Delhi District Court
) Momin Iqbal vs State on 20 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 03/01/11
Unique Identification No. 02404R0910672003
State
Versus
Momin Iqbal
Son of Sh. Mohd. Iqbal
R/o A9/12, Sector18,
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 359/03
PS - Samay Pur Badli
U/s. 498A/304B of IPC
Date of Decision: 19/09/2012
Date of order on sentence:20/09/2012
ORDER ON SENTENCE
20/09/2012
Present. Ld. APP for State.
Convict Momin Iqbal from J.C. with counsel Sh. R.P. Khatana.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Momin Iqbal is aged
about 42 years and was running as shoe shop. He has two sons aged about 9½ years
and 10½ years and both are school going. Ld defence counsel has further submitted
that since the death of his wife, convict has looked after both of his children, who
were 7 months and 1¾ of age, at the time of incident. Convict has aged mother of
79 years. It is further contended that convict is the sole earning member of his family
SC No. 03/01/11 1
and has to look after two minor children and his aged mother. It is further contended
that the act of convict is not so heinous to award maximum sentence as provided,
hence the lenient view may be taken.
On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that offences u/s 498A and
304B of IPC have been proved against the convict, hence appropriate sentence be
awarded.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case with the age,
antecedent and character of the accused. He is not a previous convict nor habitual
offender and has faced trial of this case since 2003. Convict has remained in custody
from 02/08/2003 till 07/01/2004 and from 19/09/2012 till today, in this case and he
also removed his wife to hospital immediately after she had consumed poison, hence
considering the conduct also of convict, a lenient view is taken.
Offence U/s. 498A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment, which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of three years SI is imposed upon convict
U/s. 498A of IPC and fine to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs is also imposed upon convict
In default of payment of compensation, convict shall further undergo SI for
nine months.
Offence u/s 304B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less then seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
Accordingly, sentence of seven years SI is imposed upon convict u/s
304B of IPC.
Whole of the fine as imposed of Rs.3 lacs is awarded as
compensation to the complainant, if deposited and no appeal is preferred
within the period of limitation.
SC No. 03/01/11 2
Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to convict according to his
custody period as mentioned above.
Convict is remanded to JC to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open court
On 20th of September, 2012
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track court, Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 03/01/11 3
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 03/01/11
Unique Identification No. 02404R0910672003
State
Versus
1) Momin Iqbal
Son of Sh. Mohd. Iqbal
R/o A9/12, Sector18,
Rohini, Delhi.
2) Akbari
W/o Sh. Iqbal Khan
R/o A9/12, Sector18,
Rohini, Delhi.
3) Rasid Ali Khan
Son of Sh. Bashir Ali Khan
R/o A2/17, Sector18,
Rohini, Delhi.
4) Sajida
W/o Rasid Ali Khan
R/o A2/17, Sector18,
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 359/03
PS - Samay Pur Badli
U/s. 498A/304B/406/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 29/10/2003
Arguments heard on: 23/08/2012
Date of reservation of order: 23/08/2012
Date of Decision: 19/09/2012
SC No. 03/01/11 4
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Mohd. Umar recorded on 02/08/2003 U/s. 498A/304B of IPC.
During investigation, copies of DD entries were collected. Dying declaration was recorded by the second IO, who reached after receipt of DD entry at the spot. Copy of FIR was collected. Rough site plan was prepared.
One cloth of black colour was seized from the house of the deceased. Stomach wash and blood sample from the doctor were also taken into possession. Viscera and sample seal were also taken into possession.
Photo, marriage card and photocopy of Nikahnama were collected. MLC of deceased was also taken into possession.
Crime team report was obtained. Death report was collected. Dead body identification statements of Mohd. Umar and Khurshid Ahmed were recorded. Memo of handing over of dead body was also collected. Interrogation memo regarding dowry articles was also prepared.
Accused Momin Iqbal was arrested in this case on 02/08/2003. His personal search was conducted. List of dowry articles was taken into possession. CFSL report was obtained.
Accused Akbari, Sajida Begum and Rashid Ali Khan were admitted to anticipatory bail, so, they were formally arrested in this case and supplementary chargesheet was filed against them.
Case was committed to the Court of Session on 04/12/2003 and was received on 13/12/2003.
On 08/12/2004, charge U/s. 498A of IPC, U/s. 302/34 of IPC and U/s. 304B/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW26 in all. SC No. 03/01/11 5 On completion of evidence of prosecution, statements of all the accused persons were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution and have claimed false implication.
Accused Akbari has pleaded that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by family members of deceased due to death of Shabnam.
Accused Rashid Ali Khan has come forward with the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by family members of deceased due to death of Shabnam. As a matter of fact, on the day of incident, he had gone to his office at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning and was present in his office. At about 5.30 p.m., his wife telephonically informed him at his office situated at CGO Complex, New Delhi about the incident. He returned at about 7.15 p.m. and they both immediately went to Ambedkar Hospital. On reaching there at about 7.30 p.m., they saw deceased Shabnam in semi unconscious condition. Her father and maternal uncle arrived in the hospital at about 9.30 p.m. and they created mayhem there, therefore, out of fear of being harmed, he alongwith his wife returned to their home. In fact, prior to the marriage of Shabnam with Momin Iqbal, his niece,namely, Sajida was married to PW Furman in the year 1996 and she is still living with her husband and having four children.
Accused Sajida Begum has pleaded that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by family members of deceased due to death of Shabnam. As a matter of fact, on the day of incident, she had gone to attend her school, where she is working as Teacher and returned from there at about 3.30 p.m. to her house. After sometime, her both children returned from their respective schools. After giving them food, she was relaxing in her house. At about 5.30 p.m., somebody came to her house and informed her that Shabnam was making noise at her home. Since maid was working in her house, so after completion of her work, when she reached at the house of her brother Momin Iqbal, she came to know that Shabnam had been removed by her brother to the hospital in his own car for treatment. She SC No. 03/01/11 6 returned back to her house and informed her husband telephonically at his office situated at CGO complex, New Delhi about the incident. He returned at about 7.15 p.m. and they both immediately went to Ambedkar Hospital. On reaching there at about 7.30 p.m., they saw deceased Shabnam in semi unconscious condition. Her father and maternal uncle arrived in the hospital at about 9.30 p.m. and they created mayhem there, therefore, out of fear of being harmed, she alongwith her husband returned to their house.
Accused Momin Iqbal has pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by family members of deceased due to death of Shabnam.
In defence, DW1 Vinod Kumar Sharma and DW2 Sunil Kumar Gupta were examined on behalf of accused Rashid Ali. DW3 Moinuddin was examined on behalf of accused Momin Iqbal.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for the State, learned counsel Sh. Dhirender Singh for accused Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida Begum and Sh. R.P. Khatana, counsel for accused Momin Iqbal and Akbari and have gone through the evidence brought on record with material produced. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the complainant and accused persons. Finding qua offence U/s. 498A of IPC:
To prove this offence, PW3 Mohd. Umar, PW6 Mohd. Farman, PW12 Rashid Ahmed, PW13 Wasi Ahmed, PW17 Azam Ali, PW23 Smt. Vimlesh and PW26 Saida Begum have been examined.
PW3 Mohd. Umar is father of deceased Shabnam. He has stated that Shabnam was married to accused Momin Iqbal on 14/02/2000. After the marriage, his daughter started living at her matrimonial house in Sector18, Rohini, Delhi. At that time, accused Momin Iqbal, his father Mohd. Iqbal and his mother Akbari used to reside in the same house together. Accused Rashid SC No. 03/01/11 7 Ali and his wife Sajida used to reside in a house situated at a distance of about 200 yards from the matrimonial house of his daughter.
PW3 Mohd. Umar has further deposed that within a year of marriage of his daughter, Mohd. Iqbal left this world. Thereafter, all the four accused persons started demanding dowry. Accused Momin Iqbal demanded Rs. 2 lacs from him as he wanted to start business of shoes in a showroom on the main road. Prior to that, accused Momin Iqbal used to do the same business in the street. He fulfilled this demand by paying Rs. 2 lacs to accused Momin Iqbal. Even thereafter, all the accused persons used to harass his daughter. Accused Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida also used to come to the matrimonial house in the morning and in the evening.
PW3 Mohd. Umar has further deposed that in the first week of June, 2003, his daughter came to his house. At that time, she lived with them for 14 days. During this period of 14 days, she narrated the incidents of harassment at the hands of accused persons. PW3 Mohd. Umar has further deposed that accused Momin Iqbal was demanding Rs. 2 lacs more. His daughter also told that demand was put forth by her husband in presence of other three accused persons. He visited the matrimonial house of his daughter and met with all the accused persons. He showed his inability to pay the amount. At that time, all the four accused persons persisted that he should pay Rs. 2 lacs in any situation. Since he could not sell his land, so, he could not arrange this much amount as a result, all the four accused persons showed their unhappiness with him.
