Delhi District Court
Brief Facts Of The Case Are That On Dated ... vs State Of Haryana (2014) 4 Supreme Court ... on 3 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH WEST,ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 52124/2016
State
versus
1)Jatin Arora
Son of Sh. Inderjeet Arora
Resident of B-35/2, GTK Road, Industrial Area, Delhi.
2)Inderjeet Arora
Son of Sh.Dewan Chand Arora
Resident of B-35/2, GTK Road, Industrial Area, Delhi.
3)Veena Arora
Wife of Inderjeet Arora
Resident of B-35/2, GTK Road, Industrial Area, Delhi.
4)Komal Arora
Wife of Kapil Arora
D/o Inderjeet Arora
Resident of 19/47 GD Floor, Old Rajender Nagar, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 276/2014
Police Station : Bharat Nagar
Under section 498A/306/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of registration of the charge sheet
in this court : 05.08.2014
Final Arguments concluded on : 25.04.2018
Date of judgment : 03.05.2018
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 1/131
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on dated 18.05.2014 DD no. 17 PP was lodged regarding a scuffle, which was assigned to ASI Rambir, who went to the spot along with Ct. Krishan and vide DD No. 19-PP was also registered, wherein, it was mentioned that the information was received from Pentamid Hospital, Model Town that a lady had hanged herself and was brought dead in the said hospital, who was medically examined vide MLC No. 875/14 and intimation was given to the ASI Rambir and SI was also intimated, who arrived in the said hospital and MLC no. 875/14 was received by him, wherein, it was mentioned that patient was brought dead by her husband in an unconscious condition and alleged history of hanging at home 15-20 minutes ago was also mentioned and on local examination, ligature marks were found around the neck and patient was declared dead at 02:07 PM on 18.05.2014 and no eye witness was found in the hospital and dead body was handed over to Ct. Krishan and the same was preserved in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and sub inspector along with ASI Rambir had arrived at the spot i.e. matrimonial house of the deceased situated in the GTK Industrial Area, Delhi. Where SHO & ACP also arrived and crime team was also called and place of occurrence was also got photographed and place of crime was inspected and a half CHUNNI was found hanging with ceiling fan installed in a room at the 1st floor of the said house and remaining half portion of CHUNNI was found lying on the floor and a chair was also found lying under the ceiling fan and stool of plastic was also found lying and scissor was also found on the dressing table and clothes were found on the bed in scattered condition lying in the said room, but no suicidal note or diary was found despite of search conducted in said room and half portion of chunni, which was tied with the ceiling fan was removed from there and was seized and scissor was also seized and parcels were prepare and sealed with the seal of RD and on inquiry, Mrs. Veena, i.e. the mother of the accused jatin Arora had told that the said room belonged to SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 2/131 Arushi & Jatin and she was not aware about the occurrence. she had also told that her son had taken Arushi in the Hospital, who told her that Arushi had hanged herself and Veena refused to give any statement. Parents of Arushi had also arrived at the spot and father of the deceased namely Anil Kumar bali told that he was told by accused Jatin that Arushi was unconscious and Jatin was taking her to the Hospital and Anil Kumar & other relatives of the deceased were asked to give their statements. But, they did not give any statement and proceeding U/S 174 of Cr.PC was done and in view of non receiving of the statement, DD No. 31 PP was kept in pending and on 19.05.2014, postmortem on the body of deceased Arushi Arora was got done in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital vide PM No. 396/14 and dead body of the deceased was handed over to Anil Kumar Bali and exhibits, which was sealed with seal of FMT BJRM Hospital were seized and were deposited in the Malkhana and on dated 19.05.2014 at 11:35 PM, the complainant Anil Kumar Bali had filed a complaint Ex.PW3/C in the Police Post Sangam Park against all the accused and levelled the allegation of committing murder of his daughter Arushi and by that time, no postmortem report was received and on dated 21.05.2014, Postmortem report was received wherein, external injuries, ligature marks and injection mark on the left side of the chest were mentioned and it was also mentioned therein that cause of death could be given only after receiving of the report of viscera and analysis and it was also mentioned that postmortem finding are suggestive of ante mortem hanging possible by the Chunni produced by the police in sealed condition. It is stated in the complaint Ex.PW3/C that daughter of this complainant was married with accused Jatin Arora on 07.02.2007 in accordance with hindu rites and ceremonies with great pump and show as Arush (since deceased) was only issue of the complainant and this complainant had spent about Rs. 20 lakhs on her marriage and he had given dowry articles to the accused Jatin, Inderjeet, Veena, Komal & other relatives of the accused were beyond of his capacity, so that, his daughter SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 3/131 may not suffer in the house of her in-laws. He has alleged that few days after the marriage of his daughter, the accused Jatin and his other family members started taunting his daughter Arushi for bringing insufficient dowry. He has also alleged that accused used to say that they were having flourished business, then, why did the parents of the deceased not give the dowry article in accordance with their standards. Complainant has further stated that his daughter had told about the same to his wife, after few days after her marriage. This complainant along with his wife went to the house of the accused Jatin and made talk with Jatin and his father. This complainant has also alleged that father of the accused Jatin had asked to the complainant, as to why did they not give big car in the marriage and thus, they had lower down their heads in the society. On this, complainant had told that they had spent money beyond his capacity and he was not in position to give big car. It is further stated that this complainant had given the articles to her daughter on every festival in accordance with Hindu Rites. But, the greed of the accused could not be ended and thus, one year of the marriage of her daughter passed. It is also alleged that in the meantime, this accused had told that their business was taken over by brothers of the accused and demanded money for increasing their business and this complainant had taken loan from NZRE, North Zone Railway Society and paid the same to the accused and further alleged that every year, the demands were increasing. LCD, Fridge, Inverter & AC were also given by the complainant and complied with such demand and thus, 2-3 years were completed of the marriage of his daughter. But, she could not conceive the child and in view of the same, her father-in-law, mother-in-law & her husband used to taunt her and used to say that how would their dynasty continue and further alleged that deceased had told to the wife of the complainant that the accused did not take his daughter for any such treatment and wife of the complainant had taken the deceased for her treatment and it was revealed that there was nothing deficient in the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 4/131 deceased and when, this complainant had told about the same to the in-laws of her daughter, they misbehaved with him. It is further alleged that the accused used to harass his daughter and the complainant was complying with all the reasonable & unreasonable demands, despite of it, in-laws of the deceased were pressurising to his daughter to give divorce, as she could not conceive a child despite of passing of 5-6 years of her marriage. The complainant has also alleged that 6-7 months prior to this incident, accused Jatin had told to the complainant that his car i.e. Wagon R became old, which was given by the complainant in the marriage of his daughter with Jatin and it was also told that his employer told by Jatin him that the said car should be sold to the company, wherein, this accused was working and value of the said car was Rs. 1,50,000/- and his employer had told that he would pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and receiving remaining amounts should be arranged by accused Jatin by way of taking loan & his employer will pay the installment. On this, the complainant had told that he has taken loan from NZRE and the accused did not return the same and on this, the accused Jatin had misbehaved with the complainant and asked to the complainant, as to where, had his money gone, which was received by him on his retirement and further told to the complainant that he wanted car and the complainant had told that he was not in position to purchase the car for him and also asked him to not force to the complainant and in view of same, the accused had beaten to his daughter and in view of pressure on the complainant, he had agreed to avail the car for the accused. It is further alleged by the complainant that 3-4 months prior to this occurrence, in-laws of his daughter had beaten his daughter and then, ousted from their house then, his daughter lived for about 2 months in his house and in the meantime, this complainant had tried to make understand to in-laws of his daughter. But, they remained adamant and father-in-law of Arushi had told to the complainant that if he could not give the Car, complainant could make arrangment for the divorce of Jatin from his daughter and also told SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 5/131 that he was having another girl to marry with accused Jatin and told that they would getrid from Arushi, who was barren (BAANJ), the complainant had also alleged that he has tried to make understand the father in law of his daughter, but, he remained adamant and then, this complainant had paid Rs. 250000/- to the accused for purchasing car and also told that remaining amount should be financed and complainant would pay monthly installments thereof and also told to the accused to keep well his daughter as she is only issue of the complainant. Thereafter, Arushi was kept well by these accused for few days. But, 15-20 days before this incident, his daughter was again beaten and misbehaved by her in-laws and they told that they wanted to getrid from Arushi and also told that they were desirous to remarry Jatin and told that they cannot keep the daughter of the complainant in their house and being father of girl, the complainant returned silently to his house and alleged that on dated 18.05.2014 at 09:57 AM, Arushi had given miss call on his phone and at 09:59 AM, Arushi had phoned to the wife of the complainant on her phone and told that her sister in law had come in her house and accused Jatin, her father in law, her mother-in-law were sitting together and making some talks that now 7 years of the marriage of the accused with Arushi had already been completed and there is no matter of worry and also told that some mishappening may be done with Arushi by the accused and this complainant had asked to Arushi to not worry and everything would come right and thereafter, Jatin had phoned to this complainant and used unparliamentary language with him and told that daughter of the complainant had ruined his family, as she could not give birth to any child and he had asked many times to the complainant to give divorce to him, but, he was prevented and told that on that day, all the hurdles would be removed, on that day and this complainant had tried to make understand to the accused Jatin. But, he did not listen and disconnected the call and after some time, this complainant had received the call from the phone of Arushi, who had told that the accused were having SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 6/131 some ill motive and they were making some plan to do wrong with her, after bolting the door of her room from outside and confined Arushi in a room and after about one hour, accused Jatin, had phoned to complainant and told that his daughter is not well, he was taking her to the Hospital and on arriving in the hospital, this complainant had come to understand that his daughter has expired and she was brought dead and she was having signs of beating on her person and when, in the evening, they arrived in the house of the accused along with police, they found that house of the accused was locked and mother-in-law of his daughter was inside her house, he was confident suspected that his daughter was murdered by all the accused in furtherance of their common intention and prayed for taking legal action against all the accused.
2. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was under
section 498A/304B/34 of IPC was filed against the accused Inderjeet Arora & Veena Arora. Whereas, the charge-sheet against Jatin Arora & Komal Arora was filed under Section 498A/201/34 of IPC in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and the copies of charge-sheet were supplied to the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and in turn was assigned to this Court.
3. On finding prima facie case, charges under section 306/34 of IPC and 498A/34 of IPC were framed against all the accused to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, the accused were put on trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined 33 witnesses.
5. W. Ct. Geeta has been examined as PW-1, who has deposed that on SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 7/131 18.05.2014, she was posted at PS Model Town and was working as DD Writer and her duty hours were from 8 am to 4 pm and at 2:15 pm, information of the present incident was received from wireless and she recorded the information vide DD no. 26-B and Copy of DD was prepared and SI Kuldeep was telephonically informed about the receipt of information and was instructed to carry out the proceedings and proved the attested copy of DD no. 26-B Ex. PW1/A. She had also brought original DD register containing DD no. 26B and proved copy of Ex. PW1/A1. She has also deposed that DD entry was in her handwriting and at 3:25 pm, on the same day, information regarding present incident was again received and recorded in DD no. 30 B and proved the attested copy thereof Ex. PW1/B. She had proved the attested copy of DD register containing DD no. 30B Ex. PW1/B1 (OSR) and deposed that the DD entry was in the handwriting of SI Kuldeep and At 3:30 pm, on the same day, information regarding incident was received and recorded DD no. 31 B and proved the attested copy thereof Ex. PW1/C. She had also proved the copy of original DD register containing DD no. 31B Ex. PW1/C1 (OSR) and this DD entry was in her handwriting and DD register also contains DD no. 50B recorded at 9 pm on 18.05.2014 by HC Narender, proved the copy of DD No. 50B Ex. PW1/D and proved attested copy of the same Ex. PW1/D1. The Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
6. Whereas, W. Ct. Manju has been examined as PW-2 who has deposed that on 18.05.2014, she was posted in PP Sangam Park of PS Bharat Nagar. Her duty hours were from 8 am to 4 pm and she was working as DD Writer. At 1:46 pm, an information of the present incident was received from wireless operator and the information was recorded vide DD no. 17PP. Copy of the same was given to ASI Ramvir for investigation, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 8/131 who left with Ct. Krishan for the spot and proved the attested copy of DD no. 17PP Ex. PW2/A. She had also brought original DD register containing DD no. 17PP and proved the copy of same Ex. PW2/A1 and deposed that DD entry was in her handwriting. On the same day, at 2:10 pm, information of the present incident was received from Pentamid Hospital, Model Town was received from wireless operator. Information was recorded vide DD no. 19PP. ASI Ramvir was telephonically informed about the present incident and proved attested copy of DD no. 19PP Ex. PW2/B. She had also brought original DD register containing DD no. 19PP and proved the copy of same Ex. PW2/B1 (OSR). She has also deposed that this DD entry was also in her handwriting and DD register also contained original DD no. 24PP dated 18.05.2014 recorded at 6:20 pm by HC Savdesh and proved attested copy of the said DD Ex. PW2/C, proved copy of same Ex. PW2/C1 (OSR). Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
7. Whereas, Anil Kumar Bali (complainant) has been examined as PW-3 and he was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. Whereas, Ct. Sandeep has been examined as PW-4, who has deposed that on 18.05.2014 he was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, North West District, Maurya Enclave, Delhi. On receiving of information about the present incident from Control Room, he alongwith I/C Crime Team ASI Rajbir and other staff in official vehicle reached at place of incident i.e. B-35/2, GTK Road, Industrial Area, 1 st Floor, Delhi and they came to understand that the dead body had already been taken to the hospital. IO/ASI Rambir and other senior officials of police of the Police Station and district were present. He took 29 photographs of the spot Ex. PW4/A1 to A29 and proved one CD containing photographs Ex.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 9/131PW4/B. Photographs were taken from digital camera. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross- examination he has deposed that he was not instructed to take the photographs of portion inside the almirah or the landline telephone instrument lying there, at the spot. He has admitted it to be correct that there were two doors in that room at the spot. One of the doors of the room is shown in photograph Ex. PW4/A1. He has admitted it to be correct second door of the room led to the main door shown in photograph Ex. PW4/A2. He was instructed to take the photographs of the two doors of the room from different places. Photographs Ex. PW4/A3 and A4 are the photographs of the Kundis of one of the door of the room. Photographs Ex. PW4/A5 and A6 are the photographs of the Kundas of another door of that room. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
9. Whereas Ct. Dinesh has been examined as PW-5, who has deposed that on 18.05.2014, he was posted as DD Writer in the PS Model Town. His duty hours were from 4 PM to 12 midnight. At 9 PM, HC Nagender returned to Police Station Model Town and recorded DD No.50B in DD register. He has brought original DD register containing DD No.50B and proved the copy of the same Ex. PW1/D (OSR) and proved the attested true copy of the same Ex. PW1/D1 and deposed that DD entry is in the handwriting of HC Nagender. Duty Officer PP Sangam Park was informed about the receiving of information and he was told that ASI Rambir was investigating the matter. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
10. Whereas, HC Rohtash has been examined as PW-6, who has deposed that On 21.05.2014 he was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and was SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 10/131 working as Duty Officer from 4 PM, to 12 midnight. At 5.15 PM he received rukka of this case. Same was produced by SI Rakesh. On the basis of said rukka, he got registered FIR No.276/14 on computer and proved the copy of the same Ex. PW6/A and deposed that after registration of FIR, he made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW6/B and fter registration of FIR, the original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Jaidev, which was to be handed over to SI Rakesh. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination he has denied that the FIR is ante-timed.
11. Whereas, Dr. Nadeem Akhtar has been examined as PW-7, who was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. Whereas, Ridhi has been examined as PW-8 and cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
13. Ankur Bali has been examined as PW-9, who was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
14. Smt. Renu Bali has been examined as PW-10, who was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
15. Whereas Om Prakash has been examined as PW-11, who produced the summoned record relating to the loan of Rs.2 Lacs taken by Sh. Anil Kumar Bali who was then employee of Northern Railway. Sh. Anil Kumar Bali was employed at Sr. Section Engineer (Construction) under Deputy Chief Engineer (Electrical/Construction), Northern Railway, New Delhi. Sh. Anil Kumar Bali took a loan of Rs.2 Lacs from Northern Zone Railway Employees CTC Society Ltd. on 15.01.2008 and also made repayment of the loan by installments on regular basis and proved Certified SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 11/131 copies of statement of repayment of loan by Sh. Anil Kumar Bali and also deposed that On 25.08.2012 Sh. A.K. Bali after his retirement got full and final payment of his dues from the department and proved Certified copies of statement of final payments running into four pages Ex. PW11/B1 to B4 bearing his initials at Point A on all the pages, Certified copy of retirement certificate of Sh. Anil Kumar Bali. Certified copy of voucher of final payment to Sh. Anil Kumar Bali Ex. PW11/D. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination, he has admitted it to be correct that application form for seeking loan from the society is required to be filled at the time of seeking loan from the society. He does not know if there is a column in the application form for seeking loan with regard to the purpose for which the loan is sought and application form must be there in office record. He has not brought the same. He has brought certified copy of application form, which was filled by A.K. Bali at the time of seeking loan of Rs.2 Lacs from the society and same is Ex. PW11/D1 to D3 bearing attestation of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Branch Manager, at Points A, B & C. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Dinesh Kumar as he has seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties and also deposed that he was working in the loan department of the society since 1995. In column 1 of the application form Ex. PW11/D1, the purpose for which the loan was required is written as H/R. He does not know the meaning of H/R. But it may be House-Repair or House Renovation or House/Home Requirement & Loan could be given only for some purpose, which was required to be mentioned in column no.1 of the form. He has brought Ex. PW11/D1 to D3 from record file and in the record file, only documents Ex. PW11/D1 to D3 were kept and there were no other supportive documents/file to prove the requirement and purpose of loan and when the attention of the witness is drawn towards column no.2 of Ex. PW11/D3. Wherein it was written there that within one month, the borrower was required, as per the directions of Nideshak Mandal, to furnish SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 12/131 the supportive documents for which the loan was Dezired and taken. He has denied that he has deposed falsely under oath or that deliberately withheld the documents with regard to the grant of loan.
16. Whereas, Satish Kumar has been examined as PW-12, who has deposed that Marriage certificate was issued by Registrar of Marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, in the name of Jatin Arora s/o Inderjeet Arora and Arushi Arora d/o Anil Kumar Bali, Date of Marriage 07.02.2007 bearing sl.no. 095/DC(North West)/ADM/2010/666 and proved the Marriage certificate Ex. PW3/H. Witness states that the aforesaid marriage certificate issued by the office of ADM, Govt. of NCT, North West District, Kanjhawala, on 06.07.2010.Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but, the he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
17. Whereas, Kapil Arora has been examined as PW-13, who has deposed that he is employed in Sealed Air Company situated at Gurgaon. Accused Komal is his wife and she is the housewife and is not employed anywhere. He took mobile connection on the basis of his Identification documents and gave it to his wife accused Komal for her use. His wife accused Komal was using the same mobile number and she also used to call him on his mobile number from her mobile phone and she also used to make calls from her number to other relatives. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination he has deposed that he was married to Komal on 11.12.2005 and he has two children, a boy of 3½ years and a daughter of 5½ years. He had hired an auto rickshaw on 18.05.2014 for GTK Industrial Area at 10.30 AM. Komal also used to visit Nanak Piyau Gurudwara, whenever she went to the house of her parents. The investigating officer had come to his place and had SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 13/131 made investigation with regard to the aforesaid date of 18.05.2014 and of the previous details of conversation of the mobile number of Komal Arora. On 12.04.2014 and on 26.04.2014 due to vacation/holiday of his daughter Jia, on that day his wife accused Komal visited her parental house at GTK Industrial Area. During investigation, the call details of the mobile phone of his wife did not reflect her visit to the house of her parents in the month of March 2014. He had told the investigating officer that when accused Komal used to visit the house of her parents, deceased Arushi was not in the matrimonial home.
18. Whereas, Mr. Tarun Dhikia has been examined as PW-14, who has deposed that he was working as an officer in the Karnataka Bank, Savita Vihar Branch. He has seen the original account opening form of account no.5442500100229701 opened in the name of Arushi Bali and proved the account opening form and the specimen signature card Ex.PW14/A & B and also deposed that account holder Arushi gave an application Ex.PW14/C for change of name and address on dated 21.05.2010 and proved the Form no. 60 Ex.PW14/D. He has also proved brought certified true copy of request of the account holder to Smt. Renu Bali Ex.PW14/E & E1 in the same account as a joint account holder and deposed that Smt.Renu Bali was given customer ID no. 544054958. Smt. Arushi had customer ID No. 544053295. Smt. Renu Bali was added in the account on 07.06.2007. On seeing the copy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs bearing FDR No.5441500105822801, bearing customer ID No. 544054958 dated 13.05.2014 and deposed that this FDR is issued from the branch of their bank Mark P-3-B. He has identified the signature of Mr. Matrika and Sanjay Kukreti existing on this document as he has seen them writing and signing during the course of official duties. Their signatures are at point A and B respectively and proved the copy of FDR Ex.PW14/F and also deposed that FDR is in the joint name of Renu SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 14/131 Bali and Arushi. He has also seen the statement Ex.PW14/G of account of Arushi for the period 10.07.2005 to 28.05.2014 running into nine pages. He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross- examination, he has admitted that at the time of opening of account of Arushi, the address mentioned was of Shahdara, Delhi. He has further admitted that in the change of address application Ex.PW14/C, the new address was mentioned as B-35/2, G.T.Karnal Road, Industrial Area, near New Gola Banquet Hall, Delhi-39. On seeing the Ex.PW14/F, he has admitted it to be correct that the address on the FD was corrected by striking of the earlier address. He can not comment as to from where, new address of X-101 was noted on this FD. He failed to tell as to who had written this corrected address. On seeing the Ex.PW14/C, he has admitted that date 21.05.2010 is there in the stamp of bank, but it does not contain any date of application mentioned by the applicant. On seeing PW14/G, he has admitted it to be correct that on dated 13.04.2006, a sum of Rs.45,000/- was withdrawn vide cheque no. 30852 which was in favour of Ankur. He has also admitted it to be correct that on 03.10.2006 a sum of Rs. 39,500/- was withdrawn vide cheque no. 30855, which was in favour of Gaurav Bali and further admitted it to be correct that the introducer of the account of Arushi was Gaurav Bali and on dated 30.04.2014, a sum of Rs. 3,00,700/- was withdrawn from this account vide cheque no. 876804, which was in favour of the bank and in the said amount of Rs.3,00,700/- the amount of Rs. 700/- was charged by the bank for preparation of the instrument. He has further admitted it to be correct that for preparation of a bank draft worth Rs. 3 lakhs, the instrument making charges of bank were Rs. 700/- at the relevant time in April 2014 and also admitted that whatever instrument was prepared vide this entry dated 30.04.2014, it could be used only through the bank. He has further admitted that on 03.05.2014 a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was withdrawn vide cheque no. 876805 which was in favour of Renu Bali. He had no idea whether account holder Arushi also held one SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 15/131 bank locker in their branch of the bank. He has admitted that in statement Ex.PW14/G, locker rent is reflected at various places. They maintain a separate register qua operation of locker. He is not aware that other family members of Renu Bali and Anil Bali also hold accounts in their branch. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.
19. Whereas, Mr. Puneet Arora has been examined as PW-15, who has deposed that he is the proprietor of M/s S.P.V Design & Contracts. His business is of modular furniture. He gave SIM cards of mobile phones to his employees for use of the employees from his firm and also deposed that he gave the SIM Card with mobile no. 8588827933 to the accused Jatin Arora s/o Sh. Inderjeet Arora and accused was Field Manager in his firm. He was using that mobile phone and bill of the phone was paid by his firm. IO recorded his statement in this case. This witness was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross- examination, he has deposed that the accused was already using some car. One day, this witness & accused were generally discussing business matters and he himself offered to the accused that if the accused wishes, he could purchase the car and this witness would finance it by paying the monthly installments from the account of the firm. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that this prosecution witness had offered to pay monthly installment for the new car, which was to be purchased by the accused Jatin. Thus, testimony of this witness is inconsistent with the testimony of PW3, which also creates the testimony of PW3 as suspicious.
