Delhi District Court
State vs . Pankaj And Others 1. Pankaj on 1 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02) , DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 461/2017
Assigned to Sessions on 04.08.2017
FIR No. 220/2017
Police Station Tilak Nagar
Under Section U/S 498A/306/34 IPC
Charged Under Section U/S 498A/306/34 IPC
State Vs. Pankaj and others 1. Pankaj
s/o. Late Sh. Mangal Singh.
r/o. WZ25, 80, GAJ, Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Prince
s/o. Late Sh. Mangal Singh.
r/o. WZ25, 80, GAJ, Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Shiv Kumar (Proceeding abated
vide order dated 21.08.2018)
s/o. Sh. Dalip Singh.
r/o. WZ25, 80, GAJ, Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
Arguments heard on 01.06.2019
Date of Judgment 01.06.2019
Final Order Acquitted
S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 1 of 10
JUDGMENT:
1. The brief facts of the present case are that on 01.05.2017 DD No. 28BP, Tilak Vihar, PS Tilak Nagar was recorded wherein it was stated by the caller i.e. Constable Pramod from DDU Hospital that one lady Sonam w/o. Pankaj aged about 24 years, r/o. WZ25, 80 sq. yards, Tilak Vihar has consumed poison (chuhe maarne ki dawa), was brought by one Pankaj in the hospital. Said DD was marked to ASI Sukhbir Singh and who reached DDU Hospital and obtained MLC no. 3606/17 dated 01.05.2017 pertaining to patient Sonam w/o. Pankaj. However, he could not recorded the statement of the patient as she was under
treatment. Thereafter, IO obtained DD no. 29 BP, Tilak Vihar in which patient Sonam w/o. Pankaj declared dead during the treatment and thereafter, ASI Sukhbir Singh informed the Senior Police Officer, SDM Patel Nagar and parents of Sonam w/o. Pankaj (hereinafter called deceased Sonam) and also called Crime Team and obtained the SOC report. Thereafter, SDM of the area recorded the statement of the parents of deceased Sonam and dead body was handed over to them after the post mortem.
2. Thereafter, ASI Sukhbir Singh recorded statement of Smt. Manoj Kumari, w/o. Rukam Singh, mother of deceased Sonam and got the FIR registered by preparing rukka by SI Umesh and after registration of the FIR investigation was handed over to ASI Sukhbir Singh under the supervision of SHO concerned. Thereafter, ASI Sukhbir Singh obtained the exhibits from the hospital and seized the same and deposited in the Mallkhana and also prepared site plan at the S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 2 of 10 instance of complainant Smt. Manoj Kumari. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, IO obtained the post mortem report of the deceased wherein cause of death was opined "The cause and manner of death is kept pending till the report of FSL of blood and viscera". During the course of investigation IO arrested accused Pankaj s/o. Late Sh. Mangal Singh, husband of deceased Sonam, other accused Prince s/o. Late Sh. Mangal Singh and Shiv Kumar, s/o. Sh. Dalip Singh and recorded their disclosure statement and produced them before the concerned court where accused persons were sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, IO sent all the exhibits to FSL, Rohini for expert opinion. Thereafter, IO prepared the report u/s. 173 (2) Cr.PC by putting all the three accused persons under column 11 and charging them u/s. 498A/306/34 IPC and filed the same in the court for judicial verdict.
3. After making the compliance of Section 207208 Cr.PC as offence u/s. 306 IPC was exclusively triable by court of session, case was committed to this court through Ld. District and Sessions Judge on 04.08.2017. It is pertinent to mention that during the proceedings of this case and before framing of charge accused Shiv Kumar expired on 03.06.2018 and vide order dated 21.08.2018 proceeding against proceeding against accused Shiv Kumar abated and on the same day after hearing arguments on charge separate charge was framed against accused Pankaj and Prince u/s. 498A/306/34 IPC to which both the accused persons have not pleaded guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded for recording of the evidence of the prosecution. In order to prove charge prosecution examined in as much as five witnesses out of total six S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 3 of 10 witnesses cited by the IO. Out of all the five witnesses examined PW4 and PW5 Smt. Manoj Kumar and Rukam Singh, parents of deceased Sonam are the only star witnesses to prove the charge against accused persons. Evidence of both the witnesses were recorded on 14.05.2019 and as both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of prosecution was closed by declining the request of Ld. Addl. PP.
