Delhi District Court
State vs . Padam Bajpayee on 26 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 141/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0174602013
State Vs. Padam Bajpayee
S/o Mahesh Chand
R/o BG7/154, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No. 79/2012
Police Station: South Rohini
Under Sections: 498A/304B Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions Court: 23.7.2013
Date on which orders were reserved: 25.4.2014
Date on which judgment announced: 26.4.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations between 20.4.2006 to 17.4.2012 at House No. BG7/154, Paschim Vihar, Delhi the accused Padam Bajpayee being the husband of Garima subjected her to cruelty by making illegal demands of dowry from her and harassed her and gave beatings to her on account of dowry. It has also been alleged that on 17.4.2012 at about 5:50 PM at Ring Road Mall, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi being harassed by the accused Padam Bajpayee, Garima committed suicide otherwise than under normal St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 1 of 79 circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused Padam Bajpayee.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2012 at about 8:23 PM DD No. 78B was received at Police Station South Rohini pursuant to which SI Manoj Dalal along with Ct. Pushpender reached at the spot i.e. Ring Road Mall, Sector 3 Rohini where on the floor they saw blood was scattered and on inquiry they came to know that injured was removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Ct. Pushpender was at the spot to the preservation of the spot whereas SI Manoj Dalal went to to Jaipur Golden Hospital where he collected the MLC of Unknown lady who was declared brought dead by the doctors. In the meanwhile the Crime Team was called who reached the spot and took the photographs. The PCR van also reached at the spot and the Incharge PCR Van ASI Mulakh Raj handed over one brown color ladies purse belonging to injured to SI Manoj Dalal and on checking the said purse, one PAN card in the name of Garima Vajpayee was found which purse along with PAN card was taken into possession.
Blood was also lifted from the spot with the help of cotton and was taken into possession. The Incharge of the Mall handling the CCTV was asked to preserve the visuals of the CCTV installed on the seventh floor after which the said visuals were converted into a CD which CD taken into St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 2 of 79 possession. SI Manoj Dalal again reached Jaipur Golden Hospital where the accused Padam Vajapayee met him who gave the name and particulars of the deceased after which the Investigating Officer sent information to the parents of deceased through his own mobile phone after which he again came back at the spot where SHO Police Station, South Rohini and other police officials were found present.
(3) On 18.04.2012 the parents of the deceased came into Police Station and they were taken to the concerned SDM Office and the SDM Sh. Ramphal Singh who recorded the statements of father and mother of the deceased wherein they made allegations against the accused Padam Bajpayee of having tortured and harassed Garima for or in connection with the demand of dowry. On the basis of the statement of the parents of the deceased, the present FIR was registered. The accused Padam Bajpayee was then arrested from his residence i.e. BG7/154, IInd Floor, Paschim Vihar. On 19.04.2012 the concerned SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and after the postmortem examination the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her relatives. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Padam Bajpayee in the Court.
CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Sections 498A/ 304B Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 302 Indian Penal Code were settled against St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 3 of 79 the accused Padam Bajpayee, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witness:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
1. PW1 HC Vijender Police Witness - Duty Officer
2. PW2 Insp. Manohar Lal Police Witness - Draftsman
3. PW3 HC Virender Police Witness - MHCM
4. PW4 Ct. Sanjay Police Witness who had deposited the exhibit with the FSL
5. PW5 Ct. Rajesh Police Witness who had deposited the exhibit with the FSL
6. PW6 Ct. Ravinder Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
7. PW7 ASI Mulak Raj Police Witness - PCR Van Incharge
8. PW8 Ct. Ram Avtar Police Witness who has proved the seizure memo of hard disc
9. PW9 SI Imteyaz Alam Police Witness who has proved the seizure memo of parcel handed over by the doctor
10. PW10 Ct. Mahender Police Witness - Computer Operator
11. PW11 Retd SI Prem Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
12. PW12 Sh. R.P. Singh The then SDM
13. PW13 Prem Babu Shukla Public witness - Father of the deceased
14. PW14 Dr. Ashwani Kumar Official witness from Jaipur Golden Hospital
15. PW15 Sh. M.L. Meena FSL Expert St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 4 of 79
16. PW16 Sh. Indresh Kumar FSL Expert Mishra
17. PW17 Israr babu Nodal Officer - Nodal Officer Vodafone
18. PW18 Vishal Gaurav Nodal Officer - Bharti Airtel Ltd.
19. PW19 Abhishek Mishra Public Witness who had handed over the footage of CCTV system
20. PW20 Vikas Sharma Public Witness who had shifted the deceased to Hospital
21. PW21 Smt. Munni Devi Public Witness - Mother of the deceased
22. PW22 Amit Kumar Public Witness who had shifted the deceased to Hospital
23. PW23 Akrant Public Witness who had shifted the deceased to Hospital
24. PW24 Dr. Vijay Dhankar Autopsy Surgeon
25. PW25 Sarvesh Shukla Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
26. PW26 Ct. Pushpender Police Witness who had reached the spot pursuant to the information
27. PW27 SI Manoj Dalal Police Witness - Initial Investigating Officer
28. PW28 Insp. Jai Prakash Police Witness - Investigating Officer List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Vijender HC Vijender
2. PW1/A DD No. 37A
3. PW1/B FIR
4. PW1/C Endorsement on rukka
5. PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of Inspector Manohar Insp. Manohar
Lal Lal
6. PW2/A Site plan
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 5 of 79
7. PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Virender HC Virender
8. PW3/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. no. 3627/12
9. PW3/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. no. 3631/12
10. PW3/C RC 38/21/12
11. PW3/D FSL Receipt
12. PW3/E RC 39/21/12
13. PW3/F FSL Receipt
14. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Sanjay Ct. Sanjay
15. PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Rajesh Ct. Rajesh
16. PW6/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Ravinder Ct. Ravinder
17. PW6/A1 to Photographs of scene of crime
A10
18. PW6/B Negatives of the photographs
19. PW7/1 Affidavit of evidence of ASI Mulak Raj ASI Mulak Raj
20. PW7/A Seizure memo brown Purse
21. PW8/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Ram Avtar Ct. Ram Avtar
22. PW8/A Seizure memo of hard Disc
23. PW9/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Imtiyaz Alam SI Mohd. Imteyaz
24. PW9/A Seizure memo of parcels handed over by Alam
Doctor
25. PW10/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Mahender Ct. Mahender
26. PW10/A Certificate U/s 65B
27. PW11/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Prem Singh Retd. SI Prem
28. PW11/A Crime team Report Singh
29. PW12/A Statement of Father of deceased Sh. R.P. Singh
30. PW12/B Statement of Mother of deceased
31. PW12/C1 Endorsement on Statement of father and
&2 mother
32. PW12/D Brief Facts
33. PW12/E Form 25.35
34. PW12/F1 Dead body identification statement
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 6 of 79
35. PW12/F2 Dead body identification Statement
36. PW12/G Request for Postmortem
37. PW12/H Endorsement on dead body handed over memo
38. PW13/A Dead body handing over memo Prem Babu
39. PW13/B Copy of Wedding card
40. PW13/C Copy of Pass book
41. PW13/D Photocopy of the Wedding photographs
42. PW14/A MLC Dr. Ashwani
Kumar
43. PW15/A FSL Report M L Meena
44. PW16/A Biological report
45. PW16/B Serological report
46. PW17/A Customer Application Form (9191785727) Israr babu
47. PW17/B Cop of Election card copy
48. PW17/C Call Detail Record
49. PW17/D Cell Id Chart
50. PW17/E Certificate U/s 65 Evidence Act
51. PW18/A Customer Application Form (9650123853) Vishal Gaurav
52. PW18/B Copy of Election card copy
53. PW18/C Call Detail Record
54. PW18/D Customer Application Form (9971457711)
55. PW18/E Copy of Driving licence
56. PW18/F Call Detail Record
57. PW18/G Customer Application Form (9956149238)
58. PW18/H Copy of Ration Card
59. PW18/I Call Detail Record
60. PW18/J Cell ID Chart
61. PW18/K Cell ID Chart (UP East)
62. PW18/L Certificate U/s 65B
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 7 of 79
63. PW19/A Seizure memo of CD/CCTV Footage Abishek Mishra
64. PW24/A Postmortem Report Dr. Vijay
Dhankar
65. PW25/PX2 Copy of Receipt of payment Sarvesh Kumar
to PX4
66. PW26/A Seizure memo of Blood sample (lifted by IO
from the spot )
67. PW27/A Arrest memo SI Manoj Dalal
68. PW27/B Personal search memo
69. PW28/A Rukka Insp. Jai Prakash
70. PW28/B Rough Site plan
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Twenty Eight witnesses as under:
Public Witnesses:
(7) PW13 Prem Babu Shukla is the father of the deceased who
has deposed that on 20.04.2006, he had married his daughter Garima (since deceased) with accused Padam Bajpai according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at his native village with full pomp and show according to his status. The witness has further deposed that in the marriage, he had given all the utensils and daily use articles according to his capacity i.e. bed, T.V., almirah, box, clothes, gold jewellery of approximately 60 gms.
