Delhi District Court
State vs . Laxmi @ Lambo Etc. on 19 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 58044/16
State
Versus
1). Laxmi @ Lambo
W/o Sh. Samay Singh
R/o Harijan Basti, Village
Mungespur, Delhi
2). Santosh @ Koko
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o Harijan Basti, Village
Mungespur, Delhi
3). Seema
W/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o Harijan Basti, Village
Mungespur, Delhi
4). Dharampal
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o Harijan Basti, Village
Mungespur, Delhi
5). Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o H. No. 267, Harijan Basti,
Village Mungespur, Delhi
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc.
SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 1 of 45
6). Dara Singh
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Harijan Basti, Village
Mungespur, Delhi
7). Shyam Lal
S/o Sh. Dayanand
R/o H. No. 240, Harijan Basti,
Village Mungespur, Delhi
FIR No. : 406/12
Police Station : Bawana
Under Sections : 302/376(2)(g)/506/34 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 02.07.2013
Date on which Judgment reserved : 13.12.2019
Date on which Judgment announced : 19.12.2019
JUDGMENT
1. All accused persons have been forwarded to face rape and murder trial.
2. The victim made dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate that three neighbours namely Seema, Lambo and Koko poured kerosene upon her forcibly in her house and set ablaze. No one else was present at that time. She had written a suicide note also which was kept under the pillow placed on the bed and that she had State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 2 of 45 told about suicide note to her son Sumit after she was set on fire.
Suicide note is to the effect that four persons namely Dharam Pal, Shyam Lal, Dara Singh and Raj Kumar were responsible for her death. They levelled false allegations against her and one day, when she was alone at home, they did kukaram with her and ran away. They threatened that if she told anybody about the incident, her family members would not be spared. She had complained to their family members also, but she was always held wrong. They quarreled with her son several times. Their children namely Rohit, Rahul, Tarun, Chhotu and Sandeep were also complicit with them. When she filed complaint against them before police, they threatened to level false allegation of theft. They used to threaten her daily. The situation had become unbearable due to which she was committing suicide. She concluded the note writing that Lambo and her son Rakesh were also hand in glove with them.
3. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Laxmi @ Lambo, Santosh @ Koko and Seema on 23.10.2013. Charge under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and 506/34 IPC was framed against accused persons namely Dharam Pal, Raj Kumar, Dara Singh and Shyam Lal on 07.08.2014. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 3 of 45
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 46 witnesses.
5. PW13 Satish Kumar, husband of the prosecutrix, deposed that he used to work as beldar in Delhi Jal Board since 2012 and he was posted in Shalimar Bagh. He was married with victim in 1989 and had three children i.e. two sons and a daughter. Accused Seema and Lambo were his neighbours who used to frequently altercate with his wife. He received phone call on his duty place on 07.12.2012 at 12.15 pm from his nephew Raju that his chachi i.e. victim had sustained burn injuries for which she had been taken to M.V. Hospital. He also reached the hospital where police recorded statement of his wife. Thereafter, she was referred to LNJP Hospital where she expired on 09.12.2012.
In cross examination by ld. additional PP, he deposed that Samay Singh, accused Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar, Dharam Pal and Dara Singh were his neighbours and Laxmi w/o Samay Singh was known in the locality by the name of Lambo. His wife used to tell him that those persons were in the habit of uttering foul words after consuming liquor for which she used to object due to which, they used to threaten her. He further deposed that Seema is wife of Shyam Lal and Santosh @ Koko is wife of accused Raj Kumar. They alongwith Lambo used to level false allegations against his State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 4 of 45 wife for which he was told several times by her. On 27.11.2012 also, an altercation had taken place between his wife on one side and Dharam Pal and Bhula on the other side. Due to that reason, his wife used to remain tense. On 07.12.2012, when he left the house at 8.30 am for duty, his children had already gone to their educational institutions. When he reached M.V. Hospital, his sons Sumit and Sunny also came there. He next deposed that his wife did not tell him in the hospital that Lambo, Seema and Santosh had set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil. A lady namely Bala was his neighbour and she had witnessed the incident of burning of his wife and Bala told about the same to his son Sumit, who inturn, disclosed to him. Next deposition is that the victim kept some ornaments with her brother Rakesh after preparing a list of the same in her own handwriting. That list Ex.PW13/D was available with Rakesh, which was handed over by him to the IO on 27.07.2013, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C.
