Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Amit Jain on 3 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 130/2011
Unique Case ID: 02404R0027322008
State Vs. 1. Amit Jain
S/o Rishi Prakash Jain
R/o F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
2. Rishi Prakash
S/o Late Khem Lal Jain
R/o F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
3. Asha Jain
W/o Rishi Prakash jain
R/o F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi.
(Since Expired)
4. Praveen Jain
S/o Jai Bhagwan Jain
R/o 39/22, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
5. Renu Jain
S/o Praveen Jain
R/o 39/22, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
6. Jugal Kishore
S/o Rishi Prakash Jain
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 1
R/o F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 246/2008
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 17.09.2008
Date on which orders were reserved : 03.09.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 03.09.2014
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
(1) As per the allegations, after the marriage of Astha Jain (since deceased) solemnized on 29.04.2007 with the accused Amit Jain (husband), he (Amit Jain), accused Rishi Parkash Jain (the fatherin law), Smt. Asha Jain (motherinlaw - since expired), accused Jugal Kishore Jain (jeth / brotherinlaw), accused Renu Jain (sisterinlaw/ nanad), and Parveen Jain (brotherinlaw/ nandoi), all being close relatives of accused Amit Jain, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Shalimar Bagh, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected Smt. Astha Jain to cruelty and harassed her at her matrimonial House No. F/U156, Pitampura, Delhi, immediately after her marriage with a view to coerce her or her parents to meet their (accused's) unlawful demand of dowry.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 2 (2) It is also alleged that deceased Astha Jain was found dead by hanging on 30.04.2008 at her matrimonial house mentioned above and her death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage with the accused Amit Jain and between this period the accused persons being close relatives / family members of accused Amit Jain, husband of the deceased at her matrimonial house subjected her to cruelty or harassment on account of not fulfilling their unlawful demand of dowry made by the accused persons or in furtherance of their common intention, from her or her relatives on different occasions soon before her death and all the accused thereby abetted the suicide committed by Smt. Astha Jain.
CHARGE:
(3) Charge under Section 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Parkash Jain, Smt. Asha Jain, Jugal Kishore Jain, Renu Jain and Parveen Jain to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(4) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses::
Sl. No. Witness No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1 PW1 Ashok Jain Public Witness State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 3 Sl. No. Witness No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 2 PW2 Ct. Karan Singh Police Witness - Special Messenger 3 PW3 Ct. Shansarpal Police Witness - Took the exhibits to the FSL 4 PW4 Ct. Ravinder Police Witness - DD Writer 5 PW5 HC Raghuraj Police Witness MHCM 6 PW6 SI M D Meena Police Witness - Member Crime Team 7 PW7 ASI Ramesh Chand Police Witness - Member Crime Team 8 PW8 SI Narender Singh Police Witness - Member Crime Team 9 PW9 ASI Bhagwat Singh Police Witness - Duty Officer 10 PW10 SI Manohar Lal Police Witness - Drafts Man 11 PW11 Dr. Adesh Kumar Official Witness from FSL 12 PW12 M Z Ansari Official Witness - Tehsildar 13 PW13 Kishore Bhatacharya Official Witness fro OBC Bank 14 PW14 Brij Mohan Public Witness 15 PW15 Naveen Chandar Pant Public Witness 16 PW16 Sajiman Public Witness 17 PW17 Jagjot Prasad Jain Public Witness 18 PW18 Rajni Public Witness 19 PW19 Sudesh Jain Public Witness 20 PW20 Subhash Jain Public Witness 21 PW21 Narender Kumar Jain Public Witness State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 4 Sl. No. Witness No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 22 PW22 Tika Ram Public Witness 23 PW23 SI Randhir Singh Police Official who was on emergency duty 24 PW24 Vishal Gaurav Nodal Officer 25 PW25 Dr. K Goyal Official Witness form BJRM Hospital 26 PW26 Anurag Official Witness from FSL 27 PW27 Israr Babu Nodal Officer 28 PW28 Insp. Puran Chand Police Official - Investigating Officer 29 PW29 Rajeev Sharda Nodal Officer 30 PW30 B S Thakur Official Witness SDM DEFENCE WITNESS 1 DW Amit Jain Accused Amit Jain examined himself under Section 315 Cr.PC List of documents exhibited:
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Details of documents
1. PW 1/A Statement of Ashok Kumar Ashok Kumar
2. PW 1/B Dead body identification statement of
Ashok Kumar
3. PW 1/C List of Dowry Articles
4. PW 1/D Marriage Card
5. PW 1/E1to Photographs
E11
6. PW 1/F Receipt of Car
7. PW 1/G Confronted statement of Ashok Kumar
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 5
8. PW1/D1 to Photographs
D2
9. PW 2/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Karan Ct. Karan
10. PW 3/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Sahansar Ct. Sahansar
11. PW 3/A Receipt of FSL
12. PW 4/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Ravinder Ct. Ravinder
13. PW 4/A Copy of DD NO. 20PP
14. PW 5/1 Affidavit of witness HC Raguraj HC Raguraj
15. PW 5/A Copy of Register No. 19 Sr. No.
3521/08
16. PW 5/B RC No. 57/21/08
17. PW 6/1 Affidavit of witness SI MD Meena SI M D Meena
18. PW 6/A Crime Team Report
19. PW 7/1 Affidavit of witness ASI Ramesh ASI Ramesh
20. PW 7/A1 to Photographs
14
21. PW 7/B Negatives
22. PW 8/1 Affidavit of witness SI Narender SI Narender
23. PW 9/1 Affidavit of witness ASI Bhagwat ASI Bhagwat
24. PW 9/A Copy of FIR
25. PW 9/B Endorsement on Rukka
26. PW 10/1 Affidavit of witness of SI Manohar SI Manohar
27. PW 10/A Scaled Site plan
28. PW 11/A FSL Report Dr. Adesh
29. PW 11/B Covering Letter Kumar
30. PW 12/A Endorsement of SDM M Z Ansari
31. PW 13/A Seizure memo of form 60 and Photo Kishore
ID Bhattacharya
32. PW 13/B Seizure memo of Cheques
33. PW 15/A Seizure memo of gate pass of Sh. Naresh
Mercedes Car Chandar
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 6
34. PW 16/DX1 Document of Booking the car
35. PW 16/DX2 Receipt of Full Payment Sajimon
36. PW 16/DX3 Performa Inovice
37. PW 16/DX4 Delivery acknowledgment
38. PW 17/PX1 Confronted statement of Jagjot Jain Jagjot Jain
39. PW 17/PX2 Confronted statement of Jagjot Jain
40. PW 18/A Suicide note Rajni
41. PW 19/PX1 Confronted statement of Sudesh Jain
42. PW 20/A Seizure memo of Photograph of
Marriage Subhash Jain
43. PW 20/PX1 Confronted statement of Subhash Jain
44. PW 21/A Dead body Identification statement of
Narender Kumar Jain Narender
45. PW 21/B Dead body handed over memo Kumar Jain
46. PW 21/C Seizure memo of Dowry articles list
47. PW 21/PX1 Confronted statement of Narender
Kumar Jain
48. PW 23/A Seizure memo of Suicide note
49. PW 23/B Seizure memo of Sari SI Randhir
Singh
50. PW 23/C Seizure memo of Mobile phones
51. PW 23/DX1 Disclosure statement of Rishi Prakash
52. PW 24/A Customer application
form9910300235 Vishal Gaurav
53. PW 24/B Copy of ID Proof
54. PW 24/C CDR
55. PW 24/D Cell ID Chart
56. PW 24/E Customer application
form9810011213
57. PW 24/F Copy of ID Proof
58. PW 24/G CDR
59. PW 24/H Cell ID Chart
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 7
60. PW 24/I Certificate U/s 65B
61. PW 25/A Postmortem Report
62. PW 25/B Subsequent Opinion Dr. K Goyal
63. PW 26/A FSL regarding Handwriting
64. PW 26/B Covering Letter Anurag
Sharma
65. PW 26/C Passpost of Astha Jain
66. PW 26/D Note Book
67. PW 26/E Note Book
68. PW 27/A Customer application
form9999555038 Israr Babu
69. PW 27/B Copy of ID Proof
70. PW 27/C CDR
71. PW 27/D Cell ID Chart
72. PW 27/E Certificate U/s 65B
73. PW 28/A Site plan
74. PW 28/B Arrest memo of accused Asha Jain Insp. Puran
Chand
75. PW 28/C Personal search memo of accused
Asha Jain
76. PW 28/D Arrest memo of accused Rishi Prakash
77. PW 28/E Personal search memo of Rishi
Prakash
78. PW 28/F Arrest memo of accused Parveen Jain
79. PW 28/G Personal search memo of accused
Parveen Jain
80. PW 28/H Arrest memo of accused Renu Jain
81. PW 28/I Personal search memo of Renu Jain
82. PW 28/J Inquest proceeding form
83. PW 28/K Brief fact
84. PW 28/L Request for Postmortem
85. PW 28/M Seizure memo of exhibits of Deceased
86. PW 28/N Arrest memo of accused Amit Jain
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 8
87. PW 28/O Personal search of accused Amit Jain
88. PW 28/P Disclosure statement of accused Amit
Jain
89. PW 28/Q Seizure memo of two note book
90. PW 28/R Arrest memo of accused Jugal Kishore
91. PW 28/S Seizure memo of Passport
92. PW 28/T Application for cause of death to the
Autopsy Surgeon
93. PW 28/DX1 ME of accused Rishi Parkash
94. PW 28/DX2 ME of accused Asha Rani
95. PW 28/DX3 ME of accused Parveen
96. PW 28/DX4 ME of accused Renu Jain
97. PW 28/DX5 Statement of Ashok Jain U/s 161 CrPC
98. PW 28/DX6 Refusal report to divulge the source
99. PW 28/DX7 Copy of Hotel Bill
100. PW 28/DX8 Copy of RC
101. PW 28/DX9A Photographs to reflected the damage to H the property
102. PW 28/DX10 Medical recored of Astha Jain
103. PW 28/DX11 Document regarding property purchased in the name of Ashta Jain
104. PW 29/A Customer application form9310011214 Rajeev Sharda
105. PW 29/B Copy of ID Proof
106. PW 29/C CDR of 9310011214
107. PW 29/D Customer application form9312377177
108. PW 29/E Copy of ID Proof
109. PW 29/F CDR of 9312377177
110. PW 29/G Customer application form9350043018
111. PW 29/H Copy of ID Proof State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 9
112. PW 29/I CDR
113. PW 29/J Customer application form32480990
114. PW 29/K Copy of ID Proof
115. PW 29/L CDR of 32480990
116. PW 29/M Survey Report
117. PW 29/N Cell Id Chart
118. PW 29/O Certificate U/s 65B
119. PW 30/DX1 Confronted statement of Sh. B S B S Thakur Thakur Defence Witness Exhibits
1. DW 1/A Prescriptions and tests of Asha Jain
2. DW 1/B Copy of Cheque for payment of Amit Jain Mercedes Car EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Thirty witnesses, as under:
Public Witnesses:
(6) PW1 Sh. Ashok Jain S/o Sh. Jagjot Prasad Jain has deposed that that he is having a stationary shop at Chawari Bazar with the name and style of Jagjot Traders. He is having one boy and two girls, out of which, one daughter namely Aastha already expired. His daughter Aastha was eldest and her marriage was solemnised with Amit Kumar Jain, R/o IU56, Pitam Pura, Delhi with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The date of marriage was 29/04/2007.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 10 (7) He has further deposed that on 30/04/08, he was informed that his daughter expired. He along with his relatives went to the house of his daughter. The dead body of his daughter Aastha was removed by the police to BJRM hospital. SDM also recorded his statement. Same is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. He has voluntarily stated that SDM did not read over and explained his statement to him and obtained his signatures. He has further deposed that on 01/05/208, he went to BJRM hospital and SDM recorded his statement regarding identification of dead body, which is Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. His daughter was residing at her inlaws house happily and there was no demand of anything from the side of her inlaws. He handed over to the police list of dowry articles, which is Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A (running into five ages). He also handed over the marriage card and photographs of the ceremony of the marriage to the police. The marriage card is Ex. PW1/D and the photographs are Ex. PW1/E1 to Ex. PW1/E11. He does not remember if the police had recorded his statement. He does not want to say anything else. He has identified accused Amit Kumar Jain, Jugal Kishore, Rishi Prakash Jain, Asha Jain, Renu Jain and Praveen Jain before the Court.
(8) Since the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, so, he has been cross examined by Ld. APP, wherein he had denied that he told to the SDM in his statement that when the marriage State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 11 of his daughter was fixed, there was a talk of giving Honda City in the marriage, but two days prior to the marriage, father of accused Amit telephoned him that Amit demanded Mercedez car instead of Honda City or that he threatened him that if the Mercedez car is not given in the marriage, then the Barat will not come. He has also denied that he along with his father requested Rishi Prakash, father of accused Amit (husband), brotherinlaw accused Praveen (Nandoi), motherinlaw accused Asha, Nanad accused Renu, Shama Jain and Rakesh Jain and told them that he was not in a position to purchase Mercedez vehicle, but all the accused persons threatened that in case if he does not fulfill their demand about the Mercedez vehicle, then the Barat will not come. (9) He has admitted that he gave Mercedez Car in the marriage after consulting with his relatives but he denied that after the marriage of his daughter, the demands were made by the family members of inlaws of his daughter including her maternal inlaws and Nanad and Nandoi.
He has further denied that on the festival of Deepawali, demand of diamond set and silver utensils was put forth for the relatives of inlaws and on the pretext of demand, the inlaws gave beatings and harassed his daughter. He has further denied that his daughter Aastha had insisted them to bring all the demanded articles from them and was threatened in case of non fulfillment of the same. He has also denied that his daughter deceased Aastha told him about all the incidents regarding demands, harassment, threats from time to time on phone and has also denied that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 12 ten days prior of his daughter, the inlaws of his daughter demanded Rs. 20 lacs, out of which, Rs. 10 lacs were arranged and were given to the hands of motherinlaw accused Asha Devi, fatherinlaw accused Rishi Prakash Jain and husband accused Amit. Witness has further denied that he had informed the SDM in his statement that he had suspicion on all the inlaws that they had killed his daughter on account of the fact that he3 could not pay remaining Rs. 10 lacs. He has however admitted that his daughter was lying hanging in the room by the chunni, but has denied that his daughter was killed and then got hanged with the roof with the help of chunni.
(10) Witness has further denied that his daughter was harassed by her inlaws so that her inlaws could recover more dowry from his family or that in the matter of his daughter Aastha, her mother inlaw accused Asha Devi, her Nanad Renu Jain, her Nandoi accused Praveen Jain, Amit Jain (husband), her fatherinlaw accused Rishi Prakash, elder brother accused Jugal Kishore were involved. He has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A regarding these facts and has denied the suggestion that SDM read over and explained his statement Ex.PW1/A to him after which he had signed the same.
(11) In further cross examination conducted by Ld. APP for the State, witness has also denied that the police also recorded his statement on 04/05/208 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has admitted that he had told the police in his statement that in their Jain Samaj, there was a State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 13 custom to pay cash amount to the relatives of bridegroom to purchase dowry articles and they used to purchase all the articles in their names out of agreed marriage expenses. He has also admitted that he told to the police that he had planned to present a Honda City car to his sonin law at the time of marriage but has denied that he had told the police that two days prior to the marriage, fatherinlaw Rishi Prakash telephoned him and told that Amit desired for a Mercedez Car instead of Honda City car and failing to comply with this demand, he threatened to cancel the marriage. He has further denied that he told the police in his statement that thereafter on the threat of fatherinlaw accused Rishi Prakash, he along with his father, his brotherinlaw Sudesh Jain and other well wishers had been consulted and for the happiness of his daughter and to save his prestige, he gave his consent to the inlaws. (12) He has further denied that having told the police in his statement Ex. PW1/B that the accused Rishi Prakash Jain instructed them to give Rs. 28 lacs in cash and they would purchase the vehicle in the name of their company, so that they could save the tax and they were having no objection for this but has admitted that he told to the police in his statement that he will produce photographs of the car to them which photographs of the car is Ex. PW1/A10. He has denied that they had paid the amount for purchasing the Mercedez car to the father accused Rishi Prakash and also that he had spent RS. 4547 lacs in the entire marriage.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 14 (13) He has however admitted that he informed the police in his statement that he would produce the photographs of marriage and marriage card before the police, but has denied that police demanded handwritten documents in respect of the harassment committed by accused persons to his daughter deceased Mrs. Aastha and he informed that he had given a mobile phone to his daughter and she informed him regarding the demand and harassment by her inlaws to them. (14) Witness has further denied that he informed the police in his statement that his daughter used to tell them that she was not happy in her matrimonial house or that all the family members of her inlaws house used to make taunts to her or that she asked them to take her back or that he told her that since only one year had passed and her fatherin law and motherinlaw were now her parents and she had to serve them and after sometime everything would be normal.
(15) Witness has also been confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/B regarding the fact that he had told the police that on the festival of Teej, accused Renu Jain and accused Asha Jain demanded diamond set and costly sarees from his daughter but due to paucity of funds, he could not fulfill their demands or that due to which, they started taunting his daughter, which he denied to have made to the police. During cross examination by Ld. APP, witness has further denied that on the festival of Deepawali, they had given one diamond set and some silver utensils to his daughter and on that occasion, the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 15 accused i.e. husband Amit Jain demanded one chain for him and his father Rishi Prakash demanded one ring, whereas mother in law Asha Jain and Nanad accused Renu Jain demanded sets for themselves. He has denied that the said persons did not talk with his daughter for 23 days or that they did not serve food to his daughter and these facts were disclosed by his daughter to them on phone.
(16) Witness has further denied that he told to police in his statement Ex.PW1/B that ten days prior to death of his daughter Aastha, she told them that her inlaws had demanded Rs. 20 lacs and on 25/04/2008, he went to house no. F1U156, Pitam Pura and had given Rs. 10 lacs to accused Rishi Prakash (father in law), accused Asha Jain (mother in law), husband accused Amit Jain and at that time, accused Renu Jain and Nandoi Praveen Jain were also present there or that they were annoyed with them as he could not fulfill their desire and paid them Rs. 10 lacs less. Witness has further denied that he told the police in his statement that due to the reasons for demand of dowry and fulfillment of the same the accused harassed his daughter, due to which, she was compelled to commit suicide. He has denied that the accused wanted to get rid of his daughter and they did not inform the neighbours about the hanging of his daughter or that they did not call any doctor or inform to the police. He has however admitted that he received information regarding the death of his daughter at about 2.25 p.m. from Jugal Kishore Jain, Jeth of his daughter, who informed him that his State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 16 daughter had committed suicide by hanging and at that time, he was at Dadri and on hearing the information, he along with his relatives reached at F1U156, Pitam Pura and they found that his daughter was lying hanging in her bedroom with a ceiling fan at first floor. He has denied that he told to the police in his statement that one suicide note in the handwriting of his daughter was also recovered in his presence from the spot and he identified the writing of his daughter on that suicide note. He has further denied that he told to the police in his statement that the inlaws of his daughter were not in sorrow on the death of his daughter and they did not close their factory running at Bhiwadi on the eve of death of his daughter. He has further denied having told the police in his statement that the inlaws of his daughter Aastha had expelled their elder daughter in law Rashmi, W/o Jugal Kishore from their house and she was residing at Saharanpur in her parental house. He has further denied having told to the police in his statement that he had given Rs. 28 lacs to accused Rishi Prakash Jain, accused Asha Jain and accused Amit Jain in respect of Mercedez Car. He has however admitted that the staff of T & T Motors Limited came at about 6.35 p.m. on 29/04/2007 on the gate of the marriage function at DDA Park, Deepali Chowk to deliver the car and he received the delivery of the car and has voluntarily added that he received delivery of the car on behalf of J.K. Jain and has identified his signatures at point A on receipt Ex. PW1/F. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 17 (17) Witness has further stated that he spent money in the entire marriage at his own and he also borrowed the same from his mother and from some relatives. He has also admitted that mobile number of his daughter was 9999555038 and his mobile number is 9811078490 and the mobile number of Jugal Kishore was 9310011214 and 9810011213. (18) During the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP the witness as shown one envelop containing suicide note in a polythene, FSL result and passport of deceased along with admitted writing of deceased issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, one cheque issued by the deceased in the name of Smt. Pushpa Devi, one another cheque issued by deceased in the name of Vibha Ahuja, Account opening form of Oriental Bank of Commerce of deceased, Form 60 having the signatures of deceased, photocopy of the election I card of the deceased having original signatures of deceased and photocopy of the passport wherein he has identified the photograph of deceased on the passport as well as photo on the document of specimen signature of the bank belonging to deceased and on the account opening form of the deceased and also identified the signatures of his daughter on the documents regarding the specimen signature of his daughter, cheque issued in the name of Pushpa Devi, Vibha Ahuja, account opening form of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Form 60, photocopy of election I card and passport as he had seen her, while signing. Witness has denied that suicide note Mark X was recovered in his presence and has stated that he cannot say exactly State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 18 whether Mark X is having the writing and signatures of his daughter and has voluntarily added that it seems to be the writing and signatures of his daughter on Mark X. Witness has denied the suggestion that a compromise took place with the accused persons, due to which, he was not making the statement as made before the police as well as SDM. He has further denied that under pressure of the Community Panchayat and being in the same community, he was deposing falsely. He has denied that his statement recorded by the SDM was read over and explained to him and then he signed the same and has further denied that he had taken a huge amount from the accused persons as compensation. He has however admitted that he did not make any complaint against the Investigating Officer regarding the statement recorded by him at the time of investigation and has further denied the suggestion that he did not do so because his statement before the SDM and the IO were correct in respect of harassment with his deceased daughter Aastha and dowry demands by the side of accused persons from his daughter as well as from him. He has further denied the suggestion that he deliberately not identified the writing and signatures of his daughter on suicide note at point Mark X. He has also denied that his daughter died due to harassment and cruelty made by the accuse persons on the pretext of dowry demand.
