the State. Written arguments/submissions were also filed by the ld. Defence counsel in support of their arguments. Learned Additional PP has contended that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has contended that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which go to the root of the prosecution case and that the fact that none of the public witness have proved the factum of demand of dowry or any cruelty or harassment meted out to her prior her death. It is contended that in these facts and circumstances prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused and it is prayed that accused be acquitted of S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 32/60 33 charge u/s.498A/304B IPC. Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgments in support of his evidence :
(i) Narender Singh Arora vs. State (Govt. of Delhi) revision petition no.
555/2003, decided on 01.09.2010
(ii) Ganesh Y. Bhutekar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Cri. L.J 1221
(iii) Sonu Arora vs. State Crl. A. 241 of 1997, DOD : 21.07.2010 (Delhi High Court)
(iv) Vishwanath and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 Cri. L.J. 1913
(v) Meka Ramaswamy vs. Dasari Mohan and Others, AIR 1998 SC 774
(vi) Pyare Lal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 [4] JCC 3030
(vii) Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2007 Cri. L.J. 2300
(viii) Hans Raj Sharma vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Crl. A. no. 33941/2005, decided on 02.03.2010 (Delhi High Court)
(ix) Ms. Anu Gill vs State, Crl. M.M. no. 1405 of 1999 DOD 30.5.2001 (Delhi High Court)
(x) Tirath Kumar @ Raj Rani & Anr. vs. State of Haryana 2005 (4) Crimes 174 (SC)
(xi) Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2006 (1) CCC 706 (SC)
(xii) Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl. Appeal no. 22 of 1973 DOD 24.09.1973 S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 33/60 34
28. I have heard the learned Additional PP as well as learned counsel for accused and also perused the record carefully.
29. In order to bring home charge u/s 304B IPC, prosecution is required to proved as under :
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances ;
(ii) such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage ;
(iii) she must have been 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 ;
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
30. Further, in order to prove charge u/s 498A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove as under :
(a) the accused is the husband or the relative of the husband of the victim woman, and
(b) he subjected the woman to cruelty by
(i) any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 34/60 35 limb or death (whether mental or physical) of the woman ;
(ii) harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
31. The question which arises before the court is whether deceased died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with accused Ramesh, and whether the same was as a result of harassment and cruelty on account of dowry. If the death of deceased was caused by burns or bodily injuries or otherwise than under normal circumstances :
32. The first ingredient required to be proved by prosecution is that the deceased died an unnatural death within the seven years of her marriage. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW5 Dr. R.B. Singh and PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra. Prosecution has also examined FSL Expert PW15 Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry). By examining the aforesaid PWs i.e PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW5 Dr. R.B. Singh and PW15 Sh. Amarpal Singh and documents i.e. MLC Ex. PW5/A, PM report Ex. PW4/A and FSL report Ex. PW15/A, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that deceased Sushma Devi had died an unnatural death due to poisoning on 17.07.2007.
Further, from the testimony of its witnesses, PW1, PW8, PW15, PW16, prosecution has succeeded in proving that deceased Sushma was married to S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 35/60 36 accused Ramesh on 28.05.2007. Since deceased Sushma died an unnatural death on 17.7.2007, within two months of her marriage with the accused Ramesh, the prosecution has established that deceased Sushma died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with accused Ramesh.
Whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and death occurred within seven years of marriage of the deceased :
33. In order to prove the allegations of cruelty and harassment by accused Ramesh, husband of deceased Sushma, Raghurai and Samarthi Devi, Parentinlaws of the deceased, the prosecution has examined four material witnesses namely PW1 Shanti Devi, mother of deceased, PW8 Samar Bahadur, father of the deceased, PW16 Tirath Raj GautamPhopha of deceased and PW17 Shiv Kumar, bua of the deceased. There are however, considerable improvements, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of these material witnesses examined by the prosecution.
34. PW1 Shanti Devi deposed that after marriage, accused persons Ramesh, Raghurai and Samarthi Devi and Mahender, wife of Mahender, Nanad Meena and Dharmender started harassing her daughter and demanded Rs. 35,000/ and one splendor motorcycle and that she was told about it by her husband.
35. PW1 also stated that her daughter had made call twice to her husband S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 36/60 37 on 7.7.2007 and told him that accused persons were demanding motorcycle and cash amount of Rs. 35,000/ and were harassing her for it and that she was told about this fact by her husband.
