Delhi District Court
Fir No: 423/17, Police Station: ... vs Amarjeet @ Bhola on 13 December, 2022
FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
IN THE COURT OF VIPLAV DABASS: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE : FAST TRACK COURT: SOUTH-WEST
DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSW01-001650-2018
SC No. 06/2018
State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola, S/o Uday
Prasad, R/o Village Maniyara
PS Pariyya, District Gaya,
Bihar.
FIR No. 423/2017
PS Kapashera
Under Section 498A/304B/302 IPC
Date of Institution 11.01.2018
Date of committal to sessions 20.01.2018
court
Date of transfer to this court 08.09.2022
Date of Reserving Judgment 13.12.2022
Date of pronouncement 13.12.2022
Final Order /Judgment Convicted
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. On 05.10.2017, PW-3 ASI Sunder Singh, at about 6.15 am, received an information from control room that a dead body of Ms. Mamta Devi w/o Amarjeet was brought to Gurgaon Government Hospital. The said information was reduced in daily diary vide DD no.9A. The copy of the said 1/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola DD entry was handed over to ASI Naresh Kumar by constable Yograj PW8 for taking up appropriate action. The said DD No.9A is Ex. PW3/A.
2. After receiving DD No.9A, Ex. PW3/A on the same day i.e. 05.10.2017, IO ASI Naresh Kumar, who expired without being examined, along with Constable Sarvinder (PW19) reached the Government Hospital Gurgaon where ASI Naresh Kumar met the accused. The accused was interrogated and during interrogation he told the IO that his marriage was under seven years. Thereafter IO informed the concerned SDM, Sh. Mahesh Dutt, PW15 regarding the death of the deceased, Mamta Devi and dead body was got preserved in the mortuary. On the same day i.e. 05.10.2017, IO ASI Naresh Kumar informed the concerned SDM and parents of the deceased, Mamta Devi, regarding the death of the deceased who were residing in Bihar. The father of deceased, Jogender Prasad, PW2 told IO that it would take 2 to 3 days to reach Delhi as he was in Bihar.
3. On 09.10.2017, the father of the deceased, Sh. Jogender Prasad PW-2 along with his sister Sampti Devi, PW1 reached police station Kapashera. The IO ASI Naresh Kumar produced them before the Executive Magistrate PW15 Sh. Mahesh Dutt who recorded their statements. The statements of Jogender Prasad PW2 and Sampati Devi PW1 recorded by the Executive Magistrate PW15, Sh. Mahesh 2/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Dutt are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW1/A respectively. The Executive Magistrate Sh. Mahesh Dutt PW15 directed the IO ASI Naresh Kumar to enquire the matter and institute case against the culprits for penal action. The Executive Magistrate also initiated the proceedings under Section 176 CrPC.
4. On 09.10.2021, the Executive Magistrate Sh. Mahesh Dutt PW15 also got post mortem done on the body of the deceased at Civil Hospital Gurgaon vide PM report no. YSG/703/17. The said postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by Dr. Yudhvir Singh PW9 who opined that the cause of death in the case is ASPHYXIA FOLLOWING, ANTE MORTEM MANUAL NECK COMPRESSION and the PM report is Ex. PW9/B.
5. On 12.10.2017, the Executive Magistrate Sh. Mahesh Dutt PW15 vide order 12.01.2017 referred the matter to local police on conclusion of inquest proceedings U/s 176 CrPC for taking legal action. As an offence u/s 302 IPC was made out on the basis of statement of Sh. Jogender Prasad PW2 and MLC No.11368 dated 05.10.2017 and PM Report No.YSG/703/17, Ex. PW9/B. ASI Naresh Kumar sent a rukka, Ex. PW6/B dated 12.10.2017 for registration of FIR.
6. On 12.10.2017, the duty officer registered a formal FIR No.423 dated. 12.10.2017 U/s 302 IPC and the same is 3/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Ex.PW16/A. The further investigation was handed over to Inspector Ashish Dalal PW20.
7. IO Inspector Ashish Dalal PW20 conducted the major part of investigation in this case and somewhere in the month of November, he was transferred to another police station. Thereafter, this matter was given to IO Inspector Naresh Kumar PW18 for further investigation. After completion of investigation, IO Inspector Naresh Kumar PW18 submitted the charge sheet before the Hon'ble Court.
INITIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE
8. The Court of Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the above-said offence u/s 498-A/302/304-B IPC and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were complied and matter was committed to the Sessions Court. After hearing arguments, as a prime facie case was made out against the accused Amarjeet @ Bhola for offences punishable u/s 498- A/302/304-B IPC, charge was accordingly framed by the Ld. Predecessor Court against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
9. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
4/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
10. PW-1/Smt. Sampati Devi @ Gopi was bua of deceased/sister of father of deceased and PW-2 Sh. Joginder was the father of the deceased. Their testimonies will be discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment.
11. PW-3 ASI Sunder Singh was the Duty Officer posted at Police Station Kapashera on 05.10.2017 who proved the factum of lodging of DD No. 9-A and sending the true copy of DD No. 9-A Ex. PW-3/A to ASI Naresh and informing the SHO PS Kapashera.
12. PW-4 Ganesh Dass(friend/ coworker of accused), PW-6 Sh. Purushotam (caretaker of the house in one room of which accused was living with his wife) and PW-10 Satender (relative/ coworker of accused) are the witnesses who reached at the residence of the accused and took his to hospital along with him. Their testimonies will be discussed in detail in the later part of the judgment.
13. PW-5 Ct. Bijender was the MHCM at Police Station Kapashera, on 13.12.2017 who proved the factum of depositing of three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of GH Gurgaon vide RC No. 165/21/17(one pullanda) and RC No. 166/21/2017 (two pullandas) with FSL Rohini against acknowledgment of case property acceptance and that the exhibits remained intact and untampered while the same remained in his possession.
5/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
14. PW-6 Purshottam was caretaker of tenanted house of accused. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He deposed in his examination in chief that he was running a grocery shop at the tenanted premises owned by Aman, that he was caretaker of house of Sabhapati which is situated at about 100 meter away from his shop and he used to let out the house of Sabhapati to the tenant, that on 04.10.2017 accused was residing in the house of Sabhapati as a tenant, that at about 9.00pm he went to the house of Amarjeet in order to collect the rent where he met with his wife and one person was present in the said house and wife of accused informed him that accused had not reached at home at that time and he told him that he came to their room for collecting the monthly rent being caretaker and thereafter he went to the other tenants residing in the same building for collecting the rent and at about 10.00pm he again went to the room of Amarjeet where he met his wife and one another person and wife of accused told him that accused had not reached home and that thereafter he went to his house. He further deposed that and that on 05.10.2017 at about 4.00am. He received telephonic call of Satender who is brother-in-law (jija) of accused and he told him that wife of accused was not feeling well and requested him to reach at room of accused and Satender also told him that he was also reaching at the house of accused and he reached at the room of accused where his wife was lying in the cot and accused 6/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola told him that his wife was down with ailment (tabiyat kharab hai) and at the same time, Satender along with Ganesh also reached there and he along with accused Satender and Ganesh took the wife of accused to Janta Hospital at Salapur, that doctor in the hospital checked the wife of accused and advised them to take her in government hospital and that thereafter they took the wife of accused to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon where doctor examined her and declared brought dead and that he returned to his house. He further deposed that police reached at the house of accused.
Court permitted the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to cross examine the witness as the witness was resiling from his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State he denied that Satender telephonically informed him that accused made a call to Satender and informed that wife of accused was not breathing or that he had seen some injury mark on the neck of Mamta or that he narrated these facts to Inspector A. S. Dalal on 12.10.2017, that accused used to quarrel with his wife or used to say that 'mai kisi din tujhey jaan se maar dunga', that he had seen some injury marks on the neck of Mamta while victim was taken to the hospital, that no other person came to the room of accused on 04.10.2017 & 05.10.2017, that he came to know from the neighbours that accused used to quarrel with his wife/victim 7/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Mamta, that no person came to their room on the said aforesaid days/time, that accused also told him that no other persons had visited house of accused, that accused told that he along with his wife were present in the room on the intervening night of 4/5.10.2017, that he narrated these facts to Inspector A.S. Dalal on 12.10.2017, that he was deliberately and intentionally suppressing the material facts recorded in his statement Ex. PW6/A and that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused.
During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that he had taken 8 rooms in gali no.3, Salapur Khera colony, Bijwasan, Delhi from Sabhapati for a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month and he used to let out those rooms to the tenants. He admitted that the other tenants used to talk with Mamta and they used to enter in her room. He further deposed that when they had taken deceased Mamta to Janta Hospital, she was breathing.
15. PW-7 Sh. Sabhapati, was the owner of the tenanted property in one room of which accused used to live. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity. He proved that he has a house at Salapur Khadda Colony which he had given to one Purshottam/PW-6 on contract (theka) for Rs.18,000/- who had further let out one room of the said property to accused and his wife, and that on 06.10.2017, in the morning, he came to know that 8/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola wife of accused had expired as she was ill. He failed to identify the accused.
16. PW-8 Ct. Yog Raj was the constable posted at Police Station Kapashera on05.10.2017. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity. He proved the factum of handing over of DD no.9A regarding shifting of Mamta Devi at Civil Hospital, Gurugram brought dead. He proved that he handed over the same to ASI Naresh and Ct. Sarvinder at red light in front of PS Kapashera at about 6.25pm and also proved the factum of recording of his statement by IO.
17. PW-9 Dr. Yudhveer Singh, was posted as ASMO, General Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He proved the factum of conducting of postmortem of victim/deceased vide request letter of ASI Naresh Kumar Ex.PW9/A with inquest documents total 9 in number, factum of handing over of blood of deceased and vagina swabs in sealed condition with the seal of Mortuary GH Gurugram to IO and the factum of preparation of postmortem report Ex. PW9/B. He proved that the apparent cause of death was asphyxia ante mortem manual neck compression and that the time between the death and postmortem was approximately 3-5 days.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that there were marks available on the neck of 9/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola deceased but he did not take any photographs of the said marks, that there were struggle marks of nails appearing on the neck of deceased to save herself and there were no blood, skin particles in the nails of deceased and IO did not brought the accused to him for ascertaining if the marks over neck belonged to accused.
18. PW-10 Satender Prasad, who is jijaji of the accused. deposed that he was a tailor by profession. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel. He proved thatGanesh was his neighbour in Mullahera, that in the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 at about 4.00am accused telephoned him on his mobile and told him that his wife was not feeling well and her health was very critical and she was to be taken to hospital, that he called up Ganesh and Purshottam, that Ganesh came to him and they both went to Salapur where Purshottam and accused were found available at the gate of house of accused, that they went inside the house and saw that Mamta was lying on a cot in unconscious condition and was breathing, that they all took Mamta to Janta Hospital where doctor directed them to take her to Government hospital and where after checking Mamta, doctor declared her dead.
19. Court permitted the Ld. Addl. PP for State to cross examine the witness as the witness was resiling from his previous statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
10/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State he denied that he does not notice any marks on the neck of the victim.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that there was light in the house of accused and after finishing his work, they came to their room at Village Mullahera.
20. PW-11 HC Ramesh Kumar was the Draftsman in office of Mapping Section, Sector-17, Dwarka on 06.12.2017. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity. He proved the factum of preparation of rough notes at the spot and preparation of scaled site plan Ex.PW-11/A on 07.12.2017 as well as destruction of rough notes and the fact that measurement was done by him at instance of Investigating Officer.
21. PW-12 W/Ct. Sheetal was posted as CCTNS at Police Station Kapashera on 12.10.2017. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity. She proved the factum of typing of FIR by her, on receipt of rukka by Duty Officer and also proved that no tampering was made in the FIR during typing.
22. PW-13 HC Rajeev was the Head Constable posted at Police Station Kapashera. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He proved the factum of joining of investigation with IO/Inspector Ashish Dalal, 11/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola the fact that he along with Ct. Suresh and Ct. Jaswinder had gone to Village Salapur Khera, the fact of meeting two persons namely Satender and Ganesh, the fact that IO made inquires from them and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC and thereafter went to the house of accused, the fact that accused made disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW-13/A , the fact of arresting of accused by IO vide memo Ex. PW13/B, the fact of conducting of personal of accused vide memo Ex. PW13/C, the fact that accused led them to the place of incident, the fact of preparation of pointing out memo Ex. PW13/D, the fact of coming back to the police station along with accused, the fact of conducting of medical examination of accused at Safdarjung Hospital through Ct. Jaswinder and Ct. Sandeep, the fact of handing over of the medical documents of accused and custody of accused to IO at the police station by Ct. Jaswinder and Ct. Sandeep and the fact that accused was sent to JC by court and the fact of recording of his statement by IO. He had also proved the identity of the accused.
