Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs 1. Sohaib Illyasi on 16 December, 2017

    IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
  ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
             KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.

                               SESSIONS CASE No.78/2009
                                Unique Case ID No. 65/2016

FIR No.94/2000
U/S: 498­A/304­B/201/34 IPC
P.S: Pandav Nagar


State                  Versus       1.      Sohaib Illyasi
                                            S/o. Jamil Ahmad Illyasi
                                            R/o. 2, Big City Masjid,
                                            Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

Date of Institution                 :  24.01.2003
Date of Arguments                   :  28.11.2017
Date of Judgment                    :  16.12.2017


                                    JUDGMENT

Case of Prosecution 

1. Criminal law was set into motion on receipt of D.D.No. 28­A at P.S Trilok Puri Delhi regarding admission of one Mrs. Anju FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 1of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Ilyasi w/o. Sohaib Ilyasi R/o.H.No.2, Big City House, K.G.Marg, New Delhi, aged 30 years in AIIMS Hospital vide MLC No.2700, who was brought by her husband in unconscious condition from B­13, I.F.S Flat, Mayur Vihar Phase­1, Delhi. The doctors after examining her declared her as brought dead. The said D.D. entry was marked to S.I Ramesh Malik,   who   reached   AIIMS   Hospital   for   conducting   further investigation.   Simultaneously   S.H.O   P.S   Trilok   Puri   telephonically informed S.D.M/ Preet Vihar about the deceased and requested him for conducting inquest proceedings U/s. 176 Cr.P.C as the marriage of the deceased was within a period of 7 years.  SDM ordered the SHO to seal the place of occurrence and keep the dead body in the mortuary.   He further   directed   to   arrange   a   panel   of   doctors   for   conducting postmortem of the deceased.  Accordingly, a panel of three doctors was constituted and postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Statement of Sohaib Ilyasi, the husband of deceased was also recorded. On 16.3.2000 Rashmi Singh (the sister of the deceased Anju) filed a complaint before SDM, Preet Vihar     with   regard   to   unnatural   death   of   Mrs.   Anju   Ilyasi   and   on 22.03.2000 Rashmi Singh submitted a detailed statement alleging that her   sister   had   been   murdered.   On   the   basis   of   the   investigation, Postmortem   report,   statement   of   the   witnesses   and   relevant   records, SDM Ravi Dadhich, forwarded his report with all the documents (post mortem report, forensic report, three diaries of the deceased, statement FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 2of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi of all concerned) to Deputy Commissioner of police, East, Delhi for further   investigation   and   necessary   legal   action   as   per   the   relevant provision   of   law.     Thereafter,   on     27.3.2000,   DCP   East,   sent   these papers to Sh. Rajiv Ranjan ACP/Operational East Distt., who got a case registered   vide   FIR   No.   94/2000   dated   27.3.2000   u/s. 498A/304B/201/34 IPC, P.S Trilok puri, Delhi, and the investigation was entrusted to SI Rajesh Kumar, who recorded the supplementary statements   of   witnesses.     Further   investigation   was   carried   out. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed before the Court. 

2. After   compliance   of   section   207   Cr.P.C.,   the   case   was committed to Sessions Court.  Vide order dt. 29.03.2003 passed by my Ld.   Predecessor,   charge   u/s.   498­A/304­B   IPC   was   framed   against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.  

3.     During   trial,   Ld.   Addl.   PP   filed   an   application   dt.

17.07.2003 seeking framing of addl. charge/alternate charge u/s. 302 IPC,   however,   vide   order   dt.   03.02.2004,   My   Ld.   Predecessor   had dismissed the application observing that the material on the basis of which  the  prosecution  wanted   framing  of  additional/alternate  charge was available even at the time of framing of original charge, which was framed   on   29.03.2003.     The   complainant   on   12.07.2005,   moved   an FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 3of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi application seeking fresh investigation into the matter.  Application u/s. 173 (8) Cr.P.C was filed by Smt. Rukma Singh, mother of deceased. This application was dismissed on 04.08.2005.  Thereafter, an appeal was filed before Hon'ble High Court vide W.P. (Crl.) No. 3020/2006. This   writ   petition   was   disposed   off   on   20.12.2006   noting   the submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that since the charge­sheet had already been filed, a direction for further investigation may, if at all, be given by concerned Court.   In these circumstances, a second application dt. 15.01.2007 seeking further investigation u/s. 173 (8) of Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant before this court.  The application was dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 08.08.2007 as he was   of   the   view   that   since   order   dt.   04.08.2005   has   not   been challenged, it has become final and the Sessions Judge cannot sit in appeal   over   the   order   passed   by   another   coordinate   bench   and accordingly application was dismissed. 

On   19.08.2010,   complainant   thereafter,   moved   an application u/s. 216 Cr.P.C for framing of an additional charge.   This application was also dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 19.02.2011.   Thereafter, Mrs. Rukma Singh moved to Hon'ble High Court through Crl. Rev. P No. 208/2011 & Crl. M.A.No. 5206/2011 seeking framing of charge u/s. 302/201/468/471 IPC.  This writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dt. 12.08.2014, whereby Hon'ble High Court directed the trial court to frame additional charge FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 4of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi u/s. 302 IPC by following the procedure u/s. 217 of Cr.P.C.   By the same order, Hon'ble High Court also dealt with the Writ Petition (Crl.) 25/2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 117/2013 filed by accused against order dt. 21.05.2012   issued   by   the   Health   and   Family   Welfare   Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereby a Medical Board consisting of five doctors had been constituted to reconcile the two dissenting opinions given   by   three   earlier   doctors   constituting   the   Medical   Board   as admittedly   two   of   the   doctors   namely   R.K.Sharma   &   Alexander F.Khaka   had   held   the   cause   of   death   to   be   suicidal   whereas   Dr. L.C.Gupta  in  a subsequent  opinion  dated 30.08.2001  had concluded that   the   homicide   cannot   be   ruled   out,   and   same   was   dismissed. Pursuant   to   order   of   Hon'ble   High   Court   dt.   12.08.2014,   additional charge   u/s.   302   IPC   was   framed   against   accused   on   06.09.2014. Thereafter, SLP (Crl.) No.6502­6503/2014   was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court by accused against the order of Hon'ble High Court dt. 12.08.2014, which was dismissed vide order dt. 23.08.2014.

4.   To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined 37 witnesses in all.

5.   PW­1 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar, who  deposed that on 27.03.2000, he was posted as SHO at P.S.Trilok Puri and on receipt of inquest papers etc. from SDM Ravi Dadhich, he registered the present FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 5of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi case   FIR   No.   94/2000   Ex.PW1/A.     He   further   deposed   that   on 28.03.2003   accused   was   arrested   vide   memo   as   Ex.PW1/B   and   his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C.

6.    PW­2 Prashant is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that on receiving the information about the death of his sister Anju, he reached Delhi on 11.1.2000. He further deposed that he identified the dead body of his sister Anju (deceased) in the mortuary AIIMS and in the hospital  he was made to sign certain documents by the medical authority for conducting the postmortem of deceased Anju. He deposed that he gave statement Ex.PW2/B to the SDM and that on the asking of SDM, he wrote a letter Ex. PW2/C addressed to the SDM on 13.1.2000 requesting   to   keep   dead   body   in   the   mortuary   till   14.01.2000.   On 14.01.2000 he received the dead body of Anju for her cremation.  She was   cremated   according   to   Hindu   rites   and   accused   also   offered Namaz.  He deposed that after the arrest of accused, from his house at Kasturba   Gandhi   Marg,   to   his   memory,   IO   had   recovered   two revolvers,   some   used   and   unused   bullets,   few   expired   credit   cards, certain number of passport, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/E.     In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   defence   Counsel,   he deposed that the marriage between his sister Anju and accused Sohaib Ilyasi was love marriage and it was performed on 18.11.93 at London. He further deposed that they had a great love and affection for each FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 6of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi other and as it was a love marriage, so there was no demand of dowry by   the   accused   or   by   any   other   family   member   of   the   accused. Admitting that accused was Producer and Director of Tele Film India's Most Wanted in the year 1997­98, he stated that he did not know if his sister Anju was equal partner with the accused. He further deposed that his sister Anju (deceased) was very intelligent and strong but she was not short tempered. He further deposed that he had not seen accused ever in temper as he did not have close association with them for the last about 6/7 years. He admitted that he, his mother and father in their statement had stated that there was no foul play and that Anju was not harassed for demand of dowry by the accused. He further deposed that it is correct that his sister Rashmi was adamant to take the child of Anju with her to Canada and when the entire efforts failed, it resulted into the   complaints   and   registration   of   the   FIR   against   the   accused.   In answer   to   a   specific   question,   he   deposed   that   it   was   a   sense   of insecurity,   which   probably   resulted   in   change   of   statement   of   his mother on the behest of Rashmi when she had already given him clean chit in her first statement.

7. PW­3 Abdul Rashid  is the real elder brother of accused and joined the investigation of this case on 28.03.2000. He deposed that on   01.04.2000,   50/56   police   officers   had   come   to   Kasturba   Gandhi Mosque and they had searched the house but nothing was recovered.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 7of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi He further deposed that he along with the police officials went to the house   of   Mayur   Vihar   owned   by   the   accused   and   his   house   was searched   but   nothing   was   recovered.   He   further   deposed   that   on 02.04.2000,   police   again   went   to   the   house   of   accused   at   Kasturba Gandhi Mosque, from where I.O recovered two revolvers, cartridges, passports   of   the   family,   some   cassettes,  documents   etc.   vide   memo Ex.PW2/E and PW2/F. 

8.   PW­4 is Sh. Ravi Dadhich, who at the relevant time was posted  as   SDM   Preet   Vihar.     He   deposed   that   on   10.01.2000,   he received information from SHO PS Trilok Puri, which was to the effect that one lady named Anju Illiyasi W/o Sohaib Illyasi had been brought dead   in   AIIMS   hospital.   He   further   deposed   that   on   11.01.2000,   at around 10 am, he reached the place of incident i.e. B13, IFS Apartment Mayur Vihar Phase­I and the site was photographed and videographed in his presence. He further deposed that the site inspection report and a brief   history   Ex.PW4/A   was   prepared.   He   further   deposed   that   he recorded the statement Ex.PW4/D of Sh. Shatrugan, PSO of accused. Thereafter, he went to UNESCO Appt. along with police officers and signed the statement Ex.PW4/E given by accused Shuaib Illyasi. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement Ex.PW5/A of Sh. K.P. Singh (father of deceased) and on the very same day he passed an order Ex.PW4/F for constituting a board for conducting postmortem of FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 8of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi deceased   Anju.   He   deposed   that   on   12.01.2000,   he   went   to   AIIMS Hospital   and   inspected   the   dead   body,   which   was   preserved   in mortuary and in his presence, dead body identification statement of Sh. Umer   Ilyasi,   Ex.PW4/H   was   recorded.   He   also   conducted   inquest proceedings.   He deposed that he recorded the statement of Prashant Singh (brother of deceased) Ex.PW2/A and deposed that statement of Prashant Singh was also recorded at mortuary AIIMS hospital.  

He further deposed that in respect to postmortem report, he   had   made   another   reference   letter   Ex.PW4/J   to   Dr.   R.K.Sharma associate professor Forensic Department AIIMS, to opine specifically about the injuries on the body of Anju Illyasi that whether the same were possible with the weapon recovered by the CFSL.  Statements of various witnesses were recorded by him on various dates. He further asked for the report on viscera, blood samples and finger prints. He further   deposed   that   on   16.03.2000   Mrs.   Rashmi   sister   of   deceased gave   her   typed   written   statement.   On   13.01.2000,   he   recorded   the statement of Ms. Rukhma Singh, mother of deceased.   On the same day, he also recorded the statement of accused as well as of Prashant Singh (brother of deceased) with regard to the fact that deceased was right handy. He deposed that on 21.03.2000,  he examined and cross­ examined   Ms.   Rukhma   Singh   and   recorded   the   proceedings   as Ex.PW4/VV.     He   deposed   that   on   22.03.2000,   Rashmi   Singh   made another statement in her own handwriting, which is Ex.PW4/XX. He FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 9of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi deposed that he prepared inquest proceedings and forwarded the same to DCP East for further necessary action.

  In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed that on the complaints made by mother and the sister of the deceased, he recommended registration of this case under appropriate legal provision. He further admitted that mother, father, brother and Ms. Rita, sister of the deceased had told him that they do not suspect any   foul   play   against   the   accused.   He   further   deposed   that   during inquest proceedings conducted by him, he could not get any material suggesting that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the death with regard to demand of dowry. He further deposed that he was not   given   copy   of   any   loan   agreement   took   place   between   Rashmi Singh and M/s. Aaliya Production Pvt. Ltd. for giving loan of 10,000 Canadian Dollars and that he was not aware if Ms. Rashmi Singh had filed the suit for recovery of said 10,000 Canadian dollars through her mother Smt. Rukma Singh and the said suit has already been amicably settled between the parties and disposed of. He denied the suggestion that a false case had been registered by the police against the accused to harass him because he did not agree to hand over the custody of his daughter to Ms. Rashmi Singh, who wanted to take the child to Canada, where she is running a Montessori School. 

9.   PW­5   Dr.   Kamla   Prasad   Singh  is   the   father   of   the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 10of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi deceased. He deposed that his daughter Anju had married the accused of her own choice in England and he had approved her marriage.  He further deposed that her daughter and accused lived a normal life as husband and wife and there might be a small quarrel within the normal limit but nothing serious or important dispute between the two came to his light or knowledge. He further deposed that his daughter had visited him about 1­2 hours before her death and at that time she was hale and hearty. She did not make any complaint against her husband or against anyone else. He did not notice anything abnormal or unhappiness in her attitude during the period she stayed with him on that day. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact time but she left by 8 or 9 or 9.30 pm.  He deposed that at about 11pm, he received a telephonic call of his wife, who told him that Anju and accused were quarreling and asked him to visit her and further told him that his daughter Anju was having revolver in her hand. 

  He further deposed that at about 11.40/11.45 pm, he went to the house of the accused and did not find any security guards and he went inside. He searched for the revolver but he could not see it. He did not meet anyone in the house and he did not observe anything else in the   house.   He   further   talked   to   the   brother   of   the   accused,   who immediately   rushed   to   accused's   house.   After   some   time,   driver   of accused brought accused's daughter and he came to know that Anju was admitted in AIIMS and the moment he left the apartment, there FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 11of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi was a wireless message that Anju had expired.  He deposed that he took Alia, daughter of accused, left her to the family members of accused and rushed to AIIMS. He further deposed that when he reached the hospital, he found Sohaib weeping. Father, brother and other family members of accused were present there.  From the hospital, he brought the accused to his house. He further deposed that in the morning of 11.01.2000, his statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded by the SDM. He admitted   his   signature   on   statement   Ex.PW5/B   recorded   by   SDM regarding the fact that Anju was right handy.  He deposed that place of occurrence was about 3­4 km from his residence. He further deposed that his daughter was intelligent but many times she used to lose temper and   fight   with   the   accused.   She   was   temperamental   and   in hotheadedness she could do anything.

In   his   cross­examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he stated that he did not go to attend the marriage of Anju and his wife had attended the same.  He confirmed that there was no demand of dowry. He admitted that his daughter Rashmi had probably come to India on 14.02.2000. He further deposed that his wife had no grievances or any complaint against the accused and volunteered that her statement made to SDM speaks of her opinion about the accused. He further stated that Rashmi  wanted the custody of daughter of accused namely Alia for taking her to U.S.A for her education and bringing up and that Rashmi is   Director   of   Educational   Institute.     He   deposed   that   this   was   the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 12of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi reason for the delayed statement made against the accused.

10.  PW­6 Rukma Singh  is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that accused was also a student of B.A in Jamia Milia Islamia University,   from   where   her   deceased   daughter   was   pursuing   B.Sc (Hons)   in   Physics.   She   further   deposed   that   on   completion   of   his studies in Mass communication, accused had gone to London.   She deposed   that   her   deceased   daughter   told   her   that   the   accused   was studying with her and she wanted to marry him. When she told this fact to  her   husband   and  son   they   had   got   angry  on   the  ground  that   her daughter and accused belonged to different religion. She deposed that in   1993   they   agreed   to   the   marriage   of   her   daughter   with   accused. Afterwards, she along with her deceased daughter Anju had gone to London on or about 13/14.11.1993 for performing the marriage of her daughter and had taken all the articles of her daughter Anju and for accused, which were needed for the ceremony. She further deposed that her family had intended to perform court marriage in London but the accused was insisting on Nikah Ceremony. Since Nikah entailed the conversion of her daughter Anju from Hindu to Muslim, she as well as her   husband   and   son   were   not   agreeable   to   the   same.   She   further deposed that accused had told her that he is not having any money to spend  on  the   marriage  ceremony  and  that  thereafter,  court  marriage between her deceased daughter Anju and accused was performed in FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 13of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi London.  She deposed that she cannot say as to how much amount was spent in the marriage however, she had given about 500 or 600 dollars to   the   accused   at   that   time   and   the   marriage   was   performed   on 18.11.93. She further deposed that after the court marriage, the accused was   not   happy   and   insisted   on   Nikah   ceremony   and   the   same   was performed on 20.11.93, after which, her daughter was converted to a Muslim in a Masjid and her name after the conversion was Afsha.  She deposed that there was acrimony between Anju and accused and she had told about this to her daughters Rita and Rashmi as also to her son in­law David. She returned to India on 25.11.93. She further deposed that her deceased daughter had telephoned her from London asking her to send some money and she had sent about 1000/­ dollars alongwith her son Prashant, who visited London on 08.01.1994.  She deposed that in February 1994, her daughter Rita Van Enck alongwith her husband had visited her deceased daughter in London and stayed with her for about 10 days. She deposed that on return, her daughter Rita Van Enck had told her that financial condition of her daughter Anju and accused was not good and they had purchased household goods consisting of woolen clothes for Anju, utensils and blankets etc. for them and clothes i.e   jeans   etc.   for   accused.     She   deposed   that   Rita   had   told   her   that accused Sohaib Illyasi did not used to give money to Anju even for the daily expenses and there used to be fights between them over money. She deposed that her deceased daughter had told her that accused was FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 14of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi working in London on the basis of a forged degree and that when this fact was pointed out to the accused by one social work student of Jamia Miliya Islamiya University, accused left London alongwith her on the pretext that his father was suffering from prostrate cancer.  She further deposed that in November 1994, accused got renewed his childhood passport   and   went   back   to   London   leaving   behind   the   passport   on which, he had come to India and that Anju was left in India with his mother at the K.G Marg Mosque, which is his parent's house.   She deposed that accused came back after about two weeks.  She deposed that accused again went to London in December 1994, on his previous passport and returned within 2­3 weeks and meanwhile accused got his goods shifted from London to India by ship. She further deposed that after the accused returned from London in December 1994, the accused had sent her deceased daughter to her house 2­3 times and had also come along with her. She told that her deceased daughter Anju had told her that the accused was in need of some money. She further deposed that in the end of December 1994, accused had sent her daughter Anju to her house in the midnight in an auto rickshaw with the demand for money, which had been told to her by her daughter at that time. She deposed that Anju further told her that the accused had asked her to return   only   with   the   money   and   not   otherwise   and   at   that   time   on persistent demand of the accused, she had given 3000 dollars to her. She further deposed that when she asked her daughter as to why he FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 15of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi needs money then she told that he had to make payment in foreign currency towards the duty imposed upon the shipment of goods from London to India. She told that when in January 1995 goods reached Tuglakbad,   same   were   too   much   in   quantity   and   her   daughter   had inquired from the accused as to from where he had got the money to purchase them, to which he had replied that he had obtained a loan from the bank for purchasing the same to the tune of 10­12 thousands pound and on this issue, a quarrel took place between the accused and her   daughter  and   the   accused   had   given   beatings   to   her   deceased daughter. Thereafter, in the first week of February 1995, Anju came to her house along with all the belongings.