(19) Witness has identified all the accused and has denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons due to State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 19 which he was deposing falsely or that a compromise took place with the accused persons due to which, he was deposing falsely. (20) In the cross examination conducted by learned defence counsel on behalf of accused Jugal Kishore, Rishi Prakash Jain, Amit Jain and Parveen Jain, witness has admitted that his deceased daughter never made complaint to him on account of harassment for dowry or dowry demand by accused persons since the day of marriage till her death. He has further admitted that after the marriage of his daughter, accused Amit Jain purchased property bearing no. BU151, Pitam Pura, Delhi but has no knowledge whether accused persons got purchased another MIG Flat No. G & JU44B, Pitam Pura, Delhi after marriage. He has deposed that his daughter might have attended the marriage anniversary dinner on 29/04/2008 at City Park Hotel. He has stated that his daughter studied up to B.A. final year but could not appear in final examination due to her marriage. He has stated taht her nature was not of irritating type.
(21) During cross examination conducted by learned defence counsel on behalf of accused Asha Jain and Renu Jain, witness has admitted that he is having good reputation in paper market Chawri Bazar as he has been trading there since 1976 and has further admitted that he is President of Papers Merchants Association of Chawri Bazar. He has further admitted that his relations on account of being President of the Market Association are good with the traders of Chawri Bazar and has State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 20 has further admitted that in the marriage of Aastha, he had called number of traders of paper market or that there were 400 to 500 persons from their side as invitee in the marriage of Aastha including relatives and friends, there were 500 persons. He has further admitted that there was a Pandal as usually Pandals are constructed there, which was set up near Deepali Chowk, Pitam Pura, Delhi by Devidayal Tent House & Decorators and it was a reputed tent house in Delhi. He has further admitted that from the side of accused persons, there were also 400 to 500 persons. He has also admitted that band was also called in the marriage ceremony and that caterer in the marriage was Maan Singh Halwai of Sita Ram Bazar but has denied the suggestion that Maan Singh Halwai charged Rs. 1500/ per plate. He has further admitted that one Palki was also hired and that DJ was also hired, but has denied that DJ charged Rs. 50,000/.
(22) In further cross examination, PW1 has admitted that on 25/02/2007, a rokka ceremony was performed at Regal Palace Banquet Hall and in that function, about 150 to 200 persons from both the sides were present and there was flower decoration at the occasion of rokka ceremony and marriage at both venues. He has further admitted that he had spent about Rs. 4 lacs for Rokka ceremony, but has denied that he spent about Rs. 7 to 8 lacs at Pandal of marriage including decoration, DJ and artists etc. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 21 (23) Witness has also admitted during cross examination that prior to marriage, ceremony of Tikka and Gaud Bharai were also performed on 27/04/2007 at Valentine Banquet Hall and form both sides 200 to 300 guests were present and the accused persons made arrangement for sweets of Brijwasi Mathura. He has further admitted that his family, relatives and friends enjoyed and appreciated the sweets of Brijwasi Mathura and on demand, accused persons arranged more Brijwasi sweets of Mathura. He has also admitted that accused Asha Jain (deceased) was a diabetic and heart patient and he was knowing about this fact prior to marriage. He has further admitted that accused Asha used to fall ill frequently during the period from rokka ceremony till marriage and thereafter also and after rokka ceremony, when Asha fell ill, he assured her that after marriage, his daughter Aastha would take care of kitchen and she should not tax her mind. Witness has also further stated in the cross examination that he had two daughters and one son at the time of marriage out of whom Aastha is no more and now, he is having just one son and one daughter. He has explained that Aastha was the eldest and he had brought up his children well, being reputed business man in paper market at Chawri Bazar and used to fulfill all her desires. He has admitted that deceased Aastha was extremely loving towards her younger brother and on the very night of marriage, it was also birthday of his son i.e. 30th April which he had celebrated in the same marriage pandal and a big cake was cut.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 22 (24) Witness has further admitted in the cross examination that when he did not fulfill the desire of his daughter Aastha, she used to press for the same and he normally succumbed to her demands. He also admitted that sometime she used to be unhappy and sad. He has admitted that his children were always obedient and the sons and daughters of accused Asha Jain and Rishi Prakash Jain used to obey their parents. He has admitted that Narender Jain is his younger brother and they have a joint family and the names of children of his younger brother are Aakshi Jain and Gaurav Jain who love each other a lot. He has further admitted that Aakshi Jain used to come to Pitam Pura in connection with her education and whenever she used to come to Pitam Pura with regard to her education, she used to visit the matrimonial home of Aastha off and on. He has further admitted that Aastha had great love and affection towards children and she used to call Ranchit and Sanchit, children of Renu Jain on Saturdays and Sundays and on other holidays. He has further admitted that his niece Aakshi never conveyed to them about any complaint of Aastha regarding any harassment or dowry demand by her inlaws. He has further admitted that there is a custom in their community to invite the newly wedded couple on dinner or lunch after the marriage by the relatives. He has clarified that he has three sisters and his wife has also three sisters and all his relative including his sisters and his wife's sisters had invited the newly wedded couple on dinner or lunch and whenever such lunch or State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 23 dinner used to be hosted by anyone of their relatives,he and his family used to be also invited and he and his wife used to be there on almost all occasions which invitations were in the gap of fortnight or one month. He has stated that he used to meet his soninlaw and daughter there and on all those occasions, his daughter never complained to him about any harassment meeted out to her by her inlaws. He has admitted that Aastha might be having other mobile no. 9311277177 and on these mobile numbers, he, his wife, his children and Aakshi often used to talk with her daughter Aastha. He has stated taht his soninlaw and his daughter often used to visit at their house and his soninlaw used to take his daughter out for dinner on weekly off and on other holidays. (25) Witness has further admitted that there were two servants in the house of Aastha to lookafter kitchen and he cannot tell whether the working of both the servants was controlled by accused Asha. He is also not aware whether the accused Asha used to tell Aastha to take care of kitchen and control the kitchen and the servants. He has admitted that a marriage in the near relation of accused took place in July, 2007 and he was also invited with family but he does not remember whether it was on the marriage of Jyoti, the daughter of the sister of accused Rishi Prakash Jain. He has admitted that the accused Asha was ill but he does not know whether the kitchen affairs were looked after and managed by Chaachi of accused Amit Jain namely Suman Jain and has clarified that it could be possible that the accused Asha Jain used to tell deceased State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 24 Aastha to take control and manage the kitchen affairs. (26) Witness has further deposed that he does not know whether all the keys of house and the locker were handed over by Asha to his daughter when she fell ill and also does not know whether the cash of business of everyday was given to Aastha to keep in the safe to be taken as and when the need arose. He has stated that the deceased Aastha was fond of cooking but does not know whether the accused Asha Jain guided Aastha whenever she cooked food and was not found to be up to the mark.
(27) During cross examination, witness has admitted that photocopy of GPA and agreement to sell Mark PW1D1 and PW1/D2 were bearing bearing the photograph of his daughter Aastha and it also bear her signatures. He has denied the suggestion that accused Asha Jain had given a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/ to his daughter Aastha Jain for the purchase of said property. He has further deposed that it might be possible that the installments of Mercedez Benz had been paid by the firm M/s. Kesari Steels belonging to the accused. He has no knowledge if prior to marriage, accused persons had booked Mercedez Benz after obtaining loan from the bank or that the accused were paying the installments of the same till date. He also has no knowledge whether the accused had taken a loan from State Bank of Patiala for Rs. 21,50,000/ which was paid to T & T Motors on 25/04/2007.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 25 (28) Witness has further admitted that on 29/04/2008, it was the first marriage anniversary of Aastha and Amit and his daughter Aastha had conveyed to him that there was a plan to celebrate the first marriage anniversary with pomp and show but he has no knowledge whether they also planned to celebrate the birthday of his son Abhishek Jain on the same night. He has admitted that prior to this celebration, accused Asha Jain fell ill because of diabetic and heart ailments and due to the illness of Asha Jain, the planned function could not take place. He has further admitted that accused family purchased one Innova car on the occasion of first marriage anniversary and has also admitted that the accused Amit Jain took Aastha to City Park Hotel for dinner on 29/04/2008 and one new mobile phone was also gifted to her by accused Amit Jain. He has admitted that Aastha had felt depressed on account of failure of plan of celebration of first marriage anniversary due to ailment of Asha Jain, as desired by her.
(29) Witness has also admitted that Aastha Jain was intending a child, which she was not bearing but is unable to say whether she was depressed on this score as she could not conceive. He has admitted taht she was under treatment for the same as she was not conceiving but is not aware whether she had consulted Jain Hospital and Fertility Centre and went for diagnostic centre. He has further admitted that Aastha and Amit had gone to Shimla in connection with honeymoon after one month of the marriage but they were called back suddenly as the accused State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 26 Asha Jain fell ill after four days. He cannot say whether Aastha slowly and slowly went under depression as her desires and plans had failed due to illness of accused Asha Jain. He admits that behaviour of the family of accused was always good to them. Aastha never complained to him about accused Asha Jain and Renu Jain about their behaviour regarding dowry demand and harassment. He is unable to say whether the unfortunate incident took place due to sensitive and depressed state of Aastha and has further admitted that accused Renu Jain is residing at Shakti Nagar near his colony and never interfered in the family affairs of Amit Jain and other accused persons prior to and after the marriage of his daughter and is living happily in her matrimonial house. (30) PW14 Sh. Brij Mohan has deposed that he is having a shop of photographer in the name of Marvel Photographers at Shop No. 6 B Block market, Ashok Vihar Phase I and states that marriage of deceased Astha has taken place on 27.4.2007 exact date he does not remember but he had conducted the photography of the function and prepared the CD. According to the witness he handed over the photographs and CD of the functions to the investigating officer which photographs are Ex.PW1/E1 to Ex. PW1/E11.
(31) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had conducted the photography of above three or four functions including sagai and marriage and he had taken about 100 to 200 photographs of each function. According to the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 27 witness he does not recollect how much money was charged by him and was not very sure but in so far as he recollects he had charged Rs. 3035,000/ as total amount including vediography. Witness has further deposed that there were around total number of 700 to 800 guests in the marriage ceremony and has has admitted that there was also photographer from the boys side. Witness has denied the suggestion that photographers generally charged as much as Rs. 2 lacs for covering all the function both by vediograpohy and photography and has voluntarily added that he has never charged as much.
(32) PW15 Sh. Naveen Chandar Pant has deposed that on 7.6.2008 he was working as Logistic Head at the aforesaid company and on that day on the request of investigating officer he handed over the carbon copy of delivery receipt/gate pass of Mercedes car bearing Chasis No. 2030426 L001887 to the investigating officer which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness the carbon copy of the gate pass is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/F and his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer.
(33) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that he had not bring the complete record regarding the purchase of the vehicle and therefore cannot tell the booking details of the same as his duties pertains to procurement. According to the witness he has the details of the procurement and he can tell the details State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 28 of booking after seeing the same but any details of the booking for the above document. Witness has admitted that vehicle was made available on 25.4.2007 and has voluntarily added that it was delivered on 29th. Witness has further deposed that only the record of the gate passes and invoices are kept with him but they are not executed by him and that is why the document does not bear his signatures.
(34) PW16 Sh. Sajimon has deposed that presently he is working with AMP Motors as Asstt. Manager (Sales) and had left the T & T Motors in the year, 2008 towards the end of the year. According to the witness in the year 2007 he was working as a Senior Sales Executive and has further deposed that on 29.4.2007 the Director of M/s Kesri Steels Limited Sh. J. K. Jain was the customer who had booked the vehicle and had asked him to handover Mercedes Benz Car to Sh. Ashok Jain on his behalf and thereafter the vehicle was picked up from the West Delhi Show Room at Moti Nagar and he made the delivery of the same to Ashok Jain at Pitam Pura i.e. at the Marriage Pandal. Witness has further deposed that the gate pass which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/F bears his signatures at point B & C which he identify. (35) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that the document regarding the booking of the car is Ex.PW16/DX1 which was not executed by him and pertains to accounts department so he cannot confirm the details of the contents. He had also admitted that as per the contents of the above document Rs. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 29 One lac was deposited as the booking amount. He has admitted that as per the existing procedure the delivery is made only after full payments. Witness has further deposed that he the receipt is Ex.PW16/DX2 which is not in his handwriting. Witness has further deposed that he the entire payment of the vehicle must have been received before the delivery and has voluntarily added that without the same the company would not deliver the car. According to the witness he did not personally verify that the entire amount had been deposited and has voluntarily added that gate pass is only issued after the entire amount is deposited. Witness has admitted that the performa invoice Ex.PW16/DX3 bears his signatures at point A and witness has admitted that the delivery acknowledgment note Ex.PW16/DX4 also bears his signatures at pointy A. According to the witness he does not know when the delivery acknowledgment note is prepared and has voluntarily added that this only the person from accounts department can tell. Witness has admitted that as per record that the vehicle was available for delivery on 25.4.2007 and was made available after the payment of entire amount. Witness has admitted that J. K. Jain had asked them to wait for the instructions as to where the delivery of the vehicle was to be made and has voluntarily added that it was on 29th that J. K. Jain told them to deliver the vehicle at the marriage site where the vehicle was delivered. Witness has admitted that J,. K. Jain was not available at the marriage site and has voluntarily added that he had told them to deliver the vehicle to Ashok Jain. Witness has State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 30 denied the suggestion that the complete payment is always made to Sales executive and has voluntarily explained that if the car is financed the payment directly reaches the company. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the cheques were handed over to him and has voluntarily added that the initial book cheque was handed over to him which he gave to accounts department. According to the witness he do not recollect having handed over the cheque to the accounts department. (36) PW17 Sh. Jagjot Parshad Jain, has deposed that Astha Jain was his grand daughter and her marriage took place many years back. According to the witness he do not remember the name of the person to whom she was got married and he do not remember anything about the marriage of Astha. It was observed by the court that the witness was around 76 years of age and I am informed that he is a patient of Asthama with a history of cardiological problem for which he is receiving treatment and did not appear to be medically fit and hence he was again recalled for further examination but did not support the earlier version given by him to the police.
(37) Witness has deposed that Ashok Jain is his son and Astha Jain was the daughter of his son Ashok Jain and was married with Amit Jain S/o Rishi Parkash Jain. According to the witness he does not know about the dowry articles to the given in the marriage of his grand daughter Astha Jain and also does not know about any happening or problem before the marriage of Astha Jain nor he is aware of any State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 31 demands made by Amit Jain and his family members. Witness has further deposed that he the above said marriage took place in the year 2007 but he does not remember its date but the month was April. Witness has further deposed that he after one year of the marriage Astha Jain had died in her matrimonial house and she was found hanging in her matrimonial house but he does not know the reasons for her death and also does not know anything about the above said marriage. (38) In the leading questions about the marriage and the demands of the accused persons and also about the cruelty against Astha Jain put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has admitted that marriage of Astha Jain with Amit Jain was fixed on 29.04.2007. According to the witness he was not aware if it was settled that a Honda City car to be given in the marriage to Amit Jain along with other dowry articles or that two days before the marriage Rishi Parkash Jain telephoned to them that Amit Jain wanted a Mercesdes car in place of Honda City car and if the same is not given in the marriage then they would not bring the barat and thereafter his son Ashok Jain informed him about the same and thereafter they went to the house of Rishi Parkash Jain where his wife Astha Jain, Amit Jain, Renu Jain, Shama Jain, Parveen Jain and Rakesh Jain were also present and they made request to them with folded hands that they were not capable of giving Mercedes car in the marriage but they did not agree with them and threatened them that they would not bring the barat and thereafter his State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 32 son Ashok Jain consulted his son in law Sudesh Jain and his friends and handed over Rs 28 lacs cost of the Mercedes car to them and save their prestige. According to the witness he does not remember if the 4550 lacs were the expenses of the marriage but has admitted that the marriage was solemnized in normal circumstances. According to the witness he is not aware if Rishi Parkash, Asha Jain, Amit Jain, Jugal Kishore, Renu Jain, Parveen Jain used to harass Astha Jain for insufficient dowry and taunted her for the dowry and has, voluntarily added that Astha Jain told him that her mother in law Asha Jain used to harass her in the house hold matters and her behaviour was not good with Astha Jain. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused present in the court namely Amit Jain, Rishi Parkash, Parveen Jain, Renu Jain and Jugal Kishore tortured and harassed mentally and physically Astha Jain for dowry and due to this reason Astha Jain committed suicide and has voluntarily added that Astha Jain was harassed only by her mother in law Asha Jain and due to her bad behaviour she committed suicide. Witness has further deposed that he does not know if police recorded his statement on 04.05.2008 and he also does not know whether police recorded his statement on 11.07.2008. Witness has denied the suggestion that ten days before the death of Astha Jain she telephoned to them and informed them that her in laws were demanding Rs. 20,00,000/ and on this his son Ashok Jain took Rs. Five Lacs from him and on 25.04.2008 he handed over Rs.10,00,000/ to Rishi Prakash Jain, his wife Asha Jain State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 33 and son Amit Jain at their house at Pitampura.