During his cross examination conducted on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel he deposed that on 12.10.2017 they proceeded from Police Station Kapashera to village Salapur Khera in the evening of 5.00pm and reached there within 15-20 mins, that thereafter they reached at the house of the accused after half hour. He denied that accused did not make any disclosure statement to IO, that all proceedings 12/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola were carried out in police station and being the subordinate of IO he had signed the documents at his instance and that he was deposing falsely.
23. PW-14 Dr. Rajdeep was posted as Medical Officer, PHC, Ghera Nuh, Mewat, Haryana on 05.10.2017. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. He proved the factum of attending the patient/deceased Mamta in casualty, the fact of preparation ofMLC report Ex.PW14/A, the fact that the patient was brought dead in casualty from Village Salapur Khera by husband of deceased namely Amarjeet.
24. PW-15 Mahesh Dutt was the Section Officer, posted at Directorate of Education, Lucknow Road, Delhi on 09.10.2017. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. He proved that he was posted as Executive Magistrate in Sub division of Kapashera. He further proved the factum of reaching the mortuary of Civil Hospital at request of SHO, the fact of inspecting the dead body of deceased Mamta upon identification by ASI, that fact of recording of statement of Joginder/father of deceased and endorsing his statement vide Ex.PW15/A, the fact of directing the SHO concerned to inquire and investigate the matter as per law, that fact that on his request, postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted, the fact of receiving of sample seal along with two jars containing the viscera of 13/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola deceased after postmortem, the fact of taking the same into possession by IO vide memo Ex.PW15/B, the fact of recording of statement Ex. PW-1/A of Smt. Sampati Devi and endorsing the same vide memo Ex. PW-15/C, the fact of filing form 25.35 i(b) as Ex. PW15/D, the fact of preparation of proceedings under Section 176 CrPC as Ex.PW15/E.
25. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that he had received information regarding death of Mamta 2-3 days prior to her post mortem and that he had recorded recorded statement of Joginder and Sampati.
26. PW-16 ASI Rajesh Kumar was Duty Officer posted at Police Station on 12.10.2017. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity. He proved the factum of receipt of rukka from SHO, the fact of registration of FIR Ex. PW-16/A on the basis of rukka, the fact of making endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-16/B, the fact of issuance of certificate under section 65-B Indian Evidence Act and the fact of handing over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Ashish Dalal.
27. PW-17 Ct. Jasvinder was posted as Constable at Police Station Kapashera. He proved the factum of accompanying IO/Inspector Ashish Dalal, HC Rajeev and Ct. Suresh to Salapur Khera. He proved his participation in the various steps taken during investigation and deposed on 14/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola lines similar to PW-13 HC Rajeev. He had also proved the identity of the accused.
During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that they reached to the house of Salapur Khera Village and met Ganesh and Satender at about 6.00am, that he does not remember how many storey were there in the house of accused, that he does not remember how many rooms were there in the house and how many persons were interrogated by IO at the house of accused and that he does not remember whether IO had recorded disclosure statement of accused or not.
28. PW-18 Inspector Naresh Kumar/2 nd IO was ATO posted at police station Kapashera. He proved the factum of receiving of further investigation of the present case on transfer of Inspector Ashish Dalal, the fact that he collected the case file from MHCR, the fact that he along with ASI Naresh and ASI Ramesh Kumar (Draftsman) went to the spot, the fact of preparation of scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A on his instructions by ASI Ramesh Kumar, the fact that on 13.12.2017on his directions Ct. Bijender collected the exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL Rohini, the fact of recording of statement of witnesses, the fact of filing of charge sheet in court, the fact of obtaining the FSL report and the fact of filing of supplementary charge sheet in court.
15/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that no tenant was residing at the ground floor at the time when the measurements were taken by ASI Ramesh Kumar for getting prepared scaled site plan, that there were three floors at the spot and tenants were residing thereon on the other floors, that he made enquiries from the tenants at the spot, that house owner was not residing at the said premises, that even the caretaker was also not residing at the said premises, that the had recorded the statement of initial IO/ASI Ramesh Kumar, that the detailed statement of ASI Naresh Kumar was recorded by Inspector Ashish Dalal and that ASI Naresh Kumar had not taken the finger prints from the neck of deceased. He further denied that he had not properly investigated the case or that he had mechanically filed the charge sheet against the accused.
29. PW-19 Ct. Sarvender was constable posted at Police Station Kapashera on 05.0.2017. He proved the factum of receipt of DD N0.6A, the fact that he along with ASI Naresh went to government hospital, Gurgaon, the fact that IO collected the MLC of deceased whose name was revealed as Mamta, the fact that husband of deceased/accused was also present at the hospital, the fact that ASI Naresh had made enquiries from the accused, the fact that the death was occurred within seven years of their marriage, the fact that ASI Naresh had informed to SDM and also to family 16/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola members of the deceased, the fact that the dead body was preserved at mortuary Gurgaon as the family informed him that they will come after 2-3 days and the fact that application was made by ASI Naresh Kumar for preservation of dead body Ex.PW19/A. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he does not know the contents of DD no.6A and that he does not know from where ASI Naresh Kumar received the said DD. He further denied that he was present when ASI Naresh Kumar received the said DD No. 6A. He admitted that they reached the Civil Hospital around 8/9 am on their bike. He testified that ASI Naresh Kumar had seen dead body of deceased Mamta and he had also seen the same. He further stated that he and IO/ASI Naresh Kumar had seen the marks on the neck on the dead body of deceased Mamta, that IO interrogated the accused regarding sign of injuries on the neck of deceased, that IO had not called any fingerprint/forensic expert and photographer to the hospital, that he had not gone to the house of the accused where the incident occurred and that IO had not arrested the accused.
30. PW-20 Inspector Ashish S. Dalal, IO deposed on the lines similar to PW-13. He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW20/A. He further deposed that ASI Naresh had done initial investigation from 25.10.2017 till registration of 17/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola case and had got conducted the postmortem and inquest proceedings and that ASI Naresh Kumar had expired last year. He stated that during the investigation, he was transferred and case file was handed over to MHCR.
During cross examination he stated that he did not remember at what time he had received investigation on 12.10.2017. He further deposed that on the ground floor where the accused resided as a tenant, there were neighboring rooms where other tenants were residing. He further stated that ASI Naresh had seen the dead body at the hospital. He volunteered stated that he had also seen the dead body in the mortuary on 05.10.2017. He further deposed that he reached at Government Civil Hospital, Gurgaon in the night of 05.10.2017 and had noticed marks on the neck on the dead body. He further stated that he had not gone to the house of the accused on 05.10.2017. He denied the suggestion that he had kept the accused in police station till 6.00 pm on 05.10.2017 and released him on the same day with the direction to come on the next date and that he regularly called the accused to Police station from 05/10/2017 to 11.10.2017 and that the accused was kept in police station on the night of 12.10.2017. He further stated that he had given direction to ASI Naresh to prepare proper inquest of deceased Mamta. He stated that he had not given any direction to ASI Naresh to get photograph of the marks on the neck of the deceased or for calling of any forensic 18/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola experts to examine the dead body of Mamta. He further stated that he had not asked the ASI Naresh Kumar why he did not call the photographer, finger experts and forensic experts to take the photographs of the injury marks present over the body of the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that prior to 09.10.2017 neither he nor ASI Naresh had seen the injury marks on the deceased. He further deposed that he did not remember on which date the postmortem report was received and he had not taken the accused before the postmortem doctor for obtaining the finger marks of the accused over the dead body of the deceased. He further stated that he had made inquires from the doctor at Janta Hospital where the deceased was first taken and he did not remember the name of said doctor and he had not written the statement of said doctor. He further stated that he did not remember at what time he proceeded from the police station to the residence of accused and whose statements he had recorded under Section 161 CrPC. He further denied the suggestion that he had recorded the disclosure statement by making force on the accused . He testified that he made inquiries from the father of deceased and he did not remember whether the father of deceased had specifically stated the date, month or year when the accused made demand of dowry. He further stated that he did not remember whether the father and bua of the deceased had made statement to me with regard to items given by them 19/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola in the marriage of deceased and accused. He further stated that he had not conducted the Lie Detector Test of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statements of public witnesses by putting them under fear and threat. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the case or he had not conducted the investigation fairly and properly or that the witnesses to the disclosure statement, pointing memo, arrest memo and search memo are subordinates to him or that they only signed at his instance after he prepared the same at police station.
31. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 27.02.2021 at the request of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
32. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence were put to accused and he replied that the facts alleged by the Prosecution are incorrect, that he is innocent, that he does not know, that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the witnesses were interested witnesses.
33. He stated in his defence that his marriage with the deceased was performed at Vishnu Path Mandir in a very simple manner by exchange of garlands with each other 20/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola without any dowry and no dowry articles were ever given by parents of the deceased Mamta and both he and his deceased wife had cordial relations full of love and affection. There was no demand of dowry at any point of time, as both families were poor. He further stated on 04.10.2017, he was on his work in the factory and worked there till 9.00pm and thereafter he left the factory along with coworkers Ganesh and Satender for Mullahera on feet and they reached room of Satender at Mullahera and as they were tired, all of them (him, Ganesh and Satender) took dinner in the room of Satender and slept there. At around 3.00am or 3.30am, Ganesh woke up and he also got him andSatender woke up and thereafter Ganesh left for his room in the same village Mullahera and he proceeded to his room at village Salapur, Khera. When he reached his room, he found his room was opened, light was on and his deceased wife was lying on the cot and he tried to wake her up but she did not respond and he sensed something wrong with his wife and immediate medical assistance was required and he called Satender to come to his room so that they will take his deceased wife to the doctor and Satender immediately called to Purshottam, caretaker of the rented house and told him to reach his room. Thereafter Satender and Ganesh also reached to his room. Thereafter, he along with Ganesh, Satender and Purshottam took his deceased wife to Janta Hospital, as his wife was unconscious and alive at that time. After 21/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola examination the doctors of the Janta Hospital, advised them to take her in a bigger hospital. He stated that since 05.10.2017 to 12.10.2017, he remained the custody of the police as Inspector Ashish Dalal asked him to come in the morning and released him in the night. He opted to lead defence evidence and hence the matter was fixed for Defence Evidence.
34. DW-1 Upender Kumar Sinha, who is alleged witness to the marriage of accused with deceased Mamta deposed that marriage of accused with deceased Mamta was solemnized in 2012 in a simple ceremony at Vishnu Padh Mandir, Gaya using jaimala ceremony only and no demand for dowry was made by accused or his family and no dowry was given by the family of Mamta to the family of accused with respect to said marriage and he had never heard about any allegation of harassment or beating inflicted upon Mamta with respect to any demands of dowry from accused.
During cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional PP for the State, he deposed that his village and accused were different and the distance between his house and accused house was nearby of different villages and he did not know when accused came to Delhi. He admitted that what talks were going on in the house of accused were not known to him. He further denied the suggestion that accused had not demanded any dowry from deceased or their family 22/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola members or that deceased family had not given any dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased. He stated that he came to the court at the request of family members of the accused. He further denied that on the request of accused he came to the court to make false deposition in order to save the accused.
35. DW-2 Anirudh Kumar deposed that as per his knowledge, the marriage of accused Amarjeet @ Bhola was performed with Mamta, daughter of Sh. Joginder Prasad in 2012 in a simple ceremony at Vishnu Pradham, Gaya using jaimal ceremony only, that no demand for dowry was made by Amarjeet @ Bhola or his family and no dowry was given by the family of Mamta to the family of accused Amarjeet @ Bhola with respect to the said marriage and that it never came to his knowledge that harassment or beating was inflicted upon Mamta with respect to any demands for dowry made by accused Amarjeet @ Bhola to victim or her family.
During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP For State witness deposed that he was 25 years of age, that in the year 2012 he was in 8th standard, that the distance between his house and accused house at their village was about 59 meters, that the marriage ceremony was started at 10.00 am and completed by 2 noon, that he had not attended the school on that day due to the said marriage, that he might have given the leave letter in school but he does not remember, he was never 23/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola called to sit in the talks when the elders used to talk, that he had no role of mediating the marriage of the parties, that he was not present when the parents of the parties met for finalising the nature of ceremonies, that he was not present when the parents of the parties discussed the expenditure to be incurred, or the number of guests to be called and the type of venue to be finalised for the marriage, that he met the parties to the marriage about one or two tiems after their marriage, that he had came to know that there was a case going on against the accused through his neighbours, that after knowing the same from the neighbours he came to court and that he came from his village along with Upender Singh. He denied that they had made a fabricated story in order to save the accused as the accused was his neighbour or that he was deposing falsely.
