Delhi District Court
State vs Renu @ Kavita Etc on 25 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAVITRI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 36/13, ID-44681/2015
PS. New Usmanpur
U/s. 302/323/341/506 IPC
Instituted on 11.11.2013
Argued on 19.04.2024 & 24.04.2024
Decided on 25.04.2024
Final Order Acquitted
State Vs. Renu @ Kavita
W/o. Late Sh. Pankaj
R/o. H No. 113/1, Block G, Jagat Puri, Krishna
Nagar, East Delhi-110051.
JUDGMENT
Prosecution case:-
1. The present matter is based on a complaint case. The complainant is mother of victim. Her grievance as mentioned in the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is that her son Jagdish Chander @ Pankaj had died on 20th April 2010. She alleged that it was a murder. His wife accused Renu @ Kavita had administered some poisonous liquid to him SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 1 of 21 in furtherance of conspiracy hatched in connivance with her natal family members, which caused his death.
2. The complaint further reads that after the poison was administered, the victim was taken to hospital where he had died the same day. Inquest was conducted by local police after recording information of the incident vide DD no. 79B dated 20.04.2010.
3. It is mentioned in the complaint that victim had disclosed in the hospital before Brij Mohan (his mama ji) as well as doctors that his wife had given him poison but no action was taken.
4. It is further mentioned in the complaint that her son had got married to accused Renu @ Kavita on 18.01.2005. The couple had two children i.e. one son and one daughter from the wedlock. The relationship between accused wife and victim husband was not cordial as the wife was having illicit relationship with some other person and did not mend her behaviour despite repeated requests. She had also extended threats to kill her husband. The complainant lodged number of complaints with the local PS as well as the higher police officers but police did not take any action. She sought direction for registration of FIR regarding murder of her son.
5. It is relevant to note that the doctor conducting postmortem had not SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 2 of 21 given any finding regarding cause of death and had mentioned that it could be known only after the viscera report was received. Viscera was preserved and sent for examination. Later on, in due course of time, viscera report was received. It is important to note that at this stage that as per the result of FSL examination of viscera of deceased, no known poisonous substance was found in the same.
6. While passing orders on the 156 (3) Cr.P.C. applications, ATR was called from local police. The IO replied that after the death of deceased, statements of both i.e. the complainant as well as the wife of deceased (accused Renu @ Kavita) were recorded and no allegations of foul play were levelled against anyone at that time. Later on, some property disputes arose between the complainant and her daughter-in-law.
7. The Ld. MM observed that the averments of complainant seemed doubtful as she did not bother to file any complaint immediately after the incident on 20.04.2010 had moved the court in May, 2011 i.e. more than one year after the incident. The 156(3) Cr.P.C. application was dismissed and complaint case u/s 200Cr.P.C. was taken up for hearing.
8. Based on pre-summoning evidence led by different complainant witnesses, the accused Renu @ Kavita was summoned for the offence u/s 302 IPC and other accused persons who were members of her natal SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 3 of 21 family were summoned for offences u/s 323/341/506(II)/34 IPC vide summoning order dated 20.05.2013. Considering that section 302 IPC was involved, the matter was committed for trial to Sessions Court.
9. On 11.08.2014, order on charge was passed. The other accused persons were discharged of all the offences and only the wife of deceased i.e. accused Renu @ Kavita was ordered to be charged of the offence u/s 302 IPC. Charge was framed against her on 28.08.2014 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:-
10. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the following 11 witnesses :-
(A) Public witnesses:
(i) PW1 Smt. Savitri Devi, complainant
(ii) PW2 Sh. Brij Mohan, brother of complainant (B) Police witnesses:
(iii) PW3 Ct. Mahesh Yadav, Duty Constable
(iv) PW4 W/ASI Rajesh Bala, DD writer
(v) PW5 HC Virender Singh, Duty Constable SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 4 of 21
(vi) PW6 W/Ct. Suman Yadav, DD writer
(vii) PW7 ASI Satish Kumar, MHC(M)
(viii) PW8 HC Devender, deposited exhibits in FSL.