36. PW1 then stated that on 13.7.2007, her daughter again gave a call, which was attended by her and when her daughter asked her why she was not sending her father with money, PW1 assured deceased Sushma that she would do so after arranging for money.
37. PW1 also deposed regarding exhortation made by one Kamlesh son of Bus of Ramesh by stating that when she came out of the mortuary after SDM had recorded her statement, she found the accused and other persons, whose name had been disclosed by her in her statement made in the court, outside the mortuary and asked them 'bhai ye kaya kiya' and at that time, Kamlesh responded by saying, 'jo maine karna tha, vo kar diya'.
38. PW1 proved her statement made to the IO as Ex. PW1/A and that made to SDM as Ex. PW1/B. She, however, stated that her statement had not been completely recorded by the SDM, who failed to note the names of all the accused persons.
39. During her crossexamination, though PW1 stated that she had made complaint against the SDM to his superior officers, she could not produce copy of S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 37/60 38 any such complaint. Further, PW1 stated that a sum of about two and a half/three lacs were spent in the marriage of deceased Sushma with accused Ramesh and that clothes, jewellery as well as articles like T.V, double bed, etc. were given in the marriage. PW1 could not give worth of the jewellery given to the deceased. She also deposed that photographs of the marriage as well as dowry articles were taken, but when asked about whereabouts of the same, stated that they were not with them without giving any explanation as to whereabouts of the said photographs.
40. It is also clear from the crossexamination of PW1 that deceased had gone to the native village of accused persons, after marriage, as per customs in their family and when, her parental family members including Sh. Panna Lal, Phoopha of deceased and other persons went to fetch her, no one informed PW1 anything about any maltreatment meted out to Sushma.
41. PW1 stated during her crossexamination that at the time of Shagan also, demands of dowry were made by accused persons, but it turned out that she had not stated about this fact to the SDM at the time of recording of her statement Ex. PW1/A. There is also discrepancy regarding her claim of exhortation by Kamlesh, son of bua of accused Ramesh, meeting her outside mortuary of SGM Hospital. In her examinationinchief, PW1 claimed that all the accused persons, including those named by her in the court and Kamlesh son of bua of accused Ramesh had met her, outside mortuary of SGM Hospital, however, in her cross S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 38/60 39 examination, PW1 stated that neither accused persons nor any of their family members met them at SGM Hospital and that accused Ramesh was not present and that she has been told by Shiv Kumari, her nanad that accused Ramesh was admitted in the hospital. Several improvements in her statements Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B were brought out during crossexamination of PW1, which included the numbers of phone calls made by deceased to her husband on 7.7.2007, naming additional persons responsible for demands of dowry and acts of cruelty against her deceased daughter mentioning that accused persons were demanded "splendor motorcycle" instead of "gadi".
42. PW8 Samar Bahadur, father of the deceased has also supported the case of the prosecution and stated in his examinationinchief that deceased was treated with cruelty and harassed, when he and his wife were unable to meet the demands of dowry raised by the accused persons. PW8 deposed that first such demand of Rs. 35,000/ cash and super splendor motorcycle was made when his daughter came for a visit to parental home for a week after ten days of marriage and that the said demand was again repeated by accused Raghu Rai and his sons Mahender and Dharmender, when they came to take deceased back to her matrimonial home and that PW8 had assured said persons that he would fulfill their demand and had sent deceased back to her matrimonial home. The next occasion, when demand was made was when PW8 received a phone call from his daughter on 07.07.2007 and lastly, when his daughter gave him a call on 13.7.2007, when he assured her that he S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 39/60 40 would visit her matrimonial home within 3 or 4 days to fulfill the demands.
43. PW8 also deposed about exhortation by the accused persons. He however, states that he had met all the three accused, outside the hospital, when he came out after recording of statement of his wife by SDM and that at that time, he had asked Raghurai, as to what have you done and all of them replied that since PW8 had failed to fulfill their demands, he had to face consequences and they had done whatever they had said. It is noteworthy that neither PW1, nor PW8 have mentioned that they were threatened of any dire consequences or that accused persons had threatened to kill deceased Sushma, in case their alleged demands of cash and motorcycle were not fulfilled.