6. PW24 Sunny, son of the victim, deposed that he went to attend training in ITI Bhorgarh in the morning of 07.12.2012. During those days, his young brother Sumit was studying in 12th class in government school, Katewara and his father was working in Delhi Jal Board who used to leave house for duty at about 8.30 am. His mother used to remain alone at home. His neighbours namely State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 5 of 45 Shyam Lal, Raj Kumar, Dharam Pal and Dara Singh used to use abusive language against them. In cross examination by ld. additional PP, he deposed that accused Lambo and Dara Singh also used to use abusive language against his mother. Seema, Lambo and Santosh used to allege that two persons had been visiting her house. On 27.11.2012 at about 12.00 - 1.00 noon, his mother had an altercation with accused Dharam Pal and Bhula. Due to all these incidents, his mother used to remain upset. On 07.12.2012, he received a call from Harish Kumar, shopkeeper, regarding fire in his house, consequent to which he left for the house and received phone call of his father on the way who asked him to reach M.V. Hospital. So, he went to the hospital and came to know that his mother had sustained burn injuries.
7. PW31 Sumit, another son of victim, deposed that his friend Parmod came to his school at 1.00 pm and told that fire had broken out in his house. So, he alongwith Pramod left for his house. In the meantime, one Vicky also came to the gate of the school on his bike and all three came to his house. He saw that his mother was lying on the floor with burn injuries and his uncle Jagbir was also present there who gave intimation on 100 number upon which a PCR van took her to M.V. Hospital from where she was shifted to another hospital. He further deposed that there was no quarrel between her State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 6 of 45 mother and accused persons. In a specific question, he answered that he did not know whether her mother was murdered or committed suicide. In cross examination by ld. additional PP, he deposed that the police had seized some articles from the courtyard of his house which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/C. He further deposed that burnt cloth pieces were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/A. A match box and some burnt match sticks were lifted, kept in a pullanda which was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/B. He further deposed that the suicide note was not recovered in his presence, though the seizure memo Ex.PW32/D to that effect was bearing his signature at pointC. PW22, Bala, neighbour of the victim, deposed nothing substantial saying that she did not know about the case. She was produced in the witness box in anticipation that she would tell the court that she saw victim on 07.12.2012 at 12 noon going towards her house weeping.
8. PW26 Mukesh Kumar @ Raju deposed that while returning home on 07.12.2012 at 1.30 pm from duty, he saw several persons in front of his uncle's house. He came to know that there was a fire in that house and hence, he informed telephonically his uncle Satish Kumar.
PW30 Harish Kumar runs a grocery shop in Harijan State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 7 of 45 Basti Mungespur. On 07.12.2012, he came to know of fire in the house of Satish Kumar and gave information to Satish's son Sunny from his mobile no. 9210384393.
9. PW27 Pramod deposed that he was student of 12 th class in government school, Katewara in 2012 and Sumit, son of deceased, was his classmate. He left the school after lunch on 07.12.2012 as he was not feeling well. When he reached in front of his house at 12.30 pm, he heard the cries of a lady namely Tara to the effect that fire had broken out in the house of Satish. When he reached in front of that house, he saw several persons there. He alongwith Vicky went to his school to take back Sumit. When they were on the way to the school, Sumit met them. In the meantime, Ravinder also came there. He alongwith Ravinder and Sumit came to the house of Sumit on the motorcycle of Ravinder.
PW29 Vicky was going towards village Kutubgarh on 07.12.2012 on his bike when covillager Pramod Kumar met him and requested to accompany him to the school of Sumit as fire had engulfed his house. He accompanied Pramod to government school, Katewara and dropped him there.
PW25 Ravinder deposed that while going to village Kutubgarh on bike on 07.12.2012, when he reached in front of Satish's house at about 1.30 pm, he saw several persons there who State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 8 of 45 requested him to bring son of Satish from Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Katewara. He proceeded towards his school and met Sumit on the way. He made him to sit on his bike and dropped near his house.
10. PW23 Jagbir, brotherinlaw of the deceased, deposed that he rushed to the house of his brother Satish in Balmiki Colony on 07.12.2012 on receipt of information regarding fire in his house and saw several persons there. Satish's son Sumit also came there after sometime. He took mobile phone no. 9266370717 from Sumit and informed police on 100 number.
PW10 W/Ct. Philomina Minj was posted in PCR PHQ on 07.12.2012 when she received a call from mobile phone no. 9266370717 at 1.42 pm to the effect "mere bhai ki wife jal gayi hai". After filling up PCR form1 Ex.PW10/A, she sent the same to Communication Department.
PW1 HC Maha Singh registered DD No.18A Ex.PW1/A on 07.12.2012 at 2.00 pm on receipt of call from control room regarding burning of wife of brother of caller in H. No. 242, Harijan Basti, village Mungespur.
PW15 Renu's duty was on CATS Ambulance Alpha 15 in Bawana on 07.12.2012 when she received a wireless message at about 2.00 - 2.30 pm that a lady had sustained burn injuries in State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 9 of 45 village Mungespur. She alongwith driver proceeded towards village Mungespur in the ambulance and when she was near village Daryapur, she met officials of PCR van Libra 39 and came to know that they had brought the lady in burnt condition. She requested them to shift the patient in her ambulance and thereafter, took her to M.V. Hospital and got her admitted there. She came to know her name as "U".