According to the witness, initially after the marriage for about twothree St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 8 of 79 months, the relation between his daughter and accused were cordial but thereafter, his daughter telephoned him and told him that accused Padam was in need of Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh) and he thought that if he (witness) could give the same his daughter should remain happy. He has testified that he (witness) asked her (Garima) when she would come to take the same on which she told him that she is unable to tell but he should arrange for the same and keep it. The witness has also deposed that in the month of September or October, exact date he is unable to tell, his daughter Garima and accused Padam came to his residence at village Akbarpur and he handed over Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh) to accused Padam after which on the very same day, his daughter Garima and Padam left for their matrimonial home. According to him, thereafter the marriage life of deceased was running smoothly and on 14.01.2012, his daughter Garima again came to his house and again asked him if he could arrange for some money/ cash around Rs.50,000/ (fifty thousand) on which he refused saying he had no money and did not give anything. The witness has testified that on 17/18.04.2012, accused Padam and his daughter Garima had a program to go in Lakhimpur to attend some function where he had also attended the said program at Lakhimpur but when Padam and Garima did not reach the program at Lakhimpur, his son made a call to Padam to inquire about the same and it was then that Padam informed that Garima had gone somewhere (Garima kahin chali gayi hai). According to the witness, his son conveyed this information to him and they all got very St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 9 of 79 disturbed after which his family members kept on making calls to the accused but they did not receive their phone and nobody picked up the phone. He has also deposed that it was around 9:00 PM9:30 PM that they received a call from Delhi Police that his daughter Garima had fallen down from the roof of the Ring Road Mall where his soninlaw Padam also had a shop. According to the witness, he then started receiving calls from his relatives informing that they had seen in the television that his daughter Garima had fallen down from the Ring Road Mall. He has further deposed that they immediately started from Lakhimpur and reached Delhi in the morning and met a few relatives and then reached the Police Station in the afternoon and the accused Padam had already been detained at the Police Station by that time. The witness has also deposed that he met him (accused) in the Police Station and asked him as to what had transpired between him and Garima (kya hua tha) on which Padam simply told him that he does not know (hum kya jane, aap jane). He has proved that his statement was then recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW12/A and statement of his wife Munni Devi was also recorded by the SDM. According to the witness, his statement regarding identification of dead body of Garima was also recorded vide Ex.PW12/F2 and after postmortem, they received the dead body of his daughter Garima vide receipt Ex.PW13/A. He has further testified that during investigations his statement was also recorded and he handed over the photocopy of the wedding card to the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW13/B and also St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 10 of 79 handed over the photocopy of the passbook of his account which is Ex.PW13/C and also handed over the photocopy of the wedding photographs which are Ex.PW3/D. According to the witness, he suspected that his daughter Garima had been subjected to some kind of harassment due to which she ended her life.
(8) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that there was no demand of dowry and whatever he had given to her daughter was out of his sweet will and has voluntarily added that he had spent Rs.45 lakh on her marriage of his own. According to the witness, at the time of death of his daughter, the business of his soninlaw accused Padam of sale of medical equipments was running very well as told to him by his daughter. He has admitted that accused Padam never demanded money from him directly and has voluntarily explained that normally husbands would not make a direct demand he would twist his wife to make the demand. According to him, his deceased daughter had two children i.e. one son and a daughter and after Padam was sent to Judicial Custody, his daughter's children remained with the family of accused Padam. He has testified that after the death of his daughter Garima , he had met his grandson and granddaughter on one occasion at the shop of accused and has voluntarily stated that he had expressed his desire to the Investigating Officer to meet his grand children on which he was told that on account of the pending case, he should not visit the house of the accused and hence the children were St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 11 of 79 called to the shop of accused Padam where he met them. The witness has further deposed that he had told the elder brother of Padam that he wanted to meet the children and he had called them to the shop. He has also testified that at the time of the incident his granddaughter was around hardly four and half years and grandson was around two and half years. According to him, Garima had never complained to him directly but she had told his wife and his daughterinlaw that she was being harassed but was making efforts to normalize the relations and situation. He has admitted that Garima had never complained about physical torture. According to the witness, on one occasion when he inquired from her about the harassment she started crying and did not tell about the incident. The witness has admitted that when his son purchased a plot, the accused Padam had helped him and gave money to his son and has voluntarily stated that the said amount was returned and they have the proof of the same. He has testified that it was in year 2006 he had given Rs. One lakh to his daughter which money he had withdrawn from his Bank Account. The witness has also deposed that he had given the copy of the details of the account and transaction to the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that no transaction of Rs. One lakh was made from the account in the month of August, September and October 2006 or that no amount of Rs. one lakh was given by him to his daughter Garima or to the accused. He has further denied the suggestion that there was no demand of any money from him by his daughter Garima or by his soninlaw or that his St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 12 of 79 daughter Garima was ever harassed by accused Padam nor any pressure was put by accused Padam for demand of any money from anyone. According to him, the accused Padam was in police custody at about 3:00 PM when they reached the Police Station South Rohini on 18.04.2012. He has admitted that his daughter used to communicate on phone with him and his other family members. He has denied the suggestion that there were no strained relations between deceased Garima and accused Padam or that there was no complaint from his daughter Garima regarding any demand of dowry or harassment either from accused Padam or from any of his family members.
(9) PW19 Sh. Abhishek Mishra has deposed that on 17.04.2012 he was working as a CCTV operator at A2Z infra at Sector 3 Ring road mall and on that day he had retrieved the footage of the CCTV system installed at seventh floor of Ring Road Mall and converted the same into a video CD which he handed over to SI Manoj on the same day in the evening which was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. The witness has deposed that he had undertaken to gave the hard disc of the computer system to the police and after about threefour days he took the hard disc of the CCTV system to the police station which hard disc was containing the recording of the spot of the incident in respect of which the CD had already been given to the police. He has further deposed that he had handed the hard disc to SHO Police Station South Rohini and thereafter in his presence converted the same into St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 13 of 79 pullanda and sealed after which the seizure memo vide Ex.PW8/A. He has identified the said CD in the Court which is Ex.P1. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(10) PW20 Sh. Vikas Sharma has deposed that he is a student and is perusing MA and preparing for Civil Services. According to the witness, on 17.04.2012 he had gone to Gold Gym at Ring Road Mall, Sector 3, Rohini and after completing his exercises at around 88:30 PM while he and his trainer Amit were coming out of the lift on the ground floor, they saw one lady lying on the floor with blood splattered all round her and face towards the sky. The witness has testified that he then called out for help when large number of public persons gathered and he asked public persons present there if they were aware of her identity but nobody appeared to be aware of the same. He has deposed that he also asked public persons if somebody had called the police or Ambulance but no one responded on which he asked Amit to make a call to the police and he asked public persons to help, since he was on a bike. The witness has also deposed that one Akrant a public person came forward after which they lifted the lady in the car of Akrant and then took her to Jaipur Golden Hospital where she was declared brought dead. He has also deposed that after the police came at Jaipur Golden Hospital he left the hospital and went back to the spot of the incident, picked up the bike and went back to his home. According to him, later on the next day through the newspapers St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 14 of 79 he came to know that the name of the deceased was Garima Bajpayee. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (11) PW21 Smt. Munni Devi is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that on 20.04.2006, they had married their daughter Garima (since deceased) with accused Padam Bajpai according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at her native village with full pomp and show according to her status. He has also deposed that in the marriage, they had given all the utensils and daily use articles according to their capacity i.e. doublebed, sofa, T.V., almirah, box, clothes, gold jewellery of approximately 60 gms. According to the witness, initially after the marriage for about twothree months, the relation between her daughter and accused were cordial. She has further deposed that her daughter was not allowed to visit their house frequently but thereafter, her daughter telephoned them and told her that she was harassed by the accused Padam. She has further deposed that her daughter telephoned her that she is in need of Rs. One lakh which can be helpful for the business of her husband Padam and her husband paid Rs. One lakh to accused Padam after about threefour months after marriage of Garima when they visited their home. According to the witness, her daughter was blessed with two children and in the month of January, 2012 her daughter visited his house and asked for some more money from her father but at that time her husband refused to pay. She has also deposed that thereafter they had no meeting with her daughter Garima and on St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 15 of 79 17.04.2012, they received a call from Delhi Police that their daughter Garima had fallen down from the roof of Ring Road Mall where her son inlaw Padam also had a shop. The witness has testified that thereafter she alongwith her husband, her son and some other relatives reached Delhi and thereafter they reached the Police Station and their statement was then recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW12/B. She has also deposed that after the postmortem, they received the dead body of her daughter Garima and during investigations, her statement was also recorded. The witness has suspected that her daughter Garima had been subjected to some kind of harassment due to which she ended her life.
