Delhi District Court
Upon The Following Judgments: (1) Pawan ... vs . State on 25 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI)-23 (MPs/MLAs Cases), ROUSE
AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 06/2019
FIR No. : 178/2012
CNR No. : DLCT-11-000518-2019
Police Station : Bharat Nagar
Under Section : 306/506/201/120-
B/466/467/468/469/471/ 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000
Date of : 06.10.2012
institution of
case
Reserved for : 01.07.2023
Judgment on
Judgment : 25.07.2023
announced on
State
Versus
1. Gopal Goyal Kanda
S/o Late Murli Dhar Goyal
R/o 436/16, Civil Lines, Gurgaon
Haryana
... Accused no.1
2. Aruna Chadha
D/o Sh.Amrit Prakash Chadha
R/o C-904, BPTP Park Life
Sector-57, Gurgaon
Haryana
SC No. 06/2019
FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 1/189
PS: Bharat Nagar
... Accused no.2
3. Chanshivroop Singh
S/o Sh.Harminder Singh
R/o H.No.2030, Sector-71
Mohali, Punjab.
... Proclaimed Offender
JUDGMENT
GENESIS OF THE CASE
1. On 05.08.2012 at about 9.20 a.m., an information was received at PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi regarding commission of suicide by a lady at H.No.4-C, Block No.1, Pocket-B, Ashok Vihar, Ph.III near Kulachi Hans Raj School, New Delhi, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 8-A. The said DD No. 8-A was entrusted to ASI Jagbir Singh, who alongwith Ct.Rajesh Kumar had reached at the place of occurrence. On reaching the spot, ASI Jagbir Singh had found the dead body of a female aged about 23 years identified as Ms.Geetika Sharma, D/o Sh.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, lying on the bed in her room and on inquiry, it was revealed that she had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan of the same room. Inspector Dinesh Kumar, ATO of PS Bharat Nagar and other staff had also reached at the spot and scene of the occurrence was also got inspected and photographed by the Crime Team and thereafter, the dead body of Ms. Geetika Sharma SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 2/189 PS: Bharat Nagar was shifted to mortuary of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital for autopsy.
2. During the inspection of the place of occurrence, Inspector Dinesh Kumar had recovered a black colour spiral diary, in which he found a suicide note written on both sides of the paper. On one side of the suicide note, date of 04.08.2012 was mentioned and on the other side, date of 04.05.2012 was mentioned below the signatures of deceased Geetika Sharma. In both the suicide notes dated 04.08.2012 and 04.05.2012, deceased Geetika Sharma had held accused A- 1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, responsible for her death as they had broken her trust and had misused her for their own benefits and deceased had sought punishment for their wrong deeds.
3. Thereafter, Inspector Dinesh Kumar had recorded the statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of deceased Geetika Sharma. In her statement, Smt.Anuradha Sharma had stated that deceased Geetika Sharma had joined MDLR Company as a trainee cabin crew in 2006 and in 2008, she was promoted to the post of Senior Cabin Crew and on 31.03.2009, she was made the Co-ordinator of MDLR Group and thereafter, in July, 2009, she was transferred to MDLR Group of Hotels. It was further stated that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of MDLR Group of Companies is accused A-1 i.e. Gopal Goyal Kanda. In further statement, it was stated by Smt.Anuradha Sharma that whenever phone of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 3/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Kanda used to come, deceased Geetika Sharma used to become tensed. It was further stated that on 22.05.2010, deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from MDLR Group and had joined Emirates Airlines. Thereafter, on many occasions, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called mother of deceased Geetika Sharma requesting her to call deceased Geetika Sharma back from Dubai as it was not a good country. It was also alleged in her statement that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sent a forged email to Emirates Airlines and when he was confronted about the same, he had apologised to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had joined as Director in the MDLR Group of Companies in January, 2011 and later, she resigned from there to pursue her MBA from IILM, fees of which was sponsored by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
4. It was further alleged that when deceased Geetika Sharma was pursuing her MBA, then accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, used to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma telephonically to join the office and after receipt of telephonic calls, deceased Geetika Sharma used to become tensed.
5. It was further alleged that on 04.08.2012, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called Smt.Anuradha Sharma to tell that deceased Geetika Sharma was required to come to the office to sign some papers, failing which a police case will be registered by Haryana Police. It was further alleged SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 4/189 PS: Bharat Nagar that deceased Geetika Sharma had returned from Mumbai after attending Fashion show of her brother, and entire conversation which took place between Smt.Anuradha Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, was narrated to deceased Geetika Sharma. It was further alleged that after listening to the entire conversation, deceased Geetika Sharma became tensed and had requested Smt.Anuradha Sharma to leave her alone and thereafter, she had gone to her room. In the morning of 05.08.2012 at around 7.00 a.m., when deceased Geetika Sharma did not open her room, then parents of deceased Geetika Sharma had found, after peeping through window of room of deceased Geetika Sharma, hanging from a ceiling fan with the help of her chunni. In her statement, Smt.Anuradha Sharma had alleged that deceased Geetika Sharma had committed suicide due to continuous mental torture by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Thereafter, Inspector Dinesh Kumar made an endorsement on the statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, wherein the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma having committed suicide, recovery of suicide note from her diary and sending of body to hospital was mentioned and a request was made for registration of the FIR as offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") was being disclosed.
6. On receipt of the statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma at PS Bharat Nagar, FIR No. 178/12 was registered under SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 5/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Section 306/34 IPC and matter was taken up for investigation.
INVESTIGATION AND CHARGESHEET
7. During the course of investigation, it came on record that deceased Geetika Sharma was born on 13.12.1988 and she was interviewed in September, 2006 for a Cabin Crew Job in MDLR Airlines and was recruited as Trainee Cabin Crew in October, 2006 even though she had not attained the age of 18 years at that point of time. After the successful completion of training, deceased Geetika Sharma was appointed as Cabin Crew on 14.04.2007 and promoted as Senior Cabin Crew on 28.08.2008. Surprisingly, her promotion and her salary being doubled happened within a short span of 1 year and four months. Soon thereafter the next major promotion of deceased Geetika Sharma came within 07 months when she was promoted as Co-ordinator of MDLR Group on 31.03.2009, with an unusual clause in her appointment letter that she would report everyday to the Chairman i.e. accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma was transferred to the MDLR Hotel Group on 30.06.2009 again with the unusual directive to report to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on daily basis.
8. During the course of investigation, it also came on record that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the Minister of State for Home Affairs in the Government of Haryana SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 6/189 PS: Bharat Nagar when incident took place and he was the owner and CMD of MDLR Group of Companies. Accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had launched MDLR Airlines in the year 2006 and its operations were suspended in October, 2009. MDLR Group had interests in the hotel business as well as casinos in Goa. Accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda came in contact with deceased Geetika Sharma when she appeared for an interview in MDLR Airlines and he remained in contact with her and her family till her suicide.
9. It also came on record during investigation that accused A- 2 Aruna Chadha was working in Aviation Sector since 1993 and she jointed MDLR Airlines in August, 2006 as Head in flight and it was here that she came in contact with deceased Geetika Sharma and also became her instructor. At the time of the incident, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was holding the position of Co-ordinator in MDLR Group of Companies and had actively conspired with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to keep deceased Geetika Sharma under his influence.
10. During the course of investigation, IO had seized mobile phone bearing no.9013347100 and one laptop belonging to deceased Geetika Sharma from the scene of crime, at the instance of her mother namely Smt.Anuradha Sharma, ligature material, one spiral notebook having admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and the documents pertaining to her employment in MDLR Group and Emirates Airlines. The mirror image of the hard disc of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 7/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased Geetika Sharma's laptop and mobile phone were made in the Cyber Lab, Special Cell, Delhi Police and subsequently, both were resealed and sent to the FSL for expert opinion.
11. During the course of investigation, post mortem of deceased Geetika Sharma was got conducted by the Board of Doctors constituted by the Government of Delhi and the Board of Doctors opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to suicidal hanging.
12. During the course of investigation, statement of family members of deceased Geetika Sharma and other witnesses were recorded and from the investigation, statement recorded of various witnesses, the following facts emerged. It was revealed during the course of investigation that 11 other persons were recruited alongwith deceased Geetika Sharma in the year 2006 and only deceased Geetika Sharma was retained in the MDLR Group of Companies and other persons, either left on their own or were removed by the company. Deceased Geetika Sharma was given rapid promotions with hefty increase in salary and appointed to Senior Management positions such as Co-ordinator of MDLR Group, even though she had studied only upto 12th class and had absolutely no experience or knowledge of either the airlines or hotel business. The recruitment of deceased Geetika Sharma as a trainee even though when she was under age and her rapid promotions without having any qualifications and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 8/189 PS: Bharat Nagar with the unusual direction in her contract to report everyday to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda shows that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had an evil design on deceased Geetika Sharma right from the day of her joining in the MDLR Group and was giving her undue favours with the intention of entrapping her.
13. It also came on record during investigation that since MDLR Airlines had suspended its operations, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in order to retain deceased Geetika Sharma as his employee, had sent deceased Geetika Sharma to Goa to look after Mint, a casino owned by his company in September, 2009. The said casino was being looked after two women namely, Ankita Singh and Nupur Mehta. In Goa, deceased Geetika Sharma had differences with aforementioned two women, who had trespassed into her hotel room and had taken away her laptop and mobile without her consent. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had got registered a complaint of theft and criminal intimidation against Ankita Singh and Nupur Mehta vide FIR No. 244/09 at PS Panaji, Goa. Disturbed by this event, deceased Geetika Sharma returned to Delhi in September, 2009 itself and stopped going to MDLR Office and focused on her graduate degree course through correspondence. During this period, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda tried to contact deceased Geetika Sharma in every possible manner and even went to her examination centre in the disguise of a sikh person in SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 9/189 PS: Bharat Nagar May/June, 2010. During this period, deceased Geetika Sharma was able to secure a job in Emirates Airlines for the post of Stewardness-II on 26.04.2010.
14. It further came on record during investigation that when the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma's selection in Emirates Airlines came to the notice of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, he realized that deceased Geetika Sharma would go out of his clutches and decided to place hurdles in her path to ensure that she did not leave his group of companies and refused to issue no objection certificate or experience certificate to deceased Geetika Sharma. When deceased Geetika Sharma insisted for issuance of NOC, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda hatched criminal conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, a forged NOC having signature of Sh.Rajiv Parasher, who was not even on the payroll of MDLR Group, was issued to deceased Geetika Sharma through one Monal Sachdeva, an employee of MDLR company. This was done with the motive that in future, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda could easily disown the NOC and blame deceased Geetika Sharma for the forgery.
15. It has come in the investigation that on 29.06.2010, deceased Geetika Sharma went to Dubai and joined Emirates Airlines. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha went to Dubai on 14.07.2012 and met deceased Geetika Sharma SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 10/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and pressurized her to come back to India and rejoin his company MDLR. However, deceased Geetika Sharma did not accede to the demands of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and thereafter, again on 30.07.2010, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda went to Dubai to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin his company. However, when deceased Geetika Sharma did not accede to the demands of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, then he hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and appointed one Chanshivroop Singh as Assistant HR Manager with the sole objective of ensuring that deceased Geetika Sharma would be removed from her job with the Emirates Airlines. Chanshivroop Singh was sent to Dubai under the garb of investigating the issue of forged NOC submitted by deceased Geetika Sharma to Emirates Airlines and to make efforts to ensure her removal from Emirates Airlines. However, since Chanshivroop Singh did not get a favourable response from the HR Department of Emirates Airlines, both accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha sent him a complaint from MDLR Airlines to PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon from the email ID of [email protected] and this complaint was produced by Chanshivroop Singh before the Emirates Airlines and Chanshivroop Singh also met Mr.Shirish Thorat, who was working in Emirates Airlines in the capacity of Head of Investigation and Security Group. Thereafter, SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 11/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Chanshivroop Singh handed over the copy of the complaint alongwith his authorization and in the complaint, there were allegations of commission of fraud and creation of fake and false experience certificates as well as taking away of some documents and laptop of the company.
16. During the course of investigation, the complaint made to SHO, PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon was enquired and no such complaint was lodged, which shows that the complaint was forged, in order to get deceased Geetika Sharma removed from the Emirates Airlines. Thereafter, Mr.Shirish Thorat had enquired about the issuance of NOC from Sh.Rajiv Parasher, who denied having issued the same and further, an email dated 10.08.2010 was sent by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Mr.Shirish Thorat wherein again allegations of fake documents being presented by deceased Geetika Sharma were reiterated.
17. It also came on record during investigation that thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from Emirates Airlines on 11.08.2010 and returned to India on 24.08.2010. In the aforementioned manner, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda created circumstances that forced deceased Geetika Sharma to quit her respectable job with a highly reputed Airlines and return to India.
18. During the course of investigation, it further came on record that despite deceased Geetika Sharma's resignation from Emirates Airlines, she was reluctant to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 12/189 PS: Bharat Nagar join MDLR Airlines immediately. Thereafter, to put further pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to join MDLR Airlines, forged email dated 01.10.2010 was sent to deceased Geetika Sharma allegedly by the Director of Emirates Group threatening to extradite deceased Geetika Sharma to Dubai with regard to some pending cases. This email also had an attachment of forged order of Dubai Court dated 13.09.2010. The deceased Geetika Sharma had also prepared a draft complaint against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda wherein she expressed her apprehension that she was being harassed with the sole purpose of compelling her to join MDLR, from where she had resigned and all the incidences were concocted just to compel her to bow down before the illegal and lustful wishes of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
19. During the course of investigation, it further came on record that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sent email to deceased Geetika Sharma from his email ID [email protected] on 06.10.2010 and 14.10.2010 to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to compromise the matter pending in Goa registered vide FIR No. 244/09 under Section 380/506/34 IPC lodged against Nupur Mehta and Ankita Singh. The deceased Geetika Sharma was forced to sign an application to compound the aforementioned FIR, which was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, Goa. However, the application was dismissed on 11.04.2012.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 13/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
20. It also came on record during investigation, in the light of statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma namely Smt.Anuradha Sharma, that in December, 2010, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith his family members came to the residence of deceased Geetika Sharma and apologized to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma for his mis-conduct with the deceased Geetika Sharma and also offered appointment of deceased Geetika Sharma as a Director with a salary of Rs.60,000/-per month. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had rejoined MDLR as a Director on 13.01.2011 and resigned in December, 2011 from MDLR and had stopped going to the office of MDLR. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda offered to appoint deceased Geetika Sharma as the President of Sundale Educational Society, which was running a school in Gurgaon.
21. During the course of custodial remand of accused A- 2 Aruna Chadha, various documents pertaining to Sundale Educational Society were seized from the office of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana and in the documents recovered of Sundale Educational Society, name of deceased Geetika Sharma was shown as the President and the Chairman of Sundale Educational Society i.e. Mahender Pal, had addressed a letter to the Registrar of Societies, Patparganj, Industrial Area for changing the governing body of Sundale Educational Society. An affidavit of deceased Geetika Sharma as President of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 14/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sundale Educational Society was also recovered, which was duly notarized. However, on examination of notary public S.Gupta, he denied his signature or the stamp made on the said affidavit which further shows that affidavit was forged. From the documents so recovered, it was apparent that a deal was under consideration to purchase the school run by Sundale Educational Society from one Batush Pal, son of Sh.Mahender Pal through one Aditya Mangla appointed to strike a deal on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
22. It also came in the investigation that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had also purchased a flat bearing no.2C, Pocket B, Block-11, Ashok Vihar, Ph-III, Delhi, near deceased Geetika Sharma's residence in the name of his daughter Ms.Sushila Goyal to open the office of Sundale Educational Society.
23. It also came in the investigation that co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, had accompanied deceased Geetika Sharma to the clinic of Ms.Vishakha Munjal, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for her abortion. This fact was confirmed by Dr.Vishakha Munjal, who had also provided the details of the visit of deceased Geetika Sharma accompanied by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, in her statement recorded during the course of investigation.
24. It has also come during the investigation that father of deceased Geetika Sharma had purchased a flat from SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 15/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Universal Builders, Gurgaon and payment of amount of Rs.18 Lacs was made on different dates from his account and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda using his influence, had got cancelled the booking of flat by father of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012, just to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma.
25. It has also come in the investigation that co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR office by way of telephonic calls and emails but when deceased Geetika Sharma refused to join the MDLR Airlines and showed interest to pursue MBA, then MDLR Group had sponsored the fees of Rs.7.50 Lacs for MBA Course at IILM, Lodhi Road.
26. It further came in the investigation that on 03.08.2012, Ankit Ahluwalia, who was the lawyer of MDLR Group, had called up deceased Geetika Sharma and conveyed to her that she must sign the petition to be filed before the Mumbai High Court for getting the FIR No.244/09 PS Panaji, Goa quashed. This pressure was being exerted upon the deceased Geetika Sharma to get FIR quashed as one of the accused was Ankita Singh, with whom accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had illicit relations and had a biological daughter as alleged by deceased Geetika Sharma in her suicide note.
27. It further came in the investigation that on 03.08.2012, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had a telephonic conversation with the mother of deceased SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 16/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Geetika Sharma and during the course of telephonic conversation, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha levelled allegations about the character of deceased Geetika Sharma and also told the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma that either deceased Geetika Sharma should resign or sign the documents of Sundale Educational Society and also return the admission fees of IILM immediately.
28. It further came in the investigation that mother of deceased Geetika Sharma became highly upset after listening to the allegations made by co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and had accordingly, called accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012 but he did not respond. However, after sometime, accused A-1 had called deceased Geetika Sharma's mother and during the course of conversation, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda reiterated the allegations of character of deceased Geetika Sharma and he also threatened to lodge FIR at Gurgaon Police Station against deceased Geetika Sharma in case deceased Geetika Sharma did not join MDLR again.
29. After the deceased Geetika Sharma returned to Delhi from Mumbai on 04.08.2012, deceased Geetika Sharma's mother narrated allegations levelled by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha about the character of deceased Geetika Sharma etc. and after hearing the same, deceased Geetika Sharma became depressed and thereafter, she committed suicide on the intervening night of 04-05/08/2012.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 17/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
30. Based upon the statement of witnesses, documentary evidence and the electronic evidence in the form of emails, messages etc., it was concluded in the chargesheet that deceased Geetika Sharma had undergone a traumatic experience of going through an abortion. She was also facing false allegations of forgery, cheating and fraud due to which she was forced to resign from Emirates Airlines. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was threatening mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to get FIR registered at Gurgaon Police Station and was forcing deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the documents of Sundale Educational Society and to compound the case at Goa. Due to the aforementioned facts, deceased Geetika Sharma had become extremely stressed and depressed and chose to end her life by hanging herself. Accordingly, a chargesheet was filed against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha for having committed the offence under Section 120-B r/w 306/506/201/466/467/468/469/471/34 IPC and 66A IT Act reserving the right to file further investigation report with regard to role of Chanshivroop Singh and to file the FSL result with regard to electronic evidence in the form of supplementary chargesheet.
31. During the course of further investigation, the role of accused Chanshivroop Singh was investigated and since it had come on record that Chanshivroop Singh, being the Assistant HR Manager in MDLR Group was sent to Dubai SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 18/189 PS: Bharat Nagar by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, to compel deceased Geetika Sharma to resign and in the said process, had handed over a false complaint made to PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon against deceased Geetika Sharma at the HR Department of Emirates Airlines and further created fake email ID [email protected] from which an email was sent to deceased Geetika Sharma with the threat of extradition alongwith forged order of the Dubai Court. After sufficient material had come on record, accused Chanshivroop Singh was asked to join the investigation and after interrogation, he was arrested for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and 66A IT Act and was released on bail, as the offences were bailable in nature.
32. Sh.Harminder Singh, father of accused Chanshivroop Singh stood as surety for him. Thereafter, on 31.10.2012, accused Chanshivroop Singh had filed an application under Section 306 Cr.P.C. for grant of pardon in the court of Sh.Devender Kumar Jangala, the then Ld.ACMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi and to ascertain his willingness to make true disclosure of facts in his knowledge, his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.11.2012 and after recording the confessional statement of accused Chanshivroop Singh, his application for grant of pardon was fixed on 30.11.2012 but on that date, accused Chanshivroop Singh did not turn up.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 19/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
33. During the course of further investigation, it came on record that co-accused Chanshivroop Singh had fled to U.S.A. on 27.11.2012 and his surety i.e. Sh.Harminder Singh and his other family members had helped him in fleeing from this country and surety Sh.Harminder Singh had made a wrong submission before the court that he is no longer in contact with his son. Further, the CDR of mobile phone of surety Sh.Harminder Singh was obtained during the course of further investigation and it was revealed from its analysis that he was in constant touch with one person namely, Vishnu Tantiya, who was the close aid and relative of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
34. Based upon the aforementioned further investigation, first supplementary chargesheet was filed against co-accused Chanshivroop Singh for the offence under Section 471 IPC and under Section 66A IT Act.
35. After filing of the first supplementary chargesheet, summons were issued to co-accused Chanshivroop Singh but he did not appear and thereafter, coercive process was issued against him but co-accused Chanshivroop Singh chose to evade the process of the court. Accordingly, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him and after completion of requisite formalities, co-accused Chanshivroop Singh was declared an absconder vide order dated 07.05.2013.
36. During the course of further investigation, expert opinion of the Document Division of FSL, Rohini, Delhi SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 20/189 PS: Bharat Nagar on the suicide note and alleged NOC issued by MDLR Airlines to deceased Geetika Sharma was received alongwith report from FSL, Rohini, Delhi on the two SIM Cards of deceased Geetika Sharma as well as the expert opinion from the Computer Forensic Unit, CFSL, Hyderabad. The handwriting expert after examining the admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and the questioned handwriting and signatures appearing on the suicide note, had opined that suicide note was in the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma.
37. With regard to the alleged NOC issued by MDLR Airlines in favour of deceased Geetika Sharma, the handwriting expert after examining the questioned signatures on the "No Objection Certificate" with the admitted and specimen handwriting of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher and Sh.Monal Sachdeva, came to the conclusion that questioned signatures on the NOC were not that of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher or of Sh.Monal Sachdeva.
38. Further, the FSL report received from FSL, Rohini, Delhi had retrieved data from one of the SIM card marked as SC-2 and on analyzing the said retrieved data, it was found that one Sh.Sanjay Bansal had sent two sms messages on 29.07.2010 to deceased when she was in Dubai. In both the text messages, Sh.Sanjay Bansal was requesting deceased Geetika Sharma to meet and resolve the issue and had further communicated on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda regarding his condition of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 21/189 PS: Bharat Nagar having sleepless nights and his willingness to leave power, money etc.
39. The details of the mobile no.9811009998, from which the aforesaid two messages were sent to deceased Geetika Sharma, were obtained from the mobile service provider and travel documents of Sh.Sanjay Bansal were also obtained and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In his statement, Sh.Sanjay Bansal had stated that in the month of July/August, 2010, he had accompanied accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Dubai and at his instance, he had sent aforesaid two text messages to deceased Geetika Sharma on her mobile phone. Further, the data retrieved from the Computer Forensic Unit, CFSL, Hyderabad showed that deceased Geetika Sharma had sent one message to Ms.Khushboo on 27.07.2012 wherein deceased Geetika Sharma is seen making complaint to Ms.Khushboo regarding some lady questioning her character, which was corroborated by the phone call dated 03.08.2012 made by co-accused Aruna Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, wherein she had levelled allegations regarding the character of deceased Geetika Sharma.
40. Further, the data retrieved also had one sms sent to deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda from his mobile no. 987320002 asking deceased Geetika Sharma to sign some school papers which further corroborated the fact that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 22/189 PS: Bharat Nagar was putting pressure upon the deceased Geetika Sharma to sign Sundale Educational Society papers, which deceased Geetika Sharma was not willing to sign.
41. Further, one email dated 01.03.2012 sent by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to deceased Geetika Sharma was also retrieved and was made a part of the FSL report by CFSL, Hyderabad. The second supplementary chargesheet further reserved the right to file execution report with regard to two Letter Rogatories sent to U.A.E.
42. Thereafter, fourth supplementary chargesheet was filed with regard to execution report received on Letter Rogatory issued to U.A.E. seeking information from the Government of U.A.E. regarding employment of deceased Geetika Sharma with Emirates, date of salary, date of joining, date of leaving the job, reasons for resignation, whether inquiry was conducted by Emirates and whether accused persons had visited residence of deceased Geetika Sharma in Dubai and whether Sheikh Bhasir Al Bhoram was the Director of Emirates or not etc.
43. In the execution report with regard to aforementioned Letter Rogatory, the information supplied by Emirates alongwith documents was received through the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi and the same was filed on record. However, the execution report with regard to Additional Letter Rogatory sent to the Government of U.A.E. seeking information from the Dubai authorities as to whether any criminal case is pending against deceased SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 23/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Geetika Sharma or not and whether any order has been delivered by the Judge Hasan Abdul Aziz Masnad in 2010, was not filed as execution report was still awaited at the time of filing the fourth supplementary chargesheet.