20. Whereas, Ct. Krishan has been examined as PW-16, who has deposed that on 18.05.2014, he was posted at PP Sangam Park in PS Bharat Nagar. On that day, on receipt of DD No.17/PP regarding quarrel, he along with ASI Rambir reached at spot i.e. B-35/2, GTK Road, Industrial Area, Delhi. No one met him there and no information about the quarrel could be SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 16/131 received. After some time, ASI Rambir received telephonic information from Duty Officer about receipt of DD No.19/PP about the present incident. He along with ASI Rambir reached at Pantamid Hospital as per information. SI Rakesh, I/C PP Sangam Park also reached there. As per the instructions of SI Rakesh, he took the dead body and got the same preserved in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and remained there. On 19.05.2014 SI Rakesh reached in the mortuary with the relatives of deceased Arushi. Dead body was got identified by the relatives. After post mortem, dead body was handed over to the father of deceased. After the post mortem, the exhibits of the present case in duly sealed condition along with sample seal which were handed over by the autopsy surgeon, were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A and he has identified his signature at point A. His statement was recorded by the IO. He was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross-examination, he has stated that initially when they reached at H. No. B-35/2, GTK Road, Industrial Area, that house was found locked and no one met them there. They did not make any inquiry from there. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
21. Whereas, HC Satish Pal has been examined as PW-17, who has deposed that on 21.05.2014, he was posted in PP Sangam Park, in PS Bharat Nagar and joined the investigation with SI Rakesh Duhan and Ct. Ramesh and they arrived at GTK Road, Industrial Area, Delhi, near Rajwara Palace Banquet Hall. Ct. Jaidev was present there and he handed over copy of FIR and rukka to the IO. Thereafter, secret informer met them and he gave information regarding the accused Jatin and his father, who were about to come at their residence and this witness alongwith IO and Ct. Ramesh took position near the house of the accused and at about 7:30 PM both the accused came and entered in their house and at the instance of informer both the accused were apprehended and both the accused Jatin SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 17/131 Arora and Inderjeet were interrogated and arrested. Accused Jatin Arora was arrested vide memo Ex.PW17/A and he was personally searched vide Ex. PW 17/B, his disclosure statement Ex.PW17/C was also recorded, whereas, accused Inderjeet was arrested vide memo Ex.pW17/D. He was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW17/E and his disclosure statement Ex. PW 17/F was also recorded. Whereas Inderjeet was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 17/D, he was personal search Ex. PW 17/E and disclosure statement was also recorded which is Ex. PW 17/F. Two mobile phones of Jatin, maker of which is Nokia and Samsung were seized vide memo Ex. PW 17/G. Accused were medically examined and were brought to the Police Station and case property was deposited in the malkhana by the IO. On dated 22.05.2014 he joined the investigation and they arrived in the house of the accused where complainant Anil Kumar Bali met them and during the search in the of room of deceased Aarushi one suicide note running into six pages and one diary were recovered from the almirah of iron lying therein and 26 pages of the diary were written in English and Hindi language. The same were identified by Anil Kumar Bali, one mobile phone of deceased Arushi of Samsung company was also recovered. Suicide note and diary were seized vide Ex. PW 3/E. Mobile Phone of Samsung dual SIM, one SIM of Airtel and another was of Reliance were also into possession vide Ex.pW3/D. Marriage card of Arushi and four photographs of marriage and certificate of marriage of Arushi were also recovered and were taken into possession vide Ex.PW3/F. He has identified the marriage card, certificate of marriage and four photographs of marriage Ex. PW 3/G, H & I/1 to I/4 and they returned to the police station and accused were sent in the judicial custody. He has also deposed that on dated 07.06.2014 he alongwith SI Rakesh and Ct. Manju joined the investigation of the present case along with complainant Anil Kumar Bali, who came to the police post Sangam Park and complainant produced 14 photographs of marriage of Arushi which were seized vide memo Ex. PW SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 18/131 3/J and the identified the photographs Ex. PW 3/J1 to Ex. PW 3/J14 and complainant had stated that Wagon R car bearing registration no. DL 7CH 0801, wherein Arushi was brought to Pantamid Hospital was parked near the hospital and this witness went to the house of accused Jatin and brought the keys of the said car and said car was seized vide memo Ex. PW 3/K. Photographs of the said car Ex. PW 3/L1 to Ex. PW 3/L5 have also been identified by this witness and both the mobile phone of accused Jatin is Ex. P1 and identified the mobile phone of Nokia of Jatin with SIM and bettary Ex. P1(colly.) and mobile phone of Samsung is Ex. P2 and mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy Ex. P3 which were recovered from the room of deceased Arushi. This witness was cross examined by the ld. Counsel for accused . During his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not now whether the house of accused was locked or left unlocked after arresting accused Jatin and Interdjeet. He has denied that accused Jatin and Inderjeet were arrested from the Pentamid Hospital and they were not arrested in the manner as deposed by this witness and also deposed that on dated 22.05.2014 complainant met them outside no. B-35/2 and at that time key of first floor of the house was in possession of Anil Kumar Bali and he had opened the house and no public persons was called from the factory or from the neighbourhood to join the proceedings and also deposed that room was also opened by the complainant Anil Kumar Bali and the keys of the house and room were kept by the complainant Anil Kumar Bali . He has also deposed that he is not aware whether crime team already conducting the search of the room of deceased Arushi and also deposed that there was only one almirah in the room of Arushi and lock of that almirah was also opened by complainant Anil Bali and the keys were in his possession. He does not remember from which portion of the alimirah suicide note and diary were recovered. He also deposed that all the articles recovered were lying open in the almirah and all these articles were visible when the almirah was opened. IO checked the call history of the mobile phone and he does not SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 19/131 remember the time when they returned to the PS on 22.05.2014. He does not know who kept the keys of the almirah with him after the recovery. He has denied that he has deposed falsely and he is planted witness at the instance of the complainant. Thus from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that on dated 22.05.2014, the key of the first floor of the house of accused was lying with Anil Kumar Bali, who had opened the locked on that day when the alleged suicide notes, alleged diary and mobile phones of the deceased were recovered. Testimony is also found to be contradictory to the testimony of PW21 Rakesh Duhan and the testimony of PW28 i.e. Incharge Cime Team, as testimony of PW28 reveals that he had checked the room even on 18.05.2014, but no suicide note , diary or mobile phone of Arushi were recovered from the said room of Arushi. The IO Rakesh Duhan(PW21) has deposed that at the insistence of the complainant(PW3), he had conducted the search of the room of Arushi second time on dated 22.05.2014 so, the recovery of the alleged suicide note and alleged diary become doubtful, as the keys of the room & always were lying in the custody of PW3.
22. Whereas, HC Suresh has been examined as PW-18, who has deposed that he has brought the original register no. 19 for the relevant period and on dated 18.05.2014 he was posted in Police Station Bharat Nagar and was working as MHC(M). It is further deposed that on that day SI Rakesh Duhan deposited two pullandas sealed with the seal of RD and copy of seizure memos, in the malkhana and relevant entry was made in register no. 19 at sl. no. 761/14, copy of which is Ex. PW 18/A. It is further deposed that on dated 19.05.2014 SI Rakesh Duhan deposited three sealed pullandas with sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and a copy of seizure memo, in the malkhana. Relevant entry was made in register no. 19 at sl. No. 762814, copy of which is Ex. PW 18/B. He deposed that on dated 21.05.2014 SI Rakesh Duhan deposited two mobile phones, i.e one maker SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 20/131 of which was Nokia in black colour with Vodafone SIM No. 8588827933 and second phone of Samsung with Airtel SIM No. 9910140617 in black colour alongwith seizure memo, in the malkhana. Relevant entry was made in register no. 19 at sl. no. 767/14, copy of which is Ex.PW18/C and on dated 22.05.2014 SI Rakesh Duhan deposited one mobile phone maker of which was Samsung Galaxy in black colour with one Airtel and one Reliance SIM alongwith seizure memo, in the malkhana. Relevent entry was made in register no. 19 at sl. no. 768/14, copy of which is Ex. PW 18/D. On dated 07.06.2014 SI Rakesh Duhan deposited one Wagon R car no. DL 7CH 0801 alongwith seizure memo, in the malkhana and relevant entry was made in register no. 19 at sl. no. 790/14, copy of which Ex. PW 18/E. It is further deposed that on 19.05.2014 two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RD were sent to BJRM Hospital, Delhi for opinion , vide RC No. 47/21/14, through Ct. Surender. He has brought the original RC. Copy of the said RC is Ex. PW 18/F and entry in this regard in the register no. 19 against main entry was made and the same is Ex.PW18/F1. He has further deposed that after opinion, Ct. Surender brought back two sealed pullandas alonwith sample seals of FMT BJRM and same were deposited in the malkhana. Entry in this regard in register no.19 against main entry was made and the same is Ex. PW 18/F2. On dated 29.05.2014 through Ct. Jaidev, one sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital was sent to the FSL vide RC No. 55/21/14. He has brought the original RC. Copy of the said RC is Ex. PW18/G and after depositing the property in the FSL, Ct. Jaidev brought and deposited original acknowledgement receipt Ex. PW 18/H1. Entry in this regard in register no. 19 against main entry was made is Ex. PW 18/H2. On the same day, through Ct. Jaidev, one more sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital was sent to the FSL vide RC no. 56/21/14. He has proved the Copy of RC Ex. PW 18/1. After depositing the property in the FSL, Ct. Jaidev brought and deposited original acknowledgement receipt. Copy whereof is Ex. P18/1.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 21/131Entry in this regard in register no. 19 against main entry was made and the same is Ex. PW 18/12. On 10.06.2014, through Ct. Jaidev, three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RD were sent to the FSL vide RC NO. 57/21/14 by IO. He has brought the original RC. Copy of the said RC is Ex. PW 18/J. After depositing the property in the FSL, Ct. Jaidev brought and deposited original acknowledgement receipt which he has brought and copy whereof is Ex. PW 18/J1. On 11.06.2014, through Ct. Adesh Kumar, three sealed envelopes sealed with the seal of RD were sent to the FSL vide RC NO. 59/21/14 by IO. He has brought the original RC. Copy of the said RC is Ex. PW 18/K. After depositing the property in the FSL, Ct. Adesh Kumar brought and deposited original acknowledgement receipt which he has brought, which is Ex. PW 18/K1. On 19.12.2014, FSL result of exhibits of RC No. 57/21/14 was received through Ct. Satbir and was given to IO/SI Rakesh Duhan. Remnants three sealed pullandas with the seal of FSL were deposited in the malkhana and entry was made in register no. 19 against main entry and the same is Ex.PW18/L. On 27.09.2014, FSL result of exhibits of RC No. 56/21/14 was received through Ct. Ravi and was given to IO/SI Rakesh Duhan. Remnant one sealed pullanda with the seal of FSL was deposited in the malkhana and entry was made in register no. 19 against main entry and the same is Ex.PW 18/M. On 16.04.2015, FSL result of exhibits of RC No. 59/21/14 was received through IO/SI Rakesh Duhan. Remnant three sealed pullandas with the seal of FSL was deposited in the malkhana and entry was made in register no. 19 against main entry and the same is Ex. PW 18/N. All entries are in his handwriting. So long as the case property remained with him, nobody tampered with it. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused . During his cross-examination, he has admitted it to be correct that no document or diary was deposited in the Malkhana by the IO in the present case and entry regarding articles deposited by IO on dated 22.05.2014 was made by this witness which is Ex. PW 18/D. He has denied that he has tempered with the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 22/131 case property.
23. Whereas, Ct. Surender has been examined as PW-19 who has deposed that on 19.05.2014 he was posted in PS Bharat Nagar. On that day as per instructions of MHC(M) HC Suresh, this witness had deposited two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RD at BJRM Hospital, vide RC NO. 47/21/14 after collecting the same, from Malkhana of PS Bharat Nagar. After collecting opinion from BJRM Hospital, he had deposed two pullandas sealed with the seal FMT BJRM Hospital alongwith sample seal and opinion in the Malkhana. So long as the case property remained with him, nobody tampered with the same. He put his signature on the RC, when he had collected the exhibits and documents from the malkhana. His signature appears at Point A on RC already Ex. PW 18/F. This witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel, he has denied that the samples were tampered with.
24. Whereas, Ct. Adesh has been examined as PW-20, who has deposed that on 11.06.2014, he was posted in PS Bharat Nagar. On that day, as per instructions of MHC(M) HC Suresh, he had deposited three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of RD at FSL Rohini, vide RC NO. 59/21/14 after collecting it from Malkhana of PS Bharat Nagar. After deposit at FSL, he handed over the receipt acknowledgement and copy of RC with the MHC(M). So long as the case property remained with him, nobody tampered with the same. He put his signature on the RC when he collected the exhibits and documents from the malkhana. His signature appears at point A on RC already Ex. PW 18/K. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross- examination, he deposed that he is not aware whether the same case property, which he carried on 11.06.2014 was also sent to the FSL on SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 23/131 10.06.2014 in unsealed condition. In the three sealed parcels, which he carried, there, were mobile phones. He does not know anything about RC No.57/21/14. IO did not seal the three parcels on 11.06.2014 in his presence. He has denied that the case property was tampered with.
25. Whereas, SI Rakesh Duhan has been examined as PW-21, who deposed that on dated 18.05.2014 he was posted as I/C PP Sangam Park, PS Bharat Nagar and on that day an information was received regarding quarrel in PP vide DD No. 17/PP, this PCR call was marked to ASI Rambir and he alongwith Ct. Krishan reached at the spot which was B-35/2, GTK Road Industrial Area, Delhi. He has further deposed that meanwhile another information was received from Pantamid Hospital, Model Town, which was regarding the suicide of a lady namely Arushi Arora, who was brought dead in the hospital. This DD entry was conveyed to him personally and ASI Rambir was informed telephonically regarding this information which was received vide DD No.19/PP Ex. PW2/B. He reached at the Pantamid hospital and obtained the MLC no. 875/14 Ex.PW7/A of deceased Arushi Arora and he inspected the body of deceased Arushi and the doctor had observed that the ligature mark was present on the neck of the deceased and he has also observed the same on the body of the deceased. He has further deposed that he met ASI Rambir and Ct. Krishan in the hospital and on his direction, the body was sent to mortuary at BJRM Hospital for preserving the same by ASI Rambir and the body was sent in the custody of Ct. Krishan. After preserving the dead body, carbon copy of the application Ex.PW21/A for preservation was handed over to him by Ct. Krishan and he had not met any eye witness in the pentamid hospital and he alongwith ASI Rambir reached at the spot i.e. B- 35/2, GTK Road Industrial Area, Delhi, where SHO and the ACP had arrived. He called the crime team at the spot and the crime team inspected the spot and clicked the photographs of the spot. He has further deposed SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 24/131 that he had also inspected the spot and he found that there was a room on the west direction of the first floor of the said premises and he found a piece of chunni which was of black and yellow colour, which was found tied with the ceiling fan in the room and another part of the same chunni was lying on the floor of the said room. He had also found that one chair was kept below the ceiling fan and one plastic stool was kept there near the said chair. Near to it, there was a dressing table, on which, one scissors was lying there and on the right side of the ceiling fan, there was a bed and on the said bed some dresses were lying in scattered condition. He inspected the place, but at that time he did not find any suicide note or diary. The chunni which was tied with the ceiling fan was cut with the help of the same scissors. At the spot, there was another portion of the chunni, with which, the deceased had hanged, lying at the spot. Since that chunni was already cut, therefore, that piece was lying on the floor and he measured the chunni. The measurement was mentioned by him in the seizure memo thereof in detail. Both pieces of the chunni were kept in one pullanda and the scissors was kept in another pullanda and both the pullandas were sealed with the seal of RD. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Rambir. Both these pullandas were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/B. He had also met with the mother in law of deceased namely Veena Arora. He made inquiries from her and she informed that this room belonged to Jatin and Arushi. She further informed him that she was not aware, as to what happened, but her son namely Jatin had informed her that Arushi had hanged herself and he had taken Arushi to the hospital. She refused to give her statement that time. In the meanwhile, parents of Arushi arrived and he met father of Arushi namely Mr. Anil Kumar Bali. He also asked him to give his statement. Anil Kumar informed him that his son in law Jatin had informed him that Arushi was unconscious and he was not aware about as to what happened to her and he was taking Arushi to hospital. Anil Kumar Bali and his family SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 25/131 members had not given him any statements at that time.He carried out the proceedings U/s.174 Cr.P.C. and he kept the PCR call pending vide DD No.31/PP dtd. 18.05.2014. This entry was entered by him in the DD register of PP Sangam Park. Vide DD entry, copy whereof is Ex. PW21/C. On 18.05.2014 he had sent the information regarding the death of deceased Arushi Arora to SDM Saraswati Vihar vide his letter which is Ex. PW21/D and on the next day i.e. on 19.05.2014 he reached BJRM Hospital alongwith the seized chunni and the scissors. He completed the documents regarding the postmortem. The request for autopsy was made vide Ex. PW21/E. He prepared the brief facts for proceedings U/s.174 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW21/F. He had also requested for giving the opinion as to whether the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased was possible by the seized chunni and to opine whether any external injury mark was present on the body. The said request on the brief facts is Ex. PW21/G. The dead body of deceased was identified by Ankur Bali and Anil Kumar Bali vide statements Ex. PW9/C and Ex. PW3/A. He had also filled the form 25.35 Ex. PW21/H and the postmortem was got conducted in the hospital. The exhibits were handed over to this witness by the doctor in the hospital with the seal of BJRM Hospital which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. The exhibits included a wooden box, which was containing viscera, sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased Arushi, an envelope containing nail clippings of deceased Arushi and two samples seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI. The dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased Arushi vide handing over memo Ex. PW3/B. The Postmortem report and the opinion regarding death of deceased Arushi were pending. The exhibits were deposited in the malkhana. On the same day i.e. on dated 19.05.2014 in the night at about 11.35 PM, father of deceased Arushi namely Anil Kumar Bali came at the police post Sangam Park and handed over to him a written complaint Ex. PW3/C. This complaint was entered in the PP vide DD No.31/PP. On 21.05.2014 he SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 26/131 collected the PM report no 396/14 Ex. PW7/D-1 and on this P.M.Report, the doctor has opined that the cause of death can only be given after receiving the report of viscera. However, post mortem findings were suggestive of ante mortem hanging, possible by the chunni. On this postmortem report, the head of forensic observed two external injuries, one was the ligature mark on the neck and second an injection mark on the left side of the chest. Thereafter, as per the complaint given by Anil Kumar Bali, as per the postmortem report and MLC, he prepared the endorsement on the complaint and the case U/s 498A/306/34 IPC was registered. His endorsement which is in his handwriting on the complaint is Ex.PW21/I. The FIR was got registered personally by him, through duty officer at PS Bharat Nagar. He obtained the copy of the FIR which was handed over to this witness by Ct. Jaidev along with original rukka. He carried out the further investigation in this case. He has deposed that on 21.05.02014 he alongwith HC Satish and Ct. Ramesh left the Police Station Bharat Nagar for the house of the accused and prepared the site plan Ex. PW 21/J and at that time none of the accused except accused Veena Arora was present in the house and this witness alongwith his staff started waiting for other accused persons near that house and at about 7:30 PM accused Jatin and his father Inderjeet came to their house, when they were entering in the house they were apprehended by this witness and the members of his staff and they were arrested vide memo Ex. PW 17/A and Ex. PW 17/D and their personal searches were also conducted vide Ex. PW 17/B and Ex.PW 17/E and disclosure statements of both the accused were also recorded vide Ex. PW 17/C and Ex. PW 17/F and mobile phone of Nokia and Samsung with SIM were recovered from the possession of accused Jatin which were seized vide Ex. PW 17/G. He has also deposed that no suicide note or diary was recovered from the room of Aarushi on 18.05.2014 , but the father of Aarushi was insisting, so on dated 22.05.2014 he called Sh. Anil Kumar Bali, who is the father of deceased at the spot and he alongwith HC SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 27/131 Satish and Ct. Ramesh arrived at the spot and conducted the search of the room including almirah kept in the said room and suicide note comprising of six pages and one diary were recovered from the almirah kept in the room and some pages were written in the diary. Anil had identified the said writing of his daughter in the diary and suicide note and further deposed that one mobile phone with dual SIM was also recovered from almirah and the same was identified of Aarushi, which was seized vide memo ex/ PW 3/D and idenfied the suicide notes Ex. PW 22/B1 to Ex. PW 22/B7 and diary Ex. PW 22/C and also deposed that invitation card of marriage of Aarushi with Jatin, marriage certificate, four photographs of marriage of Aarushi were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/F , which were proved on record Ex. PW 3/G , Ex. PW 3/H, Ex. PW 3/I-1 to Ex. PW 3/I-4 and this witness has recorded the statement of Anil Kumar Bali and he was discharged. He has also deposed that on dated 23.05.2014 he alongwith Ct. Ram Pyari and Ct. Ramesh again went to the spot and accused Veena was interrogated and arrested vide memo EX. PW 25/A and her disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW 25/C was recorded and on dated 29.05.2014 Ct. Dinesh was sent to Karnataka Bank, Savita Vihar Branch and notice 91 Cr. P. C. for collecting the documents relating to account of Arushi was moved and proved the copy of notices Ex PW 21/K and documents relating to the account of Arushi were seized vide seizure memo Ex. 21/L and on dated 03.06.2014 Anil Kumar Bali and his wife Renu had come to PP Sangam Vihar and he had recorded their supplementary statements and who had alleged that Komal was also present at the spot at the time of occurrence and on dated 07.06.2014 accused Anil Kumar Bali again came to PP Sangam Park and produced 14 photographs reflecting the dowry articles and the photographs were seized vide memo Ex. PW 3/J and photographs are Ex. PW 3/J1 to Ex. PW 3/J4 and also deposed that Wagon R car was also gifted by him to accused Jatin and said car was registered in the name of Anil Kumar Bali and Aarushi was also taken to Pantamid SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 28/131 Hospital in the said car on 18.05.2014 and the said car was checked, but, no suspected item was found in the car. On dated 10.06.2014 suicide note with diary and the documents collected from Karnataka Bank were sent to FSL through Ct. Jaidev and questioned documents, diary and documents of Karnataka Bank were accepted by FSL however mobile phone could not be deposited as the same were unsealed and he had recorded the statement of Ct. Jaiveer and he has prepared three parcels with the seal of RD. He has also deposed that on dated 11.06.2014 parcels and mobile were sent to FSL and after depositing the parcels he had recorded the statement of Ct. Adesh and MHC(M) on the same day he came to the court and moved an application for issuance of NBWs against accused Komal Arora and he made efforts to arrest accused Komal, but she was evading her arrest. He has further deposed that on 24.06.2014 PW Anil Kumar Bali came to PP Sangam Park and produced four photographs before him and he stated that these photographs were taken, when he saw the dead body of his daughter Aarushi in Pantamid Hospital, as he observed some injury marks on the body of Aarushi. These photographs were seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 3/M and the photographs are already Ex. PW3/M1 to M4. He further deposed that on 26.06.2014 he came to the court and moved an application for issuance of process u/s. 82 Cr. P. C. against accused Komal and on 05.07.2014 he went to BJRM Hospital and produced the four photographs Ex. PW 3/M1 to M4 alongwith the PM report before the concerned doctor for giving opinion about the injury marks on the body of Aarushi, as reflected in the photographs and he obtained the opinion in this regard from the doctor. He has further deposed that on 08.07.2014 he visited Pantamid Hospital and produced the MLC and PM report of deceased Aarushi and obtained the opinion regarding the injection mark, as mentioned in the PM report. He has further deposed that on 10.07.2014 accused Komal Arora surrendered before court and he alongwith SI Sanju and L-Ct. Manju came to the court and arrested accused SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 29/131 Komal after obtaining permission from the court. The arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Komal Arora were prepared, which are Ex. PW 21/M and Ex. PW 21/N. He had interrogated accused Komal and recorded her disclosure, same is Ex. PW 21/O. He has further deposed that SI Sanju obtained one day PC remand of accused Komal for the search of jewellery and diary. They made search for the jewellery and diary with accused Komal. But, no recovery could be effected. SI Sanju again interrogated accused Komal in his presence and recorded her other disclosure statement which is Ex. PW 21/P and on the next day accused Komal was produced in the court. He has further deposed that on 12.07.2015 PW Anil Kumar Bali came to PP Sangam Park and produced two photographs pertaining to the door of the balcony of the house of accused persons and he also produced the documents pertaining to loan taken by him from NZRE. These photographs and documents were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/N and the photographs are Ex. PW 3/N1 & N2 and the documents are Ex. PW 3/N3 and N4. He had recorded the statement of Anil Kumar Bali. He further deposed that during investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses and he had also obtained the CDR, alongwith CAF of mobile numbers of Aarushi, Jatin and Komal and after completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet. He has deposed that he collected the FSL result and filed supplementary charge-sheet before the court. He has identified the case properties viz. one black coloured Nokia mobile phone alongwith Vodafone SIM and one battery Ex.P1 and it was recovered from accused Jatin Arora, one black coloured mobile phone make Samsung alongwith one Airtel SIM and one battery Ex.P-2, one black coloured mobile phone maker of which was Samsung alongwith one Airtel SIM and one battery which was recovered from accused Jatin Arora, one black coloured mobile phone maker of which was Samsung Galaxy Neo alongwith two SIMs, one was of Airtel and other of Reliance and one battery Ex.P3. It is one black coloured mobile phone SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 30/131 make Samsung Galaxy Neo alongwith two SIMs, which was recovered from the room of deceased Arushi on the identification of the complainant, two pieces of chunni of yellow and black colour Ex.P5 and deposed that these pieces of chunni are same, which were recovered from the room of deceased Arushi, one small scissor Ex. P-6, which was recovered from the room of deceased Arushi, he has also identified one green colour printed salwar suit and two inner wears and the clothes, which were worn by the deceased Arushi, when he had seen the dead body of Aarushi in Pentamid Hospital. This witness was also cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that he had not sealed the mobile phone, which was seized by him on 22.05.2014. He has admitted that all the mobile phone were sealed by him, when same were returned by the FSL authorities, when these mobile were sent by him to FSL for examination and thereafter, these mobile phone were sealed and again sent to FSL for examination. The mobile phones were remained in unsealed condition from 18.05.2014 till 10.06.2014. He could not check the contents of the mobile phone of deceased Arushi as there was locking code in the mobile phone and he was not aware about code of the phone. He has checked the data, which were retrieved in the FSL from the mobile phone of Arushi. He has admit that mobile phone of deceased Arushi was an android phone. There was inbuilt application of recording the calls in the said mobile phone. He came to know about this fact after receiving the FSL result. He had checked the details of calls which were immediately received or made by the deceased near the time of her death. The data which were received from FSL was containing in a CD. He did not check that data thoroughly. He did not find any deleted file of messages, Whats App. messages or the calls before her death in the data received from FSL. The data containing in that CD was voluminous so he could not check it minutely. He has admitted that on the directions of the Court, the same were made after the filing of chargesheet, he had checked the data received SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 31/131 from the FSL, which was in PDF form. He cannot say as to whether or not there was any tampering in the time of receiving / making of calls from the mobile phone of deceased Arushi. The mobile phone of Mr. Anil Bali father of deceased Ms. Arushi was not seized by him even after he had furnished the particulars of the conversations between him and his daughter, prior to her demise. He does not remember whether or not he had checked his mobile phone or not and for this reason he cannot say whether or not it was android phone and deposed that he had produced some photographs before him during investigation, but he does not know whether or not those photographs were clicked by him from his mobile phone. He did not seize the mobile phone of Ms. Renu Bali, mother of the deceased though it was informed by her that she had talked with her daughter, before her death. He did not seal the alleged suicide note and the diary of the deceased which were recovered from her matrimonial house. He has admitted that on 18.05.2014 the crime team inspected the spot and conducted the search in the room of the deceased, but, no suicide note or diary were recovered from there. Voluntarily deposed that there was an almirah in the room of the deceased, which was not checked by the officials of crime team on 18.05.2014 and further deposed that there were more than one almirah in the room of the deceased, however