Duty of PW2 Ct. Ajay was in JPN Hospital on 09.12.2012 when he came to know at 7:00 am from the file of patient 'U' that she had expired on that day at 3.30 am. He gave information to PS Bawana pursuant to which was recorded vide DD No. 6B was registered.
PW5 HC Ramesh Chand registered case FIR on 08.12.2012 at 10.20 pm under section 307/34 IPC when he was handed over tehrir by Inspector Satish. He deposed that while working as MHC(M) on 21.02.2013, he took a suicide note and one page of a register i.e. admitted handwriting of deceased to CFSL, Hyderabad vide R.C. No. 23/21/13 Ex.PW5/C. On 22.08.2013, he handed over four sealed parcels and sample seal to Ct. Devanand for deposit in FSL, Rohini, vide R.C. No. 229/21/13 Ex.PW5/F.
11. PW4 Sh. Satish Kumar was working as Tehsildar on 07.12.2012 when he went to Burn Ward of LNJP hospital and State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 10 of 45 recorded statement Ex.PW4/A of the injured. He claimed that he made enquiry from injured "U" in which she told him that she had left a suicide note under a pillow in her house. He directed the SHO to take appropriate action.
12. PW32 Ct. Brijesh Kumar and PW33 SI Pravesh reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 18A Ex.PW1/A and came to know there that the lady had been removed to the hospital by PCR van and that she was married about 23 years ago. No eye witness was present and hence, PW3 left PW32 at the spot and himself went to M.V. Hospital. SI Pravesh came to know that the injured had already been referred to LNJP hospital and that she was not fit to make statement. He obtained her MLC and returned to spot. They further deposed that crime team came to the spot, inspected the same and clicked photographs from various angles. They next deposed that some burnt clothes lying on the spot were lifted and kept in a polythene and were sealed by the IO with the seal of NK. Burnt match sticks and match box were also lifted and sealed with the seal of NK. All these articles were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B. They further deposed that a plastic cane without cap, lying in the kitchen, was also sealed with the seal of NK and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/C. Sumit, son of victim, handed over a paper i.e. suicide note State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 11 of 45 Ex.PW13/E2 and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/D. PW32 identified can as Ex.P1 and piece of cloth, match box and some burnt match sticks as Ex.P2 (colly.). One cut piece of cloth has been identified as Ex.P3.
Additionally, PW33 deposed that he asked the concerned SDM to record statement of the victim consequent to which, Executive Magistrate Mr. Satish Kumar reached there. The doctor opined that the injured was fit for statement. The doctor further told him that he (doctor) had already reduced into writing whatever patient had told him. Thereafter, he recorded statement Ex.PW4/A of the injured in the presence of Executive which bears his signature at pointB, signature of PW33 at pointA and of concerned doctor at pointC. He told SHO about the case who made endorsement on the statement of injured and thereafter, investigation was assigned to SI Narender.
13. PW30 Inspector Anil Kumar and PW37 HC Ravinder, being Incharge and Photographer of Mobile Crime Team, visited the spot i.e. H. No. 242, Harijan Basti, village Mungespur and saw some burnt clothes, match sticks and match box, lying in varandah in front of kitchen. A kerosene can containing some kerosene oil was lying in the kitchen. Photographs Ex.PW37/A1 to Ex.PW37/A6 were clicked by HC Ravinder and after preparation, the report Ex.PW36/A State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 12 of 45 was handed over by Inspector Anil Kumar to IO.
14. PW7 Dr. Saurav Kumar identified the signature and handwriting of Dr. Vivek Kumar Singh on MLC dated 07.12.2012 of the patient "U" timed at 2.40 pm, who was brought in the hospital by CAT ambulance with the history of burn injury. He deposed that after initial examination in casualty, she was referred to S.R. Surgery where she was examined by Dr. Vivek Kumar Singh who found 100% burn on her body.
PW8 Dr. Amit Shokeen examined injured "U" initially on 07.12.2012 and found superficial burns all over her body. She was conscious but no oriented.
PW9 Dr. Saroj Aggarwal identified signatures and handwriting of Dr. Rajesh, SR Gynae. She deposed that after initial examination in casualty, the victim was examined by S.R. Surgery and thereafter, she was referred to S.R. Gynae for further examination where she was examined by Dr. Rajesh. Her vaginal examination was not possible due to 100% burn injuries.
PW11 Dr. Varsha Gupta, Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, LNJP Hospital, identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Nishant on death summary Ex.PW11/A of victim "U", who succumbed to homicidal burn injuries on 09.12.2012.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 13 of 45 PW3 Dr. Jatin Bodwal conducted postmortem on the body of victim "U" in BJRM Hospital. He deposed that dermo epidermal burn injuries were present on the whole body except both sides of right hand. Burnt skin was peeled off at some places and body hair were burnt and singed off. Burn injuries were present on 98% of the total body surface area. He opined that the cause of death was shock consequent upon antemortem flame burn injuries. After preserving the scalp hair for knowing the presence of inflammable substances, he prepared report Ex.PW3/A. PW6 Dr. Yudhvir Singh, after medically examining accused Dharam Pal on 03.09.2013, opined in MLC Ex.PW6/A that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.