(39) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state witness has stated that he does not recollect if the police made any enquiry from him and he also do not remember if police recorded his statement on 04.05.2008. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that it was settled that a Honda City Car to be given in the marriage to Amit Jain along with other dowry articles. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police that two days before the marriage Rishi Parkash Jain had telephoned to them that Amit Jain wanted a Mercedez car in place of Honda City car and if the same was not given in the marriage then they would not bring the barat and thereafter his son Ashok Jain informed him about the same and they went to the house of Rishi Parkash Jain where his wife Asha Jain, Amit Jain, Renu Jain, Shama Jain, Parveen Jain and Rakesh Jain were also present and they made request to them with folded hands that they were not capable of giving Mercedes Car in the marriage but they did not agree with them and threatened that they would not bring the barat and thereafter his son Ashok Jain consulted his son in law Sudesh Jain and his friends and thereafter they handed over Rs 28 lacs cost of the Mercesdes car to them and saved their prestige. Confronted with portion B to B of the Ex.PW17/PX1 where it is so recorded. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police that Rs.4550 lacs were expenses of the marriage. He has also denied the suggestion that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 34 Rishi Parkash(father in law), Asha Jain(mother in law), Amit Jain(husband), Jugal Kishore(Jeth), Renu Jain(Nanad), Parveen Jain(Nandoi) harassed Astha Jain for insufficient dowry and taunted her for the dowry. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Parkash, Parveen Jain, Renu Jain and Jugal Kishore tortured and mentally and physically harassed Astha Jain for dowry and due to this reason Astha Jain committed suicide. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that ten days before the death of Astha Jain she telephoned them and told that her in laws demanding Rs. 20,00,000/ and on this his son Ashok Jain took Rs. Five Lacs from him and on 25.04.2008 he handed over Rs.10,00,000/ to Rishi Prakash Jain, his wife Asha Jain and son Amit Jain at their house at Pitampura. Witness has denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement on 11.07.2008 and has also denied the suggestion that they compromised the matter with accused persons and he has been won over by the accused persons and that is why he was not deposing true facts before the court.
(40) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted.
(41) PW18 Smt. Rajni Jain, has deposed that Astha Jain was her daughter and she was married with Amit Jain on 29.04.2007 at Pitampura and Rishi Prakash Jain is the father of Amit Jain, Asha Jain was the mother of Amit Jain, Jugal Kishore is elder brother of Amit Jain State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 35 and Renu Jain is sister of Amit Jain and Praveen Jain is husband of Renu Jain. Witness has further deposed that they gave all the dowry articles in the marriage of her daughter and approximately Rs 5060 lacs of amount were the expenses in the said marriage and they decided to give a Honda City car in the marriage as a dowry. According to the witness about 2 to 4 days before the marriage Rishi Prakash telephoned them and demanded Mercedes car in the marriage and her husband, her nandoi, her devar and other male members went to the matrimonial house of Astha and discussed about the above said demand of Rishi Prakash with him but Rishi Prakash and his family members were adamant and insisted for Mercedes car. According to the witness they had paid about Rs 2530 lacs for the Mercedes car and after the marriage her daughter Astha resided at Pitampura, Delhi at her matrimonial house with her husband Amit, her father in law and mother in law and Jeth Jugal Kishore whereas accused Renu was residing at her matrimonial house at Shakti Nagar with her husband Praveen Jain.
(42) Witness has further deposed that after one or two months of the marriage her daughter Ashta told her that she was being harassed by her mother in law and accused Renu Jain and taunting her about her house working style and also taunting her that she had not bring articles according to their wishes and demand and for bringing less dowry. According to the witness on the occasion of Diwali they gifted a mobile phone to her and she used to talk with her by telephone and also by her State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 36 mobile phone and Astha told her that her mother in law and accused Renu demanded sarees and jewelery on the occasion of Teej and Diwali. Witness has further deposed that Astha was not provided meals at proper time at her matrimonial house and she was not allowed for outing and she was continuously harassed at her matrimonial house. (43) Witness has further deposed that on 30.04.2008 at about 1 PM Astha had given a call to her by her mobile phone but the same was disconnected and thereafter she called her back from their landline phone on her mobile phone. According to the witness she was very disturbed at that time and it was felt by her that she was about to weep and she told her that she had not taken any meal since morning and further told her that her in laws will kill her and she made request to her that they should take her away from her matrimonial house as she was harassed and tortured. Witness has further deposed that she further told her that her marriage anniversary on 29.04.2008 was not celebrated and thereafter she contacted accused Amit Jain and asked him about the condition of Astha but he was ignorant about these facts. According to the witness after 1 ½ hours they received information from accused Jugal Kishore that Astha committed suicide by hanging and thereafter they all went to the matrimonial house of Astha. Witness has further deposed that she went to the room of Astha and found her hanging with ceiling fan and police also reached at the spot and their relatives also reached there and she was not aware of the further proceedings and she State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 37 had become unconscious.
(44) In the leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has deposed that she do not remember whether her father in law Sh. Jagjot Prasad Jain accompanied her husband to the house of Amit Jain before the marriage. Witness has admitted that she had told the police that her father in law Sh. Jagjot Prasad Jain had gone to the house of Amit Jain with her husband to talk about the demand of Mercedes. She has also admitted having informed the investigating officer that her daughter Astha Jain had told her on phone that on Teej Festival Renu Jain, her nanad and Asha Jain, mother in law demanded a diamond set and expensive sarees for themselves. Witness has admitted that she told the investigating officer that due to financial constraints they could not fulfill the demand on account of which Renu Jain and Asha Jain got annoyed with her daughter Astha and taunted her by saying "kya tumhare gharwale bilkul bhuke aur nange hain, jo hamare liye set aur silk ki sareeyan nahi lekar aye". Witness has admitted that she had told the police that Astha informed her over the phone that her mother in law had taunted her by saying "teri maa ne yeh ghatiya saree bheji hai". Witness has admitted that she told the police that Astha had also informed her that she was not allowed to go out anywhere whereas she herself used to call her daughter Renu Jain from Shakti Nagar and went out for almost three to four hours regularly. Witness has admitted that she had told the investigating officer that during the Dewali festival they State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 38 had given one diamond set and silver utensils to their daughter Astha. Witness has admitted that she had told the investigating officer that thereafter her son in law Amit had stated that he should have been given one chain and father in law Rishi Prakash wanted one ring whereas mother in law and sister in law Renu Jain demanded sets during Diwali but since they could not meet their demands they became so annoyed that they did not speak to Astha for two or three days and also did not give her anything to eat.
(45) Witness has admitted that she had told the investigating officer that on holi festival when Rishi Prakash came to their house, she had told him that Astha was being harassed in their house as she was being regularly taunted and there was no body to take care of her joys and sorrows (sukh dukh mein puychhne wala koin nahi hai). According to the witness she had also told Rishi Prakash that Astha was like his daughter and they had brought her up with great love and affection and he should also treat her like a daughter lovingly on which Rishi Prakash had said that he cannot do anything as no body listens to him at his house (Rishi Prakash ne kaha tha uski uske ghar mein chalti nahin hai aur woh kuch nahi kar sakta). Witness has admitted that thereafter they gave Rs 51,000/ to Rishi Prakash while he was leaving. Witness has admitted that Astha used to call her from her mobile phone and told her that she was being tortured and they should bring her back home as she was feeling suffocated and the accused would kill her (Mummy mujhe State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 39 yahan se le jao, mera is ghar mein dum ghutata hai, yeh log mujhe jaan se maar denge aur meri saas mujhe barbar jaan se marne ki dhamki deti hai).
(46) According to the witness she does not recollect having told the investigating officer that Ten days before the death of Astha she had telephoned to her and informed that her in laws has raised a demand of Rs Twenty Lacs and has voluntarily added that she was extremely perplexed and disturbed on the death of Astha so she does not recollect. Witness has admitted that the accused Amit Jain and his parents being annoyed as they had only received Rs Ten Lacs despite the demand of Rs Twenty Lacs had started torturing her daughter compelling her to commit suicide.
(47) Witness has admitted that on 30.04.2008 at about 1 PM (afternoon) she had spoken to Astha on telephone for about 1520 minutes on three occasions and according to the witness she does not recollect if Astha had told her over the phone that her in laws had demanded Rs twenty lacs and they had only given them only Rs Ten Lacs due to which reason they were annoyed and were not talking to her and on one pretext or the other were pressing her to get Rs Ten Lacs from them, voluntarily added that she was extremely scared "bahaut dari hui thi aur ghabra rahi thi aur keh rahi thi ke mummy mujhe yahan se le jao". Witness has admitted that she had told the investigating officer that Astha informed her that her sister in law/Nanand Renu Jain State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 40 with her husband Praveen Jain used to frequently come to her matrimonial house and used to make gestures to her mother and often taunted her stating "yeh log kahan aur dus lakh denge, bhooke nange ghar se hai", on which both her mother Asha Jain and her husband Parveen Jain used to agree with her (Renu Jain) and used to talk to Astha in a taunting manner stating "Hamare liye to yeh aur iske gharwale kuch laye hi nahi hai". Witness has admitted that Astha had also told her that ever since they had given Rs Ten Lacs to the in laws of Astha, Amit Jain and his father Rishi Paraksh were visibly annoyed and did not speak straight with her "Muh chara rehta hai aur seedhe muh baat nahi karte hain, isliye inhe yaa to dus lac rupaye lakar de do nahin to mein jinda nahin bachoongi".
(48) Witness has admitted that she had told the investigating officer in her statement that when she reached the house of Amit Jain after receiving the news of death of Astha Jain, she saw the dead body of Astha hanging with a ceiling fan and a suicide note was found in the room near the bed. According to the witness she can identify the handwriting of Astha as she had seen her writing a number of times. When the suicide note was shown to the witness she identified as the same as the one which was found lying in the room and states that it contains the handwriting of Astha which suicide note is Ex.PW18/A. (49) During her cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that on 25.02.2007 a rokka ceremony was State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 41 performed at Regal Palace Banquet Hall and in that function about 150 to 200 persons from both the sides were present. According to the witness she does not know whether Rs Four Lacs were spent on the said ceremony. Witness has admitted that prior to the marriage, ceremony of the Tikka and God Bharai were performed on 27.04.2007 at Valentine Banquet Hall. Witness has further deposed that from both sides about 200 to 300 persons were present on the said occasion but she does not know about the expenses of the ceremony of Tikka and God Bharai on 27.04.2007 and has voluntarily added that male members of her family can tell about the expenses. Witness has admitted that on the very night of the marriage on 29.04.2007, it was also birthday of her son namely Abhishek. Witness has admitted that they had celebrated the birthday of her son in the same marriage Pandal and has further deposed that the relation between her and her children were very nice and all the children are very dear to her but Astha being the first child was the most dearer to her. According to the witness if Astha Jain was sometimes adamant for something as other children and she tried to make her understand and thereafter they satisfied her according to their capacity. Witness has further deposed that Narender Jain is her devar and has admitted that he has two children. According to the witness their family is a joint family and there was a lot of love and affection between their family and the family of Narender Jain. Witness has admitted that there was custom in their community for the relatives to invite the newly wedded couple on State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 42 dinner or lunch after the marriage. Witness has admitted that newly wedded couple was invited by the Bua, Mausi and maternal uncle of Astha. Witness has admitted that she and her husband with her family were also present on all the above said occasions of Notany i.e. the invitation on the lunch and dinner of the newly wedded couple by the relatives. Witness has admitted that her daughter Astha told her that she with her husband Amit used to go to dinner outside oftenly. Witness has admitted that her daughter Ashta and her husband Amit wanted that the in laws of Amit will also go with them to dinner. Witness has further deposed that her children went five to six time with her daughter Astha and her husband Amit on dinner and has admitted that when her children returned from dinner they were very happy. Witness has admitted that the marriage in the relations of the bua of the accused Amit took place in July, 2007 and her family was also invited in the said marriage and they all were very happy in the said marriage including that of her daughter Astha. According to the witness accused Rishi Prakash has four children and family of accused Rishi Prakash is a joint family and the wife of the accused Jugal was not residing in the said family. Witness has admitted that the in laws of deceased Astha had purchased two properties in the name of deceased Astha and has also admitted that Ex.PW1/B2 bears the signatures of Astha Jain at point A on each page. She has also admitted that Mark PW 18/D1 bears the signatures of Astha at point A on each page. She has admitted that she and her family State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 43 members has not given any money to Astha Jain or her in laws to purchase the above said property after the marriage or before the marriage or at the time of marriage. Witness has admitted that Rishi Prakash had paid the installments for the Mercedes car through his company and states that she has no knowledge about the booking of the Mercedes car and she does not know who paid the booking amount of the Mercedes car and has voluntarily added that she does not know about the monetary transaction. Witness has admitted that 29.04.2008 was the first marriage anniversary of deceased Astha and accused Amit and has also admitted that deceased Astha and accused Amit were preparing the programme for celebrating the birthday of her son in the said marriage anniversary. According to the witness she does not know why the said marriage anniversary was not celebrated and has voluntarily added that it is a matter relating to her family. She has admitted that one mobile phone in the name of Astha and an Innova car were purchased by her in laws on the occasion of her first marriage anniversary. According to the witness she did not make any complaint against the in laws of Astha during the one year of her marriage and admits that Astha did not receive any injury at her in laws house and therefore, they did not make any complaint against them to the police. Witness has further stated that she immediately reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased Astha after receiving the information of her death and has also admitted that Media persons were already present there. She has further admitted that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 44 their relatives also reached there and has admitted that her husband was not feeling well at that time and she was in her complete senses due to the incident. She has admitted that her husband Ashok Jain gave his statement after consulting all the relatives and has further explained that the police recorded her statement themselves and handed over one copy to her. Witness has further admitted that the police read over her statement to her outside the court before her statement in the court and has stated to her that she should give the same statement before the court.
(50) I may note that this witness had not supported the prosecution case I her cross examination and has resiled from her earlier version. She has further deposed that they had given various dowry articles to her daughter themselves as per their desires but she cannot tell cost of the dowry articles. Witness has admitted that accused persons did not demand the Mercedes car from her and has further deposed that she has no knowledge whether Rs 2520 Lacs were given to the accused persons for purchase of Mercedes car. Witness has admitted that deceased Astha used to talk with her on phone and has admitted that her daughter deceased Astha told her that she is living in her matrimonial house happily.
(51) Witness has further deposed that accused Renu had two children but she does not know the names of the said children and states that her daughter deceased Astha had good relations towards the said State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 45 children. Witness has admitted that the said children used to come at the matrimonial house of deceased Astha and that her daughter deceased Astha told her that she is very happy whenever the said children arrived at her matrimonial home. Witness has admitted that she was very happy with her son in law Amit and love him. Witness has admitted that they along with her daughter Astha, son in law Amit had gone to their holy place at Hastinapur near Meerut after 56 months of the marriage and has also admitted that the deceased Astha did not make any complaint to her prior to their visit to Hastinapur. She has admitted that another holy place is situated at Shikarji in Jharkhand and all their family members along with deceased Astha had also gone to Shikar Ji in Jharkhand in the winter season i.e. in the last day of December or in the starting season of January. She has stated that Astha did not make any complaint to them about her in laws to them when they had gone to Shikhar Ji and they found that she was happy at her matrimonial house. She has further deposed that her marriage anniversary is on 07th May and has admitted that her daughter Astha, son in law Amit also participated in the ceremony of her marriage anniversary which was celebrated at Connaught Place, Delhi. She has admitted that they also attended a celebration of Mata ki chowki held by the in laws of the deceased Astha after six to seven months of the marriage.
(52) Witness has further deposed that her daughter Aditi used to come to Rohini area in connection with her studies for a course and she State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 46 also used to visit the matrimonial home of the deceased Astha every 23 days. She has admitted that Aditi, Abhishek, Akshi and Gaurav used to visit the matrimonial house of the deceased Astha and usually and have a fun. She has admitted that Aditi did not make any complaint to her in respect of Astha and also admits that Aditi told her that she found Astha at her matrimonial house happy. Witness has admitted that Astha had visited their house on three to four occasions and she remained at their house for about three to four days on each visit and she also visited their house during the Teej festival which is their big festival. Witness has admitted that Astha also visited their house on the occasion of holi and she remained at their house for about 78 days at that time. Witness has admitted that neither Astha nor Aditi ever made any complaint against accused Renu and admits that Astha loved children and used to call the children of accused Renu and she loved them very much. Witness has admitted that accused Renu was residing at her matrimonial house and only used to visit her parental house during the Teej and holi festivals. Witness has admitted that the mother in law of Astha was suffering from diabities, hyper tension, tuberculous and heart disease and even that on the occasion of the rokka ceremony accused Asha Jain had suddenly become unwell on account of high blood sugar and thereafter, she assured the accused Asha Jain that soon her daughter will be in her house and she will take control of all the things. Witness has admitted that accused Asha Jain used to look after the Kitchen work along with State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 47 servant and also that Asha used to ask Astha to have the supervision on the working of the servants. Witness has admitted that deceased Astha loved accused Amit very much and used to go outside for lunch or dinner. Witness has admitted that in her statement before the police she did not tell that in the marriage a sum of Rs 5060 Lacs had been spent. Witness has admitted that she never talked with accused Rishi Parkash on telephone before the marriage of Astha and even after the marriage she did not talk with the accused Rishi Prakash on telephone. (53) Witness has admitted that photocopies of cheque Ex.PW18/D3 bearing the signatures of Astha Jain at point A which she identifies. Witness has admitted that the document Mark PW18/D1 is bearing the photograph of Astha Jain at point B. Witness has admitted that document Ex.PW1/D2 is bearing the photograph of Astha Jain at point B. She has admitted that the accused persons have a factory Keshri Steel Limited of which accused were directors. She has denied the suggestion that the accused Asha was ill and due to that reason she had given all the keys of the house to the deceased Astha Jain. Witness has admitted that after the marriage accused Renu called the accused Amit and the deceased Astha for the dinner. Witness has further admitted that the deceased Astha Jain has no grievance against the accused Amit, Rishi Parkash, Jugal Kishore, Renu and Parveen and has admitted that accused Asha Jain took decisions herself she could not be influence by anybody. Witness has admitted that there was a cordial State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 48 relationship between deceased Astha Jain and accused Renu Jain. Witness has admitted that police recorded her statement on the day of incident themselves and she was not in a fit condition to state the fact to the police. She has admitted that there was no demand of dowry from the side of accused persons.
(54) PW19 Sh. Sudesh Jain has deposed that he has cloth business in Chandni Chowk and Ashok Jain is his brother in law (sala) and Astha Jain was daughter of Ashok Jain. He has not supported the earlier version given by him to the police. According to the witness the marriage of Astha Jain was fixed with Amit Jain and the marriage took place between Astha Jain and Amit Jain on 30.05.2007. Witness has further deposed that he does not know about the gifts which were given in the marriage. Witness has further deposed that on 30.05.2008 he came to know from Ashok Jain that Astha Jain committed suicide by hanging. According to the witness he does not know how and why Astha Jain committed suicide.
(55) In the leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, the witness has admitted that Amit Jain is the younger son of Rishi Parkash. Witness has further deposed that he it is possible that the marriage took place between Astha Jain and Amit Jain on 29.04.2007 and he has voluntarily added that he do not remember the exact date. According to the witness he does not know whether in the marriage a Honda City was to be given to Amit Jain. He also does not know whether Rishi Parkash State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 49 made a call to the Ashok Jain that Amit Jain was demanding a Mercedez Car in place of Honda City and if the Mercedez Car would not be given in the marriage then the barat would not come and Ashok Jain had informed him these facts. Witness has denied the suggestion that Ashok Jain also called him and a meeting was held between them and thereafter with due consultation Ashok Jain gave the cost of Mercedez Car to Rishi Parkash and save his respect. According to the witness he do not know how much money was spend by Ashok Jain in the marriage of Astha but it was a good marriage and he do not know whether Rs 4550 lacs have been spent by Ashok Jain in the marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that whenever he went to the house of Ashok Jain then he was informed by Ashok Jain that father in law, mother in law, husband, nanand Renu and Nandoi Parveen Jain were demanding more dowry and taunting Astha for the jewelery items and insulted her and cause mental and physical crulities to her and Astha was said due to these things. Witness has further deposed that he does not know whether Astha Jain committed suicide due to the demand of dowry by in laws of Astha Jain and her nanand Renu Jain and nandoi Parveen Jain.
