Delhi District Court
State vs Rameshwar Kumar Etc-4 on 1 November, 2023
DLNW010001622010
Presented on : 14-12-2010
Registered on : 06-07-2012
Decided on : 01-11-2023
Duration : 12 years, 10 months,
18 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/51823/2016
Annexure 'A'- List of witnesses
Annexure 'B'- List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Model Town
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
1. Rameshwar Kumar (proceedings abated vide order dated 30.07.2021)
S/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal
2. Kiran Vijhani
W/o Sh. Rameshwar Kumar Vijhani
3. Shitij Kumar
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Kumar
4. Gaurav Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramehwar Kumar
5. Shikha Kumari
W/o Sh. Shitij Kumar
S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 44
All R/o H.No. A-2/6,
Model Town,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 288/09
Police Station : Model Town
Under Sections : 306/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 01-11-2023)
1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 03.04.2009, an information was received vide DD No. 15A that Ms. Chanchal Vijhani, wife of Sh. Ashok Kumar has been admitted in Pentamed Hospital, Derawal Nagar, Model Town after she consumed unknown poison. On receipt of this information, SI V.D. Pandey (Pw18) reached Pentamed Hospital where HC Ranbir Singh and Ct. Vijay Kumar met him and he obtained the MLC of the patient Chanchal Vijhani, aged about 57 years, where the doctor opined the alleged history of ingestion of some unknown substance and that the patient is 'unfit for statement'. Thereafter, he came to know that the patient has been shifted from Pentamed Hospital to Max Hospital, Saket. However in the hospital HC Ranbir handed MLC, gastric lavage and a suicide note of deceased. Pw18 seized gastric lavage and handwritten note. Later on, vide DD No. 10B dated 04.04.2009, it was informed that the patient Chanchal has died. The dead body of the deceased Chanchal was shifted to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital where the body was examined post mortem. Visera was seized and sent for FSL.s S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 44
2. On the basis of directions given by the Court on the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant, Sh. Sh. Ashok Vijhani, husband of the deceased, FIR under Sections 306/34 IPC was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, IO seized the admitted handwritings of deceased for comparison with suicide note and deposited the documents with FSL. The accused persons after getting anticipatory bail were formally arrested. On the basis of PM report and FSL of vicera the doctor opined the cause of death due to cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of aluminum phosphide poisoning. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Ld. Area MM. Ld. MM ordered further investigation on application of complainant which was taken over by Pw19. During further investigation Pw19 collected the copy of kalandra u/S 107/151 dated 15.02.2009, photocopy of will, copy of complaint dated 16.09.2010, copy of complaint dated 15.02.2010, copy of kalandra dated 08.05.2009 and a copy of news paper cutting wherein father of complainant had disowned and debarred accused Rameshwar and his family from his estate. PW 19 filed supplementary charge-sheet.
3. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the charge-sheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
4. Vide order dated 27.08.2012, Ld. Predecessor Court framed charge under Sections 306/506/34 IPC and alternative charge under Sections 120B/306 IPC read with Section 120B/506 IPC against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 44 guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.
POLICE WITNESSES 5.1 PW-1 HC Pratap is the MHC(R)CP at P.S. Model Town. He through affidavit Ex.PW-1/1, proved the copies of relevant entries of deposit of exhibits in malkhana dated 03.04.2009 and 04.04.2009 as Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.Pw1/B. He also proved the entries in register no. 21 regarding sending of exhibts to FSL as Ex.PW-1/C. 5.2. PW-2 Ct. Gyanender had deposited the case property/exhibits to FSL. He proved the copy of acknowledgment receipt No. FSL No. 2009/C-2267 as Ex.PW- 2/A. 5.3. PW-3 HC Ranbir Singh deposed on affidavit Ex.PW-3/1 that he was on emergency duty on 03.04.2009 who alongwith Pw5 had reached Pentamed hospital on DD no. 15A where he collected the gastric lavage, MLC and suicide note of deceased and on arrival of Pw18 handed over the same to Pw18 who seized the same. He proved the seizure memo of gastric lavage as Ex.PW-3/A, seizure memos of the suicide note note Ex.PW- 3/B and the suicide note Ex.PW-3/C. 5.4. PW4 W/ASI Geeta Rani is the duty officer. She proved the FIR and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW- 4/B. S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 44 5.5. PW-5 Ct. Vijay Kumar deposed on affidavit Ex.PW-5/1 and proved the seizure memo of viscera of the deceased and handing over memo qua the dead body of the deceased, as Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B respectively. He is also witness to seizure memos Ex.Pw3/A and Ex.Pw3/B. MEDICAL WITNESSES 5.6. PW-6 Dr. Omender Singh proved the death summary of the deceased as Ex.PW-6/A. He also proved his report Ex.Pw6/B which was handed over to IO, on his behalf, by Dr. Deven Juneja.
5.7. PW-7 Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal proved the postmortem report Ex.PW-7/A. He also proved the FSL report produced before him by IO as Ex.PW-7/B where after he opined that the cause of death in this case was cardiac anoxia and element of asphyxia as a result of aluminum phosphide poisoning. He proved his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW-7/C. 5.8. PW-8 Sri Narain Senior Scientific Officer from FSL Rohini proved the FSL report on viscera Ex.PW-7/B. 5.9. PW-9 Dr. Virender Singh is the Assistant Director (Documents) from FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He had examined the questioned document i.e. suicide note Mark Q1 and four admitted signatures A1 to A4 of the deceased Chanchal Vijhani. He proved the suicide note marked Q1 as Ex.PW-3/C and the admitted signatures A1 and A2 as Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 44 respectively and admitted signatures A3 and A4 as Ex.PW-9/C and Ex.PW-9/D respectively of Chanchal Vijhani. He proved the detailed report prepared by him with respect to hand writing in suicide note and signatures of deceased as Ex.PW-9/E. 5.10. PW-11 Dr. Rajesh Gupta is the Consultant from Pentamid Hospital. He proved the MLC of the deceased Ex.PW11/A in which he identified the the signatures of Dr. Sunil Kumar who prepared the MLC.
5.11. PW-13 Dr. Raj Mahendra Singh proved the original case sheet of admission and treatment of Mrs. Chanchal Vijhani from Pentamed Hospital and proved the same as Ex.PW-13/A (running into 20 pages).
PUBLIC WITNESSES 5.12. PW-10 Sh. Ashok Kumar Vijhani is the husband of the deceased Chanchal Vijhani. As per Pw10 in the year 2009, he was residing with his wife and two sons namely Ritesh Vijhani and Karan Vijhani at A-2/6 Model Town Delhi. His brothers Rameshwar Kumar and Narender Kumar were also residing in the same house along with their family members. Accused persons i.e. Kiran Vijhani, wife of Rameshwar Kumar, Shitij Kumar, son of Rameshwar and Shikha Kumari, wife of Shitij Kumar were also residing in the same premises. Accused Gaurav was residing at Derawal Nagar along with his wife.