he could not tell the exact number of almirah in her room and on 18.05.2014 and deposed that almirah of the room of Arushi were checked by the crime team. He has deposed that he did not mention this fact in the chargesheet or in the case diary that no almirah of the room of the Arushi were checked by the crime team on 18.05.2014. The crime team took the photographs of the crime spot and handed over 29 photographs of scene of crime to him. He has admitted that at the time of inspection of spot by the crime team, this witness, the SHO, other senior officers were present. Mr. Anil Bali was also present at the spot at that time. After returning from the spot on 18.05.2014, he made a DD entry no. 17 Ex.PW21/C in the DD register and SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 32/131 he had mentioned in the said DD entry that no suicide note/diary were recovered from the crime spot during inspection by the crime team. He did not mention in DD no. 17 that almiras of the deceased were not checked by crime team on 18.05.2014. He had mentioned in DD no. 17 that despite the best efforts, no suicide note/diary were recovered from the spot. When, he obtained the specimen handwriting and signatures of deceased Arushi from Karnataka bank, by that time the suicide note and diary of the deceased were in unsealed in condition and were lying in the file of this case with him. The suicide note and diary were not deposited by him with MHC(M). After checking the record, received from the FSL which was in PDF form, he did not find any conversation or SMS or Whatsapp message, which could reveal that there was any demand of dowry by the accused persons from Ms. Arushi or her parental family. He did not not remember all the details, which were mentioned in the PDF form. He has denied that he had not sealed the suicide note / diary deliberately in order to tamper of the same. He has denied that he had not deposited the suicide note or diary in the malkhana to allow Mr. A.K Bali to bring the fabricated evidence to falsely implicate the accused persons. He has denied that the android mobile phone of deceased was allowed to be tampered with or for that reason, it was not sealed. He has denied that the door of the room of Ms. Arushi could not be locked from outside. He had sealed the door by putting a piece of paper on the handle lock on the door of the room of Ms. Arushi and put his signatures on the same. He has admitted that that Mr. Bali had referred to the door of the balcony, when he had stated that Ms. Arushi was locked. He has admitted that he has mentioned in the chargesheet that Ms. Arushi was not permitted to come out of the room. He has deposed that on 22.05.2014, he had opened the door of the room of Ms. Arushi and voluntarily stated that it was not locked and it was sealed with a piece of paper with his signatures on it. Mr. A.K Bali did not have the keys of the door of the room of Ms. Arushi. A blacksmith (chabbi banane wala) SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 33/131 was called and he had opened the almirah in the room of Ms. Arushi, but he did not remember whether he had made the key or he had opened the almirah on his own. On that day, Mr. A.K Bali was with him inside the room of Ms. Arushi. Mr. Ankur Bali and Ms. Renu Bali had also come to the matrimonial house of Ms. Arushi, but they remained standing outside, he did not know that deceased remained under treatment in Shanti Mukund hospital or in any hospital before her death and admitted that the parents of deceased informed him that deceased got treatment for fertility. He inquired the name of hospital from which the deceased was getting treatment for fertility from the parents of deceased, but, they did not give any specific reply to him in this regard. During analyzing the data retrieved from the mobile phone of deceased by FSL, he came to know about one site, which was opened by the deceased where the methods / ways to commit suicide were there. He did not know if the deceased also had checked the site of Google that there was poison available and after consuming that poison the death would appear to be natural. He has denied that deceased had checked sites repeatedly to know the various methods to commit suicide or to search the poison on the Google and he does not find / check that the deceased had also checked on the site, as to how one can conceive. Voluntarily stated that he could not check the whole data retrieved by the FSL from the mobile phone of deceased, as it was voluminous. Whatever data was checked by him, he does not find any messages on Whatsapp or general SMS to show that her in laws used to demand for dowry or they used to harass her on account of dowry. He has admitted that he found various messages sent by accused Jatin Arora to deceased Arushi showing that he loved her. He checked the diary recovered from almirah of the deceased and he did not find any writing in the said diary showing that the same was written by a male. He sent the diary as well as account opening form and other documents obtained by him from the bank, where deceased was having account to FSL for SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 34/131 comparison of the handwriting of suicide note with the abovesaid admitted /specimen handwriting. The documents obtained from Karnataka bank, where deceased was having saving account, was containing a photocopy of an affidavit Ex.PW14/D besides other documents. He did not raise query for comparison of signatures appearing on the said affidavit to FSL with the signatures appearing on suicide note, as it is a photocopy and the signatures cannot be examined in the FSL on the photocopy of the document. He moved an application before Karnataka bank for providing the original documents pertaining to the saving account of the deceased. In reply to the same the bank had provided the original account opening form, specimen signature card, application for change of name and address, form no. 16, photocopy of the affidavit Ex.PW14/D. He did not move any separate application in the Karnataka Bank for providing the original affidavit . The Bank did not provide KYC form. He does not know, if the deceased was also having an account in the Syndicate Bank, G.T road, Azadpur, Delhi near to her matrimonial house. He did not know, if the account of the deceased in Karnatka Bank was in the joint with, her mother Ms. Renu Bali. There are 2/3 suicide notes recovered from the almirah kept in the room of the deceased. He did not deposit the suicide note or the diary with the FSL at any stage. On 22.05.2014 he called complainant Mr. Anil Bali telephonically. He alongwith his staff left PS for investigation of this case on 22.05.2014 after making departure entry. However, he does not remember its DD no. and time of making the departure. He verbally informed his seniors regarding recovery of suicide notes and diary on 22.05.2014. He did not give any written information to the senior officers in this regard, however, he mentioned the same in the case diary on 22.05.2014. He has admitted that brothers of accused Inderjeet Arora reside in the same house and he could not call the brothers of Inderjeet Arora for joining the investigation at the time of recovery of alleged diary and suicide notes, as they were not available at the house at that time. The SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 35/131 diary and suicide notes were lying at different places in the same almirah. He did not record the statement of the person, who was called for opening the lock of almirah. Accused Inderjeet Arora and Jatin Arora were apprehended from near the main gate of the house situated at ground floor. He has admitted that the residence of accused Inderjeet Arora and Jatin Arora is at first floor of the house. The keys of the first floor of the house was recovered, from either from Inderjeet Arora or Jatin Arora. Mt. Anil Bali met him in the mortuary on 19.05.2014, on that day, he recorded his statement regarding identification of dead body of Arushi. On that day Mr. Anil Bali did not give any complaint to him in the mortuary. The complainant informed that sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs was spent by him on the marriage of Arushi however he did not give the details / break up of that amount, as to how the same was incurred in the marriage. He did not give invoice / bill of the jewellery given in the marriage of Arushi. Mr. Ankur Bali (nephew of complainant) gave one bill of the electronic items. He did not visit the Sargam electronics showroom for making queries / verification of that bill given by Mr. Ankur Bali. He did not check the locker of the deceased, which was in Karnataka bank. He recorded the statement of Ms.Renu Bali and Mr. Ankur Bali on 03.06.2014 and 12.07.2014 respectively. The deceased made calls on the mobile phone Mr. Ankur Bali on 17.05.2014 and made calls on the mobile phone Mr. Anil Bali and Ms. Renu Bali on the day of incident i.e 18.05.2014. He did not seize the mobile phones of Mr. Anil Bali, Ms. Renu Bali and Mr.Ankur Bali. He does not know if Mr. Ankur Bali was maintaining two mobile phones at the relevant time. He did not obtain the CDR of any of the mobile phone of Mr. Ankur Bali and voluntarily deposed that Mr. Ankur Bali himself introduced the CDR of his one of the mobile phone. He did not know, if there were several transactions in the bank accounts of Mr. Ankur Bali, his brother Mr. Gaurav Bali and the deceased Arushi. He did not try to obtain the photographs, the details of Whatsapp messages or on the facebook SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 36/131 showing the relationship between deceased and her husband Jatin Arora and voluntarily stated that the Whatsapp messages and other messages were retrieved from the mobile phones in the FSL. This witness recorded the statement of PW Ms. Ridhi on 12.07.2014. Accused Komal used to reside in her matrimonial house at Rajender Nagar at the relevant time along with husband and children. He is not aware if accused Komal was already got married in the year 2005. During investigation he came to know that the relations between Arushi and accused Komal were strained. He has denied that he has falsely fabricated the evidence in collusion with the complainant. He has denied that he has allowed the evidence to be tampered with to create false evidence against the accused. He has denied that he had withheld the evidence favouring the accused. He has further denied that accused persons never raised any demand of dowry from deceased or her parents. He has further denied that accused persons never subjected deceased Arushi with cruelty or they never harassed or tortured the deceased. He has denied that all the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
26. Whereas, Sh. Syed Ahmad Ali Hashmi, Jr. Forensic/Asstt. Chemical Examiner (Documents), FSL has been examined as PW-22, who was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
27. Whereas, Sh. Kailash Kumar, Jr. Forensic/Asstt. Chemical Examiner (Computers), FSL has been examined as PW-23, who has deposed that on 11.06.2014 three sealed parcels were received in their office from PS Bharat Nagar in connection with the present case and same were marked to him for examination. The seal on all the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seals. All the three sealed parcels were opened by him. The first parcel was containing one mobile phone maker of which was Nokia model 205 alongwith one SIM card and one SD memory SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 37/131 card which were marked as MP1, SC1 and MC1, respectively.The second parcel was containing one Samsung Mobile phone model GTI9003 marked as MP2 alongwith one SIM card marked as SC2 and one memory card marked as MC2. The third parcel was containing one Samsung Mobile phone model GTI9152 marked as MP3 alongwith two SIM cards marked as SC3 & SC4 and one memory card marked as MC3. The mobile phone marked MP1 was password protected hence data could not be retrieved from Exhibit MP1. The data retrieved from the mobile phones Exhibits MP2 & MP3, from four SIM cards Ex. SC1 to SC4 and from three memory cards Exhibits MC1 to MC3 are given in three DVDs. After examination, he prepared his detailed report dated 10.04.2015 which is now Ex. PW23/A bearing his signature at Point A. The three DVDs containing the data retrieved from the two mobile phones memory cards and SIM cards were kept in an envelope and sealed with the seal of FSL KK DELHI. All the exhibits were also sealed with the same seal and sent through the official messenger alongwith the report and the DVDs. He had identified the mobile phones containing SIM cards and memory cards Ex. P1, P2 & P3 (colly.) and proved 3 DVDs containing voluminous Ex. PW23/B1, B2 & B3, respectively. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination he deposed that he has admitted it to be correct that the mobile phone mark MP3 was an Android mobile phone. He has admitted it to be correct that if there is an application of recording calls in an Android mobile phone, then the calls received or made would be recorded automatically. These calls remained in the mobile memory till its capacity or otherwise deleted by the application itself. This witness was asked as to whether the data deleted once could be. He has replied that if the file is not over-written by another file, then it is possible to retrieve the data. He has further deposed that he had retrieved all the data from the mobile phones' memory cards and SIM cards, whichever was possible through Universal Forensic Extraction Device. He was further SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 38/131 asked as to whether the timing of a mobile phone could be changed. He has replied that if any person intentionally changes the date & time of the mobile phone, then only it was possible to change the time. He has further deposed that DVD Ex. PW23/B2 containing the remaining data of MP3 is. It is a .pdf file containing 3362 pages i.e. report of Exhibit MP3. The printout of call details of mobile no. 9311565288 dtd. 18.05.2014 timing 5:07:34 is taken and same is Ex. PW23/B2-1. The printout of call details of the period from 08.07.2013 to 26.02.2014 of different mobile numbers is taken and same is Ex. PW23/B2-2. The printout of call details of the period from 20.03.2014 to 08.05.2014 of different mobile numbers running into two pages is taken and same are Ex. PW23/B2-3 & B2-4. The printout of the contents of the Exhibit MP3 containing the call logs, chats, contacts, messages, etc. running into two pages is taken which shows total number of contacts/messages/deleted history. Same are now Ex. PW23/B2-5 & B2-6. The printout of the SMS dtd. 18.05.2014 from Exhibit MP3 is also taken Ex. PW23/B2-7.
28. Whereas, Ct. Jaidev has been examined as PW-24 who has deposed that on 21.05.2014 he was posted as constable at PS Bharat Nagar. On that day Duty Officer handed over copy of FIR of the present case alongwith Rukka, which he took to the spot i.e. house no. B-35/2, GTK Road Industrial Area. SI Rakesh met him at the spot. He handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. Thereafter, he was discharged from the investigation that day. On 29.05.2014 as per instructions of IO, he obtained one sealed envelope and one pullanda alongwith sample seal from MHC(M) and he took the same to FSL Rohini, vide RC No.55/21/14 and 56/21/14. After he deposited the envelope and pullanda at FSL, he obtained receipt acknowledgment and handed over the same with copy of RC to the MHC(M). So long as the case property remained with him, nobody tampered with the same. On 10.06.2014 on the direction of IO, he obtained SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 39/131 three sealed parcels containing suicide notes, diary and other documents from MHC(M). He also obtained three mobile phones from MHC(M) in unsealed condition for depositing the same in FSL. He took the same to FSL Rohini, vide RC No.57/21/14. The three sealed envelopes were deposited in FSL and he obtained the acknowledgment receipt, however the mobile phones could not be deposited in the FSL on that day as same were in unsealed condition. He returned to Police Station and he handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment receipt and three mobile phones to MHC(M). So long as the case property remained with me, nobody tampered with the same. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination he has deposed that he does not know if complainant was present at the spot on 21.05.2014, when he reached there with the copy of FIR. IO met him outside the house no. B-35/2, GTK Road. He did not know if the house in question was locked or lying opened at that time. He did not go inside that house on that day. He did not state in his statement that IO met him outside the house. He does not know if any of the accused was present at the spot on 21.05.2014 or not. He did not recollect the number of his departure/arrival entries made on 10.06.2014, when he took the mobile phones and documents to FSL. The refusal for accepting the mobile phones by the FSL officials was not given in writing to him. He has denied that the unsealed case property has been allowed to be tampered with after taking it out from the Malkhana. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
29. Whereas L-Ct. Ram Pyari has been examined as PW-25 who has deposed that On dated 23.05.2014, she was posted as Constable at PS Bharat Nagar. On that day, she joined the investigation of this case with IO SI Rakesh Duhan. On that day she alongwith Ct. Ramesh went to H.No. B- 35/2, GTK Industrial Area, where, accused Vina Arora met them. She was interrogated by the IO, and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW25/A. SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 40/131 She conducted her personal search vide memo Ex. PW25/B. Accused Vina Arora was also got medically examined in BJRM Hospital. IO also recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW25/C of accused Vina Arora. She identify accused Vina Arora in the Court. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during her cross-examination, she has denied that the accused Vina Arora has not made any disclosure statement. She does not remember, if, she had gone to the house of accused at B-35/2, First Floor, GTK Industrial Area, between 18.05.2014 to 22.05.2014. She has denied that she has deposed falsely.
30. Whereas, Ms. Kavita Goyal, S.S.O. (Chemistry), FSL has been examined as PW-26, who has deposed that on 29.05.2014 one sealed wooden box was received in their office (FSL Delhi) and the seal on box was found intact and tallied, as per the specimen seal. The same was marked to her for chemical examination. On opening the parcel, there were three exhibits Mark as Exhibit 1A, 1B & 1C. The Exhibit 1A was stomach and piece of small intestines, Exhibit 1B was piece of liver, spleen and kidney and Exhibit 1C was the blood sample of Aarushi Arora. On chemical and TLC examination of all the Exhibits, no metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could be detected. After the examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of KG FSL DELHI. As per the specimen seal, provided in her detailed report dated. 21.08.2014 Ex. PW26/A. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness for the accused was done nil.
31. Whereas, Ms. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL has been examined as PW-27, who has deposed that on 29.05.2014, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 41/131 one sealed envelope was received in their office (FSL Delhi) and the same was marked to her for biology examination. She tallied the seals on the envelope with the specimen seals and seals on the envelope were intact. On opening the envelope, there were two exhibits Mark 1a & 1b, which were few nail clippings. On examination Exhibit 1a & 1b, no blood/foreign material could be detected on these two exhibits. After the examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of PSh FSL DELHI, as per the specimen seal provided in her detailed report dated. 21.04.2015 Ex. PW27/A The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but, he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
32. Whereas, ASI Rajbir has been examined as PW-28, who has deposed that on 18.05.2014, he was posted as I/C, Mobile Crime Team, North-West, PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi. On receiving of information about the present incident from Control Room, he alongwith his staff in official vehicle reached at place of incident i.e. first floor, H.No.B-35/2, WPIA, Delhi. IO/ASI Rambir with his staff was already present there. Dead body was already removed to mortuary. He inspected the spot. There was a piece of dupatta lying on the floor and another piece of dupatta was hanging with the ceiling fan. There was one stool and one chair lying in the room. One scissors was lying on the dressing table. On his instructions, Ct. Sandeep took the photographs of spot. He prepared his detailed report Ex.PW28/A and handed over the same to the IO after inspection of spot. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross-examination he has admitted it to be correct that the crime team is a special unit to detect the suspected items at the spot. They made search inside the room for about one hour, however no suicide note or any diary was recovered from that room. They checked the box of the bed and the almirahs kept in the room, but, could not find any suspicious item.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 42/131Attention of the witness is drawn towards the photographs already Ex. PW4/A21 and A25 reflecting the two almirahs and on seeing the same he has deposed that the search was made in both these almirahs, appearing in the photographs. One public person namely Anil Kumar Bali was also present inside the room besides the police officials when we were conducting the search in the room. He has admitted it to be correct that SHO PS Bharat Nagar and other senior officers were also present at the spot. They made efforts to lift the chance prints from the handle of almirah, handle of wooden chair and on the other places, but, no chance prints could be lifted. Thus from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that the Almirahs were searched on dated 18.05.2014. But, no suicide note or diary were found. Thus, the testimony of this witness is also contrary to the testimony of PW3, PW21 & PW10.
33. Whereas, Dr. Bhim Singh has been examined as PW-29, who has deposed that on 19.05.2014 he was posted as Incharge Mortuary in BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. On that day, he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Aarushi Arora, aged 30 years, female, at the request of IO/SI Rakesh Duhan from PS Bharat Nagar. As per inquest papers, the alleged history was declared 'brought dead' on 18.05.2014 at 2.07 PM vide MLC no. 875/14. On examination, he found two external injuries on the dead body. The injury no.1 was incomplete reddish brown parchment like ligature mark V-shape obliquely placed around the neck width varies from 1.5 to 2 cms situated 6 cms below right ear lobule, 5.5 cms below tip of chin and 3.2 cms below left ear lobule, on back side merges with hairs, total length is 26 cms, total circumference of neck is 38 cms. The injury no.2 was an injection mark in 5th intercoastal space left side of chest just lateral to sternum. This witness was asked as to whether could he explain the reason of injury no.2 i.e. an injection mark? He has replied that Inter-cardiac injection is usually given to the person at SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 43/131 the time of revival in case of emergency and the injection mark found on the dead body as observed by him(this witness), may be because of this reason. After examination of the dead body, he opined that the cause of death can only be given after receipt of viscera analysis report, however postmortem findings are suggestive of ante-mortem hanging possible by the chunni produced by the police in sealed condition. Time since death was about 24 hours. After postmortem examination, he handed over the clothes, blood and viscera, nail clippings and ligature material alongwith scissors in sealed condition sealed with the seals of department i.e. FMT BJRM HOSPITAL to the police. He prepared detailed Postmortem report dtd. 19.05.2014 which is already Ex. PW7/D1 bearing his signatures at Point A. He has also deposed that on 05.07.2014 an application alongwith four photographs of deceased Aarushi Arora were received from SI Rakesh Duhan for subsequent opinion regarding the injury on the dead body of deceased Aarushi Arora. After examining the said photographs he did not notice any injury on the body of deceased except ligature mark around the neck. The bluish colour present on right side back and lateral aspect of trunk was due to postmortem staining. His subsequent opinion dated 05.07.2014 is Ex. PW29/A bearing his signatures at Point A. Attention of the witness is drawn towards the FSL results dtd. 21.08.2014 and 21.04.2015 already Ex. PW26/A and PW27/A. Negative results of presence of poison and blood and foreign material from the nail clippings suggested that death was due to ante-mortem hanging as already described in his postmortem report Ex. PW7/D1. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination he has deposed that normally an inter-cardiac injection is given to revive the person in case of emergency.
34. Whereas, ASI Rambir has been examined as PW-30, who has deposed that on dated 18.05.2014, he was posted as ASI at PP Sangam SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 44/131 Park, PS Bharat Nagar and on that day, on receiving of DD No. 17 regarding quarrel at H. NO. B-35/2, GTK Road Industrial Area, Delhi and he alongwith Ct. Krishan went to the spot and copy of DD No. 17 is Ex. PW 2/A , but no quarrel was found at that spot and after some time the DD writer posted in PP Sangam Park informed regarding bringing of one lady namely Aarushui in Pantamid Hospital with the alleged history of hanging herself. He alongwith Ct. Krishan reached Pantamid Hospital and SI Rakesh Duhan with his staff also reached the hospital and he collected the MLC of Aarushi and handed over the same to IO/SI Rakesh Duhan. On the instructions of the IO he prepared an application for preserving the dead body and sent Ct. Krishan to shift the dead body to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital. Then, he alongwith IO and his staff went to the spot I.e First floor of H. NO. B-35/2, GTK Road Industrial Area, Delhi and SHO PS Bharat Nagar and other senior officers had already arrived at the spot. He further deposed that crime team was summoned for inspection of the spot and the crime team officials inspected the spot and there was one piece of chunni found hanging with the ceiling fan and one piece of chunni was found lying on the floor of the room and one scissors was found kept on the dressing table. He further deposed that one wooden chair and one plastic stool were also lying in the room. Some clothes were scattered on the bed. He further deposed that both the pieces of chunni and the scissors were lifted from the spot and two cloth parcels containing the pieces of chunni and scissors were prepared and sealed the same with the seal of RD. He has further deposed that both the parcels were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 21/B and one lady namely Bina mother of Jatin met them at the spot. He has further deposed that the parents and other relatives of Arushi also reached the spot and IO made inquiries from Smt. Bina who informed that her daughter in law Aarushi committed suicide by hanging herself and she was taken to hospital. He has further deposed that IO tried to make inquiry from the parents and the relatives of Aarushi, but at that time they SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 45/131 did not give any statement. Thereafter, they returned to Police Station and accused Bina. Both the pieces of Chunni are Ex. P4 &P5 and scissor is Ex. P6. He was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for all the accused. During his cross examination he deposed that he received DD No. 17 at about 1:50 PM and they had reached at the spot at about 2:00 PM and at that time, house of accused persons was found locked. He did not leave any police official at the spot when he left for Pentamid Hospital , probably the parents of Aarushi were present in Pentamid Hospital. He further deposed that as per MLC, Aarushi was got admitted by Jatin Arora and he was present in Pentamid Hospital. He did not know whether accused Inderjeet was also present in the hospital or not and he did not remember if accused Jatin was apprehended by the IO in the hospital or not. He has denied that parents and relatives of Aarushi gave severe beatings to accused Inderjeet in the hospital and voluntarily deposed that the parents and relatives of Aarushi were quarreling with accused Jatin Arora. He further deposed that he did not remember if medical examination of accused Inderjeet Arora was got conducted on 18.05.2014 or not, when he reached at H. No. B-35/2, the parents and relatives of Aarushi had already reached there. He further deposed that they stayed for about 2-3 hours at the spot and the crime team officials remained at the spot for about 30-40 minutes and the search of the room was conducted by the crime team officials in his presence. He further deposed that the almirahs and bed kept in the room were also seached by the crime team officials. He cannot admit or denied if the crime team officials remained at the spot till 4:30 PM on that day and no suicide note or diary was recovered from the room in his presence or that day he had not conducted search of the room. He did not remember as to whether the signatures of parents of Aaruhi were obtained on any document, on that day or not. The photographs of the spot were taken by the crime team officials in the presence of parents of Aarushi and he does not remember as to whether the room in question was sealed or secured by IO or not and he did SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 46/131 not make his arrival entry in PS on 18.05.2014. ON 19.05.2014, the enquiry on DD no. 17 was closed vide DD no. 8 and one lady constable was called for securing safety of accused Veena. He has denied that he is deposing falsely. Thus, testimony of this witness is also contradictory to the testimony of PW3, as this witness also deposed that on dated 18.08.2014. no, suicide note was found.
35. Whereas, Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services has been examined as PW-31, who has deposed that he has brought summoned record i.e. original customer application form and CDR for the period 01.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 of mobile no. 8588827933. As per their records the aforesaid mobile no. is registered in the name of S.P.U. Designs and Contracts with authorized signatory namely Punit Arora s/o Subhash Chandra. This mobile was taken as one of the several mobiles taken under Corporate connections in the same name i.e. S.P.U. Designs and Contracts, vide customer application form which he has brought in original today. Photocopy of customer application form is Ex. PW31/A (OSR). On the customer application form, photograph of Punit Arora exists at Point X. In the Customer application form Ex. PW31/A out of several numbers taken as corporate connections, only one number is mentioned as per practice. The list of all the numbers taken under corporate connection has also been brought by him which is now Ex. PW31/B. It includes the mobile number in question i.e. 8588827933. At the time of applying for the connection, Mr. Punit Arora gave copy of his PAN Card, which is Mark P- 31-A. He also gave copy of statement of his current account running into four pages which is Mark P-31-B. The CDR of mobile no. 8588827933 for the period mentioned above running into 68 pages (34 leafs of page) is Ex. PW31/C(colly.). He has also brought certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. The same is Ex. PW31/D. He has also brought original customer application form of mobile no. 9873711982, which exists in the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 47/131 name of Kapil Arora, copy of the customer application form is Ex. PW31/E (OSR). Ex. PW31/E bears photograph of Kapil Arora at Point X. At the time of applying for the connection, Kapil Arora submitted copy of his driving license which is Mark P-31-C. The CDR of mobile no. 9873711982 for the period 01.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 running into 3 pages is Ex. PW31/F(colly.). He has also brought certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. The same is Ex. PW31/G. He has also brought the mobile tower location chart Ex.PW31/H of the above mentioned mobile phone numbers of Vodafone for Delhi and NCR running into 97 pages. This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination he has admitted it to be correct that as per the Cell ID chart, on 18.5.2014 at 11.:42:59, the location of the user of mobile number 8588827933 was in the area of Noida, Phase-II, which is highlighted at Point X on Ex. PW31/C and Ex. PW31/H. As per the Cell ID Chart, on 18.5.2014, the location of user of mobile no. 8588827933 was in the area of Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar at 13:7:54 and thereafter at 13:9:04 and at 13:9:43 the location of the said user was in the area of Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, near Shakti Nagar MTNL Exchange, which is highlighted at point Y on Ex.PW31/C and at points X-1 & X-2 on Ex.PW31/H. As per the Cell ID Chart, on 18.5.2014, the location of user of mobile no. 9873711982 was in the area of Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar at 11:42:59, 13:9:32, 13:11:05 and 13:21:25, which is highlighted at point X on Ex.PW31/F.