44. Thereafter, during the course of trial, execution report regarding Additional Letter Rogatory as aforementioned was received wherein it was informed by the Government of U.A.E. that there is no criminal case registered against deceased Geetika Sharma and there was no order passed by the judge namely Hasan Abdul Aziz Masnad and even he was not appointed as a judge in 2010.
45. After the filing of chargesheet and additional chargesheets as discussed hereinabove, copy was supplied to both accused persons and after compliance of Section 204 Cr.P.C., matter was posted for arguments on the point of charge.
CHARGE
46. The Ld.Predecessor of this court, after hearing arguments on the point of charge and after perusing the matter on record, had vide order dated 10.05.2013 directed for framing of charge against accused persons for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, 466/471/468/469/306 IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "IT Act, 2000). Further, against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, charge of 376/377 IPC was also ordered to be framed and against co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, charge under Section 376 SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 24/189 PS: Bharat Nagar r/w 109 IPC and 377 r/w 109 IPC was also ordered to be framed and accordingly, charge was also framed.
47. Thereafter, accused persons had challenged the order of framing of charge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 25.07.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 305/2013 had directed for dropping of charge for the offence under Section 376/377 IPC against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and 376/377 r/w 109 IPC against co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
48. Pursuant to the receipt of the order dated 25.07.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, charge was amended on 06.12.2013 and vide the amended charge, both accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w 466/471/468/469 and 66 IT, 2000 and Section 306 IPC r/w 120-B IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE
49. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence. Prosecution in order to prove the aforementioned charges, had examined in total 65 witnesses.
50. PW-7 ASI Hari Kishan was on PCR duty on 05.08.2012 and he had deposed that on receipt of the call regarding commission of suicide by a girl at Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, he had reached at the spot where he found one girl lying dead on a bed in a room and one chunni was SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 25/189 PS: Bharat Nagar lying on the bed. The mother of deceased Geetika Sharma informed him that deceased Geetika Sharma had committed suicide by hanging from ceiling fan with the help of chunni and he also observed ligature mark on the neck of deceased Geetika Sharma.
51. PW-2 HC Rajender Singh was posted as Head Constable at PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed that on 05.08.2012, he reached at the spot alongwith Inspector Dinesh Kumar, after receiving a call regarding commission of a suicide by a girl. He further deposed that when they reached at the spot, PCR officials were already there and he also found dead body of a female lying on the bed and name of the deceased was revealed as Geetika Sharma and on a stool adjacent to the bed, one diary of black colour, Spiral Bound was lying containing the suicide notes. PW-2 further deposed that the said diary was seized by Inspector Dinesh Kumar and statement of mother of deceased was recorded. He further deposed that after preparing of rukka, he had taken the same to the police station and on the basis of rukka, he got FIR registered and thereafter, he came back alongwith both documents i.e. i.e. rukka and FIR and handed over the same to Inspector Dinesh Kumar.
52. PW-3 HC Raj Pal was posted as duty officer on 05.08.2012 at PS Bharat Nagar and he deposed regarding receipt of information at 9.20 a.m. regarding commission of suicide by a girl at Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, which was reduced by him into writing vide DD No.8A SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 26/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Ex.PW3/A. PW-3 further deposed that at about 12.40 p.m., he received a rukka through HC Rajinder, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW3/B was recorded by him on his computer and he also made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW3/C and thereafter, the same was handed over to HC Rajinder.
53. PW-20 Inspector Sanjiv was the Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, North West District and he deposed that on 05.08.2012, on receipt of a call from Control Room, he alongwith his crime team had reached Ashok Vihar, Phase- III, Delhi, where he met ASI Jagbir and other police staff. He further deposed that he got the crime scene inspected and photographs were also taken by Ct.Parvinder and thereafter, he prepared his report Ex.PW20/1.
54. PW-5 Ct.Parvinder was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team and he deposed that he alongwith SI Sanjeev Verma, reached at the spot and thereafter, he had taken 27 photographs of the scene of the crime, which were exhibited as Ex.PW5/A1 to A27 and the CD is Ex.PW5/B.
55. PW-4 Ct.Rajesh was posted on emergency duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 05.08.2012 and he has deposed that on receiving the DD No. 8A at 9.20 a.m., they had reached at the place of commission of offence i.e. Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi where they had found police officials i.e. SHO, HC Rajinder, Inspector Dinesh Kumar, PCR staff at the spot and dead body of a female lying on a SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 27/189 PS: Bharat Nagar bed in a room and also observed that one black colour spiral diary lying on the small table near bed, which was having two suicide notes. PW-4 Ct.Rajesh further deposed that Inspector Dinesh Kumar took the diary in the police possession and he on the instructions of Inspector Dinesh took the dead body to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital and thereafter, dead body was shifted to Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) Hospital on 06.08.2012, where postmortem was conducted. PW-4 Ct.Rajesh further deposed that ASI Jagbir had conducted the inquest proceedings and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father and the brother of the deceased.
56. PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh was posted as SI, PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed that on 05.08.2012, on receiving DD No. 8A, he alongwith ATO, had reached at the spot where they came to know that a girl had committed suicide due to torture by accused persons and one suicide note was found written on both sides having different dates i.e. 05.08.2012 and 04.05.2012, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/C. He also deposed regarding the arrival of Crime Team and shifting of body to BJRM Mortuary and recording of statement of Ms.Anuradha Sharma by Inspector Dinesh Kumar and thereafter, sending of rukka to PS Bharat Nagar. PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh also deposed regarding seizing of chunni vide memo Ex.PW8/A, spiral diary vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B, mobile phone make "Apple" and laptop make "ACER" of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 28/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased vide memo Ex.PW8/D, stool lying near bed vide memo Ex.PW8/E, one diary black colour containing the admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma vide memo Ex.PW8/F and they all bear his signatures at point "A". PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh further deposed that he had prepared the brief facts vide Ex.PW8/G and he also made request for preserving the dead body of deceased at BJRM Hospital vide application Ex.PW8/H and he also deposed that after getting the post mortem conducted on 06.08.2012, dead body of deceased was handed over to the father of deceased.
57. PW-8 ASI Jagbir Singh further deposed that after postmortem, he was handed over six sealed pullandas by the doctor, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/J and videography of the post mortem recorded in a cassette was also seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/K and after returning to the PS, all the exhibits were deposited in the police Malkhana.
58. PW-1 Dr.Sreenivas M. was the Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi and he has deposed on oath that pursuant to order passed by GNCT of Delhi Ex.PW1/A, a Medical Board was constituted on 06.08.2012 of which he was the Chairman for the purpose of conducting post mortem of deceased. PW-1 Dr.Sreenivas M. further deposed that after identification of the dead body by the father and brother, post mortem was conducted of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 29/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased and a report Ex.PW1/B was prepared, which was duly signed by other Board Members namely, Dr.Mumtaz Khan, Dr.vijay Dhankar and Dr.Bhim Singh. It was further deposed by PW-1 Dr.Sreenivas M. that as per their opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to hanging, which is duly mentioned in post mortem report Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that after post mortem, five exhibits as per description given in the post mortem report was handed over to Inspector Rajender Prasad.
59. PW-6 Constable Kuldeep Singh was posted as Constable at PS Bharat Nagar, and he has deposed that on 07.08.2012, he had collected exhibits from the police Malkhana vide Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B and he deposited the same in FSL, Rohini against receipts Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. PW-6 Constable Kuldeep Singh further deposed that on 25.09.2012, on the instructions of IO, he again collected eight sealed parcels and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini against receipts Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F.
60. PW-9 Ms.Jyoti Sharma has deposed on oath that deceased was daughter of his brother-in-law (Devar) and she further deposed that Advocate S.S.Katyal was known to her because she was dealing with the cases of Punjab National Bank, where she was employed. PW-9 Ms.Jyoti Sharma further deposed that after deceased returned from Dubai in the year 2010, then she alongwith deceased had gone to the office of Sh.S.S.Katyal, where deceased got SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 30/189 PS: Bharat Nagar typed one complaint addressed to Sh.Sanjay Verma marked as PW9/A on the instructions of deceased.
61. PW-10 Sh.Deepak Jindal has deposed that he had worked in MDLR company, Gurgaon in the year 2005 for about 11/2 year. PW-10 Sh.Deepak Jindal had further deposed that mobile phone no.9873200002 was got issued in his name but thereafter, he had handed over the said SIM to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. PW-10 Sh.Deepak Jindal further deposed that in the year 2010, the ownership of the said SIM was changed from his name to MDLR Tours and Travels and he further deposed that during the course of investigation, his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded vide Ex.PW10/A.
62. PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma was the cousin of deceased and he had deposed on oath that on 03.08.2012, he alongwith deceased had gone to Mumbai by Air to attend the Fashion Show of Ankit Sharma, the real brother of deceased. PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma further deposed that after completion of Fashion Show, he alongwith deceased reached at the Mumbai Airport to catch the return flight on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. and when they were waiting for flight, then at about 7.30 or 7.45 p.m., deceased received a telephonic call and after receiving the same, she appeared to be a bit stressed. It was further deposed by PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma that due to deceased continued conversation on the telephone, they missed their flight and later on, when he enquired from deceased, she SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 31/189 PS: Bharat Nagar told that call was from Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, a lawyer of MDLR Group, who was talking about some case pending at Goa. It was further deposed by PW-11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma that he and deceased spent the night at Mumbai Airport and thereafter, returned to Delhi by the morning flight on 04.08.2012 vide ticket Ex.P1.
63. In the present case, it was the deceased's mother Ms.Anuradha Sharma, who had got the present case registered and during the course of investigation, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. However, unfortunately during the pendency of this case, Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of deceased had expired and therefore, she could not be examined as a witness. However, brother of deceased Sh.Ankit Sharma and father of deceased Sh.Dinesh Sharma were examined as PW-12 and PW-13 respectively.
64. It has come in the evidence of PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that deceased was selected as trainee Cabin Crew in MDLR Airlines in 2006, of which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the Chairman and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was the Manager, HR and deceased was promoted as Senior Cabin Crew in the year 2008 and after the stoppage of operations of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd. in April, 2009, deceased was appointed as Co-ordinator of MDLR Group and later on, was transferred to MDLR Hotels and was assigned the job of supervising the renovation work of Casino at Goa. PW-
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 32/189 PS: Bharat Nagar 12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma had further deposed that at Goa, deceased had dispute with her co-employees namely Ms.Ankita Singh and Ms.Nupur Mehta, who were working in the same Casino as they were pressurizing deceased not to work in the Casino and not to visit Goa and thereafter, when the aforementioned two girls had snatched the mobile phone and laptop of deceased, then she had got the FIR lodged against said two girls at Goa. Thereafter, deceased had returned to Delhi in August/September, 2009 but did not join MDLR Airlines and pursued her graduation. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that deceased was having two mobile numbers. The number 8447000013 was her official mobile phone number and mobile no. 9013347100 was her personal number. It has further come in the evidence of PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that in the month of October, 2009, deceased again started going to the office of MDLR due to constant pressure put upon by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and due to assurance given by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that deceased will not be sent to Goa again.
65. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that deceased resigned from MDLR in the month of May, 2010 and joined Emirates Airlines in June, 2010 at Dubai. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was not issuing the NOC SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 33/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and when he was out of country, deceased had applied for NOC,which was provided to the deceased by Monal Sachdeva, employee of MDLR by posting the same at the residence of deceased. Based upon this NOC, deceased had joined Emirates Airlines at Dubai on 26.06.2010. It has further come in the evidence of PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called the mother of deceased and told her that deceased should be called back from Dubai, as it is not a good country.
66. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that during the deceased stay at Dubai, both accused persons used to call deceased at her mobile number as well as on her landline number asking deceased to quit Emirates Airlines and rejoin MDLR and since deceased did not accede to their request, therefore, both accused persons had visited Dubai on one occasion and on the other occasion, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had alone visited Dubai.
67. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda also tried to meet deceased on the pretext that he was her uncle at the place where she was staying but he was not allowed entry into the building by the security guard. It was further deposed to by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that at the instance of both accused persons, deceased had met them SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 34/189 PS: Bharat Nagar in Cafeteria in Dubai, where they again convinced deceased to rejoin MDLR.
68. It was further deposed to by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that after both accused had returned from Dubai, deceased had received information from the Emirates Airlines that her previous employer had certain objections regarding the genuineness of the NOC and even a complaint lodged by MDLR with SHO, PS Gurgaon was shown to deceased. It was further deposed to by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that Emirates Airlines had told deceased that her previous employer had alleged that NOC is forged and, therefore, deceased had resigned from the Emirates Airlines on 12.08.2010 and had returned to India on 24.08.2010. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that after returning from Dubai, deceased stayed at her house for 2-3 months and during this period, deceased received an email whereby she was threatened to be extradited to Dubai with regard to some money dispute.
69. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that in the month of December, 2010, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had visited the house of deceased and pressurized her to rejoin MDLR after persuading deceased to forget what happened in the past. It was further deposed by them that in the month of December, 2010, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 35/189 PS: Bharat Nagar wife visited deceased's house and mother of deceased had complained to them regarding the trouble created by them at the work place of deceased in Dubai, due to which she had to resign and thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had apologized the mother of deceased and also assured not to repeat such actions in future and in order to gain the confidence, had provided two NOCs.
70. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed regarding traveling alongwith his wife and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his wife to Goa to attend the court case and thereafter, to Shirdi. Thereafter, deceased had rejoined MDLR and remained in their employment till December, 2011. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that after deceased had left the job in December, 2011, deceased was offered to be a part of the Society that has been formed to run a school and even deceased accompanied co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on one or two occasions for the work of Society school.
71. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed regarding deposition of fee by the MDLR Group for the MBA course, which was being pursued by deceased from IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. It was further deposed by PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that about 15-20 days prior to death of deceased, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called deceased and was putting pressure upon the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 36/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased to come to the office of the MDLR to sign some papers. However, deceased told co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, not to call her again and refused to sign on the documents. It has further come in the evidence of PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma and PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that on 03.08.2012, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called up the mother of deceased and had requested her to send deceased to sign documents failing which matter will be reported to the Haryana Police.
72. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma further deposed regarding the pressure being put upon by Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia on deceased to sign some documents in connection with the case pending at Goa when Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia called up deceased on 03.08.2012. It was further deposed by PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma that when deceased returned from Mumbai on 04.08.2012, her mother had told her that co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called her and had asked deceased to sign some documents failing which deceased would be arrested and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had also told the mother of deceased that allegations made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda regarding character of deceased were true. It has further come in their evidence that after hearing the conversation, deceased insisted her mother to call accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda but he did not pick up the call. Thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called mother of deceased, in which he again SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 37/189 PS: Bharat Nagar instructed to send deceased to sign some papers failing which deceased would be arrested.
73. The entire conversation which took place between accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and mother of deceased was narrated to deceased and after hearing the same, deceased had become stressed and did not speak to anyone through out the day.
74. It has further come in the evidence of PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma that he received a call from deceased on the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012 at about 1.15 a.m. wherein deceased was sounding disturbed and told PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma that accused persons are putting pressure upon her to come to the office of MDLR to sign some papers.
75. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed that in the morning of 05.08.2012, he found that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma further deposed regarding seizing of mobile phone, laptop of deceased, spiral diary, spiral notebook having handwriting of deceased and a stool lying in the room in his presence. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma also identified the complaint made by his wife Ex.PW13/D. PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma also deposed regarding he and his wife giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F respectively. PW-12 Sh.Ankit Sharma deposed regarding handwriting of suicide notes being that of deceased and had handed over SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 38/189 PS: Bharat Nagar all documents of employment of Emirates, MDLR, print outs of emails etc. to the police during the course of investigation and the two SIM Cards used by deceased during her employment at Emirates etc.
76. PW-14 Ms.Khushboo Sharma was working in the MDLR in the year 2011 as General Manager (Admn.). PW-14 Ms.Khushboo had deposed regarding rejoining of deceased as Director in the MDLR Company in 2011 and further deposed that when she left services, she had handed over all the articles belonging to the company vide document Ex.PW14/B.
77. PW-15 Sh.Surender Kumar was the businessman and he had joined the investigation on 20.08.2012 with IO Inspector Rajender and at that point of time, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was in police custody. He further deposed regarding the fact of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda taking the police to the Farm House by the name of Shanti Kunj at Gurgaon, Faridabad Road and from the first floor, he had got recovered some documents regarding the property and the said search proceedings were also videographed. PW-15 Sh.Surender Kumar had identified the seizure memo as Ex.PW15/A and identified the documents, which were recovered in his presence as Ex.PW15/B (colly).
78. PW-16 Sh.Mandeep Singh was working as a peon in the MDLR, after having joined the same in the year 2008. PW-16 Sh.Mandeep Singh had deposed that he had SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 39/189 PS: Bharat Nagar got a mobile no.8860000029 issued in his name and he was using the said number. PW-16 Sh.Mandeep Singh further deposed that he had got his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW16/A. Since PW16 Sh.Mandeep Singh had not supported the prosecution case that the aforesaid mobile number was being used by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, as stated by him in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, he was cross examined by the Ld.Addl.PP for State and in his cross examination, he accepted the contents of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but further stated that whatever he had stated was done under the pressure made by the police and it is not his voluntarystatement.
79. PW-17 Sh.Aditya Mangla was in the business of Real Estates and he deposed that his wife namely Ms.Khushboo, was working with the MDLR in the year 2012 having her office at Civil Lines, Gurgaon and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the owner of MDLR Company. PW-17 Sh.Aditya Mangla deposed that he had joined the investigation and had provided the print outs of the emails with respect to M/s. Sundale Educational Society vide Ex.PW17/B (colly), which were taken into possession vide Ex.PW17/A.
80. PW-18 is Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, who was working as Manager (Legal) in the MDLR Groups since August, 2010. PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia deposed that he had lastly spoken to deceased on 03.08.2012 telephonically with SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 40/189 PS: Bharat Nagar respect to case, which was registered at Goa. He further deposed regarding taking into possession his laptop by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and he further deposed regarding handing over of documents relating to case registered at Goa which included an application for quashing of those proceedings including the orders passed by the Ld.Magistrate, Goa, which are Ex.PW18/C (colly).
81. PW-19 Sh.Shiraz Ali was running a travel agency by the name of Dezire Holidays from Nirmal Tower, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and he deposed that MDLR group is one of his clients and he was looking after their air tickets, hotel bookings etc. He further deposed that during the course of investigation by the police, he had handed over to them the documents vide his letter Ex.PW19/1 which included the copies of tickets Mark P-19/A.
82. PW-21 is Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher, who had joined MDLR on 06.12.2004 and remained in the said company till 07.11.2009 and rejoined the said company again on 15.06.2010 and continued there till 31.03.2013. He further deposed that he joined the company as a General Manager and left as Senior Vice President in 2009 to again rejoin as Chief Operating Officer in 2010. PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher further deposed that deceased had joined service in MDLR in 2006 and MDLR started operating in Aviation business in March, 2007. PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher identified the letter dated SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 41/189 PS: Bharat Nagar 18.10.2006, receipt dated 18.10.2006, letter dated 28.08.2008, letter dated 31.03.2009 and letter dated 30.06.2009 which were part of documents Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A20. However, PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher denied that NOC having signatures at Mark Q-9 are his signatures. PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher further admitted that Mark S-1 to S-7 are his specimen signatures. PW-21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher also deposed that deceased might have joined MDLR in the end of 2010 or January, 2011 and he has seen her attending the office till 2012.
83. PW-22 is Inspector O.P.Shrivastva, who was posted in Cyber Lab, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. PW-22 Inspector O.P.Shrivastva deposed that during the course of investigation, SI Dinesh produced a laptop and mobile phone duly sealed and after de-sealing the same, he had prepared mirror copy of laptop and mobile phone using forensic tools and mirror images were handed over to the IO alongwith mobile phone and laptop.
84. PW-23 was Inspector Pankaj Singh but he was dropped on the request of Ld.Addl.PP for State as his testimony was of repetitive nature.
85. PW-24 SI Pradeep Chhabra was also posted in Cyber Lab, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and he deposed that on 06.08.2012, Inspector O.P.Shrivastva i.e. PW-22 handed over to him one laptop make "Acer" and one mobile phone make "Apple" and thereafter, he prepared mirror image of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 42/189 PS: Bharat Nagar the laptop after taking out the hard disc and data stored in the mobile phone was retrieved and converted into a pendrive and was handed over to the IO. PW-24 SI Pradeep Chhabra further deposed about the preparation of mirror image of hard disc of Apple Laptop on 08.08.2012 at the house of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
86. PW-25 Lady Constable Neha deposed that on 08.08.2012, she was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and on that date, she had joined investigation with Inspector Rajender Prasad. PW-25 Lady Ct. Neha deposed regarding arrest of co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha at PS Keshav Puram, identified her signatures on the arrest memo, body inspection memo of co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and her personal search memo vide Ex.PW25/1, Ex.PW25/2 and Ex.PW25/3 respectively.
87. PW-26 is Lady Constable Ram Pyari, who was posted in the year 2012 at PS Bharat Nagar. PW-26 Lady Ct.Ram Pyari had deposed that on the directions of the IO Inspector Rajender Singh, she joined investigation and as per the disclosure made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha while in custody, they had gone to the clinic of Dr.Vishakha Munjal in the area of Lajpat Nagar where the clinic was found closed and thereafter, at the residence, Ms.Vishakha Munjal met and produced some documents and a diary regarding the treatment of deceased, which were seized by the IO vide Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B. She further deposed that thereafter, they had gone to the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 43/189 PS: Bharat Nagar office of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd. at Gurgaon and at the instance of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, some documents were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW26/C and Ex.PW26/D.
88. PW-27 is Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was working as Company Secretary from 2010 till 30.11.2012, had deposed that during his tenure, deceased was appointed as one of the Directors of the company in 2011 and she regularly attended the office till April, 2012. PW- 27 Sh.Ashok Kumar Sharma further deposed that on 12.08.2012, he joined the investigation of this case and documents regarding the appointment of Directors Ex.PW27/A (colly) were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/C and some other documents, which were in his possession, were also seized on that day.
89. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal was the panel advocate of Punjab National Bank and was having his office at A-53, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal had deposed that he knew Ms.Jyoti being employee of Punjab National Bank. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal further deposed that in the year 2012, police had contacted him during the investigation of this case and had enquired about one unsigned reply which PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal admitted to have been drafted by him in his office on the instructions of a lady, who had come alongwith Ms.Jyoti. PW-28 Sh.S.S.Katyal further deposed that he had given a SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 44/189 PS: Bharat Nagar copy of reply Ex.PW28/A from his computer system to the police.
90. PW-29 is Constable Rajinder, who was posted at PS Bharat Nagar as Constable and he had deposed that on 08.08.2012, on the instructions of inspector Dinesh Kumar, he had collected six sealed parcels from MHCM PS Bharat Nagar and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini against receipt.
91. PW-30 is Sh.Batush Pal, who was the member of Sundale Educational Society, which was running a school by the name of Pumpkin School at Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. PW-30 Sh.Batush Pal deposed that in the year 2012, his friend namely Sh.Aditya Mangla had proposed to him that his wife wants to run a school and if PW-30 Batush Pal and his wife are desirous of selling the school, then Sh.Aditya Mangla can think of buying the same. He further deposed that thereafter, they decided to transfer the school to Sh.Aditya Mangla and accordingly, documents were executed and a part payment through cheque was also received, which was later on got dishonoured.
92. PW-30 Sh.Batush Pal further deposed that when he confronted Sh.Aditya Mangla about dishonourment of cheque, then it was disclosed to him that the aforementioned school was purchased by him for some other person and from the documents, he came to know that Sh.Aditya Mangla without informing him, had sold the school to some other person whose names were later on SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 45/189 PS: Bharat Nagar revealed as accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased and accordingly, deal was cancelled.
93. PW-31 HC Dharmender was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and on 19.08.2012, he had accompanied accused A- 1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter, in his presence, disclosure statement of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda Ex.PW31/A was recorded. Thereafter, they had gone to the office of MDLR, Gurgaon and at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, one desktop, one CPU and other electronic devices were seized.
94. PW-32 Ct.Jitendra has deposed that he was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and on 24.09.2012, on the instructions of Inspector Dinesh Kumar, he collected three sealed parcels sealed with the seal of "RP" and had deposited the same with the FSL, Rohini against receipt and receipt was deposited with the MHC(M).
95. PW-33 is Sh.Atul Puri, who was the Chartered Accountant by profession and was known to the family of deceased for the past 20-25 years. PW-33 Sh.Atul Puri had deposed regarding receipt of mail from deceased, which she has received from Dubai and accordingly, PW-33 Sh.Atul Puri had advised deceased to ascertain the authenticity of the mail from Emirates Airlines and Ministry of External Affairs. He also produced print out copies of emails exchanged by him with deceased, which were exhibited as Ex.PW-33/A. SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 46/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
96. PW-34 Ms.Anjula Nagpal was the owner of Flat No.2C, Block-11, Phase 3, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and she had deposed that on 07.05.2011, she had sold the flat to Smt.Sushila Goyal vide registered sale deed.