Pw10 deposed that on 03.04.2009 at about 8.00-8.15 a.m, his wife was going out of the house to see a vegetable vendor. At S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 44 that time, the accused Shitij, Gaurav, Kiran and Shikha were present outside the door of their house, which was situated just in front of door of their house, and accused Gaurav told deceased that "Tere Aur Tere Pati Aur Bachhon Par Itne jhoothe Case Banayege Ki Tum Sab Sari Umar Jail Mein Saroge Aur to Hamare Darwaje Par Bheekh Mangegi Marte Dam Tak". On this his wife replied that "Bheek Mange Se Accha Hai Ki Main Mar Jaoongi". Thereafter, accused Shitij told his wife that "Marne Ke Liye To Dum Chahiye, Tu To Budhiya Bujdil Hai" and accused Kiran told that "Jahar Khane Ke Paise Bhi Tere Pass Nahin Hain, Wo Paise Bhi Kya Humse Bheekh Mangegi". He further deposed that thereafter, accused persons Kiran, Shitij, Gaurav and Shikha laughed at his wife and made fun of his wife. His wife went inside the house immediately and she was weeping continuously at that time and was saying that Rameshwar and his family members would take their lives. He further deposed that accused Rameshwar and his family members namely Kiran, Shitij, Gaurav and Shikha used to pass comments and taunts on his wife Chanchal as she used to remain at house for the whole day.
Pw10 also deposed that at about 8.30 a.m, he went to temple, being Ashtami day, after his two sons had reached at house. His wife remained at the house. At about 9.30 a.m, when he returned from the temple, he saw that his son Ritesh was taking his wife downstairs from his house. He inquired from Ritesh about Chanchal and Ritesh informed him that the condition of Chanchal was not good and he was taking her to hospital. He also became nervous after hearing this and felt ill as S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 44 he was a diabetic patient. Therefore, on the advice of his son Ritesh, he went to his house upstairs, took medicine and laid on the bed. Ritesh told him that he would take Chanchal to the hospital and would inform him accordingly. At about 11.30 a.m, he received a call on his mobile phone from Ritesh who informed him that Chanchal had consumed some poisonous/intoxicating substance and there was very little chance of her survival. Thereafter at about 12.30-1.00 p.m,, he again received a call from Ritesh who informed him that condition of his wife Chanchal has deteriorated at Pentamid Hospital and further informed him that he was taking her to Max Hospital, Saket, Delhi. Thereafter, he also proceeded towards Max Hospital and reached there. He found his wife Chanchal in unconscious condition at the Max Hospital. On the next morning, she was declared dead by the doctor.
He further deposed that they informed the police of P.S Model Town about the death of his wife Chanchal. However, police was already informed about the incident and his son Ritesh informed him that police had come at Pentamid Hospital when Chanchal was admitted and police conducted their proceedings there and also seized the suicide note of his wife Chanchal. Police came at the Max Hospital and took the possession of dead body of his wife Chanchal and took her dead body to BJRM Hospital where the postmortem was conducted on 04.04.2009 and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them.
He further deposed that the police did not take any action S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 44 and did not register any FIR, therefore, he filed a complaint Ex.Pw10/A and application u/S 156 (3) Cr.PC Ex.Pw10/B before the Court of Ld. MM.
He further deposed that his father Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal had completely disowned Rameshwar Kumar and his family from the family assets and property. So, Rameshwar and family members had an enmity against him and they were having property dispute with him. Accused Rameshwar had implicated him and his family members in several false cases and also implicated them falsely on 15.02.2009 in a case under Section 107/151 Cr. P. C. To the incident of 15.02.2009, he deposed that, Rameshwar Kumar and the accused persons gave beatings to his son Ritesh and thereafter, called the police and falsely implicated them and they threatened them to be falsely implicated in false cases, if they did not give money from the property to them. He further deposed that Rameshwar and his family members were trying to pressurize them to settle the matter which was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, where they had challenged the Arbitration Award passed (after the death of his father) in a dispute between his family and family of Rameshwar Kumar.
He further deposed that on the day of incident, Gaurav was also present at the house of accused Rameshwar. It was well within the knowledge of all the accused persons that his wife was under depression on account of false litigation instituted by the accused persons including the criminal proceedings.
S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 44 Pw10 proved the documents submitted by him to the police as Ex.PW10/C1 to Ex.PW-10/C17. He proved the admitted documents containing handwriting and signatures of his wife Chanchal which he handed over to the police/IO as Ex.PW- 9/A to Ex.PW-9/D and its seizure memo Ex.PW-10/D. He also proved the photocopies of kalandra dated 15.02.2009 (19 pages) as Ex.PW-10/E-1 to Ex.PW-10/E-9, the photocopies of Will as Ex.PW-10/F (7 pages), the complaint lodged vide DD No. 64B dated 16.09.2020 Ex.PW-10/G, the complaint dated 15.02.2010 Ex.PW-10/H and kalandra dated 08.05.2009 as Ex.PW-10/I (12 pages). He also proved the photocopy of newspaper, Ex.PW10/J, by which his father had disowned Rameshwar Kumar and the seizure memo of the aforesaid documents as Ex.PW-10/K. 5.13 PW-12 Sh. Ritesh Vijhani is the son of the deceased. Beside the dispute between his family and family of Rameshwar Kumar, he deposed that on 15.02.2009 Shitij, Gaurav and Rameshwar gave beatings to him and also gave beatings to his brother Karan and his cousin Varun S/o Narender Kumar and they were taken to police station where they were detained for whole night in the lock up and were not allowed to join the marriage function of his cousin (son of his maternal uncle) and at the instance of the accused persons, they were falsely implicated in a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and for the whole night, the accused persons abused his mother. After that the accused persons continuously threatened his mother that his whole family will be falsely implicated in false cases and the accused persons used to taunt his mother and made filthy remarks against his S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 44 mother.