PW3 Mohd. Umar has further deposed that as and when he visited at the matrimonial house of his daughter, all the four accused persons used to insult him. Accused Momin Iqbal and Akbari did not like the meals cooked by his daughter and as such, she used to cook meals separately. Accused Akbari SC No. 03/01/11 8 even did not allow his daughter to talk with her husbandaccused Momin Iqbal. PW3 Mohd. Umar has further deposed that after the stay of 14 days of his daughter in June, 2003 at his house, accused Momin Iqbal, Rashid and Sajida came to his house and took his daughter to her matrimonial house.
PW6 Mohd. Farman is brother of deceased Shabnam. He has also deposed the same facts and has stated that after the marriage, all the accused persons started harassing his sister on account of dowry. Some days after the marriage of his sister, they demanded Rs. 2 lacs from his father Mohd. Umar and his father met with this demand of Rs. 2 lacs by paying the same to accused Momin Iqbal in June, 2001, after having borrowed some of the amount from his uncle and others and some amount from the harvest money.
PW6 Mohd. Farman has further deposed that thereafter, all the accused persons harassed his sister even to a greater extent and all of them started giving her beatings, as a result, his sister came to her parental house at Dadri and stayed with them for about 15 days. All the accused persons except Akbari came to their house and brought back his sister to her matrimonial house but even thereafter, all the accused persons illtreated his sister and insulted her and even gave her beatings and put forth fresh demand of Rs. 2 lacs before his father but his father could not meet with this demand as he was not having any money.
PW12 Rashid Ahmed is maternal uncle of deceased Shabnam. He has stated that his sister Sahida Begum had told him that Shabnam was not settled and was being harassed by her husband and her inlaws for demand of dowry and once, Rs. 2 lacs were given to accused Momin Iqbal by his brother in law PW3 Mohd. Umar to open a showroom of shoes.
PW12 Rashid Ahmed has further deposed that once, he alongwith SC No. 03/01/11 9 his brother in law PW3 Mohd. Umar visited the inlaws house of Shabnam at Rohini and Shabnam told that she was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry as the same was not being fulfilled. Shabnam also told that the money given to open the showroom of shoes was short and more money was being demanded. They made them understand and this dispute had gone for 23 days.
PW13 Wasi Ahmed is also maternal uncle of deceased Shabnam. He has stated that after the marriage, there was nothing unusual. He did not come to know anything unusual from his sister Saida about Shabnam. As PW13 Wasi Ahmed did not support the case of the prosecution, so, was cross examined by learned Addl. PP, wherein he has admitted that his sister Sajida had told him that Shabnam was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry and was being beaten by them and PW3 Mohd. Umar had given Rs. 2 lacs one year before the incident and due to harassment of the accused persons, Shabnam had resided in her parental house for some days.
PW17 is Azam Ali. He is neighbour of one Khurshid Ahmed and deceased Shabnam was niece of Khurshid Ahmed. So, he used to visit his house and she also used to visit the house of PW17 Azam Ali. PW17 has further deposed that one day, when Shabnam came to their house, she was looking upset and told that she was being harassed by her inlaws, who were asking to bring something from her parental house and her husband used to deal in shoes. Deceased Shabnam had further told him that her inlaws were demanding money as her parents are rich persons.
PW23 is Smt. Vimlesh. She has stated that she is running a milk dairy in the neighbourhood of PW3 Mohd. Umar, who used to purchase milk from her dairy. Children of Mohd. Umar used to visit her dairy to take milk. SC No. 03/01/11 10 His daughter Shabnam also used to come and take milk from their dairy. PW23 has further deposed that one day, when Shabnam came to her dairy to buy milk, at that time, she was looking perturbed. She asked her what was the reason, at which, Shabnam started weeping and told that she was being harassed by her inlaws and they used to beat her for dowry and threw her out of her house. Shabnam further told that her husband wanted to divorce her. PW23 Smt. Vimlesh asked her to tell these facts to her parents. Shabnam further told that she did not make any complaint to her parents because her husband was saying that if she will make complaint at her house, then he will divorce her. Shabnam told these facts to her, when she came to her parental house before her death.
PW26 Saida Begum is mother of deceased Shabnam. She has stated that inlaws of Shabnam used to torture her, tease her and used to demand more money and dowry. Her inlaws i.e. accused persons used to beat her for bringing insufficient dowry. Accused persons had also demanded Rs. 2 lacs for opening shoe showroom and the same was given to them. However, accused persons continued to torture her and used to demand money. Her Nandoi accused Rashid Ali Khan and her husband accused Momin Iqbal came to take her from their house. After the birth of second son, accused persons demanded Rs. 2 las as they wanted to make a big showroom and this fact was told to her by her daughter, which she further disclosed to her husband. At that time, they did not pay Rs. 2 lacs , as demanded, because they were not having such arrangement.
PW26 has further deposed that on 31/07/2003, Shabnam telephonically informed her by saying that she be called to her parental house, otherwise she will be killed by the accused persons but they made her SC No. 03/01/11 11 understand that her matrimonial house was her house and she should live there and now, it was her only house.
PW26 Saida Begum has also resiled from her earlier statement, so, has been cross examined by Ld. APP, wherein, she has admitted that Nanad of Shabnam had taken her mother Akbari under her influence with intent to take money and other articles from her mother. She has further admitted that Nanad of Shabnam wanted to grab the property of her mother and for this reason, Nanad of her daughter used to provoke her mother and brother against Shabnam and used to abuse Shabnam. PW26 has further admitted that under the influence of Nanad of Shabnam, her mother in law and her husband used to harass her and even they were not eating the food used to be prepared by Shabnam. She has further admitted that Shabnam was asked to sleep in a separate room and was not allowed to go outside the house.
From the depositions of these witnesses, what has emerged is that Shabnam was being harassed and tortured by the accused persons. Once, Rs. 2 lacs were demanded and were given to accused Momin Iqbal for opening a big showroom of shoes and again, demand of Rs. 2 lacs was put forth, which was not fulfilled. It has also emerged that Shabnam was cooking her meals separately and even was sleeping in a separate room.
According to the witnesses i.e. PW3 Mohd. Umar and PW6 Mohd. Farman, father and brother of deceased, Shabnam stayed at her parental house for about 15 days and was taken back by accused Momin Iqbal, Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida Begum. The witnesses have stated that she stayed in her parental house due to harassment and cruelty caused by the accused persons, whereas the plea of the accused persons is that PW6 Mohd. Farman was blessed with a son after a quite long time, so, on that occasion, Shabnam had SC No. 03/01/11 12 visited her parental house.
It is admitted fact that Shabnam was married on 14/02/2000 and she expired on 01/08/2003 and during this period, she visited her parental house only for these 15 days. During the period of marriage, she gave birth to two children.
Learned defence counsels have contended that the witnesses have not corroborated as to when demand of Rs. 2 lacs was raised and by whom and further when it was fulfilled and to whom the money was paid, so, they are not inspiring any confidence. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even witnesses have not corroborated each other as to whether fresh demand of Rs. 2 lacs was raised or not. Even it is not corroborated whether to make understand the accuse persons regarding fresh demand, PW3 Mohd. Umar visited the matrimonial house of his daughter alone or was accompanied by PW12 Rashid Ahmed. Learned defence counsels have further contended that PW3 Mohd, Umar is father of the deceased, PW6 Mohd. Farman is brother of deceased, PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed are maternal uncles of deceased and PW26 Saida Begum is mother of deceased, so they are interested witnesses, hence, cannot be relied upon in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW3 Mohd. Umar has stated in the cross examination that during the matrimonial life of Shabnam, no Panchayat or biradari meeting was ever held, which shows that there was no such dispute, as alleged, regarding the demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty and harassment at any time.
In my view, PW3 Mohd. Umar has again affirmed in the cross examination that he had paid Rs. 2 lacs to accused Momin Iqbal, as stated by him in his examination in chief, from his own savings/earnings/borrowings SC No. 03/01/11 13 from his relatives. The amount of Rs. 2 lacs paid by PW3 Mohd. Umar if not reflecting in the statement of bank account, is of no consequence because such payments never reflect in the bank account or income tax returns, so the contentions of learned defence counsel to this effect are not forceful.