36. Whereas, Ct. Dinesh has been examined as PW-32, who has deposed that on 29.05.2014 he was posted as constable at PS Bharat Nagar. On that day on the instructions of SI Rakesh Duhan, he went to Karanataka Bank, Savita Vihar Branch. He obtained 14 documents pertaining to the account of deceased Arushi Bali. He returned to PS and handed over all those documents like account opening form, account statement, applications, identity card etc. which were obtained by him from Karanatak SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 48/131 Bank to the IO which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW21/L bearing his signatures at point B, then, the attention of the witness was drawn towards the documents already proved by PW-14 Mr. Tarun Dhikia from Karanatka Bank as Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/G and this witness was further examined and on seeing the same, he has deposed that these are the same documents which were collected by him from Karanatka bank and handed over to the IO and the same were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/L. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
37. Whereas, Mr. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited has been examined as PW-33, who has deposed that Mr. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, had already left the services from Bharti Airtel Limited in August, 2015. He had worked with Mr.Vishal Gaurav and had seen him writing and signing. So, he could identify his signatures and then, the attested CDR, CAF and copy of identity of Mr. Jatin Arora of his two mobile number i.e 9650946831 and 9910140617, already annexed in the judicial file were shown to the witness and then after seeing the same, he has deposed that he has seen the attested CDR, CAF and copy of identity of Mr. Jatin Arora of his two mobile number i.e 9650946831 and 9910140617. These documents were attested by Mr. Vishal Gaurav and bears his signatures/initals at point A. These documents were supplied by him to the IO in reply to the notice u/s 92 Cr.PC, in the present case. He has brought the original CAF issued in the name of Jatin Arora for mobile no.9650946831. The copy of CAF issued in the name of Jatin Arora of mobile number 9650946831 is exhibited Ex.PW33/A bearing the initials of Mr. Vishal Gaurav at point A. The copy of the identity proof i.e driving licence of Jatin Arora is exhibited as Ex.PW33/B which bears his initials at SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 49/131 point A. The attested copy of CDR of mobile no.9650946831 running into 17 pages is exhibited as Ex.PW33/C (collectively) bearing the initials of Mr.Vishal Guarav at point A on the first and last page of the CDR. He has brought the original CAF issued in the name of Jatin Arora for mobile no. 9910140617 (original seen and returned).The copy of CAF issued in the name of Jatin Arora of mobile number 9910140617 is exhibited as Ex.PW33/D bearing the initials of Mr. Vishal Gaurav at point A. The copy of the identity proof i.e driving licence of Jatin Arora is exhibited Ex.PW33/E which bears his initials at point A. The attested copy of CDR of mobile no. 9910140617 running into 31 pages is exhibited as Ex.PW33/F (collectively) bearing the initials of Mr.Vishal Guarav at point A on the first and last page of the CDR. The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was also given by Mr. Vishal Gaurav to IO along with abovesaid documents. The same is exhibited as Ex.PW33/G bearing his signatures at point A. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Counsel for the accused, but, the he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done nil.
38. On the completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the state- ments of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.PC were recorded, wherein, the accused had denied the correctness of allegations leveled against him and took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
39. Whereas Mr. Gaurav Vadera, Manager Syndicate Bank, Branch Derawal Nagar, Delhi has been examined as DW-1, who had brought the true copies of the record relating to account no.90222010094446, which is in the names of Mr. Jatin Arora and Ms. Arushi, which was opened on 16.08.2007. No transactions has been made in the said account since 30.09.2014 and since then, it is lying dormant. The true copies of the records relating the above stated account comprising of 12 pages is SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 50/131 exhibited Ex.D1(colly.). The bank is seal has been affixed at point A and the signatures of Mr. B.Savadamuthu, Chief Manager of the bank is at point B on the front page of Ex.D1. He could identify the signature of Chief Manager, as he has seen him writing and signing in the ordinary course of his work. The records brought by him includes the Statement of account w.e.f. 16.08.2007 till 01.05.2017. Opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the Ld. Addl. PP for State, but he did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the Ld. APP to cross examine this witness was done nil.
40. Whereas, Mr. Jatin Arora has been examined as DW-2, who has deposed that he got married with Ms. Arushi on 07.02.2007 at Delhi and after marriage, they started living in his house along with his parents Mr. Inderjeet Arora and Ms. Veena Arora. The parental home of Ms. Arushi was X101, Anupam Apartment, Arjun Nagar, Delhi & his sister. Ms. Komal, was married much earlier in the year, 2005 and since then, she was living in her matrimonial home with her husband at Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. She has a daughter and a son, who were aged 4years and 2 years respectively and at the time of demise of his wife Ms. Arushi, on 18.05.2014. He had a love affair with Arushi when they were studying in class 8th and they were class mates in the school and they had a love marriage with the blessings of both of the parents. Ms. Renu Bali and Mr. Anil Kumar Bali, parents of Ms. Arushi used to interfere in their matrimonial life. Whenever they used to go for holidays or vacations, the parents of Arushi used to accompany them and they did not have any privacy. Ms. Arushi had a joint account and a joint locker with Ms. Renu Bali, (mother) in Karnataka Bank, near Karkardooma Courts. She also had cash dealings in lakhs of rupees with her two brothers namely Mr. Gaurav Bali and Mr. Ankur Bali, as well as, her parents. Ms. Arushi of marriage was not working at the time of her marriage, although she was working SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 51/131 prior to the marriage and after the marriage and at the time of demise, she was not working. During the substance of their marriage, she had worked at Sector-4, Noida in Relief India Trust and also as Computer Teacher in a school at Lajpat Nagar and another school at I.T.O, Delhi. She had also worked in a Call Centre at Netaji Subhash Place. Her monthly income was approximately Rs.7,000/-. They were married for about 7 years, but, Ms. Arushi was unable to conceive, regarding which, Ms. Renu Bali (her mother) was getting her medically treated from some where. However, despite her medical treatment, she was still not able to conceive due to which, she suffered from Depression. She had also become short tempered, hostile and violent. By hostile this witness means that she used to abuse his parents and used to talk with him in a loud voice. Due to her behaviour, she had also lost her job at the call centre at Netaji Subhash Place. Under depression, she used to search on Google regarding ways to commit suicide, read regarding cyanide, faster way of dying. She also used to search the websites regarding pregnancy. She had isolated herself and used to remain in her room. One day prior to her demise i.e. on 17.05.2014, Ms. Arushi and this accused had gone to Bangla Sahib Gurudwara at about 07:30 pm and thereafter had dinner at Oberoi Biryani Wala, Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh. Ms. Arushi had already planned at on 18.05.2014 that she would go to her parental home. His parents had informed his sister Komal regarding the proposed visit of Ms. Arushi to her parental home on 18.05.2014 as Ms. Komal and her children wanted to meet his parents and she used to visit his house only in the absence of Ms. Arushi and after his marriage with Ms. Arushi, when Ms. Komal was visiting them at his residence, which was after about 7-8 months of the marriage, Ms. Arushi and Ms. Komal had a discussion over meals and Ms. Arushi had told her not to visit the house in her presence. Since then, his sister used to visit his house only in the absence of Ms. Arushi. When Ms. Arushi came to know from him & his parents, the visit of his sister to his house on 18.05.2014, she cancelled her SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 52/131 visit to her parental home,which she had planned for 18.05.2014. She challenged the authority of his parents to invite their daughter to the house in her absence. At that time, their maid, whose name, he does not remember was working in the house and she had also brought her minor child. She had already cleaned and mopped the drawing room and to avoid her child going there, she had bolted the door of the gallery from outside. When one enters his house, the first room is the drawing room and their bed room was towards its right side and the gallery was on the left side of the drawing room. Ms.Arushi, out of anger, had broken the bolt of the door of the gallery, came outside and had started abusing his parents. At that time, he was at workplace i.e. in a factory run under the name and style of SPV Design and Contract, A-66, Sector-83, Noida. The incident of breaking the bolt and abusing his parents by Ms.Arushi occurred at about 10:30-11:00 am on 18.05.2014. His father had telephoned him and informed him about the above incident. This accused immediately telephoned his sister and who told him that she had already reached near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Saawan Park. She immediately cancelled her plan of visiting her parents and returned to her house. As his father had telephoned this accused and this accused also returned to his house and reached at about 12:45 pm. This accused had made and received the calls from his mobile phone, which was seized in the present case and his mobile number was 9910140617. On reaching home, he found that Ms. Arushi was hanging with the ceiling fan. he removed her from the fan. This accused & his father took her to Pentamid Hospital, where the doctor had declared her dead. This accused had called the PCR at 100 number and the police came to the hospital and this accused & his were arrested from the hospital itself. The door of his room was in the same condition, as it was on 18.05.2014. It does not have any bolt from outside. As he loved his wife, he used to exchange messages with her expressing his love. She however did not send him any such messages and his wife never used to write any diary or notes. he can SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 53/131 identify her writing and signature, as he has seen her writing and signing. Ms. Arushi was using a mobile phone but, he does not remember its number. It had a call recording facility and all the call which were been made to and from her mobile phone, which were relevant from him regarding this case have been deleted and this fact is also mentioned in the FSL report. The diary and notes, which are alleged to have been recovered in this case or not. During his cross examination, he has deposed that on dated 18.05.2014, he arrived at his house, he found that his wife Aarushi had committed suicide by way of hanging with ceiling fan. The door of the said room was only shut and bolted from inside. He arrived at his house at 01:00 pm on that day. The main gate of his house was already opened as on the ground floor of their house, there was factory. There was gate to arrive at first floor of our house and that gate was also opened. At that time, his parents were also present at first floor in their room. He has admitted it to be correct that he had phoned to the father of the his deceased wife, but he does do not remember the exact time, either it was 01:07 pm. He has admitted it to be correct that he had told to the father of the Aarushi that he was taking her at Pentamid Hospital and he was at his home when he had phoned to the father of Aarushi and it is correct that he and his father had cut the DUPATTA of Aarushi with which, she had hanged herself and took her down. He has denied that It is wrong to suggest that his sister Komal was also present in their house on that day. He has admitted it to be he was using two mobile numbers at that time and both phones numbers were with him at 10:00 pm on dated 18.05.2014 and voluntarily stated that he was arrested from Hospital at about 01:45 pm on 18.05.2014. he has admitted it to be correct that he was in telephonic contact with his deceased wife Aarushi at about 12:00 noon.At the time of the alleged occurrence, he was working in a factory, which was situated at A-66, Sector 83, NOIDA. But on that day, it was sunday, but he had gone to his office at about 09:00 am. On that day, he left his office at 12:00 noon. His working hours were SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 54/131 from 09:00 am to 08:30 pm at NOIDA. He does not remember the exact time of his last telephonic talk with his deceased wife Aarushi on the date of the such occurrence and his deceased wife Aarushi had said that "TUMAHARI SISTER MERE SE BAGHER POOCHHE KYUN AA RAHI HAI YAHAN" he had told her that he would restrained his sister. Then his deceased wife Aarushi kept mum. She was in fury. Then, he left his office to arrive at home. He does not remember whether he had dialed a phone number of the father of his deceased wife Aarushi at of 12:28 pm thrice, on that day. He has denied that his deceased wife Aarushi was lived in the house of her parents since January, 2014 to February, 2014. He has further deposed that on 18.05.2014, between 10:14 am to 11:00 am, he made talk with the father of his deceased wife Aarushi and he had asked to her father to make her understand as she was in fury. Because his sister was about to come in their house. He has admitted that he did not file income tax return from 2007 to 2012 and they were not having any child and doctor had told me that both of them have to get treatment for the birth of the child. The treatment of Arushi regarding the same was got done by her mother. He does not remember the name of the doctor with whom, he had consulted but the same doctor is having a clinic in the area of Ashok Vihar. He has denied that they never asked Arushi to get herself checked by any doctor. He did not get himself checked by any doctor. He has further denied that he always used to go to his office through Wagon R. He is only 9th class passed. He was doing the work of Modular Kitchen. He was getting a salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. He has admitted it to be correct that he met an accident in the year, 2012 while he was driving the car. He has voluntarily deposed that on the day, Arushi was at her parental home and he had to go to receive her. He has denied that his employer Mr. Puneet had given a proposal to take his Wagon R car for office purpose or that he had told Mr. Anil Kumar Bali i.e. father of Arushi to purchase Swift Dezire car in his name or that he had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from his SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 55/131 father in law in the year 2008 or that he had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from Northern Railway. He has further deposed that he was not regularly maintaining diary of daily expenses but some times he used to write about the same. He has denied that Arushi used to maintain diary of daily expenses. He has further admitted that Ms. Shewta is cousin of Arushi. He has further admitted it to be correct that marriage of Shweta was also attended by his parents, sister and his jijaji. He has further deposed that his father was having a joint business along with his brothers. He has deposed that he started working in Noida in the year, 2011. He has further admitted that his father had withdrawn his share from the joint business with his brothers and share was withdrawn by his father in the year 2006. Prior to joining of his job at Noida, he was working with his Chacha. He has further denied that he had also opened a shop of hardware in Mayapuri. He has further admitted it to be correct that he also used to sit on an ice cream parlour, which was situated at Netaji Subhash Place. He has voluntarily deposed that parlour belong to his Jija ji and he was working thereon in part time, on salary basis. He has further admitted it to be correct that the work of renovation of their house was done in the year, 2012. He has further denied that Arushi had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs in the year, 2012 during the period of renovation of their house or that his father in-law had given Rs. 1 lakh in Shagun Ceremony to his father or that the parents of Arushi had given Window AC, Split AC, LED TV and Refrigerator of Samsung to Arushi after her marriage with him. He has further deposed that he does not remember the exact date when, Arushi had searched the way of committing suicide on Google. He has further deposed that he had asked to Arushi as to why she was doing so then she had said that Isse Tumhara Koi Lena Dena Nahi Hai, then, he made a talk with the father of Arushi regarding the same. He has denied that he had not spoken to his father in law that Arushi was searching way of committing suicide in Google or that he had concocted a false story regarding the same. He has SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 56/131 admitted it to be correct that he was aware that Arushi was having joint account and joint locker with her mother. He has further admitted that Arushi had gone with the parents of Arushi to Manali and Shirdi. He has denied that he & Arushi had also gone with the parents of Arushi to Vaishno Devi or that all the expenses of tours were borne by the parents of Arushi. He has further admitted at the time of such tours, separate room in the hotel were taken by them. He has denied that in January, 2014 he along with his parents had given beatings to Arushi or that she went to her parental home or that she stayed there for about 1 and half months or that he sent her message "he Love You" during that period. He has voluntarily deposed that Arushi had gone to the house of her parents in the month of February 2014 and she stayed there for about 20-22 days and he was regularly sending her messages "he Loves You". He has further deposed that he does not remember whether in the month of February, 2014 his father in law had sent any message to him that he was desirous to meet him. He also does not remember as to whether he had asked to his father in law as to what purpose he was desirous to meet him. He has denied that he is deliberately speaking lie about the same or that father in law had sent him message that he was desirous to meet him or that he had ignore him by way of sending message as to for what purpose he wants to meet him. He has denied that Arushi used to give reply to him such messages. He has admitted that they had gone at Manali on 22/23.12.2013 and he has further admitted that parents of Arushi had come to their house and from there they went at Manali in an Innova car. He has denied that the said Innova car was hired by his father in law or that all the expenses thereof were borne his father in law. He has voluntarily deposed that he had contributed in the fare of the said vehicle. He has denied that prior to proceedings to the tour of Manali, his mother in law had given Shagun to the son of his sister Komal. He has admitted it to be correct that Ms. Mahima, his friend used to send message to him. He has further deposed that Mahima was common friend of him and also of SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 57/131 Arushi from the school time and she also used to send messages to Arushi. He has further denied that he was having illicit relations with Mahima or that Arushi used to object his such relation. He has further admitted that Arushi was not doing any job for about 5-6 months prior to her demise and Arushi was doing job after marriage. Vol. She was also doing the job before marriage. He has denied that he used to force her to give her salary to his mother. He has denied that whenever his sister Komal used to visit parental home, she used to cause trouble or fraction between him and Arushi or that he used to abuse Arushi and beat to Arushi or that in the year, 2012 in view of such beating Arushi had gone to the house of her parents or that the on the occasion of fast of Karva Chouth in the year, 2012, Arushi was in the house of her parents in view of beatings given by him or that after the fast of Karva Chouth he had gone to the house of her parents or that he had assured do not speak lie before Arushi and do not abuse her or that he had also given in writing that he would not speak lie before Arushi and he would not abuse her. He has also denied that he had written a slip Mark P3A or that he had written that "from today he doesn't say lie to Arushi and he doesn't say abuse language to Arushi" or that he had given this document to his father in law. He has further admitted that last rites ceremonies of Arushi were not performed by him. He has voluntarily deposed that he was arrested on dated 18.05.2014 and he has admitted that none of his family member had attended the last rites ceremonies of Arushi. He has voluntarily deposed that his father was also arrested by the police on 18.05.2014. He has further admitted it to be correct that his chacha was also residing on the second floor of his house at the time of alleged offence. He has voluntarily deposed that on that day his chacha had gone to Haridwar. He has further denied that he along with his parents and sister used to demanded dowry of Swift Dezire car from Arushi or that they had given beatings to her or that they used to taunt her as "Baanjh" as Arushi could not conceive the child even after considerable period of her marriage SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 58/131 with him or that he and his parents and sister used to treat the Arushi with cruelty. He has further admitted that on dated 18.05.2014 at 1.07 pm when he had telephoned to his father in law, he did not tell him that the Arushi had hanged herself and he also did not tell him that Arushi had expired at that time. He had told him that Arushi was unconscious. He has further admitted that Arushi was physically and medically alright. He has further deposed that it is the parents of Arushi, who had told him that the doctor had told them after medical check up of Arushi that she was able to conceive. He has denied that he was not capable to become father or that he and his family members used to abuse Arushi for non conception. He has denied that he, his mother, his father and his sister Komal had treated to Arushi with cruelty or that they had harassed her or that in view of such cruelties and harassment caused by them, Arushi had committed suicide. He has denied that he has deposed falsely.
41. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
42. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that in case in hand the marriage of deceased Arushi has been solemnized with accused Jatin Arora on 07.02.2007 and submitted that the case in hand FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by complainant Sh. Anil Kumar Bali, father of the deceased, which is Ex.PW3/C and submitted that deceased could not conceive for a considerable period. So, she was taunted by all the accused and she was called BANJH and submitted that a demand of big car was also raised by all the accused and submitted that the accused Jatin also used to beat the deceased and used to threaten to give her divorce, as she could not conceive and further submitted that suicidal notes were also recovered from the room of the Arushi which are Ex.PW22/B to Ex.PW22/B7 and further submitted that since seven years were already SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 59/131 passed from the date of marriage till the committal of suicide by this deceased Arushi, so the charge under section 306/34 IPC and 498A/34 IPC were framed against all the accused and accused Jatin is the husband of deceased, Inderjeet Arora is the father in law of deceased, Veena Arora is the mother in law of deceased, Komal Arora is the sister in law (Nanad) of the deceased and it is further submitted that complainant has been examined as PW3 and the testimony of PW3 is found to be consistent with the contents of complaint Ex.PW3/C and submitted that in view of torture caused by these accused, once, the deceased Arushi had stayed in the house of her parents for about 1 ½ -2 months. It is further submitted that PW22 Mr. Syed Ahmad Ali Hashmi has proved, the handwritings on suicidal notes of the deceased and submitted that suicidal notes show that deceased was living in depression, as these accused are greedy persons and they used to torture her and also used to threaten to solemnized second marriage of Jatin Arora, as she failed to conceive the child. He has also submitted that PW11 Om parkash has proved that this complaint had taken a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the department on dated 15.01.2008 and amount of Rs. 1 lakh out of Rs. 2 lakhs was given to accused Jatin and further submitted that PW31 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer has also proved that there was a telephonic talk between accused Jatin Arora and complainant on dated 18.05.2014 and also submitted that phone number, which was used by accused Jatin Arora stood in the name of his employer Puneet Arora and also submitted that the call detailed record also goes to prove that on 18.05.2014 at 9.59 AM a talk was held between the deceased and her mother and PW3 was suggested during his cross-examination regarding the same talk for about 30 minutes. Since, the deceased telephonically told to her parents that she was confined by way of bolting the door from the outside and photograph Ex.PW3/N1 goes to prove the broken bolt, which also fortified the case of prosecution and call detailed record Ex.PW33/C goes to corroborate the case of prosecution that deceased was using mobile phone, as mentioned in SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 60/131 Ex.PW33/C. He has also submitted that Ms. Renu Bali i.e. the mother of deceased has been examined, as PW10, who has also corroborated the version of PW3 and also proved that a loan of Rs.2 lakhs was taken by PW3 from his department and out of which Rs. One lakh given to accused Jatin for complying with the demand of accused. She has also alleged that deceased Arushi was taunted by all the accused for bringing insufficient dowry and Renu Bali, PW10 has also alleged that accused Komal Arora, who is sister in law (Nanad) of deceased also caused trouble to the deceased as told to her by deceased Arushi. He has further submitted that PW8 Ridhi who is cousin of the deceased and deceased had also told to this witness that accused were greedy and they caused troubled to the deceased and similarly PW9 Ankur Bali, cousin of Arushi has also corroborated that she used to tell this PW9 that she was in trouble and and further submitted that Mr. Tarun Dhikia, Officer Karnataka Bank has been examined as PW14 who has proved that deceased was having joint account with her mother and also proved that on dated 13.05.2014 FDR was prepared in the names of Arushi and her mother jointly, wherein, nominee was father of the deceased and submitted that this accused Jatin also objected to such nomination of father, as deposed by PW10 in this Court and further submitted that PW21 SI Rakesh Duhan, who is IO of the present case and who has investigated the matter has deposed that since the father of deceased insisted to the IO to conduct search, as the deceased was in habit of writing diary and during search, in the matrimonial of the deceased her suicidal note and diary were recovered and PW22 Mr. Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi has proved handwriting on suicidal note and further submitted that postmortem was conducted by Dr. Bhim Singh, who has been examined as PW29 and he has opined that cause of death was hanging by way of chunni and injury of ligature mark was antemortem in nature. PW Kavita Goyal, FSL Expert has been examined as PW26 and who has proved that it is not the case of poisoning and submitted that since all the accused used to taunt the deceased for non SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 61/131 conceiving of the child for a considerable time, she was subjected to cruelty and as a result of which she had committed suicide on 18.05.2014 since, accused Jatin also used to beat her and in view of the physical and mental harassment to the deceased, she had committed suicide and submitted that prosecution has proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt that when the cruelities caused by all accused became unbearable then, she had committed suicide on dated 18.05.2014 and it is proved on the record from the testimony of PW29 that the post mortem report Ex.PW7/D1 that the cause of death is hanging and ligature mark goes to corroborate the same and submitted that deceased Arushi was subject to cruelty and accused also threatened to give divorce to Arushi, as she could not conceive child for a considerable time and being frustration, she had to commit suicide and submitted that thus, all the accused abetted to the deceased Arushi to commit suicide and also subject to deceased cruelty mentally and all the atrocities have committed by the accused and further submitted that despite the fact that when accused Komal Arora used to visit her parental house, she caused trouble to deceased, so all these accused are liable to be convicted under section 498A/34 & 306/34 of IPC.
43. Whereas, the ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that since this deceased was the only daughter of the complainant, so, the accused had chosen the victim Arushi for Jatin to satisfy their greed for dowry and further submitted that since the deceased could not conceive the child for a considerable period, so, she was taunted for non-conceiving of the child and submitted that the accused has caused grave mental cruelty on the deceased, as a result of which, she had committed suicide and suicide notes show that she was dealt with cruelty by the accused. Ld. Counsel for complainant has further submitted that from the report of FSL, which has been proved on record Ex. PW 22/A, the handwritings on suicide notes of the deceased have been proved. It is also submitted that the deceased was SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 62/131 kept in starvation by the accused, so, the postmortem reveals that the stomach of the deceased was empty, so, she was also starve to death and further submitted that CDR Ex. PW 31/F reveals that Komal had come to her parental house on the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. It is further submitted that location of accused Jatin and Komal in th area of Sawan Park is shown and further submitted that PW 17 HC Satish Pal had deposed that the room of the deceased, wherein, she had committed suicide was opened by the father of deceased on 22.05.2014, whereas PW 21 has deposed that the door of the said room was sealed with the paper when, it was opened on dated_22.05.2014 and submitted that suicidal notes and diary have been recovered from the room, wherein, the deceased had committed suicide. So, it is proved on record that one almirah was not opened on dated 18.05.2014 i.e. the date, when deceased had committed suicide and submitted that accused Jatin has admitted in his cross- examination that deceased was physically and medically fit, thus it is clear that she was not suffering from any kind of disease and further submitted that PW 15 who is employer of accused Jatin, who has also proved that accused Jatin was desirous to purchase new car and further submitted that since the deceased was dealt with cruelty by the accused. So, she has committed suicide on 18.05.2014. He has relied upon the Judgment Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 129 and Balram Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 338.
44. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that in the case in hand, the accused have been falsely implicated and the deceased used to study with the accused Jatin and this was love-cum-arrange marriage and further submitted that on the date of occurrence on dated 18.05.2014, the Crime-Team had arrived at the spot at 3.30 PM and PW28 ASI Rajbir has categorically stated that no suicide notes or diary recovered SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 63/131 when they had checked the boxes, bed and Almirah and at that time, the complainant Anil Kumar Bali was also present and submitted that on the date of occurrence, no suicide notes were recovered, then how could the alleged suicide notes & diary be recovered on 22.05.2014, this is a mystery and submitted that it is also proved on record that since the date of committal of suicide by the deceased, the key of the house of the accused was lying with the complainant, who is the father of the deceased and submitted that the suicide notes and diary are suspicious and cannot be relied upon and submitted that the same have been planted. Had they been available on the date of alleged occurrence in the house of the accused, they could be found to the IO/Crime-team PW28 but they were not found and they are alleged to have been found on 22.05.2014, so the same are suspicious and cannot be relied upon.