15. PW28 Satpal deposed that dead body of victim "U" was identified by her son Sumit and husband Satish on 09.12.2012 vide statements Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW13/A respectively which were bearing his signatures at pointsX.
16. PW21 Rakesh, brother of deceased, deposed that when he was residing in Wazirpur, his sister came to his house about 56 months prior to her death and handed over some jewellery articles to him for safe custody as too many theft incidents had taken place in State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 14 of 45 her area. Simultaneously, she had given him list of jewellery articles Ex.PW13/D. When he visited his sister's house after her demise, police met him and asked whether he had any document written by her sister. He nodded in affirmative and handed over that list which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C.
17. PW12 Ct. Manju, PW17 Sushila, PW18 W/Ct. Ritu, PW19 W/Ct. Urmila and PW20 W/Ct. Usha are witnesses to the arrest, disclosure statements and pointing out memos of accused persons namely Laxmi @ Lambo, Seema and Santosh who were arrested from their respective houses by SI Narender and Inspector Satish Kumar at the instance of Sumit and Satish Kumar, son and husband of the deceased respectively, on 06.03.2013.
18. PW41 ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that he alongwith SI Udai Singh, Ct. Sanser Pal and informer joined investigation with Inspector Ranjeet Dhaka on 23.03.2014 and reached village Mungespur. When they were near the house of accused Raj Kumar, they saw a person coming from the side of main road, who was apprehended at the instance of informer and he revealed his name as accused Raj Kumar. He was also identified by Sumit, son of the deceased. He was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW41/A and Ex.PW41/B and after interrogation, his disclosure State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 15 of 45 statement Ex.PW41/C was recorded. He was medically examined and his potency test was conducted in M.V. Hospital.
19. HC (ASI) Dharam Pal has been examined twice as PW14 and PW43. When he was working as MHC(M) on 07.12.2012, ASI Pravesh deposited three pullandas sealed with the seal of NK in malkhana for which he made entry no. 828 in register no. 19. On 09.12.2012, when SI Narender deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of MAMC JB 10 alongwith one sample seal, he made entry no. 832 in register no. 19. The consolidated entry register is Ex.PW43/A. He placed on record copy of RC no. 229/21/13 as Ex.PW43/B saying that the same was bearing the signatures and handwriting of HC Ramesh at pointA. He next deposed that he had seen HC Ramesh signing and writing during the course of official duties with him.
PW16 Ct. Devanand deposed that he collected three pullandas in sealed condition from MHC(M) on 22.08.2013 vide R.C. No. 229/21/13 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini without tampering with them.
PW40 Ct. Jai Prakash deposed that he collected an envelope from FSL, Rohini on 09.05.2014 which was containing FSL result and handed over the sealed envelope to the MHC(M).
PW38 HC Rajender deposed that he went to CFSL State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 16 of 45 Hyderabad on 24.07.2013, got CFSL report dated 11.06.2013 with a forwarding letter Ex.PW38/A, returned to Delhi and handed over the documents to Inspector Satish Kumar PW46 ASI Vinod Kumar was working as MHC(M) on 09.05.2014 when Ct. Jai Prakash handed over three parcels bearing the seals of FSL, to him which he deposited in malkhana and made entry Ex.PW46/A in register no. 19.
PW39 Sh. Amit Rawat, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini deposed that four sealed parcels sent by police to his lab on 22.08.2013 were marked to him for chemical examination. Their seals were found intact. Parcel no. 1 was containing bunch of brown and black hair alongwith some dirty deposits, parcel no. 3 was containing blue coloured oily transparent liquid (kerosene oil), parcel no. 4 was containing a piece of partially burnt cloth and parcel no. 5 was containing burnt match box and some partially burnt match sticks. He next deposed that parcel no. 3 was found containing kerosene oil and parcel no. 4 was found containing residuals of kerosene oil. He further deposed that residuals of kerosene/diesel/ petrol could not be detected in parcel nos. 1 & 5. His report is Ex.PW39/A. PW44 Sh. C. Rajesh, Assistant Director and ScientistC, CFSL Hyderabad, deposed that two sealed covers received in CFSL on 25.02.2013 were marked to him for examination. Their seals State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 17 of 45 were found intact and tallied with provided specimen seal provided. He examined the documents and gave report Ex.PW44/A to the effect that questioned and admitted documents were written by one and the same person. He identified the signatures of coexaminer Mr. R.B. Bhosle at pointB on the report.