  She further deposed that her deceased daughter had gone to London in the month of May 1995 due to being mentally disturbed. In   April   1996,   the   accused   had   gone   to   London   and   had   met   her daughter there and had promised that he would make payment of the loan taken by him from the bank and that they would reside separately from   his   parents   in   India   after   taking   a   flat   on   rent   and   asked   her daughter to join him in India.  She deposed that after coming back to India in September 1996, her daughter had stayed for two days with her in­laws   and   then   had   come   back   to   her   house   to   stay   as   she   was required   to  wear   Burqa  there,   which  was   not   liked  by   her   and   that behavior of her mother in­law and sister in­law was not good towards her. She  deposed  that  during  her  daughter's  stay  at  her   matrimonial FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 16of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi home, the behavior of the accused was also not good towards her. 

She further deposed that in the year 1996, accused was making a television serial and in this connection he had met with one Ms. Vinod Nayyar and her husband Kuldeep Nayyar and entered into a partnership of 50% alongwith Anju and remaining 50% on the part of Ms. Vinod Nayyar and Sh. Kuldeep Nayyar for the production of his serial.   The   serial   was   named   as   INDIA'S   MOST   WANTED.   She deposed  that  subsequent  to this partnership, Nayyar's had given the basement of their house at Maharani Bagh to the accused for shooting of his serial and the accused started living there for the said purpose. She further deposed that her daughter, who was pregnant at that time, objected to the accused staying there and not coming to the house as she   wanted   him   to   give   more   time   to   her   during   the   period   of   her pregnancy. She deposed that at that time accused was not providing any money to her daughter for her maintenance. She deposed that on 24 th September 1997, a baby girl was born to her daughter and that since the accused was spending most of his time at the house of the Nayyars, her daughter used to object the same and whenever accused would come to house, he used to quarrel with her daughter.

She further deposed that in March 1998, she along with Anju and grand daughter Aaliya had gone Canada and in October 1998, the accused had come there and persuaded her deceased daughter Anju to return to India. They, however, return to India in February 1999 and FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 17of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi resided   in   their   flat.   She   deposed   that   at   that   time   one   Narendra Chaddha used to give threatening calls to her daughter saying that he would get her killed and that a complaint in this regard was made at P.S Mandawali. She deposed that at that time  accused sometimes stayed with them and sometimes with their parents and that accused used to harass her daughter.   She deposed that in June 1999, she alongwith her husband had gone to Canada and thereafter, in July & August 1999, her deceased daughter Anju had telephoned her and told that accused was in need of money and asked her to send some money, on which, her daughter Rashmi had sent an amount of Rs.18,000/­ once and then an amount   of   10,000   Canadian   dollars   to   him   through   Western   Indian Bank in September 1999.   She deposed that on 08.12.1999, accused had purchased a flat at Mayur Vihar, Phase­I, IFS Apartment and he alongwith   Anju   had   shifted   there.   She   further   deposed   that   on 10.01.2000 when she was with her daughter Reeta Vanenck at New Jersey, USA, a telephonic call was received by Reeta from the accused to the effect that Anju had taken his revolver and was threatening to kill herself. On this Reeta had told her to pick up the extension and she had talked to the accused and asked him as to what had happened and to call Anju on phone. She could hear the cries of Aaliya on the phone. Anju had not come to the phone and the phone had been disconnected at that time. Then she again called up the accused but Anju did not come on the line and phone was disconnected. Then she had rung up FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 18of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi her daughter Rashmi at Canada and asked her to ring up accused.  She also telephoned her husband (PW­5) at Delhi to go to the house of the accused and verify the facts on which her husband had told her that Anju had come to him and was in very happy mood and had left him only at 9.00 pm. She further deposed that after about  ½ hour or 45 minutes she had received a telephonic call from her husband that there was nobody in the house of the accused and nothing untoward appeared to him at that place. He also told her that no blood was seen to be lying on the floor in the house at that time. She thereafter, deposed on the line of PW­5 about the phone calls made to different persons and his having come to know that Anju was taken to AIIMS.  She deposed that cousin of the accused namely Izhar had rung her up and informed her that Anju was no longer alive and asked her to return to India. She returned   to   India   on   13.01.2000.     She   further   deposed   that   after returning to her house in India, she found numbers of unknown persons present there and that brother of the accused namely Umer Ilyasi, who was present there, was not allowing any of her neighbours to enter the house.   She   deposed   that   immediately   SDM   reached   there   and   her statement Ex. PW4/N was recorded then she came to know that her daughter   Anju   had   died   of   stab   injuries.     She   deposed   that   after cremation of Anju, accused stayed at their house for about one month and requested her to call her daughter Rashmi from Canada, however she did not come. 

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 19of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi She   deposed   that   in   February   2000,   her   elder   daughter Rashmi Singh had come to India and gave her statement to the SDM. She deposed that at that time she was not believing that her daughter had committed suicide. She further deposed that Anju had booked a ticket to go to Canada and USA with her daughter Aaliya for 25/26­1­ 2000 and for 04­02­2000. Thereafter, she found a cloth inside the box containing some of the belongings of deceased, which was handed over by the accused and she suspected the same to be blood stained and had approached the police authorities for seizing the same but the same was not seized by them. She deposed about handing over of three diaries of Anju to the police in her presence in which she verified the handwriting of her deceased daughter Anju.

In her cross examination by Ld. Spl. PP, she confirmed that immediately after the marriage the behavior of the accused was not good towards her deceased daughter Anju and that he was not fulfilling her basic requirements. She further confirmed that when accused had been residing in her house along with her daughter he used to beat her and that mother of accused used to say Anju that she had not brought sufficient dowry. 

  In   her   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   she confirmed that in her first statement to the SDM, she had not stated any incriminating allegation against the accused. She further confirmed that she had stated in her statement that Anju was short tempered and would FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 20of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi get flared up on small issues. She further deposed that she had stated in her   statement   that   Anju   used   to   reside   without   any   Parda   at   her matrimonial home and that she was not having any problems there. She deposed   that   Anju   never   disclosed   to   her   that   she   had   any   mental harassment of any kind with the accused. She admitted that even after arrival of Rashmi from Canada to India in February 2000, neither she nor Rashmi made any statement to SDM prior to 20.03.2000.   She, specifying the reason thereof stated that she did not want to give any vague/   wrong   statement   to  the   authorities   in   respect   of   the   incident without verifying the facts. She denied the suggestion that from the time of the death of her daughter Anju till she and her daughter Rashmi Singh   made   incriminating   statements   against   the   accused   on 21.03.2000, she and Rashmi Singh have been persuading the accused to handover   the   custody   of   her   granddaughter   Aaliya   to   her   so   that Rashmi could take her to Canada and volunteered that rather accused was   persuading   her   to   take   her   daughter   to   Canada.   She   further confirmed that she had litigated against the accused for the custody of her granddaughter Aaliya. She further denied the suggestion that after the arrest of the accused on 28.03.2000, she took the custody of Aaliya and volunteered that at that time, Aaliya was already with her. She further   denied   the   suggestion   that   after   filing   the   Habeas   Corpus petition by the accused, he was given the custody of the minor child. She further denied the suggestion that she had applied for custody of FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 21of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi minor   child   Aaliya   as   attorney   of   her   daughter   Rashmi   Singh. Admitting that a suit for recovery of Rs.2,80,000/­ equivalent to 10,000 Canadian Dollars was filed by her as attorney of her daughter Rashmi Singh, she denied that she and her daughter Rashmi had given the loan a colour of dowry demand and got the accused falsely implicated in this case. 

  At one point admitting that her deceased daughter Anju Illyasi and the accused were equal partners in Aaliya Productions, in next breath she pleaded ignorance about the same. She further denied the suggestion that she had made improvements in her statement made in   court   from   her   previous   statements   that   her   daughter   had   been harassed, maltreated, or that any demand of dowry was made. Denying the suggestion that she had lost the case in respect of the custody of her grand daughter till Hon'ble Supreme Court she admitted that her grand daughter is with accused and that she had been granted visitation rights by the Guardian and Ward judge. 

11.    PW­7   Dr.   H.Virmani  was   the   director   of   the   Virmani Nursing Home. He deposed that he did not remember the exact date but it   was   in   year   2000   when   at   about   10.00/10.30   pm,   he   received   a telephonic call from Dr. Dixit, who informed that accused had brought his   wife   in   the   said   Nursing   Home   in   critical   condition.   Dr.   Dixit informed him that as per the condition of the patient, there was urgent FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 22of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi necessity of blood transfusion, and the said facility was not available in their  Nursing Home  and her  condition was such  that she  should be referred to some higher center and on his direction Dr. Dixit referred the patient to AIIMS hospital. He deposed that no treatment/first aid was provided to the patient in his nursing home and no medical paper in respect of the patient had been prepared by him or by anyone of his staff at that time at his hospital.   He deposed that accused had also talked to him on telephone and he had asked accused to take Anju to AIIMS Hospital.

In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he confirmed that Dr. Dixit called him at about 11.30 pm and that Dr. Dixit had told him that there were some injury in the abdomen, which was tied with a cloth and that he had not given him the details of the injuries. 

12. PW­8 SI Mukesh Kumar is Draftsman. He deposed that on 14.01.2001, at the request of Inspector Santosh Kumar, he visited the spot  i.e. flat no. B­13, IFS Apartment, Mayur  Vihar, Phase­I Delhi, where   he   took   measurements,   prepare   rough   notes   and   on   basis   of same, prepared a scaled site plan Ex. PW8/A.

13.  PW­9   is   HC   Sojan   Varghese,   who   on   11.01.2000   was posted as Duty Constable in AIIMS Hospital. He deposed that on that FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 23of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi day Mrs. Anju Illyasi was brought in the hospital in an unconscious condition by her husband and that she was declared brought dead by the doctor. He informed the Police station Pandav Nagar vide DD No. 28­A.

14.   PW­10 is Dr. L.C.Gupta, who deposed that on 12.1.2000, he along with Dr. R.K.Sharma of AIIMS and Dr. Alexander F.Khaka of Safdarjung   Hospital   had   conducted   postmortem   on   the   body   of deceased.    He   proved   the   postmortem   report   as   Ex.PW10/A.   He deposed that in the application submitted by IO with inquest papers, he demanded   opinion   with   regard   to   three   questions   and   that   i.e   (1) Number and nature of injuries (2) the cause of death and (3) Whether injuries   were   suicidal   or   homicidal.     He   further   deposed   that   on 18.01.2000,   after   visiting   the   scene   of   crime,   studying   all   the   24 photographs   of   scene   of   crime   submitted   by   IO,   considering   the statement that deceased was a right handy person, treatment received at Virmani Nursing Home by the deceased, the statement made by the doctor of that hospital and considering the viscera report, the medical board   consisting   of   abovesaid   three   doctors   gave   their   report Ex.PW10/B.  He further deposed that he received a letter signed by Dr. R.K.Sharma   alongwith   a   report   signed   by   Dr.   R.K.Sharma   and   Dr. Alexander Khaka without pointing out the reasons of not signing the report by him. He further deposed that in fact no communication for the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 24of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi meeting   of   the   board   to   be   held   on   22.03.2001   was   given   to   him, therefore,   he   demanded   relevant   papers   and   subsequently   on 30.08.2001, he had submitted a final report Ex.PW10/D and also gave opinion regarding weapon of offence.   

In his cross­examination he deposed that he has no reasons to show as to why the other two doctors of the board has not taken his opinion   and   denied   the   suggestion   that   his   subsequent   opinion   is procured by the complainant side by putting undue pressure upon him.

15. PW­11   Inspector   Ram   Krishan,  collected   documents pertaining to the transaction of foreign currency in the name of Sohaib Illyasi   from   Sh.   Sanjeev   Sahani,   Manager   Foreign   Exchange,   Sita Travels,   through   seizure   memo   Ex.   PW11/A.   He   deposed   that   Smt. Rashmi Singh produced copy of the documents pertaining to passport etc. of deceased Anju Illyasi, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW11/B. He deposed that statements of Rashmi Singh and Rukma Singh were also recorded.

16.  PW­12 is HC Rajesh Kumar, who did not depose anything substantial about this case and only stated that he had gone to B­13, IFS Apartment, Mayur Vihar Phase­1 as he was posted in the Crime Team East Distt. and met SI Ramesh Malik at the spot.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 25of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

17. PW­13 is HC Shatrughan, who  was posted as PSO with the accused. He deposed that on 10.01.2000, they reached at B­13, IFS Apartment, Mayur Vihar at about 10/10.30 pm. At about 10­10.30 pm two   boys,   out   of   which   one   named   Faqroo   came   to   the   house   of accused for hair cut. He checked their bag and let them in and after 5­7 minutes   they   came   out   from   the   house   and   went   away.   He   further deposed that 10 to 15 minutes thereafter, accused opened the door and he entered the house as he was under the impression that he will be given the beddings and as he entered the house, he found Smt. Anju Illyasi lying on the floor, wearing a blue colour jeans and a blue colour top. He noticed some blood oozing out near her belly button (nabhi). He   deposed   that   on   being   enquired   accused   told   him   that   she   had stabbed herself with a kitchen knife. He further deposed that he found an old baniyan lying nearby and tied the same on the wound. He called the second PSO and on instruction of the accused they with the help of the accused took Smt. Anju through stairs in the car of the accused. Accused drove the car and he sat on the back seat holding head of Smt. Anju and PSO Raj Kumar sat along with Aaliya, daughter of accused on the front seat. He further deposed that they went to Virmani Nursing Home where after checking the patient, doctor asked accused to shift the patient to some big hospital. Smt. Anju was brought back near the car and Smt. Anju called him by his name stating that her hair got entangled in the stretcher, whereafter, he removed her hair from the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 26of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi stretcher.  He further deposed that on the way to AIIMS hospital while accused was taking a turn Smt. Anju told him calling him by his name that "Mera Dum Ghut Raha Hai." After 15 to 20 minutes they reached AIIMS where he came to know that Smt Anju had died. He informed the   Police   Officials.   ACP   and   Inspector   came   in   the   AIIMS   and prepared their report.

He   was   cross­examined   by   Ld.   Special   APP   for   state, wherein he confirmed that, in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C  he told that after 5 minutes P.P opened the door and called him inside and he saw that Anju was lying on the carpet and her hair were in loose conditions and she was wearing jeans pant and full sleeves sweater and sweater was on the upper side of the body and he also noticed the wound and blood on her stomach. He further confirmed that when Anju was being taken to the hospital she was taking turns on both sides saying " Mujhe Bacha Lo".  He further confirmed that in way to hospital her condition deteriorated and her movement also stopped.   

In   his   cross­examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed   that   when   accused   told   him   that   his   wife   Anju   Illyasi   had stabbed herself with the kitchen knife then he asked her as to what she had done to which she replied she had committed a mistake. He further deposed that on the way to AIIMS Smt. Anju asked accused "Sohaib Mujhe Bacha Lo." 

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 27of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

18. PW­14 SI Ramesh Malik deposed about receiving of copy of DD No. 28A for inquiry on 11.01.2000.  He deposed that he along with Ct. Mahavir reached at AIIMS Hospital, where he was told by the Duty Constable that one Anju Illyasi, who was brought to the hospital had already died and her body was sent to mortuary. He collected the MLC report of Anju Illyasi and enquired from people gathered there, however, none told him about any foul play in the matter. Meanwhile SHO and ACP arrived at the hospital and he then proceeded to the house   of   the   accused,   where   he   met   father   of   Anju   Illyasi   Sh.   K.P Singh, who told him that his daughter was a short tempered girl and she had committed suicide by stabbing herself.   He deposed that SHO and ACP had locked the flat at IFS Apartment. At about 9.00­10.00 am CFSL/CBI, East District Delhi Police team arrived at House No. B­13, IFS  Apartment  followed by the team East Delhi  District Police and little after SDM Preet Vihar also reached there.   On the directions of SDM,   the said house was opened and respective teams started their works. The MLC of Anju Illyasi was handed over to the SDM and site plan was prepared by the I.O. He further deposed that one revolver was picked up by him from the said flat along with 3 live cartridges lying separately, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A and same were handed over by him to MHC(M).   

19.    PW­15   is   HC   Rajesh   Kumar,   who   deposed   that   on FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 28of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi 11.01.2000,  on   receipt   of   a   telephonic   call   he   reached   at   the   IFS apartment 1st floor, Mayur Vihar, Delhi and on the direction of I.O he inspected the place of incident and lifted one chance print from a knife lying near the bed in the bedroom the floor/carpet and prepared a report Ex. PW15/A. In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed that he cannot say as to how many persons might have handled the said knife prior to his lifting the chance print as the knife was not sealed and deposed that he had gloves on his hand. 

20.  PW­16   is   Inspector   Santosh   Kumar,   who   partly investigated the matter and deposed about preparation of  scaled site plan Ex. PW8/A. He deposed that on 04.01.2001, he took Honda City car from accused Sohaib Illyasi and started from Viramani Hospital to AIIMS  and it took 20 minutes for reaching from Viramani Hospital to AIIMS. He further deposed that he also interrogated the accused and accused disclosed that earlier statement made by him that Anju had consumed some poison and had been hit by some sharp objects in her stomach   was   false.   He   deposed   that   in   response   to   his   question regarding presence of blood in the bathroom and in the drains of the bathroom under the sink, accused replied that it was a menstrual blood. He deposed that on 05.01.2001 he took the finger prints of Dr. K.P. Singh, father of deceased and recorded the statements of the witnesses.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 29of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi He deposed that on 09.01.2001 he showed a diary of the deceased Anju to her sister Dolly and she identified Anju's handwriting on it. He had requested the Department of AIIMS to constitute a Board of doctors to re­examine the postmortem report and on 17.3.2001 he handed over the investigation of this case to Inspector S.P Rawat.   In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed that he had not collected the blood flowing in the drains and below the drains in the wash basin since the incident had taken place a year back. He further deposed that the finger prints of Dr. K.P Singh did not connect with the chance prints taken from the spot. He further confirmed  that  no  finger  prints  taken   in  this   case   matched  with  the chance prints picked from the spot. 