(56) In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that the police did not make any inquiry from him. Witness has denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement on 04.05.2008. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police that the marriage of Astha Jain and Amit Jain was took place on State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 50 29.04.2007 and that in the marriage a Honda City was to be given to Amit Jain and that two days before the marriage Rishi Parkash made a call to the Ashok Jain that Amit Jain was demanding a Mercedez car in place of Honda City and threatened that if the Mercedez car was not given in the marriage then the barat would not come and Ashok Jain informed him these facts. Witness has also denied that he has stated to the police that Ashok Jain called him and a meeting was held between them and thereafter with due consultation Ashok Jain gave the cost of Mercedez car to Rishi Parkash in order to save his reputation. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police that Rs 4550 lacs have been spent by Ashok Jain in the marriage. He has also denied that he had stated to the police that whenever he went to the house of Ashok Jain he was informed by Astha Jain that her father in law, mother in law, husband, Nanand Renu and Nandoi Parveen Jain were demanding more dowry and taunting Astha for the jewelery items and also insulted her and cause mental and physical cruelties upon Astha. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that Astha Jain had committed suicide due to the demand of dowry by her inlaws and by her nanand Renu Jain and her nandoi Parveen Jain. Witness has denied that being won over by the accused persons so he was not deposing true facts before the court.
(57) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that the marriage was performed according to the status of State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 51 Ashok Jain and customs of Jain community.
(58) PW20 Sh. Subhash Jain has deposed that Ashok Jain is his cobrother (Sadhoo) and his daughter Astha Jain was married to a boy resident of Pitam Pura, Delhi but he does not remember his name. This witness has also resiled from the earlier version given by him to the police. He has stated that he is not aware about the dowry articles to be given in the marriage nor does he remember about the year of the marriage though it took place in the month of April. According to the witness he know about any demand of the accused and also does not know about any problems faced by Astha Jain at her Matrimonial house nor the reasons due to which she committed suicide. He has further deposed that after the death of Astha Jain, Ashok Jain had handed over photographs of the marriage to the police and police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness he does not know the in laws of Astha Jain and he identify them as he had seen them only once.
(59) During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has stated that he is not aware whether the police inquired from him about the facts and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW20/PX1. Witness has denied the suggestion that it was settled that Honda City Car to be given in the marriage to Amit Jain alongwith the other Dowry Articles. Witness has denied that he had stated to the police that two days before the marriage of Astha Jain, Rishi Prakash Jain father of State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 52 bride groom made a phone call to Ashok Jain and told him that Amit Jain wanted Mercedez Car in place of Honda City Car and if the same was not given in the marriage then the barat would not come on which Ashok Jain informed him about the same and consulted him and thereafter Ashok Jain gave the cost of Mercedez car to Rishi Prakash Jain in order to save his reputation. According to the witness he does not remember whether the marriage took place on 29.04.2007 and has has denied the suggestion that the marriage took place with a great pomp and show and lot of expenses were incurred in the marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that after the marriage Ashok Jain informed him that Astha Jain was being harassed at her matrimonial house by her father in law, mother in law, husband Amit Jain, Nanad Renu Jain and Nandoi Praveen Jain for insufficient dowry and about insufficient costly gifts and jewellery items on the occasion of the festivals i.e. Teej etc. and also caused beating to her, taunted her, insulted her and harassed her mentally and physically and that she was continuously sad at her matrimonial house and has voluntarily added that Astha Jain was happy at her matrimonial house according to Ashok Jain. Witness has admitted that on 30.04.2008 he also went to the matrimonial house of Astha Jain but has denied that she was harassed by her father in law, mother in law, husband, Jeth Jugal Kishore, Renu Jain and Praveen Jain for insufficient dowry and due to their harassment Astha was forced to commit suicide. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 53 accused person and that is why he is not deposing about the true facts in the court or deposing falsely (60) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity.
(61) PW21 Sh. Narendra Kumar Jain has deposed that Astha Jain was the daughter of his brother Ashok Jain and her marriage was fixed with Amit Jain S/o Rishi Prakash Jain on 29.04.2007 but he is not aware about the dowry articles given in the marriage nor he is aware of any problems faced by his brother Ashok Jain in respect of the marriage. Witness has further deposed that on 30.04.2008 he received information about the death of Astha Jain from his brother Ashok Jain and they all went to the matrimonial house of Astha Jain when they came to know that Astha Jain had committed suicide by hanging. According to the witness he does not know about the reasons why Astha Jain committed suicide and has further deposed that he had identified the dead body of Astha Jain in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and his statement was recorded vide Ex.PW21/A bearing his signatures at point A and that after the postmortem they received the dead body vide Ex.PW21/B bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness he does not know anything else about the death of Astha Jain. Witness has further deposed that his brother gave a list of the dowry articles to the police and the police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW21/C bearing his signatures at point A State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 54 (62) In cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has stated that he does not remember whether the police made any inquiries from him and recorded his statement on 16.05.2008 and has denied the suggestion that he has stated to the police that Honda City Car was to be given to Amit Jain in the marriage alongwith the other dowry articles. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he had told stated the police that two days before the marriage Rishi Prakash Jain called his brother Ashok Jain and told him that Amit Jain wanted a Mercedez Car in place of Honda City Car and if the same was not given in the marriage then the Barat would not come on which his brother Ashok Jain informed him about the same and thereafter his brother Ashok Jain and father went to the house of Rishi Prakash Jain at Pitampura but they did not agree with them and thereafter they consulted their brother in law Sudesh Jain and friends and then paid Rs.20,00,000/ to Rishi Prakash Jain for Mercedez car and save their honor. (63) Witness has admitted that Rs.4550 lacs were spent in the marriage but has denied the suggestion that after the marriage of Astha Jain his brother Ashok Jain informed him that father in law, mother in law, husband Amit Jain, Jeth Jugal Kishore Jain, Nanad Renu Jain and Nandoi Praveen Jain used to harass Astha Jain at her matrimonial house and also on the occasion of the festivals for insufficient dowry, gifts, sarees and jewelery items and tortured and taunted her for the same and she was also not given food and due to which reason she remained State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 55 depressed. Witness has denied that ten days before the death of Astha, she made a call to them and told them that her in laws were demanding Rs.20 lacs and Ashok Jain had informed him about the same and has voluntarily added that Ashok Jain informed him that Astha Jain had made a call and her in laws were demanding something but he cannot tell the details. Witness has denied the suggestion that on 25.04.2008 his brother Ashok Jain handed over Rs. 10 lacs to Rishi Prakash Jain at his house at Pitampura, Delhi and the inlaws of Astha received only Rs. 10 lacs instead of Rs. 20 lacs and thereafter they tortured Astha Jain and forced her to commit suicide. Witness has admitted that when he reached at the matrimonial house of Astha Jain, he found that Astha Jain was hanging with a ceiling fan in her room and when he reached there, the police was not present. He has stated that he reached there at about 2.003.00 PM and has admitted that neither any doctor nor any neighbour was present there at that time. He has also admitted that police reached at the spot after their reaching and is unable to tell if Ashok Jain called the police. He has admitted that Tehsildar and SDM also reached the spot but has denied the suggestion that the accused Asha Jain, Rishi Prakash Jain, Amit Jain, Jugal Kishore, Renu Jain and Praveen Jain continuously harassed Astha Jain for insufficient dowry and forced her to commit suicide. Witness has denied the suggestion that a compromise had taken place between them and that is why he was not giving true facts.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 56 (64) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has admitted that they had spent the money in the marriage according to their sweet will and has also admitted that accused Rishi Prakash, Jugal Kishore, Amit Jain, Renu and Praveen Jain never demanded any dowry from them. According to the witness Ashok Jain did not inform him that Astha Jain telephoned to him about any demand of money and has admitted that whatever was incurred towards the marriage as expenses included "Daan" given to the daughter by way of clothes and ornaments and also the expenses incurred during the marriage ceremony in connection with Pandal and treatment of guests. According to the witness Sakshi is his daughter and has admitted that Sakshi used to visit matrimonial house of Astha Jain. According to the witness he does not know if Astha Jain wanted to celebrate her first wedding anniversary with pomp and show.
(65) PW22 Sh. Tilak Ram has deposed that he is residing at F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi and working as a domestic servant since last six years and the owner of the house is Rishi Prakash Jain. According to the witness Astha Jain was the wife of Amit Jain and on 30.04.2008 at the morning time Astha Jain prepared the breakfast and packed the lunch for Sh. Rishi Prakash Jain and also for Jugal Kishore elder brother of Amit Jain and after the same was also given to Amit Jain and everybody went to their respective offices. According to the witness Amit Jain went away from the house at about 12.00Noon for his office and mother of State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 57 Amit Jain gave clothes to him for ironing and he gave the same for ironing. Thereafter at about 1.00PM on the asking of Asha Jain he went to the upstairs to call Astha Jain but he found her room was closed from inside and thereafter he saw inside the room from the door glass and he saw that Astha Jain was hanging from the celling fan with a saree. Witness has further deposed that he he immediately informed Asha Jain about the same and thereafter she asked him to inform Jugal Kishore and neighbors were also informed. According to the witness after sometime many persons came there and gave beating to him and thereafter he became unconscious and he does not know who opened the door of room of Astha Jain and he do not know about the reasons and the cause of death of Astha Jain.
(66) In the leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has denied the suggestion that he saw inside the room of Astha Jain by removing the papers on glasses on the door but has admitted that Astha Jain did not respond to him when he called her from outside her room. Witness has admitted that another domestic servant Janki was also present in the house at that time and has denied the suggestion that he alongwith Janki brought Asha Jain upstairs. He has denied the suggestion that on the asking of Asha Jain he remove the paper on the glasses of the door and opened the latches from inside after putting his hand inside through the broken glasses and then the door was opened. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 58 (67) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that sisters of Astha Jain used to visit at their house and whenever they visited their house they were served with Rasgulla, Paneer Pakora, Dhokla, Khandvi etc. and the family of the accused was hospitable. Witness has further deposed that Renu Jain only used to visit on special occasions of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and she came to her parental house only at the time of marriage and thereafter on Raksha Bandhan.
Medical / Forensic Evidence:
(68) PW11 Dr. Adesh Kumar has deposed that on 21.05.2008, one sealed parcel in connection with this case was received in their office containing viscera of deceased Aastha Jain, which was marked as Ex.1A i.e. stomach and piece of the small intestine with contents kept in a sealed jar, Ex.1B i.e. piece of liver, spleen and kidney kept in the sealed jar and Ex.1C i.e. reddish brown colour liquid volume approximately 30.0 ml., kept in a sealed bottled. After examining the aforesaid exhibits, he had given his detailed report, which is Ex.PW11/A. Remnants of exhibits were sent to SHO PS Shalimar Bagh in a sealed parcel with the seal of "AY, FSL Delhi" vide covering letter Ex.PW11/B. (69) In the cross examination, PW11 has stated that there is an office order/circular delegating the powers to the next senior most State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 59 officer to sign on behalf of the Director FSL but he cannot produce the same. The next senior most officer was Dr.Madhulika, who had signed the forwarding letter Ex.PW11/B. (70) PW25 Dr. K. Goyal has deposed that on 01.05.2008 he was posted at BJRM hospital and on that day, at about 11:45 AM he had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Astha Jain, W/o Sh.
Amit Jain which was sent by Sh. B.S. Thakur, SDM, Model Town with alleged history been found dead by the police in hanging position on 30.04.2008. According to the witness on external examination there was one red printed saree cloth piece found round the neck with double knot on the right side of neck.
(71) Witness has further deposed that there was ligature pressure, abraision mark around the neck running obliquely above the apple of adam, slightly depressed and parchmentised over front and about 2.5cm wide with diffused margin. According to the witness on the left side of neck ligature mark was running slightly downwards initially and then turned upwards reaching to back of neck ending into hair just before midline back of neck. Witness has further deposed that on the right side ligature mark was running upwards from front and ended into hair just at mastoid process area and on left and right sides ligature marks was not uniformly parchmentised but interrupted at places where it was faint and diffused. According to the witness margins were diffused all over and the width was ranging between 2.53cm and the skin above and below State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 60 was echymosis and no other external injury was seen on the road. (72) Witness has further deposed that on internal examination the subcutaneous tissues underneath the ligature mark showed glistening white appearance with echchymosis at margins and there was no extravasation or muscular bruising were seen in the neck layers. According to the witness all neck structures were intact and there was frothy blood tinze discharged in the trachea. Witness has further deposed that the cause of death was kept pending as blood and viscera were preserved for chemical analysis and the time since death was about 2122 hours.
(73) Witness has further deposed that the following articles were preserved, sealed and handed over to police :
1. Clothes of the deceased.
2. Blood and viscera for chemical analysis.
3. Ligature saree cloth piece found around the neck. (74) According to the witness his detailed postmortem report is PM No. 407 which is Ex.PW25/A bearing his signatures at point A. Witness has further deposed that on 24.08.2008 investigating officer, Inspector Puran Chand tendered an application along with FSL report vide No. 2008/C1736 dated 30.07.2008 which is Ex.PW11/A for subsequent opinion in above PM report. According to the witness the FSL report gave negative test for common poison in blood and viscera. He has further deposed that the cause of death in this case was asphyxia State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 61 consequent upon ligature pressure over neck structures. Witness has further deposed that postmortem findings were consistent with ligature hanging and ligature mark was ante mortem in nature caused by some soft ligature material and was possible by the saree piece found in situ around the neck. According to the witness his subsequent opinion is Ex.PW25/B bearing his signatures at point A. (75) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity granted.
(76) PW26 Sh. Anurag Sharma has deposed that he is M.Sc in Chemistry having approximately 22 years experience in the examination of Forensic Exhibits till date. According to the witness he has examined approximately 1200 cases and thousands of exhibits as well as appeared in various courts as expert witness. Witness has further deposed that in this case, exhibits in 10 sheets and two volumes were deposited in their laboratory in open condition on 13.06.2008 and 24.06.2008 consistent exhibits bearing markings Q1 to Q3 and A1 to A128 and he had examined the aforesaid case. According to the witness the case was reported on 10.07.2008 and he is of the opinion that the writings and signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q3, A8 to A11, A108, A110 to A128 all were written by one and the same person. Witness has further deposed that after the examination all the original documents along with original report were handed over to Inspector Puran Chand Police Station Shalimar Bagh on 11.07.2008 in a sealed envelope. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 62 (77) Witness has further deposed that his detailed report is Ex.PW26/A (running into three pages) bearing his signatures at point A on each page and forwarding letter is Ex.PW26/B. According to the witness Q1 and Q2 is the handwriting which is Ex.PW18/A and Q3 is the signature on the bottom of the Ex.PW18/A (Q2). Witness has further deposed that the standard documents sent by Investigating agency to him as allegedly admitted documents to him A1 to A128 are Ex.PW13/A collectively i.e. specimen card sheet of bank, cheques and account opening forms and customer relation informations of Oriental Bank of Commerce and form 16 and passport of Astha Jain is Ex.PW26/C and the two note book is Ex.PW26/D and Ex.PW26/E which were examined by him.
(78) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted.
Electronic Evidence:
(79) PW24 Vishal Gaurav has brought the records in respect of mobile number 9910300235 which was issued in the name of Rishi Prakash S/o Khem Lal on 20.11.2007. Witness has also brought the original customer application form which was kept in their records at their customer service department at Warehouse, Noida. According to the witness he had procured the customer application from their State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 63 customer service department. Photocopy of the customer application is Ex.PW24/A and ID proof of the same is Ex.PW24/B. Witness has further deposed that they had provided the call details of the above said mobile phone for the period 25.04.2008 to 30.04.2008 and computerized copy of the same is Ex.PW24/C (running into two pages) and the cell ID chart is Ex.PW24/D (running into four pages). Witness has also brought the customer application form of mobile Number 9810011213 which was issued in the name of Jugal Kishore Jain, S/o Rishi Prakash Jain and according to the witness he had procured the customer application from their customer service department, photocopy of the customer application is Ex.PW24/E and ID Proof of the same is Ex.PW24/F Witness has further deposed that they have provided the call details of the above said mobile phone for the period 25.04.2008 to 30.04.2008 computerized copy which is Ex.PW24/G (running into three pages).
According to the witness cell ID chart is Ex.PW24/H and he and Sh. R.K. Singh issued the certificate U/s 65B evidence Act about the above said call details of the above said mobile phones vide Ex.PW24/I bearing his signatures at point A and R.K. Singh put his signatures at point B (original customer application forms seen and returned). (80) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that during investigations they had not given the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to the investigating officer while handling State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 64 over the call details of the above said mobile phones to him. Witness has admitted that no document is annexed with the certificate Ex.PW24/I . He has stated that Mr. R.K. Singh had retrieved the above said call details from the computers but does not remember the date when he retrieve the call details and has clarified that he had not retrieve the call details from the computer. Witness has further deposed that he put his signatures at point A on Ex.PW24/I because he had been called for the testimony and hence issued the certificate along with R.K. Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that certificate Ex.PW24/I has not issued in accordance U/s 65B Evidence Act. According to the witness he has no personal knowledge about the call details provided to the police by R.K. Singh and has admitted that he does not know about the contents of the customer application form brought by him and also does not know who filed the same. Witness has admitted that he cannot say who was using the above said mobile number but according to their records the above said mobile number had been issued to the above said persons and hence they were using the same. Witness has admitted that his designation has not been mentioned in his identity card but his employee ID number has been mentioned in the same. Witness has further deposed that his duties are mentioned in the special power of attorney brought by him and according to the witness the copy of the special power of attorney is Ex.PW24/DX1. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has not knowledge about the facts of the documents State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 65 brought by him or that he has deposed without the authority. (81) PW27 Sh. Israr Babu has brought the records of the mobile number 9999555038 which was issued in the name of Rishi Parkash S/o Khem Lal Jain and witness has brought the customer application form (original) in respect of above said mobile number from customer service activation department of Vodafone, Okhla, Phase II, Delhi. Witness has deposed that the photocopy of the customer care application form is Ex.PW27/A and identity proof of Rishi Parkash is Ex.PW27/B. According to the witness the call details of the above said mobile phone from 01.02.2008 to 14.07.2008 is Ex.PW27/C collectively (running into four pages) and has also stated that he had issued the certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act about the above said call details which is Ex.PW27/D. According to the witness above said all documents bearing his signatures and stamp at point A (OSR). Witness has further deposed that during investigations, Jyotish Chandra who had left their services had given the computerized call details to the police.