He further deposed that on 03.04.2009 at about 8.00-8.15 a.m, he along with his brother Karan went to temple at Model Town and returned back at about 8.30-9.00 a.m. and found his mother and father inside the room and where his mother was weeping and depressed and his father was consoling her. Thereafter, his father went to the temple. However, the condition of his mother deteriorated and she felt vomiting. He immediately took his mother to Pentamid Hospital and on the stairs of the house, his father met him and he told him about the condition of his mother to him. His father also became nervous after hearing the condition of his mother and he advised him to take rest in the house after taking diabetic medicine and his father went inside the house. He along with his mother reached at Pentamid Hospital. On the way to the hospital in his car, his mother told him that the accused persons told her that their whole family will be falsely implicated in false cases and their lives would be ruined. His mother further told him that she was not in a position to tolerate the accusation of the accused persons and she did not want to live further and she handed over one letter in her handwriting to him. Thereafter, he reached at the Pentamid Hospital and his mother was admitted in the hospital and she was medically treated there. He asked his mother what she had eaten, thereafter she told him that the accused persons told her that "if she does not have the money to even buy poison she can beg for the poison from them because they will not let her live in peace". Thereafter, his mother was not in a position to speak at Pentamid Hospital and the hospital authorities called the police and police S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 44 reached there but his mother was not in a position to speak, so her statement could not be recorded. He also deposed that during medical treatment, stomach wash of his mother was taken by the doctors. He handed over the suicide note of his mother Ex.PW3/C to the police who reached at the Pentamid Hospital and they took possession of the same.
He further deposed that the condition of his mother deteriorated so he took his mother to Max Hospital, Saket, Delhi where she was admitted. He informed his father about all the facts. His father also reached at Max Hospital where his mother was receiving medical treatment and on the next early morning, his mother expired in the Max Hospital. They informed police of P.S Model Town about the death of his mother and police reached at the hospital and the dead body of his mother was taken to BJRM Hospital for postmortem. He proved the dead body identification memo Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that the accused persons very well knew that his mother was very sensitive and was also suffering from depression.
5.14. PW-14 Sh. Karan Vijhani is another son of the deceased Chanchal Vijhani and Pw10 and he also deposed about the family dispute with family of Rameshwar.
He deposed that on 15.02.2009, Gaurav, Shitij and Rameshwar Kumar gave beatings to his elder brother namely Ritesh Vijhani and thereafter, made a false case against them after calling the PCR and the police took him, his father, his brother Ritesh and his cousin Varun, to police station Model S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 44 Town. On that day, marriage function of son of his maternal uncle was going on and the above said persons wanted to settle the property disputes on that day. Gaurav had left the police station and Shitij falsely alleged that they had teased Shikha. Accused Rameshwar Kumar and Shitij abused his mother outside the police station and they remained in the police station whole night.
He further deposed that on 16.02.2009, they were released on bail and Shitij also opposed the same in the Court and due to this incident, his mother was under serious depression.
He further deposed that 25.03.2009, they came to the SDM Court for hearing case, with his mother. There, Shitij and Rameshwar Kumar threatened his mother by saying that "tumhare ghar main kisi bachche ki shaadi nahi hone denge aur tumhare ghar ke male members ko jail mein sarayenge". He further deposed that the main doors of the house of Rameshwar opens just in front of their main door and that all the family members of Rameshwar Kumar namely Rameshwar, Kiran, Shikha, Shitij and Gaurav used to abuse his mother and them, whenever they used to come in and go out from the front of their main door and due to those threats and abuses, his mother was really afraid and disheartened of which several complaints were made.
He also deposed that On 03.04.2009 at about 8.00 a.m, he left for his office and on his way to office, at about 10.00 am he received a call from his brother that his mother's condition is not S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 44 very good and they had taken her to the Pentamid Hospital on which he reached Pentamid Hospital and his brother told him about the whole situation that his mother had committed suicide and her condition was very critical, after which they consulted a doctor in Max Hospital, Saket and arranged shifting of his mother to Max Hospital from Pentamid Hospital and his mother was shifted to Max Hospital under the supervision of doctor in an AC LS Ambulance on ventilator support.
He further deposed that on 04.04.2009 morning time, his mother died in the hospital and the suicide was due to Rameshwar Kumar and his family members' continuous pressure which led to the demise of his mother.
5.15. PW-15 Sh. Narender Kumar is brothers of complainant and accused Rameshwar. He also deposed about the family dispute with family of Rameshwar. He deposed that Rameshwar and his family were habitual of causing harassment to him and family of complainant. He often framed them in false cases some of which were still pending and others were disposed of. He further deposed that the behaviour of Rameshwar Kumar and his family was highly improper and they used to abuse and quarrel with them. On 15.02.2009, Rameshwar and his family i.e. Shitij, Rahul @ Gaurav, Shikha, Kiran quarreled with them and on that day, he had gone out of the house to pick up some articles and when he was returning, Rameshwar Kumar and his family stopped him and gave beatings to him, then his son Varun Kumar intervened and saved him. After that, he went inside, the police was called by Rameshwar Kumar and his family and in S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 44 connivance with the police, they were framed in a criminal case. He further deposed that on 03.04.2009, in the morning he was in office when his wife called him and informed that Chancha had consumed something and had been taken to Pentamed Hospital. Later, they came to know that she had expired.
5.16. PW-16 Mrs. Sushma Vijhani is the wife of Pw15. She also deposed property dispute between family of accused persons. She further deposed that on 15.02.2009, her brother-in- law Rameshwar Kumar and his sons indulged into scuffle with her husband and thereafter, called the police and her husband was taken by the police. Their relations were not normal and they remained under tension. She further deposed that on 03.04.2009, somebody knocked her door and when she opened, she found Ritesh Vijhani was taking his mother Chanchal to the hospital. She followed them and went with them to the hospital, first to Pentamed hospital and then to Max. Hospital and came to know that she had consumed something. She remained there with them and then on the intervening night of 03/04.04.2009, they were told that Smt. Chanchal had expired. She had also made a telephone call to her husband and informed him about the incident. Her statement was recorded by the police after some days but she did not remember the exact date.
5.17 PW-17 Sh. Varun Kumar is one of the nephew of the deceased and son of Pw15. He deposed about the family dispute regarding family property. He further deposed that in the month of February, 2009, false case was registered against him, his cousin Ritesh Vijhani, Karan Vijhani and his Chachaji Sh. Ashok S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 44 Kumar under Section 107/51 Cr.P.C in which they all were arrested. He also deposed that there were other false cases against their family and the family of Sh. Ashok Kumar, and due to this reason his Chachiji Smt. Chanchal Vijahani committed suicide on 03.04.2009 and on 04.04.2009, she expired at Max Hospital.