21.  PW­17 is  Retired Dr. G.D Gupta, who  was working as Principal Scientific Officer(Biology) cum Asstt. Chemical Examiner to Govt. of India, CFSL, CBI New Delhi. He deposed that on 12.01.2000 he received one parcel from the Finger Print Division for examination. He examined the same and gave his report EXPW17/A.     He further deposed that on 18.1.2000 he received 14 parcels in connection with the present case from office of SDM Preet Vihar Delhi. On the basis of Biological examination carried out in laboratory he prepared a detailed report Ex.PW17/B dt. 08.02.2000. He deposed that on 11.01.2000 he visited the scene of crime in connection with the present case and there FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 30of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi were no stains on and near the chance prints mark Q­1 on the bedroom wall, near electric switch board, the place was not examined for blood. His report in this regard is Ex.PW17/C. He further identified the sealed parcel Ex. P­1, as the same knife which was examined by  him in the laboratory. 

In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed that he had not picked up anything from the scene of crime but simply had examined it. 

22.  PW­18 Ms. Rita Vaneck is the elder sister of the deceased. She deposed that Anju had a love marriage with accused which was performed in London. On coming back  from London to India Anju came to know about accused fraudulent activities regarding bank credit card and the various passports. She further deposed that Anju had also found   that   accused   has   forged   the   signatures   of   Anju   and   took   out money   from   the   bank   and   when   Anju   detected   the   said   fraud   she wanted to leave Sohaib and shift to Canada along with her daughter to settle there. She further deposed that on 10th January she received a call from her sister Anju Illyasi at her residence at USA and Anju asked for Rashmi Singh. She recognized her voice and told her that Bulu (nick name of Anju) it is she Rita and Anju said talk to Sohaib. Sohaib came on the line and on being asked as to what was happening, he told her that he and Anju had a fight but he did not disclose any reason. She FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 31of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi deposed that Sohaib informed her that Anju is having revolver in her hand and threatening to kill herself. She asked Sohaib she can talk with her sister to which he informed her that Anju refused to talk with her. The   phone   was   disconnected   thereafter.  She   deposed   that  she   again made a call to the house of accused, which was attended by accused, who said that Anju was trying to kill herself and that he was telling her that if she wanted to kill somebody she should kill him.   She further deposed that accused informed her that he is asking Anju to think about their   daughter   but   Anju   is   replying   that   he   can   take   care   of   their daughter. She deposed that this all was told to her by Sohaib but she didn't talk or listen anything mentioned above from her sister Anju and phone was disconnected as phone was busy. Thereafter after 2­3 hours she was informed about the death of Anju. She further deposed that couple of days later she received a call from Sohaib to give statement to SDM and she made a fax to SDM regarding her statement Ex. PW18/A dated 20.01.2000.   She deposed that in December 2001, she came in India and gave her statement to police wherein she informed that her sister can never kill herself and that her sister's love for her daughter was beyond any kind of love that is why she could not kill herself. She deposed that her sister was ready to fly to Canada in Feb 2000 as she wanted   to   settle   herself   in   Canada   with   her   daughter.   She   further deposed that her elder sister Rashmi Singh had booked tickets for Anju to Canada and this fact was told to her by elder sister Rashmi Singh on FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 32of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi 09.01.2000 and the same was also confirmed to her by her deceased sister prior to the incident i.e. 06.01.2000.  She further recognized the handwriting of her sister on letter dated 16.09.1999 and another letter on judicial file as Anju used to write letters to her also. She further deposed that during her stay in year 2001 in India, she came to know more about the case and the facts and there was no doubts in her mind that it was not a suicide case because the way she knew her sister, Anju could have brought Sohaib down from the peak of his career with the information she was having. She deposed that it was fraud of bank credit card, passport fraud and regarding the degrees of qualification of Jamia   Millia   especially   during   the   period   accused   was   telecasting 'India Most Wanted'.

In her cross examination done by Ld. Defence Counsel, she deposed that she had seen the fax messages Ex. PW18/A which was in English but there were fill in the blanks in Hindi which were not in her handwriting nor made in her presence as such she could not say who had written these in Hindi. She further denied the suggestion that her sister had put the receiver down after giving call to her in New Jersey having come to know that it was her. She deposed that she did not put the receiver down but in fact told her in this call to talk to Sohaib.   She deposed that it was a very abrupt message lasting for fraction   of   a   second   and   thereafter   there   was   no   communication between her and Anju.  

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 33of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

23.    PW­19   is   SI   Rajesh   Kumar,   who   deposed   about investigation carried out on 27.03.2000.  He recorded the statement of Rashmi Singh and deposed that accused was arrested on 28.03.2000 vide   memo   Ex.PW1/B   and   his   personal   search   was   conducted   vide memo Ex.PW1/C. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused he deposed that he had arrested the accused on the basis of statement of Rashmi Singh and on the basis of enquiry report, however, denied the suggestion   that   out   of   the   influence   with   the   complainant   party   he hastened to arrest the accused without any evidence and without any proper investigation. 

24.    PW­20   Ms.   Rashmi   Singh   is   the  elder   sister   of   the deceased. She deposed  that her  deceased sister  Anju got married to accused on 18.11.93 at London and she used to come at her parental home whenever there was any kind of torture or fight between accused Sohaib   and   Anju.   She   further   deposed   that   money   was   always   the reason   of   fight   as   accused   had   no   money   to   support   her   sister financially. She deposed that she and her sister off and on used to send money to Anju for different purposes.  She deposed that Anju used to tell her about the financial hardships being faced by her.   She further deposed that once in April 1994 her sister Rita and her brother in­law FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 34of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi David visited London they saw the miserable condition in which Anju was living there and thereafter, they bought various household articles to Anju. 

She deposed that in 1994 there was a fight between her deceased sister Anju and accused on account of transfer of lots of stuffs like BMW cars and other households articles, electronic stuffs from London to India, whereafter, Anju had decided to go back to England in May, 95. She deposed that  Anju had also discussed with her about the probability of divorce with the accused and that when accused came to know about the divorce,   he came to London to convince Anju to come   back   and   not   go   through   divorce   proceedings.     She   further deposed that in September 1996 her sister came back to India the time when accused was working on a project called 'Crime Stoppers' and asked her sister to be a part of it. She deposed that Anju told them that the   situation   has   not   been   changed   but   she   is   still   willing   to   give another   chance   to   her   married   life.     She   further   deposed   that   the situation became more tensed between her sister and accused due to financial problems as well as his ties with one lady Mrs. Vinod Nayyar who had become the producer of 'Crime Stoppers'. She deposed that on the asking of accused, Anju also anchored the show for some time.   She   deposed   that   on   24.09.1997,   Anju   gave   birth   to   a female child and that there was a lot of tension between accused, his mother and Anju as accused wanted the delivery to take place at their FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 35of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi home but Anju was not agreeable to that. She further deposed that all expenses   were   borne   by   her   and   her   father.   She   deposed   that   Anju again told her about the fights she was having with accused, when she came to India in  December, 1997.   She deposed that in the intervening night   of   31.12.97/1.1.98   accused   came   to   her   mother's   house   at UNESCO apartment in drunk condition and on a very small issue, he slapped Anju and left the place only after they threatened him to call the police.

  She   deposed   that   in   July   1999,   she   sent   Rs.18,000/­   to Anju as she asked the same to buy some clothes. At that time accused started   another   production   in   the   name   and   style   of   M/s.   Aaliya production   for   the   serial   'India's   Most   Wanted'.   She   deposed   that accused and her sister were financial constraints and on the insistence of accused, Anju asked her for money and thereafter, she sent 10,000/­ Canadian Dollars through Western Union. 

  She deposed that on 10.12.99 her sister moved into a new apartment   at   Mayur   Vihar,   Delhi   but   Anju   was   not   happy   due   to financial problem and had asked her if she and Aaliya can come to Canada. She deposed that on 9.1.2000 when she called Anju, she asked as to when her tickets for Canada were being sent and on coming to know that tickets were being sent on 10.01.2000, she was very happy. She deposed that during her conversation Anju mentioned her about a card board box  and  asked  her  not  to throw anything  from that  box FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 36of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi because   it   contains   important   documents.   She   deposed   that   on 10.01.2000 her mother called her and asked to telephone Anju telling that accused and Anju were having a fight. She further deposed that she called Anju but phone was picked by accused and he said 'Didi, Bulu ka dimag kharab ho gaya hai'. She asked him what is going on. She deposed that  she assumed that her sister Anju snatched phone from accused Sohaib. Anju was crying and her exact words were 'Didi take me away or he is going to kill me'. She deposed that after this accused Sohaib   Illyasi   snatched   the   phone   back   and   told   her   that   she   had interfered in their life long enough and he will take care of Anju and the phone was disconnected. She tried  calling her sister Anju's home several  times but the phone was busy.   She deposed that couple of hours later, her mother called her and told about death of Anju.   She deposed that after the death of Anju she was kept under sedation for couple of weeks and that during this time she got a call from accused, who asked her to give her statement to SDM.   She deposed that there were lots of paper in the box mentioned by Anju and those documents did not make any sense to her but she was coming to India soon so she decided to bring them with her.  She deposed that her sister Anju could not have committed suicide as she loved her daughter too much.  She deposed that when on 14.02.2000 she came to India, she started doing research of her own based on the fact and circumstances and that's the reason she was delayed in giving her statement to SDM.  She deposed FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 37of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi that she gave the documents showing fraudulent activities of accused, to the SDM which are Ex.PW20/1 (colly).  She further deposed that her sister had been murdered.   She identified the Anju's handwriting on Ex.PW20/5.

She further deposed that her sister Anju was not having any   suicidal   tendency   of   such   temperament   as   she  stated   so   in   her statement in SDM Ex.PW4/TT. She further deposed that right from the beginning accused Sohaib was rash and arrogant. She further confirmed that   father   and   mother   of   Sohaib   were   not   happy   at   all   with   the aforesaid marriage for two reasons as her sister was Hindu and second they   were   expecting   huge   amount   of   dowry   and   due   to   aforesaid reasons accused with his family members started harassing Anju and she was being forced to do all the work of servant at her matrimonial house.   She further deposed that Sohaib slapped her sister by saying that if your father has not given the things, as mentioned by her in her statement, she has to make arrangement of the same and he is not going to take her responsibility. She further deposed that her deceased sister was   thrown   out   from   her   matrimonial   house,   so   she   came   to   her parental house. She further deposed that accused also misbehaved with her mother. She deposed that the relations of accused with Mrs. Nayar started   creating   lots   of   interference   in   their   family   life.   She   further confirmed that accused told her that he was expecting a baby boy and his dreams were shattered. She further confirmed that accused wanted FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 38of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi to maintain the illicit relation with Narendra Chadha and Sunita Chadha and Anju used to have fight on this account. She further confirmed that when she had a talk with her sister Anju on telephone from Canada, she heard Anju was screaming and crying loudly and her daughter was also crying   loudly.   She   further   deposed   that   Anju   had   left   a   letter   and accused told her that he would hand over the letter to her but the said letter was not available and was burnt by accused as that letter was containing true and vital facts. She further confirmed that on 23.2.2000 in the presence of her family members when she asked about the future of Aaliya, accused got furious and started shouting and threatened that he would cause harm to Aaliya. She further deposed that due to his illicit relations with Mrs. Narender Chadha, accused wanted to remove Anju from their way.

   In her cross examination done by Ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that from the time of her sister's death, Sohaib along with his family was residing in UNESCO Apartment and not letting anybody to come inside the apartment and the accused totally influenced her father with his lies and her father and brother were not aware of the facts and circumstances of her sister's death. She admitted that she had given business   loan   of   10,000   Canadian   dollars   to   the   Alia   Production   of accused.   She   confirmed   the   handwriting   of   Anju   on   letters Ex.PW20/D1 and D2. She admitted that in her typed complaint and cross­examination done by SDM, she had mentioned that Anju said "

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 39of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Didi take me away" and not the words " or he is going to kill me".

  In answer  to the specific questions, she denied that she kept on negotiating the future of Aaliya with accused in the presence and to the knowledge of her family members and deposed that it was the accused, who was using Aaliya as a bargaining chip in order to influence her not to file a complaint with the SDM. She further deposed that she was not interested in taking Aaliya to Canada because of the Canadian Child Laws as according to the same a child cannot travel to any   foreign   country   without   a   written   authorization   of   one   of   the parent. She further denied that she proposed the accused to marry her and   accompany   her   along   with   his   daughter   Aaliya   to   Canada   for permanent settlement and on his refusal she got annoyed and thought of a plan to lodge a false complaint against accused to get him arrested and in his absence deal with Aaliya in whatever manner she wanted. She further deposed that the inquest proceedings conducted by SDM were prolonged due to inconsistencies in Sohaib's statements and his influence with the top officials in the police administration.    She further denied the suggestion that accused never told her that Anju had written a letter before her death and this letter was burnt by accused and this letter was her imagination and a white lie. She denied the voice to be of  hers in the CD  Ex. PW20/DA when played in the court. She denied having known to any person namely Pramod Mahajan, Minister in the NDA Govt. or lodging of FIR at his FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 40of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi instance.

25.  PW­21 is SI Vinay Tyagi, who joined the investigation of this case after its transfer to Special staff, on 30.03.2000.  He deposed that he verified the provisional certificate of accused Sohaib Illyasi for the course of M.A (Social Work) from  Jamia Millia University, Delhi and   the   same   was   found   forged.     He   deposed   about   recording   of disclosure   statement   Ex.PW21/C   of   accused.   He   deposed   that   on 02.04.2000 house of  accused at K.G.Marg was searched and during search two revolvers .32 bore along with 9 live cartridges and 7 empty cartridges, some passports, credit cards, one portable tape recorder and some other micro cassettes along with other articles were seized vide seizure   memo  Ex.  PW2/E.  He   also   deposed   that   on  21.05.2000,   IO received photocopy of eleven papers through courier from Canada.

26.  Another witness, who has been examined as PW­21 is Sh. S.K. Chadha from CFSL.  He deposed that pursuant to receiving of DD No.   28A,   he   along   with   the   team   examined   the   scene   of   crime thoroughly   with   scientific   aids.   He   further   examined   the   knife   and developed finger prints on it and developed the chance prints marked as Q1 from the wall of the bedroom at the crime scene and gave his report Ex.PW21/A.  He deposed that he received the finger prints/palm slips for comparison with chance prints and proved his reports Ex.PW4/QQ, FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 41of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW21/H.  He deposed that he submitted viscera report to the SDM, which is Ex.PW21/J. In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed that he did not meet any of the officials of Delhi Police Crime Team or the FSL who as per his information had already inspected the spot.  

27.  PW­22 is Dr. R.K.Sharma, who on 12.01.2000 along with Dr. Alexander F. Khaka of Safdarjung Hospital and Dr. L.C.Gupta of Aruna Asaf Ali conducted the post mortem on the body of Smt. Anju Illyasi, as a board and that he was the Chairman of the board.     In   his   cross­examination   done  on   behalf   of   accused,   he deposed that the instant case is a case of suicide.

28.  PW­22A is W/HC Kiran, who joined the investigation of this case on 02.04.2000 and had gone with other staff to conduct a raid at K.G.Marg house. She deposed that from an almirah, two revolvers, some   passports,   two   master   visa   cards   and   nine   live   cartridges   and seven used cartridges were recovered and sized vide memo  Ex.PW2/E.

29.    PW­23 Ct. Ashok Kumar had joined the investigation with ACP Rajeev Ranjan and had gone to Foreign Exchange office, from where, he collected some documents and seized the same vide memo FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 42of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Ex.PW23/A.

30.  PW­24 is Ms. Deepa Verma from FSL, who had examined documents Q1 to Q52 and proved her report as Ex.PW24/A.   In her cross­examination she confirmed that three diaries out of which the questioned documents were taken at is not before her and volunteered that those diaries were sent to her and those diaries were   returned   by   her   to   the   police   alongwith   her   report   after   the examination.

31.  PW­25 is Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, who was deputed by MS AIIMS to depose on behalf of Dr. N.K.Vyas, who had prepared MLC of deceased Anju.  He proved the MLC as Ex.PW4/C.

32. PW­26 is Dr. Sarvesh Tandon, who was deputed by MS Safdarjung Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Alxender F.Khaka (who could not appear before the court on account of his illness), who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and proved the report as Ex.PW10/A. He also proved the subsequent report of medical board dt.   18.01.2000   as   Ex.PW10/B   and   final   opinion   in   respect   of postmortem report dt. 12.04.2001 as Ex.PW22/A.

33. PW­27 is Sh. Shekhar Kumar Chobey.   He deposed that FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 43of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi in   the   year   1998­99   he   took   photographs   in   the   house   at   Press Apartment, Mayur Vihar Phase­I.   He also   photographed as  well as video graphed the entire postmortem of Anju conducted in the hospital and handed over three video CDs and photographs collectively Mark PW27/A with negative to SHO. 

34. PW­28   is   Sh.   Inam   Qadir   Asstt.   Controller   from   Jamia Milia Islamia University.   He had brought the original record  of the year 1991 of M.A Social work previous/final of the aforesaid year and deposed that name of Sohaib Ahmed Illyasi was not there in the record of the aforesaid period. The attested copy of the record was proved is Ex.PW28/A(OSR). 

  In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed   that   accused   had   taken   admission   in   M.A   Mass Communication but was declared failed in the year 1991. 

35.  PW­29   is   Dr.   Rajinder   Singh,   who   deposed   that   on 19.01.2000, four sealed parcels from Biology Division of CFSL were received at the Physics Division of CFSL.  He examined the same and gave his report Ex.PW29/A. The scientific result of his report revealed that the cloth pieces Ex.F and Ex.K, which were marked by him were not similar to each other in respect of their nature of cloth, weaving pattern and other general physical characteristics. Further he deposed FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 44of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi that the cloth mark Ex.g1 to g6 did not reveal the presence of cut mark. Ex.g2 is a offwhite colour full sleeves t­shirt and g3 is a blue colour full sleeves sweater which was worn by the deceased at the time of incident.