(12) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein she has admitted that whenever her daughter used to make a telephone call to her she generally told her that Padam used to harass and torture her due to demand of money. She has also admitted that she was asked to leave the job forcefully and due to this she had resigned from her Government job. She has also admitted that whenever Garima used to visit the house, she used to inform them about the illtreatment towards her extended to by accused and on one of the occasion, they had a program to attend a function in Lakhimpur, U.P in which their daughter Garima and Padam also invited but they did not reached there. The witness has further deposed that when her son made inquiry about their departure from Delhi, they came to know from Padam that "Garima bahar se kundi laga ke kahi chali gayi hai, hum shaadi mein kaise St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 16 of 79 aayenge" . According to her, thereafter her son who had left for Bahraich, U.P. and then after making inquiry he told that Garima had gone somewhere after bolting the house from outside. She has further deposed that on next day, they came to know that her daughter had fallen from some building then they came to Delhi where her statement was got recorded.
(13) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that there was no demand of dowry and whatever they had given to her daughter was out of their sweet will. She has also admitted that at the time of death of her daughter, the business of her soninlaw accused Padam of sale of medical equipments was running very well as told to her by her daughter. According to her, at the time of marriage, accused Padam was working with his brotherinlaw but later on he started his own business which flourished. The witness has also deposed that her daughter Garima left job in the year 2010. She has admitted that till she was in job, she was staying at Itawa at the place of her posting whereas Padam was staying at Delhi during that period. She has denied that no demand was ever made by the accused through Garima as they were not living together at Delhi at the alleged date and time of demand of Rs. One lakh. The witness has further denied that no amount of Rs. One lakh was given by her to her daughter Garima or to the accused or that there was no demand of any money from her by her daughter Garima or by her soninlaw. She has also denied the suggestion that her daughter St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 17 of 79 Garima was ever harassed by accused Padam or that any pressure was put by accused Padam for demand of any money from anyone. She has further deposed that accused Padam was in Police Custody at about 3:00 PM when they reached the Police Station South Rohini on 18.04.2012. She has admitted that her daughter used to communicate on phone with her and her other family members. She has denied the suggestion that there were no strained relations between deceased Garima and accused Padam or that there was no complaint from her daughter Garima regarding any demand of dowry or harassment either from accused Padam or from any of his family members. The witness has also denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely being aggrieved by the unnatural death of her daughter.
(14) PW22 Sh. Amit Kumar has deposed that he is a student but at the time of the incident he was doing a part time job at Gold Gym, Ring Road Mall as Rock Climbing Instructor. According to the witness, on 17.04.2012 he after completing his work at around 88:30 PM while he, Vishal and many other public persons were coming to the ground floors and when they got out from the lift, they saw one lady in a Saree lying on the floor in a pool of blood with her fact towards one side and front side of the body towards the floor. He has testified that large number of public persons were present and they asked them if they were aware of her identity but nobody appeared to be aware of the same and he also asked public persons if somebody had called the police or Ambulance but no St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 18 of 79 body had called and hence he made a call to the police and then called out the public persons for help. According to him, one Akrant a public person came forward and they lifted the lady in the car of Akrant and then took her to Jaipur Golden hospital where she was declared brought dead. He has further deposed that after the police came at Jaipur Golden Hospital he left the hospital and went back to the spot of the incident and went back to his home. He has also deposed that he came to know of the identity of deceased later as Garima Bajpayee. This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(15) PW23 Sh. Akrant has deposed that on 17.04.2012 at around 8:25 PM he had gone to the Ring Road Mall, Sector 3, Rohini for exercises at gold Gym and when he reached there, large number of public persons had gathered and he found a lady lying on the floor in a pool of blood and Vikas and Amit who were also present at the spot were trying to get help to shift the lady to the hospital in order to save her. The witness has also deposed that he was having his car make Swift and therefore they all shifted the lady to the car with the help of public persons and took her to the Jaipur Golden Hospital where she was declared brought dead. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(16) PW25 Shri Sarvesh Shukla is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that Garima was his younger sister and was married with St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 19 of 79 the accused Padam according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at their native village with full pomp and show according to status of their family. He has also deposed that in the marriage, his parents had given all the utensils and daily use articles according to their capacity i.e. bed, T.V., almirah, box, clothes, gold jewellery of approximately 60 gms. Initially after the marriage for about twothree months, the relationship between his sister and accused were cordial but thereafter, his sister telephoned them and told them that accused Padam was in need of Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh) and if they could give the same. According to the witness, his father wanted his sister to remain happy and therefore asked her as to when she would come to take the same on which she told his father that she cannot tell but his father should arrange for the same and keep it. He has testified that so far as he recollects, in the month of August last week, but exactly he cannot tell, his sister Garima and accused Padam came to their residence at village Akbarpur and his father handed over Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh) to accused Padam. The witness has testified that thereafter, so far as he recollects, on the very same day, his sister Garima and Padam left for their matrimonial home after which their life was running smoothly. According to him, generally there was always some kind of the demand or the other and expectations that whatever expenses have been incurred, more than that should be recovered. He has also deposed that in year 2008, his sister was selected as a Primary Teacher in Education Department at Itawa and after a training of about six months she had St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 20 of 79 joined at a school in a village situated in Distt. Itawa. The witness has testified that she had hardly worked for less than about a month, but was not allowed to work thereafter. According to the witness, she was also expecting a child at that time and hence she proceeded on maternity leave for six months. He has also deposed that it was felt that may be after a period of six months, she could persuade her husband and inlaw but it did not happen. According to the witness, she last visited them in January, 2012 and she confided in his father that she required some money for the business of her husband but his father refused as he was not in a position to fulfill the demand. He has also deposed that on 18.04.2012 there was a marriage in their relations and Garima and Padam were to attend the same and leave Delhi on 17.04.2012. The witness has further deposed that Garima had informed them that there was a reservation for 17.04.2012 and therefore on the evening of 17.04.2012, he made a call to Padam Bajpai as to when he would leave and at what time he would reach Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. Padam then informed that Garima had gone somewhere after bolting them from outside and how they could come (Garima kahi chali gayi hai, bahar se kundi laga kar to kaise aayenge). According to him, when he heard about this, he conveyed the same to his father on which he also contacted his sister Alka Shukla under whose guidance accused Padam used to work who (Alka Shukla) told him how she would know where Garima had gone "she is your sister, you should know" (tumhari bahan hai tumhi jano kaha gayi hai). He has further deposed that at that time he St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 21 of 79 was in Bahraich when he received a call from Police Station Rohini and inquiries were made from him about Garima Shukla and thereafter he was informed that she had fallen from seventh floor of Ring Road Mall and expired. The witness has further deposed that in the meantime, he informed his father who had also received a similar call from the police and thereafter they came to Delhi and went to Police Station South Rohini. According to him, his parents were taken to the SDM Office where their statements were recorded where as he was taken to Mortuary where he identified dead body of his sister Garima vide memo Ex.PW12/F1. He has also deposed that after the postmortem they received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW13/A and thereafter her last rites were conducted. (17) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the Police interrogated him on a number of occasions but he is unable to tell on how many occasions they recorded his statement. According to the witness, he did not tell in his statement vide Ex.PW25/PX1 that his sister had got employed as Primary teacher in Department of Education and was compelled to resign within a month of joining of the service. He has admitted that at the time of purchase of plot he had taken Rs.48,000/ from accused Padam his brother in law and has voluntarily stated that the same were returned subsequently. He has denied the suggestion that the loan obtained by him was never returned to Padam. According to him, he had brought three receipts of payment of the said amount to Padam, out of them two are of Rs.20,000/ each and one is of St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 22 of 79 Rs.8,000/ and the copies of the same are Ex.PW25/PX2 to Ex.PW25/PX4. The witness has also deposed that since the year 2006 he is doing the job work of computer typing as well as photocopy. He has denied the suggestion that his deceased sister Garima used to pressurize her in law to make him partner in the business or that Padam never demanded any money from his parents to fulfill any type of other alleged demand. The witness has also denied the suggestion that accused Padam has a flourishing business and there was no occasion for him to demand any money from anyone including his family or that his sister was never harassed by accused or that she was not illtreated on any of the occasion. He has also denied the suggestion that he had deposed against the accused being aggrieved by unnatural death of his only sister. Witnesses of Medical Record:
(18) PW14 Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, CMO from Jaipur Golden Hospital has deposed that on 17.04.2012 patient namely Garima Bajpayee W/o Padam Bajpayee, aged about 30 years, female was brought to the hospital by one Akrant S/o Chanderpal Singh with alleged history of found in an unresponsive state at Ring Road Mall, near Kali Mandir, Delhi. According to the witness, in the Casualty he medically examined the above said patient vide MLC Ex.PW14/A and at the time of examination the patient was unresponsive state, BP was not recordable, Pupil dialated and fixed, HS not heard, ECG show straight line and hence St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 23 of 79 the patient was declared brought dead on 17.04.2012 at 8:25 PM. He has proved that there were following injuries on the body of the deceased: Crushed injury forehead (R), Nasal bleed (+), broken Jaw (L), Lacerated wound (L) thigh, Lacerated wound (R) Leg, deformity (L) foot, CLW (R) thigh, CLW (R) Leg, Penetrating wound (L) elbow.