20. PW34 IO SI Narender got the investigation in the night intervening 08/09.12.2012 after registration of FIR. He received information from duty officer next day i.e. on 09.12.2012 that victim had expired in LNJP hospital. He visited her house and came across her husband Satish and son Sumit and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW24/A at their instance and asked them to reach LNJP hospital where postmortem was to be conducted. He also reached the hospital and filed request letter Ex.PW34/B for postmortem examination and filled up inquest form Ex.PW34/C. The dead body was identified by Satish and Sumit vide statements Ex.PW34/A and Ex.PW28/A. The body was handed over to Satish vide handing over memo Ex.PW13/B. He next deposed that the concerned doctor handed over sealed parcels with sample seal which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/D. Section 302 IPC was invoked and thereafter, further investigation was assigned to SHO Inspector Satish Kumar with whom he joined investigation on 27.01.2013 when Satish Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, husband and brother of the victim respectively, came State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 18 of 45 to police station and handed over jewellery articles list i.e. admitted handwriting of victim to Inspector Satish Kumar who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/C. He next deposed that he visited the MCD office and verified the statement of supervising officer of accused Lambo regarding her presence at duty place on 07.12.2012. He again joined investigation on 06.03.2013 when accused Laxmi @ Lambo, Seema and Santosh were arrested.
PW35 Inspector Satish Kumar deposed that SI Parvesh handed him over statement Ex.PW4/A of victim on 08.12.2012 upon which he made endorsement Ex.PW35/A1 and handed over the same to duty officer on which he registered the case FIR. Investigation was assigned to him on 11.12.2012 after victim's death. He recorded statement of husband of the deceased on 20.12.2012 asked him to provide documents bearing handwriting and signatures of his wife which he could not furnish but assured that he would provide if found available with any other family members or his in laws. He, his son Sumit and brotherinlaw Rakesh came to police station and Rakesh produced jewellery articles list i.e. admitted handwriting of the victim saying that the same was prepared by his sister when she handed him jewellery for safe custody. The list Ex.PW13/E1 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C. He next deposed that list of jewellery articles was kept in an envelope on 18.02.2013 which was sealed with the seal of SK. The suicide notice State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 19 of 45 was kept in another envelope which was also sealed with the seal of SK. Same were handed over by MHC(M) to HC Ramesh on 21.02.2013 for deposit in CFSL, Hyderabad. He next deposed about arrest of accused Laxmi @ Lambo, Santosh and Seema respectively from their houses on 06.03.2013 in the presence of SI Narender and three lady constables. He next deposed that that after medical examination in MV hospital, all lady accused were put in the lockup and taken out next day and their disclosure statements were recorded. Thereafter, they pointed out the place of the incident consequent to which pointing out memos Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW19/D were prepared. He next deposed that he collected the report Mark PW35/X dated 17.04.2013 from Sanitation Superintendent, CSE, Narela Zone, MCD to the effect that accused Laxmi @ Lambo was on duty on the day of incident i.e. 07.12.2012 from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm. It was not feasible for MCD to supervise whether the safai karamcharis had performed duty during the whole duty time. After completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet against Laxmi @ Lambo, Santosh and Seema with a request that supplementary chargesheet U/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. shall be filed after the FSL result. The exhibits lifted from the spot were sent to FSL, Rohini by MHC(M) on 22.08.2013 through Ct. Devanand. He, SI Narender and other staff members arrested accused Dharampal on 30.08.2013 at the instance of Sumit vide arrest and personal search memos State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 20 of 45 Ex.PW35/A and Ex.PW35/B respectively and his disclosure statement Ex.PW35/C was recorded. On 02.09.2013, he led police team to the house of the deceased and pointed out the place of occurrence. He next deposed that other accused persons namely Shyam Lal, Dara Singh and Raj Kumar were untraceable and their NBWs remained unexecuted. He filed chargesheet against accused Dharampal. He was transferred in the first week on January 2014 and hence, handed over the case file to MHC(R).
PW42 Inspector Pradeep Kumar got investigation on 12.03.2014 and got issued process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., against accused Raj Kumar, Dara Singh and Shyam Lal. Dara Singh and Shyam Lal surrendered in the court on 31.03.2014 and after permission, they were formally arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW42/A and Ex.PW42/B respectively and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW42/E and Ex.PW42/D respectively. Their disclosure statements were also recorded. After medical examination in M.V. Hospital, both were sent behind bars. Potency test of accused Dara Singh was got conducted in BSA hospital vide report Ex.PX3. Potency test of accused Shyam Lal was conducted in LNJP hospital vide MLC Ex.PX2 and after medical examination, his blood sample and sample seal were handed over to him which he seized vide memo Ex.PW42/G. He filed chargesheet against accused Dara Singh, Shyam Lal and Raj Kumar.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 21 of 45 PW45 Inspector Ranjeet Singh was present in police station when a secret informer told him that accused Raj Kumar would visit his house in Mungeshpur. Inspector Pradeep Kumar was on leave and hence, he conducted investigation with SI Uday Singh, HC Suresh and Ct. Sensar Pal and reached village Mungeshpur on 10:20 pm and accused Raj Kumar was arrested at 11:55 pm on pointing out by informer. He was identified by Sunil (son of the deceased) and he got medically examined in MV hospital vide MLC Ex.PX1. After return of Inspector Pradeep from leave, he handed over case file to him.