36.  PW­30 is Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, who at the time of incident was posted as ACP Operations Cell, East District. He deposed that on 27.03.2000   file   of   the   present   case   was   given   to   him   by   DCP   for registration of the FIR alongwith SDM report. On his endorsement and on the statement of Rashmi Singh, a case u/s. 498A/304B/201/34 IPC was directed to be registered. On 30.03.2000 as directed by DCP East, he took over investigation of this case. He remained the IO of this case till   30.05.2000   and   during   this   period,   the   accused   was   arrested, interrogated and taken into police custody remand for two days. Search was   conducted   at   his   residence   at   Big   City   Masjid,   Curzon   Road residence and also at his native place at Village Nuh, Harahana.  From his Curzon Road residence, two revolvers, some live and some spent cartridges, some passports of his family members and some credit cards and other things mentioned in the seizure memo were recovered by him. Statements of complainant Rukma Singh and Rashmi Singh were recorded.     Rashmi   Singh   handed   over   some   documents   i.e   diaries written by deceased, a copy of fake degree from Jamia Milia University in the name of accused and  documents of Sita Travels through which FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 45of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi she had transferred money to accused, which were seized by him vide seizure   memo   Ex.   PW30/B.   The   house   search   was   conducted   of premises No. B­13, IFS Apartment, Mayur Vihar and house No. 224, Ward No. 7 of Nuh Haryana vide memos Ex.PW30/C & Ex.PW30/D. He deposed that Rashmi Singh also submitted details of ticket (Ex. PW30/X) booked by deceased for herself and her daughter and   the   telephone   records   of   the   conversation   amongst   herself, deceased and accused just before the death of deceased, which are mark PW30/Y1.   Rashmi   Singh   also   informed   about   the   existence   of   two passports in the name of Sohaib Illyasi and also submitted admitted handwritten letters of deceased. He deposed that on the basis of these documents and allegations of dowry harassment, the investigation was carried   out   by   him.   Sita   World   Travels   Company,   which   is   in Connaught Place was contacted for verification of money sent by Ms. Rashmi Singh from Canada through Western Union and the Manager of Site World produced the documents pertaining to this transaction as well as copy of passport of accused.  The Incharge ICD Tughlakabad was contacted to verify import of BMW Car by the accused and the duty  paid  by  the  accused  to  the  custom   department.    A  part  of   the money paid towards the duty was allegedly given to the accused by his mother­in­law. The bank accounts of the accused or accounts in the name of his business interest were verified for transaction of the above said money and same were frozen. The copy of the fake certificates was FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 46of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi sent to the Controller of Examination of the concerned University  and the report declaring the said certificates to be fake one was received. Inquiries were made from Regional Passport Office regarding existence of two passports in the name of accused and the RPO reported that two passports were obtained by the accused using false information. On the basis of this report a case was registered at P.S Tilak Marg, New Delhi District. 

He deposed that father & brother of deceased, the police officials   who   were   associated   with   the   inquest   proceedings,   the relatives of accused, the officials of CFSL, the PSOs along with barbers and drivers of accused were examined u/s 161 Cr.P.C .  Dr. Rama Kant Dixit of Virmani Hospital was also examined. He further deposed that finger   print   on   the   knife   could   not   be   identified,   therefore,   all   the people who had visited the scene of crime or were associated with the inquest   proceedings   were   requested   to   give   finger   prints   for comparison,   however,   the   finger   prints   on   the   knife   could   not   be identified.  He deposed that a letter was sent to the Board of Autopsy Surgeons   for   clear   cut   opinion   whether   the   death   was   a   murder   or suicide in view of facts and circumstantial evidence mentioned therein. The final report of the Board came in splits. Two doctors namely Dr. Alexander Khaka and Dr. R.K.Sharma sent a joint report Ex.PW22/A (now Ex.PW30/F) declaring the death of Anju Illyasi as suicide. They suggested   in   their   report   Ex.PW30F   to   take   a   report  from   Dr. FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 47of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi L.C.Gupta   directly.     However,   the   3rd  member   of   the   Board   Dr. L.C.Gupta wrote to him through his report Ex.PW10/C and PW10/D that he is having problems with the other board members and therefore, he will send his report separately if a complete set of documents is made available to him. It was done and Dr.L.C Gupta submitted his report which clearly said that homicide cannot be ruled out. 

He   further   deposed   that   accused   in   his   statement   made before   SDM   said   that   his   wife   had   stabbed   herself   following   an argument with him while standing on door.  On seeing this he got up from the bed and ran towards her, snatched the knife from her hand and threw   it   on   the   floor   and   laid   her   on   the   carpet   outside   the   door. Thereafter,   he   took   his   wife   to   Virmani   Hospital,     where   he   met Dr.R.K.Dixit   who   in   his   statement   made   before   SDM   said   that   the accused told him that "Isne kuch kha liya hai". But when the patient was   shifted   to   the   stretcher   and   was   being   taken   for   treatment,   he noticed blood on the abdomen of the patient. On this he questioned the accused again and the accused told him that " Koi nukili cheez lag gayi hai". He deposed that the wife of the accused was seriously injured and was in critical condition yet he did not tell the doctor outrightly that what had happened to her so that correct and prompt treatment could be given to her to save her life, instead he indulged in playing games of riddles   with   the   doctors.     He   further   deposed   that   during   the investigation of the crime scene, blood of the deceased was found on FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 48of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the bed, which shows that the deceased was on the bed at some point of time contrary to the claim made by the accused in his statement before SDM. He deposed that blood samples of the deceased were lifted from the   bathroom   sink   and   the   naali   (drain)   which   points   towards   an attempt   to   wash   evidence.   This   was   again   in   contradiction   of   the statement of the accused. During the interrogation of the accused, he said   that   the   deceased   was   having   menses   and   the   blood   on   the bathroom and bed can be explained that way. However, the final report of the Autopsy Surgeon made it clear that during the postmortem the deceased was not in the menstrual phase.  He further deposed that the seizure  memo made  during the  inquest  proceedings  for  the  licensed revolver   of   the   accused   and   the   cartridges   says   that   the   same   were recovered   in   loaded   form   from   the   shelf   of   the   room,   whereas   the accused had deposed before the SDM as well as during his inquest interrogation that when his wife was threatening to kill him with the revolver, he had snatched the revolver from her, taken out the bullets and threw the revolver under the bed and cartridges behind the head board of the bed. The absence of the finger print of the deceased on the knife with which she allegedly stabbed herself does not conclusively point out to suicide.

He further deposed that the barbers Fazlu and Amiruddin who had come to IFS Apartment, Mayur Vihar apparently to give hair cut to the accused stated that when they were preparing to start hair FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 49of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi cutting, the deceased Smt. Anju Illyasi came out of the bed room and handed over the phone to the accused saying that "Baat Kar Lo". The accused took the phone inside and the bed room and after few minutes came   outside   and   told   them   that   they   can   leave   for   now   and   come tomorrow   for   the   hair   cut.   They   did   not   notice   any   scuffle   or   loud arguments coming from the bed room. Even the PSOs posted outside the door did not hear any commotion or noise from inside.  He further deposed   that   it   was   checked   during   investigation   that   the   distance between the bed room of the accused & deceased and the place, where the accused was supposed to have hair cut and the door, where the PSOs were posted, was a few meters only and any loud sound from the bed room was audible at these two places. 

  He deposed that accused had reached the Virmani Hospital at around 11.30 pm and left Viramani Hospital for AIIMS at 11.40 pm and reached AIIMS at 12.26 am. The PSOs had deposed that Anju was writhing in pain and was saying 'Mujhe Bacha Lo". A test drive was conducted   from   Viramani   hospital   to   AIIMS   in   similar   weather condition and at the same time in 1 st week of January 2001. In the test drive, the same car at the same speed i.e. 60 kms per hour and similar traffic   conditions   took   only   20   minutes   to   reach   AIIMS,   whereas accused had taken 46 minutes to reach AIIMS on the fateful night.    He   further   deposed   that   the   telephone   records   Ex.

PW30/Y1 submitted by Ms. Rashmi Singh and her statement make it FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 50of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi clear that Rashmi Singh was the last person to talk to her sister Anju Illyasi, who allegedly told her that "Didi Mujhe Bacha Lo Ya Yahan Sey   Nikaal   lo".   It   does   not   sound   like   the   last   word   of   a   person contemplating suicide. 

He further deposed that analysis of the diaries shows that the relationship between the deceased and accused were not cordial and the deceased was having lot of anguish and frustration. Time and again Anju Illyasi referred to her husband as trying to control her and treating her   as  a  possession.  The  last   writing  of   the  deceased  in  one  of   the diaries says that she wants to leave her husband and be free rather than stay as his slave and it was apparent that the deceased was fed up with this life with the accused and had decided to leave him for good. The air  ticket   Mark  30/X  booked  for  the  deceased   and  her  daughter  for Canada   are   in   the   same   sequence   as   her   anguish   and   longing   for freedom from the accused mentioned in her last writing.    He further deposed that the investigation revealed that the accused, who was at the pinnacle of his show business career and even his   conservative   back   ground   could   ill   afford   to   let   Anju   go,   the deceased, who was also privy to his acts of possessing two passports, using   fake   degree   for   job   (Mark  30/Y),  allegedly   committing  credit card fraud etc. and who could have let public know about these facts. Fearing with the prospects of impending doom of his fame and career, the accused had little choices before him. He remained IO of this case FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 51of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi till 30.05.2000 but he continued supervising the investigation till his transfer.   He   further   deposed   that   he   seized   two   revolvers   from   the premises of the accused 2 Big City House Masjid, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through seizure memo Ex. PW2/F. Two revolvers and cartridges were produced in the court by the accused and shown to the witness and the witness identified both the revolvers and cartridges.

In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he denied the suggestion that from the evidence collected by the police, there was never any demand of dowry by the accused or any of his relatives. He deposed that recommendation of the registration of FIR was made by him on the same day when he received the inquest paper with the observation of SDM and volunteered that legal opinion was also sought by him.   He admitted that SDM did not recommend for registration of case for dowry death.  He further denied the suggestion that   since   there   was   no   evidence   against   the   accused   regarding   the demand   of   dowry,   he   procured   the   statement   of   Rashmi   Singh   and recommended for registration of case. In answer to a specific question, he deposed that he had collected the record of money transfer from Canada to Delhi from Sita Travels by Rashmi Singh to Alia Production and volunteered that accused had received the money from Sita Travels by   showing   his   passport.   He   further   denied   the   suggestion   that   his brother was sponsored to Canada by Rashmi Singh, sister of deceased. 

In answer to a specific question, he deposed that no letter FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 52of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi or   any   written   communication   was   produced   before   him   by complainant or any other relative of deceased Anju wherein Anju had alleged dowry demand, torture, financial problem and harassment being faced by her in hands of the accused. He further confirmed that he had no   knowledge   if   Rashmi   Singh   was   negotiating   with   the   accused regarding the custody of his daughter Alia to be given to her for taking her to Canada between 14.02.2000(date of arrival in India) to 27.3.2000 when FIR was registered. He confirmed that on the subsequent opinion Ex.PW4/JJ dated 18.1.2000 on the postmortem report, both the doctors had opined that it's a case of suicide. He further confirmed that during investigation some new facts came to light and after examination of some   of   the   witnesses,   second   opinion   on   postmortem   report   was sought.   The   new   facts   were­   the   reports   of   forensic   laboratories, appreciation   of   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   recorded   during   the investigation   in   this   case,   the   statement   of   the   accused   and   other witnesses recorded by SDM, thorough examination of scene of crime and   circumstances   etc.     While   admitting   that   accused   had   made complaints against him to the senior police officers for not conducting the investigation fairly, he volunteered that the complaints were found to be bogus and baseless. He denied that his seeking second opinion from the board of autopsy was in retaliation of the complaints given against him by accused.   

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 53of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

37.  PW­31 Sh.R.S.Rawat is from Regional RPO Office. He had brought  the record of the passport No. F­6388494 dated 24.2.06 which was  issued  by  their   office  in the  name  of   Sohaib  Illyasi.  He further deposed that this passport was issued to the holder in lieu of passport No. B­014581 dated 22.7.91, Delhi. He proved the copy of passport form submitted by accused as Ex.PW31/A (colly.) In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel   he confirmed that any applicant can get a passport in lieu of passport being held by him.

38.  PW­32   is   Sh.   A.K.Shrivastava   from   FSL   Rohini,   who deposed that on 11.01.2000 at 11.30 am he along with his team visited the Flat No. B­13, IFS, Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase­1, New Delhi for   inspection   of   alleged   scene   of   crime   and   found   blood   stains   on carpet near dining table, blood stains on bed sheet of double bed in bedroom, blood stained knife lying on the carpet near the wardrobe, almirah in the bedroom and bloodstains on the wall of the balcony. 

In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he confirmed that the scene of crime which he visited for inspection was not sealed and he cannot say how many people may have visited the scene of crime prior to his visit.

39.    PW­33   is   Dr.   R.K.Dixit,   who   in  the   year   2000,   was working as a Medical Officer in Virmani Nursing Home, Mayur Vihar FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 54of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Phase­II. He deposed that on the intervening night of 10/11.1.2000 at about 11.30 pm he was on duty and the accused came in the hospital and asked him to call Dr. Virmani. He told him that Dr. Virmani was not   there   and   asked   accused   for   reasons   why   he   had   come   there. Accused told him that he had brought a patient and on the request of the accused, a stretcher was provided for bringing the patient inside the hospital. Accused along with two police officials, who were in uniform brought a lady patient inside the hospital on stretcher.  He deposed that while   accused   was   bringing   the   patient   inside   the   hospital,   at   the entrance gate, he asked him as to what had happened with the patient to which accused told him that patient had eaten something. He further deposed   that   while   patient   was   being   taken   to   checking   room,   he happened to see the abdomen of the patient and saw a white color cloth having two blood spots tied on it. He asked the accused to put the patient   along   with   stretcher   and   lifted   the   cloth   and   saw   two   stab wounds   on   the   abdomen   of   the   patient.   He   deposed   that   on   being enquired, accused told him that wounds were received by the patient with some pointed object. He checked the blood pressure of the patient but it was not recordable. He felt the pulse of the patient and it was noticeable. He told the accused that the condition of the patient was serious. Accused asked him that he wants to talk with Dr. Virmani and he   rang   up   to   Dr.   Virmani   and   told   him   the   circumstances   and condition of the patient. Dr. Virmani told him that the condition of the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 55of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi patient was serious and it was a police case and asked him to refer the patient to some big Govt. hospital.     He further deposed that  accused also talked to Dr. Virmani and thereafter, took the patient from their hospital.

In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed   that   no   entry   regarding   the   patient   brought   by   the   accused inside the hospital was made by him and that he did not enter the blood pressure   and   feeling   of   the   pulse   anywhere   in   hospital   record.     He deposed that no entry regarding time of arrival and departure of patient was made anywhere in the hospital and that whatever he has deposed is on the basis of his memory.   He further deposed that he  tried to ask the name of the patient but she did not respond. He further deposed that he did not  provide any  first aid to the patient as  the same  was  not required as there was no external bleeding and that no first aid or any precaution was advised to him by Dr. Viramani and denied  that there was   any   dereliction   of   duty   on   his   part.     He   further   denied   the suggestion that he was called by the police for initiating proceedings against him since he failed in his duty and due to this reason in order to save his skin, he became a police witness and deposed falsely in the court. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to support his false version given to the police at the instance of police to save him from punishment and appropriate action. 

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 56of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

40.  PW­34   is   Inspector   Suraj   Prakash   Rawat   to   whom  the investigation of this case was assigned on 09.04.2001.  He procured the opinion of Dr. L.C.Gupta, LBS Hospital on second postmortem report and filed it on record. 

In   his   cross   examination   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel,   he deposed that he did not know if Dr. L.C.Gupta was transferred from Autopsy department due to his misconduct as surgeon.

41.  PW­35   H.R.Khatumoria   was  working   as   Assistant Passport Officer in RPO, R.K.Puram in the year 2000.  He proved his report   Ex.PW30/E   regarding   verification   of   Passport   No.   S654753 dated 13.07.82 and passport No. 219601 dated 28.10.94. 

In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had given the wrong report at the instance of ACP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan. 

42.  PW­36 is Fazlu Rehman, who was working as a barber having shops at Okhla as well as in Dehradun. He deposed that around 10­11 years back, one day he along with neighbour Amiruddin, had gone to give haircut to accused and at about 9­10 pm, reached his house at Noida near Samachar Building. He deposed that he told one police man, who was sitting outside the house of the accused that he had come to give hair cut to accused. That police man went inside and thereafter he was called inside. He deposed that as soon as he started cutting hair FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 57of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi of accused, wife of the accused came there and they talked with each other in English and thereafter, accused went inside the room. After two minutes accused came outside and asked him to come tomorrow in his   studio   at   Noida.   Thereafter,  he   along  with   Amiruddin,   who  had accompanied him to take autograph of accused, left his house.

He   was   cross­examined   by   Ld.   Addl.   PP,   wherein   he admitted that on 10.01.2000 at about 8 pm, Umer brother of  accused had come to his house and told him that accused had called him to cut his hair at CP, where accused was not found and thereafter, after taking residential   address   of   accused   from   his   brother,   he   reached   at   IFS Apartment at about 10:30 pm.

43.    PW­37   is   Dr.   Anil   Aggarwal,   who   deposed   that   he alongwith four others was a part of medical board constituted for giving opinion on the death of deceased Anju and proved report given by the board as Ex.PW37/A.   In his cross­examination, witness deposed that he has  been conducting  postmortems  since  1979  and has  conducted more than ten thousand postmortems. He deposed that he never called the accused or his representative or lawyer in any of the board's sitting. He further deposed that he did not call DCP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan in any of the boards meetings and volunteered that DCP Rajeev Ranjan himself gave   him   a   call   to   meet   him   to   express   his   side   of   the   case   and thereafter, he came and met him in his office and presented his side of FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 58of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the case but never attended any board meeting.   However, on seeing Ex.PW37/DX, the minutes of board meeting dt. 11.10.2012 he admitted that   the   minutes   shows   the   presence   of   Rajeev   Ranjan   DCP   in   the meeting   and   volunteered   that   since   DCP   Rajeev   Ranjan   wanted   to present his point of view, he thought it proper that he say it in front of the entire board, so before the meeting started, they called him in his office,   where   all   the   board   members   were   sitting   and   DCP   Rajeev Ranjan presented his point of view.   He pleaded ignorance about the complaints Mark PW30/DX1 and Mark PW30/DX2 made by accused against DCP as well as complaints Mark PW37/D12 and PW37/D13 made by accused against Dr. Akash Jhanji and Dr. S.Lal, who were the member of above board.   He, however, denied the suggestion that he gave report at the behest of DCP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan or that is why he was involved in the proceedings of the board.

44.  After  framing of additional charge u/s. 302 IPC against accused   on   06.09.2014,   following   witnesses   were   recalled   for   their cross­examination.

45.    PW­4 Sh. Ravi Dadhich in his further cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel after framing of additional charge, deposed that all the documents collected and statements recorded by him were sent to DCP, East.  He deposed that at the time of his visit to the apartment, ACP,  SHO and other police staff were present there. He FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 59of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi deposed that he did not record the statement of any police official, who was   deputed   for   preserving   the   spot   or   was   deputed   for locking/unlocking the premises and the unlocking was carried was in his presence.  He further deposed that at the time of incident, daughter of accused was aged about 2 ½ - 3 years, however, he did not record her   statement.   After   seeing   Ex.PW4/A   i.e   brief   history   prepared   by him, he admitted that there was no mention of any direction given by him   to   SHO   to   seal   the   premises   or   of   its   being   unlocked   in   his presence,   however,   volunteered   that   the   brief   history   is   a   document regarding spot status and does not contain directions.   He stated that he could not tell the exact time but Ms. Rashmi Singh, sister of deceased, came to India may be 2­3 months after the incident and gave her typed written   statement   on   16.03.2000.     He   further   deposed   that   on   11 th January 2000, a Medical Board consisting of three doctors had carried out the Autopsy and the same Board has also given their final opinion on 18th January 2000 and this issue was closed and was not re­visited by him as long as the inquest remained with him till 23.03.2000.

