Delhi District Court
State vs Madia & Others/Fir No.911/00. on 21 January, 2010
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. 48/08.
FIR NO. 911/00.
PS : SULTANPURI.
U/S. 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. MADIA S/O. NIRMAL SINGH
R/O. D-1/29, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
2. RAJU S/O. MADIA
R/O. D-1/29, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
3. RAJENDER S/O. MADIA
R/O. D-1/29, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
4. DHARMENDER S/O. MADIA
R/O. D-1/29, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
5. OMEY DEVI W/O. MADIA
R/O. D-1/29, SULTANPURI,
DELHI.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC.
:2:
Date of Institution : 11.09.2002.
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 22.11.2008.
Arguments heard On : 07.01.2010.
Order Announced On : 21.01.2010.
MS. NEETA GUPTA, SUBSTITUTE APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI R.N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR ALL ACCUSED
PERSONS.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts which are projected in the chargesheet are that on 20.09.2001, SI Ajay Solanki received DD No.45 B. He alongwith Ct. Jagdeep went to Jaipur Golden Hospital where MLC No.4726 of patient Surekha W/o. Karambir obtained from doctor. Doctor opined on MLC that patient Surekha brought dead. SI Ajay Solanki got all the documents concerned with the deceased Surekha. After knowing that deceased Surekha was married about seven months prior to her death. He contacted Ct. Kartar Singh. Thereafter he went to spot of crime i.e. D-28, Sultanpuri and inspected the same. The photographer was called for taking photographs of scene of crime. The bed-sheet having blood stain was seized. Two chunni of sky blue colour and yellow colour STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :3: having blood stains was also seized. A suicide note was recovered under the pillow written by deceased Surekha. SI Ajay Solanki also received DD No.60D on 8.10 pm in the night regarding murder.
2. Thereafter SI Ajay Solanki went to Jaipur Golden Hospital where SDM Kartar Singh was present. SDM inspected the dead body at the hospital and thereafter visited the spot of crime. SDM Kartar Singh recorded statement of Mohan Lal, father of the deceased. On the basis of allegations in the statement of Mohan Lal directions were given for registration of case under Section 498A/304B read with 34 IPC against accused persons Madia, Raju, Rajender, Dharmender and Omey Devi.
3. The postmortem of deceased Surekha was carried out and Inquest paper were prepared. Thereafter dead body was handed over to father Mohan Lal. IO conducted further investigation got prepared site plan and recorded statement of witnesses. The video cassette of marriage of deceased STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :4: Surekha and marriage card also taken into possession. A list of articles which were given at the time of marriage was also taken into possession given by Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal identified the suicide note. SI Ajay Solanki also taken opinion from Dr. Komal, CMO, Mortuary regarding recovered duppatta. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed for trial for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B read with 34 IPC.
4. Learned M.M. after compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of sessions.
5. My learned Predecessor vide order dated 03.10.2002 framed the charge for trial of offence punishable under Section 398A/304A read with 34 IPC, to which all accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution in support of present case examined PW1 HC Durga Prasad, who proved that on 01.01.01, he was MHC(M). On 08.05.01 exhibits were sent to FSL, Malviya STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :5: Nagar through Ct. Naresh Kumar in sealed condition. He made the relevant entries in the Malkhana Register Ex.PW1/A and RC Ex.PW1/B. PW3 WSI Suman, proved the FIR recorded by her Ex.PW3/A being Duty Officer. PW7 Suresh, brother of the deceased Surekha identified the dead body at SGM Hospital Mortuary and proved his statement Ex.PW7/A. PW10 Shiv Nath Singh wrongly mentioned as PW8, he proved the seizure memo Ex.PW8/A by which a black colour Panasonic video cassette of marriage which was seized by the IO. He further proved seizure memo Ex.PW2/B by which list of dowry articles was taken into possession by the IO. He also proved marriage card Ex.P1, list of articles Ex.P2 and another seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He also identified video cassette Ex.P3. PW11 wrongly mentioned as PW9, Sanjeev Kr proved the photographs of the spot Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A5. He has not produced the negatives of the photographs as his shop was closed after two years of the incident.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :6:
7. PW2 Mohan Lal, father of the deceased, PW4 Smt. Beero Devi, mother of the deceased, PW5 Mahesh, brother of the deceased, PW6 Smt. Sangma and PW8 Raj Singh, Public witnesses and PW9 wrongly mentioned PW8, Jai Singh is relative of the deceased are the material witnesses.