36. DW-3 Hari Lal deposed that on 04.10.2017, he was residing on the ground floor of the same builidng where accused and his wife were residing, that at about 9.30-10.00 pm when he came back from his tailoring job, he saw the door of the house of accused and his wife to be partly open and he could see a man sitting inside and he did not bother to check who it was and went to his room and subsequently, the landlord namely Purshottam came to collect rent which he paid to him and he then went to other tenants and after that he came back to him and asked him whether he had seen accused or that whether he had come back home and he 24/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola replied that he had not seen him and after that Purshottam left and he slept after having dinner.
During cross examination by Ld. Additional PP for the State this witness deposed that the person sitting inside the room was about 25 years old and was sitting on the floor and wife of accused was also sitting with him and he had never seen that person earlier. He had not seen accused going from his house on 04.10.2017 and he had seen the unknown person in the house of accused at about 10pm and thereafter he had not seen the house of accused. He was not having any suspicion over the said person at the house of accused and stated that he did not know the name of wife of accused and also did not know that person was relative of accused or his wife and whether the said person belonged to his locality or any other locality. He admitted that he had not approached police and not stated to the police about the presence of the said person in house of accused. He denied the suggestion that no unknown person was present at the house of accused on 04.10.2017 as such he had not stated the same to police. He denied the suggestion that he had come to the court at the request of relatives of accused in order to save accused from present case by making a false story. Thereafter accused closed defence evidence vide separate statement dated 19.03.2021 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
25/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola FINAL ARGUMENTS
37. Ld. Sub. Additional Public Prosecutor for State has argued that the prosecution has successfully established all the necessary ingredients for offences punishable under section 498-A IPC ie the unlawful demand of dowry in the form of cash and motorcycle made by the accused since the beginning of marriage of victim with him and the continuous cruelties ie beating as well as mental cruelties/harassment committed by the accused with the victim till she died. Ld. Sub. Addl. PP further argued that in addition to ingredients of the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC, it has also been established that the victim was being subjected to cruelty both physical and mental due to non fulfillment of unlawful demand of dowry since beginning of her marriage till death ie it was a continuous transaction during the said period which is sufficient proof of said illegal acts being committed by the accused soon before her death. He further argued that the prosecution has been successful in giving rise to the presumption provided under section 113 B Indian Evidence Act. He referred to the various omissions made by the accused at the time of recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the failure of the accused to explain his conduct and other circumstances which are relevant as per section 106 Indian Evidence Act being within his special knowledge as well as section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that the defence failed to rebut the said presumption even by leading the defence evidence as two witnesses were the hearsay 26/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola witnesses ie DW-1 and DW-2 and third witness is DW-3 is also of no help to rebut the presumption arising under section 304-B IPC which is evident from the grave contradictions in his testimony viz a viz the testimony of PW-6 who both were present in the house of the accused almost around the same time. He further argued that the testimonies of the public witnesses, medical witnesses along with the police witnesses have duly established the motive of the accused of the accused in murdering his wife by manual strangulation with the intention of causing death and knowledge that by doing that act death of the victim will be the final outcome of his act. He further argued that chain of the circumstances is complete which rules out existence of any hypothesis exculpating the accused. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Ld. Sub. Addl. PP submitted that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged with.
38. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel argued that there is no eye witness of the incident, that the circumstances conclusively indicating the guilt of the accused are not complete, that there are grave inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-1(bua of victim) and PW-2 (father of victim), that the police witnesses have also contradicted their versions in material particulars, that PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10 public witnesses) have turned hostile and that no scientific investigation was conducted by the investigation agency. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Ld. Defence counsel stated that the accused deserves to be acquitted.
27/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
39. Ld. Sub. Addl. PP for state per contra argued that accused was present in the house when the deceased died of homicidal death by strangulation and the alleged story concocted by the accused is found to be false by the testimony of prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the fact as to how the deceased died of homicidal death is with in the special knowledge of the accused Amarjeet @ Bhola but he has failed to give any plausible explanation for such death of the deceased. He argued that the inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies referred by the Ld. Defence counsel are not material to shatter the credit of the prosecution witnesses. So, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused who is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under section 498-A IPC, 304-B IPC and 302 IPC.
40. This court heard the Ld. (substitute) Additional PP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence counsel and perused the record and the written arguments.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONING
41. The case of the prosecution is that marriage of the accused and victim was solemanized on 26.12.2012. The accused used to harass victim/his wife for dowry and on 05.10.2017 the accused strangulated his wife to death by pressing her neck. The defence version is that the accused is innocent, that the accused was having cordial relations with his wife, that there was no demand of dowry ever made by the accused or his parents, that the accused never treated his wife with cruelty or harassed her in 28/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola relation to demand of dowry, that the accused was not present on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 and had reached his house at around 4.00 am-4.30 am only, that he found his wife ill and alive at that time, that the accused had taken the victim to the hospital on the day of incident to save her life but she was declared as brought dead and that his wife was killed by some unknown person.
42. It is settled proposition of law that facts admitted need not be proved. In the present case, this is an admitted fact that the accused was married to the victim on 26.12.2012 as per Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies. It is also an admitted fact that victim had died on 05.10.2017 which is within 7 years of the date of marriage. In the present facts and considering the charge, it is appropriate to refer to Section 302, 498-A and 304-B IPC and the presumption under section 113 B Indian Evidence Act which are reproduced as under:
a. Section 498-A IPC:- whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. b. Section 304-B IPC:- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise that under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.29/98
FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. ---When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. c. Section 300 IPC:- Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, which is punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty and fine as per section 302 IPC
43. Considering the ingredients of the aforesaid sections and the prosecution version, it is apt to state that the acts of cruelty and harassment with respect to demands of dowry are committed in private between the parties to marriage. In this case, admittedly the victim wife who would have been the best witness to establish her ordeal is dead. PW-1 and PW-2 are the Bua and father of the victim who have personally witnessed some of incidents of demands of dowry, cruelty/harassment committed on the person of victim due to non fulfillment of demands of dowry. However, with respect to other aspects, the testimony of these two witnesses becomes admissible based on principle of res gestae S.6 and dying declaration S.32 which are exceptions to principle of hearsay evidence. It may be noted that there is no eye witness to the incident which resulted into the death of victim. So, the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence in this regard. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is very well known by now and can be summarized as under:-
30/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv)the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." (See -Krishan vs. State, (2008) 15 SCC 430)
44. The Supreme Court in Sapna Talwar vs. State, 2011 (IX) AD Delhi 165 has observed:
"No doubt, the courts have also added two riders to the aforesaid principles namely, (i) there should be no missing link but it is not that everyone of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links can only be inferred from the proved facts and (ii) it cannot be said that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused, however farfetched and fanciful it may be. It is well established legal principle that in a case based on circumstantial evidenence where an accused offers a false explanation in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC in respect of an established fact, the said false denial could supply a missing link in the chain of circumstances appearing against him."
45. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations, this court now proceeds to discuss the testimonies of prosecution witness to see as to whether allegations levelled against accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
46. Testimony of PW1/ the Bua of the victim reveals that she specifically stated in her examination in chief that her 31/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola brother Joginder (father of the victim)/PW-2 arranged the money after selling his field for marriage of his daughter Mamta Devi, that her brother had given household articles in the marriage of his daughter Mamta Devi, that the accused used to harass and torture her niece Mamta on account of dowry, that he used to beat her niece Mamta and used to say that she had not brought much dowry, that he used to say that her niece was not doing the domestic work properly, that whenever the accused used to beat her niece Mamta for demand of dowry, she used to come at her home and tell her that accused had given beating to her and that accused used to beat her niece Mamta for demand of dowry at the instance of his father and mother.
47. In the cross examination PW-1 firmly stated that her house is situated at a distance of 2 or 3 km from the matrimonial house of Mamta, that her niece Mamta used to talk to her parents on phone, that she visited three times at matrimonial house of Mamta as accused Amarjeet used to quarrel with her and that she went to house of accused Amarjeet to make him understand. She further specifically testified that panchayat was called where 10-12 persons had gathered and tried to make accused understand for not beating the deceased Mamta. She firmly denied the suggestions put to her to the effect that the said panchayat was called by accused as Mamta was not doing household work at her matrimonial house, that the accused had not strangulated the neck of 32/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Mamta, that accused neither used to beat Mamta nor harassed her for demand of dowry or that he never demanded any dowry and that Mamta did not die due to beatings given by accused Amarjeet. She further denied firmly that no dowry articles or jewellery articles were given in the marriage of Mamta. She further admitted in cross examination that on 27/28.09.2017 Mamta/victim stated to her brother Joginder/PW-2 that she may not be alive as she was being beaten by the accused Amarjeet and his father. She further explained that she could not state the same facts before the Executive Magistrate as she was disturbed due to death of her niece Mamta.
Omission to state said facts is a natural conduct expected in such circumstances Thus, the explanation establishes that factum of not disclosing the said facts to Executive Magistrate and stating the same for the first time in examination in chief cannot be treated as an improvement over statement made under section 161 Cr.P.C or an inconsistency having the effect of rendering her version unreliable. Furthermore, the admission made by Pw-1 in her cross- examination that she stated about the factum of arrangement of funds by PW-2/ her brother for the marriage of victim by selling his land before Executive Magistrate and police, which is not found recorded in the said statements is of no consequence to dent her testimony as the said version was never put to PW-2 /victim's father or to Executive Magistrate 33/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola or police witness/ IO who would have explained that PW-1had not stated anything qua arrangement of funds and due to the said reason the same is not mentioned in the statements recorded by them. Even otherwise, this contradiction is not material to deny the factum of harassment of victim for want of dowry which is duly established on reading the testimony of PW-1 as a whole.
48. Perusal of this testimony further shows that the fact that whenever the accused used to beat her niece for demand of dowry, the victim used to come at her home and that the accused used to give her beatings for demand of dowry, has gone unrebutted as even a suggestion to negate the said version was not put to her during cross examination. This omission amounts to admission of prosecution's version that accused had given beatings to her/victim for demand of dowry. The firm depositions of PW-1 that her house was situated within 2/3 kilometers of victim's matrimonial house further establishes the truthfulness of her said version as the factum of her house being situated within 2-3 kilometers of victim's matrimonial home shows that PW-1 was easily accessible to the victim who would have confided in her/PW-1 being victim's bua qua the cruelty and harassment committed by the accused with victim for demand of dowry as would have been done by victim placed in such circumstances. The depositions of PW-1 that she thrice visited the house of victim to make the accused understand as accused used to quarrel with her and 34/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola that a panchayat of 10-12 persons was called who tried to make accused understand not to beat victim Mamta followed by firm denial of suggestion that panchayat was called as victim was not doing household work, further establishes that accused was in the habit of frequently harassing and beating the victim for demand of dowry and even a panchayat was called to make the accused understand not to beat victim.
49. PW-2 Joginder Prasad/father of the victim stated in his examination in chief that at the time of settlement of marriage, father of accused Amarjeet demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, however he showed his inability to fulfill the said demand and agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- cash, that accused Amarjeet demanded one motorcycle at the time of marriage but he expressed his inability to give the same and that except the cash of Rs. 50,000/- he had only given one gold nathni, one trunk and clothes etc. He further testified that accused was working in a factory in Delhi and was residing in Delhi, that during the stay of accused Amarjeet for about 8 to 10 days at his native place where he used to visit after six/one year, accused used to quarrel and beat his daughter on account of insufficiency of dowry, that accused used to say that he had not fulfilled his demand and had not given the motorcycle and cash demanded by him and that he tried to make accused understand but all in vain. He further stated that he told the accused to take his daughter Mamta along with him to Delhi, if she did not want to reside there at village but accused refused 35/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola and thereafter, PW-2 went to his home. He further deposed that prior to 1 or 1 ½ months of death of his daughter Mamta, he came to know that accused Amarjeet had brought his daughter Mamta along with him to Delhi. He further deposed that after 2-5 days of arrival of his daughter at Delhi, his daughter Mamta called him telephonically and told that she was fine. He further deposed that after about 15 days of telephonic call made by victim to PW-2, victim/his daughter again telephoned him and told him that she was beaten mercilessly by accused and accused had told her to leave his company as he does not want her upon which PW-2 told her to maintain cordial relations with accused Amarjeet and he also told his daughter to handover phone to accused Amarjeet as he wanted to talk with him, upon which, his daughter replied that Amarjeet was not at home, that he again made a call after sometime to Amarjeet, who told him to take his daughter back, otherwise he would kill her, that for some days he did not receive any call from his daughter, that prior to 7-8 days of death of his daughter, she made a telephonic call to him in the night and told him that her husband has prepared to vacate the tenanted room and that she had cooked meal but the accused did not take dinner and he was stating that he would kill her, that she also told that she may be killed in the said night by accused Amarjeet and that thereafter, he did not receive any call from his daughter Mamta.