(19) This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (20) PW24 Dr. Vijay Dhankar has deposed that on 19.04.2012 he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body one Garima Vajpayee, W/o Padam Vajpayee, aged about 31 years, female on the request of Executive Magistrate Sh. Ramphal Singh of Sub Division Saraswati Vihar. The witness has testified that allegedly the deceased had committed suicide and on examination on body, he found following external injuries:
1. Laceration 4cm x 2cm x bone deep present over the right side of frontal region of scalp.
2. Laceration 8cm x 5cm x bone deep present over right side of forehead just above eye brow.
3. Abrasion 6cm x 3cm present over the right maxilla.
4. Laceration 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep present over the right side of upper lip.
5. Deformity of face with underlying fracture of the upper and lower St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 24 of 79 jaw.
6. Laceration 5.5cm x 1.5cm x bone deep over the posterior aspect of left mastoid area.
7. Abrasion 4cm x 3cm present over the left scapular region.
8. Abrasion 8cm x 7cm present over the posterior aspect of left shoulder.
9. Laceration 6cm x 5cm x bone deep present over the anterior aspect of right thigh with underlying fracture of right femur.
10. Laceration 9cm x 7cm x bone deep present over the anterior aspect of left thigh with underlying fracture of left patella bone and femur.
11. Laceration 4cmx 3cm x bone deep present over the anterio lateral aspect of middle of lower leg with underlying fracture of tibia and fibula bone.
12.Contusion over dorsum of left foot with multiple fractures of foot bones.
(21) The witness has testified that on internal examination there were Multiple Fractures of skull with intra cranial hemorrhages, Fracture of C1C2 vertebrae were present, First to fifth ribs were fractured on the left side, Both lungs were lacerated and Liver was raptured with multiple lacerations. He has proved having opined that the cause of death was due to combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to the body, all injuries were ante mortem, fresh in duration and could be caused in a fall from height. St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 25 of 79 The witness has proved his detailed Postmortem Report is Ex.PW24/A (running into six pages). According to the witness, viscera was preserved and handed over to the Investigating Officer in a sealed condition with sample seal and eight inquest papers.
(22) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that as per the nature of injuries the case appears to be of a foot landing which in most of the cases is Suicidal. FSL Experts:
(23) PW15 Sh. M.L. Meena, SSO (Chemistry) has deposed that on 09.05.2012 one sealed parcel containing five exhibits were received in their office and same were marked to him for examination. He has proved that on examination no common poison could be detected in all case exhibits i.e. viscera containing stomach and pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a jar (exhibit 1A), pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar (exhibit 1B), blood sample volume 3.0 ml (approx) kept in a vial (exhibit 1C), preservative sample, saturated solution of common salt, kept in a vial (exhibit 1D), one dirty green colored printed Saree and blouse, one dirty green colored patty coat, one dirty white colored brassiere, one dirty black colored striped panty and a bunch of blackish brown colored hairs belonging to the deceased (exhibit 1E). He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW15/A. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 26 of 79 opportunity in this regard.
(24) PW16 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, SSO (Biology) has deposed that on 10.05.2012 one sealed plastic container was received in their office and the same was assigned to him for examination. According to the witness, after examination he gave his detailed biological report Ex.PW16/A according to which the blood was detected on exhibit 1 (cotton wool swab). The witness has also proved the serological report Ex.PW16/B according to which exhibit 1 (cotton wool swab) human blood was detected. He has testified that after examination remnant of the exhibit was resealed with the seal of IKM FSL Delhi. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
Nodal Officers:
(25) PW17 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9161785727 (number belongs to UP East) has been issued in the name of Shri Kishan S/o Chidha, R/o 33, Kudhava, Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat vide Customer Application Form which is Ex.PW17/A; copy of election ID card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW17/B. The witness has also proved the Call Details Record of the above mobile from the period 01.04.2012 to 17.04.2012 which are Ex.PW17/C (running into four St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 27 of 79 pages); Cell ID chart of UP East which is Ex.PW17/D (running into one page) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW17/E. (26) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Pune and he had retrieved the call details from his personal computer set as he had a direct access to the main server. He has denied that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss or that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(27) PW18 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9650123853 has been issued in the name of Parmod Kumar S/o Jaswant Singh R/o 9394, N Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/A and copy of Election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/B.He has also proved the Call Details Record of the above mobile from the period 15.02.2012 to 10.03.2012 which is Ex.PW18/C (running into five pages). The witness has further proved that the mobile No. 9971457711 has been issued in the name of M/s. Surgical Systems, authorized signatory Mr. Padam Pajpaye R/o WZ97B, Tek Chand Complex, Jawalaheri Market, Paschim Vihar vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/D and copy of driving licence in support of St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 28 of 79 residence proof is Ex.PW18/E. He has proved the Call Details Records of the above mobile from the period 01.04.2012 to 17.04.2012 which are Ex.PW18/F (running into 27 pages). The witness has also proved that the mobile No. 9956149238 (number belongs to UP East) has been issued in the name of Prem Babu, S/o Sukhwasi Lal, R/o 6, Nehru Nagar, Akabpur, Kanpur Dehat UP vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/G and copy of Ration Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/H. He has further proved the Call Details Record of the above mobile from the period 01.04.2012 to 17.04.2012 which are Ex.PW18/I (running into five pages).
(28) He has placed on record the Cell ID chart of Delhi area which is Ex.PW18/J (running into seven pages); Cell ID Chart of UP East area which is Ex.PW18/K (running into one page) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW18/L. (29) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Noida and he had retrieved the call details from his personal computer set as he had a direct access to the main server. He has denied that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss or that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 29 of 79 Police/ Official Witnesses:
(30) PW1 HC Vijender is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved DD No. 37 A and 38A copies of which are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/C and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/D. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but the witness has stood by his version.
(31) PW2 Inspector Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW2/A. He has been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but the witness has stood by his version.
(32) PW3 HC Virender is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in register No.19 vide Mud No. 3627/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A (running into two pages), Mud No. 3631/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/B, entry in register No. 21 vide RC No.38/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/C; FSL receipt copy of which is Ex.PW3/D; RC No. 39/21/2, copy of which is Ex.PW3/E and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW3/F. St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 30 of 79 He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but the witness has stood by his version.
(33) PW4 Ct. Sanjay is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the exhibits from the MCHM vide RC No. 38/21/12, copy of which is Ex.PW3/C and deposited the same with the FSL vide receipt Ex.PW3/D. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(34) PW5 Ct. Rajesh is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the exhibits from the MHCM vide RC No. 39/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/E and deposited the same vide FSL receipt which is Ex.PW3/F. He has been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but the witness has stood by his version.
(35) PW6 Ct. Ravinder is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the photographs which are Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A10 and negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW6/B. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 31 of 79 has come out of the same.
(36) PW7 ASI Mulak Raj is also a formal witness being the PCR Van Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having reached the spot and also proved the seizure memo of brown purse containing one Pan card which is Ex.PW7/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(37) PW8 Ct. Ram Avtar is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions fo Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the seizure memo of hard disc which is Ex.PW8/A. It has been observed by this Court that the hard disc has not been produced in the court nor send to the FSL for examination nor relevant as there is no dispute with regard to the installation of CCTV in the mall/ spot of incident and retrieval of its footage. (38) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that Abhishek Mishra had come to the Police Station at around 12:00 noon and handed over the hard disc to the Investigating Officer. The witness has further deposed that he had handed over the hard disc in open condition and it was the Investigating Officer who had converted the same into pullanda after sealing the same with the seal of MJK.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 32 of 79 (39) PW9 SI Mod. Imtiyaz Alam is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) whereiun he has proved the seizure memo of parcels handed over by doctor which is Ex.PW9/A. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but the witness has stood by his version.