97. PW-35 is Inspector Manohar Lal, who was posted as Draftsman in North-West District. He had deposed that on 29.08.2012, he alongwith IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar had visited Flat No.4-C, 2nd Floor, Pocket- B, Block-1, Ashok Vihar, Phase-3, Delhi and had taken measurement at the instance of Inspector Dinesh Kumar and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.35/A.
98. PW-36 is Dr.Vishakha Munjal, who was practicing as gynecologist and obstetrician for the past 08 years from her Medi Clinic situated at Part-3, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal had deposed that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was her old patient and in the month of March, 2012, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had taken telephonic appointment with regard to her friend for consultation. Thereafter, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had come to the clinic of PW-36 on 09.03.2012 and had informed her that her friend will come to her clinic for consultation and thereafter, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha left. After 10-15 minutes of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha leaving, deceased had come to PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal for termination of her pregnancy, which was six weeks old and on inquiry, she apprised that she was unmarried.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 47/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
99. PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal had prescribed some medicines for termination of deceased's pregnancy and her pregnancy was successfully terminated and deceased visited clinic of PW-36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal for follow-ups on 14.05.2012 and 19.06.2012.
100. PW-37 is ASI Surender Kumar, who was posted as MHC(R) at PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon and he had deposed that on 26.08.2012, SI Devender Singh of PS Bharat Nagar had come to PS Gurgaon to make inquiry regarding the complaint made by M/s.MDLR Airlines Ltd. on 07.08.2010. He further deposed that as per his record, there was no complaint received from M/s.MDLR Airlines Ltd.on 07.08.2010.
101. PW-38 is SI Ajay Kumar, who was posted at PS Ashok Vihar and he has deposed that on 24.08.2012, on the instructions of Inspector Dinesh Kumar, he had gone to the office of Emirates Airlines at Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi and from there, he collected a sealed envelope from Mr.Vinay John, Manager, Emirates, which was seized by him vide Ex.PW38/A and after his return to PS Bharat Nagar, he had handed over the same to Inspector Dinesh Kumar.
102. PW-39 is Constable Darvesh, who was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed that on 07.08.2012, he had joined the investigation with Inspector Rajender Prasad and thereafter, had gone to the office of MDLR Airlines at Gurgaon, Haryana and from there, Sh.Rajiv SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 48/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Parasher had handed over certain documents, which were seized and they also went in search of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha at her residence but it was found locked. He further deposed regarding visiting of flat of father of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha but none was found present there. He further deposed regarding visiting the house of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and serving notice upon his wife to join the investigation. It was further deposed by PW-39 Ct.Darvesh that on 19.08.2012, he again joined the investigation and at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, one desktop and one CPU was seized from MDLR Airlines Gurgaon office. He further deposed regarding seizing of certain documents from the farm house in the area of Shantikunj, Gurgaon on 20.08.2012 at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and seizing of one laptop, one desktop and one CPU from MDLR office, Gurgaon.
103. PW-40 is Sh.Dharmendra Singh, who was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, Outer District-07, Delhi. PW- 40 Sh.Dharmendra Singh has deposed regarding recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Sh.Mandeep Singh after compliance of formalities.
104. PW-41 is Ct.Balwan Singh, who was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and he had deposed regarding collecting of one parcel from PS Bharat Nagar and depositing the same at CFSL, Hyderabad on 26.09.2012 against receipt, which SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 49/189 PS: Bharat Nagar was deposited by him on his return with MHC (M) PS Bharat Nagar.
105. PW-42 is Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal, who was the Nodal Officer at Vodafone Idea Ltd. He had produced the Customer Agreement Form with respect to mobile no. 9953100000, which was in the name of MDLR Airlines (P) Ltd., Gurgaon, mobile no. 9873900002, which was in the name of Dharambir resident of Gurgaon and the mobile no. 9873200002, which was in the name of Deepak resident of Gurgaon. He had also produced the certified copies of Call Detail Record (CDR) of mobile no. 9953100000, mobile no.9873900002 and mobile no. 9873200002 from 01.01.2012 till 05.08.2012. Further, PW-42 Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal also produced on record CDR of mobile no.8860000029 in the name of MDLR Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana, mobile no. 9818625001 in the name of Smt. Anuradha Sharma, resident of Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, mobile no. 9868051400 in the name of Ankit Sharma, resident of Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, mobile no.9711270009 in the name of MDLR Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon and mobile no. 8860214200 in the name of R.K.Vishvkarma, resident of R.K.Puram, New Delhi.
106. PW-43 is Sh.Anurag Sharma, who was working as Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi and he had deposed that he had compared the admitted handwriting and signatures of deceased appearing on the admitted documents with the questioned signatures SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 50/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and handwriting appearing on the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and thereafter, he had opined that questioned signatures and handwriting of deceased appearing in the suicide notes was similar to that of admitted handwriting and signatures of deceased.
107. PW-43 Sh.Anurag Sharma also deposed regarding giving up of opinion that signatures appearing on the NOC at Q-9 were not that of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher or that of Sh.Monal Sachdeva after comparing their admitted handwriting and signatures and specimen handwriting. PW-43 Sh.Anurag Sharma also proved his report in this regard Ex.PW43/L.
108. PW-44 is Sh.Jagdish Salwan, who was the Manager, Citi Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi and he has deposed regarding supplying of original Account Opening Form of Sh.Monal Sachdeva.
109. PW-45 Sh.Surender Kumar was working as Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi and he had produced on record the Customer Application Form of mobile no. 9910110235, which was in the name of Ms.Aruna Dagar and he also produced the Call Detail Record of said mobile number.
110. PW-46 is Sh.Vipin Kharab, who was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi on 08.08.2012. PW-46 Sh.Vipin Kharab has deposed regarding recording of statement of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Ex.PW13/E SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 51/189 PS: Bharat Nagar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after complying with all the requisite formalities.
111. PW-47 Sh.Vishal Singh was also posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 14.08.2012 and he has deposed that on 14.08.2012, he recorded the statement of Sh.Deepak Jindal Ex.PW10/A under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded statement of Sh.Ankit Sharma Ex.PW47/G under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 08.08.2012 and recorded the confessional statement of absconder accused Chanshivroop Singh on 27.11.2012 (Part of Ex.PW47/K) under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
112. PW-48 is Sh.Sanjay Bansal, who was known to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. PW-48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal admitted of having sent two SMS Ex.PW48/A from his mobile no. 9811101010 to deceased in the year 2010, when deceased was working in Emirates Airlines in Dubai.
113. PW-49 is Sh.Rakesh Soni, who was working as Deputy Manager (Store), MTNL, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and he had brought on record CDR of mobile no. 9013347100 in the name of Ms.Anuradha Sharma.
114. PW-50 is Ms.Vandana, who was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Rohini, Delhi and she has deposed that on 08.08.2012, she had recorded the statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/F under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after complying with all the requisite formalities.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 52/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
115. PW-51 Sh.CH.E.Sai Prasad was posted as Assistant Director, CFSL, Hyderabad and he had conducted the forensic analysis of the mobile phone make "Apple", a SIM Card of Service Provider MTNL. After analysing the aforementioned Apple Phone and the SIM Card, various data retrieved from the same, was provided in one DVD vide Ex.PW51/A and he also provided the hard copy of the relevant data vide his supplementary report Ex.PW51/C.
116. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan was posted as MHCM at PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi and he produced Register Nos.19 and 21, which had the entries regarding deposition of case properties and handing over of the case properties for the purpose of depositing the same with the FSL.
117. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan had deposed regarding depositing of one videography cassette on 06.08.2012, one hard disk make "Hitachi" on 08.08.2012, one laptop, mobile phone and camera on 10.08.2012, one diary on 12.08.2012, one desktop make Lenovo and CPU on 19.08.2012, one CPU make IBM and Laptop make Sony VAIO on 20.08.2012, three letter heads and two stamps on 23.08.2012, one ipad make "Apple" on 24.08.2012, one mobile phone make "Apple" on 28.08.2012, one sealed parcel containing SIM Cards on 29.08.2012 and one laptop make Lenovo on 30.08.2012. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan further deposed that on 06.08.2012, he had handed over laptop and iphone Apple to IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar for SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 53/189 PS: Bharat Nagar taking the same to Special Cell NDR and on 07.08.2012, he had handed over documents i.e. suicide note and other documents to Constable Kuldeep and also laptop, mobile phone were sent through Constable Kuldeep for depositing the same to FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
118. PW-52 HC Mehfuz Khan further deposed that on 08.08.2012, six sealed samples were sent to FSL, Rohini through Constable Rajinder and on 23.09.2012, one iphone make "Apple" was sent through Constable Balwan to CFSL, Hyderabad and on 24.09.2012, three sealed parcels were deposited with FSL, Rohini by Constable Jitender and on 24.09.2012, two SIM Cards, which were being used by deceased in Dubai, were sent through Constable Jitender to FSL, Rohini and on 25.09.2012, eight sealed parcels were sent through Constable Kuldeep to FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
119. PW-53 is Inspector Vijay Gahlawat, who was posted in the year 2012 with Cyber Cell, Economic Offences Wing (EOW). He has deposed on oath that on request received from the officials of PS Bharat Nagar seeking details of e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] from the concerned service provider, they had sent a request e-mail to Hotmail, which had provided the alternative e-mail address i.e. [email protected]. Accordingly, details were sought from the Google company regarding registrant and log details, which had further provided the IP address from SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 54/189 PS: Bharat Nagar which the aforementioned e-mail was created i.e. Hathway Service Provider, who in turn provided IP Address i.e. Sector-71, Mohali, Punjab.
120. PW-54 Sh.Sanjay Sharma deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, BCAS, Delhi Regional Office. PW-54 Sh.Sanjay Sharma deposed that initially Airport Entry Permits were being issued from BCAS, HQ, Janpath, Delhi but later on, they were shifted to Regional Office, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had provided the certified copies of applications for issuing Airport Entry permit vide Ex.PW54/A(colly).
121. PW-55 is Dr.Bhim Singh, who was posted as HOD, Forensic Medicine, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and was part of the Medical Board, which had conducted post mortem on the deceased. He proved his signatures on the post mortem report of deceased Ex.PW1/B and further deposed regarding death of deceased due to hanging and regarding providing of subsequent opinion vide Ex.PW55/B.
122. PW-56 Sh.Om Prakash Parida was posted as Assistant Director, CBI, New Delhi in the year 2013-2014. PW-56 Sh.Om Prakash Parida deposed that one letter dated 11.06.2013 of Dr.P.Karunakaran, Deputy Commissioner of Police, North West District, Delhi was received with a request for forwarding letter rogatory and additional letter rogatory to UAE. He further deposed that thereafter, they SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 55/189 PS: Bharat Nagar had sent Letter Rogatory to the Ambassador, Embassy of India, U.A.E. and thereafter, one execution report with regard to Letter Rogatory was received and the same was forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police. North-West, Delhi.
123. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad was posted as SHO, PS Bharat Nagar and he has deposed regarding reaching at the spot on receiving a PCR call at about 9.20 a.m. on 05.08.2012, regarding commission of a suicide by the daughter of the caller at Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. He further deposed that at the spot, Inspector Dinesh Kumar and ASI Jagbir Singh were already present. He further deposed that dead body of deceased was shifted to Mortuary and after recording of statement of mother of deceased, rukka was sent by the Inspector Dinesh Kumar to the PS for registration of the FIR. He further deposed regarding the constitution of Medical Board for the post mortem of deceased. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad also deposed that after conducting the post mortem by the Medical Board, he had collected various exhibits from the Hospital and even the post mortem was got videographed. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had gone to the office of MDLR, Gurgaon and had seized documents with regard to appointment of deceased and other employees. He further deposed regarding the arrest of accused no.2 Aruna Chadha and recording of her disclosure statement.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 56/189 PS: Bharat Nagar PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad further deposed regarding recording of statement of Sh.Gaurav Sharma, cousin of deceased and at the instance of accused Aruna Chadha, seizing of mobile phone make Ericsson, one digital camera make GI and a Laptop make Lenovo. PW- 57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad also deposed regarding examining Chanshivroop Singh and going to the clinic of Dr.Vishakha Munjal, at the instance of accused Aruna Chadha and recording statement of Dr.Vishakha Munjal and collecting relevant documents from her possession regarding the termination of pregnancy of deceased. He also deposed on oath that at the instance of accused Aruna Chadha, original documents of Sundale Educational Society were also seized and further deposed that pursuant to the dismissal of anticipatory bail application of accused Gopal Goyal Kanda, he was arrested on 18.08.2012 by IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar and pursuant to his arrest, at the instance of accused Gopal Goyal Kanda, from his office at Gurgaon, one CPU make Lenovo and one CPU, which was being used by Ms.Khushboo Sharma was seized and thereafter, from his farm house at Shantikunj, certain documents were seized. PW-57 Inspector Rajinder Prasad further deposed regarding examination of Sh.Aditya Mangla and seizing of documents of Sundale Educational Society from him. He further deposed seizing of ipad of deceased from the brother of deceased on 24.08.2012 and recorded the statement of Sh.Ankit Sharma and Constable SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 57/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sanjeev. He further deposed that thereafter, investigation was transferred to Sh.Rajeev Ranjan, Addl.DCP, North- West, Delhi on the direction of DCP, North-West, Delhi for conduction of further investigation.
124. PW-58 Sh.B.P.Bagchi was posted as Assistant Director, CBI, New Delhi. PW-58 Sh.B.P.Baghci has deposed on oath that vide letter dated 30.06.2016, he had forwarded the execution report regarding the Additional Letter Rogatory to Addl.DCP, Delhi Police alongwith report prepared by Dubai Police vide Ex.PW58/A to D respectively.
125. PW-59 Sh.S.K.Singh was posted as Addl.Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, North-West District, Delhi in 2018. PW-59 Sh.S.K.Singh has deposed on oath that he had filed the report running into two pages regarding execution of Additional Letter Rogatory received through the Indian Mission/CBI, Delhi vide Ex.PW59/A alongwith execution report on Additional Letter Rogatory.
126. PW-60 Inspector Devender Kumar was posted as Incharge PP Sangam Park of P.S Bharat Nagar. On 26.08.2012, he had gone to P.S. Civil Lines, Gurgaon regarding inquiry of a complaint dated 07.08.2010 of MDLR Airlines and as per record of PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon, no such complaint was received by them. He further deposed that on 04.12.2012, he alongwith HC Satish Pal had gone to Chandigarh to make inquiries regarding Chanshivroop Singh, who had absconded to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 58/189 PS: Bharat Nagar U.S.A. He further deposed that they had made inquiries from Mr.Rathor of S.K.R.Travels, Sector-35A, Chandigarh and he told them that Chanshivroop Singh and one Sudhanshu Karol had purchased tickets from them for U.S.A. and he further provided the copy of their passports to them. PW-60 Inspector Devender Kumar had deposed that he had gone to the addresses as mentioned in the photocopies of the passports of Sh.Sudhanshu Karol and Chanshivroop Singh but they were not found available at their respective addresses.
127. PW-61 is Dr.Narayan Waghmare and he was posted as Assistant Director at FSL, Rohini in the year 2012. He has deposed on oath that on 07.08.2012, he had received two parcels having apple iphone with MTNL SIM Card, one laptop make ACER and on 24.09.2012, he had received one parcel having two SIM Cards. He further deposed that he had done the forensic anaylsis of above mentioned documents and had given his report. He further deposed that iphone make Apple and SIM Cards could not be analysed due to analysis facility being not available. However, data from the laptop and two SIM Cards was retrived and was provided alongwith report.
128. PW-62 is Sh.Rajeev Ranjan and he was posted as Addl.DCP-1,North West District, New Delhi in the year 2012. He deposed that on 18.09.2012, this case was assigned to him for further investigation and after discussing the case with the previous IO Inspector Dinesh SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 59/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Kumar, he had carried out the investigation. PW-62 Sh.Rajeev Ranjan deposed regarding receiving of FSL result from Rohini alongwith 12 photographs, sending of iphone of deceased to CFSL, Hyderabad, sending of some documents relating to deceased to FSL, Rohini, sending of laptop and mobile phones of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and two SIM Cards of deceased to FSL, Rohini, receiving of DVD from Sh.Ankit Sharma with regard to opinion received from Microsoft Company, seeking details of Notary Public Ms.Sushma Gupta, examination of Ms.Sushma Gupta, examination of Atul Puri, Rajiv Parasher, Monal Sachdeva and Shirish Thorat and seeking subsequent opinion from Dr.Bhim Singh and thereafter, filing the chargesheet on 05.10.2012.
129. PW-63 Ex.Addl.DCP S.Saravanan was Additional DCP, North-West District, Delhi in 2012 and he had deposed that after filing of the chargesheet by the first IO i.e. Sh.Rajeev Ranjan, he was transferred and thereafter, the investigation file was handed over to him. He deposed that during the course of further investigation, he had interrogated Chanshivroop Singh Nayar, collected forensic evidences with respect to electronic equipments seized and sent them to forensic laboratory for their report and had collected relevant documents from Civil Aviation Authorities and also got the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar and thereafter, he had filed the second supplementary SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 60/189 PS: Bharat Nagar chargesheet in the month of January, 2013. He further deposed that after recording the statement of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar and finding evidence against him, he was arrested and released on police bail. However, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that Chanshivroop Singh Nayar absconded to U.S.A. with the connivance of Sh.Harminder Singh and accordingly, the case was registered against Sh.Harminder Singh at PS Bharat Nagar. He further deposed on oath regarding collecting of original Account Opening Form of Sh.Monal Sachdeva from the Citi Bank and Account Opening Form of Sh.Rajiv Parasher from Axis Bank. He further deposed regarding collecting of Airport Entry Pass of staff of MDLR Airlines from the Airport Security, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. During the course of further investigation, FSL reports from Hyderabad and from Rohini were received. He further deposed regarding examining of Sh.Sanjay Kumar Bansal and obtaining of details of mobile phone of Sh.Sanjay Kumar Bansal from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He further deposed regarding obtaining of Letter Rogatory and filing of supplementary chargesheet regarding execution of Letter Rogatory received through CBI from U.A.E.
130. PW-64 is Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, who was working in the year 2010 as an employee of Emirates group, as Head of investigation Department. He deposed that his job description was to conduct investigation and inquires of all kinds. He further deposed that in the month SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 61/189 PS: Bharat Nagar of August 2010, he received information from his HR Department regarding receipt of complaint against deceased where it was alleged that deceased was in illegal possession of laptop, phone and other documents belonging to her earlier employer i.e. MDLR Airlines. Thereafter, PW-64 Shirish Maruti Thorat had initiated investigation and during the course of inquiry, PW-64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat had sought information from Sh.Rajiv Parasher regarding the NOC issued in favour of deceased and Sh.Rajiv Parasher denied of having issued any NOC in favour of deceased. PW-64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat further deposed that deceased admitted that she had forged signatures of Sh.Rajiv Parasher. It was further deposed that pursuant to his inquiry, he concluded that deceased should be relieved of her duties and thereafter, she left Dubai for India. PW-64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat also deposed regarding handing over of documents regarding his investigation to police vide Ex.PW62/K (colly).
131. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar was posted as ATO, PS Bharat Nagar and is also one of the investigating officer, who had investigated the present case. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 05.08.2012 after receipt of PCR call, they had reached at house of deceased where they had found a dead body of a girl lying on a bed. He further deposed regarding finding of a suicide note from a diary lying on the table near the bed and recording SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 62/189 PS: Bharat Nagar statement of mother of deceased, on the basis of which rukka was prepared and the FIR was got registered. He further deposed regarding inspection of the scene of the crime by the Crime Team and getting body shifted to Mortuary. He further deposed regarding seizing of ligature material i.e. Chunni, green colour plastic stool used in the commission of suicide, laptop make ACER and a mobile make iphone of deceased and documents pertaining to deceased of Emirates and MDLR Airlines. He further deposed regarding seizing of spiral booklet having handwriting of deceased and also black colour diary from where suicide note was recovered. He also deposed regarding seizing of documents regarding the case pending at the Goa District court, seizing of suicide note and preparation of the site plan at the instance of mother of deceased.
132. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar also deposed on oath regarding filling up of Death Report Form Ex.PW65/C and recording statement of various witnesses i.e. father of deceased, brother of deceased, ASI Jagbir Singh, HC Rajinder and supplementary statement of mother of deceased during the course of investigation. The case property duly seized by PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar was identified by him during the course of trial when the same was produced before the court.
133. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed regarding seizing of various emails exchanged between the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 63/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased and accused persons from Sh.Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased. He further deposed regarding getting the mirror image prepared of Laptop and mobile phone of deceased from Cyber Lab of Special Cell, Delhi. He further deposed regarding collecting of CDR of mobile phone of accused persons and that of deceased. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar also deposed on oath regarding recording of statement of Sh.Mandeep Singh in whose name, mobile phone no. 8860000029 was registered. PW- 65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed regarding getting the statement of Anuradha Sharma, Dinesh Sharma, Ankit Sharma and Mandeep Singh recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further deposed regarding collecting of documents from Manager, Emirates Airlines and IILM, Lodhi Road relating to deceased Geetika Sharma. He further deposed regarding collecting of documents regarding MDLR company and Sundale Educational Society from Registrar of Companies and Registrar of Societies. He further deposed regarding the arrest of accused Gopal Goyal Kanda and interrogation of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar. He further deposed regarding collecting of Air Travel Record of accused Gopal Goyal Kanda, accused Aruna Chadha and deceased for the period from 01.01.2006 till 22.08.2012 from FRRO.
134. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed on oath regarding recording of statement of Sh.Batush Pal, member of Sundale Educational Society. He further SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 64/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deposed regarding collecting of evidence from SHO, PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon with regard to complaint made by MDLR Airlines against deceased on 07.08.2010.
135. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar also deposed on oath regarding seizing of documents from Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia pertaining to the case at Goa District court and copy of quashing petition filed before the Goa High Court. He further deposed regarding recording of statement of Sh.Rajiv Parasher, Ms.Jyoti Sharma and that of Sh.S.S.Katyal. He further deposed regarding collecting of Air Tickets and other relevant documents from Sh.Siraz Ali, Travel Agent pertaining to accused Gopal Goyal Kanda, accused Aruna Chadha, Sanjay Bansal and Chanshivroop Singh Nayar. He further deposed that on 18.09.2012, he handed over the case file to Sh.Rajeev Ranjan, Addl.DCP, North West, Delhi for further investigation.
136. He further deposed that on 24.09.2012 on the direction of Addl.DCP, he had gone to the FSL, Rohini and submitted some additional admitted handwriting documents pertaining to deceased Geetika Sharma. He deposed that on 27.12.2012, he again went to FSL, Rohini to deposit specimen and admitted handwriting of Sh.Monal Sachdeva and Sh.Rajiv Parasher. He further deposed regarding deposition of Letter Rogatory and Additional Letter Rogatory with the CBI, HQ. He also deposed regarding interrogation of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar in SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 65/189 PS: Bharat Nagar his presence. PW-65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar further deposed that during the course of investigation by IO namely Addl.DCP Sh.Rajeev Ranjan and Sh. S.Saravanan, he assisted both of them. No other witness was examined on behalf of prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
137. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to accused persons. Both accused persons in their statement deposed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Thereafter, the matter was posted for defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
138. At the stage of defence evidence, an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C for admitting the document i.e Notification issued by Government of Haryana was filed on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and endorsement regarding the admission of said document by Ld. Addl.PP was obtained and said document was exhibited as Ex.D1 (colly). Further, despite grant of opportunity to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, no defence evidence was led by her. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed and the matter was posted for final arguments.
139. I have heard Sh.Manish Rawat, Ld.Addl.PP for State SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 66/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and Sh.R.S.Malik, Sh.P.K.Sandheer & Sh.Rajeev Sirohi, Ld.counsels for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and Sh.Vishal Gosain and Sh.Chinmay Kanojia, Ld.counsels for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. I have also carefully perused the record.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
140. It was submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for State that in the present case, both accused persons in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between the period from 18.10.2006 till death of deceased Geetika Sharma on the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012, had created such circumstance due to which deceased Geetika Sharma had no option but to commit suicide. It was further submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma was continuously harassed by accused persons during the aforementioned period, due to which deceased Geetika Sharma was made to take the extreme step of committing suicide. Ld.Addl.PP for State pointed out the following circumstances which showed that accused persons had harassed deceased Geetika Sharma continuously during the aforementioned period, which ultimately led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide and hence, they are guilty to abet suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma under Section 306 read with 120-B IPC.