50. In his cross examination PW-2 explained that the 36/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola marriage was solemnized with the great pomp and show as per his status. He further deposed that no list of dowry articles (nathni, cloth, trunk and cash) was prepared at the time of handing over of the same in the marriage. No specific suggestion was put to the effect that the said list was not prepared as no such articles were given at the time of marriage. It is a matter of common knowledge that making a list of dowry articles, that too in a low scale marriage like the present one is not necessary to establish demand and exchange of dowry. The aforesaid omission and observation along with firm testimony of PW-2 qua demanding of the said articles of the dowry by the accused and his family as well as handing over of nathni, trunk, clothes and RS . 50,000/- by PW-2 to the accused and his family at the time of marriage, established that the alleged dowry was demanded by the accused and his family which was handed over to them by PW-2.
51. PW-2 further explained in his cross examination that he did not tell the Executive Magistrate and police about the demand of motorcycle made by accused at time of marriage and Rs. One lacs made by the father of accused at the time of settlement of marriage as only few question were asked by the Executive Magistrate, as he was weeping and upset at that time and they had not asked about any transactions/dowry demands.
52. This explanation shows that mentioning of the facts qua demand of the motorcycle by the accused made at the time of 37/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola marriage and Rs. One lac made by the father of the accused at the time of settlement of marriage during examination in chief cannot be considered as an improvement over his version as stated in statement under 161 Cr.P.C and statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Any person placed in similar circumstances whose young daughter had just died an unnatural death would have behaved in the same manner as PW-2 behaved due to emotional outburst and agony. Moreover, admittedly PW-2 is an illiterate person. So, he cannot be expected to have sufficient understanding of the legal effects of disclosing such facts to the police or the Executive Magistrate at the very first instance. His statement that police / Executive Magistrate did not ask him questions about transactions/ dowry demands, further leads to the inference that his version of demand of dowry is true and he would have disclosed all these facts, if his attention was drawn to the importance of these facts by specifically asking about said facts by the police or Executive Magistrate who recorded the statements. So, it can be safely held that the aforesaid version stated during examination- in- chief is not after thought or improvement as at the time of making of statements before the police/Executive Magistrate he/PW-2 was not in a fit state of mind and being illiterate he was not aware about the legal nuances which were not even brought to his knowledge by the police or the executive magistrate who were duty bound to do so.
38/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
53. PW-2 further admitted that no complaint was made by him before any authority or police regarding demand of dowry raised by accused and his family members prior to death of his daughter. He further stated that he does not remember, if he had told the police or Executive Magistrate that Mamta had made telephonic call prior to 7-8 days of her death and she was telling that her husband had prepared to vacate the tenanted room and she had cooked roti and bhajiya but accused did not take dinner and he was stating that he would kill her and that she was stating that he would kill her and that she also told that she may be killed by accused in the said night by accused Amarjeet.
54. Record shows that said statements of PW-2 recorded by police and Executive Magistrate were not put to him specifically at the time of asking these questions and the aforestated version of PW-2 qua the specific demand of motorcycle made by accused at the time of marriage and Rs. One lac made by his father at the time of settlement of marriage as well as the call made by his daughter was not put to the concerned police witnesses or the Executive Magistrate for confrontation who had recorded the statements of PW-2 which is a material omission. Even a suggestion was not put to PW-2 to the effect that he did not tell the factum of demand of motorcycle and Rs. One lac to police or Executive Magistrate as no such demand was made or that he does not remember about the said fact of his daughter making a telephonic call as 39/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola he had never stated those things to the police or Executive Magistrate or that the said incidents were never told to him by his deceased daughter as the same never happened or that is why he neither uttered those facts to the Executive Magistrate nor remembers about the fact of stating the same to the police/Executive Magistrate. He further stated that he did not make any complaint to the police about that threat. No suggestion to the effect that no such police complaint was lodged as no such incident had happened, was put to him. These are material omissions on the part of the defence which along with aforesaid firm depositions substantiate that the version of PW-2 qua receiving a call from her daughter 7-8 days prior to her death wherein victim told him that the accused was saying that he would kill her and she feared that she may be killed in the same night, stands duly proved and the defence failed to shake his credit regarding the said version. This version was also deposed by PW-1 in her cross- examination which makes the deposition of PW-2 more credible. PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter/victim used to make telephonic calls occasionally to him. It shows that PW-2 was in touch with the victim and was thus aware of the facts qua dowry demand and continuous harassment of his daughter till her death.
55. PW-2 further denied the suggestions that accused Amarjeet had kept her daughter very well or that accused or his parents had never demanded cash or motorcycle or that he 40/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola had never given cash of Rs. 50,000/- to the father of the accused, or that accused had brought his daughter to Delhi for keeping her with him as she was affectionate with her or that he was under wrong suspicion that accused Amarjeet had murdered his daughter. Perusal of afore discussed testimonies of PW-2 reveals that testimony of PW-2 to the effect that accused was working in a factory in Delhi and was residing in Delhi and that during the stay of accused Amarjeet for about 8- 10 days at his native place where he used to visit after 6 months/one year he used to quarrel and beat his daughter on account of insufficiency of dowry, that he used to say that PW- 2 had not fulfilled his demand and had not given the motorcycle and cash demanded by him , that PW-2 tried to make him understand but all in vain, that he further told the accused to take his daughter Mamta along with him to Delhi if she did not want to reside there at village but accused refused and thereafter he went to his home, that prior to 1 or 1 ½ months of death of his daughter Mamta, he came to know that accused Amarjeet had brought his daughter Mamta along with him to Delhi, that after 2-5 days of arrival of his daughter at Delhi, his daughter Mamta called him telephonically and told that she was fine, that after about 15 days of telephonic call made by victim to PW-2, victim/his daughter again telephoned him and told him that she was beaten mercilessly by accused and accused had told her to leave his company as he does not want her upon which PW-2 41/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola told her to maintain cordial relations with accused Amarjeet and he also told his daughter to handover phone to accused Amarjeet as he wanted to talk with him, upon which, his daughter replied that Amarjeet was not at home and that he again made a call after sometime to Amarjeet, who told him to take his daughter back, otherwise he would kill her, have gone unrebutted as no specific suggestion to negate the same was put to him which amounts to admission of same by defence. This admission fortifies the prosecution version that dowry demands made by the accused, that cruelties for want of dowry were committed by accused with the victim,that accused did not want to take victim to Delhi with him where he was living alone which again substantiates commission of cruelty, that he brought the victim to Delhi without intimating the family of victim, that accused continued the beatings and cruelties with the victim in Delhi, that the accused had told victim to leave his company as he does not want her and that accused Amarjeet, told PW-2 to take his daughter back, otherwise he would kill her. It is further established the PW-2 tried his level best to ensure that relations between victim and accused remain cordial as would have been by a poor father of five children. It further shows that PW-2 was in touch with the accused also and was thus aware of the facts qua dowry demand and continuous harassment of his daughter which continued till her death.
56. Keeping in view the manner in which cruelties and 42/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola harassment of victim which started at the time of her marriage and continued till her death, it can be said that the said events/ acts cannot be segregated from one another and they all form a part of the continous transaction. So, the time gap ranging from 2012-2017 between the marriage and her death during which the demand for dowry was made, due to non fulfillment of that demand, cruelties, threats and harassments were committed continously with her cannot be said to be such a time gap that the same does not qualify the criteria of 'soon before' due to rule of proximity of time because it was a continuing ordeal having continuity of action and community of purpose. So, the various statements made by the witnesses and the victim are relevant and admissible under section 6, 7, 32 Indian Evidence Act and 304-B Indian Penal Code.
57. It is apparent from the aforementioned facts, testimonies, consistent depositions of PW-2 which are corroborated by PW-1 in material particulars, firm denials of PW-1 and PW-2, omissions made by the defence and record that it clearly established that the victim was continuously harassed and beaten up for bringing insufficient dowry since the time of her marriage, that the victim called her father after her arrival at Delhi, that the victim was brought to Delhi by accused deliberately but not willingly as he did not want to live with her, that she/victim again telephoned PW-2 and told him that she was beaten mercilessly by accused who told her to leave his company, that the victim Mamta had made 43/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola telephonic call prior to 7-8 days of her death to his father telling him that accused stated that he would kill her/victim, that thereafter the father of the victim did not receive any call from the victim and that he straightway got to know about the death of the victim. Indubitably, the victim was married with accused on 26.12.2012 and she died on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017. The aforementioned duly proved facts substantiate the prosecution version of the continuous demand of dowry made by the accused which father of victim failed to fulfil completely, the continuous cruelty and harassment, beatings etc. committed by the accused due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and the subjection of victim to cruelty on account of insufficient dowry soon before her death.
58. It can thus be safely concluded that victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment for not meeting the unlawful demands of dowry since solemnization of marriage and the said harassment/cruelty continued till her death which took place within seven years of marriage. It further proves that the accused subjected her to cruelty on account of insufficient dowry soon before her death, that the accused wanted to eliminate her due to the said reason which was motive behind the killing/ unnatural death of victim and that accused deliberately but not willingly brought the victim to Delhi with an intention to kill her as he was no more liking her company.
44/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
59. These firm, cogent and consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are sufficient enough to prove the continuous dowry demand of motorcycle made by the accused, the failure of victim's family to fulfill these demands, the cruelty and harassment committed by the accused with the victim due to non fulfillment of dowry demands, the subjection of victim cruelty soon before her death by the accused for or in connection with demand of dowry which continued till her d59eath, that unfulfilled demands of dowry provided the motive to the accused to eliminate the victim who admittedly died in unnatural circumstances and that accused deliberately but not willingly brought the victim to Delhi with an intention to kill her as he was no more liking her company.
60. It follows that the prosecution has been able to establish aforesaid facts independent of omissions made by the accused at the time of recording of statement of accused as well as defence evidence led on behalf of accused.
61. Record shows that the accused brought DW-1 and DW-2 as witnesses in support of the version that no dowry demand was ever made at the time of marriage, no dowry as alleged was ever given by the family of the victim and that he or his family had never harassed the victim in relation to demand of dowry. However, the names of these witness/people and factum of their presence at the time of the marriage ceremony was never put to PW-1 and PW-2 who are the Bua and father 45/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola of the victim. Even at the time of recording of Statement of accused, the names of these people and their having participated in the marriage, was not stated by the accused. These facts/omissions show that the chances of the said witnesses being brought as a result of after thought cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise in the cross examination, DW-1 admitted that his village and accused's village are different and distance between his house and the house of the accused was nearby of different villages. He further stated that he does not know when the accused came to Delhi. He further admitted that what talks were going on in the house of the accused are not known to him. This testimony itself shows that deposition of DW-1 is of no consequence as the alleged harassments/demand of dowry's etc are always made between close family members within the four walls of the house and he never had the occasion to get to know as to what was happening within the house of the accused or as to what all was settled at the time of marriage regarding dowry articles.
62. Similarly DW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that he was never called to sit in the talks when the elders used to talk, that he had no role of mediating the marriage of the parties, that he was not present when parents of the parties met for finalizing the nature of ceremony and that he was not present when the parents discussed the expenditure to be incurred, the number of guests to be called and the type of venue to be finalised for the marriage. These admissions show 46/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola that the testimony of this witness is also of no consequence to establish the defence version that no dowry demand was made by the accused and his family or that no dowry articles were given to accused and his family or that no cruelty or harassment with regard to the demand of dowry was committed by the accused, as he is not privy to the conversations and incidents/events regarding the said facts which took place amongst the family members and the parties i.e. accused and his wife, within the closed corridors of their house.
63. It emerges from the aforementioned testimonies of DW- 1 and DW-2 that the same are not capable of shattering the clear, cogent and consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the continuous demands of dowry made by the accused, the continuous cruelty and harassment committed by the accused due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry which continued till her death,the cruelty inflicted on her on account of insufficient dowry soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry, that unfulfilled demands of dowry provided the motive to the accused to eliminate the victim who admittedly died in unnatural circumstances and that accused deliberately and not willingly brought the victim to Delhi with an intention to kill her as he was no more liking her company.
64. Perusal of the record reveals that PW-14 Dr. Rajeev was 47/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola the Medical Officer in Civil hospital Gurgaon, where the victim Mamta Devi was taken admittedly by the accused on 05.10.2017 at 05.20 am. He proved that the victim was attended by him vide MLC Ex. PW-14/A who was brought from village Salapur Khera by her husband Amarjeet. Reading of the MLC reveals that it is stated that "the victim was brought dead from village Salapur Khera by husband Amarjeet". This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity which amounts to admission of the testimony to the effect that the victim was brought dead from Village Salapur Khera by accused Amarjeet. The accused neither got it mentioned in the MLC that he had brought the victim alive from Salapur Khera or that she was suffering from any disease which facts were within the exclusive personal knowledge of the accused only. The accused was having ample opportunity to challenge the aforesaid phrase in inverted commas mentioned on the MLC by suggesting that victim was alive when brought from Sala Pur was told to doctor who did not write the same or by otherwise agitating about the said writing made by PW-14 but the accused chose to not challenge the said version deposed by PW-14. These omissions made by the accused established that the victim had already died in the house at Salapur Village and the version of the accused that she was alive or that he took her to the hospitals for treatment is false.