(82) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has clarified that the data is generated only for one year and has voluntarily explained that in the present case the data was preserved. Witness has further deposed that it was preserved in the office computer and all the datas were restored in the main server. Witness has admitted that customer application form of the above said mobile phone was not executed in his presence and he does not know who filled the contents of State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 66 application form. Witness has further deposed that he has been authorized by his department to depose in respect of the above said mobile number vide Ex.PW27/DX1. Witness has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the above said documents. According to the witness he cannot say who was user of the above said mobile phone but according to their records same has been issued in the name of Rishi Praksh so he assures he was using the same. (83) PW29 Rajeev Sharda, Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance communications Ltd., has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9310011214 which is in the name of Jugal Kishore R/o F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi. Copy of Customer application form is Ex.PW29/A and the copy of ID proof i.e. driving licence is Ex.PW29/B, CDR of the above said mobile phone from 25.04.2008 to 30.04.2008 is Ex.PW29/C. This witness has also brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9312377177 which is in the name of Amit Kumar R/o F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi. Copy of Customer application form is Ex.PW29/D and the copy of ID proof i.e. Passport is Ex.PW29/E, CDR of the above said mobile phone from 25.04.2008 to 30.04.2008 is Ex.PW29/F. He also brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9350043018 which is in the name of Vinay Jain R/o C4/290, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi. Copy of Customer application form is Ex.PW29/G and the copy of ID proof i.e. election I card is State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 67 Ex.PW29/H, CDR of the above said mobile phone from 25.04.2008 to 30.04.2008 is Ex.PW29/I. This witness has also brought the summoned record pertaining to landline Number at Delhi bearing No. 32480990 which is in the name of Renu Jain R/o Shop No. 6, first floor, 1529, Mahavir Market, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Copy of Customer application form is Ex.PW29/J and the copy of ID proof i.e. copy of passport is Ex.PW29/K, CDR of the above said mobile phone from 25.04.2008 to 30.04.2008 is Ex.PW29/L. He has also brought the original records of the mobile No. 9310011214 in the name of Jugal Kishore and of the mobile No. 32480990 in the name of Renu Jain. (84) According to the witness, the customer application form of mobile No. 9312377177 in the name of Amit and of the mobile No. 9350043018 in the name of Vinay Jain have been lost in their warehouse in Mumbai where the original documents were kept, due to the flood in the Mumabi and their Mumbai office had made complaint at Police Station Nerul Navi Mumbai in this regard and the said complaint and the survey reports is Ex.PW29/M. Cell ID chart is Ex.PW29/N. He further deposed that he issued the Certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the CDR of the above said mobile phones vide Ex.PW29/O. (85) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that Ex.PW29/C was taken out by him from the computer system installed in State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 68 his office under his control on 20.03.2013. He has deposed that the conditions which he say are satisfied by him are the computer system was working properly, electronic data was correct. The witness has clarified that the condition is with regard to his satisfaction regarding the compliance of provisions of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act. He admits that the Certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act has given by him jointly for all the mobile phones and not separately and on the electronic record. He has clarified that the details about LWAMBL 2 on Ex.PW29/G is the Code Number of Ambala Reliance Exchange. He has deposed that it shows the position of the mobile No. 9350043018 in the Ambala Range and has stated that LWDLHI6 is the code of their Delhi Reliance Exchange. He has further deposed that the said mobile phone was in the range of IMT Manesar Range about 2:322:35 hours on 30.04.2008 and that there is no specific range of their exchange at Manesar. According to him, it is not possible that a telephone at 14:03,14:04 hours is at Ambala and at 14:33 hours the telephone would be at Manesar and has voluntarily explained that the entry with regard to Ambala is the entry pertaining to the main exchange controlling all the towers installed at Haryana including that at Manesar. He has deposed that he have not brought any document on the basis of which he said Ambala exchange covers the field as he depose. According to the witness, telephone No. 9310011214 which is in the name of Jugal Kishore at 14:27 hours was at Noida Gautam Budh Nagar and at 14:43 State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 69 hours this telephone was at Chilla, Delhi - 96, it is at the border area of Noida and Delhi. He has deposed that at 14:13 hours at Dadri road, Greater Noida, at 14:24 hours at Bhangel, district Gautam Budh Nagar. (86) According to the witness, telephone No. 9312377177 between 14:24 to 14:30 hours was at Village Khirki Dhola Gurgaon, at 12:28 hours was at Sector 35, Khandbh Industries Gurgaon. He is unable to tell whether this mobile phone had reached at Rohini or not and has voluntarily explained that it is matter of investigations. He admits that Ex.PW29/DX1 is of his office signed by Mr. Dabas whose signatures he identifies. He does not know what documents were supplied by Mr. Dabas to the IO. According to him, LWDDLH 12 is the code of Delhi circle of their Lawrence Road Exchange.
Police / Official Witnesses:
(87) PW2 Constable Karan Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/I, wherein he has deposed that on 30/04/2008, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, at about 11.55 p.m., DO/ASI Bhagwat Singh had handed over to him four packets of FIR No. 246/08, u/s. 498A/304B IPC, PS Shalimar Bagh to be delivered to the MM, DCP/NW, Addl DCPII/NW & Jt. CP/NR at their residences. Accordingly, being a special messenger, he delivered the same as per directions of the DO on government motorcycle no.
DL1SN4130.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 70 (88) In his cross examination, PW2 has stated that firstly, he had gone to the house of Jt. CP to deliver the packet containing the FIR. He has stated that has has called at the PS at about 11.30 PM and he must have reached the house of Joint CP in about 30 minutes and thereafter, he went to the house of the DCP NorthWest at Pandara road and it took him hardly 15 minutes to reach his house and from there, he went to the residence of Addl. DCP, who was residing at Kingsway Camp and it took him about 35 minutes to reach there and lastly, he went to the house of Ld. MM at the house of Ld. MM Sh. Rajesh Goyal at Parshant Vihar and reached there in about 20 minutes after which he made wapsi in the police station and also made a report but he does not recollect the time. He has admitted that the said report has not been placed on record. (89) PW3 Ct. Sahansar Pal has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/I, wherein he has deposed that on 21/05/2008, he was posted at PP Pitam Pura of PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, he took exhibit/viscera (wooden box and sample seal) of this case vide RC No. 57/21/08 dated 21/05/2008 from MHC(M) Raghu Raj along with forwarding letter and other documents and deposited the same in FSL Rohini and then copy of the RC and acknowledgment of the same were handed over to the MHC(M). Copy of receipt of FSL is Ex.PW3/A. PW3 has not been cross examined in any manner on behalf of the accused persons.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 71 (90) PW4 Ct. Ravinder Kumar has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/1, wherein he has deposed that on 30/04/2008, he was posted at PP Pitam Pura as a DD Writer from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. On that day, at 3.00 p.m., a PCR call through Control Room/NW by the complainant Ashok Jain was received that his daughter has been hanged from ceiling fan by her inlaws at F1U156, Pitam Pura, in front of Ram Leela ground, and the same was lodged by him vide DD no. 20, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. He has produced the original DD register before the Court. This witness has not been cross examined in any manner on behalf of the accused persons. (91) PW5 HC Raghuraj has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW5/1, wherein he has deposed that on 01/05/2008, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh as MHC(M) and on that day, Ct Virender Singh handed over to him one wooden box of viscera, one packet of ligature material and one packet of clothes of the deceased Aastha Jain, which were sealed with the seal of "KG/BJRM, and two sample seals along with a copy of seizure memo of this case, which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 3521/08 in register no. 19, copy of which is Ex. PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that on 21/05/2008, he handed over the viscera (wooden box) and the same seal, already deposited in the malkhana, along with the forwarding letter and other documents to PW3 Ct Sahansar Pal vide RC no. 57/21/08 for depositing the same in FSL Rohini, Delhi. He has further deposed that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 72 in the evening, PW3 Ct Sahansar Pal handed over to him copy of the RC and acknowledgment after depositing the exhibits in the FSL and the exhibits remained intact in the malkhana under his custody. Copy of RC no. 57/21/08 is Ex. PW5/B and copy of receipt of FSL is Ex. PW3/A. PW5 has also produced original malkhana register no. 19 and RC register before the court.
(92) In the cross examination, PW5 has stated that on 21/05/2008, apart from the viscera box, sample seal and the forwarding letter and other documents, which he handed over to Ct Shanshar Pal, was the RC. Apart from the above, he did not handover the other document. On 01/05/2008, Ct Virender Singh had handed over to him the viscera box directly. He has denied the suggestion that Ct Virender did not handover the seizure memo to him along with the viscera peti.
(93) PW6 SI M.D. Meena has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW6/1, wherein he has deposed that on 30/04/2008, he was posted at Crime Team, NorthWest District, PS Maurya Enclave as InCharge Crime Team. On that day, at about 3.30 p.m., on receipt of the information from DO/Control room on wireless set regarding suicide by a lady, he along with the staff reached at the spot i.e. H.No. F1U156, Pitam Pura, Delhi, where deceased Aastha Jain, w/o Amit Jain was found hanging from a ceiling fan in a room at first floor. ASI Ramesh Chand photographed the place of occurrence and ASI Narinder Singh lifted chance print from the spot. After inspecting the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 73 place of occurrence, he prepared his report and handed over the same to Inspector/ Investigation Puran Chand, who was present at the spot. Crime team report is Ex.PW6/A. (94) In the cross examination, PW6 has deposed that he had received the information at about 3:15 PM and reached at the spot within five minutes i.e. by 3:20 PM and had seen the suicide note. He has voluntarily stated that it was kept on the table and he had informed the IO about the same and after taking photographs of the spot, he handed over the said note to the IO. He has explained that he had taken the photographs of the suicide note lying on the table which photograph had been taken by the photographer of the crime team and not by him and has voluntarily stated that it was on his direction that the Crime Team photographer had taken the photographs. He has clarified that he did not read the details of the suicide note and stated that he only had a cursory look on the same and found that something was written about ending of life and guessed that it was a suicide note. He has admitted that when they reached at the spot, the room, where the body was lying, was open and large number of public persons were present outside the room, but he cannot tell if relatives of the deceased were also present there. He has denied that he had prepared his report at the instance of the family of deceased.
(95) PW7 ASI Ramesh Chand has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW7/1, wherein he has deposed that on State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 74 30/04/2008, he was posted at Crime Team/NorthWest District, PS Maurya Enclave as a photographer and on that day, on receipt of information from DO/Control Room on wireless set regarding suicide by a lady, he along with I/C & other staff reached at the spot i.e. H.No. F1U156, Pitam Pura, Delhi, where deceased Aastha Jain, w/o Amit Jain was found hanging from a ceiling fan in a room at Ist floor. He snapped 14 photographs of the place of occurrence, which are Ex. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A14 and negatives of the same are Ex. PW7/B collectively. (96) In the cross examination, the witness has deposed that he did not take any photographs of public persons including the family member of the deceased, who were present there. The photographs had been taken by him on the directions and on the pointing out of the IO Inspector Puran Chand.
(97) PW8 SI Narender Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW8/1, wherein he has deposed that on 30/04/2008, he was posted at Crime Team, NorthWest District, PS Maurya Enclave as a finger print expert. On that day, on receipt of the information from DO/Control Room on wireless set regarding suicide by a lady, he along with I/C and other staff reached at the spot i.e. H.NO. F1U156, Pitam Pura, Delhi, where deceased Aastha Jain, W/o Amit Jain was found hanging from a ceiling fan in a room of first floor. He lifted chance print from a chair lying at the spot and then preserved the same. Witness has not been cross examined in any manner. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 75 (98) PW9 ASI Bhagwat Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW9/1, wherein he has deposed that on 30/04/2008, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Shalimar Bagh from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. On that day, Ct. Paras Nath handed over to him a rukka at 7.40 p.m. and the same was endorsed by him vide DD no. 25A. On the basis of said rukka, he got registered the FIR of this case on computer through computer operator u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC. After registering the FIR, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Puran Chand and copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct Paras Nath to deliver the same to the IO. PW9 has proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW9/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW9/B. He has also produced original FIR register before the Court.
(99) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he had recorded the FIR at about 7.40 p.m. and has voluntarily stated that it took about one hour to actually record the same, which recording was done by the computer operator and therefore the entire proceedings of recording were completed only around 9.00/9.15 pm. because there was a change of duty in between. He has explained that it It took time to dispatch the copies of the FIR to senior officers because the special messenger had to be called from the area and thereafter the pullandas were handed over to him and states that Ct Parashar had been relieved by 99.15 PM. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 76 (100) PW10 SI Manohar Lal has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW10/1, wherein he has deposed that on 06/06/2008, he was posted at DCP Office, Ashok Vihar as a Draftsman. On that day, he got a request telephonically from IO/Inspector Puran Chand, PS Shalimar Bagh for preparing scaled site plan. So, he along with the IO reached at the place of occurrence i.e. H.No. F1U156, Pitam Pura, Delhi and had done scaling for the same at the instance of the IO, on the basis of which, he prepared the scaled site plan, which is Ex.PW10/A. This witness has not been cross examined in any manner. (101) PW12 Sh. M.Z. Ansari has deposed that on 30/04/2008, he was working as Tehsildar in Sub Division, Model Town. On that day, on the instructions of Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM, he reached at FIU155, Pitam Pura, at about 5.30 p.m., where he found one lady namely Aashta had hanged herself on the first floor of the said house. A large number of public persons had gathered at that time. The parents of the deceased did not give their statements to him and insisted that they would make the statements only in presence of the SDM since he was having the powers only to conduct the inquest proceedings and therefore when the SDM came, they gave their statements to him. He has deposed that Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM had also reached at the spot and on the directions of SDM, he recorded the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, father of deceased, which is already Ex.PW1/A and does not bear his signatures. Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM, made endorsement on State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 77 the same, which is Ex.PW12/A bearing signatures of Sh. B.S. Thakur at point A which he can identify being well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM, as he had seen him, while writing and signing in due course of his official duty. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C.
(102) In the cross examination, the witness has stated that he cannot tell the date, when he was given powers to make an inquiry u/s. 174 Cr.P.C. He is also unable to tell the date, when he had been conferred with the power of the Executive Magistrate and also does not recollect the date of the notification. He has stated that he had told the relatives that he was empowered to hold inquiry u/s. 174 Cr.P.C.,yet they insisted for SDM.
(103) In reply to question whether he was aware of the scope of the inquiry of inquest proceedings, witness had replied in affirmative and explained that he is required to visit the site and in case there is fatal incident the crime team is called and then the inquiry by Magistrate is conducted but he does not know anything more than this. (104) In reply to question if he had recorded whatever he had observed, he has explained that he did not record it anywhere in his proceedings, because Sh. B.S. Thakur, the then SDM had conducted the inquest proceedings u/s. 174 Cr.P.C. and has voluntarily stated that he had only recorded the statement of father of the deceased on the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 78 directions of SDM.
(105) He has further deposed that he started writing the statement of Ashok Jain at about 6.30 or 6.45 p.m. and concluded writing the same at around 7.30 p.m. He has explained that the stones were being thrown there and they were trying to save themselves but he cannot tell as to who were the persons pelting stones but has voluntarily added that they might be the well wishers of the deceased. He has further stated taht while recording the statement no special measures are taken except that the witnesses are called alone one by one and their statements are recorded in terms of what they have stated but in the present case, he was only the writer of the statement on the instructions of the SDM and it was the SDM who recorded the statements. He has deposed that at the time, when the statements of the witnesses were recorded by the SDM, the suicide note had already been recovered. He has admitted that he did not read the suicide note nor he was aware of the contents of the same and has voluntarily stated that he came to know that suicide note had been recovered, which note had been recovered before his reaching at the spot. He is not aware if the complainant was in a disturbed state of mind and has voluntarily explained that since daughter of complainant had expired, he must have been disturbed. He has denied the suggestion that complainant had not given any such statement that on the wishes of the husband of deceased, Honda City was demanded. Witness has denied the suggestion that the statement Ex.PW1/A was not given by Sh. Ashok State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 79 Jain or that he recorded the aforesaid statement on the behest of other relatives. According to the witness he was directed by SDM Sh. B. S. Thakur to reach at the spot and no direct request was received by him from the police station. Witness has denied the suggestion that the recording of statement of the deceased/witness is not covered under the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.PC/ 176 Cr. PC.
(106) He has admitted that the duty in inquest proceedings is only to draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing some wound, fracture, bruises and other marks of injuries as may be found on the body. He has also admitted that he had not recorded these details and has voluntarily explained that he did not carry out the inquest proceedings and it was Sh B. S. Thakur the then SDM who carried out the said proceedings and must have recorded the aforesaid details of which he is not aware. He has also admitted that in his presence it was also not recorded anywhere as to in what manner or by what weapon or instrument if any, the marks on the body had been inflicted. Witness has further deposed that he was in the Rampura office when SDM directed him to reach the spot. He has further deposed that he when he reached the spot about 2530 public persons were found gathered in the street and it is not within his knowledge as to whether the persons from market association were also present in the crowd. According to the witness he cannot say if 800900 public persons were present at that time and he is also not aware if the media persons were also present at the spot and has State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 80 voluntarily added that he was inside conducting his proceedings and the possibility of the same cannot be ruled out. According to the witness he was not aware if there was live telecast of whatever was happening outside and has voluntarily added that he was not watching the TV and was conducting his proceedings inside. Witness has further deposed that he did not see any OB vans of the media outside when he reached the spot and witness has denied the suggestion that SDM had recorded the statements and proceedings were conducting by them under public and media pressure.
(107) PW13 Sh. Kishore Bhattacharya has proved that on 22.5.2008 he was working as Chief Manager, Oriental bank of Commerce, LU Block, Pitampura, Delhi and on that day he was given a Notice u/s 91 Cr.PC and in compliance of the same he handed over the specimen signature card along with a photograph, one account opening form with photograph, customer relation form (CR1), Form 60 and photo ID (2 nos.) pertaining to account of deceased Astha Jain w/o Amit Jain R/o FIU156, Pitampura, Delhi, to inspector Puran Chand which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A bearing the official seal and his signatures at point A. According to the witness he handed over two clear cheques nos. 448578 and 448577 both 6.10.07 of the deceased Astha Jain pertaining to account No. 08762151002860, to Inspector Puran Chand which he took into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/B bearing the official seal and his signatures at point A. The State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 81 specimen signatures slip containing the photographs, the aforesaid two cheques, account opening form, customer relationship information (CR1) running in two pages on both sides, form 60, copy of election identity card and copy of passport in the name of deceased Astha Jain were taken out from envelope kept on the judicial file and shown to the witness who correctly identified the same which documents are Ex.PW13/A (collectively running into nine pages). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted. (108) PW23 SI Randhir Singh has deposed that on 30.04.2008 he was posted at police post Pitampura of police station Shalimar Bagh and on that day he was on emergency duty. According to the witness he received the information regarding DD No. 20 PP that the daughter of the informant was killed after being hung with the ceiling fan and he alongwith Ct. Virender reached the place of incident at F1U156 Pitampura at about 3.15PM at the first floor. Witness has further deposed that on the way Ct. Parasnath met him and handed over DD No. 20 PP to him and at the first floor of the house he found Astha Jain in hanging condition on the ceiling fan with a saree. According to the witness she was dead at that time and he came to know that she was married only for one year and he immediately informed his senior officers and SDM of the area and also called the crime team officials at the spot. According to the witness the crime team officials came at the spot and they inspected the scene of crime and the photographer of the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 82 Crime Team took the photographs and in the meanwhile SHO and senior officers reached the spot. Witness has further deposed that at about 5.30PM Tehsildar of the area reached the spot and parents and other family members of the deceased were also present there but they were not satisfied with the presence of the Tehsildar and also did not give their statements to the Tehsildar as they wanted the presence of the SDM there. Witness has further deposed that SDM of the area was again informed by them and thereafter the SDM came at the spot at about 6.30PM and he recorded the statement of father and other relatives of Astha Jain. Witness has further deposed that SDM directed for the registration of FIR and on his direction, Ct. Parshvnath went to the Police Station Shalimar Bagh for registration of the FIR along with the directions of the SDM and also with the statement of the father of the deceased Astha Jain. According to the witness one suicide note was also found in the room of the Astha Jain and the SDM read over the same and seized the suicide note and handed over the same to him which was later on later he handed over to SI Puran Chand (IO) who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. Witness has further deposed that the dead body of Astha Jain was brought down after cutting the Saree from the ceiling fan and the cut portion of the Saree which was remaining with the ceiling fan was seized by the Investigating Officer Inspector Puran Chand who prepared the pullanda of the same and sealed it with the seal of PC and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/B. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 83 Witness has further deposed that Inspector Puran Chand already reached the spot being the Investigating Officer of the case after the rukka was sent to the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that the dead body of the deceased was sent to the BJRM hospital through Ct. Virender and three mobile phones were found on the table in the room of Astha Jain which were also seized by the Investigating Officer Inspector Puran Chand after putting the same in a closed pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PC and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/C. Witness has further deposed that mother in law and father in law of Astha Jain, NanadNandoi of Astha Jain, Amit Jain, Praveen Jain were found at the spot and they were taken under custody by the investigating officer.
(109) In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, he has deposed that the accused were taken to the BJRM hospital for medical examination and Asha Jain, Mother in law of Astha Jain was admitted in the hospital as her BP was high and the remaining persons were taken to the police station as the IO Inspector Puran Chand arrested them in this case. According to the witness he can identify the seized articles and has further deposed that investigating officer Inspector Puran Chand also prepared the site plan at his instance. The witness has also correctly identified the suicide note Ex.PW18/D recovered from the room of Astha Jain.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 84 (110) He has also correctly identified one piece of Sari as the same which was seized from the ceiling fan by which Astha Jain was hanging and the same was cut by them to bring down the dead body which saree is Ex. P1. Witness has also correctly identified three mobile phones of Nokia model No. N73, N72, 6060 as the same seized by the Investigating Officer from the room of Astha Jain, which Mobile phones are Ex. P2, P3 and P4.