141. It was submitted that the first circumstance proved on record, is the fact that deceased Geetika Sharma had SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 67/189 PS: Bharat Nagar initially joined the MDLR Company, of which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the CMD and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was the Manager, HR. It was submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma was appointed as a Cabin Crew Member in the year 2006 when she was not even 18 years old. It was further submitted that qualification of deceased Geetika Sharma at the time of her appointment was 12th pass and within a short span of time, deceased Geetika Sharma was promoted as Senior Cabin Crew Member and when in the year 2009, operations of MDLR Airlines were suspended, deceased Geetika Sharma was made a co-ordinator of MDLR Group and was asked to report on daily basis to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of the MDLR Group. It was further submitted that thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma was transferred to MDLR Hotels and was given the job of looking after the work of Casino by the name of "Mint" at Goa.
142. It was further submitted that when deceased Geetika Sharma was posted in Goa, two employees of MDLR i.e. Ankita and Nupur had a quarrel with deceased Geetika Sharma and during the said quarrel, they had taken away her mobile phone and laptop from her hotel and had threatened her for which deceased Geetika Sharma had got FIR registered against them at Goa. It was further submitted that the name of Ankita is mentioned in the suicide note of deceased Geetika Sharma dated 04.05.2012 SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 68/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Ex.PW12/C wherein it is alleged by deceased Geetika Sharma that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was having illicit relationship with Ankita and also has a girl child from her. It was submitted that pursuant to the registration of FIR by deceased Geetika Sharma in Goa, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were pressuring her to compound the offence, as accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had illicit relations with Ankita. It was further submitted that under pressure from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, deceased Geetika Sharma had filed an application for compounding of offence before the Ld.Magistrate in Goa but the same was dismissed and thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to file quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Goa. However, deceased Geetika Sharma was not willing to compound the offence and this fact is borne out from the diary wherein deceased Geetika Sharma had made a note in her handwriting that she was being forced to compound the offence.
143. It was further submitted that in order to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to compound the offence, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda through his lawyer i.e. PW-18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia was putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma and accordingly, PW-18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called deceased Geetika Sharma SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 69/189 PS: Bharat Nagar on 03.08.2012 when she was in Mumbai to attend the fashion show event hosted by her brother namely Ankit Sharma and after receipt of said call, deceased Geetika Sharma had become very tensed and due to long conversation of the call, deceased Geetika Sharma, who was waiting for her flight from Mumbai to Delhi, missed the same on 03.08.2012, due to which she had to spend the night at Mumbai Airport and reached Delhi by catching the flight in the morning of 04.08.2012.
144. It was further submitted that after the incident of theft and criminal intimidation in Goa, deceased Geetika Sharma had returned to Delhi and thereafter, had not joined the MDLR Group. However, on the assurance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that she will not be sent again to Goa, she had rejoined MDLR Group and remained in the employment till 22.05.2010. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from the MDLR Group to join Emirates Airlines in Dubai on 29.06.2010. It was further submitted that when accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda came to know about deceased Geetika Sharma leaving his company to join Emirates Airlines, then accused no.1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha created such circumstance that deceased Geetika Sharma had to resign from her job in Dubai and returned to India in the month of August, 2010. It was submitted in this regard that initially, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had refused to give a No-Objection SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 70/189 PS: Bharat Nagar certificate to deceased Geetika Sharma but later on at the instance of deceased Geetika Sharma, as per pre-planned conspiracy, a forged NOC dated 22.05.2010 duly signed by Sh.Rajiv Parasher was given to deceased Geetika Sharma through Monal Sachdeva knowing fully well that Sh.Rajiv Parasher was not in the employment of MDLR and same was done with the malafide intention so that in future accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha can easily dis-own the NOC and blame deceased Geetika Sharma for the forgery and ensure her return to the MDLR Group. It was further submitted that in order to ensure deceased Geetika Sharma re-joins MDLR Group, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had visited Dubai twice and on one occasion, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had also accompanied him. It was further submitted that accused A- 1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on his visit to Dubai, had tried to contact deceased Geetika Sharma telephonically but when deceased Geetika Sharma did not respond, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda went to the building where deceased Geetika Sharma was staying and tried to take entry in the building but with no success. It was further submitted that thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had met both accused persons in a coffee house wherein both accused persons pressurized deceased Geetika Sharma to leave Emirates Airlines and rejoin MDLR Group. However, when deceased Geetika Sharma did not accede to their demand, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had appointed his former SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 71/189 PS: Bharat Nagar employee by the name of Chanshivroop Singh Nayar as Assistant HR Manager in MDLR Group, with the sole objective of ensuring return of deceased Geetika Sharma to MDLR Group. Accordingly, Chanshiv Roop Singh Nayar had gone to Dubai and had made a complaint to Sh.Shirish Thorat, who was working in Emirates in the capacity of Head of Investigation and Security Group regarding forgery of NOC by deceased Geetika Sharma. Co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar also handed over the complaint made by MDLR Airlines to PS Civil Lines, Gurgaon against deceased Geetika Sharma to the HR Department of Emirates Airlines and even accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sent email dated 10.08.2010 to Sh.Shirish Thorat of Emirates Airlines alleging forgery by deceased Geetika Sharma. It was further submitted that based upon the complaint made by accused persons, inquiry was initiated at Emirates Airlines and accordingly, deceased Geetika Sharma was made to resign. It was further submitted that thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had come to India but did not join any company thereafter.
145. It was further submitted that in order to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR, a fake email was created by co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar from which extradition documents were sent to deceased Geetika Sharma wherein it was mentioned that due to pending complaint against her in Dubai, she would be extradited to Dubai. It was further submitted that this SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 72/189 PS: Bharat Nagar email and extradition documents and order of the court were found to be forged as per the execution report sent by U.A.E. authorities pursuant to the Additional Letter Rogatory sent by IO in this case. It was further submitted that thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his wife had visited the house of deceased Geetika Sharma in December, 2010 and had apologized for his mis-conduct and even offered two fresh NOCs to gain the trust of deceased Geetika Sharma and her parents. Thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma had rejoined MDLR Group as Director in January, 2011. It was submitted that the incident which took place in Dubai shows that deceased Geetika Sharma was harassed to such an extent by way of forged NOC and forged email regarding extradition, due to which deceased Geetika Sharma had to resign and was not willing to rejoin MDLR Group despite losing her job.
146. It was submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from the MDLR Group in December, 2011 and thereafter, accused persons were in the process of buying a school in Gurgaon which was being run by Sundale Educational Society and this fact is proved on record by the evidence of PW-17 Aditya Mangla and PW-30 Batush Pal. It was submitted that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was putting pressure upon the deceased Geetika Sharma to become President in the said Society and she was being forced to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society. It was further submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma was SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 73/189 PS: Bharat Nagar unwilling to sign the same as she apprehended that she might be involved in some wrong doings. It was further submitted that documents of Sundale Educational Society were recovered, at the instance of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, which shows that deceased Geetika Sharma was made President in the same.
147. It was further submitted that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012, wherein she had asked the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to ask deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the papers failing which a case would be reported against deceased Geetika Sharma in Haryana. Similarly, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had also called mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 extending the same threats. It was further submitted that this circumstance also showed that deceased Geetika Sharma was being harassed and had become depressed due to threat being extended by accused persons, which eventually led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide on the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012.
148. It was further submitted that it has come on record that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had sponsored the fees of Rs.7.5 Lacs for the MBA course of deceased Geetika Sharma at IILM Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and accordingly, deceased Geetika Sharma had joined the said course on 25.06.2012. It was further submitted that when accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had called mother SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 74/189 PS: Bharat Nagar of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had demanded return of aforementioned admission fee, which also caused undue pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma.
149. It was further submitted that although deceased Geetika Sharma was being continuously harassed by accused persons since 2006 but immediate and proximate cause of taking extreme step of committing suicide was the phone call made by accused persons on 03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012 to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma wherein both accused apart from asking deceased Geetika Sharma to sign papers had also levelled allegations regarding the character of deceased Geetika Sharma. It was further submitted that it has come in the evidence of PW-13 Sh.Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased Geetika Sharma that after hearing these allegations, mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had communicated the same to deceased Geetika Sharma and after hearing the same, deceased Geetika Sharma had become depressed and ultimately committed suicide in the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012.
150. It was further submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for State, that suicide note in this case, which is on two pages and is Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C respectively shows that it was due to continued harassment by accused persons that deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide. In the suicide note, deceased Geetika Sharma had held both accused SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 75/189 PS: Bharat Nagar persons responsible for her death and wanted them to be punished accordingly. It was further submitted that suicide note is akin to a dying declaration and no person while dying will implicate any person, which further proves that it was due to continuous torture and harassment by accused persons that deceased Geetika Sharma took extreme step of committing suicide. It was further submitted that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C stands proved on record by the report of handwriting expert i.e. PW-43 Sh.Anurag Sharma, who vide his report, after comparing the admitted handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and questioned handwriting and signatures appearing on the suicide note, opined that writing and signatures are of the same person on suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C.
151. It was concluded by submitting that due to continuous harassment by accused persons coupled with the allegations regarding character of deceased Geetika Sharma made on 03/04.08.2012 i.e made immediately prior to her death and she being put under pressure to sign papers for quashing of case registered at Goa, to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society and to return the amount of Rs.7.5 Lacs deposited for MBA course by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, led her to commit suicide. It was submitted that all the aforementioned acts of accused persons amount to instigation by them, which led deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, a prayer was made to convict both the accused persons for the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 76/189 PS: Bharat Nagar offence under Section 306 read with 120-B IPC. In support of his submissions, Ld.Addl.PP for State has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Pawan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. Crl.Appeal No. 775 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8998 of 2016) ; (2) UDE Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana Crl.Appeal No. 233 of 2010; (3) Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab Crl.Appeal No. 641 of 1999 ; (4) C.Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Crl.Appeal Nos.127-130 of 2008; (5) Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. 1990 AIR 209 ; (6) Brij Lal Vs. Prem Chand & Anr. 1989 AIR 1661; (7) Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala Crl.Appeal No. 357-359 of 1998; and (8) State Rep.by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and Anr. Crl.Appeal No. 832 of 2002.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED A-1 GOPAL GOYAL KANDA
152. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that in the present case, prosecution has examined as many as 65 witnesses to prove the charges framed against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda but from the evidence, both oral and documentary, no charge has been proved against the accused persons.
153. It was submitted that the first fact which creates a doubt in the prosecution story is the delay in lodging the FIR. It was submitted that in the present case, parents of deceased came to know about the suicide at about 7.00- SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 77/189 PS: Bharat Nagar 7.30 a.m. on 05.08.2012 but FIR was registered at about 12.40 p.m. Therefore, there was a delay of about 05 hours in recording the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution. Due to this delay in lodging the FIR, the possibility of concoction of allegations and introduction of exaggerated account as a result of deliberation and consultation, cannot be ruled out and it makes the prosecution story doubtful. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in (1) Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393 and (2) Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2007 (12) SCC 614.
154. It was further submitted that in the present case, even the inquest proceedings were not conducted promptly and as per evidence of PW1 Dr.Sreenivas M., who had conducted the post mortem, inquest papers were received on 06.08.2012 even though death of deceased Geetika Sharma had taken place on 05.08.2012. It was further submitted that even inquest proceedings were not carried out by the SDM as per the mandate of Section 174 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this delay in inquest suggests that there was no suspicion in the death of deceased Geetika Sharma and subsequently, after due deliberation and consultation, a false complaint was lodged for some extraneous consideration.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 78/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
155. Thirdly, it was submitted that in the present case, FIR is a statement, which is recorded during investigation and, therefore, is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that police had come to know about suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma at 9.20 a.m. on 05.08.2012 vide DD No.8A Ex.PW-3/A and after reaching at the spot, even suicide note was recovered. However, FIR was not recorded on the basis of DD No.8A or on the basis of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and police chose to record the statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. Smt.Anuradha Sharma which is Ex.PW13/D and on the basis of same, FIR was registered. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in State of A.P. Vs. Punati Ramulu & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2644 wherein it was held that where Investigating Officer deliberately did not record FIR after receipt of information of cognizable offence, then FIR registered on the basis of statement of complainant could not be treated as FIR and the said statement would be a statement made during investigation and hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that in the present case also, IO did not deliberately record the FIR on the basis of Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, which disclosed commission of alleged cognizable offence and chose to record on the basis of statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma. Therefore, it is no FIR and is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 79/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
156. It was further submitted that in the present case, even FIR cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence as the maker of the FIR i.e. Smt.Anuradha Sharma is dead. Even her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence as defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Harkirat Vs. State of Punjab 1997 SCC (Crl) 1068; (2) R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala 2013 (1) RCR (Crl) 964; and (3) Arjun Bishwas Vs. State of Assam 2005 Cri. L.J. 554.
157. It was submitted that in the present case, the main charge, which is being pressed upon by the prosecution is abetment of suicide under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC whereby it is alleged that both accused during the period from 2006 till the death of deceased Geetika Sharma, had continuously harassed deceased Geetika Sharma, which ultimately led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
158. It was further submitted that to prove the said charge, prosecution has led two type of evidence i.e. oral evidence of the family members of deceased i.e. mother of deceased, PW12 Ankit Sharma (brother of deceased) and PW13 Dinesh Sharma (father of deceased), PW11 Gaurav Sharma (cousin of deceased) and PW9 Jyoti Sharma (aunt of deceased) and the other set of evidence relied by the prosecution is documentary evidence in the form of suicide SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 80/189 PS: Bharat Nagar note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and other documentary evidence in the form of email, whatsapp chat, call records etc. However, the evidence, both oral and documentary, does not prove commission of any offence by accused persons.
159. It was submitted that during the period from 2006- 2007 till 2010, when deceased Geetika Sharma was working with MDLR Airlines/Hotels, no allegation of harassment or instigation has been brought on record by the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW9 Jyoti Sharma, PW11 Gaurav Sharma, PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma. It was further submitted that it has come on record that deceased Geetika Sharma had joined as a Cabin Crew in the MDLR Airlines on attaining the age of 18 years although she was interviewed before attaining the age of 18 years. It has also come on record that PW21 Sh.Rajiv Parasher, who was working as General Manager in the MDLR, had admitted in his cross-examination that apart from deceased Geetika Sharma, other employees, who were recruited with her, were also promoted in short span of time and the condition in the contract requiring deceased Geetika Sharma to report everyday to the Chairman, was standard stipulation in all contracts of appointment and there was nothing unusual in the contract of deceased Geetika Sharma.
160. It was further submitted that the alleged promise of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda made to deceased SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 81/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Geetika Sharma and her family members after the fight, which took place in Goa that deceased Geetika Sharma would not be sent again to Goa, if she rejoins MDLR, was not an unusual promise as deceased Geetika Sharma had faced unpleasant incident of theft and criminal intimidation in Goa. It was further submitted that company of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda offering pay parity to deceased Geetika Sharma regarding the offer made by Kingfisher Airlines, was as per the established practices to retain an employee and there is nothing unusual in the same. Therefore, between the period 2006-2007 till 2010, when deceased Geetika Sharma was in the MDLR Company/ Hotel, no question of harassment or instigation by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has been brought on record and the alleged acts of promotion, promise to not send deceased Geetika Sharma to Goa again, pay parity with Kingfisher Airlines was not unusual and even otherwise, said acts can by no means amount to harassment or instigation, done with the intention of causing deceased to commit suicide.
161. It was further submitted that the next circumstance, which has been brought on record is the alleged harassment caused by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to deceased Geetika Sharma when she had resigned from the MDLR Airlines in 2010 to join Emirates Airlines in June, 2010. It was submitted that the allegations of the prosecution is that pursuant to criminal conspiracy, SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 82/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased Geetika Sharma was provided a forged NOC of MDLR Group having signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher, even though he was not in the employment of MDLR, was done with the view to make deceased Geetika Sharma to resign from Emirates Airlines and rejoin MDLR Group. However, this allegation has not been established on record as it has been proved on record that the alleged NOC issued by PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was a forged document as PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher had denied issuing the same and even the handwriting expert, in his opinion, has corroborated the testimony of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher that signature appearing on the said NOC is not that of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher. Further, the case of the prosecution that forged NOC was supplied to deceased Geetika Sharma by Monal Sachdeva, has also not been proved on record as Monal Sachdeva has not been examined on record.
162. It was further submitted that PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, who was posted with Emirates Airlines and had done inquiry regarding forged NOC, admitted in his cross-examination before this court, that deceased Geetika Sharma had admitted before him that NOC was forged by her as MDLR was not issuing the NOC to her. Therefore, it stands proved on record that deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from Emirates Airlines due to her own conduct of forging of NOC and accused had no role to play in it.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 83/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
163. It was further submitted that other allegation made by the prosecution against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda is that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had visited Dubai twice and on one occasion, he had travelled with co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to convince deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR Airlines and had also gone to the place where deceased Geetika Sharma was residing. However, even this fact has not been established on record. It was submitted in this regard that travel documents produced by PW19 Shiraz Ali i.e. Air Tickets Mark P19/A (1-11) are all computer generated documents not accompanied with any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which makes them inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the fact of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda traveling to Dubai, has not been established on record.
164. It was further submitted that the allegation of accused persons visiting residence of deceased Geetika Sharma in Dubai and trying to create pressure upon her to leave Dubai, being a Muslim country is not proved on record. There is no message or e-mail sent by deceased Geetika Sharma to her parents or brother informing about any such incident. No such allegations were made by deceased in her statement recorded by PW64 Sh.Shirish Thorat, during inquiry of forged NOC.
165. It was further submitted that there is no evidence of Security Guard or in the form of CCTV footage that SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 84/189 PS: Bharat Nagar accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had forcibly tried to enter into the building in Dubai, where deceased Geetika Sharma was residing in order to meet her. In the execution report of Letter Rogatory Ex.PW56/A to Ex.PW56/D sent by U.A.E. authorities, no CCTV footage of the alleged incident has been provided. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to suggest that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had forcibly tried to enter into the building where deceased Geetika Sharma was residing during her employment with Emirates Airlines.
166. It was further submitted that evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma to the fact that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith his wife had come to their house in December, 2010 and had apologized for his misconduct in Dubai and to win the trust of the family, had also issued second NOC, has not been proved on record. Even if it is assumed that any such incident took place then, the very fact that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had issued the second NOC to deceased Geetika Sharma, shows that deceased Geetika Sharma was free to join any organization and she was not being compelled or forced to join MDLR Airlines, as has been projected by the prosecution.
167. Lastly, it was submitted that even if it is assumed that the incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had taken place in Dubai, then also the said incident, is not sufficient to establish the mens rea on the part of accused A-1 Gopal SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 85/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Goyal Kanda for instigating deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide as the said incident is quite remote in time and not the proximate cause of deceased in committing suicide. The said incident took place between July and November-December, 2010 whereas deceased Geetika Sharma had committed suicide in August, 2012. Therefore, this huge gap of more than 1-1/2 years is too remote and is not the proximate cause of deceased Geetika Sharma committing suicide. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Rajesh Versus State 2020 (15) SCC 359 and (2) Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar Vs. State of M.P 2002 SCC(Crl.) 1141.
168. It was further submitted that the allegation of forging of Dubai Court's order and creation of fake email ID are against absconder / co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar and no role has been assigned to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was submitted that the confession made by absconder / co- accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is not admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against both accused persons as co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is an absconder and his non-joining the trial makes his confession inadmissible against both accused persons. In this regard, Ld.Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in (1) Hardeep Singh Sohal Vs. State of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 86/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Punjab 2004-SCC (Crl). (Suppl) 137 and (2) Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P. 2004-SCC (Cr.) (Suppl.) 113.
169. It was submitted that after returning to India, draft complaint prepared by PW28 Sh.S.S.Katyal Advocate, on the instructions of deceased Geetika Sharma is not admissible in evidence as it was a document, which was stored in computer and in absence of any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the same is inadmissible.
170. It was further submitted that after deceased Geetika Sharma had returned to India in August, 2010, she had rejoined MDLR Group in January, 2011 as Director and continued working there till December, 2011 and during this period, there is no evidence on record to suggest that any harassment was caused by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda or co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha or any gift/favour was given to deceased Geetika Sharma during this period.
171. Further, this act of deceased Geetika Sharma in rejoining MDLR Group shows that deceased Geetika Sharma and her family had condoned the alleged act of harassment, if any, done by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha with regard to the incident of Dubai and this fact is further corroborated by the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, which mentions about the previous act being pardoned.
172. It was further submitted that after deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from MDLR in December, 2011, SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 87/189 PS: Bharat Nagar accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in order to run a school, had proposed to purchase school being run by Sundale Educational Society for which he had contacted one Batush Pal through Sh.Aditya Mangla and necessary documents were got prepared where deceased Geetika Sharma was shown as the President of the Sundale Educational Society.
173. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign the papers of Sundale Educational Society even though she was not willing to do so and due to the threat being extended by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to sign the said papers, deceased Geetika Sharma used to remain tensed and depressed. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that the documents produced on record of Sundale Educational Society recovered at the instance of co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, have not been proved as recovery witnesses i.e. PW26 Ram Pyari and PW27 Ashok Sharma have not supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of documents at the instance of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was further submitted that the agreement was not executed and even the payment through cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, there was no ground for putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society. It was further submitted that no pressure was put upon deceased SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 88/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Geetika Sharma to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society as deceased Geetika Sharma with the consent of her parents, had voluntarily accompanied accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and Khushboo Sharma to Singapore and with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to Mumbai with regard to school work in 2012. It was submitted that if deceased Geetika Sharma was being asked to sign the Sundale Educational Society's papers, where she was made the President of the Society, no dis-advantage would have occurred to deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, this act does not amount to any kind of harassment at the hands of accused persons.
174. It was submitted that the prosecution story that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign documents of Sundale Educational Society is not proved on record, as suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is silent on this aspect. Even the testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who are the brother and father of deceased Geetika Sharma, are silent on this aspect and even in the statement of mother of deceased, on the basis of which FIR was registered, she has not mentioned about the deceased Geetika Sharma being forced to sign the Sundale Educational Society's papers.
175. It was further submitted that the alleged whatsapp messages shown to have been sent by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to deceased Geetika Sharma asking her to sign Sundale Educational Society or resign, is not SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 89/189 PS: Bharat Nagar admissible as the said messages are not accompanied with any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and even the ownership of mobile phone from which the said messages were sent, has not been connected to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
176. Lastly, it was submitted that it has come in the evidence of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who is the father of deceased Geetika Sharma that he was looking after the work of a flat in Ashok Vihar, which was to be used as a registered office of Sundale Educational Society further proves that father of deceased Geetika Sharma too was interested in deceased Geetika Sharma participating in running of school and that is why he was looking after the work of repair of registered office, to be set up for the said Society and the story put up by the prosecution that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign Sundale Educational Society papers is a concocted story, just to falsely implicate accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
177. It was further submitted that the other circumstance, which was brought on record by the prosecution that deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to compound the offence of theft and criminal intimidation got registered by her in Goa by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, has also not been proved on record. It was submitted in this regard that PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, who was the lawyer of MDLR Group and was handling the Goa case, has nowhere SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 90/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deposed on oath that he had forced deceased Geetika Sharma to sign. It has further come on record that deceased Geetika Sharma, accompanied by her parents, had gone to the District Court in Goa where she had filed an application for compounding of offence supported by her affidavit, proves that deceased Geetika Sharma had voluntarily filed an application to compound the offence. It was further submitted that the call made by PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia to deceased Geetika Sharma in the evening of 03.08.2012 regarding the Goa case, does not amount to any kind of harassment as PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia has no where deposed that due to the call made by him, deceased Geetika Sharma had become stressed. It was further submitted that the testimony of PW11 Sh.Gaurav Sharma, cousin of deceased Geetika Sharma, who was allegedly with her at Mumbai Airport, when deceased Geetika Sharma had received a call from PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia on 03.08.2012, is not reliable and trustworthy as his presence at Mumbai Airport in the evening of 03.08.2012 has not been proved on record. It was submitted in this regard that deposition made by PW11 Gaurav Sharma that he had accompanied deceased Geetika Sharma to Mumbai on 03.08.2012 by flight is neither supported with any air ticket nor there is any return ticket by air of 03.08.2012 of deceased Geetika Sharma and PW11 Gaurav Sharma as deposed by him.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 91/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
178. Further, the deposition of PW11 Gaurav Sharma that they were waiting in the waiting area for their flight when PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called, is not supported with Boarding Pass of 03.08.2012. Therefore, the testimony of PW11 Gaurav Sharma that due to call received from PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, deceased Geetika Sharma had missed her return flight to Delhi and they had to spend the night at Mumbai Airport and had to return in the morning of 04.08.2012, is not at all trustworthy or reliable. Further, the air ticket of 04.08.2012 in the morning is that of deceased Geetika Sharma only and there is no ticket produced on record of PW11 Gaurav Sharma to corroborate his version. Therefore, PW11 Gaurav Sharma concocted a false story that he was present with deceased Geetika Sharma in the evening of 03.08.2012 and deceased Geetika Sharma had become tensed after receiving the call from PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign papers for compounding of the case registered at Goa, due to which she was tensed and had eventually committed suicide.