65. Similarly, PW-15 the Executive Magistrate proved the 48/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola factum of recording of the statements of the victim's bua PW- 1 and her father/ PW-2 vide Ex.PW-1/A & B. He proved his inquest report and death report i.e. form no 25.35i(b) Ex. PW15/D. Perusal of the duly proved report of the Executive Magistrate Ex PW-15/E qua the inquest proceedings under section 176 Cr.P.C reveals that he specifically mentioned that he also conducted physical inspection of dead body of Ms. Mamta w/o Amarjeet on 09.10.2017, and also found the signs of stretches and struggle marks. The duly proved death report Ex. PW-15/D mentions that 'gale meinkharaunchkenisanpaye gai'. The said report further mentions, in the row no. 16 meant for whether the body was well nourished and vigourous or emaciated and feeble, that the body of the victim was weak.He was discharged after cross examination.
66. However, this witness was neither cross examined regarding the correctness of his report as well as presence of struggle marks observed on physical examination of dead body by him, or the mentioning of 'gale mein kharaunch ke nisan paye gai', or the body being weak nor any suggestions were put to him in this regard which amounts to admission and proof of the said presence of struggle marks/gale meinkharaunchkenisan on the body of the victim. He was also not cross examined regarding the facts stated by PW-1 and PW-2 for the first time in their deposition before the court as discussed in their testimonial analysis nor suggestions were put to him that the said facts were never stated by them before 49/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola him so the same were not mentioned in their statements or that their condition at the time of recording the statements was fine and they were fully oriented or that he participated actively by asking all relevant questions to draw their attention to the facts which may be in issue in such cases while recording their statements and he did not act as a passive rappersive or that the explanations given by them for not stating relevant facts to him are false. These are material omissions on the part of the defence which establishes that the facts stated by PW-1 and PW-2 for the first time in their deposition and their explanations for not not stating relevant facts to him are true and not improvements.
67. Record shows that PW-19 Ct. Sarvender Yadav was the first person to reach the government hospital, Gurgaon on 05.10.2017 along with ASI Naresh who expired without being examined in the year 2020 which is an admitted fact as the same is mentioned in the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused also. Perusal of the judicial file shows that summons issued to PW-ASI Naresh Kumar for 23.02.2021 was received back with the report that the said PW has expired on 10.03.2020. However, no formal order qua striking off the name of the said witness from the list of prosecution witnesses was passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court. So, the name of said witness is hereby deemed to be struck off.
68. PW-19 affirmed in his cross-examination that he along 50/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola with ASI Naresh Kumar reached the Civil Hospital at around 08.00-09.00 am, that he and ASI Naresh had seen the dead body of victim and that he and ASI Naresh had seen the marks on the dead body of Mamta. These specific testimonies of PW- 19 have gone unrebutted as even a suggestion to negate the same was not put to him during the entire evidence thereby amounting to its admission on behalf of accused. Similarly, PW-20/IO Inspector Ashish Singh Dalal voluntarily explained in his cross-examination that he had also seen the dead body in the mortuary, that he had reached government hospital Gurgaon in the night of 05.10.2017, that he himself went to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon as he was senior officer to IO/ASI Naresh and that he had noticed marks on the neck on dead body. These firm testimonies show that instead of challenging the said version, the defence got the same admitted. These admissions have gone unrebutted as no specific suggestion to negate the same was put to PW-20 thereby reaffirming the correctness of facts proved by these admissions. He further admitted that he had not gone to the house of accused on 05.02.2017 and that he had not called the accused to the police station at any point of time which falsifies the defence version of illegally calling the accused to police station for several days.
69. Perusal of the aforementioned testimonies reveals that victim was having abrasion marks on her neck. It is further seen from the testimony of PW-9 Dr. Yudhveer Singh that he 51/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola proved the Postmortem Report Ex. PW-9/B and that he conducted the postmortem on 09.10.2017 at 3.00pm. He further established that the apparent cause of death was asphyxia ante mortem manual neck compression and the time between death and postmortem was approximately between 3- 5 days. In the cross-examination, the accused got it admitted by PW-9 that marks were present on the neck of the deceased and that there were struggle marks of nails appearing on the neck of the deceased to save herself. It is further clear from the aforesaid testimony of PW-9 and postmortem report that no prior history of any disease or infirmity was detected. Perusal of the postmortem report further reveals that in the third row meant for Larynx and trachese in the part pertaining to thorax it is mentioned as follows:
"subcutaneous tissue, strap muscles corresponding to the mark show extensive diffuse extravasation of blood, fracture superior horn of thyroid cartilage from outwards to inner direction surrounded with haematoma".
This unrebutted observation clearly establishes that victim was manually strangulated by using such a force that even the small bones in the neck were fractured which shows that the act was committed with an intention to cause death. It's a matter of common knowledge that Manual strangulation, also known as throttling, is a type of asphyxia death where the perpertrator uses his hand to encircle and compress the front and side of neck. It is a common method of homicide, most often encountered when the physical size and strength of the 52/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola assailant exceeds that of the victim. The usual victims are females, children, aged people and those cases where the victim may be incapacitatedand death may occur in few minutes and brain becomes dead within 3 to 4 minutes. The aforesaid testimonies and observations further establish that the death of the victim was neither accidental nor suicidal but was homicidal in nature caused due to manual neck pressing.
70. Thus, from the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved that the deceased was treated with cruelty in relation to demand of dowry soon before her death. Section 113 B of the Evidence Act mandates the Court to raise the statutory presumption in a case where it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Thus, once the initial burden of showing and not proving beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was subject to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death is discharged by the prosecution, the Court is duty bound to presume that such person has caused a dowry death. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 (3) SCC 726 held: -
"Presumption under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that 53/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC) (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
71. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case the aforesaid presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. It is also settled law "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act."
54/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
72. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to this case and the duly proved facts and circumstances as discussed above, which establish that the demand of dowry, cruelties, beatings threats to leave and kill the victim forms a continuous chain of events, so interconnected that they cannot be segregated from each other, this court is duty bound to presume that the accused has caused dowry death of the victim.
73. Perusal of the record reveals that apart from witnesses PW-1, PW-2, police witnesses and medical witnesses, the prosecution examined PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-10 also. Out of these witnesses PW-4 and PW-10 are the friends/ co- workers/relatives of the accused who used to work with him and PW-7 was the landlord/owner of the property in one room of which victim along with her husband was residing at the time of incident and PW-6 is the care taker of the said building appointed by PW-7 Sabhapati.
74. Prosecution led the evidence of PW-6 / Sh. Purushotam, who is the care taker of the building wherein the victim along with the accused was residing in one room on rent. PW-6 made a material improvement by deposing in his exmination in chief about meeting the victim and one person also in the said house on 04.10.2017 at about 09.00 pm and one another person on 04.10.2017 at 10 pm. He further stated in his examination in chief that on 05.10.2017 at about 4.00 am, he reached the house of the accused and took his wife 55/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola along with Satender and Ganesh as well as accused to Janta hopsital from where she was taken to Government hospital where she was declared brought dead. He did not say anything about the factum of accused quarreling with his wife or accused saying regularly that 'mein kisi din tuje jaan se marr dunga' or that he had seen some injury marks on the neck of Mamta when she was taken to hospital which were stated by him to IO/PW-20 in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. Ld. Addl. PP for State cross examined this witness who denied that no other person came to the room of accused on 04.10.2017 and 05.10.2017 or that he had not seen any person with accused Mamta on 04.10.17/05.10.2017 at about 09.00pm and 10.00pm. In the said cross examination except bare denials PW-6 did not utter even a single word as to how and in what manner the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein the improved version of seeing of one person along the victim / wife of accused on 04.10.2017/05.10.2017 at about 09.00pm and10.00pm is not mentioned. He did not utter even a single word as to whether this statement was recorded under force or pressure or that he had stated this improved version to the IO or that the IO had himself not written such version or that he had not stated the contradictory version and the IO had himself written the wrong version qua the contradictory statements. This witness had ample opportunity to give a reason for not mentioning of the proper facts at time of recording of his statement 56/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C which are deposed by him in his examination in chief but he did not say anything which is a material omission. It is further important to state here that Ld. Defence counsel had put an suggestion to PW-20/IO A.S. Dalal that the statements of the public witnesses out of which PW-6 is also a public witness, were recorded by putting them under fear or threat, which was denied by PW-
20. This suggestion itself shows that had there have some fear at the time of recording of the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C of PW-6 or other witnesses, the presence of the said threat or fear should have been definitely stated by PW-6 or other witnesses at the time of their cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State when the said statements were confronted to them. Admittedly the IO and the police witnesses were not having any animosity with the accused, thus, framing of wrong statements to falsely implicate the accused is also ruled out. Moreover, it is no where put to PW-1 and PW-2 and the other public witnesses that police officials have filed false case against the accused at the instance of PW- 1 and PW-2 ie the bua and father of the victim.
75. Furthermore, in this case, PW-6 was duly cross examined by ld.Defence counsel, who also did not put any question to PW-6 regarding the recording of statement by putting him under fear or threat by the IO. It is further seen in the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel that no direct question or suggestion to the effect that 57/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola one person was present along with wife of the accused at 09.00 pm and one another person was present with the wife of the accused at 10.00 pm, was put to him. The deposition of PW-6 made in his cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel to the effect that other tenant used to talk to Mamta and used to enter her room cannot be treated as a substitute for inferring the presence of one person at 09.00pm and another person at 10.00 pm on the said night. The question qua talking with Mamta and entering her room was a general question whereas in the case in hand, it was the visit of an unknown person on the intervening night of 04.10/05.10.2017 which was in issue, therefore specific question was required to be put which was never asked. Considering the aforesaid omissions and present facts, it follows that the mere denials made by PW-6 regarding the improvements and concealments made in his examination in chief are not sufficient to disprove the prosecution version. So, it can be thus safely said that the improvement part and the other facts concealed by PW-6 deserve to be discarded and the prosecution version as stated by way of various suggestions to the effect that he had not seen any person with Mamta on 04.10/05.10.2017 or that the accused used to quarrel with his wife Or used to say that 'mein kisi din tujhe jaan se maar dunga', that no other person came to their room on the aforesaid day or the accused told him no other person visited his house or that the accused told him that he along 58/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola with his wife were present in the room on the intervening night of 04/5.06.17 or that he told these facts to IO PW-20 on 12.10.2017, stands duly established.
76. The testimony of PW-6 itself read with the testimony of medical witnesses and police witnesses is sufficient to conclusively hold that prosecution version of absence of any other person with the victim on the said intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 is duly proved. So, the credibility of testimonies of PW-4, PW-10 or DW-3 and the omissions made by the accused need not be discussed at all for coming to the conclusion that no other person or outsider or visitor was present with the victim on the aforesaid time and only accused was present with her. Record further shows that PW-4, PW-6 and PW10 have not supported the prosecution version qua marks on the neck of the victim or qua the fact that the victim was already dead when they reached the house of the victim on being called by the accused. However, mere the fact that the witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for State does not mean that their testimonies are of no effect for proving the prosecution version .In this regard, this court deems it fit to refer to following law laid down in judgment titled as Salek Ram Vs. State of NCT Delhi and ors. passed by Hon'ble Justice G.S. Sistani and Justice Chander Shekhar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (on November 20, 2019 ):
59/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola "their (hostile witness) evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon their testimonies which is also corroborated by other reliable evidence."
77. A close scrutiny of testimonies of PW-4, PW-6 and PW- 10 is being done in the discussion made hereunder which will depict the manner in which they support the prosecution version.
78. It is evident from the testimonies and these prosecution witnesses that the accused has taken the stand that on the night of 4/5.06.2017 he along with PW-4 Ganesh and PW-10 Satender had gone the house of PW-10 after completion of days work in the factory where they took the dinner and as they all were tired they went to sleep at his house. It is further evident that around 3.00 am they all woke up and accused as well as Ganesh went back to their homes and after reaching his home the accused found that his wife was ill. Accused had called Satender who further called Ganesh and Purshottam to his place to help him in getting his wife treated. She was therefore taken to hospital by the accused along with Ganesh, Satender and Purushotam. Keeping in view the facts of this case, it is important to refer to the testimony of Satender at whose house these witnesses along with accused were present on the intervening night of 4/5.10.2017 based on which plea of alibi/ absence from his house on the said intervening night has been taken by accused.