44. Regarding the expenditure in marriage, PW8 deposed that he had sent a sum of Rs. 3.5 to 3.75 lacs in the marriage from his funds and that he had given jewellery worth Rs. 7273 thousands to deceased Sushma and jewellery worth Rs. 90,000/ to accused Ramesh and that he had also given other articles and various gifts in 65 in numbers to deceased Sushma in marriage. He admitted that he had not handed over receipt of any of these articles to the police. He also stated that neither the photographs of gifted articles were taken, nor any videography was done. It is also brought out from crossexamination of PW8 that he was not present at the sagai and tilak ceremony of deceased Sushma and the said ceremonies were S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 40/60 41 performed by his elder brother Panna Lal.
45. On the point of visit to native village of accused persons to bring Sushma back for the first time after marriage, PW8 stated that he was accompanied by his brother Panna Lal, two jijas Prem Chand and Tirath Lal Chauhan and Parasnath and Vijay Bahadur. He also admitted that at that time, no one from village Mangatpur informed them that his daughter was being tortured by accused persons, though he claimed that he had been told about it by his daughter, he failed to specify, when and where, the same was told to him by deceased Sushma. PW8 also claimed to have made complaints against the SDM by moving application dated 24.7.2007 and 30.07.2007 and by filing separate complaints with commission of police and Woman commission, but could not produce copy of any such complaints. It is rather, brought out that PW8 had made improvements in his statement made to the police, Ex. PW8/DA and Ex. PW8/DB, wherein he had mentioned only the word 'gadi' and not splendor motorcycle. There was also improvement in the said statement regarding the telephone calls dated 7.7.2007 and 13.7.2007. When the improvements made by PW8 in his statement in the court and that made by him vide Ex. PW2/B, wherein he had merely stated that he agreed with statement given by his wife and was adopting the same, and statements made by him to the police Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C were brought out, PW8 stated that neither the police nor the SDM had recorded his statements and that police may have recorded his statement on its own.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 41/60 42
46. Further, while PW1 deposed that accused persons were having a telephone connection installed in their house, PW8 claimed that the accused were having a mobile phone and that his family too had a mobile phone. Neither PW1, nor PW8 could give details of said phone numbers.
47. PW16 Tirath Ram Gautam, is the uncle (Phoopha) of deceased. He deposed that when he visited matrimonial home of Sushma, she told him that her husband Ramesh Kumar, motherinlaw Samarthi Devi and fatherinlaw Raghurai used to harass and mentally torture her to bring more dowry. From the cross examination of PW16, it is clearly brought out that he was not knowing the family of accused prior to marriage between deceased Sushma and accused Ramesh. PW16 could not clarify as to what was the occasion for him to visit the matrimonial home of the deceased and that too all by himself. When, asked to specify the date of his visit, PW16 stated that it might have been 5/6.07.2007. PW16 admitted that he had not told about the alleged demands, about which deceased had told him to any one nor did he talk to accused persons regarding the said demands. He also did not make complaint to the police or to meet SDM regarding the said demands upon demise of deceased Sushma. PW16 categorically denied having visited Mangat Pur, native village of the accused persons, to fetch Sushma first time after marriage.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 42/60 43
48. PW17 Shiv Kumari is the bua of deceased, who had acted as mediator in the marriage of deceased Sushma with accused Ramesh. This witness specifically deposed that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons at the time of marriage. She deposed that said demands were raised after marriage. She also deposed that when she had visited the matrimonial home of Sushma on 10.07.2007, the deceased told her that accused Ramesh, Raghu Rai and Samarthi Devi used to torture her mentally and demanded dowry and that she had assured the deceased that when her father came, they would have talk with her husband and inlaws. The PW17 also mentions about exhortation, but according to her, it was accused Ramesh, who in response to her query as to what they had done stated "Hamne jo karna tha, kar liya, tumne jo karna hai kar lo" and that this was stated by accused Ramesh, while he was lying admitted in hospital. From the crossexamination of PW17, it is brought out that she had not informed the police or that SDM about the alleged exhortation made by accused Ramesh. She claimed that her brother had spent more than Rs. 3.5 lacs to 4 lacs in the marriage of deceased Sushma.
49. From the testimonies of PW1, PW8, PW16, and PW17, it is brought out that marriage of deceased Sushma with accused Ramesh was arranged through PW17 Shiv Kumari, bua of deceased but no efforts were made at that time by parents of deceased to verify about educational, professional and family S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 43/60 44 background/status or accused Ramesh, nor did the deceased Sushma and accused Ramesh had any occasion to meet prior to their marriage. Further, neither PW1, nor PW8 or any other parental family member of deceased Sushma made any effort to lodge complaint against accused persons for making alleged demands or to call panchayat etc. to ensure that such demands were not made or if made, then deceased Sushma was not harass and treated with cruelty for the same.