It is admitted fact that during the period of marriage, deceased Shabnam only visited once to her parental house in June, 2003 and not in between.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW3 Mohd. Umar has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW3 /A, wherein the demand of Rs. two lacs is mentioned but the fact that deceased had told that accused Momin Iqbal was demanding the same, is missing. The witness has been further confronted with the fact as to whether at the time of second demand of Rs. 2 lacs, he had gone to the house of his daughter and met with the accused persons and showed them his inability to pay any amount. It is mentioned only about his inability to pay the amount in Ex. PW3/A. PW3 Mohd. Umar has also been confronted with the fact that the accused persons still persisted that he should have to pay the sum of Rs. two lacs in any situation, which is not appearing in his statement Ex. PW3/A. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Mohd. Farman, brother of deceased Shabnam, has admitted in the cross examination that his sister Shabnam had visited his house for 15 days on the occasion of birth of his son, which shows that there was no demand of dowry, on account of which, she was treated with cruelty and harassment and because of that, she stayed in her parental house for 15 days and was brought back by accused Momin Iqbal, Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida Begum. According to cross examination of PW6 Mohd. Farman, the money was demanded in his presence SC No. 03/01/11 14 also but it was after one year of the marriage.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW12 Rashid Ahmed, whatever he is knowing about the demand of Rs. 2 lacs, which was given to accused Momin Iqbal by PW3 Mohd. Umar, was told to him by his brother in law, so, the same is hearsay, hence, PW12 Rashid Ahmed cannot be relied upon in this respect.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rashid Ahmed has stated that he alongwith his brother in law PW3 Mohd. Umar visited the inlaws house of Shabnam at Rohini. Shabnam told him that she was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry as the same was not being fulfilled. Shabnam also told that the money given to open the showroom of shoes was short and more money was being demanded. They made them understand and this dispute had gone for 23 days has not been corroborated by PW3 Mohd. Umar in any manner that during his visit, Shabnam had told him about the demand of dowry and further that he was accompanied by PW12 Rashid Ahmed. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rashid Ahmed has been confronted with this fact with his previous statement Ex. PW3/A, wherein this fact is not appearing except that he had shown his inability to pay the second demand amount, so PW12 Rashid Ahmed cannot be relied upon in this respect.
PW13 Wasi Ahmed has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that after the marriage, there was nothing unusual. He did not come to know anything unusual from his sister Saida about Shabnam. But in the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, he has admitted that his brother in law PW3 Mohd. Umar had given Rs. two lacs one year before the incident and due to harassment of the accused persons, Shabnam had resided in SC No. 03/01/11 15 her parental house for some days.
Learned defence counsel has contended that this fact of staying of Shabnam due to harassment in her parental house for some days is not corroborated by PW6 Mohd. Farman, brother of deceased Shabnam, who had told that Shabnam had visited his house at the time, when his wife gave birth to a child, which shows that the witnesses have exaggerated the facts to falsely implicate the accused persons and the improvement made by them are material, so they cannot be relied upon.
It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that Shabnam used to cook her food separately. Her husband did not use to eat the same, which shows that she was not having cordial relations with her mother in law, which shows that she was being treated with cruelty and harassment and due to this reason, she was cooking her meals separately.
PW17 Azam Ali is neighbour of Khurshid Ahmed. Khurshid Ahmed has not been examined as a witness in this case. PW17 Azam Ali has stated that one day, when Shabnam came to their house, she was looking upset and she told that she was being harassed by her inlaws i.e. accused persons, who were asking to bring something from her parental house. Shabnam further told that her inlaws were demanding money as her parents are rich persons.
None of the witness i.e. PW3 Mohd. Umar, PW6 Mohd. Farman, PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed alongwith PW26 Saida Begum has deposed that Shabnam used to visit the house of Khurshid Ahmed and further used to visit house of PW17 Azam Ali. Shabnam had visited her parental house for 15 days only during three years of marriage, so it does not seems to be quite probable that she used to visit the house of Khurshid Ahmed and further house of PW17 Azam Ali.
SC No. 03/01/11 16
PW12 Rashid Ahmed, maternal uncle of deceased Shabnam, has nowhere deposed that Shabnam ever visited his house. PW12 Rashid Ahmed is residing in Delhi, so, his house could be easily visited by deceased Shabnam, if she was having any visiting terms with her maternal uncle. Similarly, PW13 Wasi Ahmed, another maternal uncle of deceased Shabnam, has also not deposed that Shabnam had visited his house at any time. Both PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed are resident of Azad Market. PW17 Azam Ali is also resident of Azad Market. If Shabnam was not visiting the house of her maternal uncles, then how it could be possible that she used to visit the house of Khurshid Ahmed and further house of PW17 Azam Ali, hence, PW17 cannot be relied upon in any manner.
Another witness is PW23 Smt. Vimlesh. She has stated that one day, Shabnam came to her dairy to purchase milk and at that time, she was looking perturbed. She asked her what was the reason, at which, Shabnam started weeping and told that her inlaws were harassing her and used to beat her for dowry and threw her out of her house. Shabnam further told that her husband wanted to divorce her. She asked her to tell these facts to her parents, at which, Shabnam further told that she did not make any complaint to her parents because her husband was saying that if she will make complaint at her house, then he will divorce her. PW23 Smt. Vimlesh has further deposed that Shabnam had told these facts to her, when she came to her parental house before her death.
It is admitted fact that Shabnam had visited her parental house for 1520 days before her death and further it seems to be plausible that she was having fear of divorce, so, she did not disclose the facts of cruelty and harassment caused by her inlaws. In the cross examination, PW23 Smt. SC No. 03/01/11 17 Vimlesh has stated that Shabnam might have stayed for 1520 days, when she came on the occasion of birth of a son to her brother PW6 Mohd. Farman. Merely that she did not disclose the cruelty and harassment caused to her by her inlaws to her father PW3 Mohd. Umar does not mean that PW23 Smt. Vimlesh has deposed falsely before the Court. She is an independent witness and at times, a neighbour or an independent person does not want to involve in the dispute of other persons because such involvement may further endanger the situation. Fear of Shabnam regarding divorce also seems to be plausible. So, under such circumstances, she might have kept mum about her sufferings caused by her husband.
PW26 Saida Begum has also stated that accused persons used to beat Shabnam for bringing insufficient dowry. Accused persons also demanded Rs. 2 lacs for opening the show showroom and the same were given to them. Accuse persons used to torture her and used to demand money. She has also deposed about the second demand of Rs. two lacs She has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP, wherein she has admitted the case of the prosecution. She has disclosed certain new facts that accused Sajida Begum had taken her motheraccused Akbari under her influence with intent to take money and other articles from her mother and further, she wanted to grab the property of her mother and brother and for this purpose, she used to provoke her mother and brother against Shabnam and used to abuse Shabnam. These facts have not been disclosed by other witnesses i.e.PW3 Mohd. Umar, PW6 Mohd. Farman, PW12 Rashid Ahmed, PW13 Wasi Ahmed and PW17 Azam Ali. Even these facts were not told by Shabnam to PW23 Smt. Vimlesh, so, PW26 Saida Begum is not inspiring any confidence in this respect.
SC No. 03/01/11 18
PW26 Saida Begum has also admitted that Shabnam had also visited their house for 1415 days on the occasion of birth of a son to her son PW6 Mohd. Farman, who was born after the birth of two daughters and further that the money was given to accused Momin Iqbal from the sale of wheat, which corroborated with the depositions of other witnesses.
Regarding the relations of accused Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida begum, all the witnesses have deposed differently. It has come in the evidence that both these accused persons were residing separately away from the house of accused Momin Iqbal, so, it seems to be improbable and difficult to accept that accused Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida Begum were having any reason to demand dowry, on which account, they used to harass and treat Shabnam with cruelty before her death. As deposed by the witnesses, Rs. two lacs were given to accused Momin Iqbal to open a showroom of shoes and further another demand of Rs. 2 lacs was raised for showroom, which was not fulfilled.
In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has relied upon 2010 [3] JCC 2343 titled as Budh Ram @ Pappu & Ors. V. State, wherein it has been held that when the evidence of the parents of deceased pertaining to dowry demand of cruelty caused to the deceased is unreliable and there is no other evidence to suggest that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, then the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.
On the other hand, learned APP assisted by counsel for complainant has relied upon AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3708 titled as Undavali Narayana Rao V. State of A.P., wherein it has been held that if circumstances show that relations between husband and wife are not cordial and appellant wanted deceased to dispose of the property and compelled the deceased to fetch more SC No. 03/01/11 19 money from her parents, then evidence of independent witnesses proved that deceased was harassed and forced thereby forcing her to commit suicide.
Learned Addl. PP assisted by counsel for complainant has further relied upon AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2839 titled as Ashok Kumar V. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held that words "soon before her death" are an expression of human behaviour and same cannot be given restricted meaning and concept of reasonable period would be applicable.