(111) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he does not recollect if the statement was recorded by the SDM in his own hand or got it written from anyone. According to the witness he had not read the statement and he also does not recollect if he had read the statement which was recorded by the SDM. Witness has admitted that from the side of the deceased, many persons were there and were agitated. Witness has admitted that when they reached the spot, there was a 'Hungama' and 'DhakkaMukki' which done with the accused by the public and relatives of the deceased. Witness has admitted that when the SDM reached the spot they were controlling the crowd which was becoming uncontrollable and has further deposed that the arrest memo of the accused persons does not bear his signatures and he got the medical examination done of accused who were present there done. Witness has admitted that medical examination papers of the accused have not been placed on the record of the case. According to the witness the handwriting Ex.PW23/A & 23/B appears to be of Inspector State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 85 Puran Chand and has admitted that the ink of the Ex.PW23/A and 23/B are different. According to the witness he can not tell about in whose handwriting the disclosure statement of Rishi Prakash was recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had put his signatures on the seizure memos of suicide note, sari and mobile phone of the deceased at the spot itself and he had signed the disclosure statement of Rishi Prakash at the PS which disclosure is Ex.PW23/DX1 with his signatures at point A at the time of Police Remand of the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely regarding the seizure memos. (112) PW28 Inspector Puran Chand has deposed that on 30.04.2008 at about 5.30 PM on receiving information about suicide committed by a lady he reached at F1U156, Pitampura, Delhi and found many public persons there and ASI Randhir, SHO of PS Inspector Dhanveer Dutt and other police official were also present there. He has further deposed that in the meanwhile Tehsildar Sh. M.Z. Ansari reached the spot where many public persons were present from the family of the victim and they were demanding presence of the SDM and at about 6.30PM, SDM Model Town Sh. B. S. Thakur reached the spot and inquired about the facts from the father of the deceased namely Ashok Jain, which statement was written by Tehsildar M. Z. Ansari on the dictation of Sh. B S Thakur. Witness has further deposed that SDM made endorsement and directed SHO PS Shalimar Bagh for registration of FIR and SHO Inspector Dhanveer Dutt made endorsement on the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 86 same vide Ex.PW9/B and thereafter investigation was handed over to him. Witness has further deposed taht the dead body of Astha Jain was brought down from the ceiling fan after the saree was cut and the dead body was sent to BJRM Hospital mortuary through Ct. Virender. According to the witness one suicide note Ex.PW18/A was found on the dressing table in the room of Astha Jain and the same was seized by him in the presence of SDM and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW23/A bearing his signatures at point B and SDM also put his signatures at point C. According to witness he prepared the site plan Ex.PW28/A and remaining cut portion of the saree was taken from the ceiling fan and sealed with the seal of PC in a cloth pullanda vide memo Ex.PW23/B. Witness has further deposed that he also found three mobile phone of make NOKIA N72, N73 and 6060 and he sealed the same in a cloth pullanda and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW23/C. Witness has deposed that Crime Team officials had already inspected the Scene of Crime and accused Asha Jain (since deceased), Rishi Prakash Jain, Renu Jain and Praveen Jain were present at the spot and he interrogated them one by one and they disclosed about their involvement in this case and thereafter he arrested accused Asha Jain (since deceased) vide memo Ex.PW28/B and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW28/C, accused Rishi Prakash Jain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW28/D and his personal search was conducted State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 87 vide memo Ex.PW28/E , accused Praveen Jain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW28/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW28/G, Accused Renu Jain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW28/G and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW28/I. (113) Witness has further deposed that on 01.05.2008 he alongwith HC Shesh Dhar, HC Raj Kumr reached at the mortuary where relatives of deceased Astha Jain and SDM B. S. Thakur wre present, SDM prepared the inquest documents and filled the form 25:35 vide Ex.PW28/J, brief facts were prepared Ex.PW28/K and recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar and Narender Kumar Jain vide Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW21/A and SDM made request for post mortem vide Ex.PW28/L and postmortem on the dead body of Astha was conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to Ashok Jain vide Ex.PW21/B. Witness has further deposed that after the postmortem examination Ct. Virender handed over one packet containing the clothes of deceased, one more packet containing the ligature mater, one wooden box containing the viscera in sealed condition and two sample seal to him and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW28/M. Witness has further deposed that accused Asha Jain, Rishi Prakash Jain, Renu Jain and Praveen Jain were produced in the court and two days' Police Custody remand of accused Rishi Prakash Jain was taken and was interrogated and disclosure statement of accused Rishi Prakash Jain was State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 88 recorded vide Ex.PW23/DX1. According to the witness on 07.05.2008 the complainant Ashok Jain alongwith Subhash Jain came to the Police Station and produced eleven photographs of marriage between Astha Jain and Amit Jain vide Ex.PW1/E1 to Ex.PW1/E11 and he took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/A. Witness has further deposed that on 16.05.2008 Ashok Jain and Narender Jain came to the Police Station and handed over the list of dowry articles Ex.PW1/C to him and he took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW21/C. (114) According to the witness on 21.05.2008 on receiving a secret information he alaongwith SI Sudhir, HC Shesh Dutt and Ct. Charan Singh reached at Police Station Faridabad and from there they alongwith HC Rakesh of Police Station Faridabad reached at H.No. 38, Sector 29 Faridabad, Haryana and apprehended accused Amit Jain and on interrogation accused Amit Jain disclosed about his involvement in this case and accused Amit Jain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW28/N and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW28/O and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW28/P. Witness has further deposed that the next day i.e. on 22.05.2008 during the Police Custody Remand of the accused Amit Jain, they reached at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Pitampura and Account Opening Form; Specimen Signature Card; Customer Relationship Form; Form 60 and Photo ID of Astha Jain were collected and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/A. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 89 (115) According to the witness that on 23.05.2008 he alongwith accused Amit Jain and other police official at the house of Amit Jain and at his instance two note books Ex.PW26/D and Ex.PW26/E were seized from the drawer of the dressing table from the room of Astha Jain and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW28/Q and accused Amit Jain disclosed that the registers bearing the handwriting of deceased Astha Jain. Witness has further deposed that on 02.06.2008 he collected two cheques issued by Astha Jain from OBC Bank and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/B. According to the witness on 04.06.2008 accused Jugal Kishore came to the Police Station and was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW28/R and thereafter he was released on bail as he was already granted Anticipatory Bail. According to the witness, on 07.06.2008 complainant Ashok Jain alongwith Narender Jain came to the Police Station and handed over a receipt of car delivery to him and he verified the same from Naveen Chandra Pant of TNT Motors Ltd. and thereafter he took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW15/A. According to the witness on 21.06.2008 accused Jugal Kishore produced one passport Ex.PW26/C of Astha Jain before him and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW28/S and he also got prepared the scaled site plan through SI M L Meena. Witness has further deposed that on 11.07.2008 he collected the handwriting expert report and also the call details of Astha Jain, Amit Jain, Jugal Kishore, Rishi Prakash and Praveen Jain and also the attested copies of the same from the service State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 90 providers. He also collected the viscera report and moved an application to the Autopsy Surgeon vide Ex.PW28/T and obtained the opinion on cause of Death vide Ex.PW25/B. The witness has also identified one piece of saree Ex.P1 as the same by which Astha Jain was hanging with ceiling fan and which was cut to bring down the dead body of Astha and he also identified the three mobile phone of NOKIA make N73, N72, 6060 Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 as the same which were seized by him from the spot of incident.
(116) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot of incident at 5:30 PM. He further deposed that the IO SI Randhir Singh, SHO Insp. Dhanvir Dutt and other staff from police station and police post were present there. According to him he started his investigations at about 7:30 PM and the dead body was taken down from the ceiling fan. He prepared the seizure memo of the suicide note first of all in the presence of the SDM but he does not recollect who has written the contents of this seizure memo Ex.PW23/A and has voluntarily explained that it was written by their staff whose name he cannot tell. According to the witness, the Ex.PW28/M, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW28/Q, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW28/S, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW28/N, Ex.PW 28/O, Ex.PW28/R are only in his handwriting. He admits that no document dated 30.04.2008 is in his handwriting. He deposed that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 91 on his directions dead body was shifted to BJRM mortuary through Ct. Virender at about 8 PM on 30.04.2008. According to him, he sent only his application for preservation of the dead body with the dead body. He has deposed that he handed over the inquest form, identification documents of the dead body, brief facts, application for postmortem. He states that the Ex.PW1/B1 is written by SI Sudhir which was was written at 10 AM in the mortuary on 01.05.2008. he has further deposed that the brief facts were prepared by the SDM at the mortuary of the BJRM hospital and the SDM Sh. B.S. Thakur reached at the mortuary at 10 AM. The witness has deposed that the inquest form Ex.PW28/T was filled up first and thereafter identification statements and then brief facts Ex.PW28/K were prepared. According to the witness, the postmortem was conducted between 11 AM to 1 PM and the SDM remained present in the mortuary till about 1 PM. Witness has deposed that the Ex.PW28/T is written by SI Sudhir who also wrote the statement Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW21/A. He has deposed that Ashok Kumar Jain met him on 30.04.2008 around 5:30 PM first time and he remained with him upto 12 midnight and thereafter he used to met me during the investigations. Witness admits that Ashok was might be in the disturbed state of mind on that day. He has deposed that the accused Asha Jain, Rishi Parkash Jain, Renu Jain and Parveen Jain were present there. Witness has deposed that he does not recollect having seen Asha Jain with her two teeth broken at that time. He however admits that Asha State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 92 Jain was hospitalized and has voluntarily explained that it was due to high sugar and high BP. He further admits that he has not placed on record her medical treatment papers. He does not recollect if Rishi Jain was also injured and blood was oozing out from his head. Witness has denied that he deliberately withheld the MLC of Asha Jain and Rishi Jain in connivance with family of the deceased in order to save persons who were responsible for causing injuries to Asha Jain and Rishi Jain. (117) In his further crossexamination the witness has deposed that he arrested accused Rishi Prakash Jain and Smt. Asha Jain (deceased), Renu Jain and Praveen Jain from the place of incident on 30.04.2008 from 11.00PM to 11.45 PM. Witness has admitted that after arrest accused persons were sent to BJRM Hospital for medical examination. According to him he had received the report of the medical examination but he did not note any visible injuries on the person of the accused before sending them to hospital. Witness has further deposed that the MLCs which were received from the hospital are on the record of police file and he did not find anything incriminating as such he did not place the MLCs of accused on the judicial record which are now Ex.PW28/DX1 to DX4. Witness has further deposed that there were no abrasions nor blood was not visible on the head of Rishi Prakash. According to the witness he had read the document Ex.PW18/A at the site itself when it was found and had also deposed that he had read the same thereafter. Witness has admitted that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 93 in this document deceased Astha had not put any blame on accused Amit. Witness has further deposed that he felt the necessity to arrest the accused Amit since there was statement of father of deceased namely Ashok Jain and other family members and other relatives. Witness has admitted that according to him Ex.PW18/A was the direct statement of deceased. He has admitted that he preferred the statement of relatives of deceased against the direct statement of deceased Ex.PW18/A. Witness has denied the suggestion that he arrested the accused Amit malafidely. Witness has denied the suggestion that he arrested the other accused namely Rishi Parkash, Asha Jain (deceased), Renu Jain, Parveen Jain under the pressure of media and the mob in order to save his skin. witness has admitted that the injuries mentioned as encircled X on MLC of Rishi Parkash which is Ex.PW28/DX1, on portion encircled X on MLC of Asha Rani Ex.PW28/DX2, on portion encircled X on MLC of Parveen Jain Ex.PW28/DX3 and has voluntarily added that the injury reflected in the MLC of Parveen Jain was not visible at that time. Witness has further deposed that he did not make out any case against the persons who caused the injuries to the accused as there was no statement of any person against them and he had inquired from the accused as to how and from whom they had received the injuries on their person but the accused did not tell and he has not recorded anywhere regarding this fact.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 94 (118) According to the witness regarding Ex.PW1/F dated 29.4.2007, he had made inquiries from M/s. TNT Motors Ltd. and after seeing the record has confirmed that there is no record of booking in the file and hence he cannot tell who had booked the car and when. According to the witness he cannot tell whether the Mercedez car was booked on 20th March 2007 and Rs.1 lakh was deposited as advance and he cannot tell whether the payment of Rs.3,96,145/ was made for the said car on 25.4.2007. Witness has further deposed that he was not aware that the payment of Rs.21,50,000/ was made on 25.4.2007 and he was also not aware if the payment of the Insurance to the tune of Rs. 1,05,775/ was made on 25.4.2007. According to the witness he was not aware whether the said car was ready for delivery on 25.4.2007 nor if the installments of the said car were being paid from the account No. 0179401450, Oriental Bank of commerce of Kesri Steel Ltd owned by accused persons and has voluntarily added that during inquiries, he was told by the complainant party that the accused had stated that they would take the amount in cash and purchase the vehicle in their name in installments on account of income tax reasons. Witness has further deposed that he had made inquiries from the father of deceased regarding source of amount and he was informed him that he had the cash which had been given to him by his father (grandfather of deceased) and was available with him at his house which he had given to accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such information was given to State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 95 him by father of deceased or her family members. Witness has denied the suggestion that Ashok Jain did not inform him that he had the available cash at his house with him also part of which was given by the grandfather of the deceased. Witness has admitted that Ashok Jain in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW28/DX5 had refused to divulge the source and said that he would inform the court. According to the witness he does not recollect having seen the report Ex.PW28/DX6 at any point of time during investigations and he do not recollect if the copy of same was marked to SHO Police Station concerned or placed before him at any point of time and has voluntarily added that he was not the SHO of the area at that time.
(119) According to the witness he does not remember when the sagai or god bharai ceremony had taken place or whether the same was informed to him during investigations. Witness has further deposed that it may be possible that sagai and god bharai were performed on 27.4.2007 which was two days prior to the date of marriage. According to the witness he had made inquiries with regard to alleged demands made by accused persons and also came to know about the threat issued before the marriage that in case if the demand is not met the barat would not come and he asked them as to how barat had come by the parents of deceased and they told that they had met the demands of the accused, therefore the marriage was performed. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not carry out any inquiries with regard to the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 96 correctness of the allegations of demands made by the family of deceased prior to the marriage and even thereafter. According to the witness he does not recollect having recorded the statement of grandmother (dadi) of deceased nor Ashok Jain told him that dadi had given some cash for the marriage of deceased. He does not recollect if Ashok Jain had made any statement on 4.5.2008 but in so far as he recollects no such statement was made by Ashok Jain on 4.5.2008. Witness has denied the suggestion that even the father of Ashok Jain did not make any statement on 4.5.2008. According to the witness it may be correct that on 29.4.2008, an Innova car had been purchased for the deceased. According to the witness it may also be correct that Amit Jain had purchased a mobile phone in the name of deceased. According to the witness it may be correct that on 29.4.2008 Amit Jain had taken the deceased to City Park Hotel, Pitampura but has denied the suggestion that accused had shown him any document in this regard which are Ex.PW28/DX7 (two pages). Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had shown him any documents with regard to Innova car which are Ex.PW28/DX8 (9 pages). Witness has also admitted that on the date of incident, in the house of accused only Asha Jain (deceased) and the servants Tilak were present. Witness has further deposed that it may be possible that servant Janki was also present in the house on that day. Witness has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of servant Janki and has voluntarily added that since she did not meet him he did State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 97 not record. Witness has further deposed that he cannot tell whether Ashok Jain took the delivery of the car on 29.4.2008 as accused persons were busy in bringing barat. Witness has further deposed that it did not appear to him that Ashok Jain was mentally disturbed on the date of incident due to the death of his daughter and has voluntarily added that he appeared cool. Witness has further deposed that he did not record any statement of Ashok Jain on 29.4.2008 and 30.4.2008. According to the witness he cannot tell whether the wife of Ashok Jain was distorted or disturbed on 30.4.2008. Witness has further deposed that he did not record her statement on 30.4.2008 and he had also not recorded their statements pertaining to incident on 1.5.2008. Witness has admitted that damage had been caused to the house of accused persons by friends and relatives of the complainant party and their relatives of the deceased. Witness has admitted that the damage caused to the property of accused is reflected in the photographs which is Ex.PW28/DX9a to Ex.PW28/DX9h. Witness has denied the suggestion that Subhash Jain was only a witness to the seizure memo Ex.PW20/A and has voluntarily added that he was also witness to the allegations of harassment and demands and had recorded his statement on 4.5.2008. Witness has further deposed that it did not come to his notice that the deceased was suffering from any medical or gynecological problems and was receiving treatment for the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused had also shown him the documents of her treatment in this State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 98 regard which are Ex.PW28/DX10. According to the witness he was not aware therefore he cannot comment with regard to the nature of treatment or the medicines prescribed to her by the doctor. Witness has further deposed that he had made inquiries from the ccused persons with regard to the reason of suicide of deceased and has denied the suggestion that the accused persons had informed him about her ailment and treatment and reasons for her depression. Witness has further deposed that he had seen Asha Devi (deceased) when he recorded her statement and stated that her health was normal at that time as per her age and has voluntarily added that she was having a heavy body structure. Witness has further deposed that it came to his notice later that she was diabetic. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not take the defence version on record deliberately as it would have diluted the version given by complainant.
(120) Witness has further deposed that he do not recollect whether ASI Ranbir Singh had made a wapsi in DD register and has voluntarily added that Randhir Singh was posted in police chowki at that time whereas he was in the main police station. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has recorded false statements of various witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.PC without actually questioning them as such. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not taken on record the details of the property purchased in the name of deceased vide documents Ex.PW18/D1, Ex.PW28/DX11 and has voluntarily added State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 99 that these documents were never shown to him. According to the witness he cannot tell whether the accused persons had been treating the deceased with love and affection and also cannot say whether the accused had not made demand to the complainant for dowry. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the all the accused under media and public pressure and also under the pressure of the family and their friends and relatives of deceased who at the time of incident were highly aggrieved on account of death of their daughter. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has not carried out fair and independent investigations or that he was led by the complainant party due to which reason he did not take the version of accused on record. (121) PW30 Sh. B.S. Thakur has deposed that on 30.04.2008 he was posted as SDM, Model Town, Delhi and on that day, at about 4:30 pm, an information was received from the P.S. Shalimar Bagh that one lady namely Ashtha Jain was hanging from the ceiling fan on the first floor of the house situated at Pitampuram. He has deposed that on this information, he directed his Tehsildar Sh. M.Z. Ansari to reach the said site and conduct inquest proceedings as Tehsildars were empowered to conduct the inquest proceedings. According to him, he could not go personally as he was busy in some urgent official work which he does not remember at present. He has deposed that at around 6:00 pm, he received another information that situation at the site had gone out of control and a sizable number of people have gathered at the site and Sh. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 100 Ansari requested him to reach the site and take over the inquest proceedings as he was not in a position to handle the situation. The witness has deposed that he immediately proceeded and reached at the said site at around 6:30 pm and on reaching there, he found a sizable number of people gathered there who were mostly from the side of the deceased woman and were highly agitated. He has deposed that he pacified the agitating persons and examined the first floor room where the deceased was still hanging with the ligature around her neck. Witness has deposed that he was informed that a suicide note had also been recovered in the said room. He further deposed that thereafter, he recorded the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, father of deceased which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he also made endorsement on the said statement which is exhibited as Ex.PW12/A and the said statement is in the hand of his Tehsildar Sh. M.Z. Ansari. (122) The witness has deposed that the suicide note was taken into possession vide seizure memo which is exhibited as Ex.PW23/A bearing his seal and signatures at point C making a endorsement to the effect that the seizure memo was prepared in his presence. The witness has deposed that an application Ex.PW28/L was moved for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased which bears his seal and signatures at point X. He has deposed that the dead body was identified by Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain and Sh. Narender Kumar Jain whose statements which are exhibited as Ex.PW1/B1 and Ex.PW21/A bearing his seal State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 101 and signatures at point X respectively. He has deposed that the brief facts of the case was prepared by him which is exhibited as Ex.PW28/K bearing his seal and signatures at point X. The witness has deposed that he also filled up the form 25.35 (1)(D) which is exhibited as Ex.PW28/J bearing his seal and signatures at point X. witness has deposed that IO/ Police official of P.S. Shalimar Bagh was directed to get the postmortem conducted and hand over the body of the deceased to her relatives.