50. The deceased herself had not written any letter to her parents regarding the manner in which, she was treated with cruelty and was harassed and if so, by whom. No specific instance of any cruelty or harassment meted out to deceased Sushma has been given by any of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution. In all, the allegations of cruelty and harassment made against the accused persons are of vague and general nature. Moreover, from the testimony of PW1, it is clear that except for the phone call, alleged to have been received by her on 13.7.2007, there was no direct talk between her and deceased Sushma regarding alleged demands of dowry and harassment by the accused persons. She has clearly stated that she had been told about the said demands by her husband i.e. PW8. There are further discrepancies in the testimony of PW1 and PW8 regarding the phone calls made by deceased on 17.7.2007 and 13.7.2007. The PW8 in contradiction to what had been stated by PW1 stated that he had received a call from deceased on 7.7,.2007 and a similar call on 13.7.07, whereby he was informed that accused persons were demanding Rs. 35,000/ cash and a vehicle and deceased S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 44/60 45 Sushma was being tortured for the said demands. He has also mentioned about visit of deceased Sushma to her parental home after about ten days of marriage and claims that at that time, also, she had told that her husband Ramesh, fatherinlaw Raghu Rai and motherinlaw were demanding Rs. 35,000/ in cash and a super splender motorcycle and that when accused Raghurai came along with his sons Mahender and Dharmender to take the deceased back to the matrimonial home, they repeated the said demand to PW8. Had any such incident happened in the parental home of the deceased Sushma, ten days after her marriage, then PW1 being the mother of deceased Sushma, would have certainly mentioned about it in her statement to the police or SDM or at least while deposing in the court.
51. There is also discrepancy in the statements of these witnesses as to amount spent in the marriage of deceased Sushma. While PW1 claims that a sum of Rs. 21/2 to 3 lacs was spent, PW8 states that he had spent a sum of Rs. 3.5 to 3.75 lacs, PW16 is silent on this aspect and PW17 states that more than Rs. 3.5 lacs were spent in the marriage of deceased Sushma with accused Ramesh. As already observed hereinabove, receipt of none of the articles, alleged to have been given in marriage, has been furnished by parents of deceased to the police, nor has the same been filed in the court. Further while, PW1 stated that photographs of marriage and dowry articles were taken, whereas PW8 claimed that neither photographs were taken, nor videography was done. PW8 apparently forgot that he had handed over three photographs of marriage and a marriage card of deceased S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 45/60 46 Sushma with Ramesh to the IO, who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. PW14 HC Sunil Dutt, who had joined the investigations with the IO and is a witness to seizure memo Ex. PW8/B has proved the said photographs as Ex. PW14/G1 to G3. A perusal of the said photograph lays bare all claims of lavish and extravagant marriage made by PW1, PW8 and PW17. It rather shows that marriage between deceased Sushma and accused Ramesh was performed in a very simple manner and even the bride and bridegroom are dressed in a very simple manner, which belies the testimonies of PW1, PW8 and PW17. This is coupled with the fact that Sh. Panna Lal, the elder brother of PW8, who had performed the Tilak and Sagai ceremony and had also gone to fetch deceased Sushma from the native village of the accused persons for the first time, after marriage, has not been examined, while PW16, who is claimed to have accompanied PW8 during the said visit to the native village of accused persons denies having gone there at all. In the case of Ganesh Y. Bhutekar (supra), it has been observed that deceased wife was alleged to have committed suicide on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Disbelieving the testimony of close relatives, it was observed that when testimony of close relatives basically impairs credibility of their claim, the independent evidence is absolutely necessary to lend assurance to the claim made by such witnesses.
52. It was further held in the said judgment that : "... For raising presumption under S. 113A of the Evidence Act, it S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 46/60 47 is imperative for the prosecution to establish that a marriage woman was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is also imperative for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the cruelty was on account of nonfulfillment of illegal demands. This necessarily means that the factum of demand is also to be established independently. The harassment on account of nonfulfillment of demand must also be proximate to the time of death. .."
Similar observations have been made in the case of Pyarelal (supra).