79. With respect to the factum of accused, PW-4 Ganesh 60/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola and PW-10 Satender having accompanied each other and gone to house of PW-10 on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017, the relevant portion of examination in chief of PW-10 is reproduced as follows:-
Since year 2002, I am residing in the vicinity of Village Mullahera. I am a tailor by profession. Accused present in the court today, who is working as helper in a factory, situated at phase-IV, no. 226, I was working in the said company as a tailor. Accused Amarjeetpresent in the court today was residing in Salapur and at that time, I and Ganesh were residing in Mullahera.
80. Perusal of the entire examination in chief, reveals that apart from the aforesaid averments, PW-10/Satender no where stated about the fact that on the night of 04/05.10.2017 accused along with PW-4 Ganesh and PW-10 Satender had gone to the house of PW-10 after completion of days work in the factory where they took the dinner and as they all were tired they went to sleep and at around 3.00 am, PW-4 Ganesh woke up and he also got Amarjeet and Satender wake up, that PW-4 told to PW-10 that he was going to his home, that PW-4 called Satender that he was going to his room and thereafter, Amarjeet (accused) also left the room of Satender for his room at Salapur Khera and that PW-4 left for his room at Mullakhera. Record reveals that the said facts have been stated by PW-4/ Ganesh in his examination in chief which is in stark contradiction to Satender who did not say anything about it.
81. In the cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-10 stated, in reply to question [When you 61/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola reached at house of Amarjeet, you noticed that Mamta was not breathing and there were some abrasion marks on her neck. What do you have to say?], No, I did not notice any such marks on her neck as it was dark. However, immediately after this reply, PW-10 stated that when they reached the house of accused, there was light in his house. This unexplained contradiction qua presence of light or there being darkness, indicates that PW-10 is deliberately telling lie qua the presence of marks on the neck of the victim as there was ample light.
82. In the cross-examination of PW-10, ld. Counsel for the accused tried his best to extract the aforesaid material facts in his favour ie regarding the presence of PW-4, accused and PW-10 etc at house of PW-10 from 9 p.m. to 3a.m. and the departure of accused and PW-4 to their houses after waking up at 3.00 am. The defence counsel got it admitted by PW-10 that there was light in the house of accused and after finishing their work, they came to their room at Village Mullahera. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted during the course of arguments that this admission proves the aforesaid version of presence of all the aforesaid three people together on the night of 04/05.10.2017.
83. Perusal of the examination in chief and the cross- examination of PW-10 reveals that it is not inferred from anywhere that accused had also accompanied PW-10 and PW-
62/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola 4 on that day to his house after finishing of their work as the said facts were no where specifically stated by PW-10, either in chief or cross-examination. Ld. Counsel did not put any specific question to clarify that the word 'we' includes the accused also along with PW-4 and PW-10. Even if for the sake of arguments, the submission of ld. Counsel is treated as correct, still it is not at all inferred that, after taking dinner as they(trio) all were tired, they went to sleep and at around 3.00 am, PW-4 Ganesh woke up and he also got Amarjeet and Satender wake up, that PW-4 told to PW-10 that he was going to his home, that PW-4 called Satender that he was going to his room and thereafter, Amarjeet also left the room of Satender for his room at SalapurKhera and that PW-4 left for his room at Mullahera.
84. It is thus clear that the word "we" can by no stretch of imagination be treated as including the accused Amarjeet Bhola. If 'we' is treated as the same still the factum of accused and PW-4's presence at the house of PW-10 till 3.00 am and factum of awakening of PW-10 and accused by PW-4 and thereafter, leaving the house of PW-10 by the accused for his house is not established from the testimony of PW-10. This discussion establishes the prosecution version that the accused was very much present at his house on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017. So, this witness has totally shattered the aforesaid version of presence of PW-4, accused and PW-10 together at house of PW-10 till 3.00 am and that thereafter, 63/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola accused left for his house where he found his wife ill and unconscious on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 who was later declared brought dead by doctors in Gurugram, Haryana due to manual neck pressing. This contradiction in testimony of PW-10 and PW-4 further shows that the testimony of PW-4/ Ganesh as deposed by him in his examination in chief regarding aforesaid aspect is not at all reliable and he is a tutored witness being close associate of accused.
85. From the aforediscussed duly proved facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or,at least makes out a prima facie case.
86. It is evident that the victim was last seen/present at her house with her husband/ accused on the day of the incident. Here, qua the last seen theory, it is relevant to refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gargi: (2019) 9 SCC 738 (SCC p. 775, para 33):-
"33.1. Insofar as the "last seen theory" is concerned, there is no doubt that the appellant being none other than the wife of the deceased and staying under the same roof, was the last person the deceased was seen with. However, such companionship of the deceased and the appellant, by itself, does not mean that a presumption of guilt of the appellant is to be drawn. The trial court and the High Court have proceeded on the assumption that Section 106 of the Evidence Act directly operates against the appellant. In our view, approach has also not been free from error where it was omitted to be considered that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden. This Court has explained the principle in Sawal Das v.64/98
FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola State of Bihar in the following: (SCC p. 197, para 10) '10. Neither an application of Section 103 nor of 106 of the Evidence Act could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or, which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts the burden of proof of which may lie upon the accused".
It could thus be seen that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused.
Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a similar case of homicidal death in the confines of the house. The following observations are considered relevant in the facts of the present case: (SCC pp. 690-91 & 694, paras 14-15 & 22) "14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as 65/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions.
-- quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh.) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him...
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."
87. In a similar case titled as Yashwant Kumar vs State, Crl.
66/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Appeal No. 270/2001 decided on 04.02.2011, Hon'ble Justice Mukta Gupta, High Court of Delhi, observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act lays a clear onus on the Appellant to explain this injury which was in his knowledge because the same was caused in the wee hours of the night in the bedroom of the Appellant when nobody else would be there. In Prabhudayal vs. State of Maharashtra 1993(3) SCC 573 which was also a case of dowry death, the Ho'ble Supreme Court held:
"26.Homicidal death occurred of Sangita while she was in their custody. The incident with its gravity and extent cannot in any manner go unnoticed. As such the accused persons were duty bound to offer plausible explanation. Their action was concerted, well thought out, well planned".
88. Keeping in view the duly proved facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has successfully led the evidence which if believed will sustain a conviction or at least same makes out a prima facie case. It shows that prosecution has discharged its primary burden of proving its version beyond reasonable doubt. So, this court is now discussing the various omissions made by accused in statement of accused and the credibility of defence evidence qua the facts and circumstances burden of proving which was on the accused.
89. Before proceeding further it is important to quote about the relevance of failure of accused to give any/ proper/false explanation to the incriminating circumstances put to him in section 313 Cr.P.C as well as about the 67/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola relevance of the conduct of the accused before, and after the incident.
90. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him and the court must take note of such explanation, even, in case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide as to whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of crime and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation with respect to the same, the said act may be considered as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstance. In this regard , the court finds support from State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471, Musheer Khan VS State of M.P.(2010) 2 SCC 748.
91. It may be relevant to note here that conduct of the accused before, and after the commission of offence is relevant and such conduct, if found incriminating, may also lead to the only irresistible conclusion that accused is the perpetrator of the offence in question.
92. So far as conduct is relevant, it is apt to refer to the Section 8 of the Evidence Act which is reproduced here under:
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct-Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any 68/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
93. A bare perusal of this section as well as the illustrations appended thereto makes it crystal clear that if an accused try to make the facts of the case favourable to him or that he destroyed or concealed evidence or prevented the presence or procured the absence of the person who might have been a witness or planted false witness, such conduct of the accused is relevant.
94. Keeping in view of the aforesaid version as well as the relevant part of the testimonies of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10, it is the stance of accused that when he reached his house at around 4.00 am his deceased wife was lying on the cot and he tried to wake her up but she did not respond and he sensed something wrong and that wife of the accused was unconscious and alive when the accused along with Ganesh, Satender and Purushotam took her to Janta Hospital. It is also the version of accused that from the Janta Hospital the accused along with PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10 took the victim to Civil Hospital Gurgaon, where she was declared brought dead.
95. It follows from the Statement of accused and the other hostile testimonies that the victim was alive when the accused 69/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola saw her after reaching his house as well as at the time of her being taken to Janta Hospital from her house and the accused along with PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10 were present while she was taken to Janta Hospital and thereafter to government hospital Gurgaon where she was declared brought dead as is mentioned on the duly proved MLC Ex. PW-14/A. However, the duly proved postmortem report describes the reason of death as asphyxia following ante mortem manual neck compression. It is no where stated in statement of accused that unknown person friendly with Mamta Kumari had killed her or that she was suffering from any ailment. In the statement of accused, it is no where specifically stated by accused that his wife was strangulated by some other person during the intervening night of 4/5.10.2017.
96. Considering the said defence version to be true, as it was the accused, who was present with the victim, who according to accused was alive and finally was declared brought dead due to neck pressing, it was for the accused to explain as to what transpired during the journey from house/home to hospital. The accused, PW-4, PW-6 and PW- 10 have stated about absence of abrasion marks on the neck of the victim. However, as per Death Report Ex. PW-15/D abrasion marks were found present on the neck of the victim. It is clear that none interfered during the period commencing from the time when the accused reached his home and saw his wife alive and unconscious without any abrasion marks on 70/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola her neck till she was declared brought dead by the doctors at government hospital Gurgaon and abrasion marks were also found on her neck. This circumstance, un-erringly leads to the conclusion that it was the accused who had killed his wife by pressing her neck as he did not offer any explanation for her death having been caused due to pressing of neck as well as for the presence of abrasion marks on neck of victim which was obligatory upon him.
97. No specific ailment or disease history was stated to the doctors at government hospital Gurgaon neither any other record of illness was produced by the accused. This is a material omission as said information must have been in the exclusive knowledge and possession of accused. Furthermore, the record shows that the accused was duly represented by Ld. Counsels since the beginning of the case. So, it cannot be said that accused was not having the resources to challenge the illegal investigation carried out against him instead of the real culprits. This conduct of the accused in not even approaching the higher authorities of police/court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to bring the real perpetrators of his wife's strangulation to book, gives rise to a material circumstance suggesting that the accused was the real culprit and the various lacuna as alleged by him during investigation were the handiwork of the accused and his friends/ relatives/co-workers who must have acted in cahoots with the local police to weaken the case.
71/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
98. For the sake of arguments, the defence version that the accused along with his co-workers/ relatives had stayed on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 at the house of PW-10 as they were very tired after day's work, and at around 3.30am they all woke up and went to their respective places, is being treated as true. Admittedly, the same friends had reached accused's house to help him in getting his wife treated at around 4.00 am. The very conduct of the accused and his friends, who were so tired after the day's work, to suddenly get up at around 3.30 am which is generally time for deep sleep for normal/ ordinary people and to proceed to their houses, creates very serious doubt upon the credibility of the said version. It rather indicates that the said version has been concocted to create a plea of alibi for ccused to cover up the commission of murder of the victim by the accused at around the same time who was present in his house on that night and had called the same friends at around 04.00 am to help him. Furthermore, it is nowhere the case of the accused that his wife was ravished or some other illegal act like robbery etc. was commited in his house on that night. Even the postmortem report has ruled out commission of rape or presence of other bodily injuries on the body of the victim. These facts further ruled out the possibility of entry of any outsider on that night and indicate conclusively that it was the accused who was present with his wife over night and had committed the murder.
72/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
99. Perusal of the testimony of PW-6 and DW-3 reveals that they have taken the stand that they had seen the wife of the accused on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 with another person. Considering the said version is correct, it can be said that the wife of the accused was alive and in a good condition on that night at around 10.00-11.00pm. It is further seen from the record that accused has no where put his defence by suggestion to any of the witnesses that the said some other person or anybody else has committed the murder of his wife and he has been falsely implicated. This defence was also not put to any witness and was also not taken in statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, even if the theory of the accused that the victim was alive when he reached at his house is believed then also it is pointing towards only one aspect that the victim was not killed by the any other stranger but by the accused himself.
100. It is reflected from the record that the accused has taken the stand that he along with PW-4 PW-10 and PW-6 had taken the victim/accused's wife to the hospital on the cot itself. It is further seen from the testimonies of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10 that they all were not initially present in the room of the accused and were rather called by PW-10 Satender who was informed by the accused over telephone regarding the precarious condition of his wife. Admittedly, the PW-4, and PW-10 were present in their houses in the nearby village Mullahera, Gurgaon at that time which as per PW-4 is at a 73/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola distance of 1 ½ -2 km from accused's rented accommodation at Sala Pur Khera and PW-6/the Care Taker Purushotam was also not residing in the same house where the accused was living with his wife in the rented room in the village Sala Pur Khera, Delhi.