179. It was further submitted that the other circumstance on which prosecution is relying to show that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda intended that deceased Geetika Sharma should commit suicide is the factum of accused A- 1 Gopal Goyal Kanda asking deceased Geetika Sharma to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 92/189 PS: Bharat Nagar return fees of Rs.7.5 Lac, which was paid by his company to sponsor her MBA, being pursued through IILM Institute, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. In this regard, it was submitted that there is no evidence on record that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda or his company had ever demanded return of Rs.7.5 Lac, failing which a case would be registered against deceased Geetika Sharma. The suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C makes no mention about deceased Geetika Sharma being forced to return Rs.7.5 Lac fees deposited by MDLR company. Further, there is no mention of deceased Geetika Sharma being forced to return MBA fees in the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma or of PW13 Dinesh Sharma.
180. It was further submitted that the prosecution has also alleged in the circumstances of harassment by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that the father of deceased Geetika Sharma had purchased a flat with Universal Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. by paying Rs.18 Lacs but the same was got cancelled by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in order to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the documents. However, this fact has not been proved on record as no witness from Universal Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. has been examined in this regard and even father of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. PW13 Dinesh Sharma has not deposed regarding cancellation of his flat, at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 93/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
181. It was further submitted that the last proximate cause that prosecution has alleged against accused persons is the phone call made by co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012 and the call made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012, wherein both accused had threatened that in case, deceased Geetika Sharma does not sign the papers, then she would be arrested in Haryana and had further made allegations against the character of deceased Geetika Sharma. However, the same has not been established on record as firstly, it is an admitted fact in his cross examination by PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, who was the IO of this case that there was no direct communication between accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and deceased Geetika Sharma for the past 08 months prior to her death.
182. Secondly, the ownership of mobile phone no. 9873200002 to be that of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has not been established on record. Thirdly, the best evidence, who could have proved the contents of the call allegedly made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012 and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 was the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, but unfortunately she expired before her deposition in this case and, therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish the contents of the call made to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma. Fourthly, PW12 Ankit Sharma, SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 94/189 PS: Bharat Nagar brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, was not in Delhi when the alleged call was received by mother of deceased Geetika Sharma. Fifthly, deposition made by PW13 Dinesh Sharma regarding receipt of call by mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and what accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had told her is nothing but hear-say evidence, which is not admissible in evidence. Sixthly, in case, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had indeed made a call to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 and 03.08.2012 respectively, wherein certain allegations have been made regarding her character, then deceased Geetika Sharma would have definitely confronted accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha but there is no call details on record showing deceased Geetika Sharma calling accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda or co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 04.08.2012, after hearing the allegations made by them from her mother, which also exposes falsity of deposition of PW13 Dinesh Sharma.
183. Seventhly, the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is totally silent regarding the call received on 03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012 by the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and deceased Geetika Sharma becoming depressed after hearing allegations from her mother made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 95/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
184. Lastly, the last person, who had talked with deceased Geetika Sharma was PW12 Ankit Sharma. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., PW12 Ankit Sharma had not disclosed about any harassment or threat being extended by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to deceased Geetika Sharma to sign documents and his version was that deceased Geetika Sharma claimed before him that she was alright and also not disclosed to him any threat of signing the papers or any character assassination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. However, during his deposition in the court, PW12 Ankit Sharma made improvement from his previous statement and deposed that when he had called deceased Geetika Sharma on the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012, deceased Geetika Sharma had told that she was being harassed by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. This testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma cannot be relied upon as it is an improvement from his previous statement and was made in the court just to falsely implicate accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the allegations that deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide due to calls made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 and 03.08.2012 respectively.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 96/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
185. It was further submitted that PW9 Jyoti and PW11 Gaurav Sharma are the relatives of deceased Geetika Sharma and were staying in the same house. In their entire testimony, both PW9 Jyoti and PW11 Gaurav have not deposed any kind of harassment being done to deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Further, testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who happens to be the brother and father of deceased Geetika Sharma, is also not trustworthy and reliable as they have made substantial improvement in their testimony over their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C.
186. It was further submitted that there is other material on record which creates a doubt in the present case. It was submitted that it has come in the evidence that on the night of 04.08.2012, six calls were made by deceased Geetika Sharma. Out of these six calls, three calls were made by deceased Geetika Sharma to her brother PW12 Ankit Sharma but regarding other three calls, the matter has not been investigated by the police for the reasons best known to them.
187. It was further submitted that it is also proved on record that deceased Geetika Sharma had not stayed at Mumbai Airport on the night of 03.08.2012 with PW11 Gaurav Sharma as no air tickets / Boarding Pass of PW11 Gaurav Sharma was produced. Further, the post mortem of SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 97/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased Geetika Sharma suggest that deceased Geetika Sharma was habitual to anal and vaginal sex and doctors have observed that anal intercourse was recent act as some redness and tear was observed in the anal orifice. It was further submitted that possibility of deceased Geetika Sharma staying with some other person on the night of 03.08.2012 in Mumbai and having physical relations with that person, cannot be ruled out and possibility of same person calling deceased Geetika Sharma on the night of 04.08.2012 and saying something to deceased Geetika Sharma which eventually led her to commit suicide, also cannot be ruled out.
188. It was further submitted that there is also evidence on record to show that mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had called deceased on her mobile phone on six occasions between 2.18 a.m. to 2.31 a.m. on the intervening night of 04.08.2012 and 05.08.2012 and said calls were not responded by deceased Geetika Sharma. Deceased Geetika Sharma and her parents were living in the same house and were sleeping in the adjacent rooms. If deceased Geetika Sharma was not responding to her calls, then natural conduct would have been arisen in her mind as to why she was not responding and if no inquiry was made, it shows that mother did not suspect that deceased Geetika Sharma was under some kind of stress.
189. It was further submitted that if mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had suspected deceased to be stressed or SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 98/189 PS: Bharat Nagar depressed due to phone calls of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, then she would not have left deceased Geetika Sharma alone in the night. Therefore, this fact also makes it doubtful that deceased Geetika Sharma had become stressed or depressed after hearing from her mother regarding the calls made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
190. It was further submitted that apart from the testimony of witnesses, which are not at all reliable and trustworthy, as discussed hereinabove, the other evidence on which prosecution is relying upon, is the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. However, the authenticity of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is doubtful as it is not proved on record that it was in the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma or it was recovered in the manner as deposed by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar. It was submitted in this regard that there is no reference of suicide note in the following documents: -- (1) In DD No.8A, which was the initial information sent by the parents regarding commission of suicide; (2) In statement recorded of Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered; (3) In statement recorded of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma during the course of inquest proceedings: and lastly, in the Inquest Form Ex.PW65/C which makes no reference of suicide note.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 99/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
191. Further, the recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C by PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar prior to recording of FIR is also doubtful as he has deposed that he had immediately sealed the suicide note after its recovery but when the statement of PW12 Ankit Sharma was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation, PW12 Ankit Sharma had stated that after seeing the suicide note, he can say that the handwriting is that of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. her sister. How the suicide note was shown to PW12 Ankit Sharma during his examination, when the same was sealed by the IO, has not been explained and the explanation provided by the IO that he had prepared a photocopy of the same, is an after thought. It was further submitted that suicide note is written on two different pages and handwriting, formation of words, signatures and dates are in different handwriting, which is apparent to naked eyes. It was submitted that even no writing instrument was recovered from the room as admitted by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his cross examination.
192. Further, initially the handwriting expert had not been able to give any opinion on the basis of admitted handwriting and suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and only when further documents given by PW12 Ankit Sharma to the police were sent to the handwriting expert, then only report was given by the handwriting expert. However, the source of document provided by PW12 Ankit SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 100/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma has not been established. Therefore, relying upon the handwriting expert opinion on the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C will not be proper in the light of other facts, which creates doubt regarding its recovery and its authenticity.
193. It was further submitted that even assuming that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is in the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma, then also offence of abetment under Section 306 IPC has not been established. It was submitted in this regard that in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, only the name of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has been mentioned and the opinion of deceased Geetika Sharma regarding character of both accused has been mentioned but no overt act has been attributed to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
194. It was further submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma had not made any clear and explicit reference in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C to the specific act or instigation made by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha like forcing her to sign Goa papers, forcing her to sign Sundale Educational Society papers or asking her to refund the fees of Rs.7.5 Lac spent on her MBA Course by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. Further, the suicide note Ex.PW12/B SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 101/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and Ex.PW12/C does not attribute any mens rea on the part of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to show that accused persons intended deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. Therefore, even the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C do not incriminate accused. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has relied upon the following judgments:- (1) 2019(2)-SCC(Crl.)- 219 M. Arjunan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police; (2) AIR-2011-SC-1238 M.Mohan with Velmurugan & Anr. Vs. State by DSP: (3) AIR-2008-SC-2108 Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana; (4) 2020-15 SCC-359 Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana 2020(4) SCC(Crl.)-75; (5) 2002-SCC(Crl.)-1141 Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar Vs. State of M.P.; and (6) 2020(2)-TVT-544(SC) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra.
195. On the contrary, the evidence which has been led on record by the prosecution suggest that no harassment or instigation of deceased Geetika Sharma could have been possible by the acts of accused persons. It was submitted in this regard that the act of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in providing an official BMW Car to deceased Geetika Sharma during her employment as Director from January, 2011 till December, 2011, she being made President of Sundale Educational Society, sponsoring her trip to Singapore and Mumbai on account of school work, her parents accompanying her and family of accused A-1 SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 102/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Gopal Goyal Kanda to Goa, Mumbai and Shirdi in 2011, the MDLR Company arranging business Visa of deceased Geetika Sharma to U.K. from June, 2012 till December, 2012 and company of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda paying MBA fees to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lac of deceased Geetika Sharma in IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as conduct of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda by which he intended to cause deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
196. It was concluded by submitting that there is no credible and admissible evidence to show that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda pursuant to criminal conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had created such circumstances due to which deceased Geetika Sharma had no option but to commit suicide or that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had abetted the suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma by instigating her.
197. It was further submitted that the charge of forging NOC under the false signatures of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher through Monal Sachdeva under Section 468/469/120-B IPC has not been proved on record by the prosecution as firstly, Monal Sachdeva, who allegedly handed over the NOC to deceased Geetika Sharma as per prosecution case, has not been examined and secondly, as per the evidence of PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, it has SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 103/189 PS: Bharat Nagar come on record that deceased Geetika Sharma had herself admitted of having forged the NOC.
198. Secondly, the charge for the offence under Section 466/471 r/w 120-B IPC and 43 r/w 66 IT, 2000 for creating fake email account [email protected] in the office of MDLR in District Gurgaon, Haryana and sending of fake extradition letter dated 13.09.2010 has not been proved on record as during the course of investigation, investigating agency found that the said fake email address has been created by absconder /co-accused Chanshivroop Singh from his address of Mohali, Punjab and confessional statement of co-accused Chanshivroop Singh cannot be used against accused persons under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is not facing joint trial alongwith accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
199. Further, there is no evidence of criminal conspiracy brought on record by the prosecution to show that pursuant to conspiracy with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, absconder / co-accused Chanshivroop Singh had created fake email address and had sent forged extradition documents to deceased Geetika Sharma. Accordingly, it was concluded by submitting that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the charges framed against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 104/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Accordingly, a prayer was made for acquittal of accused persons.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED A-2 ARUNA CHADHA
200. It was submitted by Ld.counsel for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha that apart from submissions made on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, he has to further submit that in the present case, no circumstance of harassment / instigation, at the instance of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has been proved on record by the prosecution.
201. It was submitted that the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, wherein the name of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has been mentioned by deceased Geetika Sharma, has not been proved as per law. It was submitted that there are various circumstances, which point towards the doubt regarding the recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C in the manner as deposed by PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar. It was submitted in this regard that if IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar had seized the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C from the house of deceased Geetika Sharma in the presence of family members, then IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar has failed to explain as to why no attestation by any family member has been taken on suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, at the time of seizing the same.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 105/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
202. Further, suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is having two different dates i.e. 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 and no opinion has been sought from the FSL by the IO regarding the age of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and whether they were written on the same day or not.
203. Further, IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar has admitted in his cross examination that no writing instrument was found from the room of deceased Geetika Sharma, which also creates a doubt regarding suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, being written by deceased Geetika Sharma.
204. It was submitted that signatures appearing on the two suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C are different from one another and even writing on the two suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is not the same and said differences are apparent and visible to the naked eye and in the light of aforementioned suspicious circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the report of the handwriting expert giving opinion that the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was written by deceased Geetika Sharma after having compared it with her admitted handwriting and signatures.
205. It was further submitted that sanctity of sealing of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar stood compromised as IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar had deposed that after sealing the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 106/189 PS: Bharat Nagar suicide note, he had recorded the statement of brother of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. PW12 Ankit Sharma. PW12 Ankit Sharma in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement had stated that after seeing the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, he can say that writing in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is that of deceased Geetika Sharma. It was submitted that when suicide note was sealed by the IO, then how PW12 Ankit Sharma could have seen the same, creates a doubt regarding its recovery and sealing by the IO. It was further submitted that IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar gives a false explanation that he had kept a photocopy of the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C with him, which was shown to the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma at the time of recording of his statement, as this fact is not supported by any document or case diary.
206. It was further submitted that even if it is assumed that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was in the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma, then also suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not mention any act of threat or instigation emanating from accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. Further, suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not mention any specific act or such conduct of accused persons, which created circumstances which left deceased Geetika Sharma with no option except to commit suicide.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 107/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
207. It was further submitted that mere naming of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C would not be sufficient to hold accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha guilty for the offence of abetment of suicide by deceased in absence of any mens rea on the part of accused persons to instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2001) 9 SCC 618]; (2) State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr.
[(1994) 1 SCC; (3) Netai Dutta v State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659]; (4) Neeraj Gupta v State [132 (2006) DLT 137]; and (5) Madan Mohan Singh Vs.State of Gujarat and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 628.
208. It was further submitted that prosecution has alleged that the mobile phone number 9873900002 was being used by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha from which call was made to mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012. However, this fact has not been proved on record as the evidence which has come on record shows that one Dharambir was the owner of said mobile number as per customer application form. Further, said witness Dharambir has not been examined to prove that although mobile number was registered in his name but the SIM was being used by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and even no SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 108/189 PS: Bharat Nagar other person was examined to show that he was communicating with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on the said mobile number.
209. It was further submitted that even assuming that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had called up the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012, then also the alleged instigation has not been proved on record as mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to whom the alleged instigation was made, has not been examined in this case due to her unfortunate death. Further, even in the statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which present FIR was registered, there was no allegation that whatever facts accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had told her, the same were communicated to deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, there is no evidence on record, direct or indirect, to show that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had instigated deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
210. It was further submitted that the last telephonic contact with deceased Geetika Sharma of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was in the month of July, 2012 i.e. a month prior to her death and this fact has been admitted by PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma and by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, in his cross- examination. It was submitted that after the last telephonic contact with deceased Geetika Sharma in July, 2012, it gave ample time to deceased Geetika Sharma to reflect on SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 109/189 PS: Bharat Nagar the alleged threat and pressure allegedly made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was further submitted that if deceased Geetika Sharma had enough time to think over and reflect on the instigation by the abettor, then the same would not qualify to fall within the rigors of section 306 of the IPC. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar's case (supra).
211. It was further submitted that material witnesses of the prosecution in this case are brother and father of deceased Geetika Sharma, who have been examined as PW12 and PW13 respectively. It was submitted that PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma have made material improvements and embellishments over their previous statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, their evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. It was further submitted that PW12 Ankit Sharma was not in Delhi when allegedly call was made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012. Therefore, whatever PW12 Ankit Sharma had deposed regarding the role of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha is nothing but hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible. It was further submitted that PW12 Ankit Sharma is the last person, who had telephonic call with deceased Geetika Sharma and he had deposed on oath that in his last call with deceased Geetika SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 110/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma, she had stated to him that she was alright which further negates the fact that deceased Geetika Sharma was depressed and tensed due to alleged call made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma.
212. It was further submitted that PW13 Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased Geetika Sharma had made material improvements and embellishments in his deposition before the court, which makes his testimony unreliable and non- trustworthy and accordingly, the same is required to be discarded.
213. It was further submitted that PW13 Dinesh Sharma had deposed falsely that on the intervening night of 04 / 05.08.2012, he had seen deceased Geetika Sharma sitting in her room at about 1.00 a.m. when he had gone to use washroom and then he alongwith his wife went away to sleep. However, this testimony of father of deceased Geetika Sharma is falsified by the fact that IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar admitted in his cross examination that between 2:18:50 a.m. and 2:31:47 a.m. on 05.08.2012, there were multiple calls made by mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to deceased Geetika Sharma. However, during the course of investigation, no inquiry was made about the nature of calls made by mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, which also creates a doubt regarding the prosecution case.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 111/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
214. It was further submitted that another important witness of the prosecution was the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on whose statement the present case was registered. However, the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Smt.Anuradha Sharma has expired prior to her deposition in the court. Therefore, her statement in the form of FIR and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence due to the bar created by Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as defence never got a chance to cross examine the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma. In this context, Ld.counsel for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Arjun Biswas's case (Supra) and (2) R Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266.
215. It was further submitted that all the email and whatsapp messages brought on record by the prosecution in this regard were not admissible as they are not accompanied with any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
216. It was further submitted that the case of prosecution that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha used to threaten and pressurize deceased Geetika Sharma in conspiracy with co- accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, which eventually led her to commit suicide, has not been proved on record in this case.
217. On the contrary, the evidence which has come on record proves that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 112/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased Geetika Sharma were having very cordial relations, which over turns the case being put up by the prosecution that deceased Geetika Sharma was being harassed by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda through co- accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. It was submitted in this regard that the evidence which has come on record shows that between the period 13.12.2011 till 02.07.2012, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had participated in the birthday celebrations of deceased Geetika Sharma alongwith her brother and deceased Geetika Sharma had participated in the birthday celebration of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha in Gurgaon and both deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha attended the birthday party of Ms.Khushboo Sharma on 02.07.2012. Said fact has been proved on record by the photographs retrieved from the mobile phone of deceased Geetika Sharma regarding which certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been placed on record by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and these photographs are Mark X, X1 - X-11 and Mark Y, Z, Z-1 respectively. Further, the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma attending the birthday party of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and that of PW14 Ms.Khushboo Sharma stands corroborated by PW14 Ms.Khushboo Sharma.
218. It was further submitted that deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were working with the same company i.e. MDLR Group and they used to talk, SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 113/189 PS: Bharat Nagar socialize together and even travel together. Deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had travelled to Mumbai and Singapore as late as April, 2012 and in the entire prosecution evidence, no complaint made by any family member against accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to any authority has been brought on record. Therefore, the aforementioned facts do not show any harassment of deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
219. It was further submitted that it is not believable that if accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was harassing deceased Geetika Sharma since 2007, then deceased Geetika Sharma would be traveling with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to various places i.e. Singapore and Mumbai and would socialize by calling accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to her birthday party and deceased Geetika Sharma herself attending the birthday party of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Even in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, no allegations of harassment to deceased Geetika Sharma have been levelled against accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove on record any harassment being caused to deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in conspiracy with co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
220. It was further submitted that the allegation of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha traveling to Dubai to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR, has not been established on record as computer generated SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 114/189 PS: Bharat Nagar tickets produced by PW19 Shiraz Ali have not been proved on record in absence of any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, the various emails provided by brother of deceased Geetika Sharma do not prove any act of harassment against accused A-2 Aruna Chadha as firstly, these emails are inadmissible in absence of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, even the email ID of deceased Geetika Sharma has not been proved as per law.
221. It was further submitted that with regard to allegations of forging of NOC or creation of fake email ID [email protected] or forging of Dubai Court order, there is no direct evidence led on record by the prosecution that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had committed any kind of forgery.
222. Lastly, it was submitted that even the charge of conspiracy has not been proved on record as there is no legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence brought on record. In support of his submission, Ld.counsel for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Kehar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1988 (3) SCC 609.
223. It was concluded by submitting that in absence of any reliable and trustworthy evidence, prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges framed against accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Accordingly, it was prayed that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha be acquitted of all the charges.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 115/189 PS: Bharat Nagar APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
224. I have considered the submissions made by respective counsels, carefully perused the judgments relied upon by respective counsels and have carefully perused the evidence brought on record, both oral as well as documentary.
225. In the present case, the first charge, which prosecution was required to prove was that both accused persons in criminal conspiracy with absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar had created a fake email ID in the name of [email protected] in the office of MDLR company in District Gurgaon, Haryana after return of deceased Geetika Sharma from Dubai to Delhi in August, 2010 and from this email account, fake extradition letter dated 13.09.2010 allegedly issued by Judge Hasan Abdul Aziz Masnad was transmitted to the email account of deceased Geetika Sharma and thereby both accused had committed the offence under Section 466/471 IPC and Section 43 r/w 66 IT, 2000 r/w 120-B IPC.
226. I have carefully perused the evidence which has come on record and I agree with the submission put forward by Ld.counsel for both accused persons that there is no evidence on record showing that the act of creation of fake email account i.e. [email protected] was done by both accused in conspiracy with absconder co- accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar. The prosecution was SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 116/189 PS: Bharat Nagar relying upon the confessional statement of absconder co- accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.11.2012 to show that the aforementioned email account was created pursuant to criminal conspiracy with present accused persons. However, the said confessional statement of absconder co- accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 27.11.2012 Ex.PW47/K (colly) cannot be relied upon under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh Nayar is not facing any joint trial with present accused persons. [Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Hardeep Singh Sohal's case (Supra) and Esher Singh's case (supra)].
227. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Pancho Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 2005 has held that confession cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence and that it can be used only to form the conclusion drawn from other evidence in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that trial court cannot begin on the basis of confession of a co-accused to form its opinion in a case. Rather court must analyze other evidence being adduced and on being satisfied with the guilt of accused may turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 117/189 PS: Bharat Nagar conclusion of guilt which the court has reached with the said evidence.
228. In the present case, apart from the aforementioned confession of absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh, which is otherwise not admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as he is not facing the joint trial with the present accused persons, there is no other evidence to show that fake email account [email protected] was created at the MDLR office in Gurgaon, Haryana. On the contrary, the evidence which has come on record in the light of deposition made by PW53 Sh.Vijay Gahlawat of Cyber Cell, New Delhi proves that [email protected] was the alternative email address of email ID i.e. [email protected] and it was created from the address of Sector-71, Mohali, Punjab. The said deposition was made by PW53 Sh.Vijay Gahlawat after collecting relevant documents from Hotmail, Google, Hathway vide Ex.PW53/A (colly). Lastly, even the ownership of email account of deceased wherein the alleged mail was sent by absconder co-accused Chanshivroop Singh has not been proved on record to show that it was indeed sent to her email address. Even the alleged mail dated 01.10.2010 Ex.P6, PW7 and P8 [mail sent to deceased Geetika Sharma by Sheikh Bashir dated 01.10.2010 with attachment of Justice Hassan and profile of Sanjay Verma] produced on record by PW12 Ankit Sharma showing the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 118/189 PS: Bharat Nagar sending of forged extradition order to the email of deceased is not admissible in evidence as it is not accompanied with any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the light of aforesaid discussion, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 466/471 IPC and Section 43 r/w 66 IT, 2000 r/w 120-B IPC against present accused persons.
229. Secondly, prosecution was required to prove charge under Section 468/469 r/w 120-B IPC wherein it is alleged that pursuant to conspiracy, both accused had got issued on or before 26.06.2010 at the office of MDLR Group, Gurgaon, a NOC mark "A" under the false signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher through employee Monal Sachdeva.
230. As per the prosecution case, a forged NOC Ex.PW43/A having the false signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was got issued by accused persons to deceased Geetika Sharma when she was joining Emirates Airlines in Dubai so that in future, the same can be used against her to bring her back to the MDLR Group in Gurgaon. As per the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma, NOC having the signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was posted by Monal Sachdeva, employee of MDLR Group, which was received at their residence by post and the said NOC was used by deceased Geetika Sharma at the time of her joining in Emirates Airlines in Dubai.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 119/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
231. The best witness, who could have deposed regarding posting the NOC having false signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher, was Monal Sachdeva. During the course of investigation, the admitted handwriting and signatures of Monal Sachdeva A-250 to A-255 Ex.PW43/I and specimen handwriting of Monal Sachdeva S-8 to S-14 Ex.PW43/K were examined and compared with the signatures appearing at point Q9 on the NOC Ex.PW43/A by the handwriting expert PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma and he opined that the same are not the signatures of Monal Sachdeva. Despite obtaining the specimen and admitted handwriting and signatures of Monal Sachdeva, PW Monal Sachdeva was not examined in this case as a witness for the reasons best known to the prosecution. The evidence of PW Monal Sachdeva was very crucial to prove the fact that he indeed posted the forged NOC Ex.PW43/A at the residence of deceased Geetika Sharma to prove the charge of forgery against the present accused persons. Due to non-examination of PW Monal Sachdeva, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the forged NOC Ex.PW43/A was given to deceased Geetika Sharma pursuant to conspiracy hatched between accused persons through Monal Sachdeva.