21. On 09.07.2019, accused persons namely Raj Kumar, Shyam Lal and Dara Singh admitted following statements/ documents/proceedings U/s 294 Cr.P.C.: S. Name of the Documents Admit Denied Exhibited No. ted
1. MLCcumpotency Test Yes Ex.PX1 Report No. 14877 of accused Raj Kumar prepared by Dr. Rakesh Verma & Dr. Ankur, S.R. of M.V. Hospital
2. MLCcumPotency Test Yes Ex.PX2 Report No. 14/14 of accused Shyam Lal prepared by Dr. Mithun Ghosh of LNJP Hospital State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 22 of 45
3. Clinical examination No. Yes Ex.PX3 39/14 of accused Dara Singh prepared by Dr. Vijay Dhankar of BSA Hospital
22. Under section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused took the defence of false implication.
23. Accused Laxmi @ Lambo examined herself as DW1 and MCD official as DW2.
Laxmi @ Lambo deposed that she was appointed as safai karamchari about 2530 years ago. On the day of incident i.e. 07.12.2012 also, she was very much on the roll of MCD as a sweeper and her duty hours on that day were from 7.00 am to 3.00 pm and duty place was village Qutubgarh which was about 2 kms away from her village Mungespur. On 07.12.2012, she left house at about 6.30 am and reached duty place at about 7:00 am and remained there upto 3:00 pm. She marked attendance by affixing thumb mark in register which was being maintained by Paras Ram, another sweeper. She further deposed that attendance of sweepers used to be marked thrice a day. The first attendance used to be about 7:00 am, second at 12:00 noon and third at 3:00 pm. She concluded evidence saying that she reached home at about 3.15 - 3.30 pm on 07.12.2012.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 23 of 45 DW2 Sh. Rajpal, Assistant Sanitary Inspector, produced attendance register dated 07.12.2012 qua sweepers who used to work in village Qutubgarh Narela Zone. He deposed that in 2012, Narela Zone of MCD used to observe month from 16th day of a month to 15th day of next month. In December 2012, the month for the purpose of attendance and salary was from 16.11.2012 to 15.12.2012. He next deposed that posting of accused Laxmi @ Lambo on 07.12.2012 as sweeper was in village Qutubgarh and her attendance was marked in the attendance register by Assistant Sanitary Inspector Rambir Singh. The attendance of sweepers used to be marked at the time of arrival and departure from duty place. Assistant Sanitary Inspector used to take their physical attendance at 12:00 noon. He placed on record the attendance register dated 07.12.2012 as Ex.DW2/B.
24. Ld. defence counsels argued that the prosecution is relying upon only two sets of evidence i.e. dying declaration and suicide note and both are unbelievable. They submitted that the incident is said to have taken place at about 1.00 - 2.00 pm and the PCR was informed accordingly which took injured to the hospital. Her condition was very serious. She was unconscious when she reached M.V. Hospital and then, she was referred to LNJP Hospital where she remained admitted for three days. She had sustained 98%
- 100% burn injuries. Her family members could not talk to her due State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 24 of 45 to unconsciousness. So, she was not in a position to make statement to anybody. PW4 and PW33 did not obtain opinion from doctor about her fitness to make statement. Her right hand from both sides was unburnt but thumb impression was not taken on the statement. The prosecution failed to prove that her statement was bearing signature of any doctor. As per chargesheet, the prosecution case is that the victim made oral dying declaration to her son and husband also but they did not support that version. So, the dying declaration is not believable and it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated by any other evidence. They further submitted that the dying declaration is not corroborated by any evidence and rather, it is contradicted. The defence of accused Lambo that she was on duty on 07.12.2012 from 7.00 am to 3.00 pm, is also ripping through the dying declaration. They next submitted that motive stated by prosecution witnesses for the accused to burn victim is that the victim used to quarrel with them which is not so strong which may impel them to burn that lady. They lastly argued that the Executive Magistrate and police did not comply with Delhi High Court Rules and Orders in recording statement of the victim.
They next argued that the second set of evidence i.e. suicide note is also not believable. As per prosecution case, it was recovered from the house of the victim on the very day of the incident in the presence of her son/PW31. But PW31 denied about State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 25 of 45 seizure of suicide note in his presence. CFSL Hyderabad compared the suicide note with the list of jewellery articles given to IO by victim's brother Rakesh. They submitted that the list was handed over to IO/PW35 by PW21 on 27.11.2013 i.e. much after a delay. Such delay is fatal to the genuineness of the list. Moreover, said list remained unsealed in the custody of IO till 18.02.2013 and hence, there are chances of tampering. PW13 and PW14 are claiming adversely to each other that they handed over the list of jewellery articles to them. Last argument is that the contents of suicide note remained uncorroborated.