8. PW12 wrongly mentioned as PW10 L.M. Tiwari, is the Pandit, who performed the marriage of the Surekha with Karambir on 13.03.2002. PW13 wrongly mentioned as PW11 Dr. Komal Singh, he proved the detailed Postmortem Report Ex.PW11/A. He testified that the cause of death was constructive force over the neck producing the asphyxia. The injuries sustained at neck was enough to kill the lady. He further proved the opinion given by him after seeing the two seized duppatta of sky blue and yellow colour. He proved the opinion Ex.PW11/B. He further proved the application Ex.PW11/C, which was received for his opinion. He also testified a parcel after opinion was duly sealed and his notes were Ex.PW11/B1. He identified the STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :7: duppatta as Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2. PW14 wrongly mentioned as PW12, Shashi Bhushan, Executive from Jaipur Golden Hospital, proved the MLC of patient Surekha Ex.PW12/A prepared by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Shukla on 20.09.2000. PW15 LCT. Raj Kumari, proved the DD Entry No.45 B, marked as Mark X. She testified that DD Register has already been destroyed by the orders of the DCP dated 4.7.2005.
9. PW16 wrongly mentioned as PW14 SI Sukram Pal, he deposed that on 21.09.2000, he went to SGM Hospital on the directions of the IO for postmortem examination of deceased Surekha. The SDM completed the Inquest proceedings thereafter handed over to doctor concerned. After Postmortem Examination as per directions of SDM dead body was handed over to him, which given to the father of the deceased. He proved that doctor gave him four sealed parcels alongwith sample seal, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/A and deposited in the Malkhana.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :8:
10. PW17 wrongly mentioned as PW15, Ct.
Rajbir proved the Arrest of accused Madia at Tis Hazari Court gate on 20.01.2000 and proved Arrest Memo Ex.PW15/A. PW18 wrongly mentioned as PW16 Ct. Chetan Swaroop proved the arrest memo of Raju Ex.PW16/A. PW19 wrongly mentioned as PW17 Ct. Birma Ram proved the arrest of accused Rajender Singh on 5.12.2000, vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW17/A. PW20 wrongly mentioned as PW18 Ct. Jagdeep Singh proved the fact that on 20.09.2000 on receiving the DD No.45B. He alongwith SI Ajay Solanki went to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where deceased Surekha was found admitted as brought dead. On inquiry it was revealed that she died within six months of her marriage. At about 7.30 pm SDM Kartar Singh came to the hospital and IO came around 8 pm. SDM inspected the dead body thereafter it was sent for Autopsy. He deposed that on 21.09.2000, SDM Kartar Singh and SI Sukh Pal came at mortuary, where postmortem examination was conducted.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :9:
11. PW21 wrongly mentioned as PW19 Ct. Kishan, proved the arrest of the accused Dharmender by proving the ArrestmemoEx.PW19/A and personal search memo Ex.PW19/B on 21.12.00. PW23 wrongly mentioned as PW21, Dr. N. Atri, proved the fact that on 21.09.00 Rajender came to his Atri Medicare Center and told him that his sister in law hanged herself and thereafter he went to their house and found Surekha was lying on bed. Thereafter he referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital. In the cross examination, he deposed that deceased was not expired at that time but she was not in a position to depose or disclose anything. PW24 wrongly mentioned as PW22 LCT. Lakhpati, proved the Arrest memo of Omey Devi vide memo Ex.PW22/A.
12. PW22 wrongly mentioned as PW20 is Kartar Singh, Retired ADM, PW25 wrongly mentioned as PW23 SI Ajay Solanki Investigation Officer. PW26 wrongly mentioned as PW24, Dr. Dhruv Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, proved the scientific report Ex.PW24/A1 to Ex.PW24/A2. Another report Ex.PW24/C and Serological Report Ex.PW24/D. STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :10:
13. PW22, wrongly mentioned as PW20 Kartar Singh, retired ADM on 20.09.00, he was posted as SDM, Saraswati Vihar, on receiving the message through his P.A. Lalit Kumar that a lady brought to the Jaipur Golden Hospital, but at that time he was busy in Jeevan Mala Nursing Home, where recording the statement of one Sudha. Thereafter he reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital. Many public persons were gathered there. Dead body of deceased Surekha wife of Karambir brought on that day. He inspecting the dead body and found ligature mark on the neck. He further deposed that he directed the concerned police officials to send the dead body to the mortuary SGM Hospital for Postmortem Examination. Thereafter he went to the spot at D-1/28, Sultanpuri,Delhi alongwith police officials where police officials told him that a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased dated 20.09.00 was recovered from the bed and the same was taken into possession. The photographs of the place of incident was taken. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Mohan Lal, father of deceased Surekha Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter made endorsement for STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :11: necessary actionEx.PW20/A. He further deposed that he also recorded statement of mother of deceased Beero Devi and brother Mahesh and put his signatures. Thereafter brother proved facts of the case Ex.PW20/C. A request conducting postmortem was madeEx.PW20/B, Form 25.35(1)(B) Ex.PW20/E filled up. Statement of Mohan Lal and Suresh were also recorded for identification of the dead body. The dead body after postmortem examination was handed over to LR's vide received Ex.PW20/D. In the cross examination he deposed that he had received the information through his PA around 11am-12pm. He recorded the statement of complainant on 21.09.00 and after refreshing the memory he further stated that on 20.09.00 itself he had recorded the statement. He further deposed that he does not remember exactly where he had recorded the statement either at the PS or in his office. The IO alongwith other witness were sitting outside his room when he had recorded the statement of witnesses. He denied the suggestion that IO recorded statements of witnesses, he simply put the signatures and conducted the proceedings as per wishes of the police officials.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :12:
14. PW23 SI Ajay Solanki deposed that on 20.09.2000 on receiving the DD No.45B at about 1.15 pm Ex.PW23/A, he alongwith Ct. Jagdeep went to Jaipur Golden Hospital where obtained the MLC of patient/deceased Surekha. According to MLC patient was brought dead with alleged history of hanging from fan. On inquiry came to know that deceased was married about six months ago. Thereafter he informed SDM Shri Kartar Singh, but he was busy in some other case then he left for the spot i.e. D-1/28, Sultanpuri. He further deposed that at the spot he found two duppattas (one of sky blue colour and second of yellow colour) on the bed. The yellow duppatta was torn in two parts having blood stains. Some greasy material was also noticed on the blue coloured duppatta. The bed sheet was also having blood stains. One Raj Singh, Public witness joined the investigation. He proved the seizure memo of bed-sheet vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Seizure of duppatta vide memo Ex.PW11/C. He further deposed that one suicide note in Hindi having name and signatures of deceased Surekha dated 20.09.200 was discovered from the underneath the STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :13: pillow which was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/A. Prior to seizure of the articles Sanjeev a private photographer was called, who took the photographs of the spot.
15. He further deposed that thereafter he came back at the Jaipur Golden Hospital, where SDM reached, then briefed him and on the directions of SDM, dead body was sent to Mortuary of SGM Hospital. He came to the spot alongwith SDM. Thereafter went to the police station. On the way he received DD No.70B regarding murder. After coming back to the PS, he deposited pullandas with MHC(M) in sealed condition and proceeded for investigation of DD No.70B. He further deposed that on the next day on 21.09.2000 as per directions of SHO record was given to SI Sukhram Pal. He further proved site plan prepared by him Ex.PW23/B. He further proved the seizure memo of video cassette of the marriage of deceased Surekha with Karambir vide memo Ex.PW8/A, one marriage card seized vide memo Ex.PW2/C and a list of dowry articles seized vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He further deposed that he recorded the STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :14: statements of Mohan Lal, Jai Bhagwan and Shiv Nath and identified the marriage card Ex.P1, list of dowry articles Ex.P2 and Video Cassette of marriage Ex.P3.
16. He further deposed on 18.10.2000 he took the sealed pullandas containing duppattas to SGM Hospital for opinion of Dr. Komal Singh. He proved the application given to Dr. Komal Singh Ex.PW23/C. The duppattas after examination and giving opinion were again sealed with the seal of doctor and same were deposited in the Malkhana. On 5.12.2000 he arrested accused Rajender and proved Arrest Memo Ex.PW23/D and personal search memo Ex.PW17/A. On 20.12.2000 he proved that he arrested the remaining all accused persons at gate of Tis Hazari Courts and proved their Arrest Memos and personal search memos on 08.05.2001, as per directions, Ct. Naresh took the Pullandas from MHC(M) and visited at FSL. He further deposed that he completed the investigation after recording of statements of all the prosecution witnesses and thereafter submitted the chargesheet.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :15:
17. In the cross examination he deposed that he had seized suicide note having name of deceased Surekha on 20.09.2000 Ex.PW23/DA. He admits that the name of father of the deceased was Mohan Lal. He recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW23/DB and also shown suicide note to the Mohan Lal. However handwriting on the suicide note was not analyzed as sample of the handwriting on the suicide note was not available. He further admitted that on the next day husband of the Surekha also committed suicide. He further admitted that since father of the deceased Surekha had identified the handwriting on the suicide note, therefore, he did not feel necessary for getting any other corroborative evidence. He further deposed that on 20.09.2000 the parents of the deceased Surekha were available by SGM Hospital but he did not initiate any step for recording of their statement. He had also not requested SDM to record the statements. The SDM started inquiry at about 7 PM on 20.09.2000. The recorded complaint was handed over to me by the SDM in the evening on 21.09.2000. Thereafter FIR was registered, the case STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :16: property were deposited at Malkhana at 8.30 pm on 20.09.2000. He did not sign register no.19. He did not send special report of the case to the senior officers or Area MM. He further deposed that during investigation he had recorded statements of persons of neighbourhood regarding the quarrel. He did not investigate the fact that deceased was living separately with her husband at the time of incident. He denied that FIR was ante time and ante dated. He denied that accused Rajender himself surrendered in the PS. He admits he did not record disclosure statement of accused persons arrested at Tis Hazari Gate. He further deposed that he had reached the spot on the day of incident at around 4.30 pm. He denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of accused persons as they were not involved in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct fair investigation and colluded with the complainant party.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :17:
18. PW2 Mohan Lal, father of the deceased Surekha deposed that he is working as Sanitary Inspector in MCD. His daughter get married to Karambir on 12.3.2000 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Dowry according to the capacity given to the accused persons. After one month accused persons started harassing her daughter for not bringing sufficient dowry. Due to harassment and cruelties of other family members husband of his daughter was compel to leave the house. He used to pacify them, so that his daughter would not turned out to the house. He further deposed that on 12.9.2000 he received telephonic message from his daughter Surekha that accused persons were beating her. Then, mother of the Surekha was sent and accused persons were requested to sent the daughter with her, but accused persons refused. On 13.9.2000, Mahesh brother of deceased was sent to in laws house to bring her back but accused persons gave beating to Mahesh and did not sent his daughter back. He further deposed that on 16.09.2000 Karambir came with Surekha at his house then he gave Rs.5000/- and they went back. On 20.9.2000 he STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :18: was informed at his office that her daughter admitted to the hospital in serious condition, then he went to the Jaipur Golden Hospital but before reaching there his wife and younger brother also reached there. The doctor present at the hospital told them that their daughter brought dead in the hospital. He proved the statement recorded by the SDM Ex.PW2/A. He also proved that a list of dowry articles, marriage card seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He proved the marriage card and list of dowry articles Ex.P2. He further deposed that he joined Inquest Proceedings and identified the dead body of his daughter and proved his statement in this regard Ex.PW2/D.