From the deposition of PW3 Mohd. Umar, father of deceased, prosecution has been able to prove that demand of Rs. 2 lacs was raised for shoe showroom, which were paid and again further demand of Rs. 2 lacs was raised, to which, PW3 Mohd. Umar had shown his inability to pay. The testimony of PW3 Mohd. Umar, father of deceased, is inspiring confidence in this respect and nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his deposition. PW3 Mohd. Umar has specifically stated that he had paid Rs. 2 lacs to accused Momin Iqbal.
It has also come on record that deceased was cooking meals separately, which was not being eaten by her husband accused Momin Iqbal, which shows that relations between deceased and accused Momin Iqbal were not cordial. It has also been deposed by other witnesses that Rs. 2 lacs were given to accused Momin Iqbal. The witnesses have varied about the time of demand and payment of Rs. 2 lacs to accused Momin Iqbal but that does not create any doubt on their testimonies because the marriage subsisted only three years and according to PW3 Mohd. Umar, it all started after the death of father in law of deceased Shabnam, who expired after one year of the marriage of deceased Shabnam. So, the demand must have been raised somewhere in between this period and was fulfilled. Again, a fresh demand of Rs. 2 lacs was SC No. 03/01/11 20 raised. In such circumstances, the wordings "soon before her death" cannot be applied in a restricted manner but rather should be treated with the concept of reasonable period as held in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2839 titled as Ashok Kumar V. State of Haryana. In such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for accused persons are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The deposition of PW12 Rashid Ahmed, who is maternal uncle of deceased Shabnam, is of hearsay nature regarding demand of dowry during subsistence of marriage and PW13 Wasi Ahmed has not supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, he did not come to know anything unusual in the marriage of deceased Shabnam and accused Momin Iqbal. Similarly, PW17 Azam Ali also cannot be relied upon and it seems to be highly improbable that deceased Shabnam was visiting his house, while even she had not visited the house of her maternal uncles i.e. PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed during the subsistence of marriage.
PW23 Smt. Vimlesh is an independent witness. She is from the village of deceased Shabnam. She is a lady of 50 years, milk seller and certainly being a Pardanasheen lady, deceased Shabnam had outspoken her misery before this PW23 Smt. Vimlesh and told her that she was being harassed for dowry and was being beaten. PW23 Smt. Vimlesh has stated that these facts were told to her by Shabnam, when she had visited her parental house before her death. The visit of Shabnam is not in dispute. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that Shabnam had visited her parental house for about 1520 days, at the time, her brother PW6 Mohd. Farman was blessed with a son after a long time. She is not an interested witness and being resident of the same village in the neighbourhood of complainant, she was knowing the SC No. 03/01/11 21 family of Shabnam. It also does not seem to be improbable that Shabnam had not visited the house of PW23 Smt. Vimlesh to buy milk, while she had stayed in her parental house for 1520 days. The reason given by PW23 that Shabnam did not disclose these facts to her parents also seems to be quite probable as Shabnam had told that accused Momin Iqbal threatened her to divorce her. So, I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW23 Smt. Vimlesh in any manner.
PW26 Saida Begum is mother of deceased. She has named all the accused persons but she has also deposed hearsay facts. She has stated that accused Sajida Begum used to abuse Shabnam. In my view, the same does not amount to harassment and cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. Rather to some extent, PW26 Saida Begum has stated that Shabnam was asked to sleep in a separate room and she was not allowed to go outside the house, which shows that she was not having cordial relations with her husband.
It has come in the evidence that Shabnam used to cook her meals separately, so, it seems to be improbable that accused Akbari, who is aged about 78 years, could have harassed or tortured Shabnam for demand of dowry. Similarly, accused Sajida Begum and Rashid Ali Khan do not seem to have any role to play in cruelty and harassment caused to deceased Shabnam for demand of dowry because Rs. 2 lacs, which were given by PW3 Mohd. Umar to accused Momin Iqbal were demanded on the pretext of shoe showroom, which accused Momin Iqbal wanted to open on main road. So, in my view, the prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 498A of IPC against accused Akbari, Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida Begum. Accordingly, all these three accused are acquitted for the same, but prosecution has been able to prove the offence U/s. 498A of IPC against accused Momin Iqbal SC No. 03/01/11 22 beyond reasonable doubts, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
Finding qua offence U/s. 302/304B/34 of IPC:
According to the case of the prosecution, DD NO. 16A dated 01/08/2003 was recorded at 5.55 p.m. The same has been proved by PW1 SI Sukhbir Singh, who had recorded the same. According to this DD, duty Constable Ravinder had informed at PS that one unknown , after consuming poison, was got admitted by her husband in the hospital. Copy of DD is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 SI Sukhbir Singh has not been cross examined on behalf of any of the accused persons in this respect. According to this, DD was handed over to SI Ravinder for taking necessary action.
According to PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, he reached at Ambedkar hospital on receipt of this DD on 01/08/2003 with PW19 HC Jitender Kumar and collected MLC of one Shabnam, wife of Momin Iqbal, with alleged history of consumption of some unknown substance Sulphas and the patient was fit for statement.
PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has further deposed that in the presence of the doctor, on duty, he recorded statement of Shabnam Ex. PW20/A, which is in his handwriting and bears signatures of doctor at point A. The patient could not sign her statement as her hands were tied, hence, her thumb impression was obtained at point B on Ex. PW20/A. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has further deposed that he informed SDM Narela on telephone but he could not be contacted. Thereafter, he reached at the spot, where in the gallery of the bathroom and bedroom, one black colour cloth having spots, appearing as froth, was found. He prepared pullanda of the cloth and sealed the same with the seal of "RS", which was seized vide memo SC No. 03/01/11 23 Ex. PW19/A. He also informed the matter to control room to send the SDM.
PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has further deposed that meanwhile, through DD No. 22A, he came to know about the death of Shabnam, which he received at about 8.45 p.m., copy of which is Ex. PW1/B. Accordingly, he reached at the hospital. At about 1.00 a.m. night, ADM, North West Sh. S.R. Kataria came there. At that time, duty constable Ravinder handed over to him a pullanda containing stomach wash and blood sample sealed with the seal of "SD" alongwith sample seal, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has further deposed that father of Shabnam had also come there and his statement was recorded by ADM Sh. S.R. Kataria, who further directed to get registered a case as per law. After registration of the FIR, investigation was handed over to Inspector Rajehwar Gautam, SHO, PS Samay Pur Badli.
PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has further deposed that as per the directions of ADM, dead body was removed to the mortuary of BJRM hospital, where on the directions of the ADM, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased. After postmortem, viscera and blood sample sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital" were given to him, which he seized vide memo Ex. PW14/A. He deposited all the case property collected by him during investigation in the malkhana and has identified the black colour cloth as Ex. PX1.
PW19 HC Jitender, who accompanied PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, has also deposed the same facts regarding their reaching at Ambedkar Hospital and further handing over of sealed pullanda by Constable Ravinder.
PW19 HC Jitender has further deposed that they had also gone to the place of occurrence, from where, one black colour cloth was seized. SC No. 03/01/11 24 Thereafter, they again came back in the hospital at about 8.45 p.m. ADM, NorthWest, came there and recorded statement of father of Shabnam, on which, SHO was directed to registered a case. At about 2.30 a.m. night, Inspector R.P. Gautam made rukka on the statement of father of Shabnam and handed over the same to him for registration of the case. He took rukka to PS and got registered the case. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to inspector R.P. Gautam in the hospital.
PW19 HC Jitender has further deposed that thereafter, they reached at the spot, where Inspector R.P. Gautam prepared site plan on the pointing of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh. Again, they came back to the mortuary of BJRM hospital and postmortem on the dead body was got conducted. Thereafter, dead body was released to the claimants. PW19 HC Jitender has also identified the black colour cloth before the Court as Ex. PX1.
Although, PW19 HC Jitender has not deposed in his examination in chief that statement of Shabnam was recorded by PW20 SI Ravinder Singh but in the cross examination, he has stated that he and PW20 SI Ravinder Singh went to the place, where Shabnam, was lying on the bed. Doctor was present on duty and in his presence, MLC of patient was collected and doctor declared her fit for statement. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh had recorded statement of Shabnam in presence of the doctor but he does not remember the time, when it was recorded. The statement is Ex. PW8/A and is in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh but again, he has stated that he is not sure as to in whose handwriting it is and further again said that he is not sure whether it was recorded in his presence or not.