232. Secondly, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the false signature of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was made in the office of MDLR as he was not even the employee at that point of time in the MDLR company.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 120/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
233. Although it is proved on record, in the light of testimony of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher that NOC having signature at point Q9 are not his signature, which stands duly corroborated by the report of handwriting expert PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma i.e. Ex.PW43/L but the question remains as to who had forged the signature of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher on the NOC at point Q9. The answer to the question is found in the testimony of PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, who was the Head of Investigation Department at Emirates Group, Dubai and before whom the inquiry was marked to enquire into the genuineness of the NOC Ex.PW43/A.
234. PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat in his evidence has categorically admitted that deceased Geetika Sharma had admitted before him of having submitted forged documents for the purpose of gaining employment with Emirates. In the light of admission made by PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, it is proved on record that NOC Ex.PW43/A having forged signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was not got issued by accused persons pursuant to criminal conspiracy through Monal Sachdeva to deceased Geetika Sharma and it was the deceased Geetika Sharma, who herself had forged the said NOC. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 468/469 r/w 120-B IPC against accused persons regarding sending of forged NOC to deceased Geetika Sharma through Monal Sachdeva.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 121/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
235. Lastly, the prosecution was required to prove charge of Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC framed against both accused persons wherein it was alleged that pursuant to conspiracy, both accused persons between the period from 18.10.2006 till June, 2012, had exerted pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma and her parents besides showering benefits upon deceased Geetika Sharma by way of promotion, help in the form of money from time to time during the course of her employment with MDLR Group and created circumstances from point "A" to "Y" as mentioned in the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 and accordingly, abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Geetika Sharma on the intervening night of 04 / 05.08.2012 at her residence i.e. Flat No.4C, Block No.1, Pocket-B, Ashok Vihar, Phase III, New Delhi.
236. The first ingredient, which prosecution was required to prove for the offence under Section 306 IPC was that death of deceased was suicidal.
237. In this regard, evidence of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who happens to be the father of deceased Geetika Sharma is relevant. PW13 Dinesh Sharma has deposed that in the morning of 05.08.2012, at about 7.-7.30 a.m., he knocked the door of deceased Geetika Sharma's room but she was not opening the same. Thereafter, when his wife peeped into the window, she found deceased Geetika Sharma hanging from the ceiling fan. Thereafter, window of the room of deceased Geetika Sharma was forcibly opened and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 122/189 PS: Bharat Nagar thereafter, body of deceased Geetika Sharma was brought down by PW13 Dinesh Sharma. The testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma that deceased Geetika Sharma had committed suicide by way of hanging, is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW1 Dr.Sreenivas M., who was the Chairman and PW55 Dr.Bhim Singh, who was the member of the Medical Board constituted for the purpose of conducting post mortem. PW1 Dr.Sreenivas M. and PW55 Dr.Bhim Singh have proved the post mortem report of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW1/B wherein it was opined that death occurred due to hanging and ligature mark is ante-mortem in nature. Therefore, in the light of aforementioned evidence, it is proved on record that death of deceased was suicidal in nature.
238. Now, the next point, which is required to be proved by the prosecution is that both accused persons pursuant to criminal conspiracy, had abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Geetika Sharma.
239. In order to prove the charge of offence under Section 306 IPC, prosecution is required to prove that accused persons had the mens rea to instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
240. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". Instigation can be inferred when accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 123/189 PS: Bharat Nagar that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
241. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that instigation has to be the proximate cause of suicide and if the deceased had ample time to reflect on the alleged instigation before committing suicide, then the same does not amount to abetment to suicide.
242. It is also a settled principle of law that mere naming of accused in the suicide note will not be sufficient to hold accused guilty for the offence of abetment of commission of suicide by deceased, unless in the suicide note, specific act or instigation made on part of the accused is clearly spelt out. [Reliance in this regard is placed upon the following judgments: (1) Smt. J.Yashoda Vs. Smt. K. Sobha Rani AIR-2007-SC-1721; (2) M.Mohan with Velmurugan & Anr. Vs. State by DSP AIR-2011-SC-1238; (3) 2020-15 SCC-359 Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana 2020(4) SCC(Crl.)-75; (4) Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar Vs. State of M.P. 2002-SCC(Crl.)-1141; (5) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra 2020(2)-TVT-544(SC); (6) Arjit Singh Vs. State 1(2010) DLT (Crl.) 237; (7) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]; (8) Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 1 SCC 750]; (9) Netai Dutta v State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659]; and (10) Neeraj Gupta v State [132 (2006) DLT 137].
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 124/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
243. In the light of law discussed hereinabove with regard to as to how abetment of suicide is proved, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are required to be appreciated as to whether from the same, it can be inferred that both accused persons had mens rea to instigate and aid deceased Geetika Sharma in commission of suicide.
244. The charge under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC refers to circumstances from "a" to "y" as mentioned in the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 as the circumstances, which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
245. The circumstances highlighted from serial no. (b) to
(e) pertain to deceased Geetika Sharma being made to join MDLR Airlines prior to attaining the age of 18 years in 2006, being promoted as Senior Cabin Crew Member in 2008, being appointed Co-ordinator on 31.03.2009 and resigning from MDLR Group on 22.05.2010.
246. The aforementioned circumstances do not make out any act of instigation on the part of accused persons to show that they intended deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. Even otherwise, it has come on record in the cross examination of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar that although deceased Geetika Sharma was offered appointment vide letter dated 18.10.2006 (part of Ex.PW13/A) but deceased Geetika Sharma had joined on 20.12.2006 i.e. after completing 18 years of age.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 125/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
247. Further, it has also come in the testimony of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher, who was working as the General Manager with MDLR Group, that apart from deceased Geetika Sharma, other candidates on similar basis were promoted to the position of Senior Cabin Crew members and it was only based upon her performance that deceased Geetika Sharma was made the Co-ordinator of the MDLR Group on 31.03.2009. PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher also admitted in his cross examination that it was the duty of all the Co-ordinators, including deceased Geetika Sharma, to apprise about the activities of the MDLR group to the Chairman on daily basis and deceased Geetika Sharma was appointed after she had cleared the exam conducted by Director General of Civil Aviation. Therefore, the evidence of aforementioned witnesses do not in anyway suggest that by way of giving promotions to deceased Geetika Sharma or by appointing her as Co- ordinator of MDLR Group, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had the motive to instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. The act of promoting deceased Geetika Sharma by no stretch of imagination can be treated as creating a circumstance whereby deceased Geetika Sharma will have no option but to commit suicide.
248. Further, deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from MDLR Group on her own to join Emirates Airlines to gain international experience and there is no evidence on record to show that she was being pressurized to resign.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 126/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Therefore, the voluntary act of deceased Geetika Sharma resigning from MDLR Group, also cannot be treated as instigation by accused persons.
DUBAI INCIDENT
249. The other circumstances, which were being relied upon by the prosecution i.e. (f), (g), (h), (i),(j), (k), (q) and
(s) pertain to the period when deceased Geetika Sharma was working in Emirates Airlines in Dubai and the prosecution case is that accused persons were pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to resign from Emirates Airlines and rejoin MDLR and with this objective, had visited Dubai twice.
250. As per the prosecution case, accused persons were not inclined to relieve deceased Geetika Sharma to join Emirates Airlines and, therefore, were not issuing a NOC (No-Objection Certificate) to her. However, on her persistent demands, pursuant to conspiracy, forged NOC having the forged signatures of PW21 Sh.Rajiv Kumar Parasher was issued to deceased Geetika Sharma with a view to compel her to rejoin MDLR Group in future. In this context, PW12 Ankit Sharma, who happens to be the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, had deposed on oath that NOC was posted by Monal Sachdeva, employee of MDLR, which was received by them at their residence. However, this fact has not been proved on record as PW Monal Sachdeva has not been examined on record and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 127/189 PS: Bharat Nagar secondly, there is no document on record to show that deceased Geetika Sharma had ever applied for issuance of NOC. Further, it has come in the evidence of PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat that deceased Geetika Sharma admitted before him, during the course of inquiry, that she had herself forged the said NOC. Therefore, the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma being given forged NOC through Monal Sachdeva in order to compel her to rejoin MDLR in future, has not been established.
251. It has further come in the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma that in order to compel deceased Geetika Sharma to return to India and rejoin MDLR, both accused persons had gone to Dubai and had met deceased Geetika Sharma and requested her to rejoin MDLR Group. To further corroborate the testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma, prosecution has brought on record the air tickets (Part of Ex.PW19/1) of both accused of Dubai by examining PW19 Shiraz Ali, who was the travel agent for MDLR Group.
252. In his letter dated 15.09.2012 Ex.PW19/1, PW19 Shiraz Ali had provided the details of travel of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda alongwith co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and one Sanjay Kumar Bansal on 14.07.2010 and return on 16.07.2010 and again traveling of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda with Sanjay Kumar Bansal on 30.07.2010 and returning on 01.08.2010 and had also annexed copies of air tickets Mark P-19/A(1-11). To SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 128/189 PS: Bharat Nagar further corroborate the visit of accused persons to Dubai, the arrival and departure entries of accused persons from Delhi to Dubai and back to Delhi were obtained from the Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Delhi vide Ex.PW65/Q (colly).
253. Although I agree with the submission made by Ld.counsels for accused persons that print out of tickets Mark P19/A (1-11) provided by PW19 Shiraz Ali and details of arrival and departure obtained from Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Delhi vide Ex.PW65/Q do not prove air travel of accused persons to Dubai alongwith PW48 Sanjay Bansal, as they are computer generated copies of the record and in absence of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the same are inadmissible in evidence but still there is other evidence on record to show that both accused had indeed travelled to Dubai in the month of July-August, 2010 accompanied by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal.
254. First document to prove this fact is the letter dated 15.09.2012 Ex.PW19/1 vide which details of travel has been provided by PW19 Shiraz Ali of both accused and PW48 Sh.Sanjay Kumar Bansal wherein he has mentioned that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had firstly, travelled to Dubai on 14.07.2010 and returned on 16.07.2010 and thereafter, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and PW48 Sh.Sanjay Kumar Bansal had travelled to Dubai on 30.07.2010 and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 129/189 PS: Bharat Nagar had returned on 01.08.2010. The said details have been provided by PW19 Shiraz Ali in a letter duly signed by him and the details mentioned therein have not been disputed by Ld.counsels for accused persons in his cross examination.
255. Secondly, travel of accused persons to Dubai alongwith PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal in the month of July- August, 2010 has been admitted by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal.
256. Lastly, this fact is further corroborated by the copy of passport submitted by Sh.Govind Goyal, brother of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda before IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, during the course of investigation, which was seized by him vide Ex.PW65/V. In the said copy of passport, there is departure entry of 14.07.2010 from India and arrival entry of 14.07.2010 at U.A.E., which corroborates the details of travel provided by PW19 Shiraj Ali vide Ex.PW19/1. Therefore, this fact also proves that accused A-1 had travelled to Dubai on 14.07.2010 as mentioned in Ex.PW19/1. Therefore, the fact of accused persons traveling to Dubai in the month of July-August, 2010 stands proved on record.
257. The next question, which is required to be answered is whether accused persona had travelled for business purpose or had gone to convince deceased Geetika Sharma to return to India and rejoin MDLR. Although in the cross examination by Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 130/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Kanda, PW48 Sanjay Bansal had admitted the suggestion of defence that he travelled to Dubai alongwith accused A- 1 Gopal Goyal Kanda for business purposes but the admission regarding the same is not believable as nature of business and the person with whom business meeting, if any had taken place, has not been specifically mentioned in the cross examination. If accused A-1 had indeed travelled to Dubai for business purpose, then it was imperative to have brought on record as to what was the nature of business meeting, with whom the business meeting had taken place and the place in Dubai where meeting had taken place. In absence of all these details, defence has failed to prove that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had travelled to Dubai with PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal for business purposes.
258. The very fact that PW12 Ankit Sharma had deposed correctly regarding the visit of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Dubai twice in 2010 and on one occasion accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had also travelled with him and deceased Geetika Sharma had met both accused persons in a cafeteria in Dubai, proves the truthfulness of his deposition that during the trip of accused persons to Dubai, they had met deceased Geetika Sharma. It is not the defence of accused persons that their business trip to Dubai was in public domain, therefore, PW12 Ankit Sharma had the knowledge about the travel of accused persons to Dubai and accordingly, he manipulated facts and deposed SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 131/189 PS: Bharat Nagar falsely. This deposition of PW12 Ankit Sharma proves that he had derived knowledge about accused persons meeting deceased Geetika Sharma in Dubai through his deceased sister, otherwise it was not possible for the family of deceased Geetika Sharma to know as to when accused persons had travelled to Dubai and for what purpose.
259. Another fact which establishes on record that accused persons had not travelled for business purposes and had gone to convince deceased Geetika Sharma to return to India, is two SMS, which were sent by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal to deceased Geetika Sharma from his mobile phone no.9811101010 on 29.07.2010. PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal had admitted in his evidence that he had sent the said two SMS to deceased Geetika Sharma in the year 2010 from his mobile number. Since PW48 Sanjay Bansal was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, he was allowed to be cross examined by Ld.Addl.PP for State. In the said cross examination, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal denied that he had sent the two SMS Ex.PW48/A at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. On being further questioned by Ld.Addl.PP for State, as to why SMS messages were sent by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal to deceased Geetika Sharma, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal deposed that since deceased Geetika Sharma had left the MDLR Airlines, therefore, he used to update her. This denial by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal and explanation provided for sending the SMS to deceased Geetika Sharma SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 132/189 PS: Bharat Nagar vide Ex.PW48/A is falsified by the contents of SMS Ex.PW48/A. On careful perusal of the SMS Ex.PW48/A sent on 29.07.2010 to deceased Geetika Sharma, it is apparent that PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal had sent these SMS on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda as in these SMS, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal is not updating deceased Geetika Sharma about himself or the MDLR Airlines but was providing the update regarding the emotional condition of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. In the said SMS Ex.PW48/A, PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal was apprising deceased Geetika Sharma about the condition of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda by using abbreviated word "GG" for his name and had told deceased Geetika Sharma that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda only talks about her and he does not have interest in anything and cannot sleep without taking sleeping pills and is ready to leave everything including power, money, assets, relatives, nears and dears and had further requested deceased Geetika Sharma to resolve everything through meeting as it is not possible to resolve through messages. This message Ex.PW48/A proves that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda through PW48 Sanjay Bansal was requesting deceased Geetika Sharma to meet them and further corroborates the testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma that deceased Geetika Sharma had met accused persons in a cafeteria in Dubai.
260. The contention of Ld.counsel for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that accused persons had never gone to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 133/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Dubai to put pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to resign from Emirates Airlines and never met her as the said fact has also not been stated by deceased Geetika Sharma in her statement recorded during inquiry conducted by PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, is required to be rejected. The reason for the same is that inquiry, which was being conducted by Emirates Airlines, was with regard to the complaint made by MDLR Airlines regarding forging of NOC by deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, during the course of inquiry, it was not necessary for deceased Geetika Sharma to have told about her personal meeting with accused persons in Dubai and request made by accused persons to resign from Emirates Airlines.
261. Although the allegation of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda sending email to PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat of Emirates Airlines complaining against deceased Geetika Sharma with regard to submission of fake documents of MDLR company, has not been proved on record as no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been annexed with the said email but the fact remains that an inquiry was initiated by Emirates Airlines with regard to submission of forged NOC of MDLR by deceased Geetika Sharma. It is not believable that without there being any complaint from the MDLR, an inquiry could have been initiated by Emirates Airlines. Further, in the cross examination of PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat, it was suggested by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 134/189 PS: Bharat Nagar himself to PW64 Sh.Shirish Maruti Thorat that inquiry was initiated on the complaint of previous employer. Therefore, this fact stands established on record that inquiry was initiated against deceased Geetika Sharma by Emirates Airlines on the complaint of MDLR Group.
262. Further, as discussed hereinabove, there is no evidence on record that after resigning of deceased Geetika Sharma from Emirates Airlines and her returning to Delhi, forged extradition documents were sent from email ID [email protected] pursuant to conspiracy by accused persons.
263. The prosecution has further examined on record PW9 Jyoti, who was the aunt of deceased Geetika Sharma and she had deposed that she had accompanied deceased Geetika Sharma in the year 2010 to her advocate PW28 Sh.S.S.Katyal where deceased Geetika Sharma got one complaint typed which is Mark PW9/A. The prosecution has also examined PW28 Sh.S.S.Katyal, who had identified complaint mark PW9/A to have been drafted by him and the same was accordingly exhibited as Ex.PW28/A. Since reply Ex.PW28/A is computer generated print out and is not accompanied with certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the same is not admissible in evidence. Even if it is assumed that Ex.PW28/A is admissible in evidence, then also contents of the same do not show that deceased Geetika Sharma had made any allegations against accused persons SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 135/189 PS: Bharat Nagar regarding they harassing her or forcing her to resign from Emirates Airlines. Reply Ex.PW28/A is addressed to Sanjay Verma, the Consul General of India, Embassy in Dubai and the entire gist of the reply pertains to fake email received from [email protected] and denial by deceased Geetika Sharma of having committed any offence of cheating by fraudulently taking away 50,000 Dirham in Dubai. Therefore, this letter Ex.PW28/A also do not in any way prove any kind of harassment at the hands of accused persons while deceased Geetika Sharma was employed with Emirates Airlines.
264. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma had also deposed on oath that in December, 2010, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and his wife had come to their house and had apologized for his conduct in Dubai and had offered a fresh NOC of the same date on which deceased Geetika Sharma had resigned from the MDLR and PW12 Ankit Sharma also deposed regarding issuance of second NOC also by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, which fact is required to be believed as said testimony is corroborated by fresh NOC dated 30.05.2010 and 22.05.2010, part of Ex.PW13/A i.e. Ex.PW13/A-1 to Ex.PW13/A-20. The said NOC dated 30.05.2010 is duly signed by the authorized signatory of MDLR Airlines Pvt. Ltd. and the second NOC dated 22.05.2010 is duly signed by PW14 Ms.Khushboo Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda has not disputed the issuance or genuineness SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 136/189 PS: Bharat Nagar of these two NOCs, in the cross examination of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma.
265. The evidence, which has come on record proves that after receipt of fresh NOC dated 30.05.2010 and 22.05.2010 from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, deceased Geetika Sharma had not joined any other company but had rejoined MDLR Group as Director in January, 2011. The said fact has been proved on record by the testimony of PW27 Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was working as the Company Secretary in MDLR Airlines from the year 2010 till 30.11.2012. The very fact that deceased Geetika Sharma had rejoined MDLR Group even though she was having a duly signed NOC from the authorized signatory of MDLR Airlines Pvt.Ltd. giving freedom to her to join any other company proves that deceased Geetika Sharma and her family had pardoned the conduct of accused persons in Dubai. Even otherwise, the act of both accused persons in meeting with deceased Geetika Sharma in Dubai and requesting her to rejoin MDLR or MDLR sending a complaint to Emirates Airlines regarding forging of NOC, which deceased Geetika Sharma had herself forged, cannot be said to be such conduct on the part of accused persons, which was done with the intention of instigating deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. The request made by accused persons to deceased Geetika Sharma to rejoin MDLR Group shows that accused persons wanted to retain deceased Geetika SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 137/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma in their company i.e. MDLR and it cannot be said that they had any mens rea to instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
266. Lastly, the incident of Dubai had taken place in 2010 and deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide on 04 / 05.08.2012. Therefore, even if it is assumed that accused persons had harassed deceased Geetika Sharma in making her resign from Emirates Airlines and it amounts to instigation, then also since the incident was not proximate to the death of deceased Geetika Sharma and deceased Geetika Sharma had sufficient time to re-think about such harassment, therefore, such remote conduct does not amount to abetment to suicide.
APPOINTMENT AS DIRECTOR
267. The other circumstance, which has been highlighted in the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 is at serial no. (L) and (m) regarding deceased Geetika Sharma being appointed as Director on 13.01.2011 and her resignation on 25.12.2011.
268. The fact of deceased Geetika Sharma joining as Director on 13.01.2011 and resigning on 25.12.2011 has been proved on record by the testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma, PW13 Dinesh Sharma and PW27 Ashok Kumar Sharma. Further, during this period, no complaint of any harassment by accused persons was made. Further, as per the testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, deceased Geetika SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 138/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma had resigned voluntarily in December, 2011 from the Directorship, as there was no work. Further, the act of deceased Geetika Sharma re-joining the MDLR Group as Director in January, 2011 is also a voluntary act as accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had provided deceased Geetika Sharma the NOC giving her freedom to join any other company but the very fact that deceased Geetika Sharma chose to rejoin MDLR Group proves shows that she had rejoined the same voluntarily. Therefore, from the evidence, which has come on record, there was no act of harassment of deceased Geetika Sharma during this period and she has resigned from the job due to there being no work.
269. The other circumstance, which prosecution is relying upon is at serial no. (u) of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 wherein it has been stated that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had put pressure upon the company M/s.Universal Builders for cancellation of allotment of flat in the name of father of deceased Geetika Sharma, wherein he had paid Rs.18 Lacs. The said fact has not been proved on record as the entire testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who happens to be the father of deceased Geetika Sharma, is silent regarding cancellation of his flat by M/s.Universal Builders, at the instance of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. Even no official from M/s.Universal Builders has been examined in this case to show that allotment of flat in the name of father of deceased Geetika Sharma was SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 139/189 PS: Bharat Nagar cancelled due to the pressure exerted by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on them.
SUNDALE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
270. The other circumstance which prosecution is relying upon is mentioned at serial no. (o) of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 whereby it was alleged that deceased Geetika Sharma was offered post of President of the Sundale Educational Society with accused A-2 as Secretary to run a school and accused persons were putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the documents pertaining to aforesaid society and deceased Geetika Sharma was not willing to do as she apprehended that accused persons would do some violation of law, for which she would be held responsible later on.
271. In order to prove the aforementioned circumstance, prosecution has examined PW12 Ankit Sharma, PW13 Dinesh Sharma, PW17 Aditya Mangla and PW30 Batush Pal. PW30 Batush Pal, was one of the member of Sundale Educational Society, which was the owner of Pumpkin School, at Sohna Road, Gurgaon. He had deposed on oath that PW17 Aditya Mangla had approached him with regard to the proposal to purchase his school and the deal was stuck and some payment through cheque was received in the month of July-August, 2012 but later on, on the dishonourment of cheque of Rs.3.5 Lacs, the deal was cancelled. He further deposed that later on, he came to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 140/189 PS: Bharat Nagar know that papers, which were being prepared by PW17 Aditya Mangla, were not in the name of his wife, as told by him earlier, but were in the name of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased. The prosecution had also examined PW17 Aditya Mangla, who was the mediator in the said deal between MDLR and Sundale Educational Society, of which PW30 Batush Pal was one of the members. In his cross examination, PW17 Aditya Mangla had admitted that Sundale Educational Society was being taken over by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and, therefore, only the representatives of the MDLR were made part of the Society. It was further deposed by him in his cross examination that talks for taking over the Sundale Educational Society started in the year 2012 and planning for taking over of said society was that of his wife, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased and he was helping them in this regard. Therefore, from the cross examination of PW17 Aditya Mangla by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, it has been brought on record that deceased Geetika Sharma was voluntarily participating with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and wife of PW17 Aditya Mangla in taking over of school run by Sundale Educational Society.