19. PW2 Mohan Lal cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused persons in detail. He stated his salary before the marriage was Rs.8,500/- per month. He had received the information of death of his daughter at about 2-2.30pm on 20.09.2000. The SDM reached at the hospital at about 3.30 pm and he met him. His statement alongwith other family members recorded by the SDM in the STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :19: night at about 11-12 pm. He deposed that he came to know that his son in law Karambir died on the next day morning. He admits that Karambir was in the hospital when he reached there alongwith family members on 20.9.2000. He denied the suggestion that his family member gave beating to Karambir due to which he had received injuries and later on died on the next day. He denied the suggestion that after learning the fact that Karambir has died they had given false statement to the police and implicated the accused persons. He admits that since the day of hear marriage he had not reported to any authority regarding the demand of dowry.
20. Deceased daughter Surekha remained at matrimonial home from 12.3.2000 to 20.09.2000 and during that period visited twice her parents house. He denied that one of his Suresh was to be engaged on 16.09.2000, therefore, he called Karambir and Surekha to join the ceremony. He further admits that at the time or before marriage there was no demand of dowry. He stated the time period of recording of statement by the SDM 9.35 pm to 11.30 pm. He further deposed that accused persons STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :20: demanded sometimes Rs.10,000/- or sometimes Rs.15,000/- but he cannot tell the date. Accused never came to his house to demand personally. He deposed that he did not visit the house of Surekha on 12.09.00, but his wife used to go to house of Surekha after every 10-15 days, she did not lodge report with police when found that Surekha was beating by the accused persons. PW1 Mohan Lal confronted with his statement made to SDM Ex.PW2/A in respect of visit of Mahesh on 13.09.00 and his younger brother Jai Bhagwan on 13.09.00.He admits that FIR No.572/1, U/S. 302/364/34IPC registered against them, on the issue of death of Karambir. He denied the suggestion that about after fifteen days of marriage Karambir and deceased Surekha setup a separate matrimonial home and accused persons has nothing to do with them. He denied that accused persons did not raise any demand or dowry and never caused beating or cruelty to Surekha. He admitted the factum of Panchayat held on 29.10.00, but he denied any compromise have been arrived at. He denied that his daughter Surekha has written a suicide note and also signed by her.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :21:
21. PW4, Smt. Beero Devi, mother of the deceased deposed that who is after the marriage of her daughter she was harassed and maltreated for demand of dowry or accused persons and son in law Karambir. They used to say her that she has brought less dowry. She deposed that on 12.9.2000 she had received telephonic message from her daughter that accused persons are harassing and beating and demanding dowry, then she visited and found that her daughter was badly beaten. Accused persons refused to send her. She further deposed that on next day she sent her son Mahesh to bring her daughter Surekha. When Mahesh went there, accused persons gave beating to Surekha and she was not sent with the Mahesh. Thereafter uncle of deceased was sent but again she was not sent back. She further deposed that on 16.9.2000 her daughter Surekha came to her house alongwith Karambir and stayed there in the night. Karambir assured that he will not harass or beat her and thereafter they went back on 17.9.2000. She further deposed that on 20.09.2000 during the day time son in law telephone that Surekha is in serious condition and asked STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :22: them to reach at Jaipur Golden Hospital. PW4 alongwith her devar Jai Bhagwan and her devrani Leela went to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he found Surekha was dead and she also made a statement before SDM Ex.PW3/A.