25. They rely upon following judgments: (1) Khushal Rao vs State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22; (2) Kanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2009{3} JCC 1604; (3) State vs. Kumari Mubin Fatima & Ors., 2013{2} JCC 1099;
(4) Sampat Babso Kale & Anr. vs. The State of
Maharashtra; 2019 ({2} JCC 1603; and
(5) Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2012(1)
ACR 418 (SC).
26. Ld. additional PP replied that the victim was conscious when she reached M.V. Hospital. Before recording her statement, State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 26 of 45 PW4 had tested her fitness and thereafter, her statement was recorded by PW33 who also got himself satisfied about her fitness by putting preliminary questions. He further submitted that the dying declaration has been signed by a doctor suggesting that she was fit at that time. The victim was 98% burnt and hence, her thumb impression could not be taken on the statement. They next submitted that the dying declaration is consistent, in written form and untutored and hence, it requires no corroboration and conviction can be had solely on its basis. About presence of accused Laxmi @ Lambo somewhere else, he submitted that it is very much possible that she after marking presence, might have come to her village and after setting the victim ablaze, she again went to the duty place and marked her presence of departure.
He admitted that the list of dowry articles was handed over to IO by PW21 quite later and the reason is that PW21 was under the belief that victim's family members would give police some documents written by victim and where they failed, he swung into action. He admitted that the list was kept unsealed upto 18.02.2013 by IO. But there was no possibility of tampering because the suicide note had already been seized on 07.12.2012 and its scribe had died on 09.12.2012. He further submitted that like dying declaration, corroboration of suicide note is not required.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 27 of 45
27. DYING DECLARATION:
About reliability and probative value of dying declaration, Hon'ble Apex Court held in Khushal Rao Vs State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22, as under: "It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 28 of 45 consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties".
"In order to pass the test of reliability , a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by crossexamination. But once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities".
In Kanti Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the dying declaration was recorded by the reader of the Tehsildar and not by the Tehsildar himself. He did not ask any any preliminary question from the deceased before recording dying declaration. Mother of the State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 29 of 45 deceased had refused to put her signatures or thumb impression on the dying declaration. The declaration did not bear the endorsement of the Tehsildar, who recorded it, to the effect that it was read over and explained to the deceased. There was no certificate from the doctor to prove that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give statement. Hon'ble Apex disbelieved the dying declaration.
In State vs. Kumari Mubin Fatima & Ors. (supra), the scribe had not followed Hon'ble Delhi High Court Rules in recording dying declaration. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "54. Ms. Rita Gauba, learned APP for the State has drawn our attention to chapter 13A relating to Dying Declaration of Volume III of Delhi High Court Rules, Rules, 3,4,7 and 8 are relevant and read as follows: "3. Fitness of the declarant to make the statement should be got examined Before proceedings to record the dying declaration, the Judicial Magistrate shall satisfy himself that the declarant is in a ill condition to make a statement, and if the medical officer is present, or his attendance can be secured without loss of time, his certificate as to the fitness of the declarant to make a statement should be obtained. If, however, the circumstances do not permit waiting or the attendance of the Medical Officer, the Judicial magistrate may in such cases proceed forthwith to record the dying declaration but he should note down why he State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 30 of 45 considered it impracticable or inadvisable to wait for a doctror's attendance.
4. The Statement of the declarant should in the form of a simple narrative -
The statement, whether made on oath or otherwise, shall be taken down by the Judicial Magistrate in the form of a simple narrative. This, however, will not prevent the Judicial Magistrate from clearing up any ambiguity, or asking the declarant to disclose the cause of his apprehended death or the circumstances of the transaction in which he sustained the injuries. If any occasion arises for putting questions to the dying man, the Judicial Magistrate should record the question also the answers which he receives. The actual words of the declarant should be taken down and not merely their substance. As far as possible the statement should be recorded in the language of the declarant or the Court language.
x x x
7. Recording of a Dying declaration by a Police Officer or Medical Officer -
Where a dying declaration is recorded by a Police Officer or a Medical Officer, it shall, so far as possible, be got attested by one or more of the persons who happen to be present at the time.
8. Fitness of the Declarant to make a statement to be certified by the Judicial Magistrate or other officer concerned -
The Judicial Magistrate or other officer State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 31 of 45 recording a dying declaration shall at the conclusion of the dying declaration certify that the declarant was fit to make a statement and it contained a correct and faithful record of the statement made by him as well as of the questions, if any, that were put to him by the justice recording the statement. If the accused or his counsel happens to be present at the time the dying declaration is recorded, his presence and objection, if any raise by him shall be noted by the judicial Magistrate or the officer recording the dying declaration, but the accused of his counsel shall not be entitled to crossexamine the declarant."