101. This version shows that the accused called his friends and the Care Taker who were not the immediate neighbors and who must have definitely taken some substantial time to reach the room of the accused. It implies that the accused, despite understanding the severe condition of his wife as she was unconscious as per his own version, instead of calling the people living in the adjoining rooms or the house wherein several tenants were admittedly residing on different floors, as per the defence version, to help the accused in taking his wife to the hospital, called his co-workers/friends from distant area which must have resulted in wastage of precious time.
102. In the circumstances, as were faced by the accused regarding the emergent condition of his wife, an ordinary prudent person would have called the immediate neighbors i.e. here the tenants putting up in adjoining rooms of the house where the house of the accused is located or would have called the police or ambulance so as to get immediate treatment for his wife. However, the accused did not do the same as would have been done by an ordinary prudent person 74/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola in these circumstances. This omission along with the fact that the accused rather called the same people who were working with him or who are his friends or relatives with whom, the accused had alleged to have been available from 09.00 pm to 3.00 am on the intervening night of 4/5.10.2017, which version has already been proved to be false as is clear from the aforesaid discussion, gives rise to very strong and material incriminating circumstance against him qua which no explanation has been given during the entire trial. Thus, this circumstance is sufficient to conclude that it was the accused who had killed the innocent wife by pressing her neck and later on created a false story by calling his friends at his place whom the police was also bound to make prosecution witnesses being the best witness.
103. The very fact that the victim was declared as brought dead by the doctors and later on in the postmortem it was discovered that she died due to ante mortem manual neck pressing rules out the possibility of her being alive after her strangulation. This court cannot believe that anybody whose neck has been pressed and later on whose postmortem suggests that the death is caused due to ante mortem pressing of neck, would have been breathing after that incident and that too for a substantial duration till the arrival of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-10 from a distant place as well as till she was taken to a doctor. Moreover, no such suggestion was put to the postmortem doctor PW-/ by the accused suggesting that there is a 75/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola possibility of the victim still breathing after such an incident which is again a material omission. These observations indicate that the victim was dead at her house itself and the accused has made a false story of her being alive when he saw her. It further shows that accused has deliberately taken her to hospital to show him as a saviour in order to avoid pointing of suspicion on him. Furthermore, the argument made by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused took the victim to the hospital shows his good conduct is of no use as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that mere taking the victim to hospital after the incident did not absolve their liability and hence their conviction was held to be justified.
104. It follows that the aforediscussed conduct of the accused before and after the commission of offence is relevant and such incriminating conduct of the accused leads to the only irresistible conclusion that accused is the perpetrator of the offence in question.
105. Thus, if the evidence led by the prosecution is considered in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, then it is clear that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Mamta was residing with the accused under the same roof, and on the date of incident, the accused and the deceased were together and the dead body of the deceased was taken by the accused 76/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola to the doctor/hospital where the doctor declared her as brought dead and the cause of death was ante mortem manual neck compression implying that the death of the victim was homicidal. It has also been established, that the relationship between the accused and deceased were strained. Further, the accused has also given an explanation qua his being out of his house on the date of the incident with PW-4 and 10 which has been established to be false as discussed earlier. He did not even say that unknown person friendly with Mamta Kumari had killed her or that she was suffering from any ailment or that his wife was strangulated by some other person during the intervening night of 4/5.10.2022. He did not explain as to how the abrasion marks were present on the neck of his deceased wife.
106. These failures of accused during his examination U/s.313 CrPC to give any explanation as to under what circumstances his wife was murdered, giving false explanations/ no explanations qua the facts and circumstances duly established during trial, which may be considered as providing a missing link for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances along with his unusual previous and subsequent conduct which is of highly incriminating nature and which demolishes the presumption of innocence, lead only to the conclusion that the accused had murdered his wife and took a false plea of alibi as well as presence of other person with his wife in his room on the day of incident.
77/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola
107. This court now proceeds to discuss the Defence evidence to see whether the accused has been able to discharge the onus shifted to him qua 304 b as wellas to shatter veracity of the overall version of prosecution.
108. The accused brought DW-1 Upender Kumar Sinha and DW-2 Anirudh Kumar, who attended the marriage of accused with deceased Mamta to prove the defence version that no dowry demand was ever made at the time of marriage, no dowry as alleged was ever given by the family of the victim and that he or his family had never harassed the victim in relation to demand of dowry these witnesses were duly cross-examined on behalf of state. However, these witnesses being merely hearsay witnesses have been found to be of no use to prove the aforesaid defence version discussed in detail in earlier part of this judgment.
109. Accused brought DW-3 Hari Lal to prove that some other person was present with his wife at his room on the intervening night of 4/5.10.2017 and that he was not present at the time of incident.
110. DW-3/Hari Lal deposed that on 04.10.2017 he was residing on the ground floor of the same building where accused and his wife were residing, that at about 9.30- 10.00pm when he came back from his tailoring job, he saw the door of the house of accused and his wife to be partly open and he could see a man sitting inside and he did not 78/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola bother to check who it was and went to his room and subsequently, the landlord namely Purshottam came to collect rent which he paid to him and Purshottam then went to other tenants and after that Purshottam came back to him and asked him whether he had seen accused or that whether he had come back home and he replied that he had not seen accused and after that Purshottam left and he slept after having dinner.
111. This testimony itself shows that DW-3 did not bother to check as to whether it was the accused present into the room or not. So, DW-3 is of no help to establish that some person other than accused was present in accused's house which further substantiates that Prosecution version that accused was very well present in his house during the night of 4/5.10.2017 and the plea of alibi taken by him is not believable. In the cross-examination DW-3 admitted that he had not seen accused Amarjeet going from his house on 04.10.2017 which alongwith his specific statement made in examination in chief that he did not bother to check as to whether it was the accused present into the room or not, establishes that it was the accused who was present at his house on the intervening night of 4/5.10.2017.
112. DW-3 admitted that he had seen the unknown person in house of Amarjeet at about 10.00 pm and that thereafter he had not seen the house of accused. DW-3 further stated in his cross examination that he was not having any suspicion over 79/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola the said person at the house of accused and stated that he did not know the name of wife of accused and also did not know that the said person was relative of accused or his wife and whether the said person belonged to his locality or any other locality. He admitted that he had neither approached police nor stated to the police about the presence of the said person in house of accused. These testimonies further indicate that factum of presence of accused at his house with his hail and hearty wife during the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 is established.
113. Considering that DW-3 deposed about meeting PW-6 Purshottam, the caretaker of the house who is also one of the Prosecution witnesses, this court deems it fit to refer to testimony of PW-6 for checking the veracity and credibility of the defence version deposed by DW-3.
114. Perusal of the testimony of PW-6 Purushotam reveals that he deposed that on 04.10.2017 at about 9.00pm he went to the house of Amarjeet in order to collect the rent where he met with his wife and one person was present in the said house. The wife of accused informed him that accused had not reached at home at that time and he told her that he came to their room for collecting the monthly rent being caretaker and thereafter he went to the other tenants residing in the same building for collecting the rent and at about 10.00pm he again went to the room of Amarjeet where he met his wife 80/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola and one another person and wife of accused told him that accused had not reached home and thereafter he went to his house.
115. The very fact that PW-6 went to accused's house and to other tenants at 09.00pm itself creates grave doubt upon his presence in the said premises at that time as no reasonable caretaker would go to collect the rent at such odd hours. PW- 6 no where mentioned about meeting DW-3 at the time of his presence in the tenanted premises. No such fact qua meeting of PW-6 with DW-3 was stated at the time of recording of statement of accused. Further, they both had seen the wife of accused in a good health as they did not say anything that the wife of accused/victim was having any health issues as is the defence of accused. These material omissions create grave doubt on their presence on that night at the house where accused was living with his wife and thus falsify their version of seeing some other person with the wife of accused which fortifies the prosecution version that accused was present at his house with his healthy and alive wife during the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017.
116. The testimony of PW-6 shows that he did not go to other tenants after 10.00pm as he had left for his house by that time and that he must have gone to the other tenants must prior to 10.00 pm. So, he must have met DW-3 much prior to 10.00 pm. Perusal of testimony of DW-3 reveals that he 81/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola deposed that he reached at around 09.30-10.00 pm, that he saw a man sitting inside the room of the accused and his wife and subsequently Purushotam came to him to collect the rent which he paid to him and he then went to other tenants and after that he came back to him and asked him whether he had seen accused or that whether he had come back home and he replied that he had not seen him and after that Purshottam left and he slept after having dinner. He admitted in his cross- examination that he saw the unknown man at around 10.00pm. These testimonies on joint reading show that PW-6 must have met DW-3 much after 10.00 pm for the first time. It is further evident from his testimony regarding going of PW-6 to other tenants after taking rent from him and then returning to him and again inquiring about accused that PW-6 must have come after 10.00pm and would have been there much beyond 10.00pm while meeting the other tenants and again going to DW-3. However, in his testimony PW-6 deposed that he came at 09.00pm and met other tenants till 10.00pm as well as wife of the accused and then left at 10.00pm.
117. These grave contradictions and inconsistencies in the version of PW-6 and DW-3 qua their timings create serious doubt upon their presence at the spot and factum of seeing some another person at house of accused at around 09.00 or 10.00 pm which establish the prosecution version that it was the accused who was present at his house on the intervening 82/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola night of 4/5.10.2017 and no other person was present at the room of the accused with his wife on the intervening night of of 4/5.10.2017.
118. The afore discussed observations and depositions of defence witnesses show that accused failed to discharge the onus shifted upon him qua rebutting the presumption arising 304-B as well as to shatter veracity of the duly proved overall version of prosecution qua the commission of cruelty and harassment by the accused with his wife for not meeting the unlawful demands of dowry and committing the murder of his wife by manual neck compression.
119. Now this court proceeds to discuss the aspect of the motive of the accused in doing away with the deceased.
120. The contention of the counsel for the defence is that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive which is essential to bring home the guilt of accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the discussion made in earlier paragraphs of this judgment clearly shows that unfulfilled demands of dowry provided the motive to the accused to eliminate the victim who admittedly died in unnatural circumstances and the accused deliberately but not willingly brought the victim to Delhi with an intention to kill victim as he was no more liking her company. The aspect of motive is duly established. Still for the sake of arguments, if it is considered that offences punishable 83/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola under sections 498-A IPC and 304 IPC are not proved for want of proof of dowry demand implying that the motive remains unproved, this contention though appears to be attractive but same is hereby rejected as it is settled law that motive is en- grained in the mind of the criminal which is impossible for the prosecution to prove. It may be noted that the absence of motive is not going to demolish the case of prosecution, if proved, otherwise and Supreme Court in Vijay Singh vs State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90 has observed that it is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence a motive does assume great importance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an importance which is not due and the motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy.
121. It is relevant to mention here that in criminal appeal No. 1397/10 titled as Bhupender @ Kale vs State passed by Delhi High Court, it has been observed as under:-
122. "If we examine the decisions of the Supreme Court on the point of death of a wife in her matrimonial house, we find that the decisions can be classified into undernoted 4 broad categories:-
I. In the first category fall the decisions where it is proved by the prosecution that the husband was present in the house when the wife suffered a homicidal death and rendered no explanation as to how his wife suffered the homicidal death. (See the decisions reported as State of Rajasthan v Parthu (2007) 12 SCC 754, 84/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryavanshi v State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 479, Ganeshlal v State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106, Prabhudayal v State of Maharashtra (1993) 3 SCC 573, Dynaneshwar v State of Maharashtra (2007) 10 SCC 445, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, Bija v State of Haryana (2008) 11 SCC 242 and State of Tamil Nadu v Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679).
II. In the second category are the decisions where the prosecution could not prove the presence of the husband in the house when the wife suffered a homicidal death but the circumstances were such that it could be reasonably inferred that the husband was in the house and the husband failed to render any satisfactory explanation as to how his wife suffered a homicidal death. The circumstances wherefrom it could be inferred that the husband was in the house would be proof that they lived in the house and used to cohabit there and the death took place in such hours of the night when a husband was expected to be in the house i.e. the hours between night time and early morning. (See the decisions reported as State of UP v Dr Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 300 and Narendra v State of Karnataka (2009) 6 SCC 61).
III. In the third category would be proof of a very strong motive for the husband to murder his wife and proof of there being a reasonable probability of the husband being in the house and having an opportunity to commit the murder.
In the decision reported as Udaipal Singh v State of UP (1972) 4 SCC 142 the deceased wife died in her matrimonial home in a room where she and her husband used to reside together. The accused/husband had a very strong motive to murder the deceased which was evident from the letter written by him to his mistress, which letter clearly brought out the feeling of disgust which the accused had towards the deceased.