(123) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he did not prepare any seizure memo in his handwriting and has voluntarily explained that the seizure memo was prepared in his presence. He has deposed that he visited the various portion of the property which includes ground floor and the first floor where the said lady was found hanging with the ligature. He has further explained that the main thing was that the victim was hanging and he does not remember about the other articles lying at the spot and states that he did not make any record of his observation. According to him, the police officials brought the dead body down from the ligature in his presence but he does not know the name of the police official nor he remembers the number of knots on the ligature and states that the knots of the ligature were not opened and it was cut from the above and has voluntarily explained that the entire ligature material was brought down along with the dead body. He witness has deposed that the ligature material was not cut in two pieces. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 102 He does not exactly remember whether any portion of the saree (ligature material) was sealed. He has deposed that the dead body was removed from the site in his presence. He has further deposed that the dead body was taken to the hospital for postmortem. According to him, the police officials took the dead body to the hospital. He does not remember as to whether any other articles was also seized by the police officials in his presence. He also does not remember to have seen any other paper in the room and has voluntarily explained that when he reached the spot, he was told that some suicide note was found in the room of the victim. He admits that when he reached the spot, many people specially the relative of the victim were present there and they were highly agitated. According to him he did not notice the accused being beaten by the relatives of the victim. He also does not remember whether Smt. Asha Jain (mother in law of victim), Sh. Rishi Prakash Jain (Father in law of deceased) and husband of the deceased were present at the spot or not. (124) The witness has further deposed that the statement Ex.PW1/A and the documents Ex.PW9/B are not in his handwriting and has stated that he directed Mr. Ansari to record statement of Ashok Jain and has voluntarily explained that he was writing the statement in his presence and whatever was told by the complainant was recorded. According to the witness, he does not recollect orally whether he prepared any document in his own handwriting on 30.04.2008 but at the end of the statement he made his endorsement vide Ex.PW12/A. He State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 103 does not recollect if it is in his own handwriting he wrote any other document on 30.04.2008 and has stated that after seeing the whole file and after checking the same, stated that the brief facts of the case were prepared in his own handwriting which is Ex.PW28/K. Witness has admitted that he did not prepare the document Ex.PW28/K on 30.04.2008 and the same was prepared on 01.05.2008. He admits that he visited the site for holding an inquiry U/s 176 Cr. P. C. (125) Ld. Defence Counsel had put a question to the witness if in the said inquiry he was to determine the cause of death of the deceased. The witness has answered that he was to make an inquest into the circumstances of the case. He further explained that on reaching the site and after having recorded the statement of the father of the deceased he found that a prima facie case was made out and he made an endorsement to this regard on Ex.PW12/A. He has further deposed that the statement of Sh. Ashok Jain S/o Sh. Jagjot Prasad Jain, father of the deceased Astha, has been recorded before him in the hand of Tehsildar M Z Ansari. He further deposed that as per the statement a prima facie case U/s 498A and 304 B IPC was made out. According to him, the Register the FIR and proceed with the investigations. He has further deposed that as the case was marked to the police for further investigation, his role in the investigation ceased to exist.
(126) On a further question, the witness has admitted that Ashok Jain did not claim to him that he had actually seen the incident of State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 104 hanging and infact told him that he had came later to the spot. (127) On further question, if by making recommendation Ex.PW12/A, he (witness) abdicated from the responsibility enjoined upon he (witness) U/s 174 R/w Section 176 Cr. P. C., which the witness has denied that has explained that the legislation requires that there should be a proper examination of the case. He has further stated that since a prima facie the case was made out, he marked the case to the police and felt that as usual the matter will ultimately come before the Judicial Officers, the matter will get Judicial scrutiny. (128) The witness has admitted that he did not prepare any report on cause of death in his handwriting except the brief facts of the case which is Ex.PW28/K. Witness further admits that Ex.PW28/K he had written for the purpose of postmortem examination. Witness has also deposed that Sh. M Z Ansari, Tehsildar was an independent officer who had come to conduct an inquest in the case but due to the violence and other disturbance at the spot sh. Ansari called him and expressed his inability to conduct the inquest and hence he had to come to the site and take over the inquest. He has deposed that such incidents are not common and hence he does not remember exactly as to in how many cases he has recorded the statement on his direction. He has denied that the statement Ex.PW1/A of Ashok Jain was recorded at the instance of the relatives and associates since Ashok Jain was in a disturbed state of mind. He does not remember if media persons were present at the spot. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 105 (129) Ld. Counsel asked the witness if his statement Ex.PW30/DX1 portion marked A to A has been recorded correctly, to which the witness has replied that it is not recorded correctly and has explained that the media persons were waiting outside the house and they may have recorded the events. Ld. Counsel further asked the witness if it was correct that he did not gave statement portion A to A of Ex.PW30/DX1 on which the witness has clarified that he did not state to the IO the portion A to A of Ex.PW30/DX1.
(130) Witness has denied that he did not conduct any inquest himself on 30.04.2008 and the later, on the statements recorded by Mr. Ansari, made his endorsement. He further denied that he did not discharged his duties as enjoined by the statute.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(131) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to the accused which they have denied. (132) The accused Rishi Prakash has stated that the present case has been registered at the instance of Ashok Jain and his associates and on account of fear of mob and media who were present at the site.
According to him, the deceased Astha since the date of the marriage lived happily with them and she visited Simla, Jaipur and Manali along with Amit in their own car. He has further stated that the deceased State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 106 along with son Amit and the family members of the deceased i.e. Ashok Jain also visited Jain Teerth i.e. Tijara Ji, Shri Mahavirji, Hastinapur in their own car and also attended the Nautni of various relatives. According to him, the deceased was not conceiving and wanted an early child due to which reason the deceased was depressed. She was taken for treatment to Jain Fertility Clinic and also Apolo Clinic Pitapura and the doctors had prescribed medicine like alprax. He has also stated that he was told by his son Amit after the death of the deceased that they had planned a huge party on the occasion on their first marriage anniversary but since his wife was suffering from various ailments including diabetes, high blood pressure, knee pain, thyroid, the said plan was not disclosed to them. He has further stated that the deceased was depressed on account of that also. According to him, in order to keep the deceased happy, an Innova car was booked in the name of the Company on 25.4.2008 and the Delivery of the said car was taken on the marriage anniversary day. He has stated that although the deceased was having a mobile phone, another mobile phone was purchased for her. According to the accused, Amit Jain also took her on 29.4.2008 to Citi Park Hotel Pitampura for dinner so that she may not have a depressed mood. He has also stated that on 30.4.2008 all the male members of the family were sent happily along with tiffin box and they went to Factory at Bhiwari. According to the accused, his wife was fond of good quality food and she was insisting Astha who was not perfect in matter of good quality State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 107 food. He has further stated that his wife insisted Astha to have supervision and control over the servants in the kitchen and also directed her to learn good quality cooking so that she remains busy and does not get depressed on account of nonconceiving. He has also stated that his wife was having glasses of high power which at times Astha and Amit told that she was feeling that his wife was starring at her. According to the accused, the deceased had informed both her brother and sister as well as cousins of deceased about the grand party being given on the first marriage anniversary which could not take place and hence it seems that brothers, sisters and cousins who were regular visitors to her, taunted her on account of which she might had committed suicide. (133) The accused Amit Jain has similarly stated as that of his father. He has further stated that the case has been made on account of bias against them by the Investigating Officer and also on account of fear. He has stated that the Investigating Officer had not acted fairly and even though in the alleged suicide note, the deceased had favoured him and had spoken much about him goodness.
(134) The accused Jugal Kishore has corroborated the statements of his father Rishi Prakash and brother Amit Jain and has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (135) The accused Praveen Jain and Renu Jain have stated that they have been made accused by the Investigating Officer at the instance of Ashok Jain and his associates and fear of mob and media. According State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 108 to them, since Praveen Jain was a mediator to the marriage, therefore he and Renu on account of ailment of the Smt. Asha Jain took active part in arranging the articles for establishing the matrimonial home of Amit. (136) The accused Amit Jain has examined himself as DW1 as his own witness, wherein he has stated that they have a factory in Bhiwari for manufacturing of stainless steel and he looks after the work of production in the factory whereas his father looks after sale, purchase and finance in respect of the above said factory and his brother Jugal Kishore helps them. According to the accused their factory turn over for the year 20062007 was approximately 20 crores and 37 crores in year 20072008. He has further stated that the Mausi, Mosa namely Vimal Jain of his deceased wife had proposed the marriage with him to her before his Jijaji Parveen Jain and his sister Renu Jain since the Mausaji and Mausiji of his deceased wife are the neighbors of his jijaji and his Sister at Shakti Nagar. He has testified that his Jija Parveen Jain was the mediator to the marriage and the rokka took place on 25.02.2007 at Regal Palace after which the marriage was fixed for 29.04.2007. He has also deposed that before the marriage his father wanted that the new bride should be brought home in a new Mercedes and as per the desire of his father, his brother Jugal Kishore booked the Mercedes car in the month of March and for the balance payment of the vehicle their company took a loan from State Bank of Patiala which payment was directly made to the showroom. He has also deposed that the entire State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 109 payment of the vehicle was made eightten days prior to the marriage. (137) He has also deposed that his elder brother informed him that he asked for delivery of the car directly to the marriage pandal to ensure that there is no damage to the car and since none from his family was present in the pandal hence when the delivery man came to deliver the vehicle, his father in law who was present in the pandal took the delivery and they never made any demand of Mercedes or any other car during the marriage. He has also deposed that after his marriage his mother remain continuously unwell and it is his wife Astha who used to attend to her for medicines etc. According to him, many a times on account of her ailment she used to become illtempered and under the given circumstances if his mother used to say anything to Astha, it hurt her. He has also deposed that his mother was suffering from diabetes, thyroid, over weight, blood pressure, tuberculosis and heart problem and apart from the problem of his mother, Astha wanted a child early. According to the witness, he had had consulted 23 doctors in this regard and initially he had consulted his family doctor Dr. Parveen Jain but he informed that there was nothing serious and in due course Astha can bear a child. He has testified that they also went to Jain fertility hospital, Rohtak and also consulted Apollo clinic at Pitampura and the doctor prescribed certain medicines to her and doctor had also advised her to come on the next date. He has also deposed that they again went to the doctor on the prescribed date i.e. in the first week of April and some State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 110 sedatives were prescribed by the doctor, the certified copy of prescription of Apollo clinic is EX PW28/DX10, next LMP after 02.04.2008 was 29.04.2008 which he came to know in the night of 29th and 30th April, 2008.
(138) He has further deposed that his first marriage anniversary was on 29.04.2008 and on this occasion he and Astha wanted to have a party where they wanted to invite their close relatives i.e. belonging to both the families and also decided to celebrate the birthday of Abhishek, the brother of Astha. He has testified that on account of ailment of his mother he could not talk to his parents and the programme failed. The witness has also deposed that fourfive days before the anniversary he booked a new Innova car and on the date of the anniversary he along with Astha went and took the delivery of the car and then purchased a new mobile for Astha on the same day and then they went to City park and had food there. According to the witness, on 30.04.2008 at around 8:30 AM his father had gone to Bhiwari and his elder brother went to ICD Dadri and at around 11:30 AM he also left for Bhiwari and only Astha, his mother and the servants Tilak and Meera were at home. He has also deposed that at around 2 PM he had received a call from his mother in law Rajni Jain informing that Astha appeared to be very troubled and therefore he and Astha should visit them in the evening on which he telephoned at his home on the mobile of Astha but no body picked up his repeated calls and then he called up his mother and came State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 111 to know about the incident. He has testified that he then called up his brother and father and asked them to reach home and he also immediately rushed back home but before he could actually reach back, he received a call from home that about 200300 persons had gathered at their house and were highly agitated and if he come home there is possibility of his being lynched and therefore he did not reach home. (139) The accused has further stated that all the shopping for his marriage had been done by his sister Renu Jain and some times he accompanied her and sometimes Astha was accompanied by her mother and sisters. According to him Astha was regularly accompanying his sister and during the marriage ceremony Astha wanted the lehngas of her choice, she was found of Mahroon color and had picked up both lehngas of Mahroon color for the various ceremonies but his sister advised her to choose different colors and hence even after the marriage on many occasions Astha often told him that even in the marriage she was not allowed to choose the lehngas of her color choice. He has also deposed that on the date of the incident he was informed by his mother that Astha had asked her (i.e. mother) to take lunch on two or three occasions but she had refused on account of which Astha had become a little irritable. He has testified that his mother was diabetic and she felt hungry frequently and after the insulin injection was administered she had to be given something to eat within 15 minutes which she often skipped and that is why Astha became irritable. He has placed on record State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 112 the prescriptions and tests related to his mother which are collectively Ex.DW1/A (running into 133 pages). According to him, there has been no demand of any kind from the family of Astha either from his side or from the side of his sister Renu Jain including diamond set or saree. He has testified that he had never made any demand of gold chain for himself, ring for his father or any other gold ornaments for his mother. The witness has also deposed that his mother i.e. the deceased Asha Jain had never made any demand of any kind and even before twenty days of the incident no demand was made by his family from the family of Astha, rather he had purchased a flat in her name about 20 days before the incident. He has deposed that no demand of Rs.20 lacs was made 20 days before the incident nor there was any payment of Rs.10 lacs from the parents of Astha, 10 days before the incident. According to the witness, he had gone out with his in laws to various places i.e. Hastnapur along with his parents in laws, his sister in law Aditi Jain, his brother in law and his wife; Shikarji Bihar and also frequently used to go out for having food with the family of his in laws within the city. According to him, he had also attended the function of the marriage anniversary of his parents in law at Moti Mahal, Connaught place. He has placed on record the papers regarding the purchase of Mercedes and Innova which are Ex.DW1/B as well as Ex.PW16/DX1 to Ex.PW16/DX4 and already collectively Ex.PW28/DX8. He has testified that a false case has been instituted against him by his in laws on legal advised being aggrieved by State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 113 the unnatural death of Astha.
(140) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that he normally used to leave his house in the morning at around 10:3011 AM and reached back at around 99:30 AM and the Sunday was the closing holiday for him. According to the witness, it was his mother and his wife who inform him that his wife Astha used to take care of his mother. He has admitted that he took his wife Astha for treatment only in a private hospital and treatment centers. He has also deposed that he did not take his wife to any government Hospital of repute including Ganga Ram Hospital or St. Stephen hospital etc. and has voluntarily explained that it was on her asking he was taking her to various hospitals. He has denied the suggestion that he never took his wife for treatment in any private hospital as claimed by him or that he had managed the fabricated record of the treatment of his wife only to create a defence for himself in the case. He has also denied the suggestion that the entire payment of Mercedes had been made by his in laws prior to the marriage in cash or that it was a precondition that the Mercedes would be booked in the name of the company after creating a fresh account. He has also denied the suggestion that there was repeated demand of jewelery, cash and other articles including Rs.20 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs by his family members including his mother and sister. He has further denied the suggestion that his wife Astha was being frequently taunted for bringing insufficient dowry and not meeting the expectations State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 114 of his family on account of which she was harassed mentally or that even prior to the marriage there were serious issued raised by his family just a few days before the marriage regarding the dowry. He has also denied the suggestion that the treatment meted out to his wife Astha in the family was not proper or she often complaint about the same to her parents and brothers, sisters or that his mother frequently abused and ill treated Astha and he never stood up this behaviour. He has denied that he is deposing falsely on legal advise and tutoring only to save himself on legal touring.
FINDINGS:
(141) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(142) In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned the same is not disputed. The accused Amit Jain is the husband of the deceased Astha Jain, Rishi Prakash Jain is her father in law, Praveen Jain is her Nandoi, Renu Jain is the Nanand, Jugal Kishore is the elder brother of accused Amit Jain and the accused Asha Jain (since expired) was the mother in law of the deceased. The accused have not disputed State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 115 their identity and have been identified in the Court as such. Therefore, I hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Death within seven years of marriage:
(143) It is an admitted case of both the prosecution and the accused that the marriage of Ms. Astha Jain was solemnized with the accused Amit Jain on 29.4.2007 as per the Hindu rites and customs and she expired an unnatural death on 30.4.2008 at her matrimonial house at F/U156, Pitampura, Delhi. Therefore, it stands established that Smt. Astha Jain had expired within seven years of marriage precisely within one year of the marriage.
Medical Evidence:
(144) The case of the prosecution is that on 30.4.2008 the deceased Smt. Astha Jain was found hanging with the ceiling fan in her matrimonial home and had expired. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimony of Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal (PW25). (145) Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal (PW25) has proved that on 01.05.2008 at about 11:45 AM he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Astha Jain, W/o Sh. Amit Jain which was found dead by the police in hanging position on 30.04.2008. He has proved that on external examination there was one read printed saree cloth piece found round the neck with double knot on the right side of neck and there was State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 116 ligature pressures, abrasion mark around the neck running obliquely above the apple of adam, slightly depressed and parchmentised over front and about 2.5cm wide with diffused margin; the left side of neck ligature mark was running slightly downwards initially and then turned upwards reaching to back of neck ending into hair just before midline back of neck; on the right side ligature mark was running upwards from front and ended into hair just at mastoid process area and on left and right sides ligature marks was not uniformly parchmentised but interrupted at places where it was faint and diffused. He has also proved that the margins were diffused all over and width was ranging between 2.53 cm and the skin above and below was echymosis and no other external injury was seen.
(146) He has further proved that on internal examination the subcutaneous tissues underneath the ligature mark showed glistening white appearance with echchymosis at margins and there was no extravasation or muscular bruising were seen in the neck layers and all neck structures were intact and there was frothy blood tinged discharged in the trachea. He has also proved that the cause of death was kept pending as blood and viscera were preserved for chemical analysis and the time since death was opined about 2122 hours. The detailed postmortem report in this regard is Ex.PW25/A. (147) Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal (PW25) has proved that on 24.08.2008 after receipt of FSL report showing the negative test for State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 117 common poison in blood and viscera, he opined that the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ligature pressure over neck structures and postmortem findings were consistent with ligature hanging and ligature mark was ante mortem in nature caused by some soft ligature material and was possible by the Saree piece found around the neck. He has proved his subsequent opinion in this regard which is Ex.PW25/B. (148) Therefore, it stands established that the death of the deceased Smt. Astha Jain was due to asphyxia consequent upon ligature pressure over neck structures on account of antemortem hanging. However, the Autopsy Surgeon has not opined as to whether it was a suicide or homicidal death and it is for the Court to ascertain the same on the basis of Postmortem Report. I may observe that the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased Smt. Astha Jain was obliquely placed above the apple of adam, thereby showing that the hanging was Suicidal. Further, there were no external injury marks on the body of the deceased and hence, I hereby hold that the death of the deceased Smt. Astha Jain was on account of suicidal hanging.
Forensic Evidence:
(149) Dr. Adesh Kumar (PW11) Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) has proved the chemical analysis report which is State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 118 Ex.PW11/A according to which no common poison was detected in Ex.
1A (stomach and piece of the small intestine with contents kept in a sealed jar), Ex.1B (piece of liver, spleen and kidney kept in the sealed jar) and Ex.1C (reddish brown colour liquid volume approximately 30.0 ml., kept in a sealed bottle).