According to this dying declaration of Shabnam Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA, Shabnam told to PW20 SI Ravinder Singh that she was residing at SC No. 03/01/11 25 H.No. A9/12, Sector18, Rohini, Delhi and was housewife. She was married to Momin Iqbal on 14/02/2000 according to Muslim customs and ceremonies. She is having two children. Elder one is one year and 9 months old and younger one is seven months. She due to mental tension in her house, while her husband Momin had gone to take mangoes from Azadpur Mandi and both her children were at house, consumed Sulphas tablets, which were lying in the house to put in the wheat. Her husband and her motherinlaw are not at fault. She had consumed poison due to mental tension. She does not want any legal action. This statement of Shabnam is bearing her thumb impression at point B. There is noting at point A, signed by Dr. Deepti Bhalla, that patient could not sign as her hands were tied.
Learned defence counsel has contended that prosecution has not been able to prove this dying declaration Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA as Ex. PW19/A i.e. seizure memo of black cloth and Ex. PW5/A i.e. seizure memo of stomach wash given by the doctor in the hospital are in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, as deposed by PW19 HC Jitender, and from the bare eye examination, it is clear that handwriting of these documents Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW5/A are different from the handwriting of Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that this exhibit is not bearing the signatures of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh at any place and from the deposition of PW19 HC Jitender, it seems that it was not recorded in his presence, so, it cannot be relied upon to the extent that Shabnam was under any mental tension, as alleged by the complainant, due to cruelty and harassment caused by the accused persons for demand of dowry.
PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, in this respect, has stated that on SC No. 03/01/11 26 01/08/2003, at about 05.45 p.m., she was posted as CMO. On that day, patient Shabnam, wife of Momin Iqbal, age 28 years female was brought in the casualty with the alleged history of consumption of unknown substance, as told by the attendants. She examined the patient. She was conscious, in agitated state. She gave first aid and referred the patient to Sr. Resident (Medicine) for expert opinion and further management. Gastric lavage and blood sample were sealed and were handed over to the IO. She had also prepared MLC Ex. PW8/A. PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has further deposed that at about 6.00 p.m., patient was fit for statement. She made endorsement in this regard from point A to A and signed the same at point B on Ex. PW8/A. In the cross examination, PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has admitted her signatures at point A on Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA with date and time i.e. 7.00 p.m. She has also admitted that she had made endorsement that patient could not sign as her hands were tied.
PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has further stated that she had given a note on the request of IO but has further stated that statement was not recorded in her presence and she was told by the IO that he had recorded the statement of Shabnam and she had made her endorsement, while the statement was already recorded on the same.
PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has further stated in the cross examination that she did not append endorsement from point A to A regarding fitness of patient on MLC Ex. PW8/A, at the instance of any police official. It was made in routine and was not made at any query put by any police official.
According to Ex. PW8/A, there is an endorsement from point A to A that patient is fit for statement. It is signed by PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla at SC No. 03/01/11 27 point B with date 01/08/2003, time 6.00 p.m. So, from the cross examination of PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, it is clear that endorsement made on Ex. PW8/A that patient was fit for statement at 6.00 p.m. was not made at the instance of police but was made in routine as per the case. From the examination in chief of PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, it is clear that she found the patient conscious with agitated state, which corroborate that hands of patient Shabnam were tied and because of this reason, her thumb impression was obtained on this statement.
Still the question remains the same as to who had recorded this statement Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA because the same does not appear to be in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, but at the same time, PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has not been cross examined in any respect as to whether Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW5/A are in his handwriting or not but PW19 HC Jitender Singh has stated that both these documents are in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh. So, if Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW5/A are in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, then it is clear that Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA is not in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh. At the time of recording of statement of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, he was not confronted with the aspect of handwriting by learned defence counsels, so, it is not clear as to who had recorded Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA.
Again, in the cross examination, PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has stated that Shabnam was conscious , when he recorded her statement Ex. PW20/A and he stayed there till 8.00 p.m. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has further clarified in his cross examination that he had disclosed about Ex. PW20/A to the SHO and not to the ADM. Had it been brought to the notice of ADM, then certainly, veracity of the same could have been checked at that stage. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has also stated that he had told to the SHO that statement Ex. PW20/A SC No. 03/01/11 28 was given by Shabnam voluntarily. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh is not an interested witness,so, he was not having any reason to record this dying declaration in this manner and it seems to be natural and recorded at first instance. It is also in evidence that Shabnam was fit for statement at about 6.00 p.m. and PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has not been cross examined in any manner to the extent that Shabnam was not fit for statement at about 6.00 p.m. Endorsement was made at about 7.00 p.m. by Dr. Deepti Bhalla on Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA and even at that time, if Shabnam was not fit for statement, then she could have made note on the statement that at that time, Shabnam was not fit for statement.
Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA was recorded by PW20 SI Ravinder Singh but again, PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has stated that he had not recorded statement Ex. PW20/A at his own and whatever Shabnam had told, was recorded by him in the presence of the doctor, which is contrary to the deposition of PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, who has stated that when she had made endorsement on Ex. PW20/A/Ex. PW8/DA and signed the same, then it was already recorded and has specifically stated that this statement was not recorded in her presence. So, it is not certain whether PW20 SI Ravinder Singh had recorded this statement, as deposed by him.
Besides this statement, PW3 Mohd. Umar has deposed before the Court that on 31/07/2003, at about 9.30 p.m., his daughter telephonically called and asked him to take her away from the matrimonial home, otherwise accused persons will kill her. He advised his daughter that the matrimonial home was her house and that she should live there. He also advised her that in case of any fault, she should feel sorry before the concerned person.
Firstly, this fact was not told to the SDM by PW3 Mohd. Umar in SC No. 03/01/11 29 his statement Ex. PW3/A. Secondly, PW6 Mohd. Farman has not deposed about the same that any such call was received on 31/07/2003 at about 09.30 p.m. PW26 Saida Begum has deposed before the Court that on 31/07/2003, Shabnam telephonically informed her that she be called to her parental house, otherwise,she will be killed by the accused persons, but they made her understand that her matrimonial house was her house and that she should live there, whereas PW26 Saida Begum had told to the police in her statement recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 17/08/2003 that on 31/07/2003, she received phone call from Shabnam, who told that she should be called at Dadri as the accused persons were harassing her and would kill her but she alongwith her husband made her understand that her matrimonial house was her house.
Statement of complainant Mohd. Umar was recorded on 01/08/2003 and this fact was well within the knowledge but he did not disclose the same to the SDM in his statement and statement of Saida Begum was recorded on 17/08/2003, which shows that the witnesses have made improvement in this respect that on 31/07/2003 at about 9.30 p.m., they received a call from Shabnam, who told that she should be taken away to her parental, otherwise accused persons will kill her. No call details have been obtained and brought on record, so, this fact is not corroborated and proved in any manner.
From the MLC Ex. PW8/A, it is clear that Shabnam was taken to BSA hospital on 01/08/2003 by her husband accused Momin Iqbal at about 05.45 p.m. According to the opinion of PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, at about 6.00 p.m., she was fit for statement and according to dying declaration of deceased Shabnam Ex. PW20/A, she could not sign as hands of Shabnam were tied. It was at about 7.00 p.m. According to DD No. 22A Ex. PW1/B, at about 08.35 p.m., information was received from Ambedkar Hospital that Shabnam had SC No. 03/01/11 30 died, so, the time during which Shabnam remained admitted in the hospital, whether conscious or unconscious, was 5.45 p.m. to 8.35 p.m. PW3 Mohd. Umar has stated that on 01/08/2003, at 05.30 p.m., while he was at Dadri, someone from the neighbourhood of accused persons informed him telephonically that all the four accused persons were giving beatings to his daughter. Immediately, he directed his brothersinlaw Rashid and Wasi Ahmed, residents of Azad Market, Delhi to reach at Shabnam's house and to see as to what was the matter.