INVESTIGATING OFFICER(S) 5.18 PW-18 SI (Retd.) V.D. Pandey is the first investigating officer of the case. He proved DD No. 15 A Ex.PW-18/A, request for postmortem on the body of deceased as Ex.PW-18/B, brief facts of the case as Ex.PW-18/C, Form 25.35 as Ex.PW- 18/D, statement of Karan Vijhani regarding identification of dead body at the mortuary of BJRM Hospital as Ex.PW-18/E, the arrest memos of the accused persons Ex.PW-18/F to Ex.PW- 18/J, personal search memos Ex.PW-18/K to PW-18/O and application moved by him before the autopsy surgeon as Ex.PW- 18/P. 5.19 PW-19 SI (Retd.) Jagbir Singh conducted further investigation on order under section 173(8) in which he collected photocopy of kalandra under Section 107/51 Cr.P.C DD No. 26A dated 15.02.2009, photocopies of Will, complaint vide DD No. 64B dated 16.09.2020, complaint vide DD No. 23B dated 15.02.2010 and kalandra under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C DD No. 13A dated 08.05.2009 and photocopy of cutting of newspaper dated 16.10.1999, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-10/K. Statements of Accused Persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 44
6. Statements of the accused persons namely Rameshwar Kumar (proceedings have been abated against him, hence statement not read), Kiran Vijhani, Shitij Kumar, Gaurav Kumar and Shikha Kumari were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, when all the incriminating evidence was put to them they denied the same and pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The aforesaid accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case to pressurize them to settle the property dispute as per the whims and desires of the complainant party. He further stated that the complainant party was aggressive and inimical, the moment they started getting favourable order in the civil litigation with respect to the property. For that reason, they had grudge as they wanted to grab the entire estate and joint property by excluding them. For that purpose, all of them started initiating false litigation against them and started falsely implicating them in various criminal cases including the present case. There was no fight on the date of incident as falsely alleged in the complaint/FIR and Gaurav Kumar was staying separately at A-301, 2 nd Floor, Derawal Nagar, much before the alleged incident.
8. The accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and produced four witnesses in their defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 8.1. DW-1 Sh. Nitin Kishore was summoned to produce S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 44 record pertaining to election cards bearing No. DL/06/062/249518 and NCR0778431 which was weeded out vide order Ex.Dw1/A. 8.2. DW-2 Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma is the single window operator from Bank of Baroda, Model Town, Delhi. He proved the authorization letter dated 02.03.2017 to appear in the Court as Ex.DW-2/A. He had produced the summoned original bank documents in the Court and proved the specimen card of the account holder namely Chanchal Vijhani as Ex.DW-2/B and the application for revival of the savings bank account as Ex.DW- 2/C. 8.3. DW-3 Sh. Giriraj Sharma is the Senior Passport Assistant from Passport Office, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K Puram, New Delhi. He deposed that the original record pertaining to issuance of the passport of Ms. Chanchal Kumar, D/o Ram Chand and Prem Devi and W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar including the passport application have been weeded out and destroyed long back as per MEA D.O No. VIII/885/17/2000 dated 23.01.2003. He proved the scanned copies of the record including the application form and the documents annexed with the application form as Ex.DW3/A (colly.) and the authorization letter as Ex.DW-3/B. 8.4. DW-4 Pandit Ashok Kashyap is handwriting and fingerprint expert for the last 52 years. He deposed that in this case, he had examined and inspected the disputed document i.e. suicide note already Ex.PW-3/C and also the authentic/admitted S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 44 signatures on the arbitration agreement, Ex.PW-10/DX3, original of which was produced in the Court on 09.08.2017 and on that day, he inspected and took the photographs with the assistance of his photographer. He had taken the photographs of the questioned signatures on the suicide note, the entire suicide note and the admitted signatures on the arbitration agreement for comparison and proved his report Ex.Dw4/A. ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the entire record.
10. It is submitted on behalf of prosecution and complainant that the fact that there was a property dispute is not in issue. However, there is a history to this dispute that father of complainant, for the misdeeds of accused Rameshwar, had disowned and debarred the entire family of accused persons in the year 1999 itself and subsequent to that father of complainant had bequeathed his house as well as shops to his remaining two sons i.e. complainant and Pw15. However, to the annoyance of father, the family of accused did not vacate the residential premises during the life time of father. Because of this relations with the family of accused were strained and there was hostility in the families of complainant and accused. Due to this hostility accused persons, in order to harass and mount pressure, started filing false and frivolous cases on complainant and Pw15. In order to buy peace Sh. Prabhu Dayal, the father, complainant, Pw15 and accused Rameshwar entered into arbitration agreement S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 44 on 17.07.2002. However, during pendency of arbitration proceedings father expired hence the will became operative. But the accused Rameshwar started demanding his share in the property which was opposed by complainant and Pw15 on the strength of will.
11. Therefore, accused Rameshwar and his family started harassing complainant and Pw15 by filing false and frivolous cases. However vide award dated 24.07.2004 accused Rameshwar was given interest in residential property at Model Town which became the sole cause of enmity between the family of accused on one hand and complainant and Pw15 on the other.
12. It is further submitted that because of this enmity the accused persons laid a plot to abet the wife of complainant to commit suicide by instigating and intentionally aiding her through words and conduct.
13. It is further submitted that prosecution has proved that the accused persons had been filing false cases on complainant and his family and few days before the date of incident, on 15.02.2009 accused persons started quarreling with son of complainant and Pw13 and called PCR and for that incident the sons of complainant and Pw15 i.e. Ritesh and Varun along with accused persons were detained by the police and on that date accused Shikha and Shitij lodged a false complaint of sexual assault against sons of complainant and Pw15. Because of that complaint, police kept the sons of complainant and Pw15 in custody and due to that they could not attend he marriage of their S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 44 cousin. This got imprinted in the mind of deceased as she was concerned about safety of her son and since that day deceased started living in fear because of that trauma. Subsequently on 25.03.2009 also deceased was threatened by accused persons that she will be killed if the accused persons were not given the share in the property which further cemented that fear in the mind of deceased. Therefore in this background, on 03.04.2009, when deceased was humiliated and harassed and threatened that her son will keep on getting implicated in false case till she begs before them, deceased thought of dying before witnessing such things and she conveyed to accused persons that she would prefer to kill herself by consuming poison before begging to them. However, the accused persons did not stop and despite knowing that deceased in under mental trauma and very upset, they instigated the deceased by saying that for purchasing poison also she will have to beg before them and she is coward. Therefore the accused persons not just abetted the deceased to commit suicide but as they knew the mental condition they committed this abatement with a prior plan to poke the deceased to a point that the deceased finds no other way but to kill herself.
14. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved all the incidents and further, not only it is proved that deceased committed suicide by consuming poison but her suicide note also shows how accused persons mounted pressure on her to take this drastic step. Therefore the prosecution has proved its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
15. The prosecution/complainant placed reliance on:
S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 44
a) Beij Lal Vs. prem Chand and Ors AIR 1989 SC 1661
b) Faguna Kanta Nath Vs State of Assam AIR 1959 SC 673
c) Jamuna Singh Vs State of Bihar Manu/SC/0097/1966
d) Randhir Singh and Ors Vs State Of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 5097,
e) Vineet Suri Vs State 213 (2014) DLT 168,
f) Raj Mohd. An Anr Vs State of HP 1995 Cri. L J 810,
g) Fakruddin Vs. State of MP AIR 1967 SC 1326
h) Kishan Chand Vs. Sita Ram & Ors AIR 2005 P&H 156
i) Ram Narain Vs State of UP AIR 1973 SC 2200,
j) Ram Pyarelal Shrivastava Vs State of Bihar AIR 1980 SC 1523,
k) Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra etc Vs K S Dilipsinghji & Anr,
l) Bhagwan Swaroop Vs State of MH AIR 1965 SC 682,
m) Gundala Reddeppa Naidu & Ors Vs. State of AP & Anr. 2005 Cri. LJ 4702,
n) Asaram Dadarao Giram Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors 1995(3) Bom CR 486, and
o) Manharlal I shah Vs Yogesh Kumar Kanaiyalal Saria and Ors (1987) 1 GLR 608.
16. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that since the property dispute between complainant and accused family is not in contest of this trial and they lived on the same floor, it was obvious that accused persons and family of complainant never liked each other. Therefore, complainant family and accused family were not only having civil litigation but also criminal complaints against each other. It is obvious to have quarrels/complaints on trivial issues. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the incident of morning of 03.04.2009 beyond reasonable doubts, as except complainant there is no other witness to incident. It is further submitted that the cross examination of defence witness disproves the entire S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 44 allegation of incident dated 03.04.2009 as the testimonies of witnesses are full of contradictions which are not just material but go on to show that witnesses have lied on oath. It is further submitted that even for the incident of 15.02.2009 the witnesses have given false account as the Kalandra which have been proved on record shows that there was quarrel on the issue of parking which got escalated and it was not just sons of complainant and Pw15 but the accused party were also detained for whole night and the kalandra shows that the it was the son of complainant who was aggressor. It was a finding of Executive Magistrate which has remained unchallenged.
17. It is further submitted that the suicide note, even if accepted, do not give any account of incident of 03.04.2009, as deposed by Pw10. However, the suicide note itself is a fabricated document and the prosecution has not explained how and when the deceased got hold of the poison, if she had not left the premises on that day. It is the submission that the poison, aluminum phosphide, with which deceased killed herself is not something which is ordinarily kept in house, therefore, the entire theory of committing suicide on getting triggered after incident of 03.04.2009 gets falsified as the deceased appears to have made her mind to kill herself, incident or no incident. It is also submitted that one can even question if it was a suicidal death.
18. Defence further submitted that there was no incident in the morning of 03.04.2009, as deposed by Pw10 and everything was concocted after unfortunate death of Smt Chanchal Kumari, who never used her name as Chanchal Vijhani in her entire S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 44 lifetime and the note was fabricated to frame the accused persons to force them to give up their share in the property and vacate the same.
19. It is also submitted by the defence that even if all allegations of prosecution are accepted as true just because accused persons were in litigation and they taunted the deceased or quarreled with her or her family it does not make out a case of abetment to suicide or criminal intimidation because there is no evidence on record that accused persons were behaving in that particular manner with a view to force the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence on record to show that accused persons wanted deceased to commit suicide. The dispute of property was not with her but with Pw10.
Defence placed reliance on:
a) Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433
b) SS Cheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190,
c) Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs State of AP (2010) 1 SCC 750,
d) M. Mohan Vs State (2011) 3 SCC 626,
e) Shyambai Vs State of MP ILR 2015 MP 2244,
f) Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab CRA D 1525 DB 2013,
g) Jangam Ravinder Vs State of AP Cri. Appeal no. 975 of 2013,
h) State of MP Vs Sheetal Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617,
i) Vijayan Vs State of Kerla (1999) 3 SCC 54,
j) Irfan Vs State of UP (2023) SCC Online SC 1060,
k)Nand Lal & Ors Vs State Of Chattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 1470/2017 (SC),
l) State of Rajasthan Vs Madan (2019) 13 SCC 653, and
m) Harbeer Singh Vs Sheesh Pal (2016) 16 SCC 418.
FINDINGS
20. It is an undisputed fact that the family of accused persons and that of Pw10 and Pw15 were not having cordial relations despite the fact that deceased accused Rameshwar, Pw10 and S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 44 Pw15 are real brothers. It is not that the dispute arose after demise of their Father Sh. Prabhu Dayal. They were in litigation during the life time of Sh. Prabhu Dayal and for that reason Sh. Prabhu Dayal not only disowned deceased accused Rameshwar and his family but also executed a registered will, Ex.Pw10/F, in favour of Pw10 and 15, ousting deceased accused Rameshwar.
21. However, three families as well as their father entered into an arbitration agreement, Ex.Pw16/DZ, to settle all the disputes/litigation for once and all, including the right to share on properties of Sh. Prabhu Dayal. This arbitration continued even after the demise of Sh. Prabhu Dayal and award Ex.Pw10/Dx3 was passed whereby Pw10 was given the shop at Sadar Bazar and Pw15 and deceased accused were given equal share at the residential property at Model Town where families of all three brothers reside. Pw10 has admitted in cross examination that he sold the shop after arbitration award but it is his claim that this shop fell in his share not because of award but through the registered will of Sh. Prabhu Dayal. However, it is the claim of defence that Pw10 sold the shop after his right was crystallized by award and despite selling the shop, continued to remain in the residential property and at the same time utilised the money from selling the shop for purchasing another property.
22. Be that as it may, the trial is not over the share in property. Although it is a fact that objections against award has been dismissed by Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court, vide Ex.Pw10/DX1, holding that parties have acted as per award, it is also a fact that dismissal of objection is under challenge before S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 44 larger bench in Hon'ble High Court, which has stayed the order of dismissal of objections. However, the tension between Pw10 and 15 on one side and deceased accused Rameshwar on the other is the reason for their usual quarrels and complaints.
23. The charge against accused persons is u/S 306/506/34 of abetting suicide and committing criminal intimidation with common intention and alternatively u/S 306 read with section 120B and 506 read with section 120B i.e. conspiring to abet suicide, abetting suicide under conspiracy and criminally intimidating under conspiracy, which led Smt. Chanchal Vijhani to commit suicide.
24. This FIR was registered on an application u/S 156 (3) Cr.PC. However, record establishes that on 03.04.2009 deceased was admitted in Pentamed Hospital vide MLC Ex.Pw11/A. Ex.Pw11/A records the date and hour of arrival as 10.AM, 03.04.2009. It also records the name of relative or friend as Mr. Ashok Kumar Vijhani i.e. Pw10.
25. As per the testimony of witnesses, specially Pw10 and Pw12 they discovered the deceased, not able to breath, at about 8.30 am on 03.04.2009 and Pw12 took deceased to Pentamed Hospital while Pw10 remained in house as he himself was a patient of diabetes. This Pentamed hospital was just 1.5 kilometers from their house. Therefore, to the time of discovery of Smt Chanchal Vijhani there may be some confusion but the fact that Pw10 did not visit hospital is against the record. In fact it is a lie. On the other hand presence of Pw12 is nowhere in any S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 44 document.