(ix) PW11 Retired IO/SI Satyapal Singh. (C) Expert Witnesses:
(x) PW9 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, FSL expert.
(xi) PW10 Dr. Neha Gupta, who conducted postmortem.
11. The complainant Savitri Devi was examined as PW1 by the State. In her evidence, she had reiterated the contents of her complaint. Additionally, she stated that accused Renu used to beat her as well apart from quarrelling with her deceased son. Regarding the date of incident, she deposed that the night previous to death of deceased, he was beaten by accused Renu and her family members. When the complainant tried to save him from them, accused Renu stiffled her mouth to prevent her from raising alarm. Even her mobile phone was broken so that she could not call PCR.
The victim had received injuries on many parts of his body including neck and hands. The next morning, accused Renu gave something to drink to the victim on the pretext of administering medicine to him. After some time, the victim started vomiting and was SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 5 of 21 taken to hospital by complainant and her brother Brij Mohan. He was admitted in hospital where police reached and recorded his statement. Unfortunately, he had died in the same evening.
12. She further deposed that thereafter, when she came back home from hospital, she was beaten by Renu's family members. The dead body of deceased was not handed to her but to Renu. She made several complaints Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/K various police officers and other authorities. Not a single complaint even a PCR call was made against the accused prior to the death of deceased. The first complaint Mark A dated 12.05.2010 was submitted in PS on 20.05.2010 i.e. around one month after death of deceased.
13. I have been through the complaints. Allegations have been levelled that the accused daughter-in-law was a lady of immoral character and had extra marital relationship with other men. She and her natal family members had killed the deceased i.e. son of the complainant. After the incident, she had taken the jewellery lying in the house and other costly articles and her natal family members had threatened to kill even the complainant and grand children. If anything would happen to the complainant and grand children, the accused and her natal family members should be held responsible for the same. It is relevant to note SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 6 of 21 that the complainant is alive till date and even the children have grown up. The children have been residing with the accused ever since till date. It is not the case of complainant that even after the complaints made by her as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, she or the grand children have been threatened or harmed in any manner either by the accused daughter-in-law or by her natal family members.
14. After the complaint case was filed along-with 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, Ld. MM had called ATR referred above. The same has been exhibited during evidence. It is mentioned in the ATR that statement of complainant, her brother as well as her daughter-in-law (not an accused till then) were recorded on 20.04.2010 when complainant's son had died. All of them had stated that the victim had consumed some substance due to unemployment and financial hardship. They did not express any suspicion on anyone. On the complaints, made by the complainant to PS, inquiry was conducted and property dispute was found at the root of the complaints.
15. It was revealed during inquiry that deceased Pankaj had himself consumed some unknown substance and no one had administered any poison to him. It was also disclosed that complainant used to reside with her son, the deceased, daughter-in-law Renu and their two small SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 7 of 21 children. Pankaj used to remain depressed for financial reasons and used to consume liquor. He had himself consumed some poisonous substance which resulted in his death.
16. It is also mentioned in the ATR that just after one month of his death, complainant Savitri Devi had started harassing her daughter-in-law and quarreled with her so that she would leave the matrimonial house and would not demand any share for herself and for her children in matrimonial house and other properties. The daughter-in-law Renu alongwith her small children had gone to live with her brothers due to conduct of complainant i.e. her mother-in-law and was somehow trying to make both ends meet.
17. The ATR also read that the complainant did not suspect anyone at the time of incident and brought her son to hospital herself. Her complaint was baseless and afterthought. No evidence of committal of murder of deceased came out and no foul play of any type was suspected.
18. The statement of Renu wife of victim was also recorded during inquiry, she stated that she got married to victim on 18.11.2005. Her husband used to sell articles in weekly markets at that time. Just after 6 months of marriage, her mother-in-law had started quarrelling with her and used to harass on trivial matters. Her husband had left his work just SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 8 of 21 after 4-5 months of marriage and embraced many vices such as gambling and consuming liquor. Thereafter, he joined a job at Chawdi Bazaar in a cards' shop after much pursuation by wife. Even this job was left by him after 1 or 2 months. Then he started a card printing business from home but suffered losses. As a result, he used to remain under tension due to unemployment and rising family expenses as the couple soon had two children i.e. a son and a daughter.