This neighbour has not been examined as a witness in any manner, so, it is not corroborated that at about 05.30 p.m., PW3 Mohd. Umar had received this information from a neighbour. Secondly, in his statement Ex. PW3/A, Mohd. Umar had given phone No. 2664339 but it is not disclosed as to whom this phone number was belonging. This aspect has not been investigated in any manner. According to MLC Ex. PW8/A, the examining doctor did not observe any beating marks on the body of deceased Shabnam. Only it is recorded that froth from the mouth was present. Patient was conscious, in agitated state. According to alleged history, consumption of some unknown substance i.e. Sulphas four tablets poisoning, as told by attendants, around half an hour back. PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has also not deposed that she had observed any beating marks on the body of Shabnam. According to the alleged history, Shabnam had consumed unknown poison half an hour before. She was taken to hospital at about 5.45 p.m.. So, she consumed poison at about 5.15 p.m. If she had consumed the poison at about 5.15 p.m., then there could not be any instance of beating at 5.30 p.m., hence, the story of receiving information from a neighbour on 01/08/2003 at about 5.30 p.m. is not inspiring any confidence with further fact that she was being taken. SC No. 03/01/11 31
According to PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed, on receipt of phone call from PW3 Mohd. Umar, they reached at Sector18, Rohini and came to know that Shabnam had been removed to Ambedkar hospital. They reached at Ambedkar Hospital and found Shabnam admitted there. At that time, she was alive. PW12 Rashid Ahmed has further deposed that Shabnam told him that she was caught hold by her Nanad and Nandoi from the hands and her mother in law caught hold her from her head. Shabnam had further told that her husband i.e. accused Momin Iqbal administered some poisonous substance in her mouth and thereafter forced her to drink water. Thereafter, she became perplexed and raised noise. She had further told that she was removed to hospital by the neighbours. Thereafter, they were sent outside the ward. Police met her in the hospital and her statement was recorded.
This part of dying declaration made by Shabnam orally to PW12 Rashid Ahmed is the bone of contention, for which, the accused persons have been charged for offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC. One fact, which is patently false in the deposition of PW12 Rashid Ahmed, is that Shabnam had told that she was removed to hospital by the neigbours, whereas according to Ex. PW8/A, she was removed to hospital by her husband Momin Iqbal and if the same is false, then no such neighbour has been examined before the Court claiming and deposing that they removed Shabnam to hospital. PW13 Wasi Ahmed has also deposed the same facts about the alleged dying declaration of deceased Shabnam, when he made inquiries from Shabnam.
In the cross examination, PW12 Rashid Ahmed has stated that he received the phone call from his brother in law on 01/08/2003 at about 5.00 p.m. on his mobile phone No. 981117693. Again, this fact is patently false because according to PW3 Mohd. Umar, on 01/08/2003, he himself had SC No. 03/01/11 32 received information at about 5.30 p.m. from neighbour of accused persons, while he was in Dadri. So, in such circumstances, he could not have made a call to his brother in law PW12 Rashid Ahmed at about 5.00 p.m. directing him to reach at the house of Shabnam.
According to cross of PW12 Rashid Ahmed, he left Azad Market after receiving the information in a TSR to reach at Sector18, Rohini. According to his further cross examination, some public persons were standing outside the house, who told that Shabnam was removed to hospital. Immediately, they reached at Ambedkar Hospital in a TSR within five minutes, but again and again, even after questioning by learned defence counsel as to at what time they reached at Rohini and further reached at Ambedkar Hospital, PW12 Rashid Ahmed has not been able to recall as to at what time they had reached at Ambedkar Hospital. Even he does not remember whether there was daylight or darkness had fallen. He found Shabnam admitted and alone at that time. Shabnam talked with him, while she was lying on the bed.
Learned defence counsel has contended that witness has intentionally not disclosed as to at what time, he reached at Sector18, Rohini and further at Ambedkar Hospital because he is a planted witness. He reached in the hospital after the death of Shabnam and has fabricated a story regarding alleged dying declaration made by Shabnam to him to falsely implicate the accused persons.
According to cross examination of PW13 Wasi Ahmed, his brother Rashid, who had received a phone call, came to his shop in the evening time. It could be 6.00 p.m. They took auto from outside the shop of PW13 and reached at Ambedkar Hospital via Rohtak Road and when they had reached there, darkness had fallen. Again, this witness has also not been able to recall the SC No. 03/01/11 33 time, as to when they had reached at the house of deceased Shabnam in Sector18, Rohini and further in Ambedkar Hospital.
This fact of alleged dying declaration of Shabnam, as claimed by PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed, was further told by them to PW3 Mohd. Umar. According to cross examination of PW3 Mohd. Umar, he left Dadari at about 6.45/7.00 p.m. in a private taxi. Firstly, they went to the house of accused Momin Iqbal. Thereafter, they went to the hospital.
PW6 Mohd. Farman has stated in the cross examination that on the way, they came to know about the removal of Shabnam to Ambedkar Hospital and has stated that they reached at the hospital and met with Wasi Ahmed and Rashid Ahmed, who told that Shabnam was alive at the time, they reached in the hospital and again, this witness has also deposed about same facts of oral dying declaration. So, both PW3 Mohd. Umar and PW6 Mohd. Farman have contradicted each other as to whether firstly they had gone to the house of Shabnam at Sector18, Rohini or directed reached at Ambedkar Hospital. In the cross examination, PW6 Mohd. Farman has stated that he does not know the time of arrival in Delhi, even approximately, whether it was 11.00 p.m. or 1.00 a.m. and has again stated in the cross examination that firstly, they had reached at the house of inlaws of Shabnam and came to know that Shabnam was removed to hospital. In such circumstances, he has confronted himself with his examination in chief also.
In all, both PW3 Mohd. Umar and PW6 Mohd. Farman had come from Dadri and had gone to Ambedkar Hospital and it is clear from the evidence that they are hearsay witnesses to the alleged dying declaration made by Shabnam to PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed. So, their arrival in Delhi and particularly at Ambedkar Hospital to the extent as to at what time, SC No. 03/01/11 34 they had reached at Delhi is not relevant at all. The question before the Court is that whether Shabnam had made any oral dying declaration before PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed. Statement of Rashid Ahmed U/s. 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 02/08/2003 and of Wasi Ahmed was also recorded on 02/08/2003.
According to PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, he reached at Ambedkar Hospital on receipt of DD No. 16A recorded at 5.55 p.m. and according to his cross examination, he stayed there till 8.00 p.m. PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has stated that father or maternal uncle or brother of Shabnam did not meet him at that time and he met with the family members of Shabnam after 9.30 p.m.,when he again reached at the hospital, after receiving information about death of Shabnam. According to cross examination of PW19 HC Jitender, he left Ambedkar Hospital with PW20 SI Ravinder Singh at about 8.00 p.m. for the spot. So, both PW19 and PW20, after receiving DD No.16A recorded at 5.55 p.m., must have reached at Ambedkar Hospital within 1015 minutes and stayed there till 8.00 p.m. and according to cross of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, father, maternal uncle and brother of deceased Shabnam did not meet him at that time, which shows that till that time, PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed had not reached there.
PW5 is Constable Ravinder Singh. He has stated that on 01/08/2003, he was posted at PS S.P. Badli and was deputed at BSA Hospital, Rohini as duty constable. On that day, at about 05.45 p.m., one lady Shabnam was admitted in the hospital. She had stated to have consumed unknown poison. She was reported to have been brought from Sector18, Rohini. PW5 has further deposed that he informed duty officer of Samay Pur Badli in this regard at about 05.55 p.m, which was recorded as DD No. 16A Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, SC No. 03/01/11 35 IO SI Ravinder Singh reached in the hospital. On the same day, doctor handed over to him two sealed parcels purported to have been containing gastric lavage and sample of blood. He handed over these two parcels to the IO, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A. On Expiry of Shabnam, he informed at PS S.P. Badli.
In the cross examination, PW5 Constable Ravinder has stated that Ex. PW5/A was prepared by the IO in his presence at about 6.30 p.m. According to him, SI Ravinder reached in the hospital at about 6.15 or 6.20 p.m. Husband of Shabnam was accompanying her at the time, she was brought to the hospital, who had told her name. At that time, PW5 made entry in the register, kept in the police post of the hospital, regarding arrival of Shabnam.
In the cross examination, PW5 Constable Ravinder Singh has introduced another oral dying declaration. According to him, Dr. Deepti Bhalla, CMO, was present near Shabnam at the time, she was got admitted in the hospital. Dr. Deepti Bhalla inquired from Shabnam in his presence and thereafter Shabnam told that she had consumed poison, but at that time, PW20 SI Ravinder Singh was not present there. Soon after the admission of Shabnam, he left the emergency ward. At that time, SI Ravinder Singh also reached in the hospital. So, in one manner, PW5 Constable Ravinder has corroborated with dying declaration Ex. PW20/A/Ex.PW8/DA and on the other hand, it also seems to be possible as Dr. Deepti Bhalla, after making inquiry, when she came to know that Shabnam had consumed poison, she made endorsement on dying declaration Ex.PW20/A/Ex.PW8/DA, but deposed before the Court in a different manner to the extent that when she made endorsement on dying declaration Ex.PW20/A/Ex.PW8/DA, then it was already recorded.