26. Despite the fact that deceased was admitted in hospital with history of 'ingestion of some unknown substance', the police was not informed till 12.50 pm and the MLC records that the patient was unfit for statement and was shifted to ICU. Police receives the information at 12.50 pm vide DD no. 15A (Ex.Pw18/A) on which Pw18 reaches hospital and seizes the gastric lavage and the suicide note vide memos Ex.Pw3/A and B respectively. It appears that by that time deceased was already shifted to Max Hospital Saket because the family members are not witness to these memos.
27. Ex.Pw11/A shows that the police official on duty in Hospital was one Ranveer no. 818. This Ranveer is the witness no. 14 in the list of witnesses prepared by IO who was examined as Pw3. Therefore, Pw3. HC Ranbir was the duty officer at Pentamed Hospital. Pw3 gave his deposition on affidavit that on 03.04.2009 he went to hospital on receipt of DD no. 15A and there he witnessed the seizure. It appears that Pw3 did not even read the affidavit before filing the same in court. He being duty police official in hospital was there since beginning to whom the suicide note and gastric lavage were handed in the hospital.
28. Till the seizure of these documents there is no information of any quarrel, as alleged, in the morning of 03.04.2009 nor any complaint. Only information available with police was the MLC and the note Ex.Pw3/C. S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 44
29. In the suicide note deceased has narrated her plight as "main Chanchal Vijhani apne parivar me bahut khush hu magar Rameshwar Kumar, Shitij Kumar, Gaurav Kumar (jo 301A deravaal (after striking Gujrawal) town me rehta hai) Kiran, Shikha ye sab milkar aaye din humse ladai karte hai aur police case karte hai inki vajah se hamare ghar me tension si bani rahtu hai us tension (se) sabhi ka swabhav chidchida ho gaya hai. Aaye din ke (15 farvari ke jhuthe case ke baad se me roz depression me aa gai hai. Is depression se (struck) me chhutkaar pane ke liye maine ye kadam uthaya hai. Aaj 8 baje subah Kiran Gaurav aur Kshitih me mujhe dhamki di ek aur case police banane ki." I Chanchal Vijhani, am very happy in my family, but Rameshwar Kumar, Kshitij Kumar, Gaurav Kumar (who lives at 301 Deraval Town), Kiran and Shikha, all together used to quarrel with them and file police cases. Because of them there is an environment of tension and because of that tension everyon's beahavior has become irritable. I have come under depression because of regular cases, specially after the false case of 15 th february. I have taken this step to get rid of this depression. This morning at 8 am Kiran Gaurav and Kshitij threatened me of filing one more false case. (translated).
30. Before discussing about the incident, as defence has challenged the genuineness suicide note, it is first necessary to deal with that objection. The suicide note is proved by Pw3 as Ex.Pw3/C. Pw3 is not the maker nor the person who discovered it from deceased. It was handed to him in the hospital. As already discussed above examination in chief of Pw3 on affidavit is completely against record. It appears that the affidavit Ex.Pw3/1 S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 44 was neither dictated nor read before signing and affirming. However the cross examination reveals that Ex.Pw3/C was handed to him by Pw12 in presence of a doctor.
31. The claim of Pw12 is that deceased handed over this suicide note to him when he was taking her to Pentamed Hospital and during this period deceased also narrated him the incident of morning of 03.04.2009. The version OF Pw12 that he alone shifted deceased to hospital and Pw10 remained at house has already been doubted because it was Pw10 whose presence is recorded in MLC. Pw12 has not deposed anything to suggest that when doctors asked about the person or attendant he, under the belief or mistake, mentioned the name of husband of patient. On the other hand Pw16 who claims to have accompanied Pw12 and deceased in car have categorically deposed that while in the car deceased was not speaking anything nor she handed any suicide note in her presence. Pw16 is however firm that she accompanied Pw12 and deceased to hospital in the car.
32. Pw10 being husband is not expected to remain at home when he has knowledge that his wife has consumed something poisonous. Therefore Pw10 must have also went to Pentamed hospital in some other vehicle that is why his name appears in MLC. However, how this suicide note came into possession of Pw12 is doubtful. There are contradictions in testimonies of Pw12 and Pw16 and these contradictions are material which go to the roots of question of discovery of suicide note. Besides that there is a delay of two hours and fifty minutes in reporting the matter to police. The hospital being just 1.5 kilometer from S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 44 house, it was matter of minutes to go back and search for note in the house or for somebody else to find note and bring it to hospital.
33. The objection of genuineness is still not answered yet. Defence had taken multiple grounds to question the genuineness of Ex.Pw3/C. The first among all is that the name of deceased was Chanchal Kumari and she never used her surname in any documents therefore suicide note which is signed as Chanchal Vijhani is a fabricated document. This suicide note was sent to FSL for comparison of signatures of the maker with admitted documents. For this purpose IO collected 4 documents. Two of them Ex.Pw9/A and Ex.Pw9/B, are part of one agreement with TDI infrastructure Ltd, containing signatures of deceased. Other two documents Ex.Pw9/C and Ex.Pw9/D are pages of diary, claimed to be maintained by deceased, for the purpose of comparison of handwriting of deceased. As per IO these documents were handed over to him by Pw10 but Pw12 claimed that he handed these documents to IO.
34. Ex.Pw9/A and B are not the complete contracts and these documents only bear signatures 'Chanchal Vijhani' and some particulars of property. No body has deposed that Ex.Pw9/A and Ex.Pw9/B were written and signed by deceased in their presence. IO has admitted that he has not verified from TDI if any such agreement was proposed by deceased. It is revealed in the cross examination of Pw12 that he is GM Marketing in TDI. Therefore the defence suggests that Pw12 manufactured Ex.Pw9/A and B and deliberately did not provide the complete contract.
S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 44
35. Deceased was an educated women and was having passport, PAN Card and bank account. The police had not seized any official document having signature of deceased for comparison with suicide note. The defence in cross examination brought official documents having signatures of deceased. It is shown from these documents brought in cross examination of witnesses that deceased never used her name as Chanchal Vijhani and she wrote her name and signed as Chanchal Kumari. Ex.Pw12/Dx2 is Partnership deed of deceased with accused Rameshwar Kumar, and Pw15 and in the partnership deed none of them have used their surname Vijhani. Similarly Ex.Pw16/Dx2 is the arbitration agreement of the three brothers and their father in which deceased is also a signatory. In this document also deceased has signed as Chanchal Kumari not 'Chanchal Vijhani'. The Passport of deceased also shows her name as Chanchal Kumari.