She further stated to the IO that in the morning of 20.04.2010, he went upstairs and consumed some poisonous liquid. Immediately thereafter, he started vomiting. His mother was also present in the house. Since the children of the couple were very small, the mother-in- law took the victim to hospital along-with her brother. The victim died the same evening. From then onwards, the mother-in-law developed a grudge against her and after just about 1 month, she turned the daughter-in-law out with her two small children saying " yeh mera makaan hai, tu meri koi nahi lagti, ab jab mera beta mar gaya, to tu yaha kyu reh rahi hai". It is further mentioned in her statement, that her mother-in-law was falsely accusing her so that she should not be able to live in the matrimonial house nor should claim share in the property. The statement of brother of the daughter-in-law was also recorded to SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 9 of 21 the same effect.
19. Since ld. trial court, after considering the ATR, did not find any ground to order registration of FIR, the complaint case u/s 200Cr.P.C was proceeded further wherein the accused was summoned as already detailed in preceding paragraph.
20. During her cross-examination by the ld. LAC, she admitted that till the death of her son, she had not made any complaint against Renu and her family members. She denied the suggestion that police recorded her statement in presence of her brother and accused Renu. She also denied the suggestion that statement of her brother Brij Mohan and accused Renu were also recorded in her presence. She denied the suggestion that deceased was having no injuries on his person.
21. She also denied the suggestion that since the work of her son was not going well, therefore, he used to be remain frustrated/depressed and due to this, there used to be altercations/quarrels between him and accused Renu. She denied the suggestion that her son had consumed some substance due to depression. She denied the suggestion that accused Renu never gave any liquid/medicine to her son.
22. PW2 is Brij Mohan, brother of complainant and mama ji of deceased. He deposed that he had taken victim to GTB hospital along-with SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 10 of 21 complainant on 20.04.2010. The witness did not state of his own accord but replied in affirmative to the leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that while on way to hospital, deceased had told him that his wife had administered some substance to him. Also, the witness did not make any mention about any injury marks on the body of victim. He only replied in affirmative to the leading questions put by prosecution the victim was having injury marks on his neck and hands.
23. PW5 HC Virender Singh is duty Constable at GTB hospital who gave information regarding admission of victim Pankaj in GTB hospital due to consumption of some substance.
24. PW6 W/Ct. Suman Yadav is the DD writer/police witness who recorded the information regarding admission of victim Pankaj in GTB Hospital.
25. PW3 is the duty Ct. Mahesh posted at GTB Hospital who gave information to PS New Usmnapur regarding death of victim. He was not cross-examined.
26. PW4 is W/SI Rajesh Bala who recorded DD No. 79B regarding information received in PS about the death of victim Pankaj. She was also not cross-examined.
27. PW8 is the Ct. who had taken the viscera to FSL. PW7 ASI Satish SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 11 of 21 Kumar is the MHC(M) who had recorded the movement of viscera of deceased to FSL and receiving of FSL result in the registers maintained by him.
28. PW9 is the FSL expert who proved his FSL result. The report is to the effect that "on chemical, TLC & GC-HS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D"( i.e. viscera of different organs.)
29. PW10 is the medical witness who conducted postmortem of dead body of deceased Pankaj. She deposed that no fresh external antemortem injuries were present on the dead body. Regarding the cause of death, she had mentioned that the cause would be given after receiving the chemical analysis report of viscera. She deposed that after receiving of the said report, she had given a subsequent opinion regarding cause of death as 'cerebral and pulmonary edema'. However, the incidence of cerebral and pulmonary edema due to some unknown poison could not be ruled out, as per her opinion regarding cause of death.
30. Some court questions were put to the witness wherein she was asked as to what could be other causes responsible for cerebral and pulmonary edema. She responded that it could be caused due to any pre-existing SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 12 of 21 disease or infection as well. She further answered in response to court questions that it is possible that the patient had died due to pre-existing disease or infection. The witness was not cross-examined by defence. Even the state did not cross-examine the witness with respect to court questions put to her.