272. However, PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma in his examination in chief had stated that on the intervening night of 04 / 05.08.2012 at about 1.15 a.m., he had received a call from deceased Geetika Sharma wherein she had told him that both accused persons were SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 141/189 PS: Bharat Nagar putting pressure upon her regarding signing of some documents. Further, PW13 Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased Geetika Sharma also deposed on oath that his wife after receiving a call from accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 and from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012 had told deceased Geetika Sharma that accused persons were asking deceased Geetika Sharma to sign papers failing which a police case would be registered in Haryana. This deposition of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma that deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to sign some papers is not at all reliable and trustworthy as the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma is not specific that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society against her wish and further, this fact has not been deposed by them in their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
273. Secondly, in the initial statement recorded of Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered, there is no specific reference that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced to sign papers of Sundale Educational Society. Even the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C makes no reference that deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to sign the papers of Sundale Educational Society.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 142/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
274. Further, the evidence which has come on record shows that deceased Geetika Sharma despite resigning from MDLR in December, 2011, was voluntarily participating in the school work pertaining to Sundale Educational Society
275. In the examination in chief of PW12 Ankit Sharma, he has deposed on oath that in the month of February, 2012, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha came with the proposal that MDLR is going to open a school and deceased Geetika Sharma should work in their school. He further deposed that after initial reluctance, deceased Geetika Sharma had joined the school for one or two months and there is no further deposition made by PW12 Ankit Sharma that deceased Geetika Sharma was being forced for the work of school. It has also come in the cross examination of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who is father of deceased Geetika Sharma that he was aware that a school project was initiated after resignation of his daughter in December, 2011 and he was apprised about this project by his deceased daughter. PW13 Dinesh Sharma also admitted, in his cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, that his deceased daughter had travelled alongwith accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to Mumbai in 2012 with regard to school work and admitted in cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that deceased Geetika Sharma travelled with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Singapore between 27.11.2011 till 02.12.2011 for official SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 143/189 PS: Bharat Nagar work and nature of official work was explained by PW62 Sh.Rajeev Ranjan in his cross examination to be a deal of school and he further deposed that entire expenses of Singapore trip were paid by MDLR. Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence, it has come on record that father of deceased Geetika Sharma was aware that deceased Geetika Sharma was participating in the school work and was traveling with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to Mumbai and with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Singapore with regard to school work. If deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to join the school or sign the Sundale Educational Society's papers, then father of deceased Geetika Sharma would not have allowed her to work for the school or accompany accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to Mumbai or accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to Singapore.
276. Another fact which demonstrates that deceased Geetika Sharma was voluntarily working for the school and was not being pressurized is the renovation work of a flat at Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, which was being supervised by the father of deceased Geetika Sharma. It is admitted by PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination that flat bearing no. 2C, Pocket-B, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi was purchased by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in the name of his daughter and he was supervising the work of this flat. However, PW13 Dinesh Sharma showed his ignorance that the flat was to be used as a registered office of Sundale Educational SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 144/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Society However, IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his cross examination admitted that in the documents of Sundale Educational Society, the flat in the name of Sushila Goyal, daughter of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had been shown as registered office of Sundale Educational Society. Therefore, the fact of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased Geetika Sharma voluntarily supervising the work of renovation of registered office of Sundale Educational Society proves that not only deceased Geetika Sharma but even her father was voluntarily participating in the activities of the aforementioned Society. This fact is further corroborated by the evidence of PW17 Aditya Mangla, who had also admitted in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, that his wife, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma had planned for taking over the Sundale Educational Society, which was having a school at Sohna Road. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove that deceased Geetika Sharma was unwilling to join the school work of Sundale Educational Society or that she was being pressurized to sign the documents of Sundale Educational Society.
277. Even assuming that accused persons were putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign Sundale Educational Society's documents, then also it does not amount to any kind of harassment as by signing the same, deceased Geetika Sharma would have become the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 145/189 PS: Bharat Nagar President of the Sundale Educational Society, which was running a school by the name of Pumpkin School in Gurgaon, Haryana. Any person, who would be made President of a society, running a school in Gurgaon, would not have felt harassed or depressed but would have felt happy on being chosen for such a prestigious post.
278. The other evidence in the form of whatsapp messages where deceased Geetika Sharma was asked to sign documents, is not admissible in the light of there being no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even assuming that deceased Geetika Sharma was being requested through messages sent by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, to sign the papers of Sundale Educational Society, then also it does not amount to instigation on the part of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, whereby he intended deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
GOA's CASE
279. The other circumstance, which has been relied upon by the prosecution to show that deceased Geetika Sharma was subjected to continuous harassment by accused persons is mentioned at serial no. (t) of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 whereby it is alleged that accused persons had pressurized deceased Geetika Sharma to compromise the theft case lodged by her against two girls namely, Ankita Singh and Nupur Mehta before Goa Court and after dismissal of compromise application, accused SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 146/189 PS: Bharat Nagar persons pressurized deceased Geetika Sharma to file quashing petition before the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court.
280. In this regard, relevant witness examined by the prosecution is PW13 Dinesh Sharma, father of deceased Geetika Sharma and he has deposed on oath that when deceased Geetika Sharma was transferred to Goa to look after the work of Casino, then her two co-employees namely, Nupur Mehta and Ankita Singh had picked up a quarrel with deceased Geetika Sharma and had snatched her mobile phone, laptop and passport and thereafter ran away, for which deceased Geetika Sharma had lodged FIR in Goa against Nupur Mehta and Ankita Singh regarding the said incident and thereafter, returned to Delhi.
281. PW12 Ankit Sharma, who is the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, had deposed on oath that when deceased Geetika Sharma came to Mumbai to attend his fashion show, Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, lawyer of MDLR, had called him and told him that he wanted to speak to deceased Geetika Sharma and thereafter, PW12 Ankit Sharma had conveyed the said message to his deceased sister and later on, in the evening hours, when PW12 Ankit Sharma enquired from deceased Geetika Sharma regarding the purpose for which Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called her, then deceased Geetika Sharma apprised PW12 Ankit Sharma that Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia was putting pressure upon her to sign some documents in connection SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 147/189 PS: Bharat Nagar with the case of Goa and due to long conversation with Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, she also missed her flight.
282. The testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma regarding receipt of call from PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia and he pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to sign some papers of Goa case, is required to be dis-believed as in his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW12/DA, Ex.PW12/DB and Ex.PW12/DC, no such fact was disclosed. Secondly, no such fact was disclosed in the initial statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Lastly, even the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not mention that Ankit Ahluwalia, lawyer of MDLR was putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to sign the Goa papers.
283. Further, there is evidence on record to show that deceased Geetika Sharma had voluntarily compounded the offence by filing an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. before the Ld.Magistrate, Panaji, Goa and by swearing affidavit in support of said application. PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who is the father of deceased Geetika Sharma had admitted in his cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha that an application for compounding the offence was duly signed by deceased Geetika Sharma before the Goa Court. It has been further admitted by PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, that whenever deceased Geetika SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 148/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma had gone to attend the court hearing in Goa, he used to accompany her. The fact of deceased Geetika Sharma voluntarily compounding the offence with accused Ankita and Nupur has been further corroborated by the testimony of PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia, who was the Manager (Legal) in MDLR Group of companies. During the course of investigation, he had handed over all the documents pertaining to the case registered in Goa alongwith application for compounding of offence Ex.PW18/C (colly). He admitted in his cross examination that deceased Geetika Sharma had compromised the case in Goa on her own and had accordingly, filed an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. alongwith affidavit in the court of Ld.JMM, Panaji, Goa. He further admitted that father of deceased Geetika Sharma had accompanied her to Goa.
284. I have also carefully perused the document Ex.PW18/C (colly) and it has an application for compounding the offence, duly signed by deceased Geetika Sharma and her affidavit.
285. It is not believable that deceased Geetika Sharma would have filed application for compounding the offence alongwith affidavit before Ld.JMM, Goa under some kind of pressure when her father was also present with her.
286. Further, no complaint has been brought on record made to any authority or court by deceased Geetika Sharma that she was forced to file an application for SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 149/189 PS: Bharat Nagar compounding of offence. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that deceased Geetika Sharma had voluntarily filed an application for compounding of case at Goa.
REFUND OF MBA FEES OF RS.7,45,426/-.
287. Another circumstance, which has been relied upon by the prosecution to show that deceased Geetika Sharma was being harassed is mentioned at serial no. (y) of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 wherein it is alleged that deceased Geetika Sharma was being pressurized to return the sponsored amount of Rs.9 Lacs by MDLR for her MBA classes in IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi with a view to exert pressure on her to return to MDLR.
288. The amount of fees of Rs.9 Lacs has been inadvertently mentioned in the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 and the correct amount of fees deposited by MDLR was Rs.7,45,426/- as admitted by PW62 Sh.Rajeev Ranjan in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
289. The said circumstance has not been proved on record. In the entire evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma, they have nowhere deposed that any pressure was exerted upon deceased Geetika Sharma to return the sponsored amount paid by MDLR for her MBA classes at IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Although PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination has SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 150/189 PS: Bharat Nagar confirmed that fees for the MBA classes was sponsored by MDLR company but his entire deposition is silent on the aspect of deceased Geetika Sharma being asked to return the fees of her MBA Classes. Even the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C does not make any specific reference that accused persons were putting pressure upon deceased Geetika Sharma to return the fees deposited by MDLR for her MBA classes.
290. Further, even mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Smt.Anuradha Sharma in her initial complaint Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered, had nowhere deposed regarding pressure being exerted upon deceased Geetika Sharma to return the fees amount of her MBA classes. Even in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/F, no such allegation is there. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that any pressure was being put upon deceased Geetika Sharma by accused persons asking her to refund the fees.
TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER OF DECEASED AND ACCUSED PERSONS PRIOR TO DEATH OF DECEASED
291. Another circumstance, which prosecution is relying upon, which had occurred just prior to suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma is mentioned at serial no. (v), (w) and (x) of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 and in the same, it is alleged that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had a telephonic SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 151/189 PS: Bharat Nagar conversation with mother of deceased on 03.08.2012, wherein accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had levelled allegations against the character of deceased Geetika Sharma/victim and had also asked mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to send deceased Geetika Sharma to the office of MDLR to sign documents and further, on 04.08.2012, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had a telephonic talk with mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and he confirmed the allegations made by co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha regarding the character of deceased Geetika Sharma and further pressurized mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to send her to the office to sign documents, failing which FIR would be lodged in Haryana against her. It is further alleged that the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, had communicated the conversation, which had taken place between accused A-2 and mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and between accused A-1 and mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, to deceased Geetika Sharma on her return from Mumbai on 04.08.2012, after hearing which deceased Geetika Sharma had become extremely disturbed and depressed.
292. To prove the aforesaid circumstance, which occurred immediately prior to deceased committing suicide, relevant witness examined by the prosecution is PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who is the father of deceased Geetika Sharma. Admittedly, PW12 Ankit Sharma, who is the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, was not in Delhi on 03.08.2012 SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 152/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and 04.08.2012, as he was in Mumbai at that point of time with regard to his fashion show event.
293. As per evidence of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, his wife had received a call on 03.08.2012 from accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and on 04.08.2012 from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and the conversation, which had taken place between accused persons and his wife, was communicated to him by her and in his presence, his wife had narrated the conversation to deceased Geetika Sharma, after hearing which deceased Geetika Sharma had become disturbed.
294. The first fact, which was required to be established by prosecution was that any call was made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to the wife of PW13 Dinesh Sharma on 03.08.2012 and by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012. As per the evidence of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, it has come on record during the course of investigation that mobile phone nos. 9873200002 and 8860000029 were being used by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and mobile phone nos.9873900002 and 9910110235 were being used by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
295. To prove the factum of ownership of aforesaid mobile phone numbers, PW42 Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal was examined. PW42 Sh.Saurabh Aggarwal being the Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea Ltd., had produced relevant documents on record alongwith certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per his evidence, SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 153/189 PS: Bharat Nagar mobile phone no.9818625001 was in the name of Ms.Anuradha Sharma i.e. mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and he also produced the Call Detail Record of her mobile phone number which was Ex.PW42/J. He further produced on record the Customer Application Form for mobile phone no.9873900002, which was found to be in the name of Dharambir S/o Sh.Ved Prakash and mobile phone no.9873200002, which was found to be in the name of Deepak S/o Sh.Dhannamal. He also produced certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support of documents regarding aforementioned mobile phone numbers.
296. The prosecution had examined PW10 Deepak Jindal and he had deposed that he had taken the mobile no.9873200002 in his name while working in the MDLR company, Gurgaon of which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was the owner and later on, he handed over the SIM of the aforesaid mobile number to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. He also confirmed regarding giving statement before the Ld.Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/A. Nothing material was brought out in his cross examination to create a doubt regarding his credibility. Therefore, evidence of PW10 Deepak Jindal proved on record that mobile no.9873200002 was being used by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda.
297. With regard to mobile no.9873900002, Dharambir, in whose name said mobile number was registered, was not SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 154/189 PS: Bharat Nagar examined. Even in absence of Dharambir, it has been proved on record that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was using the aforesaid mobile number. I am supported in my reasoning by deposition of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar wherein he had deposed that mobile number 9873900002 belonged to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Said fact was not challenged in his cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and hence, stands admitted.
298. Further, in the cross examination of PW13 Dinesh Sharma by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha recorded on 02.03.2016 at 2.30 p.m., it was herself suggested by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to PW13 Dinesh Sharma that she had made a call to his wife just prior to death of his daughter, which PW13 Dinesh Sharma admitted. Since the fact of using a particular mobile number was in the specific knowledge of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, therefore, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was for accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to have proved on record that if she was not using the mobile number 9873900002, then what was the mobile number from which she had made a call to mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012. However, the said onus under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been discharged by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. Therefore, it is proved on record that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had made a call to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 03.08.2012 by using mobile no. 9873900002.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 155/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
299. The testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma regarding call being received by his wife from accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 and from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012 further stands corroborated by the Call Detail Record of mobile no. 9818625001, which was in the name of wife of PW13 Dinesh Sharma. As per the call detail record Ex.PW42/J (colly), a call was received on 03.08.2012 at 20.39 p.m. from mobile no. 9873900002 of 999 seconds and another call was received on 04.08.20212 at 10.51 a.m. of 980 seconds from 9873200002. Therefore, testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma stands corroborated by the Call Detail Record of his wife's mobile and it is proved on record that a telephonic talk had indeed taken place between mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 and between accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and mother of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012.
300. Now, the next question arises is whether the conversation, which had taken place between mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 and between mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012 has been proved on record or not?
301. The best witness, who could have proved regarding the exact conversation which took place, was the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma. However, due to her suicide, prior to her examination in this case, she could not be SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 156/189 PS: Bharat Nagar examined as a witness in this case. Even otherwise, in the initial statement recorded of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR has been registered, she had only stated that in both the calls, accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha were asking mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to send her to sign some papers and mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had nowhere alleged in Ex.PW13/D that any imputation regarding character of deceased Geetika Sharma was made either by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda or by co-accused A-2 Aruna Chadha in their respective calls. In her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/F, the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. Smt.Anuradha sharma stated that imputations against character of deceased Geetika Sharma were made by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 03.08.2012 and by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 04.08.2012, which she had communicated to deceased Geetika Sharma. However, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/F cannot be taken into consideration as defence never got a right to cross examine mother of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. Smt.Anuradha Sharma and the said statement Ex.PW13/F cannot be relied upon due to bar under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. I am fortified in my reasoning by the judgment delivered in Arjun Bishwas's case (supra).
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 157/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
302. Further, PW13 Dinesh Sharma deposed that he was present in the house when the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had received the calls on 03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012 respectively from accused persons and he was told by his wife that accused persons were making imputations against character of deceased Geetika Sharma. This deposition of PW13 Dinesh Sharma is required to be dis-believed as he has deposed about this fact for the first time in court and in his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/DA and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW13/E, no such fact was stated. Therefore, PW13 Dinesh Sharma had made material improvement in his testimony over his previous statements and hence, it is not safe to rely upon his this part of testimony.
303. The fact that no imputation against character of deceased Geetika Sharma was made by accused persons to mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, is strengthened from the deposition of PW12 Ankit Sharma, who happens to be the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma. In his examination in chief, PW12 Ankit Sharma has deposed that his last telephonic conversation with deceased Geetika Sharma took place with her on the intervening night of 04/05.08.2012 at about 1.15 a.m. and in the said call, deceased Geetika Sharma had told him about both accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and A-2 Aruna Chadha, asking her to sign some papers. However, PW12 Ankit Sharma no where deposed that deceased Geetika Sharma SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 158/189 PS: Bharat Nagar had apprised him that due to imputation made against her character by accused persons in the telephonic conversation with his mother, she had become tensed and depressed. If deceased Geetika Sharma was indeed stressed and depressed after hearing the imputation against her character made by accused persons to her mother, then she would have apprised the same to her brother prior to her death. The said omission proves that no such imputation regarding character of deceased Geetika Sharma was made by accused persons and there was no reason for her to become depressed or tensed after hearing the conversation which took place between accused persons and her mother. I am further supported in my reasoning by the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C wherein deceased Geetika Sharma has nowhere specifically stated that due to imputation made against her character by accused persons to her mother, she was ending her life.
304. In the light of aforementioned discussion, the evidence which has come on record shows that the conversation, which took place between accused persons and mother of deceased Geetika Sharma, was only with regard to signing of some papers. In the opinion of this court, merely asking deceased Geetika Sharma to sign some papers through her mother, can by no stretch of imagination be construed as an act by which the accused SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 159/189 PS: Bharat Nagar persons intended that deceased Geetika Sharma should commit suicide.
305. It has also come in the evidence of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar that there was no telephonic conversation between accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and deceased Geetika Sharma for the past 7-8 months prior to her death and between accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma for about one month prior to her death. This fact also establishes on record that accused persons had no opportunity to directly instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
306. Further, as discussed hereinbefore, accused persons indirectly by communicating through mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had not done any act by which they intended that deceased Geetika Sharma should commit suicide. Therefore, it is proved on record that accused persons directly or indirectly, had not done any act of instigation of deceased to commit suicide.
SUICIDE NOTE
307. The last circumstance, which prosecution was required to prove is mentioned at serial no. (a) of the order on charge dated 10.05.2013 and as per the same, it is alleged that deceased Geetika Sharma had left behind a suicide note dated 04.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 wherein deceased Geetika Sharma had named both accused persons SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 160/189 PS: Bharat Nagar as the persons responsible for driving her to commit suicide.
308. Before dealing with the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, it is imperative here to deal with the submissions of Ld.defence counsels whereby they have challenged the authenticity of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C as well as its recovery and have submitted that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is a forged and a fabricated document created by family of deceased Geetika Sharma ti falsely implicate accused persons.
309. The first contention in this regard was that in none of the statements of family members of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. mother, father and brother recorded on 05.08.2012, there is mention of any suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. Although it is true that in the initial statement recorded of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW13/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered and the statement of brother and father of deceased Geetika Sharma recorded on 05.08.2012 by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar during inquest proceedings, there is no mention about suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C but this is no ground to doubt the recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C from the spiral diary kept on a table near the bed in the room of deceased Geetika Sharma. The reason for the same is that the family members of deceased Geetika Sharma, on coming to know about sudden and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 161/189 PS: Bharat Nagar unexpected death of deceased Geetika Sharma, must have been in extreme shock and trauma and were not in a fit state of mind to state all the facts in their respective statements regarding recovery of suicide note by PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar. Further, suicide note was recovered by PW65 Dinesh Kumar and whether he apprised the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma about its recovery prior to her statement, is not known. Therefore, it is not a ground to doubt the recovery of suicide note. Further, statement recorded during inquest proceedings of father and brother only pertained to the identification of the body of deceased Geetika Sharma and it was not a detail statement regarding the manner in which deceased Geetika Sharma had committed suicide. Therefore, there was no requirement for brother and father of deceased Geetika Sharma to have mentioned about recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C in their respective statements during inquest proceedings. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.
310. The next contention in this regard by Ld.Defence counsels for accused persons was that there is no mention of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C in the death report Ex.PW65/C prepared by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar and this fact was also admitted by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his cross examination.
311. I have carefully perused the death report Ex.PW65/C, which was prepared on 05.08.2012 and SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 162/189 PS: Bharat Nagar although it is true that in the death report, there is no reference made of any suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C or the place of occurrence but in the opinion of this court, said omission does not create a doubt regarding recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, as there was no specific column asking for details of recovery of any suicide note in case death is by suicide. This contention is accordingly rejected.
312. The next contention of Ld.Defence counsels for accused persons was that immediately after recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, the same was sealed on 05.08.2012 by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C, then how in the subsequent statement recorded on 07.08.2012 of PW12 Ankit Sharma i.e. brother of deceased Geetika Sharma under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is reference of he identifying the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma after seeing the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. The said contention also deserves to be rejected as IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha has provided an explanation that PW12 Ankit Sharma had identified the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma after seeing photocopy of the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, which IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar had retained. Although it is true that this fact was not mentioned by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar in his case diary but there is other evidence SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 163/189 PS: Bharat Nagar on record to show that copy of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was prepared. The request letter of PW57 Rajinder Prasad addressed to Head of Department, Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi for performing the autopsy on deceased Geetika Sharma is Ex.PW57/B (colly) and photocopy of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is part of Ex.PW57/B. Further, as per the deposition made by PW57 Rajinder Prasad, almost 15 papers were received alongwith post mortem report from the doctor and the same are forming part of Ex.PW57/B (colly). The photocopy of the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C forming part of inquest papers received from doctor vide Ex.PW57/B (colly) further supports this fact that photocopy of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was prepared and the same must have been shown to PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma for getting handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma identified from him.
313. The next contention of Ld.Defence counsels for accused persons was that in the present case, FIR was registered on the statement of mother of deceased Smt.Anuradha Sharma Ex.PW13/D and not on the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, even though its recovery was made prior to registration of FIR and it was disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, FIR was ante- dated and ante-timed. The said contention also deserves to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 164/189 PS: Bharat Nagar be rejected as there was nothing wrong in recording of FIR based upon statement of Smt.Anuradha Sharma, mother of deceased Geetika Sharma as she had given details of circumstances which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide and the role of accused persons in driving deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide. Therefore, it was but natural to have recorded the FIR on the basis of statement of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma as she could have deposed about the same during the course of trial.
314. Further, in the endorsement made by IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar under the statement recorded of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW13/D, a note of recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C and its seizing, is also duly mentioned in Ex.PW13/D. Further, as per FIR Ex.PW3/B, FIR was registered on 05.08.2012 at 12.40 p.m. and it also mentions about recovery of suicide note. Therefore, there was no chance of any manipulation in the FIR or rukka Ex.PW65/A-1 and the contents of the FIR and rukka being ante-timed and ante- dated, deserves to be rejected.
315. Further, all the police officials, who had reached at the spot i.e. PW8 ASI Jagbir Singh, PW57 Rajinder Prasad and PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar have deposed consistently regarding recovery of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C from a spiral diary found on a table near the bed in the room of deceased Geetika SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 165/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma, which makes their testimony reliable and trustworthy.
316. Further, the documents prepared at the spot by PW8 ASI Jagbir Singh i.e. brief facts of case Ex.PW8/G and request to preserve body Ex.PW8/H, request letter for performing autopsy Ex.PW57/B (colly) written by PW57 Rajinder Prasad and the crime team report Ex.PW20/1 prepared by PW20 Inspector Sanjiv, all make a reference to the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C recovered from the spot, which negates the contention of Ld.defence counsels for accused persons that FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated and no suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was recovered on 05.08.2012 from the room of deceased Geetika Sharma.
317. The next contention of Ld.defence counsels for accused persons doubting the authenticity of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was that no writing instrument was recovered from the room of deceased Geetika Sharma and even suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C are in different handwriting, having different signatures and different dates, which creates a doubt regarding the same being in the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma and the possibility of same being manipulated and concocted by the family members of deceased Geetika Sharma, cannot be ruled out as even there is delay of around five hours in getting the FIR recorded.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 166/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
318. The said contention of Ld.defence counsels also deserves to be rejected. The reason for the same is that as per testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, he had observed that his daughter had committed suicide in the morning of 05.08.2012 at about 7-7.30 a.m. and he has further deposed that thereafter, he had called his nephew Gaurav and her mother, who were residing in a flat, just above their flat and his brother Sh.K.K.Sharma, who after sometime reached at the spot and thereafter, had called the police at 100 number. As per testimony of PW8 ASI Jagbir Singh to whom DD No.8A was entrusted for inquiry, he had received the information at about 9.20 a.m. on 05.08.2012. Therefore, the evidence which has come on record shows that there was a delay of around 2 hours in reporting the matter to the police. This delay of 2 hours does not create any doubt in the prosecution case and is acceptable in the facts of the present case. The deceased Geetika Sharma was a young girl of 23 years of age and had died by way of suicide by hanging and the parents of deceased Geetika Sharma, who had seen her hanging must have been in a great shock and trauma and were not in a fit state of mind to immediately report the matter to the police. Any parent, who is a witness to a suicide by their child will not be in a fit state of mind as to what is required to be done and in such type of incidents, lot of time is consumed in accepting the fact that their child is no more. Seeing one's child die by way of suicide is very painful and traumatic experience SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 167/189 PS: Bharat Nagar for the parents and it is not expected that parents will immediately explore the legal remedies. Therefore, the time taken of around 2 hours in reporting the matter to the police regarding commission of suicide by daughter is perfectly justified and it does not create any kind of suspicion that intentionally, there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police so that false allegations can be concocted.