(40) PW10 Ct. Mahender is a formal witness being the Computer Operator who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the Certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW10/A. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(41) PW11 Retd. SI Prem Singh is also a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW11/A. (42) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had reached the spot of the incident at around 9:15 PM and remained at the spot till 10:00 PM. He has also deposed that Ct. Ravinder and HC Ram Kumar were also present with him and exhibits were not lifted by the Investigating Officer in his presence. He has admitted that he did not sign any of the documents prepared by the St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 33 of 79 Investigating Officer at the spot and has has voluntarily stated that he had only prepared his report and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. According to the witness, the dead body had already been removed from the spot when he reached there and therefore he cannot tell the position of the dead body when it was found at the spot. (43) PW12 Sh. R.P. Singh has deposed that on on 17.04.2012 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar Division and on that day he had received information at about 11.00PM from Police Station South Rohini that a girl had committed suicide from a mall on which he directed the Inspector from whom he received information to call the parents of the deceased. According to the witness, on 18.04.2012 the parents of the girl was produced by the Inspector/IO in his office at about 3:003:30 PM and he separately made inquiries from the parents of the girl namely Garima (deceased) and he got recorded their statements from his steno on his dictation i.e. father and mother of the deceased. He has proved the the statement of the father of the deceased which is Ex.PW12/A and the statement of mother of the deceased which is Ex.PW12/B. According to the witness, thereafter he made his endorsement on both the statements to take the necessary action as per law vide his endorsement Ex.PW12C1 and Ex.PW12C2. The witness has also deposed that he directed the parents of the deceased to reach in BSA hospital on 19.04.2012 for the inquest proceedings there and the body of the deceased was preserved. He has testified that on 19.04.2012, he also St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 34 of 79 reached in the BSA hospital and conducted the inquest proceedings. He has proved having prepared the brief facts which is Ex.PW12/D; having filled 25.35 (1) (d) Form which is Ex.PW12/E and recorded the statement regarding identification of the dead body which are Ex.PW12/F1 and Ex.PW12/F2 after which he made request to the Head of Department of Forensic Medicine for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of deceased vide his request Ex.PW12/G. He has proved having made his endorsement on the above request vide Ex.PW12/H. (44) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that in the statement of Sh. Prem Babu there was no specific demand of dowry from the accused and that Sh. Prem Babu stated before him "shaadi mein koi daan dahej nahi diya gaya tha". According to the witness, he did not disclose the name of the person who recorded the statement of father and mother of the deceased in his presence. He does not recollect the name of the Inspector who had produced the parents of the deceased in his office. He is unable to tell as to how much time the parents of the deceased remained in his office. He has denied the suggestion that he got recorded the statement of parents of the deceased in a mechanical manner and at the instance of Investigating Officer or without thoroughly verifying the facts. He has further denied that he conducted the inquest proceedings in a casual manner or without going through the actual facts.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 35 of 79 (45) PW26 Ct. Pushpender has deposed that on 17.04.2012 he was posted at Police Station South Rohini and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8AM. According to the witness, on receiving the DD No. 78B at about 8:23 PM he along with SI Manoj Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Ring Road Mall, Sector3 Rohini wherein on the floor they saw blood was scattered and on inquiry they came to know that injured was removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. The witness has testified that he remained at the spot to preserve the spot wherein the Investigating Officer SI Manoj went to Jaipur Golden Hospital and after half an hour the Investigating Officer came back at the spot. He has also deposed that in the meanwhile Crime Team also reached the spot who inspected the spot and had taken the photographs. The witness has also deposed that PCR van also reached at the spot and the Incharge PCR Van ASI Mulakh Raj handed over one brown color ladies purse belonging to injured and on checking the said purse, one PAN card in the name of Garima Vajpayee was found, which purse along with PAN card was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer lifted blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept in a small plastic box and sealed with the seal of MJK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/A. According to him, the Incharge of CCTV was called and he handed over one CD and same was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of MJK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. He has further deposed St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 36 of 79 that thereafter he was relieved from investigations and on 19.04.2012 his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer Inspector J.P. Singh. The witness has correctly identified the CD which is Ex.P1, purse which is Ex.P2 and Pan Card of Garima Vajpayee which is Ex.P3. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(46) PW27 SI Manoj Dalal has deposed that on 17.04.2012 he was posted at Police Station South Rohini and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8AM. According to the witness, on receiving the DD No. 78B at about 8:23 PM he along with Ct. Pushpender reached at the spot i.e. Ring Road Mall, Sector 3 Rohini where on the floor they saw blood was scattered and on inquiry they came to know that injured was removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. The witness has testified that he left Ct. Pushpender at the spot to the preservation of the spot and he went to to Jaipur Golden Hospital where he collected the MLC of Unknown lady who was declared brought dead by the doctors. According to him, after half an hour he came back at the spot and in the meanwhile Crime Team also reached at the spot as he had send the message through Control Room. He has testified that Crime Team inspected the spot and had taken the photographs and the PCR van also reached at the spot and the Incharge PCR Van ASI Mulakh Raj handed over him one brown color ladies purse belonging to injured. According to the witness, on checking the said purse, one PAN card in the name of Garima Vajpayee was found St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 37 of 79 which purse along with PAN card was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He has proved having lifted blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept in a small plastic box and sealed with the seal of MJK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/A. According to him, he called the Incharge handling the CCTV of the malls and asked him to show him the visuals of the CCTV installed on the seventh floor after which the said visuals were converted into a CD which CD he handed over to him and same was converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of MJK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he again visited the Jaipur Golden Hospital where the accused Padam Vajapayee met him who gave the names and particulars of the deceased and he came to know the name of deceased as Garima Vajpayee, W/o Padam Vajpayee, after which he left the hospital. He has also deposed that the sent the information to the parents of deceased through his own mobile phone and thereafter again came back at the spot where SHO Police Station South Rohini and other police officials were found present and he handed over all the documents prepared by him along with MLC of deceased and exhibits which were lifted from the spot and was seized by him to the SHO. He has testified that on 18.04.2012 accused Padam Vajpayee was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex.PW27/A, his personal search memo was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/B. He has also deposed that St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 38 of 79 thereafter the Investigating Officer Inspector Jai Parkash recorded his statement in this regard.
(47) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had received the control at 8:23 PM and when he went to the hospital, he only met three public persons namely Vikas, Akrant and Amit. According to the witness, at that time there was no body from the family of the deceased. He has admitted that by that time he was not aware of the name and identity of the deceased and it is only only when he returned to the spot and Incharge PCR Van handed over the alleged belongings of the deceased one of which was a purse containing the PAN card that he came to know that she was Garima, W/o Padam Vajpayee. The witness has also deposed that when he went back to the hospital, he met accused Padam and came to know that he was the husband of the deceased. According to him, he did not make any inquiries from Padam as how he came to know that his wife was admitted in the hospital and also made no inquiries as to what had happened to his wife. He has testified that when he left the hospital, nobody else from the Police Station had come there and states that he had already informed the senior officers about the death of the deceased. He has admitted that the arrest of Padam Vajpayee was effected by Inspector Jai Parkash and he cannot tell the grounds of arrest of the accused Padam and has voluntarily explained that it was probably on the statements of the parents of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that for the first time when he went to the St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 39 of 79 hospital, he did not conduct any body inspection of the deceased and has voluntarily explained that he had carried out the body inspection. He has admitted that he could not find any suicide note on the body of the deceased and that he did not find any suicide note in the articles/ belongings of the deceased which were handed over to him by the officials of the PCR. He has also deposed that first time when he went to the mall, he did not collect the duty roasters to find out who all were on duty on the seventh floor or on the ground floor nor he made any inquiries from the employees of the malls or the shopkeepers having their shops in the mall. According to the witness, he did not know that Padam Vajapayee was having his office on the fourth floor of the same mall. He does not collect the visuals of the CCTV installed on the fourth floor and on the ground floor of the mall. He is unable to tell how the deceased had reached to the seventh floor or if any body else was there with her. He has denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigations properly on account of which the material evidence was lost.