31. The last PW is Retired IO/ASI Satyapal Singh. He deposed that he received information regarding the admission of victim at GTB Hospital vide DD no. 12B on 20.04.2010. He went to hospital along- with Ct. Sishpal and collected MLC of victim but could not record statement of victim as he was not in a position to give statement and was under treatment. He did not find any family member in the hospital.
32. Thereafter, when he visited hospital again in the same evening, he got to know about death of victim. He found his mama Brij Mohan (PW2), his wife accused Renu @ Kavita and his mother (PW1) present there and recorded their statements Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C respectively. These statements are not in original but only photocopies. The same were exhibited in the evidence of IO as the defence did not dispute the same.
33. I have been through these documents. It is mentioned in the statement SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 13 of 21 of complainant Ex.PW11/C that her son used to remain under tension "kam ki wajah se tension me rehta tha". He had consumed some unknown substance in the morning of 20.04.2010. Due to which, he started vomiting. He became unconscious on way to hospital. He was admitted and died during treatment. She did not express suspicion on anyone "mujhe kisi par shak shubha nahi hai".
34. Coming to the statement of PW2 Brij Mohan Ex.PW11/A, he has stated that he was residing in neighborhood of deceased. In the morning of 20.04.2010, his sister came to his house and told him "Pankaj ki tabiyat khrab ho rahi hai, jaldi ghar chalo ". When he went there, he saw that Pankaj was vomiting and he took him to hospital with his sister. It is further mentioned in his statement that Pankaj was unemployed and had no source of income "isi se pareshan hokar, usne koi namaloom cheez kha li". He also did not express any suspicion on anyone.
35. In the statement of accused Renu Ex.PW11/B, it is mentioned that she had got married to Pankaj around 4 years back and had two children. The elder child was son and younger was a daughter. Her husband suffered from depression due to work related issues and had consumed some unknown substance around 7:00AM and suffered vomiting. She SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 14 of 21 also did not express suspicion on anyone.
The IO deposed that the next day after death of victim, he got conducted postmortem of the deceased and handed the dead body to relatives. The record regarding handing over of dead body was contained in the inquest file that has been weeded out already.
36. Thereafter, he deposed that he also sent viscera of deceased to FSL and received the result of the same later. Then he obtained subsequent opinion of the doctor regarding cause of death of victim. He prepared inquest report of the present case. The original inquest report could not be available before the court during his evidence as it had been weeded out being an old record. The relevant document regarding weeding is placed on record and duly exhibited.
37. A court question was put to witness as to why he did not record the statement of victim while the doctor preparing MLC had mentioned that he was fit for statement. To this, the witness replied that victim was not in a position to speak when he asked him about the incident, though he opened his eyes, when tapped. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
38. PE stood closed vide order dated 26.03.2024.
SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 15 of 21 Statement of accused:-
39. After conclusion of PE, SA of accused was recorded on 09.04.2024 wherein she stated that her relationship with her late husband was cordial and there were no dispute between the couple but she did not get along well with her mother-in-law, the complainant. Further, that she never called any outsider males to visit her.
40. Regarding the night previous to the death of her husband, she mentioned that no quarrel took place between the couple. Regarding her family members, she stated that there was Sai jagran in neighbourhood of her natal house and her family members were present there while she slept inside her house. She denied the case of prosecution and all the incriminating material put to her during SA.
41. She stated that she did not give anything to victim Pankaj to drink nor administered any poison to him. He had only complained of stomachache in that morning and had gone upstairs to use washroom. She thought that he suffered from food poisoning. She admitted that he was taken to hospital by PW1 and PW2. She denied the incident of any quarrel between her and the complainant on that day and said that she was not in a state of mind to even take care of herself due to death of her husband, there was no question of quarrel with the mother-in-law SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 16 of 21 and beating her.