46.  PW­14 SI Ramesh Malik in his further cross­examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel after framing of additional charge, deposed that the investigating officer SI Rajesh made enquiry from him after about 3 months of the incident but his statement was not recorded in writing either by SI Rajesh or ACP Rajeev Ranjan. He volunteered FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 60of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi that his finger prints were obtained by ACP Rajiv Ranjan after long time.  He admitted that the fact of locking or unlocking the apartment is not mentioned in the statement mark PW14/D1.  

47. PW­21 Sh. S.K Chadha in his further cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel after framing of additional charge, deposed that he himself saw the knife in the last bedroom and therefore, he mentioned it in the record Ex.PW21/D­4. He deposed that he was first person in his team, who picked the knife but prior to his reaching the spot, it might have been picked by someone else.  He deposed that he did not use gloves while handling the knife.   He deposed that he assumed   that   knife   must   have   been   handled   by   Finger   Print   Expert since, some powder was lying there. He further deposed that he cannot comment   whether   anybody   handled   the   knife,   particularly   from   the State FSL Department, before he reached there. He however, did not admit or deny the suggestion that the crime scene, particularly the knife had already been tampered with before he reached there.

48.   PW­30   ACP   Sh.   Rajiv   Ranjan   in   his   further   cross examination   conducted   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel   after   framing   of additional charge, deposed that as soon as information was received, the initial IO reached the spot to guard the same and took charge of the same.    He   admitted   that   he   attended   the   meeting   of   New   Medical FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 61of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Board, which was constituted in this case subsequently and volunteered that the board had called him to attend the meeting and proved the invitation as Ex.PW30/DX­3. He denied the suggestion that he exerted influence on the Medical Board to give an opinion favourable to the prosecution and against the accused.

Statement and Defence of accused 

49.  Statement   of   accused   was   recorded   u/s.   313   Cr.P.C. wherein   he   denied   the   case   of   prosecution   and   claimed   himself innocent.  While denying all the incriminating evidence put to him, he stated that there was no harassment, torture and fight between him and deceased.  He further stated that there was never any financial difficulty in his family.  In fact, he bought the flat at Mayur Vihar, Phase­I in the joint   name   with   his   wife.   He   stated   that   deceased   was   equal shareholder/director in the company called Alia Production.  He stated that he and deceased both loved each other and there was no question of   separation,   however,   PW­20   interfered   in   their   marital   life.     He stated that all the medical expenses at the time of birth of his daughter were born by him and not by PW­5 & PW­20.  He even stated that PW­ 20 is litigant in nature and fond of Agatha Christie detective novels and that all the allegations are pure figment of her imagination.  He stated FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 62of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi that he informed the doctor that patient had eaten something since he presumed that his deceased wife had eaten sleeping pills. He stated that a false case has been registered against him by his sister in­law PW­20 Rashmi Singh to put pressure on him to handover the custody of his daughter Alia.  In answer to the question regarding blood of deceased Anju having been found on bed as well as in bathroom sink and drain, he answered that when he rushed his wife Anju to the hospital, door was   left   open   and   unlocked.     More   than   50   police   official,   CFSL officials, special branch officials, media persons, some of his relatives visited the site and they would be in better position to explain the same. In answer to the question with regard to his statement that blood in the bathroom could be menses blood of deceased, he stated that when IO asked him to explain the presence of blood in bathroom at the time of making the statement, he was unaware that more than 50 people had visited his unlocked flat including the bathroom and he presumed that his deceased wife might be having menstrual cycle and that could be the   reason   of   blood   in   the   bathroom.   In   answer   to   the   question regarding absence of finger prints of his deceased wife Anju on the knife, he stated that more than 50 people arrived in his flat and that it was   reported   in   national   news   media   with   junior   police   officials holding  the   knife   in  their   hand   without  any   gloves.     He  stated   that professional conduct of PW­10 Dr. L.C.Gupta has been under scanner and there was a stricture passed by Hon'ble Justice Murlidhar against FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 63of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the   said   doctor   vide   order   dt.   16.01.2008.     He   stated   that   PW­20 Rashmi Singh wanted to take his daughter Alia to Canada with her, which was not agreeable to him and that once he had hot arguments with PW­20 on this issue, thereafter, she swore to take his daughter Alia away by hook or crook.   He deposed that his brother in­law and father in­law i.e PW­2 & PW­5 tried their best to persuade Rashmi Singh not to force him to hand over permanent custody of Alia to her and that they both deposed before the court the true facts of this case.  

50.    After   framing   of   additional   charge   u/s.   302   IPC   and recording of SA on 28.04.2012, additional statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 27.08.2016.  It is relevant to note that after framing   of   additional   charge,   except   PW­37   Dr.   Anil   Aggarwal, prosecution did not examine any other witness and at the request of accused,   PW­4,   PW­5,   PW­12,   PW­14,   PW­21   and   PW­30   were recalled for further cross­examination.   It is further important to note that in view of section 313(5) Cr.P.C assistance of Ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by Ld. Counsel for complainant as also of Ld. Defence Counsel  was taken in preparing relevant questions i.e 200 questions and liberty was granted to the accused for filing the written statement if so   desired.     Ld.   Defence   Counsel   as   well   as   Ld.   Counsel   for complainant filed written questions to assist the court while recording additional statement of accused. Accused again pleaded innocence.  He FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 64of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi stated that realizing that no case u/s. 498­A/304­B IPC is made out against him, complainant with the help of prosecution established the medical board of five doctors dt. 21.05.2012 to give another opinion on the death of his wife, so that he can give the custody of his daughter to complainant   and   her   mother.   He   stated   that   he   has   been   falsely implicated in this case by misusing the provisions of law and that he had made feature film depicting the misuse of provisions of 498­A IPC in particular.  He did not opt to lead DE.

Arguments and Conclusion 

51.  Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by Sh. Satender Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant as also by Sh. Manu Sharma, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused.   I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the written submission   filed   by   Ld.   Defence   Counsel   and   the   authorities   relied upon by both the sides.

52.  Ld. Addl. PP has argued that present case is not of suicide rather prosecution has proved that deceased was murdered by accused. He argued that incriminating circumstances as proved on record itself speaks  that  accused  committed  murder  of  his  wife  Anju  Iliyasi  and FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 65of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi tried  to give  the incident  colour  of  suicide.     He  further  argued that accused did not see any blood, however his PSO saw it and tied the wound with a cloth.   It was argued that certain circumstances were within the special knowledge of the accused and as per section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, burden was upon the accused to disclose those circumstances but he gave false explanations in order to mislead the investigation   as   well   as   court.     Ld.   Counsel   for   complainant,   who assisted Ld. Addl. PP argued that accused was directing a T.V Serial "India's Most Wanted" which was about actual criminal cases and was acquainted with the different kind of stories presented in those cases and accordingly prepared a script to portrait that his wife committed suicide but the evidence on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused   committed   murder   of   his   wife   and   tried   to   destroy   the evidence.  Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that past conduct of accused also shows that he procured two passports & fake degrees and was also having illicit relations.   Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the fact that relationship between the parties were strained has been proved on record. He further argued that deceased was neither suffering from depression   nor   having   suicidal   tendency.     He   further   argued   that accused has failed to produce any defence showing that deceased was under depression.  It has been submitted that it is also the duty of the court that no guilty should be escaped from the law.  Ld. Addl. PP for the State has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 66of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Murlidhar   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan,   (2005)   11   Supreme Court   Cases   133;   State   of   Rajasthan   Vs.   Kashi   Ram   (2006)   12 Supreme Court cases 254.  Ld.Counsel for complainant has also relied upon following judgments:  Vivek Kalra Vs. State of Rajasthan II (2013)SLT 240; Jamnadas Vs. State of M.P with Manoj Vs. State of M.P   AIR,   2016   Supreme   Court   3270;   Durg   Pal   Vs.   State,   221 (2015)   Delhi   Law   Times   683   (DB);   Pradeep   Vs.   State,   2015   (2) Crimes   683   (Del.);   Vithal   Eknath   Adilinge   Vs.   State   of Maharashtra,   AIR   2009   Supreme   Court   2067;   State   of   West Bengal Vs. Dipak Halder & Anr., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1883; Mannu   Sao   Vs.   State   of   Bihar,   2010   (3)   Crimes   265   (SC)   & Ravinder Vs. State & Mani Ram Vs. Pushpender Singh & Ors., 225 (2015) Delhi Law Times 82 (DB).

53. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there is no cogent evidence that deceased was ever harassed or tortured to the extent  that   she  committed  suicide.  He argued  that due  to emotional imbalance   and   psychological   disorder   deceased   was   having   suicidal tendency and that was the root cause behind her committing suicide. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that no specific incident of demand of dowry and cruelty on that account committed upon deceased, has been mentioned in the statement of any of the witnesses.   He argued FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 67of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi that accused had only taken a loan of 10,000 Canadian dollars from sister of deceased, which is now being given colour of dowry demand and that no complaint in respect of alleged demand of dowry or torture to   the   deceased   was   ever   made   to   any   authority   prior   to   death   of deceased.   Ld.   Defence   Counsel   further   argued   that   prosecution witnesses have not only contradicted each other but have also failed to prove any demand of dowry made by accused or any cruelty committed to the deceased for dowry.  

  Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the present case was one of   simple   suicide   and   that   the   same   most   certainly   did   not   involve homicide as it is evident from the report  Ex.PW22/A,  which clearly rules out the possibility of homicide.   He argued that even otherwise, there exist serious discrepancies and inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses. There was no motive whatsoever, for the accused to commit   the   murder   of   his   wife.     He   argued   that   the   autopsy   board comprising of three doctors unanimously opined that the injuries are self inflicted and suicidal in nature and the charge­sheet was filed u/s. 498­A/304­B IPC with a definite case of suicide.   It has been argued that   ACP   Sh.   Rajiv   Ranjan   initiated   reconsideration   of   opinion   of medical   board   out   of   malice   on   account   of   complaint   made   by   the accused.   Ld. Defence Counsel raised his submissions with regard to report Ex.PW37/A and its worth, initial handling of the scene of crime, background   of   setting   up   of   the   first   and   second   revised   opinion, FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 68of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi mystery of two knives & absence of finger prints,  conduct of accused in taking deceased to hospital, conduct of complainant and evidence of family members of deceased regarding her temperament.  Ld. Defence Counsel   has   also   filed   detailed   written   submissions   u/s.   314   Cr.P.C (running into 46 pages).  My attention is also drawn in respect of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Munir Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State  of   Rajasthan,  1989   Supp   (1)   Supreme   Court   Cases   377   & Queen Empress Vs. Hosh Nak, ALJR (1941) 416.  It was argued that the   judgment   in   the   case   of   Sharad   Birdichand   (supra)   is   squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.   He also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawal Das Vs. State of Bihar (1974)   4   Supreme   Court   Cases   193;   Shambhu   Nath   Mehra   Vs. State   of   Ajmer   1956   SCR   199;   Bhagirath   Vs.   State   of   Madya Pradesh (1976) I Supreme Court Cases 20; Piara Singh & Ors. Vs. State   of   Punjab   (1977)   4   Supreme   Court   Cases   452;   Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P, 1953 Cri.L.J. 129 (Supreme Court) (1) & Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 463.

54. Dealing   with   the   charge   u/s.   498­A/304­B   IPC   framed against accused, it is noted that section 304­B IPC was inserted by the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 69of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 with a view to combating the increasing menace of dowry death. It provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown   that   soon   before   her   death,   she   was   subjected   to   cruelty   or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection   with   any   demand   for   dowry,   such   death   shall   be   called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. A conjoint reading of Section 113­B of the Evidence Act and Section 304­B IPC shows that there must be material to show that   since   before   her   death,   the   victim   was   subjected   to   cruelty   or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural death or   accidental   death   so   as   to   bring   it   within   a   purview   of   "death occurring   otherwise   than   in   normal   circumstances."   Prosecution   is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case, prosecution operates. Evidence in that regard has to be laid by the prosecution. The legal position thus firmly establishes that 'suicidal death' of married woman within seven years of her marriage is covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances" as used in Section 304­B of IPC.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 70of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

55. Before the statutory presumption u/s 113­B of Evidence Act can be raised against the accused, the essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death, which the prosecution is duty bound to prove, is that deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment soon before her death.

56. In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   the   evidence   of   the   material witnesses and prosecution case needs to be scrutinized. I will consider the   alleged   demand   of   dowry   and   harassment,   if   any,   caused   to deceased stage wise i.e. prior to marriage, at the time of marriage, after marriage and soon before her death. 

57.  The   relevant   testimonies   to   be   considered   are   of   PW­2 Prashant, brother of deceased, PW­5 Sh. K.P.Singh, father of deceased, PW­6 Ms. Rukma Singh, mother of deceased, PW­18 Ms. Rita Vaneck and PW­20 Ms. Rashmi Singh, both sisters of deceased. Admittedly, the  marriage between the accused and deceased was a love marriage solemnized at London, which was attended by the mother of deceased only.   Prosecution   witnesses   i.e   mother,   father,   brother   and   sister   of deceased namely Rita Vanech  in their first statements given to SDM did not allege anything against accused with regard to dowry demand. They did not allege any demand of dowry made by accused prior to marriage or at the time of marriage.  There is not even a whisper about FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 71of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the demand of dowry made by accused prior or at the time of marriage, by any of the prosecution witnesses. In their deposition before the court also it is not alleged that any demand of dowry was made by accused prior or at the time of marriage. Mother of deceased in her statement dt. 13.01.2000 given to SDM has clearly stated that she did not suspect any foul play on the part of accused and did not level any allegation regarding dowry demand. She in her second statement dt.21.03.2000 also   did   not   level   any   allegations   of   demand   of   dowry   made   by accused.  She while deposing in the court simply said that accused told that he is not  having any money to spend on the marriage ceremony and that she had given about 500 or 600 dollars to the accused at the time of marriage.   There is nothing to show that accused asked her to give  any  money,  he  only  showed   his  inability  to  bear   the  expenses incurred on the marriage ceremony. Further, this fact first time came to picture when the witness stepped into witness box and therefore, is an improvement,   however,   even   if,   we   consider   it   as   true   version,   the money allegedly given by PW­6 was given for spending on marriage ceremony i.e to fulfill an urgent need and cannot be termed as demand of dowry by accused. 

58.    So far as demand of dowry after marriage is concerned, there is nothing in the evidence of PW­2 Prashant brother & PW­5 Dr. FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 72of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi K.P.Singh, father of deceased.   Even initially nothing was alleged by mother and sister of deceased namely Rita.  The allegations with regard to demand of dowry were first time made by Rashmi Singh (the sister of the deceased Anju), who came to India on 16.03.2000 and filed a complaint before SDM, Preet Vihar with regard to unnatural death of Mrs.   Anju   Ilyasi.     It   was   after   her   statement   only   that   mother   of deceased also gave her another statement and alleged that accused used to   demand   dowry   and   harass   deceased.  PW­6   Ms.   Rukhma   Singh mother of deceased in her testimony before the court deposed  that on the asking of her deceased daughter she had sent about 1000/­ dollars alongwith her son Prashant, who visited London on 08.01.1994.   She further deposed that in the end of December 1994, accused had sent her daughter Anju to her house in the midnight in an auto rickshaw with the demand for money which had been told to her by her daughter at that time. She deposed that at that time on persistent demand of the accused, she had given 3000 dollars to her to make payment in foreign currency towards the duty imposed upon the shipment of goods from London to India. She deposed that in July & August 1999, her deceased daughter had asked her to send money and then her daughter Rashmi had sent an amount of Rs.18,000/­ once and then an amount of 10,000 Canadian dollars to him through Western Indian Bank in September 1999.   From the above testimony of mother of deceased, it is nowhere proved that accused ever demanded any money from them rather it was FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 73of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi their daughter who had made demands and money, if any, was given, it was given on to deceased only on her demand. With regard to amount of 10,000/­ Canadian dollars sent by Rashmi, sister of deceased, she has   admitted   that   a   suit   for   recovery   of   Rs.2,80,000/­   equivalent   to 10,000 Canadian Dollars was filed by her as attorney of her daughter Rashmi Singh. PW­20 Rashmi Singh has herself admitted that she sent Rs.18,000/­ to Anju as she asked the same to buy some clothes.  It has nowhere been said that it was accused, who ever demanded any money from them.  The money allegedly given to deceased in December 1994 was   also   for   making   payment   towards   the   duty   imposed   upon   the shipment of goods from London to India, which is to meet an exigency and does not fall within the category of dowry.

  Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (I) JCC 147,  wherein   it   was   held   that   "  Demand   of   Dowry­   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 Held: What was allegedly asked for was some money   for   meeting   domestic   expenses   and   for   purchasing   manure­ Since an essential ingredient of Sec­304­B IPC Viz. Demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 74of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

59.    There is no specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry made by accused.  The allegations leveled are vague and general in nature and that too with regard to acrimony between deceased and accused, which were on account of other issues not related to dowry. Further, no incriminating fact related to demand of dowry and cruelty committed to deceased for not fulfilling such demand has come out in the testimony of  brother, father  and sister  of  deceased namely Rita. Though, PW­6 Rukma Singh, mother & PW­20 Rashmi Singh sister of deceased   claimed   that   deceased   was   being   harassed   for   demand   of dowry,  however, both of them have admitted that no complaint to any authority   was   ever   made   rather   PW­2   Sh.   Prashant   in   his   cross­ examination admitted that accused and deceased  had great love and affection for each other and as it was a love marriage, so there was no demand of dowry by the accused or by any other family member of the accused. He admitted that he, his mother and father in their statement had stated that there was no foul play and that Anju was not harassed for demand of dowry by the accused. He further confirmed that his sister Rashmi was adamant to take the child of Anju with her to Canada and when the entire efforts failed it resulted into the complaints and registration   of   the   FIR   against   the   accused.   In   answer   to   a   specific question, he deposed that it was a sense of insecurity, which probably resulted in change of statement of his mother on the behest of Rashmi when she had already given him clean chit in her first statement. PW­5 FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 75of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Dr.   K.P.Singh,   father   of   deceased   deposed   that  her   daughter   and accused lived a normal life as husband and wife and there might be a small quarrel within the normal limit but nothing serious or important dispute between the two came to his light or knowledge. He further deposed that his deceased daughter did not make any complaint against her husband or against anyone else. He confirmed that there was no demand of dowry. He further deposed that his wife had no grievances or any complaint against the accused and volunteered that her statement made   to   SDM   speaks   of   her   opinion   about   the   accused.   He   further confirmed   that   Rashmi   wanted   the   custody   of   daughter   of   accused namely Alia for taking her to U.S.A for her education and bringing up and that Rashmi is Director of Educational Institute.  He deposed that this was the reason for the delayed statement made against the accused.