53. Further as already observed hereinabove, there has been considerable delay in recording statements of witnesses PW16 Tirath Ram Gautam and PW17 Smt. Shiv Kumari. The PW20 has stated that he did not record statement of any of relative of Samar Bahadur, father of deceased, from 19.7.2007 to 23.07.2007, even though, he met Samar Bahadur on 19.07.2007. The delay in recording the statements of PW16 and PW17 remains unexplained, which is fatal for the prosecution case. In the case of Sonu Arora (supra), it has been held that : "... delay in recording the statement of eyewitness is no ground for doubting and discarding the case of the prosecution on this ground alone. But, the delay puts the court on guard to search for an explanation, if any. If the delay is explained, testimony of the witness cannot be rejected on this ground. If the delay remains unexplained, there is a possibility of embellishment creeping in and a coloured or distorted version of the incident being introduced by the witness, which can prove to be fatal to the prosecution..."
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 47/60 48 Similar observations have been made in case of Vishwanath and Another (supra).
54. Further, it has been held in Narinder Singh Arora (supra) that : "..... Suicide is known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human being for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicides is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. ..."
Thus, it was observed that there is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her inlaw's house or her parent's house has to be because she was suffering at the hands of her husband or inlaws.
Similar observations have been made in case of Tirath Kumar (supra) and Harjit Singh (supra).
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 48/60 49
55. Moreover, as already observed hereinabove, testimony of PW16 Shiv Kumari makes it clear that there was absolutely no demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage. Though, PW1 stated that demand was made at the time of sagai, but this fact is not corroborated by testimony of PW2, PW16 and PW17. This also creates doubt regarding any subsequent demand by the accused persons. In the case of Meke Ramaswamy (supra), the deceased wife died within 4 months of marriage, evidence of parents of deceased and her friend was to the effect that deceased committed suicide as a result of cruelty of husband and inlaws for not meeting dowry demands. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case where, there is no evidence of demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage, is a circumstance which find favour with innocence of the accused.
Similar observations have been made in case of Biswajit Halder (supra).
56. In Appasaheb and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "........ In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 49/60 50 penal provision, it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transactions knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning..... A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."
This judgment of Apex Court was discussed in case of Hans Raj Sharma (supra) and it was held that : ".......In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.."
It has been further held that : "......... If demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation of any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 50/60 51 valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry..." Such Cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death :
57. As already discussed hereinabove, the glaring disparity in the testimonies of PW1, PW8, PW16 and PW17, do not lead to conclusion that deceased Sushma was treated with cruelty and harassment, in connection with demand of dowry after her marriage with accused Ramesh or that such cruelty or harassment was meted out to her soon before her death.
OTHER DISCREPANCIES IN THE PROSECUTION CASE :
58. In the present case, undoubtedly, a deceased Sushma had died an unnatural death, but the circumstances and the manner, in which the prosecution claims, it had happened is doubtful. The deceased Sushma was taken to Braham Shakti Hospital on 17.7.2007 and PW5 Dr. R.B. Singh examined her and prepared her MLC Ex. PW5/A. He has clearly observed in the said MLC "No apparent external visible injury" The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who except for an abrasion on the left side elbow joint of size 1 x 1 cm, did not find any external injury on the dead body of the deceased. The opinion regarding the cause of death was kept pending till chemical analysis report of viscera was received by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 51/60 52 The viscera of deceased and other exhibits were examined at FSL by PW15 Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer (FSL), who observed as under :
(i) Exhibit 1A i.e. stomach and piece of small intestine with contents was found to contain aluminium phosphide.
(ii) Exhibits 1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney and 1C i.e. blood sample were found to contain phosphide.
(iii) Exhibits 2 i.e. one steel glass having bluish crystalline substance sticking inside it, Ex. 3 i.e. concrete cemented material having bluish greenish deposits on it & Ex. 4 i.e. concrete cemented material having bluishgreenish deposits were found to contain 'copper sulphate'.
59. Thus according to PW15, three different chemicals namely aluminium, phosphide and copper sulphate were found in exhibits of the case sent to FSL for examination. Further, as per PW15, smell of phosphide gas is garlic like and the same is liberated from Aluminum phosphide, which has trade name of Celphos and Copper Sulphate and Aluminum Phosphide are two different chemical substances.