36. However, Merely because deceased has asserted her identity before ending her life, which she did not use earlier, would not mean that she did not sign the same. No one knows what goes into mind of a person before committing suicide and under what mental condition s/he writes suicide note. But it is difficult to accept that she could have used her name Chanchal Vijhani in Ex.Pw9/A and Ex.Pw9/B. There was no reason to assert such identity for filing a form of housing agreement when even her husband did not use that surname. In all the documents put and called in cross examination, from Ex.Pw12/Dx1 to Ex.Pw12/Dx14 (including PAN card and Passport of deceased) S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 44 her name is Chanchal 'Kumari' not 'Vijhani'. These were her latest identity documents. On the other hand being GM at TDI Pw12 was in position to procure as many application forms as he want. Yet no confirmation was sought from TDI if deceased wanted to purchase any property from TDI. Ex.Pw9/A and Ex.Pw9/B in itself are not complete as these were never submitted before TDI. Therefore the opinion Ex.Pw9/E cannot be relied to render the finding that the note Ex.Pw3/C was signed by deceased. This opinion was based on Ex.Pw9/A and B and the genuineness of Ex.Pw9/A and B is highly doubtful.
37. Still, It cannot be said that Ex.Pw3/C was not written by deceased. The deceased had opened a bank account in the name of 'Chanchal Vijhani', in 1985. This account had went dormant and to revive that account she filed an application in 2001 in which she signed a Chanchal Vihani. Therefore, deceased may have again started writing 'Vijhani' in her signatures or she used to sign in both ways. It is not disputed that the deceased, her family as well as accused persons have surname 'Vijhani'. However, It appears that these official documents from bank of deceased i.e. Ex.Dw2/B and Ex.Dw2/C were deliberately not seized by IO. Ex.Dw2/B is the original account opening card of deceased when she opened the account as Chanchal Vijhani, which went dormant and vide application Ex.Dw2/C dated 20.02.2001 she applied for reviving this account. Ex.Dw2/B was filled on 03.12.1985 and as the account was by name 'Chanchal Vijhani' she applied for revival as 'Chanchal Vijhani'. These were the best documents which Pw12 could have informed to IO for the purpose of comparison of signature in Ex.Pw3/C. Pw12 S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 32 of 44 cannot claim ignorance to these documents as he is also a signatory to application Ex.Dw2/C filed on 20.02.2001. There is a possibility that Ex.Dw2/B and C were withheld as it would have proved that Ex.Pw3/C is not signed by deceased.
38. Pw9 had also examined the handwriting in suicide note and the pages of diary Ex.Pw9/C and Ex.Pw9/D. In cross examination, it was claimed by Pw12 that IO did not seize the entire diary and tore only two pages from it. Whereas IO deposed that he was given only two pages. Be that as it may. During cross examination Pw12 was asked if he can produce the diary and Pw12 produced the same. This diary was retained on record as Ex.Pw12/Dx15. However, ExPw9/C and Ex.Pw9/D are not the pages of diary Ex.Pw12/Dx15. The pages of the diary are different than Ex.Pw9/C and D. Therefore even the source of Ex.Pw9/C and D is not proved. Hence the opinion on the hand writing on the suicide note also becomes doubtful.
39. Coming to suicide note, In the entire note there is no whisper of what happened in the morning of 03.04.2009 between deceased and accused Gaurav, Kiran and Kshitij. Only reference about the morning is that she was again threatened of involving in one more false case. Suicide note rather shows that deceased was depressed because of continuing litigation and frequent quarrels and was upset on account of her son spending entire night in police station.
40. The case of prosecution is that since accused persons knew that deceased was suffering from depression, their S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 33 of 44 continuous harassment of accused and repeated threats is the instigation of suicide.
41. Abetment involves mental process of instigating the person or intentionally aiding the person for doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said person cannot be convicted.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan V. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2011 while dealing with ingredients of Section 306 of IPC held as under:
"Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative, but to commit suicide. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable".
43. There was hostility between the accused family and family of complainant as they have succeeded a dispute in legacy. While complainant was firm about his right on the properties of his father on the basis of last registered will, deceased accused Rameshwar and his family too had acquired a right in the residential property of their father through arbitration S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 34 of 44 award. The award was such that its compliance or execution would end up ousting the complainant and his family from the residential property where deceased lived her life since her marriage with complainant. Neither complainant nor deceased accused Rameshwar were in position to withdraw from their claim. This led to the continuous tension between accused family and family of complainant. The animosity therefore was the real cause of disturbance in the life of two families. Unfortunately deceased could not bear more and decided to end her life.
44. The fact that on 03.04.2009 she did not leave the house and there was no reason for family of complainant to keep aluminum phosphide in their house, shows that deceased had decided to end her life even before the incident dated 03.04.2009. There is no evidence when she procured this poison but in no circumstances it could have been procured on 03.04.2009.
45. Assuming that on 03.04.2009, as usual, the accused persons initiated altercations with deceased, insulted her, threatened her of false cases and also asked her to commit suicide, question arises is would that amount to abetment to commit suicide?
46. In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017 1 SCC 433, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 35 of 44 person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy 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.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, 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."
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC
190.
30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 36 of 44 as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised."
47. Assuming all that said by PW-10 is true, it was the deceased who had retorted that she will prefer to die before begging before them. It was on this retort she was told why is she waiting and why not just die. This nowhere shows that accused persons intended deceased to commit suicide as a consequence of their behaviour towards her. It was usual for them to pass remarks. They were in litigation for many years. Therefore the conduct of accused persons specially Kiran, Kshitij and Gaurav with whom the altercation took place cannot be said to be an instigation to commit suicide punishable u/S 306 IPC.
48. It wasn't even intimidation punishable u/S 506 IPC, for intimidation u/S 506 IPC means causing causing alarm in the mind of victim of immediate injury, bodily or mental, to achieve some goal. It is defined u/S 503 IPC as,
503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
49. A threat of filing cases, even if false, cannot be called intimidation unless it is passed for achieving some desired result from victim. Both families were under litigation and they were fighting their case tooth and nail. A family litigating for some right accrued through arbitration award and having animosity S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 37 of 44 with the other party not complying the award cannot be said to be conspiring for every incident of quarrel because of that animosity. The proceedings u/S 107/151 Cr.PC were initiated against members of both sides where they were detained for entire night. It was a preventive action against members of both sides and was prerogative of SEM concerned to proceed against them on the basis of report of apprehension of breach of peace.