319. Although FIR has been registered in this case at about 12.40 p.m. on 05.08.2012 but that delay cannot be imputed to the parents of deceased as they only had the duty to report about the suicide of their daughter to the police promptly, which they had done at 9.20 a.m. Thereafter, whatever time police had taken to complete the necessary formalities like searching the place, calling the crime team, getting the body of deceased shifted to hospital, recording the statement of mother of deceased, preparing rukka etc. cannot be attributed to the parents of deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police and accordingly, the contention in this regard of Ld.Defence counsels is rejected.
320. The other contention of Ld.Defence counsels for accused persons that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C are in different handwriting having different dates and there being no writing instrument found in the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 168/189 PS: Bharat Nagar room, creates a doubt regarding its authenticity, also deserves to be dismissed.
321. The reason for the same is that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C alongwith admitted handwriting Ex.PW43/B-1 to Ex.PW43/B-3, Ex.PW43/C, Ex.PW43/D, Ex.PW43/E, Ex.PW43/F and Ex.PW43/G were sent to the handwriting expert i.e. PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director, FSL Rohini for his opinion and PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma opined that after comparing the admitted handwriting and signature of deceased, he came to the conclusion that red encircled writing and signatures Mark Q1 to Q6 on suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C were written by the same person. In the cross examination of PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma, nothing material was brought on record to doubt the expertise of PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma in examining the documents and giving his opinion vide report Ex.PW43/L. Therefore, there is no impediment in accepting the report of PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma Ex.PW43/L that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was written by deceased Geetika Sharma. In the light of report of the handwriting expert Ex.PW43/L, it was immaterial as to whether any handwriting instrument / material was recovered from the room or not.
322. Further, the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C bears two different dates i.e. of 04.08.2012 on Ex.PW12/B and of 04.05.2012 on Ex.PW12/C. Although there is no evidence on record as to whether suicide note SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 169/189 PS: Bharat Nagar dated 04.08.2012 Ex.PW12/B and dated 04.05.2012 Ex.PW12/C were written on the same date or not but one thing is established on record that suicide note Ex.PW12/C dated 04.05.2012 was not written on the said date. The reason for the same is that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C were recovered from a black colour spiral diary and on the first page, details show that diary was with regard to IILM course and Roll No.48 is also mentioned. Further, it is an admitted fact that deceased Geetika Sharma had joined the MBA classes with IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 25.06.2012. Therefore, the diary which is Ex.PW12/D could not have come into existence prior to 25.06.2012 and suicide note must have been written after the said date. Since a person, who commits suicide is under stress and tension and is not in a fit state of mind, therefore, possibility of deceased Geetika Sharma mentioning the incorrect date of 04.05.2012 on Ex.PW12/C, cannot be ruled out.
323. Another reason on the basis of which the contention of Ld.defence counsels for accused persons that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C is a false and a fabricated document deserves to be rejected is the fact that Ld.Defence counsels had led no evidence on record of any other handwriting expert in support of their defence that the handwriting and signature appearing on the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C are in different handwriting. Nothing prevented accused persons from SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 170/189 PS: Bharat Nagar obtaining the documents from court record and getting the same examined from their own handwriting expert and examining him as a witness in support of their defence that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was forged and fabricated document as it was not in the handwriting of deceased Geetika Sharma. However, no such steps were taken by accused persons which makes this court raise an adverse inference against accused persons that in case they had got examined the suicide note from any other handwriting expert, then his report would not have been favourable to the defence of accused persons. In the light of aforementioned discussion and having regard to the opinion of handwriting expert PW43 Sh.Anurag Sharma vide his report Ex.PW43/L, there is no doubt left that suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C was written by deceased Geetika Sharma herself and it was recovered in the manner as deposed by witnesses.
324. Now, the next question arises is whether suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C incriminates accused persons with regard to charge under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC or not?
325. It is a settled principle of law that mere naming of accused in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C would not be sufficient to hold accused guilty of abetment of suicide of deceased Geetika Sharma unless in the suicide note, specific act or instigation made on the part of accused persons, have been mentioned. [Reliance is SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 171/189 PS: Bharat Nagar placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered in Netai Dutta's case (supra) and Gurcharan Singh Vs. The State Of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011 decided on 1 October, 2020 and of the Hon'ble Punjab-Haryana High Court delivered in A.R. Madhav Rao And Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana and Anr. CRM M-2068 of 2012 (O&M) and CRM M-33057 of 2011 (O&M) decided on 22 May, 2018].
326. In order to find out whether suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C specifically mentions about the specific act or instigation made by accused persons, which led deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide, it is relevant to reproduce both the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C hereinbelow: --
Suicide Note "I'm ending myself today because i'm shattered inside. My trust has been broken and I'm being cheated. Two people responsible for my death is ARUNA CHADHA and GOPAL GOYAL KANDA. Both of them have broken my trust and misused me for their own Benefits. They have ruined my life and now they are trying to Sabotage my family members. My family is very innocent. Aruna and Gopal goyal are liars, cheaters and Crook. They can hurt and ruin any one for their own Purpose. I've forgiven them number of times but it was my biggest mistake. Gopal Goyal before also did hurt me and my family but we still forgave him but he again misused our innocence and trust. He is a cheat, and a fraud man. These two should be punished for their wrong deed and malicious intentions towards me and my family. They have made my life abnormal.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 172/189 PS: Bharat Nagar I love my Mom, dad and my bai.
Sd/-
Geetika Sharma 4/8/12 "Gopal Goyal is a fraud. He always keep his bad intentions towards girls. He is a man of no shame and no guilt. He always takes advantage of others. he has illegal relationship with a woman named 'Ankita' and a girl child also with her. Still he keep on hitting on girls. He is a shamelss and worst man I have ever seen in my life. In the name of relationships, trust, god he cheats people and harasses. He always lies. He lies to his family, kids, People around, everyone.
Now, this time Aruna is also helping him to hurt me, harass me, sabotage my family. She use to act as my well wisher but eventually she has shown her true colors.For the sake of her job she can stoop down to any level.
My biggest mistake was I trusted them, which is now costing my life. I will never ever forgive them. They are are the one who have separated me today from my mom, dad and bai. I hate dem, these two.
Sd/-
geetika sharma 4/5/12
327. From the contents of aforesaid suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, it is apparent that no specific acts or instigation done by any of accused, has been specifically mentioned. There is no mention in suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C that accused persons were pressurizing deceased Geetika Sharma to sign documents of Sundale Educational Society or she was being pressurized to get FIR registered by her in Goa against SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 173/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Nupur and Ankita Singh, quashed or she was being pressurized to return fees of Rs.7,45,426/- deposited by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda for MBA classes at IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. None of the above three circumstances find mention in the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C. From the suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C, it is apparent that deceased Geetika Sharma had narrated as to what kind of character, accused persons had in her estimation but has not narrated any facts to show as to how she had been cheated or how her trust had been broken by accused persons and whether the same was done with the intention that deceased Geetika Sharma should commit suicide. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the contents of suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C do not prove that accused persons had committed any act or series of acts in such a manner or had created such circumstances for deceased Geetika Sharma, that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide or they had intended that deceased Geetika Sharma should commit suicide.
328. Further, it has also come on record that there was no telephonic contact between deceased Geetika Sharma and accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda for the past 7-8 months and between accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma for the past around one month prior to her death. Therefore, accused persons had no occasion to SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 174/189 PS: Bharat Nagar directly instigate deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
329. On the contrary, the evidence which has come on record shows that the family of deceased Geetika Sharma and that of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda were quite friendly with each other and used to go out to visit various places together. Deceased Geetika Sharma was also having friendly relations with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and was socializing with her. Deceased Geetika Sharma was also being extended lot of favours by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, which disproves the case of prosecution that both accused persons intended to create such circumstances wherein deceased Geetika Sharma had no option but to commit suicide. In this regard, testimony of PW13 Dinesh Sharma, PW12 Ankit Sharma, PW14 Khushboo Sharma and PW17 Aditya Mangla is relevant.
330. PW13 Dinesh Sharma in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda on 01.03.2016, had admitted regarding knowing the family of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and he further admitted that he alongwith his wife, had visited the residence of accused A- 1 Gopal Goyal Kanda at Sirsa for attending the Shivratri Festival in 2011. PW13 Dinesh Sharma also admitted that deceased Geetika Sharma had visited Singapore with accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda from 27.11.2011 till 02.12.2011, that PW13 Dinesh Sharma alongwith his wife, had travelled to Goa, Shirdi and Mumbai with accused A-1 SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 175/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Gopal Goyal Kanda and his wife in the month of January, 2011, expenses for which were borne by MDLR company, that fees for MBA classes at IILM, Lodhi Road, New Delhi was paid by MDLR, that deceased Geetika Sharma had joined the MBA classes with their consent and that his family had not lodged any complaint against accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda till the death of deceased Geetika Sharma.
331. It has also come in the evidence of PW12 Ankit Sharma, who happens to be the brother of deceased Geetika Sharma, that deceased Geetika Sharma was appointed as Director in MDLR Group in January, 2011 from where she had resigned in December, 2011. PW12 Ankit Sharma also admitted in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that deceased Geetika Sharma used to commute to the office in an official BMW Car.
332. The other evidence which has come on record shows that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma were good friends and they used to socialize together by attending parties. It has come on record that during the course of investigation, iphone of deceased Geetika Sharma was seized and data retrieved from the same was converted into a DVD and filed alongwith chargesheet. Thereafter, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha had filed an application on record seeking the electronic record found in the DVD for the purpose of her defence.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 176/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Thereafter, Ld.Predecessor of this court, had allowed the application of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha vide order dated 22.01.2016 and the data of DVD was provided to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, who had filed on record photocopy of the said record (photographs) alongwith certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dated 07.03.2016.
333. During the course of cross examination of PW12 Ankit Sharma by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, certain photographs obtained from the DVD having the data of iphone of deceased Geetika Sharma was put to him and after seeing the same, PW12 Ankit Sharma had identified the photographs Mark X4 to be that of his deceased sister and Khushboo. However, he denied that the said photograph was taken on 28.04.2012 at Coco House, Gurgaon during the birthday celebration of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha.
334. PW12 Ankit Sharma also admitted that photograph Mark "X5" shows him with his deceased sister but expressed his ignorance regarding the place where the same was taken. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma identified photographs Mark "X6, X7, X8, X9 and X11" to be that of his deceased sister and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha. However, PW12 Ankit Sharma denied that photograph Mark "X7" was taken at the time of birthday of deceased Geetika Sharma on 13.12.2011. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma admitted that he attended the dinner with his SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 177/189 PS: Bharat Nagar deceased sister and Khushboo in Garden of Five Senses but denied that it was the birthday party of Khushboo held on 04.07.2012.
335. Although PW12 Ankit Sharma had denied regarding existence of friendly relations between accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma but the said fact has been established on record by the testimony of PW14 i.e. Ms.Khushboo. PW14 Ms.Khushboo was also employed with MDLR in 2011 as General Manager (Administration) and in her cross examination by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha, she admitted that she, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased were good friends and on couple of occasions, she had met accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased in different restaurants so as to socially interact with each other. She also admitted that she had met PW12 Ankit Sharma, brother of deceased Geetika Sharma in various functions, which she had attended where brother of deceased Geetika Sharma also participated in the same. She further admitted that on 28.04.2012, she, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma were present at Coco House, Gurgaon to celebrate birthday of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha where PW12 Ankit Sharma was also present and she identified photograph Mark 14/DA in this regard. She also identified photograph Mark X-7 which is of PW14 Ms.Khushboo, her husband, deceased Geetika Sharma, accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and PW12 Ankit Sharma and she further deposed that these SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 178/189 PS: Bharat Nagar photographs were taken on the birthday of deceased Geetika Sharma. The deposition of PW14 Khushboo is further corroborated by PW17 Aditya Mangla, who had deposed in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda regarding the celebration of birthday of deceased Geetika Sharma on 13.12.2011 at Lodhi Hotel at Lodhi Road and regarding celebration of birthday of daughter of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on 28.04.2012, which he attended with his wife and deceased Geetika Sharma. PW17 Aditya Mangla deposed that on 02.07.2012, on the occasion of birthday of his wife, a party was held at Garden of Five Senses, which was attended by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, testimony of PW14 Khushboo and PW17 Aditya Mangla had proved on record the details of functions alongwith their date which deceased Geetika Sharma had attended alongwith her brother PW12 Ankit Sharma, about which he had expressed his ignorance. Therefore, it has come on record that deceased Geetika Sharma was socializing with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha alongwith her brother as late as 02.07.2012 by attending the birthday of PW14 Khushboo.
336. In the light of aforementioned facts, which have come on record, it is difficult to believe that accused persons were harassing deceased Geetika Sharma from 2006 till June, 2012. The testimony of PW12 Ankit Sharma and PW13 Dinesh Sharma that deceased Geetika SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 179/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Sharma used to become tense after receiving call from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and deceased Geetika Sharma had told to accused A-2 Aruna Chadha on one occasion, not to talk to her, does not inspire any kind of confidence in the light of aforementioned facts showing that deceased Geetika Sharma was friendly with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and used to socialize with her by attending parties in different restaurants. Further, if deceased Geetika Sharma used to become tense or stressed due to receipt of call from accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, then there was no reason for deceased Geetika Sharma to have rejoined the company of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in January, 2011 or to continue with the activities of school, post resigning in December, 2011 or in accepting sponsorship of fees for her MBA programme in June, 2012 or accompanying accused to Singapore. Any sane and prudent person would not socialize or take benefits or favours from the very person, who creates stress and tension in his/her life. The act of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in appointing deceased Geetika Sharma as Director, the President of Sundale Educational Society, providing her BMW car, sponsoring for her MBA Course and taking her alongwith him to Singapore, can by no stretch of imagination be treated as an act of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda by which he wanted to create circumstances for deceased Geetika Sharma wherein she had no option but to commit suicide.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 180/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
337. Now, the next question arises as to why so many favours were being extended to deceased Geetika Sharma by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda even though deceased Geetika Sharma at the time of joining MDLR Group in 2006 was only 12th class pass and was not having any kind of experience in the field of Aviation or in Hospitality Industry and even when the family of deceased Geetika Sharma was not related to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda in any manner. The testimony of PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal provides the reason and throws light on the kind of relationship that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was having with deceased Geetika Sharma. PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal has deposed on oath that he was known to accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and has admitted of sending two SMS to deceased Geetika Sharma on 29.07.2010, when she was employed with Emirates Airlines, Dubai and the same were Ex.PW48/A.
338. To understand the nature of SMS sent by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal, the two SMS dated 29.07.2010 Ex.PW48/A are being reproduced hereinbelow: --
" Madam, Extremely sorry to say that you r ruining and spoiling the life of my beloved brother GG. He doesn't have any interest in anything. Only talks about u.. He cannot sleep without sleeping pills. He is ready to leave everything including power, money, assets, relatives nears and dears. I humbly request with folded hands wat you need to resolve and leave him.. U r intelligent enough to understand.. Thanks..Sanjay Bansal.."
"I am extremely sorry if I hurt u and ur sentiments. I didn't mean this. With ur permission can v meet SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 181/189 PS: Bharat Nagar and resolve everything?? I think there is some misunderstanding. GG doesn't have the courage to speak wrong and ill against u or ur near and dears. Am talking neutral. I think on meeting v can resolve everything once and for all.. Not possible to resolve thru messages.. Hope u too would appreciate my approach.. Waiting for ur reply.."
339. From the aforesaid messages, it is amply clear that the said messages were sent by PW48 Sh.Sanjay Bansal on behalf of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda to apprise deceased Geetika Sharma regarding the emotional condition of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda due to her absence.
340. From the aforesaid SMS Ex.PW48/A, it can be inferred that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda was attracted to deceased Geetika Sharma and this might be the reason for accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda and accused A-2 Aruna Chadha traveling to Dubai to request her to rejoin MDLR, otherwise there was no reason as to why CMD of a Company, who was owner of an Airline and had interest in Hotels in Goa and Gurgaon, would travel to Dubai to request a Cabin Crew employee i.e. deceased Geetika Sharma to return to his company. The other benefits, which accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda had given to deceased Geetika Sharma, in the form of making her Director, providing her BMW car, Sponsoring her fee for MBA course, taking her alongwith him to Singapore, making her President of Sundale Educational Society, even though deceased Geetika Sharma had no experience in the SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 182/189 PS: Bharat Nagar running of school, proves that said benefits were given by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda due to his liking or attraction towards deceased Geetika Sharma. Therefore, it cannot be believed that accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda, who due to his attraction towards deceased Geetika Sharma, was providing her with so many favours and benefits would have mens rea to create such circumstances for deceased Geetika Sharma wherein she had no option but to commit suicide or he by his conduct, direct or indirect, had instigated deceased Geetika Sharma to commit suicide.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
341. There are other circumstances, which create doubt in the prosecution case.
342. It was the defence of accused persons that deceased Geetika Sharma had not travelled to Mumbai on 03.08.2012 with her cousin PW11 Gaurav Sharma and had stayed in the night in Mumbai with some other person with whom she had physical relations and when this fact came to be known to her parents, it led to a quarrel on her return from Mumbai and, therefore, deceased Geetika Sharma had committed suicide. The said defence was suggested to PW12 Ankit Sharma in his cross examination by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda. However, PW12 Ankit Sharma denied about the same.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 183/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
343. However, the evidence, which has come on record of PW11 Gaurav Sharma, who was the cousin of deceased Geetika Sharma, supports the defence of accused persons on preponderance of probabilities. Although PW11 Gaurav Sharma has deposed regarding traveling by air with deceased Geetika Sharma in the morning of 03.08.2012 to Mumbai and he had further deposed that they had return flight to catch on 03.08.2012 at 8.30 p.m., which was missed by them due to continuous conversation of deceased Geetika Sharma with PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia. However, the said deposition of PW11 Gaurav Sharma does not inspire any kind of confidence in the light of his previous statement Ex.PW1/DA where no such statement was made and in the light of ticket Ex.P-1 and non- production of boarding pass with regard to return flight on 03.08.2012 at 8.30 p.m.
344. The ticket Ex.P-1 is only of deceased Geetika Sharma showing departure at 7.05 a.m. from Delhi to Mumbai in the morning of 03.08.2012 and return in the morning of 04.08.2012 to Delhi at 8.05 a.m. The ticket Ex.P-1 does not reflect any return flight at 8.30 p.m. and neither name of PW11 Gaurav Sharma is mentioned on the said ticket being a co-passenger of deceased Geetika Sharma either in the departure flight of 03.08.2012 from Delhi or on the arrival flight on 04.08.2012 in the morning to Delhi. Further, PW11 Gaurav Sharma has deposed on oath that they were waiting in the waiting area of Mumbai SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 184/189 PS: Bharat Nagar Airport when PW18 Sh.Ankit Ahluwalia had called to catch the return flight. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that to get into waiting lounge at the airport, one requires a boarding pass. However, neither boarding pass nor return ticket of 8.30 p.m. on 03.08.2012 has been produced on record to lend credence to the testimony of PW11 Gaurav Sharma.
345. Further, PW12 Ankit Sharma has deposed on oath that deceased Geetika Sharma had not stayed with him on the night of 03.08.2012 in Mumbai. Therefore, from the evidence which has come on record, it is difficult to believe that PW11 Gaurav Sharma had accompanied deceased Geetika Sharma to Mumbai or had stayed with her at Mumbai Airport on the night of 03.08.2012, due to missing of the flight. Therefore, deceased Geetika Sharma might have stayed with some other person in Mumbai, which prosecution witnesses were trying to cover up by deposing that deceased Geetika Sharma had spent the night at the Airport on 03.08.2012.
346. Further, the fact of deceased Geetika Sharma having some kind of physical relations prior to her death finds co- orboration from the post mortem report Ex.PW1/B of deceased Geetika Sharma. PW1 Dr.Sreeniwas M., who was the Chairman of the Medical Board, which conducted the post mortem on deceased Geetika Sharma, had in the cross examination, expressed the possibility that observation made in post mortem report Ex.PW1/B at SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 185/189 PS: Bharat Nagar point "Z to Z1" regarding inflammation having reddened base in the vaginal orifice might be due to sexual act or by insertion of any object and observation made from point "Z2 to Z3" regarding a healing mucosal tear sized about 0.6 cm. X 0.4 cm. with area of reddening at the posterior part of anal orifice is suggestive of the fact that deceased Geetika Sharma might have undergone anal intercourse. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 Dr.Sreeniwas M., post mortem report of deceased Geetika Sharma Ex.PW1/B and having regard to the fact that testimony of PW11 Gaurav Sharma regarding he staying with deceased Geetika Sharma at Mumbai Airport on the night of 03.08.2012, is not believable, there is a strong possibility that deceased Geetika Sharma might have stayed in Mumbai with some other person and had physical relations with him during her stay in Mumbai on the night of 03.08.2012.
347. Further, it has come on record that deceased Geetika Sharma was friendly with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and used to socialize with her. The friendship of deceased Geetika Sharma with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha was not a casual one, as deceased Geetika Sharma used to share with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha her personal secrets. In this context, testimony of PW36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal is relevant. It has come in the evidence of PW36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal that in the month of March, 2012, deceased Geetika Sharma had come to her clinic on reference made SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 186/189 PS: Bharat Nagar by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha for the purpose of abortion as deceased Geetika Sharma was unmarried. Nothing was brought out in the cross examination of PW36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal to doubt her testimony. From the testimony of PW36 Dr.Vishakha Munjal, it is proved on record that deceased Geetika Sharma trusted accused A-2 Aruna Chadha to this extent that she had shared about her pregnancy with accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and had sought her help in getting the same aborted. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that accused A-2 Aruna Chadha might be knowing about the person, who was having physical relations with deceased Geetika Sharma. The possibility of accused A-2 Aruna Chadha and of accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda disclosing this fact to the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma in a telephonic conversation on 03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012 respectively, being the well wishers of the family or out of jealousy, which led to a quarrel between the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma and deceased Geetika Sharma on her return from Mumbai on 04.08.2012 and thereafter, deceased Geetika Sharma committed suicide, cannot be ruled out.
348. The regret expressed by deceased Geetika Sharma in suicide note Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C that she made a big mistake in her life by trusting accused persons might be in reference to accused persons breaking her trust by sharing about her abortion and her night out on 03.08.2012 in Mumbai.
SC No. 06/2019FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 187/189 PS: Bharat Nagar
349. It has also come in the cross examination of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar by accused A-1 Gopal Goyal Kanda that as per the Call Detail Record Ex.PW49/A (colly) of deceased Geetika Sharma, around 06 calls were exchanged from the mobile number of deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 out of which three calls were that of her brother Ankit and regarding remaining three calls, no investigation was made by him. It was imperative for the IO to have investigated those three calls, out of which two calls were from same mobile number i.e. 9999497292 of duration of 192 and 155 seconds respectively, which were received by deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 as they were made prior to her death and could have thrown some light on deceased Geetika Sharma committing suicide. The possibility of some person known to deceased Geetika Sharma calling deceased Geetika Sharma on 04.08.2012 and instigating her, due to which she committed suicide, also cannot be ruled out.
350. It has also come in the cross examination of IO PW65 Inspector Dinesh Kumar by accused A-2 Aruna Chadha that as per Ex.PW51/D (Annexure "A"), mother of deceased Geetika Sharma had made calls to her deceased daughter in the morning of 05.08.2012 between 2.18.50 a.m. to 2.31.47 a.m. The father of deceased Geetika Sharma i.e. PW13 Dinesh Sharma, who was present in the house, had not disclosed about these calls made by mother SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 188/189 PS: Bharat Nagar of deceased Geetika Sharma and the reason for making the same. It is quite unusual for the mother of deceased Geetika Sharma to have made telephonic calls to her deceased daughter in the dead of night of 04.08.2012 / 05.08.2012 when deceased Geetika Sharma was sleeping in the adjacent room and possibility of mother of deceased Geetika Sharma inquiring about the well being of deceased daughter due to previous quarrel, cannot be ruled out.
351. In the light of aforementioned discussion, prosecution has failed to prove offence under Section 306 read with 120-B IPC that accused persons pursuant to criminal conspiracy, had created such circumstances as mentioned at serial nos. (a) to (y) of order on charge dated 10.05.2013 due to which deceased Geetika Sharma had no option but to commit suicide and the possibility of deceased Geetika Sharma committing suicide due to other reasons, as discussed hereinabove also cannot be ruled out.
352. In the light of aforementioned discussion, none of the charges framed against accused persons have been proved on record. Accordingly, both accused persons are acquitted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w 466/471/468/469 IPC and 66 IT Act, 2000 and under Section 306 r/w 120-B IPC.
Announced in the open court Dated: 25.07.2023 (Vikas Dhull) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-23 (MPs/MLAs Cases), RADC, New Delhi SC No. 06/2019 FIR No.178/2012 Gopal Goyal Kanda and ors. 189/189 PS: Bharat Nagar