(150) Further, it is the case of the prosecution that when the police reached the spot they found the deceased Smt. Astha Jain hanging on the ceiling fan with a saree and a suicide note was also found in the room near the bed. The said suicide note was then taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the Investigating Officer obtained the admitted handwriting of the deceased in the form of specimen card sheet of bank, cheques account opening form, customer relation informations of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Form No. 16, passport and two note books of Smt. Astha Jain. All the above documents along with the suicide note were then sent to the FSL for comparison and the FSL Report confirms that the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased Smt. Astha Jain. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimony of Sh. Anurag Sharma (PW26) and the report proved by him.
(151) Sh. Anurag Sharma (PW26) has proved having examined the above documents and opinioned that the writings and signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q3, A8 to A11, A108, A110 to A128 all were written by one and the same person which report is Ex.PW26/A State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 119 (running into three pages). He has proved that Q1 and Q2 is the handwriting of deceased Astha Jain which is Ex.PW18/A and Q3 is the signature on the bottom of the Ex.PW18/A (Q2). The standard documents sent by Investigating Agency i.e. A1 to A128 are Ex.PW13/A collectively i.e. specimen card sheet of bank, cheques and account opening forms and customer relation informations of Oriental Bank of Commerce and form 16 and passport of Astha Jain is Ex.PW26/C and the two note books are Ex.PW26/D and Ex.PW26/E which were examined by him.
(152) An objection has been raised by the Ld. Defence Counsels with regard to the exhibition of these documents i,e, Passport and Account Opening Form of Oriental Bank of Commerce on the ground that they cannot be read into evidence. I find this objection totally baseless since they are documents containing the admitted handwriting of the deceased Astha Jain which cannot be disputed. Even otherwise, mere exhibition of a document does not perse tantamount to its proof and it is a settled law that the said document is required to be proved in accordance with law and in the present case the accused have not disputed the admitted handwriting of the deceased. Rather, the suicide note/ questioned handwriting was recovered in the presence of Amit Jain and is confirmed to be in her handwriting. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that the Suicide Note was written by the deceased Astha Jain. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 120 Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(153) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Ms. Astha Jain was solemnized with the accused Amit Jain on 29.4.2007 as per the Hindu rites and customs after which she started residing at her matrimonial house i.e. House No. F/U156, Pitampura, Delhi. Soon after her marriage she was harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry on account which she committed suicide on 30.4.2008 and died an unnatural death. The deceased Smt. Astha Jain had left a suicide note wherein she blamed her mother in law for her miseries. Soon after the incident when the information was sent to the family of the deceased, they reached the spot highly agitated and there was an incident of stone pelting at the house of the accused. This was covered by the Media and the case was registered on the statement of the father of the deceased namely Ashok Kumar Jain recorded by the SDM of the area i.e. Sh. B.S. Thakur (PW30).
(154) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 121 contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be.
Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 122 constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(155) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(156) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
(157) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 123 death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
(158) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 124 marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(159) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 125 or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
(160) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 126 made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(161) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties".
This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 127 (162) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 128 meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure....."
(163) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(164) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 129 then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman. (165) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
(166) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 130 easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
(167) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 131 (168) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(169) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 132 of that doubt........
It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(170) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
(171) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 133 agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."
(172) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (173) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, at the very Outset I may observe that all the star witnesses of the prosecution including the parental family of the deceased and her father namely Ashok Kumar Jain (PW1) on whose statement the FIR State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 134 Ex.PW9/A was registered have not supported their earlier versions regarding the demand of dowry or harassment. The instances of harassment so alleged by the prosecution are as under:
1. Before two days of marriage the father of the boy telephones to the complainant that the demand of the boy was of Mercedeze Car instead of Hone City Car and if the Mercedez Car is not given, the marriage procession will not come, after which the arrangement of the Mercedez Car was then made.
2. After marriage different kinds of demands started pouring in from the whole family including MamaMani (Kosiwale) and Nanand Nandoi.
3. On the occasion of Diwali sets of diamonds and utensils of silver were demanded for the above relatives and the deceased was harassed and beaten. The deceased was threatened to bring all aforesaid articles from her parents else she would be killed.
4. The days before the incident the deceased told that her in laws were demanding Rs. Twenty Lacs and on 25.4.2008 after collecting Rs. Ten Lacs the same were handed over to the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Prakash and Asha Jain.
(174) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined Ashok Kumar Jain (PW1) who is the father of the deceased; Rashmi Jain (PW18) mother of the deceased; Jagjot Prasad Jain (PW17) the State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 135 grandfather of the deceased; Sudesh Jain (PW19) brother in law of Ashok Jain; Subhash Jain (PW20) the sadhoo of Ashok Jain and Narender Jain (PW21) the brother of Ashok Jain who all have not supported the prosecution case.
(175) Ashok Kumar Jain (PW1) who is the father of the deceased has very specifically stated that her daughter Astha Jain was residing at her matrimonial house peacefully and there was no demand from the side of her inlaws and has turned completely hostile. He has denied the contents of his statement made to the SDM including the demand of Mercedes Car or the threat to the deceased regarding the marriage being called off in case if the demand does not meet; or that there was a demand of car and other articles and of Rs.28 lacs or that the deceased was harassed/ tortured due to which she had committed suicide. He has also denied that police recorded his statement on 04.5.2008 though he admits that he had told to the police in his statement that in their Jain Samaj, there is a custom to pay cash amount to the relatives of bridegroom to purchase dowry articles and they used to purchase all the articles in their names out of agreed marriage expenses. He has also admitted that he had told to the police that he had planned to present a Honda City car to his soninlaw at the time of marriage but has denied that there was a demand of Mercedes car.
(176) Secondly now coming to the suicide note left by the deceased which suicide note is Ex.PW18/A recovery of which has been State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 136 duly proved by Inspector Puran Chand and proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased. The only allegations of infliction of cruelty made in the said suicide note is against the accused Asha Jain the mother in law of the deceased and there are no allegations of any kind of dowry demand. I reproduce the said suicide note as under:
"....... Main Aastha jain apni maut ke liya sirt aur sirf apni saas ko hi jimmedar tehrathi hu. Main raat din ke tane sun sun kar pak chuki hu.Is ghar me ek bhi din aisa nahi gaya jis din mai rai nahi hun. Jab dekho us aurat ka muh chadha hi rehta hai. Kabhi bhi mere kisi kam se kush nahi hoti hamesha apni badi beti ke kehna me chalti hai. Jaisa woh keh de wese hi muh chadha leti hai. Rat din mujhe tane marti hai. Appne Beto ke aage to aisa dikhati hai jaise ki mujse payara aur koi hai hi nahi aur unke jate hi Nagin ban jati hai. Har wakt tokte rahti hai tano bhari galiya deti rehti hai. Main is ghar mai pagal ho jaungi. Is liya main is Narak se bahut dur ja rahi hun. Main janti hun ke meri Mummy Papa ko Bahut dukh hoga. Par Mummy main ghutghut kar nahi raah sakti. Yahan par mera dum ghutha hai. Main is ghar main pagal ho jaungi. Amit se kehna ki dusri sadi kar le par apni patni ko is aurat se bachakar rekhe verna ya to wo meri tarah mar jaygi ya to fir babhi ke tarah ghar se chali jaygi. Main Amit ke bina nahi rah sakti par is aurat ke sath bhi mera rehna mushkil hai. Meri sadi ko ek saal ho gaya hai. Par abhi tak maine sasural ka sukh nahi dekha aur wo sirf is aurat ke wajah se. Mere marne ke baad mera saman mere ghar walo ko de dena Main apna koi saman bhi is aurat ke ghar mai nahi chati.Mere kepde Gehne ,Kapde Chudiya photo sab kuch main is ghar main apna koi bhi saman nahi State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 137 chathi aur mere marne ke bad yeh aurat meri laash ko bhi hath nahi lagaigi Warna meri aatma bhatakti rahegi. Mummy main ja rahi hun. Samajhna aapki do nahi ek hi beti thi sada kush rehna aur Anu ki Sadi dekhbhal kar karna warna wo bhi meri terah hi dukhi rehegi. Apna khayal rekhna......"
(177) It is writ large from the above suicide note that the deceased Astha Jain was having an extreme sense of hatred for her mother in law Asha Jain who according to her used to regularly taunt her. I am sure had there been any harassment of torture on account of dowry demand, the deceased would mentioned the same. On the contrary she had given a clean chit to her husband Amit Jain and also wished that he should re marry but to ensure that he should not subject her second wife to his mother. Here, I may observe that Smt. Asha Jain (the deceased mother in law of Astha Jain) was suffering from multiple ailments at the time of the incident. She was a patient of High Blood Pressure and was Diabetic. Even Inspector Puran Chand (PW28) has admitted that she had to be hospitalized on account of her chronic ailment. (178) Thirdly both the families i.e. the family of the accused and the family of the complainant are financially well off and belong to the higher strata of the society. The testimonies of the family members of the deceased show that they had themselves given a large number of expensive gifts to the deceased which cannot be termed as dowry. State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 138 (179) Fourthly in so far as the mother of the deceased i.e. Smt. Rajni (PW18) is concerned, initially in her testimony she had narrated that her daughter had told her to take her back since the accused were demanding Rs.20 lacs whereas they had given only Rs. 10 lacs due to which reason her inlaws were very annoyed. However, soon therefore she stated that she does not recollect if Astha told her over telephone that her inlaws were demanding Rs.20 lacs. Hence, it is writ large that the allegations made by her are only when the Ld. Addl. PP put leading question to her but soon in her crossexamination she had turned hostile and stated as under:
"....... I do not recollect if Astha told me over the telephone that her in laws had demanded Rupees twenty lacs and we had only given them Rupees ten lacs only due to which reason they were annoyed and were not talking to her and on one pretext or the other were pressing her to get Rupees ten lacs from us. Bahut dari hui thi or ghabra rahi thi or kah rahi thi mami mujhe lejao....."
(180) Therefore, it is evident that Smt. Rajni Jain (PW18) does not even meet the requirement of law and cannot be held to be sufficient to draw an inference in respect of demand of dowry. She is not an eye witness to the alleged demand and is a witness of hearsay. She did not accompany her husband while making the payment of the demand nor State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 139 the said payment was made in her presence. She does not even recollect if Astha Jain had told her about the alleged demand of Rs. 20 lacs. On the one hand she claimed that it was her husband i.e. Ashok Kumar Jain who had given Rs. 10 lacs to the accused whereas on the other hand Ashok Kumar Jain has denied having given such money. Also, in the supplementary statement dated 11.7.2008 the complainant Ashok Kumar Jain has stated that on 25.4.2008 he arranged Rs. 10 lacs and also took Rs. 5 lacs from his father. Here, I may observe that Sh. Jagjot Prasad Jain (PW17) the father of the complainant does not support this story of the complainant of his taking Rs. 5 lacs. Smt. Rajni (PW18) is totally an oscillating witness and her testimony does not find any confirmation or corroboration from any other source.
(181) Fifthly it has come on record that the accused had purchased two properties in the name of the deceased Astha Jain i.e. a flat near the residence of the deceased for the residence of the deceased had been acquired on 08.04.2008 just 22 days before the death incurring several lacs rupees and another property was acquired in October, 2007 incurring several lacs. The photocopy of sale deeds have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/D1 and Ex.PW1/D2. The accused who have been acquiring properties in the name of the deceased would raise a demand of Rupees twenty lacs does not seem to be probable. Even on the date of the first anniversary the accused purchased an Innova Car worth lacs and purchased new mobile phone and accused Amit took the deceased Astha State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 140 Jain to City Park Hotel for dinner. Hence, under the given circumstances the allegations regarding the demand of dowry does not appear to be probable and believable.
(182) Sixthly in so far as the allegations regarding the demand of Mercedes Car is concerned, the accused have placed on record the photocopy of the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/ dated 20.03.2007 by which the Mercedes Car was booked, receipt dated 24.04.2007 by which payment of Rs.96,145/ was made to M/s. TT Motors; the statement of account of TT Motors regarding the Mercedes Car which reflects full payment of the Car and also the cheque of Rs.21,50,000/ of State Bank of Patiala from which Bank the loan was taken in the name of the Kesri Steel, the factory of the accused, which amount was paid to TT Motors; Check list of delivery of car on 25.04.2007; statement of account of Bank of Patiala relating to M/s. Kesri Steels by which installments of car have been paid, thereby showing that the full payment of the car had already been paid by the accused on 25.04.2007. This fact has been duly proved by Naveen Chander Pant (PW15) from TT Motors who has proved that the car was ready for delivery on 25.4.2007. Therefore, the question of any demand of Mercedes Car by the accused on 27.04.2007 as alleged in the complaint therefore does not arise and even the complainant Ashok Jain has not supported the alleged story in his deposition but has supported the fact in his cross examination that the delivery of the car was taken on behalf of Jugal accused. The other State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 141 relatives of the deceased have not supported the alleged story. The explanation of the accused is probable that they had acquired the car on 25.04.2007 and intended to have the delivery of the car at the site of the marriage place so as to bring the new bride of family i.e. bride of accused Amit in the new car and hence the circumstances of harassment of demand of Mercedes car is not established. This circumstance is otherwise not possible since on 27.04.2007 God Bharai ceremony at Valentine Resort (all members of both families were celebrating the function there).
(183) Seventhly it was also alleged that initially different kind of demands relating to jewellery and other articles was raised by the MamaMami and NanandNandoi of the deceased but in the Court there are no such allegations. No specific allegations have been made in this regard. Further, there are allegations that on the occasion of Deepawli sets of diamonds and utensils of silver were demanded for the aforesaid relatives and the deceased was harassed and beaten on this count. It has been alleged that the deceased was threatened to bring all aforesaid articles from parents else she would be killed. In this regard, I may observe that Ashok Jain (PW1) has not supported the aforesaid fact in his deposition and only Smt. Rajni Jain (PW18) on cross examination by Addl. PP for the State stated that he told the above facts to the Investigating Officer. The relevant portion of her testimony is as under:
"......... It is correct that I had informed the IO that State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 142 my daughter Asha Jain had told me on phone on Teez Festival Renu Jain her Nand and Asha Jain mother in law demanded a diamond set and expensive sarees for themselves. It is correct that I had told the Investigating Officer that due to financial constraints we could not fulfill the demand on account of which Renu Jain and Asha Jain got annoyed with my daughter Astha and taunted her by saying 'tumahare ghar wale bilkul bhukhe or nange hai jo hamare liye set aur silk ki sarreean laker nahin aye'. It is correct that I told the police that Astha had also informed me that she was not allowed to go out any where whereas she herself used to call her daughter Renu Jain from Shakti Nagar and went out for three four hours regularly. It is correct that we had told the IO that during the Diwali festival we had given one diamond set and silver utensils to our daughter Astha. It is correct that I had told the IO that thereafter my son in law Amit had stated that he should have been given one chain father in law Rishi Prakash wanted one ring and mother in law and sister in law Renu Jain demanded sets during Diwali but since we could not meet their demand they became so annoyed that they did not speak to Astha for two three days and did not give her anything to eat......".
(184) However, in her crossexamination she has admitted that the deceased Astha used to talk to her on telephone and also admitted that the deceased Astha told her that she was living in her matrimonial house happily. She has also admitted in her cross examination that she was happy with her son in law and also admitted about the visit to holy State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 143 places along with her family and the deceased Astha and son in law Amit during the year of the marriage. She has further stated that the deceased did not make any complaint about her in laws when they went to Shikherji and she found that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial home. She has also admitted that Aditi (daughter of brother of Ashok Jain namely Narender Jain) was visiting the house of the deceased and found that the deceased was happy at her matrimonial home. She has specifically admitted that the deceased Astha Jam had no grievance against accused Amit, Rishi Prakash, Jugal Kishore, Renu and Praveen and that there was no demand of dowry from the side of accused persons.
(185) Eighthly I may observe that soon after the information was received by the parent of the deceased, they reached the matrimonial house of her daughter and being aggrieved by the death of the deceased they became aggressive and there was an incident of stone pelting. Even it has been admitted by the SDM that the situation was very hostile. In so far as the electronic evidence on record is concerned, it confirms that the male members of the family of the accused were not available at the place on incident. Rather, the electronic evidence does not assist the prosecution in any manner except to show that the deceased had been making frequent calls to her family members which rather confirms that the deceased was in regular touch with her parents.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 144 (186) Lastly the defence has also tried to raise a plea that the deceased was suffering from Depression, however before going into the merits of the same, I may observe that it is first the prosecution who is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence can only be looked into at a later stage. In the present case it has come on record that the couple i.e. Amit Jain and the deceased Astha Jain had completed the first year of their marriage but did not celebrate their first anniversary and this fact has been admitted by her parents who have stated that the deceased had informed them about the plan which they failed. It was one of the reason why she went into depression. It appears that the deceased was hyper sensitive to the day to day skirmishes of the matrimonial life. It may be noted that the deceased had committed suicide on the very next day of her first marriage anniversary and the possibility of her having gone into depression on account of the fact that she could not celebrate her first marriage anniversary, cannot be ruled out. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused Amit Jain and his father had left their house on 30.4.2008 in the morning at 11:30 AM and there was no male member of the family at home. The accused Asha Jain (since expired) was herself a chronic patient of diabetes and high Blood Pressure and was not much mobile. In her entire suicide note the deceased only referred to Asha Jain (deceased mother in law) and none else.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 145 (187) I may observe that 'Harassment' as contemplated under Section 498A Indian Penal Code includes both Mental and Physical. However, the postmortem report of the deceased does not show any sign of injury on the body of the deceased to substantiate the allegations that she had been beaten before the incident. Not every case of unnatural death of a woman within seven years of marriage is on account of harassment or demand of dowry. There can be many other reasons which can be attributed to this extreme act committed by the deceased/ victim compelling her to take her own life which would be peculiar to each case. In the present case it is clear from the evidence which has come on record in the form of oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Astha Jain had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Prakash, Praveen Jain, Renu Jain and Jugal Kishore. Also, the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Astha Jain or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused or cruelty inflicted upon her.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 146 FINAL CONCLUSIONS (188) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(189) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the identity of the accused stands established, the accused Amit Jain is the husband of the deceased Astha Jain, Rishi Prakash Jain is her father in law, Praveen Jain is her Nandoi, Renu Jain is the Nanand, Jugal Kishore is the elder brother of accused State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 147 Amit Jain and the accused Asha Jain (since expired) was the mother in law of the deceased. It also stands established that the marriage of the deceased Astha Jain was solemnized with the accused Amit Jain on 29.4.2007 which was an arranged marriage. It also stands established that Astha Jain died an unnatural death by hanging herself on 30.4.2008 i.e. within one year of marriage and the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent upon ligature pressure over neck structures due to antemortem hanging which is suicidal in nature.
(190) However, the allegations against the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Prakash, Praveen Jain, Renu Jain and Jugal Kishore of infliction of cruelty or causing harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, do not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house but prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. Also, the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of Astha Jain or any misconduct by the accused. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the above accused in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused.
State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 148 (191) I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that each of the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not been able to establish a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of the accused. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Prakash, Praveen Jain, Renu Jain and Jugal Kishore, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B/34. Their sureties be discharged as per rules.
(192) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 03.09.2014 ASJII(NW)/ROHINI State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 149 State Vs. Amit Jain FIR No. 246/2008 Police Station Shalimar Bagh 3.9.2014 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present on bail with Sh. P. Kumar and Sh. A. K. Jain, Advocates.
Heard oral arguments. Memorandum of arguments are already filed on behalf of the accused. Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ/NWII, Rohini/3.9.2014
4:00 PM
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present on bail with Sh. P. Kumar and Sh. A. K. Jain, Advocates.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dictated and announced in the open court but not yet typed, the accused Amit Jain, Rishi Prakash, Praveen Jain, Renu Jain and Jugal Kishore have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/304B/34. Their sureties be discharged as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ/NWII, Rohini/3.9.2014 State Vs. Amit Jain Etc., FIR No. 246/08, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 150