(48) PW28 Inspector Jai Prakash has deposed that on 17.04.2012, he was posted as SHO South Rohini and on that day, he received information about jumping of a female from seventh floor of Ring Road Mall on which he reached at Ring Road Mall, Sector3, Rohini from where he came to know that injured has already been shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. According to the witness, he reached the hospital where the doctors informed that injured have already been declared St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 40 of 79 brought dead and he came to know that the information has already been brought to the knowledge of SI Manoj Kumar who was conducting preliminary inquiry into the matter. He has also deposed that on 18.04.2012 the parents of the deceased came into Police Station and they were taken to the concerned SDM Office and produced before the then SDM, Ramphal Singh who recorded the statements of father and mother of the deceased. He has also deposed that the SDM made his endorsement for registration of the case on both the statements as per law after which SI Manoj Kumar made his endorsement on the statement of the father of the deceased vide endorsement Ex.PW28/A and got the case registered bearing FIR No.79/12. The witness has testified that after registration of the case, the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him and after taking over the investigation, he recorded the statement of Munni Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to him, thereafter he alongwith SI Manoj Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Ring Road Mall where he at the instance of SI Manoj Kumar prepared the rough site plan which is Ex.PW28/B. He has also deposed that thereafter he alongwith SI Manoj Kumar reached at BG7/154, IInd Floor, Paschim Vihar where accused Padam Bajpai met there who was interrogated and thereafter he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW27/A and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW27/B. He has testified that thereafter accused was got medically examined from where he was sent to lockup and produced before Court concerned on next day and from where he was sent to St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 41 of 79 Judicial Custody. According to the witness, on 19.04.2012 concerned SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and filled the inquest papers and thereafter the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. He has also deposed that after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relative of the deceased and after postmortem, the doctor handed over him a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of BSA hospital alongwith sample seal which he had taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He has further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the copy of wedding card of deceased Garima and accused Padam and copy of passbook of Prem Babu and Munni Devi and photocopy of marriage photographs, which are Ex.PW13/B to Ex.PW13/D. He has also deposed that during investigation he got deposited the exhibits in FSL, Rohini and collected the report which is Ex.PW15/A and collected the copy of CDR of mobile No.9161785727 and of mobile no.9956149238, 9971457711 and mobile no. 9650123853. The witness has further deposed that during investigation, he also sealed the hard disc of the CCTV footage of Ring Road which he took into possession after converting the same into pullinda after sealing it with the seal of MJK which belong to SI Manoj Kumar and the same was got deposited with MHC(M). According to the witness, after completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and file the same in the Court. This court has observed that the hard disc has not been produced in the Court nor sent to the FSL for examination nor relevant as there is no St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 42 of 79 dispute with regard to the installation of CCTV in the mall/spot of incident and retrieval of its footage.
(49) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that when he left the Police Station, he did not make any departure entry and has voluntarily explained that he had gone to the hospital on a WT message. He has also deposed that when he reached the hospital he met three public persons namely Amit, Vikas and Akrant but he did not meet Padam in the hospital. According to the witness, SI Manoj told him that the deceased was Garima Bajpai and gave him two numbers one of her father and one of her brother stating that the said numbers were given to him by accused Padam. He has testified that SI Manoj told them that he had noted down the address of Padam and when he asked him where was Padam he told him that he was not available. He has denied the suggestion that Padam was very much present in the hospital and that is why he came to know about the detail numbers of the father and brother of the deceased and also the address of the deceased or that Padam had been detained in the hospital itself and not permitted to move out and was thereafter arrested on the next day from the hospital itself. He has further denied the suggestion that Padam was also present in the police station when the parents and brother of the deceased reached the police station. He has admitted that he had not collected the CCTV visuals of the camera installed on ground floor, fourth floor where the office of accused was situated or any other floor and therefore he is unable to tell the exact St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 43 of 79 movement of the deceased prior to the incident. He has also admitted that railings are installed on all the floors and even on the seventh floor, there is a railing of four and a half feet. He has further admitted that after the railings there is no landing space and in case if someone choses to jump, such a person will have to climb over the railings and has voluntarily explained that the said railings are evident in the photograph Ex.PW6/A4 and Ex.PW6/A7. He has further denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not collected the visuals as it would have proved that the accused was not even present in the office and has voluntarily stated that the hard disc of the control room is with him and he can produce the visuals of all the CCTV's of the relevant date and time. The witness has also deposed that he did not obtain the duty roaster of the persons employed in the Mall and who were on the duty at the time of the incident. According to the witness, he also did not obtain the details of the offices and commercial establishments present in the Mall and the details of their employees and only made inquiries if anybody had seen the incident but made no inquiries regarding the office staff of the accused Padam. He has further deposed that initially he was not aware that accused Padam was having office at fourth Floor and when accused Padam was arrested, he came to know about the fact of accused Padam having office at fourth floor at the time of his arrest. The witness has also deposed that he did not make inquiries from the office staff of Padam and has voluntarily stated that his office was closed and he made inquiries from the other staff of the St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 44 of 79 mall. He is unable to tell the details of the persons from whom he made enquiries. He has testified that the main entry of the Mall closes at about 12:30 1:00 AM. He has stated that he is aware that after the Mall closes, it is checked and the main gate is locked and all the lifts are also closed. According to him, the guard office is situated in the basement and after the Mall is closed, no body can enter the same. The witness has further deposed that he made inquiries from the Guard of the adjoining bar which remains open till about 1:00 AM but they told him they have not seen the lady nor he made any enquiries from the Guard as to at which time the office of accused Padam was closed. He has denied the suggestion that he did not make proper inquiries and investigation into the present matter as such he did not examine any guard or employee of the adjacent bar and other offices situated at the same floor with regard to the time when the office of Padam was opened or closed on that day. He has admitted that the accused Padam resides on the second floor of his house and there are other people who were residing on the first floor and ground floor. The witness has also deposed that he made inquires from the residents of the first floor and ground floor but the residents refused to divulge anything stating that they did not want to enter into any controversies. He is unable to tell the names and details of the said persons. According to the witness , he did not give any notice to any such person who refused to divulge the details nor he gave any notice to them to reply to the queries by specifying the queries. He has denied the suggestion that he did not St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 45 of 79 find any incriminating material against the accused as the neighbours had spoken favourably qua the accused and the deceased and therefore he had not cited these persons as witnesses. The witness has also deposed that when he left for the house of Padam to arrest him he must have made a departure entry but he is unable to tell the details. He has denied that he had not carried out fair investigations or that they were led by the family of the deceased.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(50) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Padam Bajpayee was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. The accused has stated he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
According to him, the deceased was a qualified teacher and was working even after marriage and posted in village at Etawa, U.P. and had voluntarily joined him and left her job as there was no financial constrains since he is having a good income. He has also stated that at the time of the incident he was at home since he and his deceased wife were to leave for attending the marriage of cousin of his wife at Lakheempur Kheeri and was waiting for her. He has further stated that he did not know when she left the house after bolting the door from outside and why? According to the accused, he had even called up her brother in law and informed him that the deceased had locked him from outside before he could do St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 46 of 79 anything, he received the news of her death. The accused has further stated that he has also informed the police about the above and requested them to see the CCTV of Ring Road Mall for ascertaining the time she entered the Mall and if anybody else was with her but till date the complete footage is not made available. According to him, his wife has left behind two small children i.e. daughter aged 5 ½ years and son about 3½ years and he is taking care of them. He has also deposed that he is not aware why his wife had taken this step. The accused has not examined any witness in this defence.
FINDINGS:
(51) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(52) In so far as the identity of the accused Padam Bajpayee is concerned, there is no dispute to the same. The accused Padam Bajpayee is the husband of the deceased Garima and has been identified in the Court by the various witness as such. Therefore, I hold that the identity of the accused Padam Bajpayee stands established.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 47 of 79 Unnatural death within seven years of marriage:
(53) It is an admitted case of both the parties that the marriage between the accused Padam Bajpayee and Garima (now deceased) was solemnized on 20.4.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also an admitted case of both the parties that the deceased had committed suicide on 17.4.2012 and died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage precisely within Five Years, Eleven Months and Twenty Seven days.
Medical Evidence:
(54) Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh (PW14) has proved that on 17.04.2012 patient namely Garima Bajpayee W/o Padam Bajpayee, aged about 30 years, female was brought to the hospital by one Akrant S/o Chanderpal Singh with alleged history of found in unresponsive state at Ring Road Mall, near Kali Mandir, Delhi. He has proved the MLC of the deceased vide Ex.PW14/A according to which the patient was unresponsive state, BP was not recordable, Pupil dialated and fixed, HS not heard, ECG show straight line and hence the patient was declared brought dead on 17.04.2012 at 8:25 PM. He has proved that there were following injuries on the body of the deceased:
Crushed injury forehead (R), Nasal bleed (+), broken Jaw (L), Lacerated wound (L) thigh, Lacerated wound (R) Leg, deformity (L) foot, CLW (R) thigh, CLW (R) Leg, St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 48 of 79 Penetrating wound (L) elbow.