60.  It   is   admitted   case   of   prosecution   that   deceased   was   in continuous touch with her parents and sisters.  She many a times had gone to stay with them. Had there been any kind of  harassment on account of dowry, she must have told about the same to them.  Even on the   day   of   incident   also   she   had   visited   her   father.     However,   no complaints regarding any harassment, torture or demand of dowry was ever made by the parents and other family members of deceased. There is no clear allegation with regard to any specific demand of dowry, FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 76of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi against accused.  The testimonies of PW­6 and PW­20 also does not find corroboration from any other witness with regard to demand of dowry ever made by accused.  All the  material PWs are contradicting each   other   on   the   issue   of   alleged   demand   of   dowry   by   accused. Further, non­mentioning anything about the demand of dowry in the initial statements of witnesses except PW­20 Rashmi Singh, who also gave a very delayed statement, cannot be justified, especially, in the circumstances when they want the court to believe that it was main cause of harassment being caused to the deceased. 

  Reliance   is   placed   upon   the   judgment   of   Hon'ble   High Court in 2012 (3) C.C Cases (HC) 344 titled State of NCT of Delhi Vs.   Rakesh   &   Ors.  wherein   it   was   held   that   "   Deceased   used   to converse with her parents and other family members on phone - No call details were collected during investigation to establish to whom the calls were made on the day of the incident - Witnesses did not give specific dates when any specific dowry article was demanded  by any particular accused - Allegations levelled by them are vague and general nature - There was no direct, clinching and legal evidence against them in respect of cruelty under Section 498­A - Nothing has emerged from the   evidence   about   what   forced   her   to   end   her   life   that   day   in   the absence   of   physical   torture   or   beatings   to   her   -   Deceased's   long conversation with the relatives on that day showed that she was not FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 77of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi having   any   apprehension   or   danger   to   her   life   on   account   of   non­ fulfillment   of  the  dowry  demands   -  Evidence   led  lacking  in  details about the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused in connection with the dowry demands - Nothing had emerged that there were persistent and unabated dowry demands and she was physically or mentally tortured on her failure to fulfill them.

61. In   the   present   case   as   discussed   in   detail   above   the prosecution   witness   i.e   PW­6   mother   of   deceased   did  not   level  any allegation   against   accused   with   regard   to   demand   of   dowry   and harassment   in   her   first   statements   recorded   during   investigation   and PW­20 Rashmi Singh also did not come forward immediately after the death of her sister to depose anything alleging demand of dowry by accused, hence, the delayed statement of this witness cannot be given much   importance.   The   improvements   made   in   the   case   and   the contradictions coming out in the statements of witnesses are vital and cannot be brushed aside easily.

  Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   in   338   Matrimonial   Law Reporter 2012  titled State Vs. Mohd Furkan & Ors.  categorically held that improvements made at a later stage render the case of the case of the prosecution less believable. 

      Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in  2000   (4)   Crimes   260   (SC) FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 78of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi titled Tarun @ Gautam Mukherjeet Vs. State of West Bengal, held that " Evidence of PW­2 that accused used to assault deceased almost daily   was   confronted   with   her   statement   under   Section   161   Cr.P.C. which did not mention it. Holding that material omission will discredit her version and the evidence of other two witness did not establish cruelty. The  conviction was held unsustainable."   Hon'ble Supreme Court  in 2009 (3)  RCR (Criminal) 418 Nepal Singh Vs. State of Haryana has held that " He stated that at the time of settlement of marriage and even thereafter no demand of dowry   was   made;   demand   of   dowry   not   proved;   trial   court   rightly acquitted the accused . High Court, however, set aside the order of acquittal   on   the   ground   that   something   must   have   happened   and otherwise deceased would not have committed suicide. This ground is indefensible   and   could   not   have   been   a   reason   to   set   judgment   of acquittal."

62. Now, the question comes to decide whether on account of demand of dowry deceased was harassed by accused? 

63. In   an   authority   reported   as  Bhola   Ram   vs.   State   of Punjab 2013 XI AD (S.C) 245., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that;

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 79of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi   "Merely   making   a   demand   of   dowry   is   not   enough   to bring about a conviction under section 304­B of the IPC. As held in Kans Raj a dowry death victim should also have been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband or relative. In this case, even assuming the silent or conniving participation of Bhola Ram in the demands of dowry, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that he actively or passively treated Janki Devi with cruelty or harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry. The High Court has, unfortunately, not adverted to this ingredient of an offence punishable under section 304­B of the IPC or even considered it".

  Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (3) LRC 157 (SC) titled Durga Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. held that " that presumption under section 113B of Evidence Act -cannot be raised where except for certain   bald   statements   made   by   mother   and   brother   of   deceased alleging that victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that victim committed suicide   on   account   of   cruelty   and   harassment   to   which   she   was subjected just prior to her death. It was held that no charges were framed against appellants under provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and evidence led in order to prove the same for purpose of s. 304­B of IPC was related to a demand for a fan only.  Prosecution failed to fully satisfy the requirements of both s. 113­B of Evidence Act  and s. 304­B FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 80of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi of IPC. It was held that no case was made out on ground of insufficient evidence against appellants for conviction under Sections 498­A and 304­B of IPC .

  In  AIR 2010 SC 3391 titled Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan with State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish & Anr the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " Essential ingredient of a dowry death case is cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry. It was held that mere demand of dowry is not offence made under Ss. 304­B, 498­ A.   Husband   along   with   his   mother   and   other   in­laws   charged   for dowry death and cruelty. Exact manner adopted by mother and in­law for harassing deceased was not proved. It was held that mere use of words   '   tortured'   '   harassed'   by   witness   was   not   sufficient   to   hold Mother in­law and other in­laws guilty of offence."

64.  In   the   instant   case,   in   respect   of   alleged   harassment, material   witnesses  have   levelled  only  general  allegations  of  quarrel, which used to take place between deceased and accused.  There is no specific   allegation   made   against   accused   with   regard   to   demand   of dowry. None of the PWs has mentioned any specific incident when on account   of   non   fulfilling   of   demand   of   dowry   deceased   was   given beatings   or   subjected   to   cruelty,   thereby   making   the   entire   story   of prosecution   doubtful.     Evidence   of   PW­6   and   PW­20   has   not   been FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 81of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi corroborated by PW­2 & PW­5 rather they contradicted their versions by admitting that  there was no demand of dowry ever made by the accused. 

65.  In   view   of   above,   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   any demand of dowry or harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased on that account.

66.  Now, the next question comes to decide whether deceased was subjected to cruelty in respect of demand of dowry soon before her death.   The   unfortunate   incident   of   the   present   case   occurred   on 10.01.2000   and   the   marriage   of   accused   Sohaib   with   Anju   (since deceased) was solemnized on 18.11.93. Except some vague allegations of demand of dowry, which too were made after a long delay, there are no specific allegation in respect of demand of dowry or harassment by the accused persons soon before her death.  Even at some places, PWs have admitted that relations between them and accused persons were cordial   and   no   verbal   or   written   complaint   to   any   authority   against accused was made by anyone and the complaint which was made firstly to the SDM was made by sister of deceased namely Ms. Rashmi Singh, who   came   to   India   on  16.03.2000   i.e   about   three   months   after   the incident.  This shows that till the time of arrival of Ms. Rashmi Singh, FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 82of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi sister   of   deceased,   they   were   not   having   any   grievance   against   the accused or everything developed after that. This fact also find supports from the admission of PWs that PW­20 Rashmi Singh wanted to have the custody of daughter of accused and since it was not agreeable to accused,   she   levelled   allegations   regarding   demand   of   dowry   and cruelty   committed   to   deceased.   There   is   no   cogent   evidence   that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of dowry, till her death.

67. Further, the letters written by deceased to her sister and the pages of the diary maintained by her, do not find anything mentioned about   any   demand   of   dowry   made   by   accused   or   any   cruelty   or harassment meted out to her on that account. Even  PW­4   Sh. Ravi Dadhich, SDM admitted during cross­examination  that during inquest proceedings   conducted   by   him,   he   could   not   get   any   material suggesting that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before the death with regard to demand of dowry. Thus, prosecution has not been able   to   bring   anything   substantial   against   the   accused   on   record   to prove the allegations u/s 498­A/304­B IPC.  

68.  Consequently, in the absence of the prosecution proving FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 83of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the ingredients of Section 304­B of IPC, the initial burden cast on it has not been discharged. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113­B of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted. 

69. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove charge u/s. 498­A/304­B IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted from the charge u/s. 498­A/304­B IPC. 

Charge U/s. 302 IPC

70.  The core issue to decide is whether death of Anju Iliyasi is suicide   or   homicide.     Accused   in   his   statement   Ex.PW4/E   recorded during inquest proceedings (before registration of FIR) has claimed that his wife committed suicide.  The incident occurred in the four corners of home. Admittedly, at the time of incident accused, his wife, their daughter namely Alia aged about 2­2 ½ years were present. Thus, the entire incident happened in presence of accused and a burden also lies upon the accused to explain certain circumstances which are within his special   knowledge.     No   doubt   that   initial   burden   to   prove   its   case beyond reasonable doubt lies upon the prosecution.  Before evaluating FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 84of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the evidence produced on record by the prosecution as to what extent prosecution has proved the additional charge u/s. 302 IPC against the accused, I would like to discuss certain questions of facts as also raised by Ld. Defence Counsel in written submission which are as follows:­

(i) Initial guarding of spot.

(ii)  Two knives theory

(iii)  Whether   Anju   Iliyasi   (deceased)   was   suffering   from   depression, insecurity & loneliness. 

(iv)  Conduct of accused (past and after the incident)

(v) Non­examination   of   baby   Aliya   (daughter   of   accused   and   deceased)

(vi)  Opinion   of   Medical   Boards   constituted   at   initial   stage   and   later on in the year 2012.

71.  Initial   guarding   of   scene   of   crime:­  PW­9   HC   Sojan Varghese,   who   was   posted   as   Duty   Constable   at   AIIMS,   gave   the information that Anju Iliyasi was declared brought dead at 1 am, which was recorded vide DD No.28­A, dt. 11.01.2000 and same was assigned to PW­14 SI Ramesh Malik.  The said information was telephonically conveyed to PW­4 Sh. Ravi Dadichi, SDM at 3.45 am by Inspector Mahesh Kumar, Addl. SHO, PS. Trilok Puri, who instructed him to see the site of incident.   Thus, first direction to guard the scene of crime FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 85of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi was given at 3.45 am.   As per prosecution case when on 11.01.2000 at about   9­10  am,   CFSL/CBI   team,   police   and  SDM   reached   then   the house i.e spot was unlocked.  Admittedly, no memo in this regard was prepared by the police, however, testimony of PW­14 SI Ramesh Malik that SHO and ACP had locked that flat and the same was opened on the directions of SDM, is also corroborated by PW­4 Sh. Ravi Dadich who deposed that unlocking was done in his presence.

  It   is   relevant   to   note   that   at   the   time   of   incident, admittedly, accused, his wife Anju Iliyasi and baby Aliya were present in the house and outside the house, two PSO were present and after the incident   they   all   went   to   hospital.     Neither   accused   nor   his   PSO informed about the incident to police.   As per statement of accused recorded   by   SDM,   during   inquest   proceedings   u/s.   176   Cr.P.C   i.e Ex.PW4/E, accused was having wireless set and when he reached at Nizammudin bridge, while taking Anju Iliyasi to AIIMS, he came to contact   with     Aziz,   who   was   coming   from   Muzzafarnagar   after shooting & he alongwith staff also reached at AIIMS but accused did not ask anyone to inform the police.  Thus, there was no occasion for police   to   guard   the   spot   till   3.45   am   of   11.01.2000   when   Inspector Mahesh Kumar was directed by SDM to take care of the spot, who had to conduct inquest proceedings u/s. 176 Cr.P.C.   Scope of tempering with the spot by someone interested in doing so, by the time police reached, cannot be overruled.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 86of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

72.    PW­15 HC Rajesh Kumar, a finger print proficient, who was member of crime team reached at the spot and on the direction of IO inspected the place of incident and lifted one chance print from a knife   lying   on   the   floor/carpet   near   the   bed   in   the   bedroom,   as mentioned in his report Ex.PW15/A.   The  another  expert, who also handled   the   knife   at   scene   of   crime   is   PW­21A   Sh.  S.K.   Chadha, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, who visited the spot with his team at the request of SDM.  He developed chance print Q1 from the wall of bedroom at the crime scene and brought the knife to laboratory for   further   development   and   photography   under   ideal   condition   and developed print mark Q2 to Q5 from knife.  As per report Ex.PW4/QQ, chance   print   'Q1'   which   was   lifted   from   the   wall   of   bedroom   was identical with the specimen right little finger print of  deceased Anju Iliyasi.  Ex.PW21/A to I & Ex.PW4/QQ show that chance print mark on   Q2   to   Q5   were   different   from   specimen   finger   print   of   accused Sohaib   Iliyasi   i.e   S1   to   S7   and   also   from   specimen   finger   print   of deceased Anju Iliyasi i.e S8 to S­13. Those chance prints even did not match with the CFSL experts who handled the crime scene.  PW­21A Sh. S.K.Chadha in his cross­examination confirmed that from his team, he was the only person, who handled the knife.   PW­15 HC Rajesh Kumar, finger print proficient was from Crime Team, who handled the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 87of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi knife   for   lifting   chance   print.     As   per   report   Ex.PW21/D   specimen finger prints S­14 to S­22 of five persons were found different from chance print Q2 to Q5. Similarly report Ex.PW21/E says that specimen finger prints of four persons and of three experts i.e S­23 to S­29 are different  from  chance print Q2 to Q5.   As  per  charge­sheet,  during investigation apart from accused and deceased, IO took finger prints of following persons for comparison with chance prints lifted from knife i.e S­14 to S­22 and S­23 to S­26 and S­27 to S­29:­ (1) Dr. K.P.Singh  (father of deceased) (2) Ct. Raj Kumar  (P.S.O of accused) (3) Ct. Shatrughan   (P.S.O of accused) (4) Barber Amiruddin  (Barber of accused) (5) Barber Fazlu Rehman  (Barber of accused) (6) Umer Iliyasi  (brother of accused) (7) Imran Iliyasi  (brother of accused) (8) SI Ramesh Malik  (PW­14) (9) HC Rajesh Kumar   (PW­15, who on the direction of IO had    lifted one chance print from a knife) (10) Sh. S.K.Chadha  (PW­21, Sr. Scientific Officer, who lifted the    chance print) (11) Sh. Amardev Shah   (S.S.A Finger Print) (12) Sh. Ashok Kumar    FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 88of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

73.    All   these   persons   had   visited   the   place   of   occurrence before or after the commission of crime but chance prints 'Q2' to 'Q5' did not match with specimen finger prints of these persons as well as of deceased and accused.  The chance prints as found on the knife indicate that someone else tried to temper with the crucial evidence that is why these chance prints were found on the knife.  PW­21 Sh. S.K.Chadha admitted that he did not use gloves as also there is no mention of using gloves by PW­15 HC Rajesh in his report but chance print found on knife were different from their specimen finger prints.

74.   Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that loss of crucial evidence i.e finger prints on the knife i.e weapon of offence, caused prejudice to the accused to prove his innocence. Admittedly, finger prints on the knife i.e weapon of offence, did not tally with the finger prints of either deceased or accused.  Defence of accused is that deceased committed suicide by stabbing herself.  In Ex.PW4/E i.e first statement of accused given to SDM as complainant, accused has stated that when deceased stabbed herself twice with knife, he snatched the knife from her hand and threw it. Thus, it is admitted case of accused that he had at some point of time handled the knife and that too without wearing any gloves, as such, his finger prints must have been there on the knife.  Thus, the question of recovery of finger prints of accused on the knife hardly assumes any significance since finger prints of accused FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 89of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi even   if   would   have   been   found   on   the   knife,   they   could   not   be   a decisive proof of his guilt in view of above admission of accused.  On the other side, even if we take the defence of accused as correct, that deceased committed suicide by stabbing herself with knife, her finger prints must have been there on the knife, which have also not been found and it is not the defence of accused that at the time of stabbing herself, deceased was wearing gloves. In view of above, it can safely be held that the absence of the finger print of the accused or deceased on the knife with which deceased allegedly stabbed herself also does not conclusively point out towards suicide.     Absence of finger prints of deceased or accused on the knife rather, creates a doubt that the same was tempered with, however, does not itself prove anything adverse to the case of prosecution. In view of foregoing discussion, the absence of finger prints on the knife will not be to the benefit of the accused to the extent that he would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this ground.

75.    Two   knives   theory:­  Ld.   Defence   counsel   vehemently argued   that   documentary   evidence   on   record   clearly   establishes   the existence of more than one knife.  To buttress his arguments, he mainly raised following circumstances:­ (I)   On 11.01.2000 one knife from the spot was taken by PW­ 21   Sh.

S.K.Chadha to Finger Print Division CFSL CBI.

(II)   On   12.01.2000   the   knife   was   received   at   Biology   Division   FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 90of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi CFSL­CBI,   through   the   finger   print   division   but   neither   document   Ex.PW17/A   nor   Ex.PW21/A   describe   when   knife   was   sent   by   finger   print   division   and   received   at   biology   division.

(III)  It   was   argued   that   on   12.01.2000,   another   knife   was   examined by Autopsy Board through the IO.

(IV)  The knife which is said to be found at the spot is described   by   PW­4   Sh.   Ravi   Dadich   in   Ex.PW4/A   to   be   9"   long,   however,   the   knife   which   was   received   by   the   panel   on   12.01.2000 from IO is 13" long.

(V)  The   knife,   which   was   produced   before   the   court   and   identified   by   the   witness   bore   the   seal   of   department   of   forensic   medicine   AIIMS   and   not   of   GDG   SSO   I   (BIO)   or   AD PHY CFSL. 

  In this regard, evidence proved on record clearly shows that contention of Ld. Defence Counsel about existence of more than one knife is ill founded due to following reasons:­ 

(i)  The knife recovered from scene of crime was brought to   the   laboratory   on   11.01.2000   by   PW­21A   Sh.   S.K.Chadha, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL CBI for further  development   (Ex.PW21/N).

(ii) On 12.01.2000, SDM, Sh. Ravi Dadich vide Ex.PW4/J  sought   opinion   of   Dr.   R.K.Sharma,   Associate   Professor     (Forensic) FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 91of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi AIIMS, to the effect that whether  the injuries  on the body of Anju Iliyasi are possible with the weapon recovered from IFS Apartment by CFSL team on 11.07.2000, in sealed envelope.

(iii)  Ex.PW10/E is the opinion with regard to the request made by   IO   dt.   12.01.2000   and   on   the   same   day   weapon   was resealed   and   handed   over.     Ex.PW10/F   is   the   sketch   of   knife dt.12.01.2000 prepared by board of autopsy doctors, drawn by keeping the weapon.

(iv)  Ex.PW4/J   and   Ex.PW10/E   clearly   establishes   that   knife   was brought by IO for seeking opinion of doctors of autopsy board and same was resealed and returned on same day i.e 12.01.2000.