60. After receiving the report of the chemical examiner, further report of PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra was obtained by the IO on 18.7.2007, who after examining the FSL report, gave opinion that cause of death of deceased was due to Aluminum Phosphide (ALP), a solid fumigant pesticide, insecticide and poison, S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 52/60 53 vide report Ex.PW4/A. PW4 admitted during his crossexamination that ALP can be identified by its repugnant smell and that he had not mentioned about any such smell in his PM report. The evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW15, clearly establishes that deceased Sushma had died due to Aluminum Phosphide poisoning.
61. There are however, further revelations made by PW5 and PW15. PW5 Dr. R.B. Singh has admitted during his crossexamination that he had examined Ramesh son of Raghu Rai aged about 25 years male vide MLC marked as Mark DX dated 17.7.2007. As regards the original MLC, PW5 could not state, if the original thereof was available. This witness was examined again as DW1. During his examination as DW1, Dr. R.B. Singh deposed that on 17.7.2007, one Ramesh son of Raghu Rai was brought in casualty at 4.20 am with alleged history of ingestion of some unknown poison. The patient was managed by gastric lavage, IV fluids and other supportive and specific treatment and was transferred to ICU under Dr. Rahul Shama. He also deposed that gastric lavage sample was seized and handed over to the police along with MLC. The MLC, which was earlier marked as Mark DX, while recording testimony of DW1, was exhibited as DW1/A and endorsement thereupon of receiving of gastric lavage by police official was proved at point encircled A, the signatures of DW1 were proved at point B and the endorsement declaring the patient "unfit for statement" was proved at point encircled C. It was further stated by DW1 that ASI Ranbir Singh came to hospital vide DD no. 08 dated 17.7.2007.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 53/60 54
62. It is noteworthy that IO ASI Ranbir Singh was examined as PW18 and during his crossexamination, he was specifically asked about DD no. 8 and also admission of accused Ramesh at Brahm Shakti Hospital. Though, PW18 admitted that he knew that accused Ramesh was admitted in the hospital, he denied that he had received DD no. 8 or that on receipt thereof, he had gone to hospital and found accused Ramesh, husband of deceased, unfit for statement or that Doctor had handed over his gastric lavage, fluid and sample seal to PW18. Later, PW18 deposed that he had taken the MLC of accused Ramesh, but claimed that same was handed over by him to the IO. The IO Ins. Mohd. Iqbal, who was examined as PW20, admitted that he had been told on 17.7.2007 by ASI Ranbir Singh that accused Ramesh was admitted in Brahm Shakti Hospital, however, surprising, he made no efforts to visit the hospital, from 17.7.2007 to 19.07.2007 to find out about the condition of accused Ramesh or to verify about the correct facts regarding the incident from him. According to PW20, he made no efforts to collect the MLC of accused Ramesh either from the hospital or from ASI Ranbir and even the treatment summary of the accused, which was obtained from the concerned hospital was placed on police file. No inquiry was made by PW20 regarding exhibits collected by ASI Ranbir qua accused Ramesh or to send the same to FSL for examination.
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 54/60 55
63. The defence taken by the accused persons is that deceased Sushma could never adjust in her matrimonial home and that she used to threaten accused Ramesh of dire consequences, in the event, he failed to accede to her demand for divorce and that on the fateful day, accused Ramesh had asked deceased Sushma for a glass of water and that Sushma gave accused Ramesh water mixed with some poisonous substance, after drinking which, condition of accused Ramesh became serious and he had to be taken to hospital. On seeing this, deceased Sushma became frightened and consumed some poisonous substance herself. In order to prove their defence, the accused have also examined HC Dal Chand as DW2. This witness produced original record of DD no. 9 B dated 17.7.2007, vide which, it was recorded that Dr. R.B. Singh had informed from Brahm Shakti Hospital from telephone that Ramesh son of Raghu Rai was admitted in hospital by his father with alleged history of consuming some unknown substance. He further deposed that copy of said DD was sent to ASI Ranbir Singh through Ct. Sudhnshu.
64. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the SDM concerned who was examined as PW2 was never informed that the husband of deceased i.e. Accused Ramesh was also admitted in hospital or that he was in a serious condition and unfit for statement. In fact, for some reasons best known to PW18 ASI Ranbir Singh and PW20 Ins. Mohd. Iqbal, the material documents pertaining to admission of accused Ramesh, his treatment and cause of S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 55/60 56 admission in hospital had been concealed from the court.