(55) Dr. Vijay Dhankar (PW24) has proved the postmortem report in respect of the deceased Garima Vajpayee, W/o Padam Vajpayee which report is Ex.PW24/A according to which there were following injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Laceration 4cm x 2cm x bone deep present over the right side of frontal region of scalp.
2. Laceration 8cm x 5cm x bone deep present over right side of forehead just above eye brow.
3. Abrasion 6cm x 3cm present over the right maxilla.
4. Laceration 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep present over the right side of upper lip.
5. Deformity of face with underlying fracture of the upper and lower jaw.
6. Laceration 5.5cm x 1.5cm x bone deep over the posterior aspect of left mastoid area.
7. Abrasion 4cm x 3cm present over the left scapular region.
8. Abrasion 8cm x 7cm present over the posterior aspect of left shoulder.
9. Laceration 6cm x 5cm x bone deep present over the anterior aspect of right thigh with underlying fracture of right femur.
10. Laceration 9cm x 7cm x bone deep present over the anterior aspect of left thigh with underlying fracture of left patella bone and femur.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 49 of 79
11.Laceration 4cmx 3cm x bone deep present over the anterio lateral aspect of middle of lower leg with underlying fracture of tibia and fibula bone.
12.Contusion over dorsum of left foot with multiple fractures of foot bones.
(56) He has proved having opined that the cause of death was due to combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to the body, all injuries were ante mortem, fresh in duration and could be caused in a fall from height which is compatible to the prosecution case. In his crossexamination the Autopsy surgeon has confirmed that as per the nature of injuries the case appears to be of a foot landing which is suicidal in nature. (57) This being the background, I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case that the Suicidal death of the deceased had occurred on account of fall from 7th floor of Ring Road Mall.
Forensic Evidence:
(58) Sh. M.L. Meena (PW15) SSO (Chemistry) has proved the Chemical Analysis Report which is Ex.PW15/A according to which no common poison could be detected in all case exhibits i.e. viscera containing stomach and pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a jar (exhibit 1A), pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar (exhibit St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 50 of 79 1B), blood sample volume 3.0 ml (approx) kept in a vial (exhibit 1C), preservative sample, saturated solution of common salt, kept in a vial (exhibit 1D), one dirty green colored printed Saree and blouse, one dirty green colored patty coat, one dirty white colored brassiere, one dirty black colored striped panty and a bunch of blackish brown colored hairs belonging to the deceased (exhibit 1E).
(59) Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra (PW16) SSO (Biology) has proved the Biological and Serological Report which are Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B according to which on exhibit 1 (cotton wool swab) human blood was detected.
(60) The forensic evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case and establishes the place of incident.
Electronic Evidence:
(61) Sh. Israr Babu (PW17) Alternate Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9161785727 (number belongs to UP East) has been issued in the name of Shri Kishan S/o Chidha, R/o 33, Kudhava, Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat vide Customer Application Form which is Ex.PW17/A; copy of election ID card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW17/B. He has also proved the Call Details Record of the above mobile from the period 01.04.2012 to 17.04.2012 which are Ex.PW17/C (running into four pages); Cell ID chart of UP East which is Ex.PW17/D (running into one St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 51 of 79 page) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW17/E. (62) Further, Sh. Vishal Gaurav (PW18) Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9650123853 has been issued in the name of Parmod Kumar S/o Jaswant Singh R/o 9394, N Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/A and copy of Election ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/B. He has also proved the Call Details Record of the above mobile from the period 15.02.2012 to 10.03.2012 which is Ex.PW18/C (running into five pages). The witness has further proved that the mobile No. 9971457711 has been issued in the name of M/s. Surgical Systems, authorized signatory Mr. Padam Bajpayee (accused) R/o WZ97B, Tek Chand Complex, Jawalaheri Market, Paschim Vihar vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/D and copy of driving licence in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/E. He has proved the Call Details Records of the above mobile from the period 01.04.2012 to 17.04.2012 which are Ex.PW18/F (running into 27 pages). The witness has also proved that the mobile No. 9956149238 (number belongs to UP East) has been issued in the name of Prem Babu, S/o Sukhwasi Lal, R/o 6, Nehru Nagar, Akabpur, Kanpur Dehat UP vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/G and copy of Ration Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/H. He has further proved the Call Details St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 52 of 79 Record of the above mobile from the period 01.04.2012 to 17.04.2012 which are Ex.PW18/I (running into five pages).
(63) The Investigating Officer Inspector Jai Prakash (PW28) has only stated that he collected these Call Detail Records but has not specified the relevant entries in the same and the reason why he has relied upon the same. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that this Call Detail Records are relevant only to establish the frequent call which were being made between the parents of the deceased and the accused which confirms the case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident and before the death of the deceased there was a telephonic conversation between the family of the deceased and the accused.
(64) I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that the case of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased were required to go to Lakheempur, Etah, UP for attending a family marriage in the intervening night of 1718.4.2012 for which the bookings had also been done and the family of the deceased was informed that there was some altercation between the accused and the deceased on which the deceased had locked him in a room and went away. During this period the brother of the deceased made a call to the phone of the deceased and it was then that the accused informed to him that the deceased had locked him in the room and this fact is confirmed from the testimony of brother of the deceased namely Sarvesh Shukla (PW25) when he says that on the intervening night on 17.4.2012 he made a call to the accused to St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 53 of 79 confirm as to when he would leave and at what time he would reach Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. on which the accused Padam informed that Garima had gone somewhere after bolting them from outside and how they could come (Garima kahi chali gayi hai, bahar se kundi laga kar to kaise aayenge). The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"...... On 18.04.2012 there was a marriage in our relations and Garima and Padam were to attend the same and leave Delhi on 17.04.2012. Garima had informed us that there was a reservation for 17.04.2012. Hence, on the evening of 17.04.2012, I made a call to Padam Bajpai as to when he would leave and at what time he would reach Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. Padam then informed that Garima had gone somewhere after bolting them from outside and how they could come (Garima kahi chali gayi hai, bahar se kundi laga kar to kaise aayenge). When I heard about this, I conveyed the same to my father. I also contacted his sister Alka Shukla under whose guidance accused Padam used to work...."
(65) The Electronic Record particularly the location chart of the mobile phone No. 9971457711 being used by the accused Padam Bajpayee confirms the presence of the accused in the area of Paschim Vihar during this time when the brother of the deceased made a call to him at 19:15:39 (i.e. 7:15 PM) on 17.4.2012 which is away from the place where the incident had taken place. This material cannot be taken as incriminating qua the accused rather confirms that accused was at a St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 54 of 79 different place at the time when the incident had taken place and the deceased had in fact locked him, a fact which had been duly conveyed to the family of the deceased. Hence, under the given circumstances I conclude that the electronic evidence does not assist the prosecution case in any manner rather it confirms the location of the accused at is residence at Paschim Vihar at the time of the incident.
Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(66) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused Padam Bajpayee and Garima (now deceased) was solemnized on 20.4.2006 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at his native village with full pomp and show according to his status. After the marriage initially for about twothree months, the relation between the deceased and accused were cordial but thereafter, the deceased telephoned her parents and told them that accused Padam was in need of Rs.1,00,000/ (one lakh) pursuant to which the father of the deceased had given Rs. One Lac.
When Garima and Padam came to their residence at village Akbarpur. Thereafter, the marriage life of deceased was running smoothly and on 14.01.2012, Garima again came to her home and again asked her father if he could arrange for some money/ cash around Rs.50,000/ (fifty thousand) on which the father of the deceased refused to pay. The parents of the deceased suspected that Garima had been subjected to harassment St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 55 of 79 due to which she ended her life. In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of Prem Babu Shukla (PW13) father of the deceased, Smt. Munni Devi (PW21) mother of the deceased and Sarvesh Shukla (PW25) brother of the deceased.
(67) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 56 of 79 attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(68) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(69) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 57 of 79 Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. 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.
(70) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 58 of 79 (71) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(72) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 59 of 79 connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 60 of 79 (73) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the 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 at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(74) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 61 of 79 unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
(75) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 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 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 St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 62 of 79 trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction 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....."
(76) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 63 of 79 demand of dowry.
(77) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304 B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
(78) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 64 of 79 confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
(79) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309). (80) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 65 of 79 determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
(81) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(82) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......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 St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 66 of 79 adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle 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 accused and is inconsistent with that of this 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 benefit of that doubt........
It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(83) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 67 of 79 "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
(84) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished.
There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 68 of 79 an accused can be convicted....."