42. She further stated that the dead body of her husband was handed to her mother-in-law i.e. the complainant and last rites were performed by tauji of deceased namely Sh. Vasudev Gupta as the son of couple was too young to perform last rites of his father. It is relevant to note that barely 4 years had elapsed since the marriage of couple when the husband died unfortunately.
43. She further stated that perhaps her mother-in-law had been doing all this under influence of someone and she did not do anything till after 3 years from death of victim. She did not want to lead DE. Arguments and Appreciation of evidence :-
44. I have heard arguments advanced by Defence as well as State on 19.04.2024 and from complainant side on 24.04.2024. I have been through the record of case file.
45. The stand of the complainant has been that the accused daughter-in- law had administered some poisonous substance to the victim in the name of medicine. The FSL result of viscera of deceased did not show even traces of any poison.
46. The statements of complainant as well as her brother were recorded SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 17 of 21 soon after the death of the victim Pankaj i.e. the same day. At that time, neither the complainant nor her brother expressed any suspicion on the accused daughter-in-law. Rather they stated that the victim had himself consumed some substance as he remained under depression due to being unemployed and having no source of income. The deceased was a married man and father of two young children but without any means of subsistence. Under these circumstances, it is very much likely that he was under severe stress/tension/depression.
47. The doctor did not give any cause of death initially and waited for FSL result of viscera. The FSL report of viscera ruled out poisoning by any known substance. In response to court question, the doctor said that it was possible that the victim had died due to some pre-existing disease or infection.
48. As a result, it remained unproved that he had died due to poisoning and it is possible as stated by doctor herself that the death could be due to some pre-existing infection or disease. Another possibility is that the victim had consumed some unknown poisonous substance by himself as he used to remain under severe stress/tension due to financial reasons.
49. The gastric lavage contained in the vomits of the victim was not sent to SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 18 of 21 FSL. Since he vomited soon after, the poison could not be detected in the viscera but might be present in the gastric lavage that was never subjected to FSL examination and therefore, the cause of death could not be established with precision.
50. The complainant alleged beating of the victim by accused and her natal family members the previous night to the death of victim and he having received injuries on neck and hands but as per the postmortem report, there weren't any external antemortem injuries present on any part of the body of deceased.
51. Even in the earlier statement made by her to the IO immediately after the death of her son, the complainant had levelled no such allegations regarding beating of the victim by her daughter-in-law and her natal family members.
52. In the SA, the accused had stated that the previous night there was a Sai Jagran organized in the neighbourhood of her natal house and her family members were present there. In this manner, she has given a plausible explanation regarding the absence of her family members in her matrimonial house the previous night. I am inclined to believe the same in overall circumstances of the present case. This, coupled with the postmortem report belies the allegations of complainant. SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 19 of 21
53. The evidence of complainant does not inspire confidence as firstly, no one prevented her from expressing suspicion on the accused daughter- in-law regarding death of her son when her statement was recorded by the IO. She did not even whisper at that stage that the accused had administered any substance to the victim or that there had been any quarrel the previous night or that the accused daughter-in-law had stiffled her mouth and broken her phone in order to prevent her from making any PCR call.
54. Under these circumstances, the allegations of complainant, who came in action much later after the incident, regarding beating of the victim and his suffering injuries due to beatings and later having been poisoned to death; are not substantiated. The same are rather disproved by medical evidence which is contrary to her allegations.
55. The story regarding the accused daughter-in-law having administered liquid poison in the name of medicine, seems to have been cooked up later on, for the obvious reason of keeping her away from claiming any share in the property. Therefore, I discard the contention regarding poisoning of victim by accused in the light of the overall circumstances of the present case.
SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 20 of 21 Conclusion:-
56. In light of what has been observed above, I am of the considered view that complainant has miserably failed to prove her case against the accused Renu @ Kavita who is none other than wife of victim. Accordingly, she is acquitted of the charge of murder framed against her.
Announced in Open Court
as on 25.04.2024 (Dr. Savitri)
Addl. Sessions Judge-02/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Note : Judgment cannot be signed digitally as digital signature has expired. SC no. 44681/2015 State Vs. Renu @ Kavita PS New Usmanpur page 21 of 21