(v)  PW­17/A is report of Dr. G.D.Gupta, Principal Scientific  Officer (Biology),   which   reads   that   one   parcel   in   connection   of   DD No. 28­A, dt. 11.01.2000, PS. Trilok  Puri   seals   intact   as   per   forwarding authority's letter, received on 12.01.2000, through   finger prints division of  this laboratory.  PW­17 also identified  the knife  already  Ex.P1, which was  examined by him in the   laboratory.  Even a suggestion was not given to PW­17 that he  examined any other knife. Usually, if any document/exhibit is   deposited with one agency and it is to  be examined by different   branch of that agency, then it is  forwarded   by   one   branch   to   another and to examine the exhibit an expert has to tally the   seal before opening the same, so that he may examine the exhibit.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 92of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi It is not that from one branch to other branch, separate memos  are to be prepared. Knife which was recovered from the spot was  taken by finger print division; same was taken for opinion of   autopsy     doctor     as   per   documents   mentioned   &   deposited   with  the same finger print branch, from where it was sent to   Biology Division.  Identity of knife was never disputed by Ld.  Defence Counsel when the experts appeared in witness box. 

76.  PW­10   Dr.   L.C.   Gupta   submitted   his   final   report (Ex.PW10/D, dt. 30.08.2001) vide letter Ex.PW10/C based upon the facts and circumstances brought before him by the IO alongwith all the annexures. The knife Ex.P1, when produced before the court first time during the testimony of PW­10 was bearing his signatures at point 'A' and also the signatures of other two members of the board at point 'B' & 'C'.   Thus, PW­10 Dr. L.C.Gupta was the last expert apart from Dr. R.K.Sharma   and   Dr.   Alexander   F.Khaka,   who   examined   the   knife while giving his subsequent opinion & therefore, knife also bore his signature on 14.09.2009 when produced before the court with seal of AIIMS, and not of CFSL. 

77.   Coming to the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that the knife   which   was   found   by   PW­4   at   the   spot   was   "9"   inches   as mentioned in brief history Ex.PW4/A but the knife examined by the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 93of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi panel of doctors was of "13" inches and as such it cannot be said which of the two knives was recovered from the spot, in this regard PW­4 Sh. Ravi   Dadhich   in   brief   history   Ex.PW4/A   has   mentioned   that   in   the main bedroom, two blood spots were visible and a knife around "9" inches was also lying.  It is nowhere mentioned in the brief history that PW­4 measured or handled the knife.  Ex.PW10/E is the sketch of knife prepared   on   12.01.2000   by   the   panel   of   doctors,   who   conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Anju Iliyasi and as per sketch the length of blade is "8" inches and of handle "5 ", total length of knife is "13"   inches.     PW­4   in   his   brief   history   has   not   stated   whether   he referred the length of knife around "9" inches was with respect to blade of knife or total length of knife with handle.   The length of blade of knife "8" inches is as per estimate of PW­4 i.e around "9" inches.  No question in this regard was put to PW­4 even when he was recalled for further cross­examination after framing additional charge u/s. 302 IPC. He   must   have   been   afforded   an   opportunity   to   explain   whether   he referred approximate length of blade of the knife or of full length of knife i.e with handle and in absence of even a suggestion in this regard to PW­4, the plea of Ld. Defence Counsel is without any substance.

78.  The   identity   of   knife   Ex.P1,   as   weapon   of   offence   and non­existence   of   two   knives   theory,   is   also   proved   by   the   fact   that blood group detected on knife Ex.P1 was of same group of deceased FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 94of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Anju   Iliyasi   (As   per   report   Ex.PW17/A   blood   on   knife   was   of   'A' Group and Biology (Serology) report Ex.PW17/B, Exhibit 'L' i.e blood in gauge piece of deceased Anju Iliyasi was also of 'A' group.  These reports leaves no doubt that knife Ex.P1 is the weapon of offence. 

79.  Whether   deceased   Anju   Iliyasi   was   suffering   from depression, insecurity & loneliness:­    It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deceased was a victim of unfulfilled self expectations which drove her to despondency and frustration. It has been submitted that the deceased, who dreamt of being famous, became disappointed and   unhappy   when   her   illusions   of   grandeur   were   shattered   due   to financial hardship in their life.  Thus, it was claimed that Anju Iliyasi was   very   much   like   Manju,   the   deceased   in   the   case   of  Sharad Birdichand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. To buttress  his   argument,   Ld.  Defence  Counsel  has  mainly  relied  upon following two evidences on record:­ (1)  PW­2   Prashant   Singh,   brother   of   deceased   has   stated   in   his   statement before the SDM Ex.PW2/B that in 1995, his mother   had   told   him   that   Anju   had   attempted   to   commit   suicide   by   consuming sleeping pills.

(2)  The letters and diaries i.e Ex.PW20/D1 to D2 & Ex.PW20/1 to 5.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 95of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi     In   this   regard,   certain   portion   of   letters   Ex.PW20/D1, Ex.PW20/D2, Ex.PW20/4 & Ex.PW20/5 have been narrated to show that Anju Iliyasi was a victim of her unhappy state of mind, unfulfilled self   expectations   which   drove   her   to   despondency   and   frustration. Perusal of these letters & portion of diaries rather show that expectation of   Anju   Iliyasi   from   her   married   life   were   reasonable   as   of   any educated & self esteemed woman.  In order to make accused aware of her true feelings, Anju in letter Ex.PW20/5 wrote that she would fully cooperate   with   him   to   maintain   their   marriage   and   to   clear misunderstanding that existed between them.   Regarding her proposal of 25% share in the company Alliya Production, she clarified that she did not claim any share but it was in order to ensure her security.  Not only this, she also said that there will be no influence on her part in decision making/taking until accused asks for it.   Anju expected that she should not be compared with any other woman and that if accused feels that Rukhsana is an ideal housewife, then there is no worth of writing or asking  this. This letter further shows that accused did not like  her   normal  talking  for  lack  of  trust  upon  himself.    She  further wrote   that   meeting   with   classmates   while   hugging   and   touch   are innocent gestures and if someone has any evil in his heart, same is reflected in his eyes. Ex.PW20/4 is a letter regarding her experience when Anju was in England, wherein she wrote that she was loving her self esteem as well as her personality and in so many ways she wanted FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 96of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi to make Sohaib understand that she is his wife, the one who should be the most important person in his life.

  Ex.PW20/D1 & Ex.PW20/D2 are letters dt. 02.04.90 and 13.04.90 which were written by Anju before her marriage with accused and those letters show mixed feeling of love and fights, which are usual in the life of ordinary loving couples.   These letters do not show that Anju had lofty and unrealistic expectations from life.  Thus, I am of the opinion that Anju cannot be equated with Manju of Sharad Birdichand (Supra),   whose   relations   with   her   husband   soon   after   the   marriage became extremely strained and went to the extent point of no return.

80.  On the day of  incident, deceased had gone to meet her father about 1­2 hours before her death and as deposed by PW­5 Dr. K.P.Singh, he did not notice anything abnormal or unhappiness in her attitude during the period she stayed with him i.e just 1­2 hours before her death.  Though, with great vehemence, it has been contended on behalf of accused that deceased was having suicidal tendency, however, defence   has   not   brought   anything   substantial   on   record   to   prove anything contrary to the facts, which have otherwise been proved on record. The totality of evidences on record do not suggest that deceased in all probabilities would have committed suicide.

81.  Conduct of accused (past and after the incident):­  Ld. FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 97of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Defence   Counsel   argued   that   the   accused   immediately   rushed   the deceased to the nearest hospital i.e Virmani Nursing Home and this conduct of accused is indicative of his innocence.  It has been further submitted that PW­13 HC Shatrughan makes it clear that deceased was in a conscious state  and she  never  levelled even a single  allegation against the accused rather she stated " Save me"... " I have committed a mistake".

82.  Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that conduct of the accused at the time of incident indicates towards his guilt.   It has been further submitted that accused was having two passports and fake degree from Jamia Milia University.  The conduct of accused prior to the incident and at the time or after the incident is apparent from the following evidence which have been brought on record:­ Prior to Incident:­

(i) As   per   PW­21   SI   Vinay   Tyagi   he   went   to   Jamia   Milia   University, Delhi to verify the provisional certificate of accused  Sohaib   Iliyasi   for   the   course   of   M.A   (social   work).     The   controller   of   examination   Sh.   Iqbal   Ahmed   verified   the   document from the record which was found forged and gave him FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 98of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the  report  in  this  regard.    He  proved  copy  of   his  request  as   Ex.PW21/A and the certificate issued by the Controller of Exams of Jamia Milia University dt. 30.03.2000 as Ex.PW21/B.  PW­28 Sh. Inam Qadir, Asstt. Controller of Examination, Jamia Milia   University also produced the original record of year 1991 of M.A (Social Work) and deposed that name of accused Sohaib Ahmad  Iliyasi is not there in the record of the aforesaid year.

(ii) PW­30 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, DCP deposed that enquiries were made from the regional Passport office (RPO) regarding existence of  two passports in the name of accused and that the RPO reported  that   two   passports   were   obtained   by   the   accused   using   false   information.     PW­35   Sh.   H.R.Khatumoria,   Asstt.   Passport   Officer also filed verification report Ex.PW30/A regarding two  passports.

At the time or after the incident:­

(i)  Accused did not try to stop the deceased from alleged stabbing to commit suicide by knife although he claimed that at first instance he had snatched the loaded pistol from deceased.

(ii)  Accused did not see any blood oozing from the wound but his   FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 99of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi PSO saw and tied a baniyan on the wound.

(iii) Accused at a crucial stage gave false history to the doctor that   deceased had consumed sleeping pills and when doctor saw the  wound on the abdomen of deceased, he told that " Koi Nukeeli  Cheeze Lag Gayi Hai".

(iv) Neither accused nor his PSO PW­13 HC Shatrughan gave any   information to the police although he was having wireless set   with him.

(v) Accused   took   45   minutes   in   reaching   AIIMS   from   Virmani   Nursing Home although the same distance was covered within 20 minutes in a test drive conducted at same time & date at normal  speed.

83.  It   was  argued by  Ld.  Defence  Counsel  that  PW­13  HC Shatrughan in his cross­examination stated that when accused told him that his wife Anju Iliyasi had stabbed herself with kitchen knife then he asked her as to what she had done, on this she replied that she had committed a mistake. The words allegedly uttered by deceased needs to be clearly interpreted. There can be two interpretation of the same; one that she committed mistake since she attempted to commit suicide or other that she committed mistake since she married accused and had to face the consequences in the form that accused stabbed her.   In his cross­examination   by   Ld.   Special   PP,   PW­13   confirmed   that   when FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 100of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Anju was being taken to the hospital she was taking turns on both sides saying " Mujhe Bacha Lo", however in his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he improved his version deposing that on the way to AIIMS Hospital, deceased asked accused " Sohaib Mujhe Bacha Lo". Further, the words allegedly uttered by deceased do not seem to be uttered by a person, who  has stabbed herself and does not  prove that the   accused   had   not   stabbed   deceased   since   it   is   highly   uncommon conduct   of   a   person,   who   has   attempted   to   commit   suicide   that   he would pray anyone to save his life since suicide was attempted only in order   to   end   his/her   life.     Further,   the   conduct   of   PW­13   HC Shatrughan in keeping mum and not reporting the matter to the police at the first instance, despite he himself being a police official shows that he somewhere was influenced by the accused and thus, makes him a   witness   who   is   neither   wholly   reliable   nor   wholly   unreliable   and needs corroboration in material particulars.  

84.  Non­examination of Baby Alia:­   It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that daughter of accused, who witnessed the entire incident was never interrogated or made a witness. It was submitted that   from   a   letter   written   by   deceased   to   her   sister   PW­18   i.e Ex.PW18/B, it is clear that Aliya could speak as the deceased wrote that " she i.e Aliya has learnt two new rhymes and further she learnt to say " Dolly mausi's phone came from Canada". In the same letter i.e FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 101of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Ex.PW18/B it appears that Aaliya was learning to take steps and in that process she tripped on her own and sustained injury.   Thus the letter shows that Aliya was in the learning process of walking and speaking but whether she could narrate the incident as happened was in the best knowledge of the accused, being her father. Initially, it was accused, who gave statement to SDM as complainant, therefore, it was his duty to   produce   eye   witness   of   the   incident,   if   any,   before   SDM   or investigating agencies to get his/her statement recorded, which was not done by him. Although accused asked his in­laws including PW­20 to come   and   give   statement   to   SDM,   however,   he   never   produced   his daughter baby Aliya before SDM or IO to record her statement saying that she witnessed the entire incident and could narrate the same as such, at this stage, he cannot take benefit of non­examination of Aliya.     Ld. Defence  Counsel  vehemently argued that PW­5 Sh. K.P.Singh, father of deceased and PW­2 Prashant, brother of deceased had not  alleged any foul play on the part of  accused and  they also admitted that PW­6 Smt. Rukma changed her statement on the behest of PW­20 Rashmi, although she had also given accused clean chit in her first statement.  It was submitted that it is admitted by PW­2 brother of deceased that PW­20 Rashmi was adamant to take the child Aliya with her and when the entire deliberation failed, it resulted into the complaints and registration of FIR against the accused.   PW­20 was cross­examined by Ld. Defence Counsel at length as also by accused FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 102of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi personally   but   the   only   relevant   circumstance   regarding   additional charge u/s. 302 IPC against the accused is that the deceased last time talked with her on telephone and the deceased was crying and her exact words as per PW­20 were " Didi take me away or he is going to kill me" and PW­20 in her cross­examination admitted that in her typed complaint and the cross­examination done by SDM during inquest, she mentioned about Anju saying " Didi take me away" and not the words "or he is going to kill me".  There is no suggestion to PW­20 that the deceased did not say to PW­20 when she talked to her last time that "Didi take me away".   In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C to a specific question no. 29 that after the said statement accused snatched phone from Anju and told PW­20 that she had interfered in their life and he will take care of Anju and disconnected phone, is admitted as correct by the accused. 

 

85.  Opinion of Medical Boards constituted at initial stage  and      later    on  in  the year 2012:­  Initially a panel of  three doctors consisting of Dr. R.K.Sharma from AIIMS, Dr. Alexander Khaka from Safdurjung   Hospital   and   Dr.   L.C.Gupta   from   Aruna   Asaf   Ali Government Hospital was constituted for the postmortem of deceased. The   doctor's   panel   gave   their   postmortem   report   No.   39/2000   dt. 12.01.2000 (Ex.PW10/A), which mentioned (1) nature and number of FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 103of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi injuries of the deceased   (2) cause of death as injury no.1 and (3) the injuries   are   suicidal   or   homicidal   shall   be   given   subject   to   certain queries.   Thereafter, the panel of doctors vide their two pages report, page one of which was inadvertently exhibited as Ex.PW4/JJ and page two of the same was exhibited Ex.PW10/B, opined as under:­ (1)  The injury no.1 is 15.5 cms deep from the external injury to the  point of injury to the arota.

(2) The cut  on arota was obliquely placed on left­antereo­lateral   wall.

(3) The distance of arota from ant.abdominal was 10 cms and arota  was usually placed.

(4)  Injury No.1 & 2 are self inflicted and suicidal in nature.

    Thereafter, in response to letter of ACP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan dt.   08.03.2001,   the   board   after   considering   all   the   facts   and circumstances brought by investigating officer gave opinion vide report Ex.PW22/A, which confirmed that injuries were suicidal in nature. The report Ex.PW22/A, however, was signed by only two doctors i.e Dr. R.K.Sharma and Dr. Alexander F. Khaka. However, the 3 rd member of the Board Dr. L.C.Gupta wrote a letter Dt. 03.05.2001   to ACP Sh. Rajiv Ranjan (Ex.PW10/C) alleging that the matter in detail was not discussed with him in the meeting dt. 12.04.2001 and that the other two FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 104of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi doctors of the panel prepared and signed the report without caring for detail   discussion   and   unanimous   opinion.   He   further   asked   all   the relevant papers as submitted to the other two members to enable him to formulate   his   opinion   and   in   his   subsequent   opinion   dt.   30.08.2001 (Ex.PW10/D) he concluded that in this case homicide cannot be ruled out.  

Thereafter,   vide   order   No.F­342/MB­77/2011/H&FW/ 2815­21   dt.   21.05.2012   issued   by   Health   and   Family   Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, a Medical Board comprising of five doctors i.e Dr. Anil Aggarwal, Dr. Sunil, Dr. Sone Lal, Dr. Vijay Dhankar   &   Dr.   Akash   Jhanjee   was   constituted   to  reconcile   the  two dissenting   opinions   given   by   three   earlier   doctors   constituting   the Medical Board as admittedly two of the doctors namely R.K.Sharma & Alexander F.Khaka had held the cause of death to be suicidal whereas Dr. L.C.Gupta in a subsequent opinion dated 30.08.2001 had concluded that the homicide cannot be ruled out.

86. The   board   after   going   through   all   the   documents   made available to the board by the police authorities noted following points and gave its report Ex.PW37/A:­

1.  There is presence of two stab wounds on the abdomen as per the  postmortem   report.     (Multiple   stab   wounds   are   in   favour   of   FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 105of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi homicide).

2.  Depth of the fatal injury was 15.5 cm which is very unlikely in  case of suicidal injury.

3.  As   per   the   photographic   printouts   of   deceased's   postmortem   submitted by the IO, two more injuries are evident on the body  of the deceased, which have not been mentioned in the original  postmortem report prepared.

4.  Neither   postmortem   report   nor   photograph   printouts   made   available, depict path/track taken by the two stab wounds on the  abdomen region.

5.  There is no scientific finding mentioned in the postmortem report which can be considered to be the basis of the conclusion, as to  which injury is inflicted first and which injury is inflicted later  on.

6.  There   are   no   cuts   on  the   clothes   of   the   deceased   as   per   the   documents made available.

7.  There are no finger prints detected on the recovered weapon of  offence as per the documents made available.

8. Absence of hesitation cuts/tentative cuts around the fatal injury  or elsewhere.

9.  Stab   injury   infliction   over   the   abdomen   region   is   highly   uncommon site for self infliction.

The   board   was   of   the   unanimous   opinion   that   the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 106of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi preponderance   of   evidence   submitted   in   this   case   points   towards commission of homicide.  

87.  This   is   a   strange   case,   where   we   have   opinion   of   two medical   boards   given   at   different   points   of   time,   which   are   clearly conflicting  each   other.  Initially,  a  medical  board  consisting  of   three doctors   namely   Dr.   R.K.Sharma,   Dr.   Alexander   F.Khaka   &   Dr. L.C.Gupta was constituted to give an opinion regarding death being suicidal or homicidal.  Two doctors namely Dr. Alexander Khaka and Dr.   R.K.Sharma   sent   a   joint   report   Ex.PW22/A   (now   Ex.PW30/F) declaring the death of Anju Illyasi as suicide. They suggested in their report   Ex.PW30F   to   take   a   report   from   Dr.   L.C.Gupta   directly. However, the 3rd member of the Board Dr. L.C.Gupta gave his separate reports Ex.PW10/C and PW10/D and  in  his subsequent opinion dated 30.08.2001 he had concluded that the homicide cannot be ruled out. Later, a Medical Board consisting of five doctors was again constituted to reconcile the two dissenting opinions given by three earlier doctors. The report of Dr.L.C.Gupta and the board of five doctors constituted at later point of time, clearly says that homicide cannot be ruled out.   The conflicting opinion of two medical boards given at different points of time, though could not be a piece of conclusive evidence, however, the same can be taken into consideration if the other evidences on record fully excludes one theory and establishes the cause of death either as suicidal or homicidal.  