Still the question of handwriting is not resolved. The handwriting on SC No. 03/01/11 36 Ex.PW20/A/Ex.PW8/DA on one hand and on Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW5/A on other hand are different and according to PW19 HC Jitender and PW5 Constable Ravinder, the handwriting on Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW5/A are of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, whereas the handwriting of Ex.PW20/A/Ex.PW8/DA is not appearing to be of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh. PW5 Constable Ravinder is also an independent witness and has no interest either towards the complainant party or towards the accused persons in any manner.
According to Ex.PW20/A/Ex.PW8/DA, Shabnam consumed four tablets of Sulphas due to mental tension and at that time, her husband had gone to purchase mangoes from Azadpur Mandi. According to PW5 Constable Ravinder, Shabnam told to Dr. Deepti Bhalla on making inquiry that she had consumed poison, whereas according to PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed, Shabnam told to them that all the accused persons forcibly administered poison to her.
Learned defence counsel has contended that according to cross examination of PW12 Rashid Ahmed, his statement was recorded in the hospital in a room by the SDM or ADM, whereas according to the case of the prosecution, no such statement of PW12 Rashid Ahmed was recorded by the ADM or SDM. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rashid Ahmed has further admitted that at the time of postmortem of dead body, his statement was recorded and of his brother Wasi Ahmed. It was recorded where the postmortem on the dead body was conducted. His statement was recorded only regarding identification of dead body. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this shows that statement recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. of this witness PW12 Rashid Ahmed is false and fabricated SC No. 03/01/11 37 and in fact, PW12 Rashid Ahmed was not even a witness to the identification of dead body.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rashid Ahmed has been cross examined about the other patients admitted in the said ward and about the number of beds in the said ward but he failed to disclose about the same, which shows that he never visited the ward, where Shabnam was admitted. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rashid Ahmed has also failed to disclose as to at what time, his brother in law PW3 Mohd. Umar met him in the hospital. Even he has failed to disclose as to by whom he was asked to go outside the ward i.e. police official from PCR, local police or duty constable. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Constable Ravinder has nowhere deposed that any member of family of Shabnam came there and made inquiries from him or even made inquiries about Shabnam as to in which ward, she was admitted. So, PW12 Rashid Ahmed is not inspiring any confidence to the extent that he had talked with Shabnam, who disclosed that accused persons administered poison forcibly to her.
Now, there are three dying declarations. First is Ex. PW20/A, second is, as deposed by PW5 Constable Ravinder, which was made by Shabnam to PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla and third is made by Shabnam to PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed, hence, the dying declaration made at the first instance should be relied upon, as deposed by PW5 Constable Ravinder, because Dr. Deepti Bhalla made inquiries from Shabnam, when she was brought to hospital and at that time, Shabnam had told that she had consumed poison.
Both PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed have also SC No. 03/01/11 38 contradicted each other. According to cross of PW12 Rashid Ahmed, drip was provided to Shabnam but he cannot say whether it was given in the left hand or right hand, whereas according to PW13 Wasi Ahmed, he reached there with his brother i.e. PW12 Rashid Ahmed and he did not notice whether any I.V. drip was also provided to Shabnam at that time. If both PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed had gone together in the ward and had talked with Shabnam, then it is highly improbable that they have contradicted on a very material fact as to whether any IV drip was provided to Shabnam or not at that time,which shows and proves that they had not gone inside the ward and had not talked with Shabnam, hence, their depositions regarding oral dying declaration allegedly made by Shabnam are not inspiring any confidence and they cannot be relied upon.
The postmortem report has been proved by PW7 Dr. K. Goyal as Ex. PW7/A. According to him, cause of death was element of Asphyxia and cardio genic shock as a result of phosphide poisoning.
The cross examination of PW25 retired ACP Rajeshwar Prasad Gautam also falsify the oral dying declaration allegedly given by Shabnam to PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed as he did not see any external injury in the mouth of deceased Shabnam. Had the poison been administered forcibly on the mouth of Shabnam, then certainly, there should have been certain marks of such forceful act, which neither were seen by PW25 nor were seen by doctors and no external injury was found during the examination, as per MLC Ex. PW8/A or even as per postmortem report Ex. PW7/A, so, this fact itself is disproving the depositions of PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed.
According to the cross of PW25, he received Ex. PW8/A with SC No. 03/01/11 39 postmortem report as a part of inquest papers. For the first time, he reached in the hospital at about 7.30 p.m. and remained there for 1520 minutes and again he reached in the hospital at about 2.15 a.m. night. Then, he met with father, maternal uncle, brother and some other relatives of deceased Shabnam, which shows that PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed were not present in the hospital before the death of Shabnam. Had it been so, then certainly, they could have got recorded their statements to the IO, who was present there at about 7.30 p.m. and stayed there for 1520 minutes. Even PW20 SI Ravinder was present there till 8.00p.m. but both of them did not make any effort to contact any police official to disclose them about the dying declaration made to them by Shabnam. In such circumstances, the depositions of PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed regarding oral dying declaration of deceased Shabnam are doubtful and are not inspiring any confidence, hence, they cannot be relied upon as they are not trustworthy.
PW25 has specifically stated in the cross examination that he did not record statement of maternal uncles of deceased Shabnam before 2.15 a.m. night in the hospital, which shows that they were having sufficient time to concoct a false story of dying declaration.
Accused Akbari has not examined any defence witness. Accused Sajida Begum has stated that on that day, she came back from her school at about 3.30 p.m. Her children also came from their schools and after giving them food, she was relaxing. At about 5.30 p.m., somebody came to her house and informed her that Shabnam was making noise at her home. So, she reached at the house of her brother Momin Iqbal but came to know that Shabnam was removed to hospital. She came back to her house and informed her husband at his office situated at CGO, Scope complex, New Delhi, who came and they SC No. 03/01/11 40 both immediately reached at Ambedkar Hospital and saw Shabnam in semi unconscious condition. Her father and maternal uncle arrived at about 9.30 p.m. and they created mayhem there, so, out of fear of being hurt, she alongwith her husband came back to her house.
Accused Rashid Ali Khan is a government servant. He has examined DW1 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Manager (Marketing). According to him, on that day, accused Rashid Ali Khan was in their office. They issued certificate in this respect Ex. DW1/A after verifying his attendance in the official register as well as after making inquiries from other officials. He has also proved his authorization to appear as a witness before the Court as DW1/B. In the cross examination, he has again affirmed about his deposition. He has also produced the inquiry Ex. DW1/E, on the basis of which, he issued certificate Ex. DW1/F as he was authorized to issue the same. He has denied the suggestion that to help out the accused, he has prepared the record in connivance with the accused.
DW2 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta has also been examined. He is colleague of accused Rashid Ali Khan. He has stated that on 01/08/2003, at about 9.30/10 p.m., he received a call from accused Rashid Ali Khan that his sister in law had committed suicide. On the day of incident, accused Rashid Ali Khan was with him and they both had boarded chartered bus at about 5.30 p.m. Even with common sense, one can understand that from CGO, Scope Complex, Lodi Road, a person requires 1½ or 2 hours to reach in a chartered bus at Rohini, which used to drop various passengers at different destinations, so, if accused Rashid Ali Khan had boarded chartered bus at 5.30 p.m., then he must have reached at his house at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. Testimonies of both DW1 and DW2 are unshaken and inspire confidence. They have no interest to SC No. 03/01/11 41 depose falsely. DW1 Vinod Kumar Sharma has deposed as per record and DW2 Sunil Kumar Gupta has deposed being colleague of accused Rashid Ali Khan. Both have been cross examined at length by learned APP, but even then, their testimonies are unshaken and both are inspiring confidence. In such circumstances, I rely upon the testimonies of DW1 Vinod Kumar Sharma and DW2 Sunil Kumar Gupta, which proved that accused Rashid Ali Khan could not have been at his house or in the house of accused Momin Iqbal before 7.00 p.m. on 01/08/2003 in all circumstances as it was working day and he was on duty. So, the depositions of PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed to the extent that deceased Shabnam made dying declaration to both of them about forcible administration of sulphas tablets to her by all the four accused seem to be fabricated one and an afterthought to implicate the accused persons because if accused Rashid Ali Khan was not there, then the facts, as allegedly told by Shabnam to PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed about her murder, are not proved beyond reasonable doubts, which is supported with the fact that no injury was found on any body part of deceased Shabnam during her medical examination or even at the time of her postmortem. If two of the accused persons had caught hold her and two other accused persons had forcibly administered sulphas tablets to her, then in such circumstances, certainly she should have sustained some type of injuries on her legs, hands and mouth, which could have been observed by the doctor at the time of her first examination, but no such injury, bruises or anything else was found.