45. Whereas, ld. Counsel for accused has further submitted that since the PW22 has admitted it to be correct during his examination in chief and also in cross-examination that questioned signatures marked as Q3/1, Q4/1 and Q8/1 are the signatures of deceased, on which, no opinion was given by him on his report and these are the alleged signature of Arushi on the suicide notes Ex.PW22/B, B2, B/3 & B7. So, the alleged suicide notes are suspicious. It is further submitted that IO has been examined as PW21 and crime team incharge has been examined as PW28. It is further deposed that both PW21 & PW28 have admitted that on 18.05.2014 on searching, no suicide note was found from the room of the Arushi and further submitted that PW 17 has admitted that key of the said room was lying with the father of the deceased when it was opened on dated 22.05.2014 and submitted since, on the day of committing of suicide, no suicidal note was recovered and PW28 has admitted during his cross-examination that both the Almirahs lying in the room of Arushi were searched on dated 18.05.2014, so, suicide notes are planted and their recovery becomes doubtful as even SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 64/131 after the alleged recovery on dated 22.05.2014, they were neither sealed nor deposited in the malkhana and since after recovery of the same were sent to the FSL on 10.06.2014. It is submitted that in the given circumstances the recovery of the suicidal note was become doubtful and submitted that material contradiction of the testimony of PW 17 and 21 and further submitted that from the record of chatting of this accused Jatin Arora & deceased, it is clear that this accused Jatin Arora loved his wife too much and he used to send the messages, while deceased was staying in the house of her parents. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that since the marriage between the accused Jatin Arora & deceased was solemnized way back on 17.02.2007 and also submitted that mother of this deceased has been examined as PW-10 and during her cross-examination done on dated 18.08.2015, she has admitted that relations between the parties were cordial in the year 2008, 2009, 2011 & even in the year 2013 and further submitted that since this PW-10 has also admitted that in the month of December, 2013, she along with her husband, Arushi & Jatin went to Manali and their relations were cordial and further submitted that PW-10 has also admitted that in the year 2011, PW-10 along with husband, Arushi & Jatin Arora went to Shirdi and further admitted it to be correct that in the year 2012, all these persons again went to Mata Vaishno Devi Temple and the relations between the accused Jatin Arora & Arushi were cordial. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further admitted that in the year 2008 nephew of PW-10 Ankur was got married and their relations were normal in the year 2008 and at the same time, he has also admitted that accused has gifted a Set of Gold to the Nephew. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has brought on record certain CDs, which are Datas of the phone, used by the deceased & accused and further submitted that he has filed the hard copies of some parts of the said CDs, which manifest that the accused Jatin Arora used to send the messages to the deceased, while she was living in the house of her parents that he loved to SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 65/131 the Arushi. He has further submitted that Web History dated 03.03.2014 & 06.03.2014 of data, which manifest that Arushi used to see the pregnancycorner.com, weak pregnancy symptoms and what to expect pregnancy corner, three easiest way to die, the fastest poison easily available in Indian Medical Store and on 06.03.2014, she has seen the Poisons.Co.nz.poisonprevention and on the same day, she has also seen 25 great things, we have to eat in bijing before we die or Choke of death", the death of natural cause wikipeadia and on dated 08.03.2014, she has seen the site "best poison tablets easily available on medical store" and topic relating to cyanide on 16.03.2014, she had also seen top twenty suicide methods, fastest and painless suicide methods wanted death blogspot.in" as she could not conceive for number of years after her marriage and further submitted that PW21 IO Rakesh Duhan has also admitted that he had seen Web History regarding the phone of Arushi and she used to see the methods to commit the suicide and he has also submitted that Ridhi,who cousin sister of deceased Arushi has also admitted that in view of the some health issue, she has visited the doctor and further submitted that since the deceased could not conceive for considerable period and mother of the deceased had taken her to the same doctors. He has further submitted that marriage between Jatin Arora & deceased was solemnized on dated 17.02.2007 and till the date of her death, no complaint was ever filed against any of the accused. He has further submitted that prosecution witnesses have alleged that deceased was tortured, but, no MLC or medical record has been brought on record to prove that Arushi was ever tortured and earlier, the testimonies of PWs cannot be relied upon and further submitted that sister of Jatin Arora, namely, Komal was married, prior to marriage of Jatin with Arushi and further submitted that mother has alleged that relation between Komal(accused) sister of Jatin, and the Arushi was not cordial and further submitted that the deceased was healthy and Komal had told that in view of Non-vegetarian diet, the fatness is increased and in view of same reason, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 66/131 deceased got irritated from Komal and on the date of the alleged commission of suicide by the deceased, Komal was to come to the house of her parents, but, Jatin had stopped her and she returned to her matrimonial home, while she was on the way to her parental house, so, the testimonies of PWs are not reliable and submitted that prosecution witnesses are contradictory, so, they cannot be relied upon and prayed for acquittal of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017, (I) RCR(Criminal) 118, State Vs. Vishesh Chaudhary and others 2016 Crl. Law General 559, Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. 2007 V AD (Cr.) (S.C.) 483, Narender Kumar Arora Vs. State of NCT Crl. Revision Petition No. 555/2003 46 I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
47 Perusal of the record shows that in the case in hand, the FIR was registered on dated 21.05.2014 under Section 498A/306/34 of the IPC. On the basis of the complaint Ex.PW3/C filed by the complainant Anil Kumar Bali on dated 19.05.2014 at 11:35 PM in the PS Sangam Vihar, wherein he has levelled the allegation against all the accused of committing murder of Arushi and this complainant has been examined as PW3, who has correctly identified to all the accused in the court and deposed that Jatin Arora was the husband of his deceased daughter Arushi. Accused Inderjeet Arora was the father in law, accused Meena Arora was the mother in law and accused Komal Arora was the sister in law of deceased Arushi. He has also deposed that deceased Arushi was his only daughter and she was engaged with Jatin in the year 2006 and before marriage, Accused Inderjeet Arora told him that his family was having a very good business and they have distributorship in Punjab, Haryana and UP of aluminum fittings. He has also deposed that accused Inderjeet had told him that his all distributors SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 67/131 and big industrialists of industrial area would remain present in the marriage, so, the marriage should be performed with great pomp and show at high scale. He has further deposed that on 07.02.2007, Arushi was married to accused Jatin Arora s/o accused Inderjeet Arora, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and he had spent about Rs.20 lacs in the marriage of his daughter and he had given gold articles, cash and other gifts to accused Jatin Arora, Inderjeet Arora, Bina Arora, Komal Arora and to their nearest relatives. He has also deposed that after some days of the marriage, his wife told him that accused Jatin Arora, Inderjeet Arora and her others started taunting his daughter Arushi for bringing insufficient dowry and his daughter told this fact to his wife. He has also deposed that his daughter informed them that accused used to taunt her saying that accused Jatin was their only son, so, as per their Dezire and capacity, dowry articles were not given by them and this witness & his wife went to the residence of accused and they met his daughter, accused Jatin, Inderjeet and Veena Arora and spoke to them about their behaviour towards his daughter. Accused told them that as they have given them only a Wagon-R car in the marriage, but as they were big businessmen, so, they deserved a big car and told that a big car should have been given to them instead of Wagon-R. This witness had requested them that he had already spent more than his capacity in the marriage, so, he was not able to fulfill such demand. Even then, on each and every festival, he used to give gifts, money and other articles to the accused, as per customs. He has also deposed that accused Jatin and Inderjeet Arora told him that their brothers have separated their business from the business of accused, so, Jatin and Inderjeet wanted to start a new business, so they required money for the same. They asked him to arrange money to start their business and he took loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs from N.Z.R.E (Railway Society) and gave the amount of one lakh to Jatin Arora for his business and after taking this money from him, accused persons became more greedy, as their new business (shop) was also not running well and thereafter from SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 68/131 time to time, accused started making demand of money and other articles, off and on. In order to fulfill the demands made by the accused, sometimes his daughter used to take money from him and sometimes accused Jatin used to take money from them and on some occasions, he himself or his wife used to deposit money in the bank account of his daughter at Sarita Vihar and she used to withdraw and give it to the accused. He has further stated that within 5-6 years of marriage of his daughter, besides the articles and money given to accused in the marriage, he had also given them one window AC, inverter, one split AC, LED television, and one Samsung Refrigerator, on their demand. Even after 2-3 years of marriage of his daughter, she could not conceive, so, the accused started taunting and torturing his daughter by saying that she could not give birth to a child. His daughter told this fact to his wife and his wife inquired from his daughter, as to whether she was taken to any Fertility Expert for her treatment by her in-laws. He has further stated that his daughter replied that she was not taken to any hospital by the accused for her treatment. His wife had got done fertility treatment of his daughter and they were told by the doctor that there was no deficiency in his daughter for pregnancy. When, they discussed and told this fact to accused Jatin and his family members, the accused started misbehaving with them. Accused Jatin Arora used to taunt his daughter again and again by saying that she was not able to give birth to a child. Accused Jatin, Veena, Inderjeet and Komal used to torture Arushi. Whenever his daughter refused to fulfill the demands made by all the accused, all the accused used to beat her. He has also deposed that he used to call his daughter to their house for few days and she used to tell him about this. Most of the time, accused Jatin and on some occasions accused Jatin, Inderjeet and Veena used to come to their house to compromise the matter and after giving assurance to them, they used to take their daughter back. On 2-3 occasions accused Jatin gave them assurance in writing that he will not abuse, beat and will not tell lie to Arushi. He has also deposed SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 69/131 that recently when, he was searching for some of the belongings in his almirah, he found one paper note mark P-3-A bearing the handwriting and signatures of accused Jatin in which he has written that "from today he shall not say lie to Arushi and I shall not say abuse language to Arushi". He has further deposed that in the year 2011, accused Jatin wound up his shop and started doing service in one of the industries situated at NOIDA. He has also deposed that 6-7 months prior to the incident, Jatin came to him and told him that since his Wagon-R has become old, so, he should get a new Swift Dezire car for him. Accused Jatin also told him that his employer was ready to take his Wagon-R for Rs.1.5 lacs and further ready to pay him Rs.1 Lac more to buy a new car. He has further stated that the accused asked him to take loan for the balance amount in his name to purchase Swift Dezire car for him and to give him the money. He told Jatin that till that date, he had not returned even single penny against the loan money, which, he got from NZRE for Jatin's business and which, he gave him from time to time. On his saying, Jatin misbehaved with him and told him that he was retired recently only and got amount at his retirement and why was he not giving him money. This witness straightway refused to fulfill his demand of Swift Dezire Car and thereafter, accused Jatin, Inderjeet Arora and Veena became more harsh towards Arushi and started committing more cruelties on Arushi. When he came to know about the misbehaviour of the accused with his daughter, he requested them to give him some time to arrange money to fulfill their demand. 3-4 months prior to the incident, Jatin, Inderjeet and Veena gave beatings to his daughter Arushi and threw her out of the matrimonial house. Arushi came to his house and stayed with him for about 1½-2 months. During her stay with him, many times he spoke to Jatin and Inderjeet on telephone and they both kept on saying that unless and until he arrange money for their demand of Swift Dezire Car, there will be no compromise and accused Jatin & Inderjeet asked him to get dissolve the marriage of Arushi with Jatin and they told him that they will go for SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 70/131 second marriage of Jatin. This witness has also alleged that accused used to call his daughter "Baanjh" and when he heard the words of divorce from the mouth of Jatin and Inderjeet, he became more tensed for the future of his daughter and he arranged Rs.2.5 lacs and gave the same to accused Inderjeet and Jatin to fulfill their demand and asked them to get the Swift Dezire Car financed and he would pay the installments of the Swift Dezire Car on monthly basis, but, they must keep his daughter well. He has deposed that he sent his daughter back to her matrimonial home. He has further deposed that 15-20 days prior to the incident, accused Jatin, Inderjeet and Veena gave beatings to his daughter Arushi and he alongwith his wife went to the matrimonial house of his daughter. At that time, accused Jatin, Inderjeet and Veena misbehaved with him and told him to take his daughter back and also told him that they wanted to getrid of his daughter. On this, this witness had exchanged hot words with the accused and thereafter he returned from there with his wife. On 18.05.2014 at about 9.57 AM he got a missed call on his mobile from Arushi. Just after 2 minutes of first call at about 9.59 AM, Arushi made a call on the mobile phone of his wife and she spoke to him and his wife. He has also deposed that his daughter told him that her sister in law (Komal) was present at the matrimonial house of Arushi and in the morning accused Jatin, Inderjeet, Komal and Veena were sitting in the adjacent room and were talking, and Arushi heard that 7 years of the marriage of Arushi have been completed and there was nothing to be scared and no blame would come on them. His daughter also apprehended that something might happen with her and this witness told Arushi that there was nothing to worry, as nothing bad would happen. After disconnecting the said call, his wife has also told him that Arushi was saying that accused Komal and Veena were saying Arushi that their father had purchased Honda Amaze Car recently, but he did not give a Swift Dezire car to Jatin which was demanded by Jatin 6-7 months prior to that and Arushi also told his wife that accused were pressurising her to ask SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 71/131 them for giving Swift Dezire Car to Jatin. He has also deposed that Arushi told his wife that when she replied to accused that her parents had already given so much and she will not convey any further demand of accused to them, and on this Arushi was beaten by accused. On hearing this from his wife at 10.17 AM, he immediately called Jatin on his mobile phone and told him not to give beatings to his daughter and not to harass her and phone was disconnected and he again tried number of Jatin and spoke to him for a short while and again his phone got disconnected. At 10.20 AM Jatin called him on his mobile and he spoke to him for about 10 minutes. He misbehaved with him and told him "TUMHARI BETI NE HAMARE PARIWAR KA BEDA GARK KAR DIAY HAD, AAJTAK KISI BACHCHE KO JANM NAHI DIYA" and he also told him many other objectionable things. He tried to pacify Jatin and requested him not to torture Arushi and thereafter Jatin disconnected the phone. At about 10.53 AM he received a phone call from Arushi on his mobile and told him that she was locked inside the room, and the doors of the outer room have been bolted from outside and Arushi was banging the door but no one was opening it and she also told him that there was something bad in the minds of accused against her. After 7-8 minutes Arushi again called him on his mobile and told him that she was banging and pulling the door. He again called accused Jatin thereafter and spoke to him for about 2-3 minutes about this. At 12.03 PM Arushi called him on his mobile and told him that accused Veena and Komal were abusing, quarreling and misbehaving with her. He has deposed that he inquired from Arushi, as to where was her father in law, to which, she told him that accused Inderjeet was there only. At 01.07 PM, when he was returning home with his wife from doctor, after showing his wife, he received call from accused Jatin on his mobile, who told him that Arushi was unconscious and he was taking Arushi to Pentamid Hospital and he also asked him to reach there. He and his wife rushed to the hospital. On the way to hospital, he informed his relatives about the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 72/131 incident. He also informed the police by calling PCR at no.100. He has further deposed that when they reached Pentamid Hospital, they found that Arushi was already dead and they learnt that she was brought dead in the hospital. He also noticed injury marks on her abdomen and on shoulder. After some time, PCR reached in the hospital. His relatives also reached there. In the hospital, accused Jatin and Inderjeet were present and after some time, they left from there. At about 3.30 PM, they went to the matrimonial house of Arushi, from hospital along with police. Some police officials were already present at the matrimonial house of Arushi and they were standing outside the house. The house of accused was found locked from outside. Police officials knocked the door of the house of accused. Special team of crime branch also came there and then they knocked the door. There, they learnt that accused Veena Arora was very much present, inside the house. Police started carrying out the proceedings. They were stopped to go inside the house of accused by the police at the initial stage. Later on when, they insisted the police to go inside the house, then, he and his wife were permitted by the police to go inside for a few minutes. At about 6 PM, they were told that body of his daughter was being shifted to mortuary from Pentamid Hospital, so they rushed to the hospital. At about 7 PM dead body was shifted to the mortuary. They were told by the IO that next morning, there will be a postmortem on the dead body and they were required to remain present there. On 19.05.2014 he, his wife, alongwith his relatives went to the mortuary in the BJRM Hospital. Where, they met with the police officials, who were present there and he identified the dead body of his daughter Arushi and his identification statement in this regard was recorded which is Ex. PW3/A. After the postmortem, dead body was received by them against the Receipt Ex. PW3/B. They remained in the mortuary for some time with the hope that accused Jatin, Inderjeet, Veena or any of their relatives might come there, but no one from their family came there. Finally, they cremated the body of his daughter. On 19.05.2014 after SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 73/131 cremation, he gave his handwritten complaint Ex.PW3/C against the accused to the police running into six pages. On 21.05.2014 case FIR was registered and he got the copy of FIR. On 22.05.2014, he was informed by the IO telephonically that they would search the diary of his daughter, which, she used to write, in the house of accused and he alongwith his wife Renu and his nephew Ankur reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter. SI Rakesh alongwith other police officials were already present there and he joined investigation with them. Police searched the room of Arushi in the house of accused and during search, from the iron almirah of Arushi in her room, One mobile phone of Samsung company containing two SIMs, one of Airtel and another one of Reliance, and one suicide note in the writing of Arushi running into six pages, one diary of Delhi Metro containing 25-26 written pages in Hindi and English language, were recovered. He identified the mobile phone and told the police that it belonged to Arushi. He also identified the handwriting of Aarushi on the suicide note of six pages. He also identified the diary, which was given by him to Arushi for her use and the contents of the diary on 26 pages were regarding her job requirements in her handwriting. The mobile phone of Arushi was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/D. He has also deposed that suicide note running into six pages and diary of Aarushi were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/E and during search of almirah, marriage cards of Arushi and accused Jatin, their marriage certificate issued by Registrar of Marriage, Kanjhawala and four photographs of their marriage were also recovered. All these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/F and proved marriage card Ex. PW3/G. Marriage certificate Ex. PW3/H. Four photographs Ex. PW3/I-1 to I-4 and his statement was recorded by the IO. He has also deposed that on 03.06.2014, he again joined the investigation of the present case. He went to Police Station and gave his supplementary statement to the police and gave the details of the day of incident and about his conversation with his daughter SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 74/131 and accused Jatin on the day of incident, as he was disturbed on 19.05.2014, when, he made his first statement. He has also deposed that he told to the police that his daughter used to maintain her diary, since 2008, in which, she used to write the details and accounts of the money, which she used to bring and take from him and also the details of her daily events. He also told to the police that on dated 13.05.2014, when, his wife got FD in joint name with Arushi for Rs.8 Lacs, wherein he was made nominee and on this, the accused had objected, as accused Jatin wanted to be nominee in that FD and on this issue accused Jatin tortured his daughter and he has also deposed that he had handed over the photocopy of that FD to the police. He has further deposed that on 07.06.2014, he went to police station and handed over 14 photographs of the marriage of Arushi and Jatin which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/J and proved the said photographs Ex. PW3/J1 to J14. He has further deposed that they went to the Pentamid Hospital, Model Town and Wagon-R car no. DL-7CH-0801 of steel colour, which was given in dowry to accused in the marriage was recovered from there, which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW3/K and Key of that car was brought from the house of accused Jatin and car was checked before seizure. Later on, he got released the aforesaid Wagon- R on superdari, as it was registered in his name and the photographs of the said car are Ex. PW3/L1 to L5 and CD containing photographs Ex. PW3/L6 and he has also deposed that on 24.06.2014, he went to Police Station. He stated that he handed over four photographs of his daughter Arushi which were taken by his relatives in the Pentamid Hospital and those photographs were seized vide memo Ex. PW3/M and those photographs are Ex. PW3/M1 to M4. He further deposed that on 12.07.2014, he went to the Police Station and handed over two photographs to the police. Those photographs were taken by him from his mobile on the day of incident in the evening, when, he went to the house of accused with police and police allowed him to enter in that house for few minutes. He has also handed SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 75/131 over two pages of statement of accounts of payments of installments of the loan taken by him from NZRE to fulfill the demand of accused. Those photographs and documents were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW3/N and two photographs are Ex. PW3/N1 and N2. Two documents of payment of installment of loan are Ex. PW3/N3 and N4. When he obtained the Wagon-R car on superdari, Superdaginama and Panchnama was prepared. Superdaginama is Ex. PW3/O. Panchnama of the Wagon-R car is Ex. PW3/P. He has also deposed that his daughter has died because of the harassment and torture meted out to her by the accused persons for not fulfilling their demands. He has identified the diary Ex. PW22/C, suicide notes Ex. PW22/B1 to B7 and the mobile phone Ex. P3 of his deceased daughter Aarushi and deposed that his daughter used to maintain the diary, since the year 2008 which is still untraceable. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that at the relevant time, he was using Samsung Grand mobile phone, which is an android phone and his daughter Aarushi was also using the similar phone and both the phone were having applications of automatic recording and he does not have the recordings of the calls of dated 18.05.2014 made by Arushi or his outgoing calls to Arushi. He has also deposed that on dated 18.05.2014, he had produced the phone before police. He has admitted it to be correct that on dated 18.05.2014 Arushi did not inform him that the accused had raised demand of dowry. He did not try to retrieve the data of the calls of dated 18.05.2014 and further deposed that his said phone was got damaged in the month of July 2015, and he has also deposed that he did not save any conversation between him & Aarushi and stated that the deceased used to share about the behaviour of accused with her mother most of the times and admitted that after the call at 9.57 AM, Aarushi made two other calls on the mobile phone of this witness and he had spoken with his daughter for one or two minutes and on dated 18.05.2014 this witness and his wife spoke to Aarushi for SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 76/131 about 30 minutes, on mobile phone. He did not check the phone of Aarushi at the time of recovery thereof. He has also deposed that he is not aware, if, Arushi was using several applications like Facebook, Whats App etc. He has admitted that deceased had sent some messages through whatsapp on his mobile phone and he is not aware whether Arushi had created any facebook account and he does not remember that he checked her Facebook account and he also does not remember that deceased made any whisper regarding any torture, harassment of Aarushi by accused on account of dowry in the messages, sent by her through Whatsapp on his mobile phone. He had seen 40-50 messages, which were stored in the mobile phone of Aarushi. He has admitted that mobile phone of Aarushi was of dual SIM and told her both numbers. He has denied that mobile phone of Arushi was tampered with or that calls for about six months were deleted from the phone after incident. He has also deposed that he does not remember, whether, he had forwarded any recorded conversation through his mobile phone or not. He has admitted that sometime, he heard some conversation between accused Jatin & Inderjeet, which were recorded in his mobile. He has denied that he had saved the conversations between him with these two accused, on his mobile phone or that he has also forwarded the same to the Arushi. He does not recall, if, he had a telephonic conversation with accused Inderjeet on dated 17.02.2014 and he does not remember if, on dated 17.02.2014 accused Inderjeet had called this witness and said that they should send Aarushi back to matrimonial home. So that, the marriage could be saved. He has admitted that on dated 17.02.2014, deceased was staying with them and also admitted that Aarushi had gone to matrimonial home on 07.03.2014. He has denied that during the stay of Aarushi in their house for about two months, they decided to wind up the marriage. He has also deposed that he does not remember, whether during his telephonic conversation with accused Inderjeet on 17.02.2014, he made demand of Swift Dezire car or not and he had not heard any conversation, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 77/131 which got recorded in the mobile phone of Aarushi after 02.02.2014. He has denied that he has destroyed or withheld the evidence in favour of the accused. He has also deposed that he did not check the mobile phone of Aarushi after her death, as to which site, she visited on Internet through Google, as this witness was not much familiar to use Internet. He has also admitted it to be correct that the marriage of Aarushi and Jatin was love- cum-arranged marriage. He had approved her marriage with accused Jatin. He has admitted that he had not given the details of the source of money spent in the marriage to the IO, as he was not asked to produce. He has also deposed that he could not give the bill/invoice of any of the articles, which was given at the time of marriage of Aarushi as all those bills were handed over to accused persons at that time and he had not made any effort to arrange the duplicate invoices from the concerned shopkeepers after the registration of FIR of this case. He has admitted it to be correct that the bill of refrigerator, which was given after the marriage of Aarushi was in the name of accused Jatin/Inderjeet Arora. He has admitted that Aarushi could not conceive after her marriage. When this witness was asked the name of the doctor or hospital, where, Aarushi was taken for the fertility treatment by the wife of this witness. On this, this witness has stated that he does not recollect the name of the doctor, but, she was taken to Shanti Mukund Hospital. This witness has failed to tell the date, month & year, when his daughter was admitted in Shanti Mukund Hospital. But, admitted that she was admitted in the hospital after about 2-3 years of her marriage. This witness has further deposed that he does not have any medical document regarding the same and also deposed that accused Jatin was not called in the said hospital for fertility. He was not aware whether fertility test could be conducted without the testing of husband. He does not remember about the opinion of the doctor and deposed that Dr. Mr. Vizrani was the family doctor of the complainant and Arushi visited Dr. Vizrani, whenever, she fell ill and Aarushi was never taken to Dr. Vizrani for treatment of any alleged SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 78/131 injury sustained by her after her marriage or for non conceiving of Arushi for such a long time after her marriage. He has admitted that he did not tell to the police that before marriage, the accused Inderjeet had told him that he was having good business or that they were having distributorship in Punjab, Haryana and U.P. He has admitted it to be correct that he had made a hand-written complaint running into six pages, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. He has also deposed that he has mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW3/C that accused Jatin used to demand money from him for his business, but, he did not state that he used to insist to give money in the form of cash. He has also deposed that he had not mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW3/C and in view of non-fulfillment of demand, all the accused beaten her daughter. He has further deposed that he had probably mentioned in his complaint that whenever, his daughter informed him that she was beaten by the accused and this witness used to call her in his house. This witness was confronted with the complaint Ex. PW3/C where it was not so recorded. He has also deposed that slip Mark P3 was found in Almirah about 3-4 months prior to recording of his statement in court. He had not informed the police about that paper slip. He has also mentioned that he did not mention in his complaint Ex.P3/C. He has denied that the aforesaid slip had been fabricated by him. He has also deposed that he had mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW3/C that he told Jatin that he did not return a single penny against the loan money which he got from NZRE for his business. He has further deposed that he does not remember if he had mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW3/C that accused used to call his daughter as 'BAANJH'. He has also deposed that he had not mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW3/C that Arushi was saying that accused Komal and Veena said to Arushi that their father has purchased Honda Amaze Car recently, but he did not give a Swift Dezire car to Jatin, which was demanded by Jatin 6-7 months prior to that and Arushi also told his wife that accused were pressurising her to ask them for giving Swift Dezire Car SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 79/131 to Jatin and he has admitted that on dated 18.05.2014 during his telephonic conversation with Aarushi, she did not inform this witness that she was being tortured by accused on account of demand of Swift Dezire Car. He has also deposed that he did not mention in his complaint Ex. PW3/C that on hearing from his wife at 10:17 AM on 18.05.2014 that Aarushi was beaten by accused, he immediately called accused Jatin on his mobile phone and told him not to give beatings to his daughter and not to harass her. He has admitted that he had obtained the loan from 'Northern Zonal Railway Society' for the purpose of 'House Requirement' and he does not remember, if, the column of 'House Requirement' existed in the application form for procuring the said loan. He has denied that 'HR' does not denote 'House Requirement' or that it denotes 'House Rent' or 'House Renovation'. There was no column in the form of loan application that loan can be taken for giving the same to son in law. He has admitted it to be correct that loan could have been granted only for the purposes as mentioned in the form. This witness has admitted that he got prepared a draft of Rs.3 Lacs and paid Rs.700/- as bank charges and also admitted that the said draft was got prepared for purchasing of the Honda Amaze Car and further admitted that this amount of Rs.3 Lacs was not given to accused. He has further deposed that mother of his wife had never sold any property in Faridabad. In the month of April 2012, the builder/constructor of the property, to whom his mother in law gave the plot for construction, got prepared a draft of Rs.4 Lacs in the name of his wife. The abovesaid draft of Rs.4 Lacs was deposited in the joint account of his wife and Aarushi and his wife did not directly give any amount out of Rs.4 Lacs to any of the four accused. This witness has denied that this amount was never given by Aarushi to accused. This witness has further deposed that he does not remember if there were entries pertaining to transfer of amount between the joint account of his wife and daughter with the account of his nephew Gaurav, who also has an account in the Karnataka Bank. He is not aware if his daughter had any SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 80/131 account in Syndicate Bank. He had mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW3/C that accused Jatin also told him that his employer was ready to take his Wagon-R car for Rs.1.5 lakhs and was further ready to pay him Rs.1 Lakh more to buy a new car and that accused demanded from this witness that he should get loan for the balance amount in his name to purchase Swift Dezire car for him and give him the money. He had mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW3/C that Jatin came to him and requested to take loan as he intended to purchase Swift Dezire Car. He has admitted it to be correct that the crime team officials reached at the spot on dated 18.05.2014 at about 3.30 PM. He has also admitted it to be correct that the crime team had searched the room of Aarushi and no suicide note or diary was recovered from the room of Aarushi, on that day. He does not know, if, the Almirah of Aarushi was checked on dated 18.05.2014 or not. On dated 22.05.2014, when police officials were making search in the room of Aarushi, this witness, his wife and his nephew were standing outside the room and they were informed by police regarding recovery of diary from the Almirah of room of Aarushi. He has also deposed that he had gone through the seizure memo of diary prepared by the police on dated 22.05.2014. The fact that he was standing outside of the room, when, search was being conducted by police in the room of Aarushi is not mentioned in the seizure memo and deposed that he had not stated the above said fact to police in his statement that he was on the door of room of Aarushi at the time, when, her almirah was being searched by total three or four policemen. He has further deposed that the diary was found and he was told that the diary was found. He has admitted that IO as well as, SHO both were present at the spot on dated 18.05.2014, when, crime team officials visited the spot. The spot was also photographed by police. He does not know as to whether they were local police officials or crime team police officials, who were taking the photographs. He does not know, as to whether the photographs of almirah kept in the room of Aarushi was taken SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 81/131 or not. He has admitted that the main door of the Almirah was not locked on dated 22.5.2014 and keymaker, who used to make duplicate key was also there with the police officials, when, they arrived at the spot. The keymaker opened the locker of almirah with the help of instruments or with the other key. When, the attention of the witness was drawn towards page Mark A- 20 & A-21 on the diary Ex.PW22/C, then, he had deposed that it appeared to this witness that both of those pages Mark A-20 & A-21 of this diary are in the handwriting of his daughter Aarushi. He has further deposed that on dated 22.05.2014, police called him telephonically for reaching at the spot. He did not click any photograph of the room of Aarushi on 18.05.2014 and deposed that he was not allowed by the police. At the same time, he has admitted it to be correct on the same day, he took photographs of the broken bolt (kundi) fixed on the door of balcony in the matrimonial house of Aarushi. On dated 22.05.2014 police started searching the room of Aarushi at about 11.30 AM and conducted search till about 12.30 PM. He does not remember, as to whether police had recorded the statement of his wife or nephew on 22.05.2014 or not. He also does not remember, if, police obtained the signatures of his wife or nephew on any paper on 22.05.2014 and on that day, police did not call any worker or labourer from industries situated near the house of accused for joining the investigation. Aarushi had a driving license, but she never drove car. He has denied that Aarushi was regularly using the vehicle or that he had given the Wagon-R for her use. He never spoke to accused Komal telephonically after marriage of Aarushi. However, he had met accused Komal several times. Accused Komal had not attended the marriage function of his nephew Gaurav and Ankur, which were performed somewhere in the years 2008 & 2010. Komal also did not attend his retirement party, however she attended the marriage of his niece in December 2006. Komal had visited their house at the time of Pag-Fera ceremony of Aarushi alongwith other accused and she again visited his house for inviting them for the marriage of her sister in law. Except these SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 82/131 two occasions, Komal never visited his house. Initially, the relations between Aarushi and Komal were normal, however, later on their relations became strained. He stated that he did not remember, as to whether Aarushi was present in his house on her birthday i.e. on 10.04.2014. He has denied that accused Jatin and Inderjeet were arrested from the hospital itself or that the diary and suicide notes were falsely planted belatedly on the accused or that the accused never instigated or abetted Aarushi to commit suicide or that evidence favouring the accused has been withheld or that the accused have been falsely implicated in collusion with the police or that accused Komal had no connection with the matrimonial affairs of her brother with Aarushi or that he has deposed falsely. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that this witness had come to understand about the demise of Arushi on dated 18.05.2014 at 01:07 PM and on dated 18.05.2014 prior to the commission of suicide by Arushi, the talks of Arushi were held with this witness and also with her mother Renu Bali. This witness during his cross examination has admitted that on dated 18.05.2014, Arushi did not tell him that accused had raised any demand. Had there been any such demand of any kind, the Arushi could tell to this witness, the perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that this witness had met with the police on dated 18.05.2014 in the Pentamid Hospital, but, this witness and other relatives of the deceased had refused to give any statement to the police. PW3 has deposed that on dated 18.05.2014 at 09:57 AM, he got a missed call on his phone of Arushi and just after 02 minutes thereof i.e. at 09:59 AM Arushi made a call on mobile phone of the wife of this witness and Arushi spoke this witness and also with the wife of this witness and deposed that Arushi told that she heard her sister-in-law Komal, who was present in the matrimonial home of Arushi and accused Jatin, Inderjeet, Komal were sitting in the room adjacent to the room of Arushi and they were talking that 07 years of marriage of Jatin with Arushi have been completed and there is nothing to be scared and no blame would come on SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 83/131 them and daughter of this witness suspected that something wrong might be happened with her and this witness has deposed that he told to Arushi that she need not to worry and nothing wrong would happen with her. But, the prosecution has failed to proved on record that on dated 18.05.2014 Komal was present in the house of the accused at 09:57 AM and had Arushi shown such apprehension to this witness, then, this witness could not stop himself from going to the matrimonial home of her only daughter Arushi, soon after hearing such talks. Had such apprehension been shown by Arushi, and soon after demise of Arushi, this witness or his wife could lodge the FIR against the accused, but, the complainant or his relatives deposed to give any statement to the police on dated 18.05.2014 and as per rukka Ex.PW21/I, the complaint Ex.PW3/C has been filed on dated 19.05.2014 at 11:35 PM and the FIR has been registered on dated 21.05.2014 at 05:20 PM and similarly, this witness has also deposed that it was told by the wife of this witness the 06/07 months prior to this incident, Arushi had told her that accused Komal & Veena were pressurising to Arushi to ask to her parents for giving Swift Dezire Car to Jatin. Had such demand been raised, this complainant or his wife could lodge the complaint against the accused, but, they did not file any complaint against any of the accused, during the lifetime of Arushi and even soon after the demise of Arushi, this witness and his wife did not resort to lodge the complaint against the accused. This witness has alleged that on dated 18.05.2014 after hearing from his wife at 10:17 AM, immediately, he called to Jatin and told him to not beat his daughter and accused disconnected the phone. He has also alleged that at 10:20 AM, Jatin called to this witness and spoke with him for about 10 minutes and he had misbehaved with this witness. But, in the considered opinion of this court, had the accused misbehaved with him, then, he could lodge the FIR promptly against the accused or soon after the death of Arushi, it is also alleged by the complainant that he had also seen the injury on the person of the deceased. But, such allegation of this witness is not SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 84/131 corroborated with the medical evidence, as the MLC of Arushi Ex.PW7/A reveals only about the ligature mark and mark of injections on the person of the deceased and similarly the postmortem report Ex.PW7/D1 also does not corroborate such allegation of beating of the deceased on dated 18.05.2014. It is worthwhile to mention here that this witness has alleged that all the accused had killed to Arushi, but, from the postmortem report of Arushi Ex.PW7/D1, from the testimony of PW29 Dr. Bhim Singh and from the Viscera report Ex.PW26/A, it is clear that it is not a case of homicidal death, as in the report of Viscera Ex.PW26/A, no poison or foreign material were detected and PW29 has conducted Postmortem on the body of the deceased opined that the death was possible due to ante-mortem hanging. Thus, the allegation levelled in the complaint Ex.PW3/C regarding killing of Arushi, is false as, it is clear that the death was not homicidal, but, suicidal one. This witness has also alleged that on dated 18.05.2014 at 10:53 AM, he had received call from Arushi on his mobile phone and alleged that she was locked inside and door was bolted from outside and Arushi was banging the door, but, no one was opening the same and Arushi also told this witness that there was something bad in the mind of this accused against her and also alleged that at 12:03 PM, Arushi made telephonic talk with this witness and told that accused Veena & Komal were abusing & quarreling with her and she was confined in a room. But, had this witness received such information from Arushi that she was confined in the room by the accused. In the considered opinion this court, had such message been received by this witness, he could not stop himself from going to the matrimonial home of Arushi. Since, he did not resort to go to the house of Arushi, soon after, receiving of the alleged call from Arushi and in view of non going to the home of Arushi, soon after receiving of such information, such conduct of this complainant is held to be unnatural. This witness has deposed that he had received the information at 01:07 PM that Arushi was unconscious and Jatin was taking her to the Pantamid SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 85/131 Hospital and he has also deposed that he made PCR call at 100 number and alleged that he had seen the mark of injuries on the abdomen & shoulder of the deceased and admitted that staff of the PCR also arrived in the hospital, then, what has prevented him for lodging the FIR immediately, it is not explained by the prosecution. This witness has alleged that he had given window AC, Inverter, Split AC, LED, Television & Refrigerator on the demand of the accused. Whereas, wife of this witness has been examined as PW10 and she has deposed in her cross-examination that Refrigerator was gifted to the accused after marriage of Arushi and similarly, PW9 Ankur Bali (cousin) has admitted that Fridge was gifted. Whereas, the perusal of the bill of the fridge Ex.PW9/A reveals that its stands in the name of I.J. Arora/Jatin Arora and the ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the said fridge was purchased by the accused, so, the bill stands in their names, so, possibility of purchasing of fridge by the accused cannot be ruled out and this witness (complainant) has alleged that he had taken loan Rs. 2 lakhs from NZRE and out of same, he had given Rs. 1 lakh to the accused Jatin Arora in compliance of his demand and since PW11 has proved on record that said loan was taken by PW3 on 15.01.2008 either for house repair, house renovation or house/home requirement and PW10 has admitted that in the year 2008, the relation between complainant party & accused were cordial and in the year 2008, accused had given set of Gold, the marriage of Ankur, who is nephew of complainant and if any demand of money was raised by the accused in the year 2008, then, the complaint could be filed by this complainant, his wife or Arushi in the year 2008. But, no complaint was ever filed regarding the demand of dowry during the life time of Arushi and after the demise of Arushi. This complainant has tried to link the loan taken from his department in the year 2008 with the demand of money. It appears to be an afterthought version of the complainant. Thus, the testimony of this witness is contradictory to the testimony of the PW10 & PW11, PW21, PW28, PW30. This witness has alleged that suicidal note SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 86/131 running into 06 pages(Ex.PW22/B1 to Ex.PW22/B7) were found from the room of Arushi on dated 22.05.2014 and perusal of the complaint Ex.PW3/C of PW3 reveals that he has alleged that deceased was killed by all the accused. But, at the time of his examination in the court, he has nowhere alleged that Arushi was killed by the accused. PW3 has alleged that Arushi was harassed for non compliance of demand of dowry. But, during his cross-examination, he has admitted that on dated 18.05.2014, Arushi did not tell him that accused had raised any demand of dowry or that she was abetted to commit suicide. Since the conduct of this PW3 is found to be unnatural and delay in lodging the FIR also creates clouds suspicion, even otherwise the testimony of PW3 is found to be contradictory with the testimonies of PW9 & PW10 regarding the Refrigerator. Since, the complainant has alleged in the complaint Ex.PW3/C that Arushi was killed by the accused, but, the MLC of the deceased Ex.PW7/A and postmortem report PW7/D1 and from the testimony of PW29 Dr. Bhim Singh, it is clear that this is not the case of homicidal death, but, this is the case of suicidal death. As postmortem report & MLC of the deceased reveal about the ligature mark & injection mark on the body of the deceased. Report of Viscera Ex.PW26/A also does not reveal about the homicidal death. Anil Kumar Bali (PW3) has alleged that he had taken loan from NZRE on asking of accused Jatin and Inderjeet for arranging money. But the perusal of the document Ex.PW11/D1 & Ex.PW11/D3 and from the testimony of PW11, reveal that loan was taken by PW3 in the year 2008 for his home renovation, house repair and since PW10 Renu Bali has admitted during her cross-examination that the relation of the complainant party were cordial with the accused in the year 2008 and her nephew Ankur got married in the year 2008 and at that time, their relations were cordial with the accused and also admitted it to be correct that the accused gifted a set of gold in the marriage of her nephew Ankur and also admitted that in the year 2009, her nephew Gaurav was got married and accused had gifted a set of gold in the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 87/131 marriage of Gaurav and in the year 2012 accused had gifted one chain of gold to the husband of PW10 on his retirement and similarly, the PW10 during her cross-examination has deposed that in the year 2012, this complainant(PW3) & his wife Renu Bali(PW10), Arushi, Jatin had gone Vaishno Devi Temple and in the year 2013, all these four persons went to Manali and also their relations were cordial and similarly in the year 2011, they went to Shirdi. So, it is clear that in the year 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 & 2013, the relations between the accused and the complainant party remained cordial and had there been strained relations between the accused with the Arushi, complainant or his family's members, they could not go for outing together on tours nor accused could give gold's sets to the relatives of the complainant nor accused could give chain of gold to the complainant on his retirement in the year 2012. So, in such cordial relation, the demand of money could not be raised. Had there been any demand from the side of accused, they could not go together for tours and during the lifetime of Arushi, neither Arushi nor complainant had filed any complaint to the police against the accused for alleged harassment, cruelty with deceased or demand of dowry. So, the possibilities of filing of the complaint by the complainant after demise of the Arushi in view of suicidal death of Arushi, a fit of anger cannot be ruled out. It is worthwhile to mention here that PW3 in his complaint Ex.PW3/C has alleged that no treatment of Arushi was got done by her husband or by her in laws and Arushi was taken to the doctor for treatment by his wife and at the time of his cross-examination, once, he has denied about such treatment of Arushi, but, then, he has admitted, when, he was asked by the Ld. Counsel for the accused about the name of the doctor, where the Arushi was taken for fertility treatment by the wife of this witness and he has named Shanti Mukund Hospital. Thus, the testimony of PW3 is also inconsistent to the contents of his complaint Ex.PW3/C. It is worthwhile to mention here that her this complainant and his wife, Jatin & Arushi had gone to Manali, Vaishno Devi Temple, Shirdi, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 88/131 which manifest that there were cordial relation between the accused Jatin, Arushi and complainant and his wife. This witness has failed to give any categorical date of beating to the deceased by the accused or categorical date of making of demand of dowry and since the testimony of this witness is found to be contradictory inconsistent, improved, embellished and vague, so, the same does not inspire any confidence therein.
48. Whereas, Dr. Nadeem Akhtar has been examined as PW-7, who has deposed that he has worked with Dr. Chandrika, as well as Dr. Rajesh Gupta Dr.Chandrika has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. However, he is conversant with the handwritings and signatures of Dr. Chandrika, as well as, Dr. Rajesh, as he has seen them writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He has seen MLC No. 875/14 on the judicial record and deposed that this MLC was prepared by Dr. Chandrika in his handwriting except one endorsement at point X. On MLC Ex.PW7/A and he has identified the signatures of Dr. Chandrika at point A. As, Dr. Chandrika was working as Medical officer on that day. Dr. Rajesh Gupta was working as Examining, Medical Officer. As per MLC Ex.PW7/A patient Arushi Arora wife of Jatin Arora female aged 30 years was brought to the hospital by Jatin Arora on 18.05.2014 at 1.20 PM. She was in unconscious state and the history disclosed was of hanging at home approximately 15-20 minutes before her taking to the hospital. On being examining her, BP and pulse of the patient were not recordable. There was no respiratory movements. Pupils were fixed and dilated. ECG reflected flat line and heart sound was absent. Patient was tried to be revived by giving CPR, but, she could not be revived. On local examination, ligature mark was found present around the Neck. The patient was declared dead on 2.07 PM on that very day. He has also seen the report dated 08.07.2014 of Dr. Chandrika on an application given by SI Rakesh Duhan. In the report dated 08.07.2014, Dr. Chandrika had mentioned that the patient Arushi was SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 89/131 given I.V. Adrenaline and Atropin injection and that no other injection was administered in inter costal space. The report is in the handwriting of Dr. Chandrika Ex.PW7/A and he has identified the signature of Dr.Chandrika at point A. Even in the MLC the fact of the said injection administered is mentioned. He has been cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused and attention of the witness was drawn towards the post mortem report of the deceased dated 19.05.2014. He has seen the post mortem reports wherein, it is mentioned at injury no. 2 under the head External injuries that there was an injection mark in fifth inter costal space left side of chest, just lateral to sternum and deposed that since in the present case heart sound was not audible and BP and pulse were not recordable, therefore in such cases, one cannot find peripheral veins and therefore, it is possible that the injection Adrenalin and Atropin could have been administered as intracardiac injection. He voluntarily stated that as per Ex.PW7/B, intravenous injection was given. The postmortem report is Ex.PW7/D1. Thus from the testimony of this witness of MLC Ex.PW7/A, it is clear that no mark of injury was found on the body of the deceased except legature mark & mark of injection. Thus, testimony of this witness also does not support the case of the complainant, as complainant has alleged that Arushi was beaten and he had seen the injuries on the body of the deceased, whereas, this witness has deposed that only ligature mark & mark of injuries were there on the body of the deceased.
49. Whereas, Ridhi has been examined as PW-8, who has deposed that Arushi Arora was daughter of her mamaji, namely, Mr. Anil Bali. Arushi was about 4-5 years elder to her and this witness had very good relations with her. She has further deposed that they (both) were very good friends also beside being cousin and Arushi used to share every important information with her and six months prior to her marriage with accused Jatin Arora, Arushi introduced Jatin Arora to her. This witness has SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 90/131 identified to the accused Jatin in the court. She has further deposed that she does not remember the year of marriage of Arushi and Jatin, but, prior to her death 6-7 years had passed from the date of her marriage. When, Arushi introduced Jatin to her, Arushi told her that she was friend of Jatin and they are closed to each and that she knew Jatin even prior to his marriage with Arushi and this witness met Jatin only 1-2 times. During those meetings with Jatin, Jatin told this witness that he wanted to marry Arushi and that he would keep Arushi very happy after marriage. Jatin also told her that he was graduate and that he had an aluminum fitting manufacturing business and they owned an industrial plot at GTK Road, Delhi. Jatin also asked this witness to talk with her mamaji regarding to the relations between Jatin and Arushi and stated that Arushi might not be able to tell her parents about the relationship between them. This witness told these things to her mamaji and mamiji. Thereafter, marriage was solemnized and when, this witness met Arushi after sometimes her marriage, Arushi told her that her in-laws i.e accused Jatin and parents of Jatin used to tell lie & they were greedy, and that they used to make demands of cash and articles from Arushi. She had also told this witness that these three accused used to torture her and sometimes she was also given beatings. This witness has correctly identified the parents of Jatin, but, she failed to tell their names. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during her cross examination, she has deposed that her statement was recorded by police after about 4-5 days after the demise of Aarushi and she could neither admitted nor denied that her statement was recorded by police after about 2 months of the death of Aarushi. She does not remember that if she had stated before the police that Aarushi used to tell her that her in laws were making demands of cash and articles from her. On seeing her statement is Ex. PW8/DA she has admitted it to be correct that the fact regarding demand of cash and articles is not mentioned in the statement recorded by the IO. She has deposed that she had stated in her statement Ex. PW8/DA SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 91/131 that Aarushi had told her that sometimes the three accused persons gave beatings to her, when she was Confronted with her statement Ex. PW8/DA wherein, it was not so recorded. She admitted it to be correct that Aarushi had introduced Jatin Arora to her about six months prior to her marriage. She does not know the date of engagement of Aarushi with accused Jatin. She has denied that both were engaged one year prior to their marriage. She has neither admitted nor denied if Aarushi and Jatin were engaged in July 2006. She has also deposed that she spoke to Aarushi telephonically very rarely after her marriage. She has also deposed that she had never spoken with accused Jatin telephonically, after his marriage and she had visited the matrimonial house of Aarushi only at once during her seven years of her matrimonial life. She had informed about the friendship of Aarushi and Jatin to her Mamaji Sh. Anil Bali (complainant) before their engagement, but, she does not remember the date, time and month, of giving such information to Anil Bali and she had attended several functions organized in the parental house of Aarushi. She does not remember, if, Aarushi had ever disclosed her that she could not conceive. She has admitted that Aarushi had some health issues, but, she does not know the details thereof. She does not remember any occasion, when, this witness alongwith Aarushi and Jatin had gone for outing. She has deposed that she had not gone to the hospital, where dead body of Aarushi was shifted and she did not go to the police station on 18.05.2014 till the date, when her statement was recorded by the police. She has denied that she has deposed falsely being relative of deceased Aarushi or that she has been introduced as witness at belatedly stage to falsely implicate the accused persons. From the testimony of this witness, it is clear that accused Jatin was on friendly terms with the Aarushi, before marriage. The testimony of this witness is improved and embellished. Since the occurrence took place on dated 18.05.2014, whereas, the statement of this witness was recorded by the IO on dated 12.07.2014. In view of delay in recording of the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 92/131 statement of this witness. It appears to the court that this is planted witness. Since, this witness is the relative of the deceased and she has failed to give any specific date of beating to the deceased by the accused. So, her testimony is also vague, so, it does not inspire any confidence.
50. PW-9 Ankur Bali has deposed that Deceased Arushi was the only daughter of his uncle Anil Kumar Bali, therefore, she was his cousin. He had very good relations with her. She used to share everything with this witness. She was married with accused Jatin Arora in February, 2007. He identified accused Jatin Arora in the court and further deposed that after her marriage and even prior to her marriage, this witness used to meet Arushi, this witness used to meet her on every festival. She used to come to his house on Rakshabandhan or Bhaiyadooj and on other festivals, he used to go at her matrimonial house. This witness has further deposed that Arushi also used to meet him even otherwise other than on festival occasions. After her marriage, whenever she used to meet this witness, she used to complain that her husband Jatin, her father in-law Inderjit and her mother-in-law Veena used to harass her. She also used to tell this witness that these three above named accused were very greedy and they are liars. This witness has identified Inderjit Arora and Veena Arora in the court and deposed that Arushi also used to tell this witness that she was taunted. However she did not name as to who used to taunt her. She also did not tell this witness, as to for what reason, she was taunted. Whenever, he used to ask her, as to what was the matter, she used to say "kuchh nahi kuchh nahi". Fires she used to keep herself. He has further deposed that Sargam Electronics is his tenant and his uncle Anil and his uncle Anil used to ask him to send some articles to the house of accused Jatin Arora. On one day, this witness had sent one split AC from Sargam Electronics to the house of accused Jatin and at one occasion, this witness had sent Refrigerator to the house of accused Jatin, from Sargam Electronics and one day his uncle Anil called this witness and SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 93/131 asked this witness to send one LED TV to the house of accused and his uncle told him that Arushi was being harassed, her room had been changed and therefore, this witness should send a TV to her house. On that very day, he purchased one LED Tv of 42 inches from Karol Bagh, which was delivered at the house of accused Jatin by his driver. He has further deposed that on 17th May, 2014 at about 8-8.30 PM, he called Arushi on her mobile phone from his mobile phone to inquired about her well being, on which, she told him "preshan chal rahi hun - preshan chal rahi hun". This witness inquired from her, as to what happened, on which, she said 'kuchh nahi kuchh nahi". Then, he asked her to let Jatin talk to him and then he also spoke to Jatin during that call. This witness inquired from Jatin as to what was the matter, on which, Jatin told him 'bahia koi baat nahi". Thereafter, this witness spoke to Arushi during that very call. This witness again inquired from Arushi, as to what was the matter on which Arushi told that since she was coming to her parents home next day, she would tell this witness about the matter on the next day, thereafter, that call ended. On the next day i.e 18th May, 2014, his uncle Anil Kumar Bali called this witness between 1-1.30 PM and his uncle told him that Jatin had telephoned and informed his uncle that Arushi was unconscious and she was being taken to Pantamid Hospital. His uncle asked him to come to the Pantamid Hospital and this witness went to the Pantamid Hospital, where he learnt that Arushi was no more. He also handed over one copy of bill of a refrigerator to the IO, in which, it is clearly mentioned that reference Ankur Bali landlord. This witness gave that bill to the IO, when his statement was recorded. This witness has correctly identified the photocopy of bill taken from Sargam Electronic dated 19.08.2012 Ex.PW9/A which pertains to refrigerator. In this bill reference Ankur Bali landlord is mentioned at point X. He also handed over a copy of call details of his mobile phone as to his call details dated 17th May, 2014 to the IO, which call details were received by this witness along with his bill. The call detail record is Ex.PW9/B. This SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 94/131 witness has also deposed that on 19-5-14, this witness also identified body of Arushi in the mortuary of BJRM, Jahangir Puri, Delhi vide statement Ex.PW9/C. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW3/B and then, the Ld. APP for the State had sought permission to ask a leading question to this witness and after hearing the Ld. APP for the State was allowed to ask leading question by the Predecessor of this court and this witness has admitted that during his conversation with deceased over phone on 17th May, 2014, deceased had stated to this witness that "ye log mujhe phir preshan kar rahe hain". This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that he had studied in National Public School and Mother of Arushi, Smt. Renu Bali used to teach there. He knows that Arushi and accused Jatin also used to study in the same school and the marriage of Arushi and Jatin was a love marriage, as both of them were having acquaintance before their marriage. The family of Jatin used to visit his house at the time of any function or festival. He also used to visit house of Jatin at the time of festivals. Family of accused Jatin Arora visited his house at the time of his marriage and they also attended the marriage. He does not remember if the family of Jatin Arora gave a gold set to his wife in his marriage as a gift. He does not know what gift was given by accused Jatin Arora and his family in his marriage. He has not seen photographs and the CD of the functions of his marriage, so, he cannot say whether those photographs and CD of marriage reflects the presence of accused Jatin Arora and his family and the moments, when they gifted the gold set to his wife. He had attended the retirement party of Sh. Anil Bali and admitted that at the time of retirement party of Anil Bali, accused Jatin Arora and his family gifted a chain of gold to Sh. Anil Bali. He does not remember if any return gift was given by Sh. Anil Bali to accused Jatin Arora and his family at the time of retirement party of Anil Bali. He has admitted it to be correct that the Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is situated in SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 95/131 his property and they are his tenants. He has admitted it to be correct that as and when, there was requirement of purchasing of any electronic article or appliance in his family and family of his relatives, they used to approach him to get maximum discount from the Sargam Electronics for the purchasing of their Dezired articles and further admitted it to be correct that the bill Ex.PW9/A was issued in the name of Jatin Arora and Inderjeet Arora. The amount for the payment of Samsung Refrigerator was given by his uncle Sh. Anil Bali and now he does not remember, whether he has made payment in cash or by cheque to him. Anil Bali used to make payment by cheque on purchasing of any electronic or other article from Sargam Electronics, that cheque used to be encashed in the account of Sargam Electronics. The LED TV which was given as gift after marriage to accused Jatin and his family, was purchased from Gaffar Market and was without bill. He did not mention the name of the shopkeeper of Gaffar Market to the IO. The payment of LED TV was made in cash by Mr. Anil Bali. He has admitted it to be correct that Sargam Electronics also sell LED TVs. He does not remember the specific dates, when accused persons used to harass Arushi. He had stated to the police in his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. dtd. 12.07.2014 Ex. PW9/D1 that accused Jatin, Veena and Inderjeet used to harass Arushi and he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/D1, where it was not recorded. He has admitted that he had not stated to the police in his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. dtd. 12.07.2014 Ex. PW9/D1 that Arushi used to tell him that she was taunted and whenever, he used to ask her as to what was the matter, she used to say "kuchh nahi kuchh nahi" and he had stated to the police in his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. dtd. 12.07.2014 Ex. PW9/D1 that his uncle Anil and his aunty Renu Bali (both) also used to tell him that Arushi was harassed. He was Confronted with his statement where it was not so recorded and he had stated to the police in his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. dated. 12.07.2014 Ex. PW9/D1 that all of a sudden, one day his uncle Anil called him and asked him to send SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 96/131 one LED TV to the house of accused and his uncle told him that Arushi was harassed, her room was changed and therefore, this witness should send a TV to the house of Arushi. He was Confronted with his statement, where it was not so recorded. He does not remember, if, he had made a phone call at about 9 PM on 17.05.2014 on the mobile number of accused Jatin. He did not provide the CDR of his mobile number to the police. He does not remember as to what conversation he had on receiving of the call. He has deposed that on 17.05.2014 and 18.05.2014, he did not inform parents of Arushi that Arushi told him on phone that "Ye log mujhe fir pareshan kar rahe hain". He has admitted that his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.07.2014. After the incident on 18.05.2014 when he met Sh. Anil Bali, he informed him about the aforesaid conversation of this witness with Arushi dated. 17.05.2014. Between 18.05.2014 to 12.07.2014, he did not disclose the contents of his conversation with Arushi dated. 17.05.2014, to the police. He does not remember, if, on 18.05.2014, he received any other call from Anil Bali before 1 - 1.30 PM. He cannot admit or deny if, he had conversation at three times on 18.05.2014 with Anil Bali before 1 - 1.30 PM. He has admitted that on dated 18.05.2014, he spoke with his friend Sh. Inder Kumar Kathuria(advocate). He has admitted that he was in the friends list of Facebook account of Arushi. He does not remember, if, he had any money transaction through bank account or in cash with Arushi before her marriage. He has denied that he has deliberately and belatedly introduced the story of harassment of Arushi at the hands of accused persons or that for this reason, he made his statement on 12.07.2014 after the passing of sufficient time after the incident. Since, the occurrence has taken place on dated 18.05.2014, but, statement of this witness was recorded by the IO on 12.07.2014 and since the testimony of this witness is found to be improved and since this witness is the relative of the deceased and in view of delay in recording of this statement by the IO, his testimony appears to be doubtful and since this witness has also deposed that he did SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 97/131 not inform to the parents of the deceased that Arushi had told him that she was in trouble and in view of such conduct of this witness, his conduct is held to be unnatural. Had Arushi told him that she was in trouble, one day prior to the occurrence, this witness could tell about the same to the parents of Arushi, but, he did not tell about the same to the parents of Arushi. In view of abovesaid discussion, his testimony does not inspire any confidence therein.