(85) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (86) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the testimonies of parents and brother of the deceased that is Prem Babu Shukla (PW13) father of the deceased, Smt. Munni Devi (PW21) mother of the deceased and Sarvesh Shukla (PW25) brother of the deceased.
(87) From the combined reading of the testimonies of all the three witnesses, at the very Outset, I may observe that the marriage between the accused and the deceased had lasted for almost Six Years and two children were borne out from the wedlock and during this period there was no complaint of harassment to the police or to the mediator or any other authority and it is for the first time when the incident had taken place, that the said allegations were made against the accused. (88) Secondly in so as the accused Padam Bajpayee is concerned, it is evident that he is running his own business of sale of medical equipments from a shop at Ring Road Mall and was financially doing very well in the same.
(89) Thirdly at the time of marriage the deceased Garima was St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 69 of 79 employed as Government Teacher in Uttar Pradesh and posted at various places. As per the allegations, she had to leave her job on the instance of the accused which allegations are not compatible to the prosecution version of demand of dowry. Though the explanation given by the family of the deceased that she had conceived at that time and that is why she had to lave her job on the asking of the accused does not appear to be probable but it is writ large from the evidence on record that while the accused Padam Bajpayee i.e. husband of Garima was permanently staying in Delhi she had a government job in Uttar Pradesh and hence it is only natural that she would have joined the company of her husband at her matrimonial house at Delhi after which two children were borne to the deceased out of the wedlock. This could have only happened either when the accused husband Padam Bajpayee was financially well off or not interested in the earnings of his wife or else why would one risk the government job of his wife in case if he is suffering from financial constraints. Hence, under these circumstances the question of the accused making a demand to the tune of Rs. One Lac or Rs. Fifty Thousand does not arise, the accused being financially well off with the deceased herself being employed at the time of her marriage and soon thereafter.
(90) Fourthly Prem Babu Shukla (PW13) father of the deceased, Smt. Munni Devi (PW21) mother of the deceased and Sarvesh Shukla (PW25) brother of the deceased have in their testimonies admitted that whatever they had given to the deceased was out of their own sweet will St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 70 of 79 and there was no demand of dowry at the time of the marriage. They have also admitted that the accused is running his business of sale of medical equipments very well and had never demanded any dowry from them directly.
(91) Fifthly it is also apparent from the combined reading of the testimonies of the family members of the deceased that the accused himself had provided financial assistance to the brother of the deceased i.e. Sarvesh Shukla for purchasing a plot and was communicating to him and other family members over mobile phone and hence under these circumstances, when the accused is himself helping the family of the deceased financially, the question of demand of dowry does not arise. (92) Sixthly in so far as Smt. Munni Devi (PW21) the mother of the deceased is concerned she has admitted that there was no demand of dowry and whatever was given to their daughter was out of their sweet will. She has also admitted that the business of the accused was running well as told to her by the accused and that her daughter used to communicate on phone with her as well as with other family members. (93) Seventhly in so far as Sarvesh Shukla (PW25) the brother of deceased is concerned he has made only vague allegations that his sister had told them that the accused was in need of Rs. One Lac but has not been able to given any specific date, time or place when the demand was made. This witness in his crossexamination he has admitted that he had taken Rs.48,000/ from the accused Padam Bajpayee. St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 71 of 79 (94) Lastly coming now to the testimony of the Investigating Officer i.e. Su Manoj Kumar and Inspector Jai Prakash, I may observe that they the hard disc of the computer system from where the CCTV Footage has been retrieved, has not been produced in the Court nor sent to the FSL for examination. In so far as the electronic evidence in the form of Call Detail Records of the mobile number being used by the accused at the relevant point of time and also belonging to the family of the deceased is concerned, it confirms that there were frequent calls between them and that at the time of the incident when Sarvesh Shukla (PW25) made a call on the mobile phone of the accused Padam Bajpayee, he was in the area of Paschim Vihar throughout, ruling out the possibility that the accused Padam Bajpayee had soon before the death of the deceased provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. Here, I may observe that despite having been granted sufficient opportunity the Investigating Officer has not been able to produce the visuals of the entire CCTV Cameras installed in the Mall which would have confirmed the time with the deceased had entered the Mall and whether there was any person with her at that time and the route taken by her for reaching the Seventh Floor and perhaps her mental and physical state at the relevant point of time would be established. The best available evidence i.e. the CCTV Footage of the entire Mall has been withheld by the prosecution and despite intimation to the Senior Officers the same has not been produced in the Court. This is liable to read against the prosecution. St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 72 of 79 (95) I may mention that in the case of Nepal Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2009 (11) CCR 362 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where there was no mention in the FIR that gift and other articles were given as Dowry, has acquitted the accused since there was no demand from the accused at the time of marriage and no complaint was made by the deceased or her family members.
(96) Further, in the case of Hazari Lal Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (111) CCR 72 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"....... Conviction based merely on surmises and conjectures - alleged deceased committed suicide by burning herself - 10 days prior she was blessed with a son - High Court concluded that there was no reason for her to commit suicide - evidence of parents of deceased only relatable to dowry. High Court rightly held that there was no question of dowry demand as appellant was financing father of deceased PW1, there was no other material to show how deceased was being harassed or subjected to cruelty, conclusion of High Court that because deceased committed suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is unsupportable and indefensible - there is a vast indifference between "could have been", "must have been" and "has been" in absence of any material the case falls in the first category. Conviction impermissible in such case. Conviction recorded by High Court set aside...."
(97) Similarly, in the case of Gurcharan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1234 the Hon'ble St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 73 of 79 Court has observed as under:
"...... Dowry Death: abetment to suicide: evidence on record does not suggest deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by her father in law or by her mother in law for or in connection with dowry demand. Letter written by the deceased rather than supporting the case of prosecution, support case of defence that her in laws showered love and affection and not subjecting her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry: prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt......"
(98) Further, in the case of Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 DMC 744 SC it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"........ Dowry death abetment of suicide: Necessary ingredients of the deceased being subjected to cruelty or harassment by him shown before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry nor established - acquittal of accused by trial Court u/s. 306 IPC - High Court did not reappreciate evidence as first Court of appeal on criminal side and disposed appeal in summary way, confirming order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Both courts committed serious and manifest error in concluding appellant was guilty of offence - impugned judgment set aside....."
(99) Hence, by application of law as aforesaid to the fact of the present case where none of the prosecutions witnesses stated in their St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 74 of 79 statement which could attract any criminal act qua the accused nor there is any incident/ act which could point out towards the guilt of the accused. There is no cruelty, instigation or any unlawful demand from the side of the accused. Not every case of unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage is on account of harassment or demand of dowry. There can be many other reasons which can be attributed to this extreme act committed by the deceased/ victim compelling her to take her own life which would be peculiar to each case.
(100) In view of my above discussion it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Garima Bajpayee had committed suicide by jumping from the 7th floor of Ring Road Mall, Sector3, Rohini (which place is neither her parental home nor matrimonial home nor near to the same) but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Padam Bajpayee. Also the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Garima or any misconduct by the accused.
(101) I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused or cruelty inflicted upon her. St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 75 of 79 FINAL CONCLUSIONS (102) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(103) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the identity of the accused Padam Bajpayee stands established being the husband of deceased Garima. It has been St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 76 of 79 established that the marriage between the accused Padam Bajpayee and Garima (now deceased) was solemnized on 20.4.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also an admitted case of both the parties that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping from 7th Floor of Ring Road Mall, Sector 3, Rohini on 17.4.2012 within seven years of marriage precisely within Five Years, Eleven Months and Twenty Seven days. The cause of death was due to combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to the body which are suicidal in nature.
(104) However, the allegations against the accused Padam Bajpayee of infliction of cruelty or causing harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased had committed suicide by jumping from 7th Floor of Ring Road Mall, Sector 3, Rohini (which is neither her parental home nor her matrimonial home nor near to the same) but prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused. Also, the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Garima or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused or that the St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 77 of 79 accused Padam Bajpayee had in any manner abetted, instigated or urged the deceased to commit suicide. What had transpired soon before the time the deceased decided to end her life is an aspect which has not been investigated at all, so much so the visuals of the various CCTV's installed at various floors and entrance of the Mall which were in possession of the Investigating Officer as he had seized the entire hard disc which visuals he did not place before the Court despite opportunity. (105) This being the background, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that each of the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not been able to establish a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of the accused.
(106) Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Padam St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 78 of 79 Bajpayee, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to him who is acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B and alternatively under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. His surety be discharged as per rules.
(107) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 26.4.2014 ASJII(NW)/ROHINI St. Vs. Padam Bajpayee, FIR No. 79/2012, PS South Rohini Page No. 79 of 79