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 107of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

88.  Much was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel about the role of   PW­30   Sh.   Rajiv   Ranjan,   DCP   for   seeking   re­examination   of medical   opinion   although   the   autopsy   board   comprising   of   three doctors i.e Dr. R.K.Sharma, Dr. L.C.Gupta and Dr. Alexander F.Khaka unanimously opined that the injuries are self inflicted and suicidal in nature and thereafter, for reconstitution of panel of five doctors after a period of more than 12 years. It was submitted that PW­30 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan,   DCP   acted   out   of   malice   which   was   triggered   by   the complaints made by accused against him and although he stated that he never attended any board meeting but when he was confronted with the board minutes Ex.PW30/DX, he admitted that the minutes shows his presence in the meeting.  In this regard suffice it to say that decision of the constitution of board of five doctors to reconsider the split opinion given by earlier board constituted for opinion on the death of Smt. Anju Iliyasi, was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court.  

89.    Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the report Ex.PW37/A contains   nine   findings   which   leads   the   board   to   opine   that preponderance of evidence points towards commission of homicide but the   said   nine   findings   are   inconsistent   with   both   the   facts   and   text books authored by the witness and my attention was drawn with respect to   the   extracts   of   Modi's   Medical   Jurisprudence   and   text   book   of FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 108of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Forensic Medicine & Toxicology by PW­37 Dr. Anil Aggarwal.  Mark PW37/D1 & PW37/D2 are extracts from Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and   Toxicology,   which   differentiate   between   suicidal   and   homicidal cuts.     Relying   upon   the   contents   of   abovesaid   book,   Ld.   Defence Counsel mainly relied upon two points in case of suicide. 

      (i)     Hesitation cuts usually present.
      (ii)    Clothes not damaged.
                     A   perusal   of   these   pages   Mark   PW37/D1   &   PW37/D2

shows that mostly suicidal wound on the throat were discussed.   The logic behind clothes not damaged in case of suicidal cuts appears to be that   same   are   usually   open   organs   such   as   throat,   wrist,   ankle   etc. Hesitation cuts itself denote that these are caused with hesitation or nervousness.   One of the reason for hesitation cuts is that a person while committing suicide hesitate to inflict injury upon him but the possibility of such cuts when someone in close relation caused injury, cannot be ruled out.

  It was held in  Stephen Seneviratne v. Kind, AIR 1936 P.C. 289 at p. 298. 299 : (1936) 37 Cr.L.J. 963 Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 C 500 at p. 523: 1960 Cr.L.J. 682  that    "the medical  opinion by itself, however, does not prove or disprove the prosecution case, it is merely of advisory character."   In an another case Awadhesh v. State of M.P. (AIR 1988 FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 109of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi SC 1158: 1988  Cr.LJ. 1154 (Para 10)  again their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :

  "Medical   expert's   opinion   is   not   always   final   and binding."

  In  Brij Bhukhan v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 474:

1957   Cr.L.J.   591,   it   was   held   that   "In   an   appropriate   case   on   a consideration of the nature of the injuries and other relevant evidence, the Court can come to its own conclusion, if the medical evidence is deficient."

90.    In view of above, since there is conflicting opinion of two medical  boards  regarding  the  death  being  suicidal   or  homicidal  and none  could   be   relied   upon  to   form  a   definite  opinion   without   there being any incriminating evidence, I shall proceed further to see if there is   other   material   on   record,   which   is   sufficient   to   establish   the additional charge u/s. 302 IPC as framed against the accused.  

91.   In the instant case, there is no eye witness of the incident and medical opinion given by two boards is also in conflict with each, the   case   of   the   prosecution   is   totally   rest   on   the   circumstantial   and forensic evidence.   The law related to circumstantial evidence is that these circumstances should form a chain pointing towards the guilt of FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 110of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi the accused and the same should be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.  Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar versus Inspector of Police, Krishan Giri 2012 (2) RCR   (criminal)  held   that   in   a   case   of   conviction   on   basis   of circumstantial  evidence certain tests must be satisfied and the Apex Court has laid down the conditions which are : The circumstances from which the conviction is to be drawn should be fully established; 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;   the circumstances   should   be   of   a   conclusive   nature   and   tendency;   they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and 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.

92. Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in  Sharad   Birdhichand   Sarda   v.

State   of   Maharashtra   (supra),   a   three­Judge   Bench   of   Hon'ble Supreme   Court   has   laid   down   the   law   as   to   when   in   a   case   of circumstantial evidence charge can be said to have been established.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 111of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi Five points enumerated in said case are summarized as under : ­

(i)   The   circumstances   from   which   the   conclusion   of   guilt   is   drawn should be fully established. The accused must be, and not merely may be guilty, before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions;

(ii)   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;

(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

(v) 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.

93. Before   discussing   the   incriminating   circumstances   the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act needs to be dealt with as the same has been heavily relied upon by Ld. Addl. PP for State as also by Ld. Defence Counsel.  

Section   106   of   Indian   Evidence   Act.   Burden   of   proving   facts FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 112of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi especially within knowledge.­­ when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 

    In   the   case   of    Trimukh   Maroti   Kirkan   Vs.   State   of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681,  the  Hon'ble  Court  held  that  if an offence   takes   place   inside   the   privacy   of   a   house     and   in   such circumstances where the assailants have   all   the opportunity to   plan and  commit the offence at the time and in  the circumstances  of  their choice, it  will  be  extremely  difficult   for   the  prosecution  to  lead evidence  to   establish   the  guilt  of  the  accused if the  strict principle of  circumstantial  evidence, is insisted upon by the court. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished.   A   Judge   also   presides   to   see   that   a   guilty   man   does   not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution   to   lead   evidence   of   such   character   which   is   almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says   that   when   any   fact   is   especially   within   the   knowledge   of   any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The Hon'ble Court further held that where the offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside   the   house,   the   initial   burden   to   establish   the   case   would FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 113of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as  is required in other  cases of  circumstantial evidence.  The burden   would   be   of   a   comparatively   lighter   character.   In   view   of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply   keeping   quiet   and   offering   no   explanation   on   the   supposed premise   that   the   burden   to   establish   its   case   lies   entirely   upon   the prosecution   and   there   is   no   duty   at   all   on   an   accused   to   offer   any explanation.

94.  The Hon'ble Court referred to the judgment of  State of West   Bengal   Vs.   Mir   Mohammad.   Umar   &   Ors.

MANU/SC/0535/2000  wherein after taking  note of the provisions of Section   106   of   the   Evidence   Act,   the   Hon'ble   Court   laid   down   the principle that pristine rule that burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove   the   guilt   of   the   accused,   should   not   be   taken   as   a   fossilized doctrine as though no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption  is  not  alien  to  the  above   rule,  nor   would  it  impair  the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 114of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi coverage,   the   offenders   in   serious   offences   would   be   the   major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty. 

95.    Now coming to the following incriminating circumstances which stares at the face of accused:­ 

(i)  PW­5   Dr.   K.P.Singh,   father   of   the   deceased   deposed   that   his daughter had visited him about 1­2 hours before her death and he did not notice anything abnormal or unhappiness in her attitude during the period she stayed with him on that day. 

(ii)  PW­18 Ms. Reeta Vaneack, sister of deceased deposed that on 10.01.2000 she received a telephone call from her sister Anju Iliyasi at her residence at USA and she asked for Rashmi Singh, her elder sister and then accused came on line and informed her that Anju is having his revolver and threatening to kill herself but she could not talk with her sister and phone was disconnected.  PW­6 Smt. Rukma Singh, mother of deceased, who was at that time with PW­18 Ms. Reeta Vaneack tried to contact Anju on phone but she did not come on the line and the phone was  disconnected.    Thereafter, she had rung up her  daughter Rashmi at Canada and had asked her to ring up accused as their phone had been disconnected. PW­20 Rashmi Singh thereupon called Anju but phone was picked up by accused and the accused said " Didi Bulu FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 115of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi ka dimag kharab ho gaya hai." Thereupon as per PW­20 Rashmi Singh, her sister Anju snatched phone from accused and she was crying and her exact words were "Didi take me away or he is going to kill me" and thereafter, accused snatched the phone back and told her that she had interfered in their life long enough and he will take care of Anju and the phone was disconnected.  In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in reply to question no. 29 accused admitted it as correct that he snatched phone from Anju and told PW­20 Rashmi Singh that she had interfered in their life and he will take care of Anju and disconnected the phone.

(iii)  Accused   in   his   statement   dt.   11.01.2000   given   to   SDM (Ex.PW4/E) as complainant stated that he had snatched the revolver from deceased, which was unlocked and had taken out cartridge from it and threw under the bed and after some time picked the same and put into his pocket.  He stated that he threw the revolver slightly under the bed and thereafter, went to his room alongwith Aaliya. He stated that he   threw   the   cartridge   near   the   headboard   of   the   bed.   As   per   brief history Ex.PW4/A prepared by the SDM a  revolver  was  also found lying in the open shelf, which alongwith three cartridges was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A.  If the revolver was thrown under the bed after unloading the same, how could it be recovered from the open shelf as mentioned in the (Ex.PW4/A) brief history of case prepared by SDM Sh. Ravi Dadhich. This fact, as such creates a doubt on the plea FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 116of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi of accused that  Anju wanted to kill herself with revolver, which he snatched from her and threw  under the bed.

(iv)  Accused did not inform about Anju's trying to commit suicide with a revolver, to his father in­law, who was in Delhi at that time but the call was made to mother & sister of deceased, who were in London & Canada and for whom it was impossible to reach at the spot at that crucial time.   PW­5 Dr. K.P.Singh deposed that at about 11 pm he received a telephone call of his wife from America that his daughter Anju and accused were quarreling and he should visit her.

(v) As   stated   by   accused   to   the   SDM   in   Ex.PW4/E,   when   he snatched the loaded revolver from deceased, she went to the kitchen and brought a knife with which she stabbed herself while standing near the door of the room. If accused could have snatched the revolver from the hand of deceased, he could have also snatched the knife, which was brought by deceased from the kitchen, which admittedly has not been done.     As   per   medical   evidence,   there   are   two   stab   wounds   on   the abdomen   of   deceased.     Why   accused   did   not   stop   deceased   from stabbing herself before giving the first blow and even thereafter, when she   gave   the   second   blow,   are   the   further   questions,   which   were required   to   be   answered   in   clear   terms,   however,   no   explanation regarding this has ever been offered by accused.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 117of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi

(vi) When accused gave statement to SDM being a complainant, he stated that blood did not come out of the wound and instead a white liquid was seen.  However, when PSO reached there, he saw the blood at the abdomen of deceased, whereafter, he tied an old baniyan on her wound. It is strange that no blood was noticed by accused, which was visible to PSO and again the husband of deceased i.e accused made no effort to stop the flowing blood and it was the PSO, who tied a baniyan on   the   wound.     Accused   even   did   not   inform   the   police   about   the incident at any point of time.

(vii) Accused took the deceased to  Virmani Hospital but he did not tell the doctor that his wife had stabbed herself rather he told the doctor at Virmani Nursing Home that "Isne kuch kha liya hai".  No plausible explanation or reason has been put forth by accused as to why he did not inform the doctor the exact or true facts.  In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, in answer to question no. 107, he stated that he presumed that his   wife   Anju   had   taken   sleeping   pills,   which   is   apparently   a   false statement   since   as   per   accused   himself   Anju  had   stabbed   herself   in front of him after having a verbal fight with him then how could he have thought that she had consumed sleeping pills. Further, when Anju was being shifted to the stretcher and was being taken for treatment, doctor   at   Virmani   Hospital   noticed   blood   on   the   abdomen   of   the FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 118of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi patient. On this he questioned the accused again and the accused told him that " Koi nukili cheez lag gayi hai". Wife of the accused was seriously injured and was in critical condition yet he did not tell the doctor  outrightly that what had happened to her so that correct and prompt treatment could be given to her to save her life, instead he kept misleading the doctor by furnishing false information.  

(viii) Further, accused had reached the Viramani Hospital at around 11.30   pm   and   left   Viramani   Hospital   for   AIIMS   at   11.40   pm   and reached   AIIMS   at   12.26   am.   During   investigation   a   test   drive   was conducted   from   Viramani   hospital   to   AIIMS   in   similar   weather condition and at the same time in 1 st week of January 2001. In the test drive the same car at the same speed i.e. 60 kms per hour and similar traffic   conditions   took   only   20   minutes   to   reach   AIIMS,   whereas accused had taken 46 minutes to reach AIIMS on the fateful night.  The facts above clearly show that accused took the deceased to Virmani Hospital only to create a defence in his favour and he actually did not intend to save the life of deceased and that is why he misled the doctors also.

(ix) Barbers Fazlu and Amiruddin who had come to IFS Apartment, Mayur Vihar apparently to give hair cut to the accused stated that they did   not   notice   any   scuffle   or   loud   arguments   coming   from   the   bed FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 119of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi room.   Even   the   PSOs   posted   outside   the   door   did   not   hear   any commotion or noise from inside, however,   the distance between the bed room of the accused and deceased and the place, where the accused was   supposed   to   have   hair   cut   and   the   door   where   the   PSOs   were posted was a few meters only and any loud sound from the bed room was audible at these two places. Thus, the version of accused that an altercation took place between him and deceased during which calls were   made   to   mother   and   sister   of   deceased,   whereafter   deceased stabbed herself, does not inspire confidence. 

(x)  During   the   investigation   of   the   crime   scene,   blood   of   the deceased was found on the bed, which shows that the deceased was on the bed at some point of time contrary to the claim made by the accused in his  statement  before SDM.  Accused  stated  that deceased  stabbed herself while standing at the door of the room while he was sitting on the bed, whereafter, he got up from the bed, ran towards her, snatched the knife from her hand and threw it on the floor and laid her on the carpet outside the door.  He nowhere stated that deceased at any point of time was brought inside the room or was laid on the bed. Thus, there was no occasion for the blood of deceased to reach on the bed. As per report Ex.PW17/B blood was found on Ex.d & e i.e blood stains lifted from   bathroom   tiles   and   blood  stains   lifted   from   Jali   of   nali  of   the bathroom.  As per serological report, the blood on Ex.d & e was opined FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 120of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi to   be   human   blood   of   group   'A'   which   is   also   the   blood   group   of deceased.  Regarding presence of blood in bathroom and bed, accused during investigation stated that the deceased was in menstrual phase and the blood on the bathroom and bed can be explained that way. However, the final report of the Autopsy Surgeon made it clear that during the postmortem the deceased was not in the menstrual phase. In answer to the question no.122& 123 regarding blood of deceased Anju having been found on bed as well as in bathroom sink and drain, in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C accused stated that when IO asked him to explain the presence of blood in bathroom at the time of making the statement, he was unaware that more than 50 people had visited his unlocked   flat   including   the   bathroom   and   he   presumed   that   his deceased wife might be having menstrual cycle and that could be the reason   of   blood   in   the   bathroom.     The  explanation   with   regard   to presence of blood at different places including sink and drains in the washroom   of   his   house   as   offered   by   accused   does   not   inspire confidence since he did not stick to one defence and kept changing his version time and again to suit his claim.

  In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106,    the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 121of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 

(xi) PW­13 HC Shatrughan in his cross­examination by Ld. Special PP, confirmed that when Anju was being taken to the hospital she was taking turns on both sides saying " Mujhe Bacha Lo", however in his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he improved his version deposing that on the way to AIIMS Hospital, deceased asked accused "

Sohaib   Mujhe   Bacha   Lo",   which   itself   shows   that   she   wanted   to survive   and   thus   rules   out   the   possibility   of   her   having   committed suicide.

(xii) As per postmortem report Ex.PW10/A, there were no cut marks on the clothes of deceased in the corresponding areas of injury. It was for the accused to explain why and under what circumstances, there was no cut on the wearing clothes of deceased; whether she lifted her clothes   before   alleged   stabbing.       In   reply   to   question   no.   197   of statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to absence of cut marks on the wearing clothes of deceased accused stated that he cannot say but it FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 122of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi may be a matter of record. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act says that the onus to prove the facts that are in exclusive knowledge of the accused is upon the person in whose knowledge they are.

  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court in  Trimukh  Maroti Kirkan v.

State of Maharashtra (supra),  held as under:  "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds   in   leading   evidence   to   show   that   shortly   before   the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been   consistently   held   that   if   the   accused   does   not   offer   any explanation how  the  wife  received  injuries  or  offers  an  explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Similar view was also taken in Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10. 

  No   explanation   whatsoever   with   regard   to   this   fact   has been put forth by the accused. It was for the accused to disclose the facts which were exclusively within his knowledge but he did not offer true explanation.

 

96.    In view of the facts as discussed above and the categoric rulings   of   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court,   the   accused   who   was   found FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 123of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi inside   the   house   alongwith   the   deceased,   having   not   explained   the circumstances,   which   were   within   his   exclusive   knowledge,   cannot claim that it was for the prosecution to have proved those facts.   The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in such cases as the present case, the refusal of the accused to disclose the facts by keeping silent does not help him and adverse inference is to be drawn against him u/s. 106 of Indian Evidence Act. 

97.  There exists adequate material on record to prove that the relations between the two were strained and that the  conduct of the accused towards his wife was not cordial. The evidence on record also suggests that the accused was at pinnacle of his career and had earned immense reputation/success from his show 'India's Most Wanted' and his wife deceased Anju, who knew about all the forgeries & wrong acts i.e   possessing   two   passports,   using   fake   degree   for   job   Mark   30/Y, committing   credit   card   fraud  etc.   could   have   let  public   know  about these facts, which could very easily ruin his hard earned success, since she had made up her mind to leave the accused and settle down in Canada, as such, the circumstances so appeared  would have impelled the accused to go to any extent.

98.   In view of the above, this court reaches the inescapable conclusion that  the defence taken by accused  that the deceased had FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 124of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi committed   suicide   by   stabbing   herself   at   their   residence,   is   not acceptable since the prosecution evidence coupled with other material on record do not indicate that deceased committed suicide.  The charge u/s. 302 IPC against the accused stands fully proved since  in spite of the fact that accused had been in the same room, he failed to furnish any plausible explanation as to why there were no cut marks on   the wearing clothes of deceased; how the blood of the deceased travelled to the   bed,   bathroom   sink   &   drain   and   how   the   revolver   which   was thrown   by   accused   under   the   bed   was   recovered   from   shelf.     The version given by the accused that his wife had consumed sleeping pills; that there was no blood seen coming out of the wound which at the same time was seen by the PSO and that blood found in the sink and drains   of   washroom   was   menstrual   blood   of   deceased   stands   fully falsified by the medical & other evidences on record which in itself is an additional link connecting the accused to the commission of offence. Accordingly, accused is held guilty for committing murder of his wife Anju Iliyasi and convicted u/s. 302 IPC. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR Announced in the open court  MALHOTRA Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2017.12.16 16:33:40 +0530 on 16.12.2017      (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)   ASJ/FTC/E­COURT                     Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.

FIR No.94/2000, PS.Pandav Nagar Page 125of 125 State Vs. Sohaib Iliyasi