51. Whereas, Smt. Renu Bali has been examined as PW-10, who has deposed that his daughter Arushi was married to accused Jatin Arora on 7- 2-2007. This witness has correctly identified accused Jatin in the court. The marriage ceremony was performed in Zilmil Colony, Shahdra, Delhi and they had spent to the best of their capabilities in the said marriage ceremony. Just prior to the performing of marriage accused Inderjit Arora i.e. the father of Jatin told them that they were rich and that in their marriage, rich and influential persons would come and attend the marriage, therefore, "hamara sar na jukne pai". In the marriage ceremony, they had given gold bracelet, gold chain and two gold rings to accused Jatin Arora and they had also given two gold tops and one gold set and clothes and cash to the Veena Arora. Mother of Jatin was also correctly identified by this witness. They had also given one gold set to the sister-Komal of accused Jatin Arora and Komal was correctly identified in the court. They had also given gold ring, cash and clothes to the husband of accused Komal Arora, Kapil Arora and they had also given gold tops, cash and clothes to the mother in-law of accused Komal and they had also given gold tops, cash and clothes to the bua of accused Jatin, but, this witness does not remember the name of bua and they had also given clothes and cash to the other relatives of accused Jatin Arora and they had also given gold chain, cash of rupees one lac and clothes to the father of Jatin i.e. to accused Inderjit Arora and he was also correctly identified in the court by this SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 98/131 witness. This witness has further deposed that they had also given three gold sets, six gold bangles, one gold kada set, 4-5 pair of tops and four gold rings to their daughter Arushi. All these articles given to the in-laws of Arushi and they remained with the in-laws and were not returned. After her marriage, Arushi told this witness several times that she was taunted for bringing insufficient dowry and she told that the accused had already conveyed that the marriage should be performed very well and Arushi told them that all the four accused used to taunt her about the same. Arushi also told them that all the four accused used to tell her that in the marriage a small car i.e Wagon R car was only given due to which, the heads of accused are bowed in shame. Arushi also told them that the accused persons used to tell her that they should have been given a bigger car. They also used to tell Arushi that they had already disclosed the fact to them, before marriage that they were very well of with business and that bigger car should have been given and because of non-giving of bigger car their head bowed in shame. This witness told all these things to her husband Anil. Thereafter, this witness and her husband went to the matrimonial house of Arushi. They told accused Jatin, Inderjit and Veena that they had spent in the marriage more than their capacity and they had given everything, they could give. She has also deposed that during festivals, they used to give more than their capacity and on the occasion of karvachoth of year 2007, they had given one gold set to Arushi, one gold kada to Jatin, gold tops to Veena and Komal and cash to Inderjit. They had also given clothes to all the four accused and other relatives of four accused on that occasion and they had also given household articles to the accused persons on that occasion of karvachoth. Even after giving all these things, the accused persons were not satisfied. Their greed kept on increasing and Arushi also used to tell them that the accused persons used to tell lies. This witness has further deposed that in January, 2008, accused Jatin came to them and told them that their business got separated from his uncles.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 99/131Jatin said that they have to start a new business, for which, money was required and it her husband took a loan of rupees two lakhs from NZRE, which is a railway society and out of that rupees two lac, one lac rupees was given to Jatin. Even thereafter, there was no peace at the matrimonial house of Arushi & she was taunted and beaten. Arushi also told them that as and when, Komal used to come to her parental house, she used to provoke other accused against Arushi for dowry. Because of visit of Komal, the quarrel in the house of Arushi was increased and on being demanded by accused persons, they gave them AC, Inverter, Acquaguard, Tea sets, bed sheets and other valuable articles to the accused persons. On the occasion of every festival, her relatives i.e her father in-law Sh. S.P. Bali, her brother in-law D.P. Bali, other brothers in -law R.P. Bali, Ravi Bali and Rajiv Bali, her sisters in-law Veena Chibbar and Anita Mohan, her mother-Raj Vaidh and her brothers Rakesh and Anil used to visit matrimonial house of Arushi and they used to give cash and valuable household items to the accused persons. In the year 2012, accused Jatin, Inderjit and Veena pressurized them for giving money stating that they have to renovate their house, for which, they require money. This pressure was given to Arushi and Arushi told them about it. Her daughter Arushi told accused persons that they could not give that much and, therefore, they should not be harassed. When, her daughter refused, she was abused and she was beaten by the accused persons. Thereafter, accused Jatin started coming home very late in the night, on some occasions, he did not come to his house continuously for few days and whenever, he used to come to his house, he used to beat Arushi. When this witness was told about it, this witness deposited a sum of rupees four lac in the account of her daughter Arushi on 19 th April, 2012, which amount was withdrawn by Arushi on 25 th May, 2012. Arushi gave that amount to all the four accused for renovation. After renovation the accused persons very cleverly changed the bedroom of Arushi in the manner that bedroom of Arushi was taken by accused persons SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 100/131 and the bedroom of accused was given to Arushi. Even thereafter, the accused persons kept on taunting Arushi and she was beaten. On being frustrated, her daughter Arushi took up a job at two/three different places. Whatever salary, Arushi used to get, it was taken by Jatin, Inderjit and Veena. About 6/7 months prior to death of Arushi, Jatin came to her husband and demanded one Maruti Swift Dezire Car. Her husband told Jatin that he could not arrange huge amount. When, her husband refused, Arushi was beaten, on that very night by Jatin. On the next day again, she was beaten by Jatin. Inderjit used to abuse Arushi. One day, the accused persons crossed all limits and they gave beatings to Arushi and also gagged her mouth. This was done by Jatin, Inderjit and Veena. Her daughter was asked to leave the matrimonial house. Arushi then came to them and she resided with them for about one/one and a half month. During those one and a half month, her husband tried to make accused Jatin understand, but the accused was not willing to understand at all and the accused was not willing leave the demand. After one and a half month, Arushi was sent to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, her husband arranged some money. Her husband could arrange about Rs. Two lacs. This witness has further deposed that she sold a flat in Faridabad sometimes in April 2014. Out of the sale amount of that property, she kept a fixed deposit of Rs. Eight lacs in the joint name of this witness and Arushi. In that FDR, her husband Anil was made a nominee. When the accused persons came to know about it, they gave beatings to Arushi, stating as to why, Jatin was not made a nominee and why, her husband was made a nominee in the FDR. She made that FD on 13.05.2014 and on 18.05.2014, at about 10.00 am, her daughter Arushi called her on her mobile phone and her daughter Arushi told this witness that her sister-in-law Komal had come to the matrimonial house of Arushi and that all the four accused were pressurizing Arushi by asking her that her father, i.e. the husband of this witness had retired and he has received a lot of money and also that, she has sold a flat and that they have SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 101/131 purchased one Honda Amaze Car, then why Swift Dezire Car was not being given to accused as demanded by them. Her daughter Arushi told the accused persons that they have already given many articles, cash, etc. and Arushi would not demand anything else from them. On it, all the four accused gave beatings to Arushi. Thereafter, all the four accused persons started talking to each other in another room of the matrimonial home of the Arushi. Arushi also told this witness that the accused persons were talking by saying that more than seven years have passed from the marriage of Arushi and therefore, nothing can happen to the accused persons. Arushi also expressed her apprehension that anything could occur with her. Arushi told this witness all these things, when she spoke to her at about 10.00 am. Arushi then also spoke to her father. She also spoke to her husband Anil and told him about it. Thereafter, her husband spoke Jatin 2/3 times on phone on that very day. At that time, this witness and her husband were going to their family doctor at Lajpat Nagar. During this time, her husband spoke to Arushi two/three times on mobile. At about 1.00 pm, a call was received on the mobile of her husband from Jatin and Jatin informed her husband that Arushi was unconscious and she was being taken to Pentamid Hospital. At that time, they were returning from Lajpat Nagar. Thereafter, she called mobile phone of Jatin, Inderjit and the landline of Jatin, several times, but no one picked the phone. It is further deposed that they, then reached at Pentamid Hospital, at Gujaranwala Town, where Jatin and Inderjit were standing outside the hospital and body of their daughter was lying inside the hospital. Jatin and Inderjit had no "SHIKAN" on their face. Veena and Komal were not in the hospital. At about 4.00 pm, her husband went to the matrimonial home of Arushi, where, police was also there and she also arrived there, after about 15/30 minutes after 4.00 pm and house was locked from outside, but, Veena Arora was present inside the house. Komal was not there in the said house. She has further deposed that Arushi used to maintain a diary and write the diary, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 102/131 in which, she used to maintain account of whatever, was given to the accused. She also used to note down the incidents happening with her, in the diary and that diary was not found in the matrimonial house of Arushi and one more pouch, which was having two or three gold chains, two mangalsutras, 7 to 8 big ear tops and at least 10 to 12 small ear tops and four/five finger gold rings, one or two gold KADAS and her two diamond rings were there, but the pouch and those articles were not found. The two diamond rings were taken by Arushi by wearing them for few days, when, she had come to her house. She has further deposed that the diary and pouch must have been taken by Komal, whenever, Komal visited the matrimonial house of Arushi, big troubles occurred in the matrimonial house of Arushi and incident dated 18th May of 2014, is the live example of the same. She has further deposed that after death of D.P. Bali, his son Ankur Bali used to visit the matrimonial house of Arushi and he used to give the clothes and articles including LED TV, Fridge and many other household articles, to accused. Ankur even gave a gold set, cash and clothes to the accused, on the occasion of his marriage. Accused persons also used to taunt Arushi, for not giving birth to child and they used to threaten by saying that Jatin would be married with someone else, but Arushi was medically fit. She has also alleged that accused did not get Arushi medically examined, but, they used to taunt her. This witness was cross examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused and at the time of her cross-examination, she has deposed that she cannot tell whether her statement was recorded by police after 10 days or 15 days of the death of her daughter. She has also deposed that Police has called her 2-3 times for the investigation and she was called by the police on 22.05.2014 for conducting raid/search in the house of accused persons and also admitted that her statement was not recorded by the police, on 22.05.2014 and deposed that she does not remember, whether she had withdrawn the amount of Rs.4 Lacs from her personal bank account or not and also SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 103/131 deposed that her mother owned a flat which was given by her to builder for reconstruction and Rs.4 Lacs were given by the builder to the mother to this witness. She has admitted that she did not produce any document before the police regarding receiving of the sid amount of Rs. 4 lacs from her mother. She has alleged that on 30.04.2014, she had given Rs.2.5 - 3 Lacs in cash to the accused in their house. She has admitted that she had a joint account and locker with her daughter Aarushi in Karnataka Bank. She has admitted that the said locker was operated by her after the demise of her daughter Aarushi and the police officials were not present when she had operated the said locker. She has admitted that accused Jatin had never insisted to this witness to transfer the RC of the Wagon-R car in his name. She has admitted that accused Jatin and Aarushi were studying in same school and they knew each other, since their school days and this witness was teacher in the same school. She has admitted it to be correct that the marriage between the Arushi and Jatin was a love-cum-arranged marriage and initially she did not accept the marriage of Jatin and Aarushi, but later on, she had agreed. She has admitted that she did not handover any bill of gold, heavy electronic items to the police . She has also admitted it to be correct that her nephew Ankur Bali has given a shop to M/s Sargam Electronics on rent and used to purchase electronic from the same shop on good discount. She has also deposed that the refrigerator gifted to the accused persons after the marriage of Aarushi was probably was purchased in the name of accused Jatin. She has denied that the said refrigerator was purchased by accused Inderjeet from his own funds. She has admitted that she did not handover the receipt of any of the electronic items, except refrigerator, to police and also deposed that she did not hand over any document regarding the source /mode of payment of electronic items to the police during the investigation. She has also deposed that besides the items given on demand of accused she had gifted gold jewellery articles to Aarushi, as well as, to her husband and in laws. She has also admitted that SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 104/131 in the month of December 2013, this witness alongwith her husband, Aarushi and Jatin went to Manali and also admitted it to be correct that her relation with the accused were cordial, when, they went to Manali and on seen the photographs clicked in Manali Ex. PW10/DA and Ex. PW10/DB. She has admitted that the same wherein this witness , her husband and accused Jatin and Aarushi are also seen. She has also admitted it to be correct that in the year 2011, this witness alongwith her husband, her daughter Aarushi and accused Jatin went to Shirdi and further admitted it to be correct that in the year 2012, this witness alongwith her husband accused Jatin and Aarushi went to Mata Vaishno Devi Temple. She has also deposed that in the year 2008, her nephew Ankur was got married and even at that time, their relations with all the accused persons were normal and further admitted it to be correct that accused had gifted a set of gold to Ankur, who is nephew of this witness in his marriage in the year 2009. She has also admitted it to be correct that at the time of retirement party of her husband in the year 2012 accused had gifted one chain of gold to the husband of this witness. She has also deposed that Aarushi took 3-4 jobs after her marriage and she used to withdraw her salary through ATM and on one occasion, her employer terminated her services. She has admitted that her daughter Aarushi could not conceive after her marriage and deposed that she had never taken Aarushi to any doctor for her treatment in this regard. She has also denied that she had ever taken to Aarushi for conducting her fertility test. She has also deposed that she never took Aarushi to any doctor for the treatment of depression or any injuries alleged to have been caused in the beatings by accused. She has admitted it to be correct that her phone number and phone number of Aarushi brought on the record and deposed that the calls between her and Aarushi were free of cost . She has also deposed that on 18.05.2014 Aarushi made 3-4 calls to her, out of which only one call was attended by her. She spoke to Aarushi for about 3-4 minutes during the said call. First call was received by her SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 105/131 at 9.57 AM on 18.05.2014 on the mobile phone of her husband, that call was not attended by her husband and Aarushi had called to this witness and Arushi spoke with this witness for 3-4 minutes and her husband had also spoken with Aarushi for about 6-7 minutes. She has also deposed that as per her knowledge Aarushi was keeping two diaries and in one diary, she used to write the expenses and the incidents, which used to take place in her matrimonial house and in another diary, she used to write about her office events. She has admitted that Aarushi never used to address herself as male, while writing in diary. She has also deposed that she had not gone through that diary, which was recovered by police from her room, which is alleged to have been recovered from her room. She has also deposed that she does not remember police had torn some pages from diary or loose pages were lying in the diary. Even, she does not remember whether the police had obtained her signatures or not at the time of seizure of diary or mobile phone from the room of Aarushi. She has also deposed that on dated 22.05.2014 her husband received a call from police on his mobile phone and on that day accused Vina Arora was present in 1 st floor of her house. She did not check the almirah of Aarushi and deposed that probably the almirah was lying opened and the lock of locker of the almirah was broken by police and the diary Ex. PW22/C was found lying on the side table of the bed in the room of Aarushi and deposed that suicide note was not recovered from the locker of almirah. Police did not check the data of the mobile phone in the presence of this witness. She has denied that evidence in favour of the accused is withheld. She has denied that suicide notes and the diary have been planted upon the accused or that no demand of dowry was ever made by any of the accused. She has admitted it to be correct that no complaint was ever filed before any authority by this witness regarding the ill treatment/harassment of Aarushi by accused, prior to her death. She has admitted that she had also gone through the messages exchanged between Aarushi and Jatin on the mobile phones after the death of Aarushi.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 106/131The data of mobile phones were retrieved in the FSL. She has admitted it to be correct that those messages did not reflect any demand of dowry by the accused persons. She has also admitted it to be correct that accused Komal got married before the marriage of accused Jatin and she used to reside in her matrimonial house alongwith her husband, two children and mother-in- law and further admitted that Komal had not attended any of the functions organised in the family of this witness. She has also deposed that within one year of marriage of accused Jatin, Komal did not visit her parents house and thereafter, she started visiting the house of her parents. She has also admitted it to be correct that Komal had not attended the marriage function of Gaurav and Ankur and retirement party of husband of this witness. She has also deposed that she knew the relations between Komal and Aarushi were strained. On one occasion, accused Komal taunted Aarushi regarding her eating of non-veg food. She has denied that Komal did not visit the house of her parents house in the presence of Aarushi and she failed to tell the date, month or year, on which Komal had visited the house of her parents in the presence of Aarushi. Again said, on dated 22.12.2013 or 23.12.2013, when, she alongwith her husband went to house of accused. She has admitted that she had given her statement u/s. 161CR. P. C. Ex. PW 10/DC to the police and deposed that she does not remember that she had stated before the police just before marriage of accused Jatin and Inderjeet, accused told them that they were rich or that in their marriage rich and influential persons would come and thereafter their head bowed down, the attention of this witness was drawn towards her statement u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. which is Ex. PW10/DC wherein, it was not so mentioned. She has also deposed that she does not remember, whether she had stated before the police in her statement that accused taunted Aarushi by saying that because of non-giving of bigger car their heads are bowed in shame. She was confronted with her statement Ex PW 10/DC. Wherein, it was not mentioned. She has also deposed that she had stated to the police in her SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 107/131 statement that Inderjit used to abuse Arushi and one day, the accused crossed all limits and they gave beatings to Arushi and also gagged her mouth and this was done by Jatin, Inderjit and Veena. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW10/DC wherein, it was not so recorded. She has also deposed that she had stated to the police in her statement that one pouch and one diary were not found in the room of Aarushi when police made search in her room. She has denied that the diary and the suicide notes are fabricated and planted belatedly. She has also denied that accused never maltreated or abetted Aarushi to commit suicide or that mobile phone records have been tampered with. She has denied that the amount used for personal purposes in the family have been falsely shown to have been given to the accused persons, as dowry or that she has deposed falsely. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that her testimony is found to be contradictory to the testimony of PW3 on the material points and since this witness has admitted it to be correct that this witness alongwith accused Jatin , her daughter and her husband went to Mata Vaishno devi in the year 2012 and admitted that at that time, the relations between deceased and accused Jatin were cordial. She has also admitted it to be correct that in the year 2011 this witness alongwith accused Jatin and her daughter and her husband went to Shirdi in the year 2012. she has also admitted it to be correct that in the month of December 2013, this witness along with her husband & accused Jatin & Arushi went to Manali and the relations between her and accused persons were cordial at that time. She has also admitted that in the year 2008, when her nephew Ankur got married, their relations were cordial with the accused and even admitted it to be correct that the accused had gifted set of gold to her nephew Ankur and in the year 2009, the marriage of her nephew Gaurav, was solemnized and admitted that a set of gold was gifted in the marriage of Gaurav by the accused. She has also admitted it to be correct that at the time of party of retirement of her husband in the year 2012, accused had gifted one chain of SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 108/131 gold, which shows that in the years 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the relations between the accused and complainant party remained cordial. Had there been strained relation between the complainant party and the accused, the complainant party along with Arushi & Jatin could not go together on tours nor the accused could gift the sets of the gold to the nephews of PW10 in their marriages, nor the accused could gift the chain of gold to the Anil Kumar Bali (PW3), who is husband of PW10, at the time of party of his retirement. PW3 has alleged that alleged suicidal notes and the alleged diary of the deceased were recovered from the Almirah in the room ofArushi on 22.05.2014 which was kept in the said room of the Arushi. Whereas, this witness PW10 Renu Bali has alleged that diary Ex.PW22/C was found lying on the side table of the bed in the room of Arushi and also deposed the suicidal note was not recovered from the locker of the Almirah. Since, PW21 Rakesh Duhan and PW28 incharge Crime team have also deposed that search of the room was conducted on 18.05.2014, PW28 has also deposed that both the Almirahs kept in the room of Arushi were also checked on dated 18.05.2014 and no suicide note was recovered. Had the diary Ex.PW22/C been lying on the side table of the bed, it could be found to the IO or Incharge of the crime team even on 18.05.2014 and had the suicide note or diary of the deceased been there in any of the Almirah which was lying in the room of Arushi, the same could be recovered on dated 18.05.2014 during search by IO/Incharge Crime Team. But, the same were not recovered on 18.05.2014, so, the recovery of the same on 22.05.2014 is suspicious and since PW3 has alleged that Refrigerator was given on the demand of the accused. Whereas, PW10 has deposed that said refrigerator was gifted and perusal of the bill of the refrigerator Ex.PW9/A reveals that it stands in the name of I.J. Arora/Jatin Arora. So, the possibilities of purchasing of the said fridge by the accused from the Sargam Electronics cannot be ruled out. This witness has alleged that Arushi was also beaten by the accused. But, no specific date has been SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 109/131 given by this witness regarding any such beating to Arushi by the accused nor any medical evidence regarding beating of Arushi has been brought on the record. The testimony of this witness is thus found to be vague. The perusal of the record reveals that the statement of this witness given in the court is improved, embellished and contradictory to the testimonies of PW3, PW21 & PW28. Since, this witness also admitted it to be correct that during the life time of Aarushi, they did not file any complaint against the accused regarding alleged harassment or maltreatment to Aarushi and since, this witness had gone on tours with the accused Jatin, his daughter Arushi and with her husband, which shows that the relation between the complainant party and the accused were not strained and in view of the same, they went together on various tours and accused also gave valuable gifts to the complainant & the relatives of this witness and this witness has also failed to give any reason as to why did she not lodge the FIR soon after the death of her daughter Arushi. Since the perusal of the record reveal that the statement of this witness under Section 161 of Cr.PC Ex.PW10/DC was recorded by the IO on dated 03.06.2014, whereas, she had come in the Pentamid Hospital on 18.05.2014, soon after the demise of Arushi, but, she did not give any statement to the police and delay in recording of her statement also creates serious doubts. So, the allegations levelled by this witness against the accused are not only improved but, appeared to be an afterthought version, so, improved and embellished testimony of this witness does not inspire any confidence therein.