The accused had the opportunity to commit the murder of the deceased as there was evidence to show the presence of the accused in the village where the house in which the deceased died was situated at the time of the death of the deceased. Noting the facts that the accused had a strong enough motive and an opportunity to murder the deceased, noting that there was no evidence that the appellant was seen in his house by anybody, the Supreme Court convicted the accused.
IV. In the fourth category are the decisions where the wife died in her matrimonial house but there was no evidence to show presence of the husband in the house at the time of the 85/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola death of the wife and the time when the crime was committed was not of the kind contemplated by the decisions in category II and was of a kind when husbands are expected to be on their job and there was either no proof of motive or very weak motive being proved as in the decision reported as Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v State of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 922 and State of Punjab Vs. Hari Kishan 1997 SCC Cri. 1211."
123. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution in the instant case has successfully established the presence of accused in his house when the murder of his wife was committed. It was for the accused to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to how and in which manner his wife was got killed and by whom. Since there is no explanation at all coming forth from the accused in this regard, the only logical conclusion which follows is that it is the accused himself, who murdered his wife i.e deceased Mamta.
124. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that there are several lapses in the investigation of the present case i.e. the police officials have not summoned or called the FSL team at the scene of crime for collection of scientific circumstance evidences, that the Investigating Officer did not take the photographs of the scene of crime, that the Investigating Officers did not take articles in their custody from the room of the deceased, that the Investigating Officers have not interrogated other tenants living in the same building in which the deceased was living, that the Investigating Officers have not made any tenant as prosecution witness from the building in which the deceased was living, that they have not 86/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola interrogated any immediate neighbours and that they have not taken mobile of the deceased in the police custody etc. With respect to the aforesaid submissions made by the Ld. Defence counsel, it is pertinent to mention that the incidents which constitute the alleged offences were committed in the presence of deceased and her husband (accused) as well as their family members. It is already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment that the firm consistent and cogent testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, police officials and the various circumstances duly proved on record as well as omissions committed by the accused during the incident and trial qua which no justification has been given by the defence, have successfully established the contents of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the same and considering that the police officials have merely conducted the investigation after happening of the incident, the lacunas as alleged by the Ld. Defence counsel do not have any force as the same do not go to the roots of the case. Furthermore, the omissions made by the police officials regarding FSL examination, finger print lifting etc. also do not have any impact on the firm testimonies of aforementioned prosecution witnesses as opinions cannot take the place of proof and the said findings are merely opinions which are corroborative in nature.
125. Further more, the Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan & Ors v/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010, SCC 567 87/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola has held as follows:-
'There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the I.O. and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation'.
126. So, immaterial and irrelevant lacunas in investigation would not entitle an accused to benefit of doubt. A misplaced leniency would result in miscarriage of justice especially in cases like the present one.
127. In view of the aforesaid observations and case law as well as considering that prosecution evidence de hors such lapses is fully reliable, it is clear that the serious defects, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution version as stated by defence are minor ones and not material in the present facts and circumstances as the same do not go to the roots of the case.
128. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that there are material contradictions in the deposition of police 88/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola witnesses PW-13, PW-17 and PW-20 with respect to the time when they joined the investigation, when they reached the spot during the investigation, when they arrested the accused, when the medical examination of the accused was conducted, when the case was marked for investigation to PW-20, when they went to the spot ie village SalapurKhera to interrogate and arrest the accused as well as when the statements of public witnesses were recorded. He further argued that the aforesaid contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of aforesaid PWs are material as the same establish the false implication of the accused in the present case. Regarding this argument, this court is of the view that the factum of commission of the alleged offence by the accused has already been proved as discussed earlier from the testimonies of PW- 1, PW-2 etc. and other duly proved circumstances. The aforesaid police witnesses have merely conducted the usual investigation after the commission of the offence which shows that the aforesaid contradictions are not capable of shattering the duly proved prosecution version. Needles to say that it is nowhere the case of the accused that the police official were having grievance against him so as to falsely implicate him. So, the afore mentioned omissions cannot be said to be material one in the present facts and circumstances.
129. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that PW-1 and PW-2 are not trustworthy witnesses and they have improved their version during the evidence and have also 89/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola given contradictory statements which creates doubt upon the credibility of the testimonies. Regarding the said argument, it is observed that testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 have already been discussed in details and have been found credible by this court. Furthermore, the alleged contradictions and improvements as referred to by ld. Counsel for the accused are either not material to the facts of the case or the same have been duly explained by the witnesses during their depositions.
130. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that PW-1 and PW- 2, have not mentioned dates, month and year of harassment for want of dowry and rather they have made general and ominous allegations which itself shows that the said allegations are false. Regarding these contentions, it is pertinent to mention that it is an admitted fact that PW-1 and PW-2 both are illiterate. It is already established that the victim was undergoing continuous harassment and beatings since the day of her marriage (26.12.2012)for want of dowry till her death on 05.10.2017, so expecting an illiterate person to remember each and every detail of dowry harassment, cruelty, beating which continues for so many years is highly unreasonable and in case if somebody is having a strong memory, still it is not possible to depose each and every minute detail. Furthermore, if somebody deposes every minute detail, same is bound to give rise to a grave suspicion upon his testimony being highly unreasonable conduct.
90/98FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola Moreover, expecting the witnesses to depose verbatim in parrot like manner would create doubt on their versions as the verbatim reproduction reflects tutoring. No body can have parrot like version in respect of each and every minute details about the incident that took place. Being the father and bua, PW-1 and PW-2 were the witnesses who in natural course were available to the victim to disclose the ordeal of her troubled married life, so merely because they were the relatives of the victim, it cannot be said that the testimonies are not reliable being interested witnesses. Rather they are the natural witnesses who had been privy to the victim regarding the cruelties/ harassment committed upon her by the accused. Furthermore, no suggestion was given to PW-1 and PW-2 that they have deliberately not specified the date, time or month of the dowry demands or harassments/cruelties alleged as no such dowry items were ever given or no such incidents had happened which being a material omission puts the present argument to rest. So, the arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence counsel that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are contradictory to each other and hence cannot be relied, are not tenable.
131. The arguments made by the Ld. Defence counsel that no independent witness has been examined to establish the allegations of alleged dowry demand, cruelty, harassment, beatings etc and the same is a material omission on the part of the prosecution benefit of which should go in favour of 91/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola accused, do not have any force in view of the clear, cogent and consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the continuous demands of dowry made by the accused, the continuous cruelty and harassment committed by the accused due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry which continued till her death. Moreover, the incidents pertaining to the alleged offences do not take place in the open public and thus, expecting the presence of public persons at the time of commission of alleged offences is beyond imagination.
132. Ld. Defence counsel contended that the incident is of 4/05.10.2017 while the FIR was registered on 12.10.2017 after inordinate delay. This unjustified delay shows the FIR was registered after due deliberations to falsely inplicate the accused in connivance with relations of deceased by police officials. Regarding this issue, it is to be noted that the parents of the deceased were admittedly residing at Bihar at time of incident. The unrebutted testimony of PW-19 Ct. Sarvender shows that information of the death of the victim was conveyed to her family members and SDM on 05.10.2017. It is also proved that the family members of the deceased stated that it will take 2-3 days to reach Gurgaon and accordingly request for preserving the body was made vide Ex. PW-9/A. The testimony of PW-15 reveals that he inspected the body on 09.10.2017 and he had also got the information qua the death of the victim before 2-3 days of the postmortem which was conducted on 09.10.2017 as deposed 92/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola by PW-9. It is also proved from the testimony of PW-15 that inquest report was filed by him on 12.10.2017 which is the same day when FIR was registered. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the case like the present one, initial proceedings are conducted by way of DD entry and the said DD entry is converted into FIR based on the cause of death revealed after completion of inquest proceedings which was completed in the present case on 12.10.2017. These observations and the aforesaid testimonies shows that there in no unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR and delay, if any is duly explained from the aforesaid observations. Furthermore, the version of causing intentional delay in registration of FIR by the police officials in connivance with the victims, father/ relatives was never put to PW-1(bua of the victim) and PW- 2(father of the victim) and to any of the police officials nor stated in statement of accused or defence evidence which being a material omission estops the accused to raise this issue at this stage and further shows that the same is an after thought. This court finds support regarding the observations made in this paragraph as well as at other places in this judgment regarding the omission to put version to the witnesses and its consequent effect from the following law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme in Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 716:-
"16. It is a settled legal proposition that in case the question is not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of 93/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola the said fact/issue could not be raised."
133. Ld. Defence counsel argued that Investigating Officer stated in the cross-examination that he did not remember whether the father of the victim specifically stated the date, month and year when the demand of dowry was made or whether the father and bua of the victim had made statement to him regarding items given by them in the marriage of the victim with the accused. He further argued that this testimony shatters the entire prosecution version as the very factum of recording of statements has come under grave doubt. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the credibility of testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has withstood the test of cross- examination and the same has been found reliable by this court. Considering the same, the memory of the Investigating Officer qua the facts stated at the time of recording of statements is immaterial. Moreover, the very factum of recording of the said statements is not disputed as no specific suggestion to this effect was put to the Investigating Officer, other police officials and PW-1 and PW-2. In these facts, the arguments made by the Ld. Defence counsel do not have any merits.
CONCLUSION/DECISION
134. It can be easily culled out from the analysis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses discussed above that 94/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola the prosecution has been able to prove the following facts and circumstances:-
(1) The victim was married with accused on 26.12.2012 and she died on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2017 within seven years of marriage (2) The continuous demands of dowry (cash and motorcycle) were made by the accused which father of victim failed to fulfil completely.
(3) The continuous cruelty and harassment committed by the accused with the victim due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry which continued till her death (4) The cruelty inflicted on victim on account of insufficient dowry soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(5) The unfulfilled demands of dowry provided the motive to the accused to eliminate the victim who admittedly died in unnatural circumstances.
(6) The accused deliberately but not willingly brought the victim to Delhi with an intention to kill victim as he was no more liking her company.
(7) The accused threatened the victim to kill her 7-8 days prior to her death (8) The deceased and the accused were residing under the same roof.
(9) On the date of incident, the deceased was with the Accused (10) The death of the victim was homicidal in nature caused due to antemortem manual neck pressing. Prior to her death she was not suffering from any ailment/disease and no other untoward incident happened with her (rape, robbery etc) on the said night in her house which rules out the intervention of any other person except the accused (11) The abrasion marks were found present on the neck of the victim which the accused failed to explain.
(12) Immediately after the incident, the accused did not call the immediate neighbours but called his co-workers/ friends (13) Accused did not make any effort to trace out the real 95/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola culprits in case his version that some other person had committed the offence was true.
(14) No/false/improper explanation given by the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the facts and circumstances which have been duly established by the prosecution.
135. Considering, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, it is clear that chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution is complete and the improper explanations/ no explanations/ false explanations given by the accused at the time of recording of statement of the accused have filled the remaining gaps, if any, in the prosecution case.
136. Taking into account, the afore-discussed testimonies, analysis, discussion and observations, this Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Ld. Sub. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for completion of the alleged offences have force whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused has been falsely implicated are found to be unjustified.
137. As far as guilt of accused Amarjeet @ Bhola for the offence punishable under section 498-A/304-B Indian Penal Code is concerned, it has clearly come in the evidence that deceased Mamta was continuously subjected to harassment 96/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola and torture on account of dowry by accused. She was not only subjected to physical cruelty but mental cruelty as well. She was meted with cruelty and harassment on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry as out of the cash of Rs. One lacs demanded by the accused and his family only, Rs. 50,000/- was paid and the demand of motorcycle made by the accused was also not fulfilled. The afore discussed testimonies and observations, have further established that the victim died otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and the accused has failed to rebutt the presumption arising under section 113-B Indian Evidence Act.
138. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the omissions made by the accused, it is held that for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code, all the circumstances irresistibly point towards the accused being guilty. No other hypothesis can be formed except the guilt of the accused and all the circumstances cumulatively form a complete chain indicating that the crime has been committed by accused. So, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and all the facts and circumstances of the matter unerringly lead to the inference that Mamta had died a homicidal death. The said facts and circumstances further lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the act of manual neck compression by 97/98 FIR No: 423/17, Police Station: Kapashera, State vs Amarjeet @ Bhola strangulating his wife with the intention of causing death and resultantly her death was caused by the said act, thereby, bringing his act within the ambit of offence defined as murder under section 300 Indian Penal Code, punishable under section 302-Indian Penal Code.
139. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Amarjeet @ Bhola for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused Amarjeet @ Bhola is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
140. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 13th Day of December, 2022 (Viplav Dabass) ASJ(FTC)/SW-DWARKA NEW DELHI 98/98