4. The statement of both the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record against them. Thereafter, I have heard final arguments from both sides.
5. Before proceeding further, the relevant testimony of the prosecution witnesses are as under:
(i) PW1 is ASI Ramesh Kumar, who has proved the FIR Ex. PW1/A and the endorsement thereon as Ex. PW1/B as well as certificate u/sec. 65 B of the IEA and is a witness of formal nature.
(ii) PW2 SI Bhadriya, DD writer and have proved DD no. 28 BP as Ex. PW2/A, DD no. 29 BP as Ex. PW2/B and photocopy thereof as PW2/C and PW2/D and is a witness of formal nature.
(iii) PW3 HC Sardar Mal (inadvertently examined as PW1 but will be treated as PW3) is a witness of investigation joined with the IO and approved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Shiv Kumar and Prince as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F respectively and he is also a witness of formal nature.
6. I have heard the Ld. State Counsel and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. I have given thoughtful consideration to the evidence and the arguments advanced from both the sides. It is argued on behalf of State that both the material witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case as they have been won over by the defence though police witnesses has supported S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 4 of 10 the prosecution version. Hence, it is argued that in view of the testimony of prosecution witnesses appropriate order be passed.
7. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of accused persons that from the testimony of complainant Manoj Kumari who is examined as PW4 and PW5 Rukam Singh, it is crystal clear that both the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case by police as none of these witnesses has deposed any incriminating against both the accused persons. It is further argued that all the three police witnesses have deposed falsely only with a view of maintain the chain of investigation at the dictation of IO. It is also argued that even otherwise all the police witnesses are of formal nature and there is nothing incriminating in the testimony of these witnesses and their version is falsify by the testimony of complainant. Hence, in view of these reasons, it is argued that both the accused persons are innocent and liable to be acquitted from the charge.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal. Emphasis supplied upon case titled as Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes
55. S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 5 of 10
9. Prosecution examined PW4 and PW5 as eye witnesses as well as star witnesses to prove its case. The relevant portion of testimony of PW4 and PW5 are reproduced as under: PW4 is Smt. Manoj Kumari, mother of deceased Sonam who deposed that "Sonam since deceased was my daughter and her first marriage was solemnized with one person namely Raja r/o. Karawal Nagar, Delhi but due to some reasons my daughter had taken divorced from her husband. After about one week of the said divorce my daughter Sonam (since deceased) had left my house without informing us. We searched for her here and there and made inquiry from our relatives about her whereabouts but we did not find any clue. Thereafter we made a complaint at PS Bharat Nagar regarding her missing. After about two days of her missing my daughter Sonam was recovered by the Bharat Nagar Police and she was brought to police station Bharat Nagar alongwith accused Pankaj and his family members. In the police station on inquiry my daughter had voluntarily deposed before the police that she had voluntarily married with accused Pankaj and had left her house of her own and she had given in writing to the police in this regard and thereafter my daughter was taken away by accused Pankaj and his family to her matrimonial house in the area of Tilak Nagar and she started residing there since that date. We had no link with my deceased Sonam till her death. She had never made any complaint or informed us against any of the ill treatment made to her by accused Pankaj and Prince or any of their family members. On one occasion she met us me of sudden in the market and on my inquiry she told me that she is living happy married life with accused Pankaj at her in laws house.
On 01.05.2017 we received information from the police station Tilak Nagar regarding the death of my daughter Sonam, thereafter we reached at the police station Tilak Nagar and came to know that my daughter Sonam had died after consuming some poisonous substance. I had identified the dead body of my daughter Sonam in DD Hospital Mortuary where my statement was recorded in this regard by one Magistrate. Same is Ex. PW4/A and I put my thumb impression on the same at point X. On 02.05.2017 I was called by the Magistrate and he inquired me about the facts of the incident and about the detail of the marriage of my daughter Sonam and other facts from me and I told the Magistrate the same facts as deposed by me today mentioned above stating that my daughter was living a happy married life and also informed that we had not having visiting terms with the family of the accused after her love marriage with the accused Pankaj. My statement was not recorded by the Magistare, however, one person accompanying the Magistrate had obtained my thumb impression on some papers in the presence of the police officials. Ex. PW4/B bear my thumb impression at point A. (Vol.) whatever was written in the said statement was not read over to me when my thumb impression was obtained. The signature of my husband was also obtained on the same paper despite the fact that he also revealed the same thing S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 6 of 10 as stated by me mentioned above.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP request to cross examine the witness as witness is rescieling from her statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate and Police.