52. Whereas, Sh. Syed Ahmad Ali Hashmi, Jr. Forensic/Asstt. Chemical Examiner (Documents), FSL has been examined as PW-22, who has deposed that on 10.06.2014 some documents in sealed condition were received from PS Bharat Nagar in connection with the present case and same were marked to him for examination. The envelope and seals were intact. The envelope was opened after breaking the seal and the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 110/131 documents were taken out. The questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q8 on six rolled sheets, and there were admitted writings/signatures Mark A1 to A34 of the deceased Ms. Aarushi Arora. The documents were examined by him and after examining the documents, he opined that the person who wrote the admitted signatures/writings mark as A1 to A26, A29 to A33 and A33/1 & A34 also wrote the questioned writings marked as Q1 to Q3, Q3/2, Q3/3 & Q4 to Q8. He had specified the detailed reasons in his report for arriving at such conclusion. No opinion was given by him on the questioned documents marked as Q3/1, Q4/1 & Q8/1 on the basis of material. He prepared his detailed report Ex.PW22/A dtd. 27.11.2014. he has also deposed that after examination, all the documents were sealed with the seal of SAA FSL DELHI and sent to authorized messenger alongwith the report. This witness has identified questioned writings/signatures marked as Q1 Ex. PW22/B, Q2 Ex. PW22/B1, Q3 Ex. PW22/B2, Q4 Ex. PW22/B3, Q5 Ex. PW22/B4, Q6 Ex. PW22/B5, Q7 Ex. PW22/B6 and Q8 Ex. PW22/B7. The admitted writings/signatures marked as A1 to A26 are contained in the diary which are Ex. PW22/C(colly.). The admitted writings/signatures on documents marked as A27 to A34 are Ex. PW14/A to PW14/D (colly.). This witness was also cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination he has admitted it to be correct that the questioned signatures marked as Q3/1, Q4/1 & Q8/1 (which are the signatures of deceased Aarushi), on which no opinion was given by him in his report. He has admitted to be correct that the questioned signatures, marked as Q3/1 (Ex. PW22/B2) is one of the signature reflected on the concluding page of the suicide note and questioned signature marked as Q4/1 (Ex. PW22/B3) is one of the signature of deceased Aarushi on one of the concluding page of suicide note. He has admitted it to be correct that the questioned signature marked as Q8/1 (Ex. PW22/B7) is the signature of deceased Aarushi appearing on the concluding lines of the diary page. The writings in the suicide note SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 111/131 were compared with the diary containing the writings of deceased. He has not given the similarities/dis-similarities in the aforesaid signatures marked as Q3/1, Q4/1 & Q8/1 in his report Ex. PW22/A since the material supplied to him for comparison in the form of admitted writings/signatures of deceased was insufficient. He has denied that the comparison of writing of a person is not a sure science. This witness was asked as to whether the handwriting examination by an expert is a developing science is correct or not and on this, this witness has replied in affirmative and stated that every science is a developing science. This witness was further asked as to whether he consider that the literature written by Modi on document examination is an authority on expert evidence. He has replied that he has gone through the literature written by Modi, but he refers the literature written by Kelly during examination of documents. And when this witness was shown the page no.85 of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (22nd Edition), which was as followed "....according to Lord Brompton, better known as Sir Henry Hawkins, these handwriting experts are not at all infallible, and their evidence is usually conflicting and very often fallacious." on seeing the same, this witness did not agree with the note. He has admitted that he has not gone through the literature written by Ejaj Ahmad on documents examination. This witness was asked whether he agrees that the dis- similarities have to be shown in the report. This witness has replied in negative. He has stated that he has considered natural variation and similarities only. This witness has admitted that he has never read the literature of Lord Brompton and Sir Henry Hawkins. He has denied that his opinion is not an expert opinion or that his opinion given on Ex. PW22/A is not an expert opinion or that he has deposed falsely. Since, this PW22 during his examination in chief has deposed that no opinion was given by him on the questioned documents marked as Q 3/1, Q 4/1 & Q 8/1. Since, this forensic expert could not give any opinion regarding the alleged SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 112/131 signature Q3/1 of Arushi on the alleged suicidal note Ex.PW22/B2, regarding signature Q 4/1 on the alleged suicidal note Ex.PW22/B-3 and also regarding the signature Q 8/1 on the alleged suicide note and since, at the time of searching of the room of the Arushi (since deceased) on the date of occurrence on dated 18.05.2014, these alleged suicide notes were not recovered from the said room and since the perusal of the writing in the alleged diary Ex.PW22/C reveals that said diary is relating to the year 2013 and at page of 20th February 2013, the writer has addressed himself as male it is written thereon मम आपकक बततनत चतहह गत। and similarly at page of 21.02.2013 of the same diary it is written मम आपकक पपरर जतनकतरर ददनत चतहह गत। कयत मम जतन सकतत हह । and overwriting in the said diary is also observed by this court. So, it is suspicious as to whether this diary was written by Arushi or by a male. Since, mother of deceased has been examined as PW10 and during her cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused, she has admitted that Arushi never addressed herself as male while writing in diary and since the alleged suicide notes running into six pages appear to have been written at different times, as the inks used therein are of different in nature and since PW22 has not given his opinion regarding the alleged signatures of Arushi on these suicidal notes and in view of alleged recovery of these suicidal notes Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/B1, Ex.PW22/B-2, Ex.PW22/B-3, Ex.PW22/B-4, Ex.PW22/B-5, Ex.PW22/B-6 & Ex.PW22/B- 7 as well as diary Ex.PW22/C on dated 22.05.2014, the same appear to be suspicious, as questioned signatures Q3/1, Q4/1 Q8/1 have not been proved of Arushi and diary is also suspicion documents, so, the same cannot be relied upon.
53. Since, it is proved on record that no suicidal note was recovered from the room of the deceased on dated 18.05.2014 and from the testimonies of PW3, PW21 Rakesh Duhan, & PW17 Satish Pal & PW28 ASI Rajbir, Incharge Crime Team, it is clear that the search of the room of SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 113/131 the deceased was conducted on 18.05.2014 and no suicidal note was recovered from the said room and if the testimony of PW21 is looked into, then, it is clear that it was the PW3, who had insisted to PW 21 Rakesh Duhan to conduct the search of room of the deceased once again on dated 22.05.2014. Then, the alleged search was conducted on dated 22.05.2014 and then, suicidal note & diary Ex.PW22/C are alleged to have recovered and even on the alleged recovery of the suicidal note or diary on 22.05.2014, the same were neither sealed nor deposited in the malkhana promptly soon after the alleged recovery thereof and from the testimony of PW22, it is clear that the said suicide notes were sent to the FSL on dated 10.06.2014 and PW3 Anil Kumar Bali has alleged that suicide notes Ex.PW22/B to Ex.PW22/B7 & diary Ex.PW22/C were recovered from the Almirah on dated 22.05.2014, whereas, PW10 has deposed that alleged diary Ex.PW22/C of the deceased was found lying side table of bed in the room of Arushi and suicide note was note was not recovered from the locker of the Almirah and had this diary been lying on the side table of the bed of Arushi, then it could be recovered on 18.05.2014. Since PW28 has deposed that both the Almirahs were checked on 18.05.2014 and no suicide note or diary was recovered therefrom. So, the testimonies of PW3, PW10, PW28 are inconsistent on the material points and in view of non recovery of the suicidal note on dated 18.05.2014 and non sealing of the same even on 22.05.2014, the possibilities of tampering with the same cannot be ruled out and since, the diary with which, the handwriting of the suicide note has been tallied reveals that at some pages thereof, the writer thereof had addressed himself as "Male" and during the cross examination of the PW10, he has admitted that deceased has never addresses herself as "Male". So, in view of the non recovery of any suicidal note during the search on dated 18.05.2014 and non sealing thereof on 22.05.2014 and since PW17 has deposed in the court that key of the room of the deceased was lying with the PW3, when it was opened and on dated 22.05.2014, the PW22 has SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 114/131 deposed that no opinion was given by him regarding the alleged signatures on the questioned signatures Q3/1, Q4/1 & Q8/1 on alleged suicidal note. Whereas, PW21 has stated that only seal of paper was affixed on the door of room of the deceased, so, there are material contradiction in the testimonies of PW3, PW17 & PW21. So, in the given circumstances, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. Even otherwise at the time of alleged recovery of suicidal note and diary, no public witness was made to join. So, the recovery thereof becomes suspicious.
54. Since, perusal of the Web History of phone of Arushi (deceased) brought on record by the prosecution in CD form(after retrieving data thereof), hard copies of some of which have been filed by the ld. Counsel for the accused reveals that on dated 03.03.2014, Arushi had visited the Site Pregnancy.Com thrice and also "Weak Pregnant Symptoms", "Pregnancy formation symptoms" and on dated 03.03.2014, she had also visited "Three easiest way to die" and on dated 06.03.2014, she had visited "Fastest Poison Easily Available in Indian Medical Store "Poison.com, poison.com.nz" many times, "25 great things, we have to eat in bijing before we die" and on dated 08.03.2014, she had visited "best poison tablets easily available on medical store" and on dated 16.03.2014. She had also visited Cyanide, Top 20 Suicide methods, fastest and painless suicide method, wanted death.blogspot.in., Top 20 suicide methods. Whereas, perusal of the message's history of phone of Jatin reveals that he had sent messages to Arushi on dated 04.02.2014 as "I Love You", I don't live without you and similarly on dated 04.02.2014, 07.02.2014 also this accused Jatin had sent messages to deceased Arushi that he loves her very much and on dated 08.02.2014, this accused also sent messages to the deceased that "God knows when U understand that how much I love you"
and these messages were sent by accused Jatin to the deceased, during her stay in the house of her parents and none of the messages sent by the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 115/131 accused Jatin to Arushi reveals that Jatin had sent any messages to deceased demanding any dowry. Thus, from the messages, it can not be inferred that this accused was demanding any dowry and the history of the web of phone of the deceased reveals that Arushi used to see the website relating to pregnancy and also relating to suicide & cyanide. Since the marriage between the Arushi & Jatin was solemnized on dated 07.02.2007 and Arushi had committed suicide on 18.05.2014 and it is proved on record that Arushi could not conceive for a long period. So, it is probable that Arushi was in fit in frustration in view of non conceiving for a considerable time, after her marriage.
55. It is alleged by the complainant that the deceased was taunted for non conceiving by the accused, but, the complainant did not mentioned the categorical date regarding such taunting to the deceased. Complainant has also alleged that the deceased was harassed for non compliance of demand of dowry. But, during his cross-examination, complainant(PW3) has admitted that on dated 18.05.2014, Arushi did not tell him that Accused had raised any demand of dowry. Thus, from the such admission by PW3, it is clear that the deceased had not committed the suicide on dated 18.05.2014 in view of such alleged demand of dowry.
56. Since the lordship of High Court of Delhi in case Narender Kumar Arora Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl Revision Petition no. 555/2003 had observed that "5. This case is a reflection of mentality which is now taking grip of parents of a deceased wife in the criminal cases. Whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage at in laws' house, whatever be the cause of death, the in-laws must be hanged. This case also shows how truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 116/1316. Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to achieve certain photographs of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on in his or her mind when he or he committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-law's house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws."
57. Since their lordship of Supreme Court of India in case Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. 2007 V AD (Cr.) (S.C.) 483 was pleased to hold as under :-
"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuation to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 117/131 in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is not provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence".
"In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitment to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. Their lordship of Supreme Court in case Mahender Singh Vs. State of M.P. 1955 AIR SCW 4570 had observed that Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs. 8, 10 and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this".
58. Coming to the case in hand that Ms. Arushi could not conceive for a considerable period, she used to visit Website of Pregnancy & suicide and it is probable that in the fit of frustration, she would have committed suicide.
59. Whereas, in the State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and anr., (1994) 1 SCC 73, Hon'ble Apex Court observed :-
"We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 118/131 conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of section 498A IPC and section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Although, the Court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, 1950 (2) All ER 458, 459 has observed that the doubt must of a reasonable man and the standard adopted be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject matter".
60. Whereas, their lordship of Supreme Court of India in case Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjub Criminal Appeal No.1135 of 2016 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 8764 of 2016) had observed as under:-
The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal 740 : (2004) 13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out herunder.
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspirary also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 119/131
61. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt. Even if there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but considered as a whole there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. Similar view was taken in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637; Anil W.Singh v.State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67; Reddy Sampath W. v. State of A.P, (2005) 7 SCC 603 and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172.
62. Since, this PW22 during his examination in chief has deposed that no opinion was given by him on the questioned documents marked as Q 3/1, Q 4/1 & Q 8/1. Since, this forensic expert could not give any opinion regarding the alleged signature Q3/1 of Arushi on the alleged suicidal note Ex.PW22/B2, regarding alleged signature Q 4/1 on suicidal note Ex.PW22/B-3 and also regarding the alleged signature Q 8/1 on suicide note. Since, at the time of searching of the room of the Arushi (since deceased) on the date of occurrence on dated 18.05.2014 and these alleged suicide notes were not recovered from the said room and since the perusal of the writing in the alleged diary Ex.PW22/C reveals that said diary is relating to the year 2013 and at page of 20 th February 2013, the writer has addressed himself as male it is written thereon मम आपकक बततनत चतहह गत। and similarly at page of 21.02.2013 of the same diary it is written मम आपकक पपरर जतनकतरर ददनत चतहह गत। कयत मम जतन सकतत हह । and PW10 Renu Bali, who is mother of the deceased has admitted that Arushi never addressed herself as male while writing, so, it becomes doubtful as to whether, this diary was written SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 120/131 by Arushi or by a male. Since, these alleged signatures on suicide notes at points Q 3/1, Q 4/1 & Q 8/1 have not been proved on record of Arushi. So, the writing of the suicidal notes also becomes doubtful. As PW22, who is forensic expert has deposed that in his examination in chief, he could not give his opinion regarding the signatures at points Q 3/1, Q 4/1 & Q 8/1 on the suicide notes and since the same were not recovered on 18.05.2014 i.e. on the day of occurrence, despite of search of the room of Arushi and since PW21 SI Rakesh Duhan has also admitted that on 18.05.2014 despite of search of room of Arushi, no suicide notes were recovered and complainant PW3 had insisted to search the room of Arushi again on 22.05.2014 and as per the statement of PW17 HC Satish, the key of the room of Arushi on 22.05.2014 was lying with the pW3 and PW21 has deposed that complainant had insisted to PW21 to conduct the search of room of Arushi again, whereas, PW3 has deposed that police had called him on 22.05.2014 to search again the room of Arushi and if on dated 22.05.2014, the key of the said room of Arushi was lying with the complainant and if the testimony of PW28 is looked into, who has deposed that the room of Arushi and both the Almirahs kept in the room of Arushi were also searched, then, how could the suicide note or the diary be recovered from the same Almirah on 22.05.2014. So, in the given circumstances, the recovery of the alleged suicide notes and diary becomes doubtful. Therefore, the possibilities of planting of suicide notes and diary cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise, it is admitted by PW21 IO Rakesh Duhan that suicide notes & diary were not sealed promptly on recovery of the thereof on 22.05.2014, as it was he duty of the investigating officer to seal the case property and to deposit the same in the Malkhana in order to avoid any possibility of tampering with the same, but, in the case in hand, neither the alleged suicide notes or diary were sealed nor deposited in the malkhana, so, suicide notes & diary also become suspicious document and possibilities of tampering with the same cannot be ruled out, so the same cannot be relied upon.
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 121/13163. As their lordship of Supreme Court of India, in case Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 1 CCC 13(SC), wherein, the lordship of Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the appellant and seized were not packeted and sealed. In Amarjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 Supp.(3)SCC 2017, this court had observed that non sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering the with weapon cannot be ruled out. From the record we further find that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure by P.W. 3 till it was sent to the Arms Expert for testing through constable Baita Singh. This missing link also weakens the prosecution case. For all these infirmities we are of the view, that the appellant is entitled to the benefit for reasonable doubt.
64. Since their lordship of Supreme Court in case titled as State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and anr., (1994) 1 SCC 73, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
This court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
65. Their lordship of Supreme Court of India in case Mahendra Singh SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 122/131 & Anr. v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, had observed by this court that it is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment or in anger cannot be treated as constituting mens rea. In that case the appellant said to the deceased "to go and die". As a result of such utterance, the deceased went and committed suicide. However, the Supreme Court observed that no offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC was made out because there was no element of mensrea.
66. The complainant, who has been examined as PW3 has alleged that he had given LED television, refrigerator, AC Etc. in compliance of demand of dowry. Whereas, PW10 Ms. Renu Bali has deposed that after the death of DB Bali, his son Ankur Bali used to visit matrimonial house of Arushi and he used to give clothes and articles including LED TV, Fridge and many other household articles to Arushi. She has also deposed that fridge was gifted to the accused. Whereas, perusal of the bill Ex.PW9/A of fridge revealed that it stands in the name of I. J. Arora & Jatin Arora. So, possibilities of purchasing of fridge by the accused with their own funds cannot be ruled out and if the LED, TV or AC were gifted. So, the same cannot be deemed to be demand of dowry
67. As, their lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case State Vs. Vishesh Chaudhary and others. Cri. A. No. 627 of 2010, D/- 11-08-2015 had observed as under:-
Mere receipt of gifts at the time of marriage from the parents of the bride cannot be assumed to be on account of demand for dowry. It is customary that the bride, the groom, and the in-laws of the bride being given gifts at the time of marriage by the family of the bride. Gifts are customarily exchanged on both sides on the occasion of marriage. Such gifts might be given voluntarily, out of love and affection and happily and it not be assumed that such arrests were given in compliance of a demand of SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 123/131 dowry. Demand of dowry by itself, even otherwise, does not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. It is the subjecting of the bride/wife to harassment, i.e. physical or mental torture to compel her to bring dowry or to punish her for not bringing dowry that tantamounts to cruelty, which is punishable under the law. In the present case, apart from making abld allegations that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental harassment soon after the marriage till the time of her death for bringing less dowry or for not getting more dowry, there is no evidence led by the prosecution to substantiate either the demand of dowry or mental harassment leading to cruelty, which can be stated to have driven the deceased to take her own life.
68. So, in the light of the abovesaid judgment, the gifts if any given by the complainant to the accused, might be given voluntarily, out of love and affection and happily. So, it can not be assumed that such gifts were given, as a result of a demand for dowry even otherwise. Demand of dowry by itself, does not constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC.
69. The complainant(PW3) and his wife Renu Bali(PW10) have alleged that deceased was beaten by the accused. But, no specific dates regarding such beating are disclosed by these prosecution witnesses nor any medical evidence regarding the injuries on the person of deceased are proved/produced on record. So, in the absence of any such medical evidence, the allegation of beating are held to vague & without any substance.
70. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that deceased was also not given food by the accused and she was starved to death, as her stomach was found to be empty at the time of her postmortem. But, the perusal of the record reveals that neither complainant nor his wife Renu Bali SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 124/131 or nephew Ankur Bali have alleged that deceased was kept in starvation and the complainant has nowhere alleged in his complaint Ex.PW3/C that deceased was starved to death by the accused and in the postmortem report Ex. PW7/D1 also it is not mentioned that the deceased was starved to death, so, it appears to the court that the counsel for the complainant has tried to set up new case of the prosecution. So, I do not find any such force in such submissions of the ld. Counsel for the complainant.
71. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also alleged that these accused are greedy persons and in view of their greedy nature, they had conspired with each other and in order to satisfy their lust for dowry, they had solemnized the marriage of the accused jatin Arora with Arushi (since deceased), as Arushi was the only daughter of her parents and they expected huge dowry. But, this court does not find any force in such submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. As, (PW3) Sh. Anil Kumar Bali and his wife Renu Bali (PW10) have admitted in their cross examination that this marriage of Jatin Arora with Arushi (since deceased) was love cum arrange and from the cross-examination of (PW10) Renu Bali, it is clear that this accused Jatin Arora & Arushi had studied together in a School, where, Renu Bali (PW10) was a teacher and since, this marriage was love cum arrange. So, it can not be assumed or presumed that the accused had selected Arushi for Jatin to satisfy their alleged lust for dowry. Since, it was a love-cum-arrange marriage. So, it was the joint decision of Arushi & Jatin to marry and after nodding of their parents, this marriage of Jatin with Arushi was solemnized. So, such submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant does not have any force that the accused had conspired with each other or that they selected to Arushi to satisfy their lust for dowry. The Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon the judgments passed in Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 129 and Balram Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1997) 9 Supreme Court SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 125/131 Cases 338. But, in view of dissimilarities of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio decidendi of the said cases cannot be applied to the case in hand.
72. Since, it is admitted by the PW3 that on dated 18.05.2014 at 01:07 PM, he had received the information regarding unconscious & soon thereafter, he and his wife arrived in the Pentamid Hospital, where, Arushi was declared dead and report under Section 173 of Cr.PC reveals that police had asked to the parents and relatives of the deceased to give statements. But, neither the PW3 nor his wife Renu Bali (PW10) and similarly nor any other relative of the deceased had given any statement to the police, soon after the demise of Arushi for the best reason known to the complainant, his wife and also to relatives of the deceased.
73. Since, the report under Section 173 of Cr.PC reveals that on dated 19.05.2014 at about 11:35 PM, this complainant had filed a complaint Ex.PW3/C in the police post Sangam Vihar, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered on dated 21.05.2014 at 05:20 PM and the report under Section 173 of Cr.PC, as well as, testimony of PW21 reveals that this complainant, his wife and his relatives refused to give any statement to the police on dated 18.05.2014, soon after the demise of Arushi. Complainant has failed to explain as to why did he not lodge the FIR, soon after the demise of Arushi and prosecution has failed to explain the delay, if the complaint Ex.PW3/C of the complainant was received by the police on dated 19.05.2014 at 11:35 PM, then, why the FIR was not lodged soon after receiving of such complaint, as the FIR has been registered on 21.05.2014 at 05:20 PM and in the absence of any cogent explanation about the delay in lodging of the FIR, the possibility of ante-timed complaint Ex.PW3/C cannot be ruled out and since the complainant has failed to explain as to why did he not lodge the FIR soon after the occurrence, so, the possibility SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 126/131 of afterthought and coloured version cannot be ruled out and inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR also creates clouds of suspicion in the version of the prosecution. Since, the marriage of Arushi was solemnized with Jatin Arora(accused) way back in the year 2007 on dated 07.02.2007 and since the mother of the deceased has been examined as PW10 and during her cross-examination, she has also admitted in the month of December, 2013, she along with her husband, accused Jatin Arora & Arushi (since deceased) went to Manali and the relations between this witness & accused were cordial at that time and she has also admitted it to be correct that even in the year 2011, this witness, her husband, who has been examined as PW3, her daughter and accused Jatin Arora went to Shirdi and further admitted it to be correct that in the year 2012, they went to Vaishno Devi Temple and the relation between this witness & accused remained cordial. She has further admitted that even in the year 2008 & 2009, her nephews were married and at that time, their relations were also normal with the accused and accused had also gifted Gold Sets to her nephews and also admitted it to be correct that in the retirement party, her husband Anil Bali, who has been examined as PW3 in the year 2012 that accused had given gold chain and it is also an admitted fact that during the life time of Arushi, neither Arushi nor her parents had lodged any complaint against the accused for the alleged harassment. In the considered opinion of this court, had these accused harassed to the deceased for any reason, whatsoever, either Arushi or her parents could lodge the case against the accused. But, as during the life time of Arushi, no complaint was ever filed against any of the accused and after the demise of Arushi, the complainant, his wife & his relatives levelled allegations against the accused, which appear to be afterthought.
74. Since, in the case in hand, Arushi(since deceased) has committed suicide on dated 18.05.2014 and testimonies of PW3, PW21 & PW28 have revealed that search of the room of Arushi was done on 18.05.2014, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 127/131 wherein, no suicidal note was found and suicidal notes are recovered on 22.05.2014 and since PW17 Satish Pal has admitted that on 22.05.2014, key of the room of the house of accused was lying with the complainant and he had opened the said room and on dated 18.05.2014, neither, diary nor the suicidal note was found and since on 22.05.2014, the said diary was not sealed and contents of the alleged diary reveals that at many places, the writer thereof has addressed himself as male and when the Ld. Counsel for the accused has cross examined PW10 Renu Bali and asked the question whether, Arushi used to address herself as male, she has denied the same and since from the testimony of PW22 it is clear that no opinion was given by him on questioned signatures of Arushi on suicidal notes viz. Q-3/1, Q- 4/1 & Q-8/1 and in view of non sealing of the alleged suicidal notes and diary, they appeared to be suspicious, as even forensic expert PW22 could not give any firm opinion about the signatures of Arushi or the suicidal notes. So, the same can not be relied upon.
75. As their lordship of Supreme Court in case State of Rajasthan V. Raja Ram, V (2003) SLT 45-III (2003) CCR 198 (SC)=(2003) 8 SCC 180 was pleased to hold that:
There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case, where admissible SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 128/131 evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not (see Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85). The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. IF the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Badade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484.
76. Since, the charges against the accused were framed under Section 498A/34 & 306/34 of IPC, so, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was dealt with cruelty by the accused and deceased had committed suicide in view of inducement or abettment. The prosecution witnesses have alleged that demand of dowry was raised by the accused and in view of non compliance of demand of dowry, deceased was dealt with cruelty. Whereas, the PW3(complainant) Anil Kumar Bali, who is father of the deceased has admitted that on dated 18.05.2014, he had received the phone calls of Arushi and on that day, she did not tell him that accused had demanded any dowry. Thus, it is clear that on dated 18.05.2014, no demand of dowry is alleged to have been raised by the accused. It is alleged that the deceased was taunted for non conceiving. But, no categorical date of such taunting is given by any of the prosecution witnesses and in the absence of any specific allegation with date, the same allegation is held to be vague. Since the testimonies of material witnesses namely,Anil Kumar Bali (complainant) PW3, Renu Bali (PW10) are found to be improved, embellished, SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 129/131 contradictory & inconsistent on the material points and same are full of doubtful, so, same are held to be not reliable and in view of doubtful testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (who are none, but, relatives of the deceased), it will be unsafe to convict to the accused on such doubtful testimonies. So, the benefit of doubts are liable to be given to the accused and since the testimonies of the material witnesses of prosecution are found to be contradictory, inconsistent, embellished, improved & doubtful and in the light of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above said judgment & when two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
77. Since this case is based on the circumstantial evidence and their lordship of supreme court of India in the case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) (4) SCC 116], was pleased to lay down the following test for relying upon the circumstantial evidence: (1) The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Coming to the case in hand, in view of the above discussed facts & circumstances, I am inclined to hold that hypothesis of guilt of the SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 130/131 accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubts, rather the story of the prosecution appears to be doubtful.
78. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that it will be unsafe to convict to the accused, as there are so many infirmities, holes and lacunae in the version of the prosecution as discussed above. Since doubts are also there in the version of the prosecution and benefits of doubts are given to the accused. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Accordingly, all the accused Jatin Arora, Inderjeet Arora, Veena Arora & Komal Arora are acquitted of the charges framed against them. As per provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C, all the accused are ordered to furnish bail bonds in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety of like amount each for a period of six months to ensure their attendance and appearance before the Ld. Appellate Court, if so required. The case properties are ordered to be disposed of after expiry of statutory period of filing of the appeal.
79. File be consigned to the Record Room on filing of the bail bond and surety bond under Section 437-A of Cr.PC.
PAWAN Digitally signed
by PAWAN
KUMAR KUMAR MATTO
Date: 2018.05.16
MATTO 11:01:48 +0530
Announced in the open court (PAWAN KUMAR MATTO)
today i.e. on 03.05.2018 Additional Sessions Judge,
Special Judge (NDPS)
NorthWest, Rohini, Delhi
SC No. 52124/2016 FIR No. 276/14 PS : Bharat Nagar Page No. 131/131