22. In the detailed cross examination by the learned defence counsel she deposed that telephone was received and they went to the hospital at around 2 pm. Karambir was there alongwith other family members. The police also reached there and they informed to the police that her daughter Surekha was brought dead. The police recorded the statement of PW2, her son and husband in the hospital. Rajender and Karambir remained in the hospital till 7 pm. SDM did not record their statement in the hospital But recorded in the PS at about 9 pm till 11.30 pm. She admits that there was no demand of dowry before marriage or at the time of marriage but after the 10-15 days of marriage. A demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by all the accused persons then in total Rs.25,000/- was paid. On confrontation with her statement given to the SDM this fact was not recorded. She STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :23: further deposed that, she visited the matrimonial home 2-3 times and lastly on 3.9.00. At the occasion of TEEZ when she visited matrimonial home of her daughter, mother in law of my daughter taunted her on the gifts brought by her. She further deposed that her daughter came later on 16.9.00. She admits that no complaint against the accused persons was made from the date of marriage till her death. On 12.9.00 she visited at the daughter's house at about noon and met mother in law. The house of other accused persons was adjacent to the matrimonial home of the daughter. She did not know other accused persons and only talked to mother in law. She admits that she did not tell the story of 12.9.00 to the SDM. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/A to the fact that daughter was beaten and having injuries at the time of death.
23. PW4 further deposed that on 13.09.00 her son Mahesh went to her daughter's house at about 4 pm. The clothes of Mahesh was torn but no police complaint was made. This fact is also confronted with Ex.PW4/DA where it STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :24: was not recorded. She admits that on 16.9.00 they went to see a girl for her son Suresh and called Surekha and Karambir for this purpose. They visited on 17.9.00 for this purpose. She denied the suggestion that about 15-20 persons went to see the girl for Suresh. She further deposed that she did not see suicidal note but it may be shown to her husband. She admits that she came to know about death of husband (Karambir) of deceased (Surekha) at about 5 am on 21.09.00. She denied the suggestion that they had beaten Karambir severely and due to which he died on the next day and accused persons falsely implicated in this case. She denied the suggestion that after fifteen days of marriage Karambir and Surekha were living separately.
24. PW5 Mahesh brother of the deceased Surekha, deposed that she married with Karambir on 12.03.00. Accused persons started torturing after two months for not bringing sufficient dowry. On 16.09.00 she came alongwith Karambir, husband before that she never visited the house and went back on 17.09.00. She did not told anything STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :25: against the accused persons. On 20.09.00 a telephone call was received from the accused persons that condition of Surekha is serious and they were called at Jaipur Golden Hospital. On reaching at hospital they came to know that deceased Surekha was brought dead in the hospital. PW5 Mahesh was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned APP for the State.
In the cross examination he deposed that he stated to the police in his statement that when his sister came to the house just after the marriage then started weeping and told that her relatives that her husband Jeth Raju, Rajender and Dharmender and mother in law and father in law used to give beating. They demanded money for opening a school. Rs.20,000/- sent through Suresh were given to the accused persons. He further deposed that on 12.09.00 his mother received telephonic call then she visited the matrimonial home of Surekha, where she came to know that the husband Karambir used to beat her for bringing money and father in law and jeth used to torture. On 13.09.00 he himself visited the accused persons house for STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :26: taking his sister back. There accused persons demanded money and when they said that there is no mention there then they started beating. Sister Surekha was not send with him.
In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons he deposed that he went to the hospital alongwith Chacha Jai Bhagwan and mother at about 1/2.30 pm. Police already there. The statement was recorded at PS, at about 9 pm in the night by police. The parents used to visit matrimonial home of Surekha 2-3 times. He further deposed that on 13.09.00 he visited matrimonial home of Surekha prior to it never visited there. He further admits that on 16.9.00 his sister Surekha visited the house alongwith husband Karambir and they stayed in the house in the night. He admits that Surekha and Karambir used to reside at D-28, Sultanpuri. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were living at House No.D-29. He denied the suggestion that the accused Rajender has been living separately in jhuggi no. D-1/29 and accused Raju was living at second floor of Jhuggi No.D-29. He denied the suggestion STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :27: that his sister was separated by in laws after fifteen days of marriage and she was living separately. The mediator Hawa Singh also told about the behaviour of son in law Karambir. He further deposed that he has no knowledge that her father has given Rs.20,000/- to Surekha. However, this is confronted, which is not recorded in his statement Ex.PW5/DA. He has also confronted with the facts that he was beaten by the accused persons on 13.09.00, which was not recorded in his statement Ex.PW5/DA. He further deposed that police had shown to him the alleged suicide note. He denied that his sister was not willing to marry due to her affair and because of this she was under depression and committed suicide. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not any demand of dowry nor subjected his sister to harassment or committed cruelty. He denied the suggestion that statement was made to SDM because Karambir had died.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :28:
25. PW6 Smt. Sangma deposed that about four years back at about 11.30 am she was sitting in front of her jhuggi. And came to know that Karambir's wife Surekha hanged herself inside the room. Karakbir came from the school knocked the door but the same was not opened, therefore, by force door was opened. The mother of Karambir was also sitting in front of her jhuggi. She turned hostile and cross examined by the learned APP for the State. In the cross examination she denied that she had gone inside the house with Karambir and saw Surekha was hanging on the fan with the chunni and then she was brought down and laid on the bed. She denied that the blood was coming from her mouth which was cleaned with chunni. She further denied that Dr. Ali came and was advised them to take her to Jaipur Golden Hospital.