Heard. Allowed.
It is incorrect to suggest that I had given my statement Ex. PW4/B voluntarily and disclosed all the true facts to the Executive Magistrate and leveled allegations against both the accused persons.
I had not stated to the Executive Magistrate that when my daughter Sonam was recovered by the police from Pankaj and was brought to PS Bharat Nagar she was forced to write by the accused persons in connivance with the police to write "shadi main apni marzi se kar rahi hoon", confronted with portion A to A in statement Ex. PW4/B where it is so recorded.
I had not stated to the Executive Magistrate that seven days prior to present incident my daughter Sonam was beaten by police persons or that she had lodged report in PP Tilak Vihar or that the police has sent my daughter with accused person by pacifying her and Pankaj confronted with portion B to B in statement Ex. PW4/B where it is so recorded.
I had not stated to the Executive Magistrate that as and when my daughter find any time to talk with us on mobile phone she used to tell me that accused persons used to gave beatings and not providing food to her or that accused used to kept her locked inside the room before leaving for his duty, confronted with portion C to C in statement Ex. PW4/B where it is so recorded.
I had not stated to the Executive Magistrate that on 01.05.2017 at about 5:00 pm my daughter Sonam had talked with me on telephone and told me that accused Pankaj is beating her by catching hold her hairs or that when I told her to give the phone to Pankaj so that I talk him accused Pankaj told me by exhausting "mein acchi tarah rakh raha hoon" , thereafter she had switched phone with mobile phone, confronted with portion D to D in statement Ex. PW4/B where it is so recorded.
It is incorrect to suggest that my daughter was given poison by both the accused persons or that both the accused person are responsible for the death of my daughter Sonam. Remaining portion of the statement i.e. from portion E to E in statement Ex. PW4/A read over to the witness which she denied having made to the Executive Magistrate. I cannot tell as how my daughter had consumed poison and about the reason behind the same. Police had not recorded my statement in this case.
It is wrong to suggest that my statement was recorded by the police in this case on 03.05.2017 wherein I had leveled allegation of harassment and cruelty meeted out to my deceased daughter by accused person.
Statement Mark X portion A to A read over to the witness which witness denied having made such statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that my deceased daughter Sonam was subjected to cruelty or harassment by both the accused persons immediately after marriage with accused Pankaj. It is further wrong to suggest that she had committed suicide by consuming poison due to said harassment meeted out to her by the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 7 of 10 that I am concocting a false version by stating that my thumb impression was obtained by some officials without disclosing the contents of Ex. PW4/A to me, only due to the fact that a matter has been compromised between me and accused persons out of the court or that I am deposing falsely and not disclosing true facts today in the court."
PW5 is Sh. Rukam Singh, father of deceased Sonam who deposed that "Sonam (since deceased) was my daughter and her first marriage was solemnized with one person namely Raja r/o. Karawal Nagar, Delhi but due to some reasons my daughter had taken divorced from her husband. After about one week of the said divorce my daughter Sonam (since deceased) had left my house without informing us and this fact was told to me by my wife when I return from my work. We searched for her here and there and made inquiry from our relatives about her whereabouts but we did not find any clue. Thereafter we made a complaint at PS Bharat Nagar regarding her missing. After about two days of her missing my daughter Sonam was recovered by the Bharat Nagar Police and she was brought to police station Bharat Nagar alongwith accused Pankaj and his family members. In the police station on inquiry my daughter had voluntarily deposed before the police that she had voluntarily married with accused Pankaj and had left her house of her own and she had given in writing to the police in this regard and thereafter my daughter was taken away by accused Pankaj and his family to her matrimonial house in the area of Tilak Nagar and she started residing there since that date. We had no link with my deceased Sonam till her death. She had never made any complaint or informed us against any of the ill treatment made to her by accused Pankaj and Prince or any of their family members. On one occasion she met to my wife all of sudden in the market and on my inquiry she told my wife that she is living happy married life with accused Pankaj at her in laws house. This fact was told to me by my wife.