50. In light of the abovesaid findings, observations and reasoning, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove their case on the touchstone of beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons and benefit in this regard has to be given to the accused persons. Accused persons are accordingly acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM Date: 2023.11.01 Date : 01.11.2023 16:51:12 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/01.11.2023 Dictated on : 01.11.2023 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Transcribed on : 01.11.2023 VIKRAM Date: 2023.11.01 checked on : 01.11.2023 16:51:22 +0530 Signed on : 01.11.2023 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/01.11.2023 S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 38 of 44 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1. PW-1 HC Pratap MHCR 2. PW-2 Ct. Gyanender Police witness 3. PW-3 HC Ranbir Singh Police witness 4. PW-4 W/ASI Geeta Rani Duty officer 5. PW-5 HC Vijay Kumar Police witness 6. PW-6 Dr. Omender Singh HOD, Critical Care Medicien, Max, uperspeciality Hospital 7. PW-7 Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal CMO, Dr. Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital 8. PW-8 Sri Narain Assistant Director (Chemistry) FSL 9. PW-9 Dr.Virender Singh Assistant Director (Documents) FSL 10. PW-10 Sh. Ashok Kumar Husband of deceased Vijhani 11. PW-11 DR. Rajesh Gupta Consultant/physician Pentamed Hospital 12. PW-12 Ritesh Vijhani Son of deceased 13. PW-13 Dr. Raj Mahendra Singh Pentamid Hospital 14. PW-14 Sh. Karan Vijhani Son of deceased 15. PW-15 Sh. Narender Kumar Brother of complainant and accused 16. PW-16 Mrs. Sushma Vijhani Wife of witness Narender Kumar 17. PW-17 Sh. Varun Kumar Nephew of deceased 18. PW-18 Retd. SI V.D. Pandey 1st IO 19. PW-19 Retd. SI Jagbir Singh 2nd IO S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39 of 44 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents 1. Ex. P1/1 Affidavit 2. Ex. PW 1/A Copy of entry at serial no. 3774/09 in register no. 19 3. Ex. PW 1/B Copy of entry at serial no. 3776/09 in register no. 19 4. Ex. PW1/C Copy of RC No. 17/21/09 in register no. 21 5. Ex. PW 2/1 Affidavit 6. Ex. PW 2/A Copy of receipt no. FSL 2009/C-2267 7. Ex. PW 3/1 Affidavit 8. Ex. PW3/A Seizure memo of gastric lavage 9. Ex. PW 3/B Seizure memo of written note/letter 10. Ex. PW 3/C Written note/letter 11. Ex. PW 4/1 AFfidavit 12. Ex. PW 4/A Copy of FIR 13. Ex. PW 4/B Endorsement on rukka 14. Ex. PW 5/1 Affidavit 15. Ex. PW5/A Seizure memo of Visera 16. Ex. PW 5/B Dead body handing over memo 17. Ex. PW 6/A Death summary
S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 40 of 44
18. Ex. PW 6/B Report signed by Dr. Devan Juneja on behalf of Dr. Omender Singh
19. Ex. PW 7/A Detailed post mortem report
20. Ex. PW 7/B FSL report No. 2009/C-2267 dated 27.11.2009
21. Ex. PW 7/C Subsequent opinion of doctor
22. Ex. PW9/A & Admitted signatures Ex. PW 9/B on suicide note
23. Ex. PW 9/C & Admitted Ex. PW 9/D handwriting on suicide note
24. Ex. PW 9/E Detailed report of PW-9
25. Ex. PW 10/A Complaint filed before ld. MM
26. Ex. PW 10/B Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
27. Ex. PW10/C1 Documents filed to Ex PW with complaint and 10/C17 application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
28. Ex. PW 10/D Seizure memo of admitted documents
29. Ex. PW 10/E- Photocopy of 1 to Ex PW kalandra dated 10/E-19 15.02.2019
30. Ex. PW 10/F Photocopies of will
31. Ex. PW 10/G DD No. 64B dated 16.09.2023
32. Ex. PW 10/H Complaint dated 15.02.2010 S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 41 of 44
33. Ex. PW 10/I Kalandra dated 08.05.2009
34. Ex. PW 10/J Photocopy of newspaper
35. Ex. PW 10/K Seizure memo of documents
36. Ex. PW Copy of order dated 10/DX-1 16.10.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
37. Ex. PW Copy of order dated 10/DX-2A 12.04.2005 passed by ld. ACMM
38. Ex. PW Copy of statement 10/DX-2B dated 24.11.2005
39. Ex. PW Copy of arbitration 10/DX-3 agreement
40. Ex. PW Copy of documents 10/DX-4 from municipal and (33 pages) official departments including arbitration agreement/awards
41. Ex. PW 11/A MLC of Chanchal Vijani
42. Ex. PW Transfer summary 11/DX-1
43. Ex. PW 12/A Dead body identification memo
44. Ex. PW Passport of deceased 12/DX1
45. Ex. PW Gas receipts 12/DX-1 to PW 12/DX-10
46. Ex. PW Photocopies of two 12/DX-11 & election cards of PW 12/DX-12 deceased
47. Ex. PW PAN card of 12/DX-14 deceased S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 42 of 44
48. Ex. PW Personal diary of 12/DX-15 deceased
49. Mark PW Photocopy of cheque 12/DX no. 452128 of Bank of Baroda
50. Ex. PW Partnership deed 12/DX2 dated 10.10.1983
51. Ex. PW 13/A Case sheet of admission of Mrs. Chanchal Vijhani
52. Ex. PW Complaint of Shitij 15/DX1 and Shikha
53. Ex PW Statement u/S 161 16/DX1 Cr.P.C.
54. Ex. PW Certified copy of 16/DX2 agreement
55. Ex. PW 18/A DD No. 15A
56. Ex. PW 18/B Request for postmortem
57. Ex. PW 18/C Brief facts prepared by PW 18
58. Ex. PW 18/D Form 25:35
59. Ex. PW 18/E Dead body identification statement
60. Ex. PW 18/F Arrest memo of accused Kiran Vijhani
61. Ex. PW 18/G Arrest memo of accused Shikha Vijhani
62. Ex. PW 18/H Arrest memo of accused Gaurav Kumar
63. Ex. PW 18/I Arrest memo of accused Rameshwar Kumar S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 43 of 44
64. Ex. PW 18/J Arrest memo of accused Shitiz Kumar
65. Ex. PW 18/K Personal search memo of accused Kiran Vijhani
66. Ex. PW 18/L Personal search memo of accused Shikha
67. Ex. PW 18/M Personal search memo of accused Gaurav Kumar
68. Ex. PW 18/N Personal search memo of accused Rameshwar Kumar
69. Ex. PW 18/O Personal search memo of accused Shitiz Kumar
70. Ex. PW 18/P Application for seeking subsequent opinion moved before autopsy surgeon Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2023.11.01 16:52:40 +0530(Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/01.11.2023 S.C. No. 51823/2016 State Vs. Rameshwar Kumar & Ors. Page No. 44 of 44