65. The MLC of accused Ramesh Ex. DW1/A clearly shows that he was admitted in hospital vide DD no. 8 at about 4.00 am by his father and information in this regard was given by Dr. R.B. Singh to PS Sultan Puri and DD no. 9 B dated 17.7.2007 was registered, which was assigned to ASI Ranbir Singh. It appears that in the mean time, deceased Sushma was also admitted in hospital vide MLC Ex. PW5/A at 5.30 am and Dr. R.B. Singh gave information in this regard to PS Sultan Puri vide DD no. 18 B i.e. Ex. PW18/A, which too assigned to ASI Ranbir Singh for investigations. Though, every effort was made by ASI Ranbir Singh to conceal the fact that there were two cases of poisoning, that of accused Ramesh and deceased Sushma, on the same day, in quick succession, the exhibits from him from the spot revealed a contrary picture than one tried to be put forth by the prosecution. The said exhibits were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and PW15 Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer who examined the same, stated that he found Aluminum Phosphide in Ex. 1A, Phosphide in exhibits 1B and 1C and copper sulphate in exhibits 2, 3 and 4. As per the final report, given by PW4, Dr. Manoj Dhingra, the cause of death of deceased Sushma was Aluminum Phosphide poisioning. PW4 has specifically stated that Aluminum Phosphide and Phosphide have different gases and that copper sulphate is different from Aluminum Phosphide, which is having a repugnant smell, from which, it can S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 56/60 57 be identified. There is no explanation, how the exhibits collected from the spot by PW18 contained more than one chemical namely Aluminum Phosphide, Phosphide and copper sulphate, when as per the report of chemical analysis, deceased had died of Aluminum phosphide poisoning only.
66. Further, there is no explanation as to how these three chemical which are strong insecticides, fumigant pesticides and poisons found way inside the house of the accused persons. There is nothing on record to show as to what was the source from which these poisons originated and who brought the same to the house. It is also noteworthy that Aluminum Phosphide has a very strong repugnant smell and unless a person consumes it voluntarily, it is difficult to administer it without using physical force. As already observed hereinabove, no external injury was found on the person of deceased Sushma, when she was examined by the concerned doctor vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. In these circumstances, it was for the prosecution to explain how the said poison was administered to the deceased without using even an iota of force and that too subsequent to poisoning of accused Ramesh.
In case of Rajbir vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 589, the deceased wife died of organophosphorus poisoning. While dealing with the said case, the Hon'ble court has observed : "....The report of the Chemical Examiner shows analysis of stomach, small and large intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and blood from heart revealed organo phosphorus compound. However, it is a great pity that the Chemical Examiner did not report the quantity S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 57/60 58 of poison consumed by the deceased. Prosecution also did not try to establish that the quantity consumed was sufficient to kill or the time that elapsed between consumption of poison and death, if the quantity of poison was known. Therefore, the reconstruction of the events which led the deceased to consume poison remains inaccurate and incomplete. Be that as it may, in the present case, the deceased did die of organophosphorus poisoning. This poison is not something which could be successfully administered as a poison by a murderer because its pungent smell would immediately lead to its rejection by the victim. Nine times out of ten, organo phosphorous poisons are used suicidally and not for homicidal purpose ; this appears to be the case herein. .."
67. It is apparent that the entire investigations have been carried out to conceal the actual truth from the court and to give colour of dowry death to poisoning of deceased Sushma, even though her husband Ramesh was also afflicted by poisoning for which, no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl. Appeal no. 22 of 1973 DOD 24.09.1973 that : "...... Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principal has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 58/60 59 accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt...."
68. In the present case also, two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced and the view which is favourable to the accused has its genesis in documentary and ocular evidence led by the prosecution itself. This is despite the fact that consistent efforts were made by the IOs ASI Ranbir Singh and Ins. Iqbal Singh to conceal the material facts from the court.
Judgment of Anu Gill (supra) as relied upon by the learned defence counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
69. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the judgments (i) Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 3 SCC 726 (ii) Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (2007) 15 SCC 415 (iii) Dhian Singh and another vs. State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 759 (iv) Smt. Shanti and Another vs. State of Haryana (1991) I SCC 371 (v) Pawan Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana (1998) 3 SCC 309. I have perused the said judgements, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, same are not applicable thereto.
70. In the nutshell, in view of the above discussion and observations and S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 59/60 60 having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit all the three accused persons - Raguraj, Samarthi and Ramesh of the charged offences, giving them the benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 08.05.2012 ) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 378/07 State vs. Raghu Rai etc. Page Nos. 60/60