26. PW8 Raj Singh deposed that Karambir and his wife Surekha were residing in Sultanpuri. Police seized the clothes from the house of Karambir vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. He deposed that he not only that public persons were gathered STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :29: there. He turned out to be hostile and learned APP for the State cross examined the witness. In the cross examination he deposed that he cannot say clothes, bed sheet and chunnis were seized by the Police. He denied that he signed the seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. He also denied that the seizure of suicide note marked as Mark B. Learned counsel for the accused persons also cross examined him and he denied the suicide note recovered under the pillow of the bed by the police.
27. PW9 Jai Bhagwan wrongly mentioned as PW8 deposed that Surekha was daughter of his elder brother Mohan lal. She was married with Karambir (now deceased) on 12.3.00. she used to informed that she was being harassed by father in law, mother in law and Jeth of the accused persons. On 12.9.00 a telephone call received from Surekha and Mahesh was sent to her matrimonial house on 13.9.00 to bring her back. But accused persons did not send her back. The accused persons also assured that they will not harass her for dowry. On 16.9.00 Karambir brought STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :30: Surekha at the house and they returned on 17.09.00 in the evening. He further deposed that on 20.09.00 at about 1.30 pm a telephone call was received from Karambir, that Surekha was ill and they were asked to reach at Jaipur Golden Hospital. He alongwith his Bhabhi went to the Jaipur Golden Hospital, where on inquiry came to know that Surekha was brought dead. The postmortem was conducted and body was given thereafter. He further deposed that his brother produced a video cassette of marriage, list of dowry articles and wedding card Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C, he signed the memos. He further proved the memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. He identified wedding card Ex.P1, list of dowry articles Ex.P2 and video cassette Ex.P3.
In the cross examination he deposed that he was not present in the hospital when SDM came there. His statement was not recorded by the police on 20.09.00. On the next day he went to the police station, his statement was recorded by the police. He denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded on 21.09.00. He deposed that there was no demand of dowry before the marriage. Surekha STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :31: had visited the house of her father 2-3 times after marriage and she used to meet him. He denied that the knowledge that Surekha was residing separately with her husband. But later on said that there was a separate room with other family members in the house. On 12.09.00 a telephone was attended by his Bhabhi but he was not present. He further deposed that on 13.09.00 they went to the house of accused persons to call Surekha as they wanted to go to see a girl for marriage of his nephew on 16.09.2000. He denied that this incident took place on 13.09.2000. He admitted that on 16.09.00 Surekha and Karambir came and there was no conversation with Surekha. He denied the suggestion that Surekha was depressed before marriage and was not willing to marry. He admits that on Ex.PW8/DA his signatures were appearing. He denied that a Panchayat was called on 29.10.2000. He denied the suggestion that on 13.09.00 he did not visit the house of Surekha.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :32:
28. Statement of all the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Initially they wish to examine the witnesses in their defence but later on expressed their willingness not to examine witness in their defence.
29. I have Ms. Neeta Gupta, Substitute APP for the State and Shri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for all accused persons and perused the record.
30. The vital witnesses testimony are PW1 Mohan Lal, PW4 Beero Devi, PW5 Mahesh and PW9 Jai Bhagwan (wrongly mentioned as PW8). However, in order to carry out scrutiny and analysis of the testimony of these witnesses it is essential to have a look on the provisions of law and principles of law laid down by The Apex Court :-
Section 304B, IPC, deals with 'dowry death', which reads as follows:
"304B IPC. Dowry death.--
(1)Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :33: marriage and 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.
Explanation,--For the purpose of this sub-Section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(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."
The legislature has also introduced Section 113B of the Evidence Act alongside insertion of Section 304B, IPC.
"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 STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00. PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :34: 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.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this Section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, are as follows:
"(1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal;
(2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage;
(3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :35: (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death."
In the case of unnatural death of a married woman as in a case of this nature, the husband could be prosecuted under Sections 302, 304B and 306 of the Penal Code. The distinction as regards commission of an offence under one or the other provisions as mentioned herein before came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Apex Court in Satvir Singh V. State of Punjab 2001 (2) JCC 274; [(2001) 8 SCC 633] wherein it was held: (SCC p.643, paras 21-22).
"21. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is 'at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are 'In connection with the marriage of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00. PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC.
:36: customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.
22. It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304-B IPC is to be invoked. But it should have happened 'soon before her death'. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words 'soon before her death is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00. PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :37: harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval which elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. It is hence for the court to decide, on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether the said interval in that particular case was sufficient to snuff its cord from the concept 'soon before her death'."
In Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi 2003(2) JCC 1182: [(2003) 8 SCC 80], The Apex Court observed that :
(SCC pp.86-87, para 9] "The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00. PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :38: goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. 'The determination of the period which can come within the term soon before' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.
Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
31.The prosecution has to fulfill and establish the basic ingredients to attract Section 304 B IPC. The ingredients are :-
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00. PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :39:
(i) The death of the deceased woman Surekha was caused due to hanging or for some circumstances which were not normal. In the present case deceased Surekha committed suicide. The Postmortem Report proved by the Prosecution Ex.PW11/A and opinion given by him after examination of recovered two duppattas Ex.PW11/B established that the caused of death was as a result of hanging. Hence prosecution establish that the deceased Surekha was not died in the same circumstances which were not normal.
(ii)Such death occurs within seven years of the date of marriage. The prosecution establish on the basis of testimony of PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW9 that deceased Surekha was married to Karambir on 12.3.00. This fact is not assailed by the accused persons.
32. The deceased Surekha died on 20.09.2000. It clearly establish that death of Surekha occurred within seven years of her date of marriage. The other two ingredients are taken up simultaneously as they are interconnected. These ingredients are as under :-
(iii) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :40:
(v) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death."
33. Now close scrutiny and analysis of vital witnesses of prosecution has to be done to fulfill above three ingredients. PW1 Manohar Lal in his statement before the SDM Ex.PW2/A stated that her deceased daughter conveyed him that accused persons wanted to open a School and demanded money from him to open a school. PW1 Manohar Lal when appeared in the witness box, he has not testified this fact in the witness box. PW4 Beero Devi, mother of the deceased Surekha also not deposed in her examination that accused persons demanded money to open a school through deceased Surekha. PW5 Mahesh brother of the Surekha initially turned out to be hostile but when cross examined by the learned APP for the State he stated this fact that accused persons demanded money for business and for opening of school and Rs.20,000/- were given through Surekha. This fact stated by him is contrary to the facts stated by PW2 and PW4. PW9 Jai Bhagwan (wrongly mentioned as PW8) is silent STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :41: on this aspect of demand by accused persons for opening business or school. Hence on the basis of above discussion it is established that the demand of money for opening school or starting business is not established by the prosecution.
34. Now coming to the incident dated 12.09.2000. According to PW2 a call was received through deceased daughter Surekha that accused persons were waiting and thus he requested to come to the parental house. He sent her wife Smt. Beero Devi to bring her back. PW4 Beero Devi deposed that she went to the in laws house, where she found that deceased was beaten badly. But in laws were asked to send her back to the parental house but refused. Son in law told that he will sent his son. PW5 Mahesh, brother of the deceased Surekha initially did not said the incident dated 12.09.00, but when cross examined by the learned APP for the State then he stated that a telephone call received from Surekha and told that his mother that her husband Karambir and mother in law used to beat and father in law and Jeth is used to torture. This testimony bring a new fact in the light, which is not stated by the PW4, who actually received the STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :42: message from the deceased Surekha on telephone. PW9 Jai Bhagwan (wrongly mentioned as PW8) stated another fact that on 12.9.00 Surekha was called and Mahesh was sent on 13.9.00. He is silent about the visit of PW4 Beero Devi on 12.09.00. Although, in the cross examination he categorically stated that he had the knowledge that a call was made by deceased Surekha on 12.09.00 and he was present at that time.
The above discussed facts established that the deposition of PW4 Beero Devi is contradictory to the deposition of PW5 Mahesh,as well as, of PW9 Jai Bhagwan (wrongly mentioned as PW8). The visit made by PW4 Beero Devi at the matrimonial house of deceased Surekha is doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
35. The other fact deposed by PW2 is that on 13.09.00 he had sent his son Mahesh to bring deceased from the matrimonial home, but he was given beating. PW4 Beero Devi, mother deposed that his son in law Karambir asked to send Mahesh. But this fact has not deposed by PW2 Mohan lal. PW5 Mahesh initially silent on the visit made by him on STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :43: 13.09.00. However, in the cross examination by the learned APP for the State, he stated that he visited on 13.09.00 at house of deceased. It bring out a new fact that on visiting accused Raju, Rajender, Dharamnder and Karambir whether he has brought the money or not. Then on saying that he has brought the money. This fact is totally contradictory to the testimony of PW4 Beero Devi. When she had made a visit on 12.09.00, she never disclosed that accused persons demanded money, which would be brought by Mahesh. PW2 Mohan Lal give a new story by stating that his brother Jai Bhagwan had gone to the house of Surekha on 13.09.00. Whereas PW4 Beero Devi stated that only Mahesh visited on 13.09.00. PW9 Jai Bhagwan (wrongly mentioned as PW8) also stated that he had made a visit on 13.09.00 but the purpose was to call Surekha to accompany them on 16.09.00 to see a girl for marriage of brother Suresh. Hence the visit on 13.09.00 as a consequence of 12.09.2000 is doubtful. The testimony of all the four important witnesses is contradictory to each other and also doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubts.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :44:
36. Now coming to fact regarding the visit on 16.09.2000. PW2 Mohan Lal deposed that the last visit of deceased was on 16.09.00 with Karambir and they stayed at parental house and returned on the next day i.e. 17.09.00. In the cross examination he denied that there was proposal of matrimonial alliance of Suresh and they went to see a girl on 17.09.2000 that is why Surekha and Karambir were called. He denied the suggestion that on 16.09.00 deceased Surekha and Karambir joined the ceremonies. He further admits that on 16.09.2000 there was no injuries on the body of deceased Surekha. In the later part of cross examination he admits that they had gone to Najafgarh accompanied with three daughter, three son in law and brother in law and wife for matrimonial alliance of son Suresh. On 17.09.2000 Surekha and her husband went to their house in a good mood.