Accused Momin Iqbal has also examined DW3 Moinuddin, who was running a shop in the name of Rehana Boutique nearby the shop of accused Momin Iqbal and was knowing the accused. On 01/08/2003, at about 5/5.30 p.m., while he was working at his boutique, one Ramesh, who used to do SC No. 03/01/11 42 ironing work, came and told that wife of accused Momin was serious and so, they both reached there with one Asha, who was also running shop in front of the shop of DW3 Moinuddin.
DW3 Moinuddin found Shabnam lying near the sofa set of the house. He asked her as to what had happened. She told that "maine junoon main aakar sulphas kha lee hai" and that "mujhe or mere bacho ko bacha lo". DW3 Moinuddin asked her about Momin and she told that Momin had gone to Subzi Mandi in his vehicle to purchase mangoes, so, DW3 with the help of Ramesh and Asha removed Shabnam to ground floor. Meanwhile, accused Momin Iqbal also reached there and removed her to BSA hospital.
DW3 has further deposed that even when doctor made inquiries as to what had happened, Shabnam told that "maine junoon main aakar sulphas kha lee hai". This witness has also been cross examined at length, but his testimony is unshaken.
Last part of her deposition is also corroborated by PW5 Constable Ravinder , who was on duty at that time. PW5 Constable Ravinder has specifically stated that Dr. Deepti Bhalla made inquiries from Shabnam in his presence and Shabnam told that she had consumed poison. So, DW3 Moinuddin is also inspiring confidence. He is not an interested witness. He is just a neighbour, who reached at the spot to help and removed Shabnam to ground floor and later on removed her with accused Momin Iqbal to BSA hospital. From the deposition of DW3 Moinuddin, it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that at the time of incident, accused Momin Iqbal was also not present at his house, which falsify the depositions of PW12 Rashid Ahmed and PW13 Wasi Ahmed that Shabnam had made dying declaration before them to the extent that all the four accused persons forcibly administered sulphas SC No. 03/01/11 43 tablets to her. It is also clear from the testimony of DW3 Moinuddin that when he reached at the house of Shabnam, only Shabnam was found present there and he did not meet with accused Akbari nor he called her, which shows that either accused Akbari was not present there or was not involved in any manner in the said incident.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC in any manner. Accordingly, all the four accused persons are acquitted for the offence U/s. 302/34 of IPC.
To prove offence U/s. 304B of IPC, prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:
1) that death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage.
This fact is not disputed that Shabnam died unnaturally and within three years of marriage.
2) that it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
In this respect, accused Momin Iqbal has already been held guilty and convicted for offence U/s. 498A of IPC and other accused persons,namely, Akbari, Rashid Ali Khan and Sajida Begum have been acquitted.
3) that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
It has already been held that there was demand of dowry, which was once fulfilled but again the same could not be fulfilled due to weak financial position of PW3 Mohd. Umar, father of deceased Shabnam.
We have three dying declarations before us i.e. one made by SC No. 03/01/11 44 Shabnam that she had consumed poison, as deposed by PW5 Constable Ravinder, in presence of PW8 Dr. Deepti Bhalla. Second is "maine junoon main aakar sulphas kha lee hai", which has been deposed by DW3 Moinuddin and third is statement recorded by PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, wherein also, it is recorded that she consumed four sulphas tablets due to mental tension, although the same seems to be doubtful only on one ground that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the same is in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh. But to my mind, if PW20 SI Ravinder Singh has claimed that he had recorded the same and other witnesses are not corroborating about the recording of the same by PW20 SI Ravinder Singh or that it is not in the handwriting of PW20 SI Ravinder Singh, then the same cannot be safely relied upon in any manner.
In such circumstances, what evidence before us is that Shabnam consumed Sulphas tablets, as disclosed before the doctor and also before DW3 Moinuddin i.e. "maine junoon main aakar sulphas kha lee hai". Now, it has to be seen whether from this dying declaration, any offence is proved against the accused persons.
Learned Addl. PP assisted by counsel for complainant has relied upon (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 13 titled as Kunhiabdulla and another V. State of Kerala, wherein it has been held that no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what will constitute a period of "soon before" the occurrence. It has to be determined by courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, however, existence of a proximate and live link between cruelty and death is held essential.
It has already been discussed and proved that Shabnam was treated with cruelty and was harassed for demand of dowry, which was once fulfilled SC No. 03/01/11 45 of Rs. 2 lacs given to accused Momin Iqbal for opening a shoe showroom and again, a fresh demand was raised, which could not be fulfilled. The marriage subsisted only for three years and demand of Rs. 2 lacs was fulfilled in the mid of the marriage and a fresh demand was raised, which could not be fulfilled due to weak financial position of PW3 Mohd. Umar, father of deceased Shabnam.
It has been held in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1098 titled as Bachni Devi & Another V. State of Haryana through Secretary, Home Department that demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, having a nexus with marriage, such demand would constitute "demand for dowry", cause or reason for such demand being immaterial.
According to the deposition of PW23 Smt. Vimlesh, Shabnam was under the fear of divorce as told by her to PW23 Smt. Vimlesh as accused Momin Iqbal was threatening her for divorce. This act in itself constitute cruelty and harassment to a woman.
It has also been held in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2839 titled as Ashok Kumar V. State of Haryana that:
"From the above definition, it is clear that , "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to another, by parents of either party to each other or any other person at, before, or at any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr under under the Muslim Personal Law. All the expressions used under this Section are of a very wide magnitude. The expressions "or any time after marriage" and "in connection with the marriage of the said parties" were introduced by amending Act 63 of 1984 and Act 43 of 1986 with effect from SC No. 03/01/11 46 02/10/1985 and 19/11/1986 respectively. These amendments appear to have been made with the intention to cover all demands at that time, before and even after the marriage so far they were in connection with the marriage of the said parties. This clearly shows the intent of the legislature that these expressions are of wide meaning and scope. The expression "in connection with the marriage" cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. The expression "in connection with the marriage" even in common parlance and on its plain language has to be understood generally. The object being that everything, which is offending at any time i.e. at, before or after the marriage, would be covered under this definition, but the demand of dowry has to be "in connection with the marriage" and not so customary that it would not attract, on the face of it, the provisions of this section."
On the other hand, learned defence counsel for accused persons has relied upon 2010 [3] JCC 2343 titled as Budh Ram @ Pappu & Ors. V. State, wherein it has been held that conviction based solely relying upon dying declaration of the deceased is not safe, if the same appears to be unnatural and gives and impression that an attempt has been made to rope the entire family. It has been further held that if deceased was taken to hospital by her husband, then the same compounds the suspicion against the correctness of dying declaration implicating husband and inlaws.
Admittedly, in this case, Shabnam was taken to hospital by accused Momin Iqbal, which ultimately proves only that he was not present in his house and in his absence, Shabnam consumed poison, but the question is why she consumed poison. It is difficult to consume such type of poison unless a person has lost control due to constant cruelty and harassment caused to said person, so, it becomes difficult for such a person to differentiate between right and SC No. 03/01/11 47 wrong. It has been stated by PW7 Dr. K. Goel, who conducted postmortem on the dead body, in his cross examination that aluminium phosphide is the basic salt of common tablet known as Sulphas as the odour and taste of aluminium phosphide is very typical, so it cannot be given fraudulently to a healthy adult person. It could not have been given forcefully, then consuming the same at her own by Shabnam shows that she was fragile and was mentally broken, hence the judgment relied upon by learned defence counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
FSL report has been proved by PW24 Dr. Mohd. Afzal as Ex. PW24/A. According to examination of stomach wash and intestine piece alongwith blood, he found aluminium phosphide in the contents of exhibit as 8540/I/1, 8540/I/2 and 8540/II. Phosphide was also detected in the contents of the exhibit marked as 8540/III. PW24 Dr. Mohd. Afzal has not been cross examined in any manner. So, it is proved that Shabnam died due to consumption of Sulphas tablets.
It has been held in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1098 titled as Bachni Devi & Another V. State of Haryana through Secretary, Home Department that as a matter of law, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellants have failed to rebut the presumption U/s. 113B, so are liable to be convicted U/s. 304B of IPC.
The prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 304B/34 of IPC against accused Akbari, Sajida Begum and Rashid Ali Khan beyond reasonable doubts, accordingly, they are acquitted for the same.
In view of above discussion, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC with SC No. 03/01/11 48 presumption U/s. 113B of the Evidence Act against accused Momin Iqbal only as Shabnam died unnaturally, while she was subjected to cruelty and was harassed. Accused Momin Iqbal has failed to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, offence U/s. 304B of IPC is proved against accused Momin Iqbal beyond reasonable doubts, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open court On 19th of September, 2012 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track court, Rohini/Delhi SC No. 03/01/11 49 SC No. 03/01/11 50