On 01.05.2017 we received information from the police station Tilak Nagar regarding the death of my daughter Sonam, thereafter we reached at the police station Tilak Nagar and came to know that my daughter Sonam had died after consuming some poisonous substance. I had identified the dead body of my daughter Sonam in DD Hospital Mortuary where my statement was recorded in this regard by one Magistrate. Same is Ex. PW5/A and I put my signature impression on the same at point X and after the post mortem the dead body of deceased was handed over to accused Pankaj.
On 02.05.2017 I alongwith my wife were called by the Magistrate and he inquired me and my wife about the facts of the incident and about the detail of the marriage of my daughter Sonam and other facts from me and we told the Magistrate the same facts as deposed by me today mentioned above stating that my daughter was living a happy married life and also informed that we had not having visiting terms with the family of the accused after her love marriage with the accused Pankaj. Myself and my wife had not given any statement to the Magistrate, however, one person accompanying the Magistrate had obtained my signature and thumb impression of my wife on some papers in the presence of the police officials. Ex. PW4/B already exhibited bears my signature at point B. S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 8 of 10 (Vol.) whatever was written in the said statement was not read over to me when my signatures was obtained.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP request to cross examine the witness as witness is resiling from his statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate and Police.
Heard. Allowed.
It is incorrect to suggest that my wife had given statement Ex. PW4/B voluntarily and disclosed all the true facts to the Executive Magistrate and leveled allegations against both the accused persons or that I also told the Executive Magistrate that I am agree with the statement of my wife which is already Ex. PW4/B recorded by Executive Magistrate or that I had signed the same at point B. It is wrong to suggest that I am not intentionally disclosing this fact today in the court that I have been won over by the accused persons.
It is wrong to suggest that my statement was recorded by the police on 21.05.2017 and the same is marked as Mark Y. It is wrong to suggest that I have mentioned my statement to the police that both the accused persons namely Pankaj and Prince used to beat my deceased daughter Sonam after her marriage with Pankaj. It is further wrong to suggest that accused Pankaj used to beat my deceased daughter after consuming liquor or that this fact was told to me by my deceased daughter on telephone prior to the incident. None of the accused was arrested by the IO in my presence, however, my signatures were obtained by IO on some blank papers or on some partly written papers. Statement mark Y portion A to A read over to the witness and witness denied having made such statement to the police. It is wrong to suggest that my statement was recorded by the police in this case on 21.05.2017 wherein I had leveled allegation of harassment and cruelty meeted out to my deceased daughter by accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as the matter has been compromised out of the court."
10. From the testimony of PW4 and PW5, no incriminating evidence to satisfy the ingredients of section 306 IPC i.e. for abatement of suicide and section 498A IPC i.e. for subjecting a women to cruelty have come one record. PW4 and PW5 who are parents of deceased Sonam have not levelled any allegation of cruelty or abatement by which deceased Sonam was compelled to commit suicide by consuming poison. Rather both the witnesses have deposed that deceased Sonam never made any complaint to them against both the accused persons of illtreatment or cruelty at any point of time. Both these witnesses have also deposed whenever they met deceased Sonam prior to her death she has S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 9 of 10 always told them that she is living happily with accused Pankaj. Hence, there is not iota of evidence on record to prove charge against both the accused persons u/s. 498A/306/34 IPC.
11. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case so as to complete the chain much less to prove the same beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, both the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. Hence, order accordingly.
12. In view of the statutory requirement of section 437A Cr.P.C. both the accused persons are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court, for a period of six months, to appear before the appellate court, if so required.
13. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by POORAN POORAN CHAND CHAND Date: ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN 2019.06.06 16:29:30 +0530 COURT ON THIS 01.06.2019 (POORAN CHAND) ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE02 (WEST):DELHI S.C. No. 461/2017 State Vs. Pankaj and others Page 10 of 10