37. PW4 Beero Devi in the cross examination admits that on 16.09.00 other relatives came to their house. She admits that she had gone to see girl for her son on 17.09.00. Deceased Surekha and her husband Karambir were called for STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :45: this purpose. PW5 Mahesh also admitted that on 16.09.2000, deceased Surekha visited the parental home and stayed with her husband Karambir.
38. PW9 Jai Bhagwan, wrongly mentioned as PW8 in his cross categorically deposed that on 13.09.00 he went to the house of accused persons to call Surekha as they wanted to go to see a girl for marriage of his nephew on 16.09.00.
On the basis of above discussion it is established that a visit was made to the deceased Surekha's matrimonial home on 13.09.00. This visit was not made by PW5 Mahesh, but it was made by PW9 Jai Bhagwan ( wrongly mentioned as PW8). The purpose was to call her with Karambir for seeing a girl and for ceremony to be held for marriage of another brother Suresh. It is further established that the atmosphere in the family was normal and cordial that is why she came alongwith Karambir and stayed and attended the ceremony. It is pertinent to mention it here that no complaint or any action taken by PW2 Mohan Lal or PW4 Beero Devi or PW5 Mahesh or PW9 Jai Bhagwan (wrongly mentioned as PW8) in STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :46: respect of any incident as alleged prior to 16.09.2000. Hence, on the basis of these material facts and close scrutiny of testimony of the four vital witnesses. It is established that there was a normal visit on 16.09.00 and proved that there was no such incident as alleged as stated by all the four vital witnesses dated 12.09.2000 and 13.09.2000 happened ever at the house of accused persons. There is no substance in the prosecution case regarding the demand of money because it is admitted by PW2 Mohan Lal, PW4 Beero and PW5 Mahesh that prior to marriage and at the time of marriage there was no dowry demand by any of the accused persons. The allegations in respect of dowry demand, all are vague and contradictory to each other as per deposition of witnesses in this regard.
39. The another important aspect of the present case is the suicide note recovered by the police Ex.PW23/DA. According to the testimony of PW23, SI Ajay Solanki a suicide note written by deceased was recovered, which is Ex.PW23/DA on 20.09.2000. According to statement of PW23 STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :47: SI Ajay Solanki, PW2 Mohan, father Mohan Lal was shown this suicide note and admitted handwriting of suicide note of his daughter Surekha. The handwriting of the deceased Surekha was not available , therefore, it was not analyzed. At this juncture, the Investigation Officer has not taken due care and he believed PW2 Mohan, it cannot be possible that handwriting of Surekha was not available at that time. The objections raised by learned APP for the State regarding the admissibility of suicide note in these circumstances is overruled. The suicide note is an admissible evidence and it was recovered by police on the first visit of the SI Ajay Solanki. According to this suicide note deceased expressed that she is committing suicide as she is mentally weak and she has given many sorrows to her husband, therefore, committing suicide. She also expressed her willingness that last rites shall be performed by her husband Karambir. It is pertinent to mention it here that it is established on record that on the next day on 21.09.2000 Karambir, her husband also died. These facts corroborates that deceased Surekha committed suicide on her own. The domestic circumstances STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.
PSSULTANPURI/U/S. 498A/304B/34 IPC. :48: were normal. The accused persons were not connected with any dowry demand or harassment. Deceased Surekha committed suicide, the reasons and her wishes are specifically mentioned in suicide note. The suicide note is not having any action of any kind of dowry demand or cruelty or harassment for bringing insufficient dowry by deceased Surekha the suicide has no connection or role played by any of the accused persons.
40. Hence, on the basis of above discussions and observations, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges for offence punishable under Section 498A/304B read with 34 IPC against all accused persons. Therefore, all the accused persons are acquitted. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Announced in the open court Additional Sessions Judge-01 today i.e. 21.01.2010. North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
STATE VS MADIA & OTHERS/FIR NO.911/00.