"56. There is no certification by PW10 Shri P.K. Sofat in the instant case in compliance with Rule 8 as well. PW10 has also violated the mandate of Rules 3 and A aforenoticed."
"57. The above discussion would show that clearly there is no evidence at all that the deceased was fit to make a statement when Ex.PW10/A was recorded."
28. In Sampat Babso Kale & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2019 [2] JCC 1603, the victim was burnt 98%. The Apex Court held that there was serious doubt whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement.
In Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2012 (1) ACR 418 (SC), the dying declaration did not carry the certificate by the Executive Magistrate to the effect that it was voluntary statement State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 32 of 45 made by the deceased and that he had read over the same to her. It was not attested by the doctor. At that time, the victim was under the influence of Fortwin and Pethidine injections. The Apex Court held that when the victim had 97% burn and was under sedatives, she could not be expected to make statement without asking any question. The Apex Court did not believe the dying declaration.
29. The PCR officials reached the spot and responded back to the PCR Head Quarter, as mentioned in PCR form1 Ex.PW10/A, that a lady of 42 years was lying on the floor in burnt condition and was unconscious. Her body was strained and froth was coming out from her mouth.
PW15's duty was on CATS ambulance Alpha 15 and after receipt of wireless information, she proceeded towards the spot but met PCR officials near village Daryapur and on her request, the victim was kept in her ambulance. She deposed in cross examination that when she shifted the patient in ambulance, she was unconscious.
PW8 Dr. Amit Shokeen had initially examined the victim in M.V. Hospital and he deposed that patient was conscious but not oriented.
After initial examination, she was referred to S.R. Surgery where she was examined by Dr. Vivek Kumar Singh who noted in her MLC that she had 100% burnt on the body.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 33 of 45 Dr. Rajesh, S.R. Gynae was to examine the victim internally but her vaginal examination could not be conducted as she had suffered 100% burn injuries.
The death summary Ex.PW11/A prepared by Dr. Nishant was proved by Dr. Varsha Gupta who deposed that as per summary, the victim had 100% burn injuries.
PW3 Dr. Jatin Bodwal conducted postmortem and he opined that the victim was burnt upto 98% and that her right hand was unburnt from both sides.
30. PW4 deposed in cross examination that the condition of the patient was worse as her body was badly burnt and she was not in a position to speak and with great efforts she spoke.
PW33 deposed in cross examination that he reached M.V. Hospital at 3.00 pm and he did not ask the doctor about the condition of the patient. He further deposed that he observed that injured was not fit for statement. He admitted it correct that he could not talk to injured because she was not in a position to speak. He met injured in LNJP Hospital at 6.40 pm. He further admitted it correct that he was not sure whether she was fit for statement between 3.00 - 6.40 pm. Lastly, he admitted that he did not obtain fitness certificate from the doctor that the victim was fit to make State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 34 of 45 statement.
Victim's husband PW13 spoke volumes about worse condition of his wife. He deposed that during his wife's stay in the hospital for three days, he could not talk to her as she was burnt 100%.
31. In view of above discussion, it is held that victim was unconscious right from burning till death and that she was not in a position to make statement.
32. PW4 and PW33 deposed that they had made enquiry from the victim and found her fit to make statement. But PW33 admitted that he did not ask any doctor to issue certificate regarding victim's fitness to make statement. He deposed that the doctor opined that the injured was fit for statement. The doctor informed him that he had already reduced in writing whatever the patient told him. But no fitness certificate or statement of the patient recorded by any doctor, is on the file. When a specific question was asked from PW4 whether he had obtained the fitness certificate from the doctor or not, his reply was that he cannot tell about it. He volunteered that he must have asked from the concerned doctor whether the patient was fit for statement or not. In further cross examination, he deposed that whether statement Ex.PW4/A was bearing the signature of a State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 35 of 45 doctor at pointC, he replied that there is no mention of the name of the doctor or the person, who had signed at pointC. He again volunteered and deposed that the doctor had signed at pointC. It is pertinent to mention that in chargesheet, no doctor has been cited as a witness, who may have signed at pointC. Bad condition of the patient has further been deposed by PW4 himself by making voluntary statement at page no. 4 of the cross examination that the doctor who had signed at pointC, initially refused to sign stating that he had no role to sign such statement and that the signature of that doctor was obtained after much insistence. Initial refusal by the doctor to sign the statement of the victim and thereafter, signing the same after insistence of Magistrate and police, suggests that the doctor was not satisfied about the condition of the victim to make statement and when the police officials and Magistrate put pressure upon him, he buckled and signed at pointC. The prosecution was well aware that he would not support the prosecution case and that is why, his name has not been mentioned in the list of witnesses.
33. The dying declaration is not bearing the signature of the victim despite the fact that her right hand from both sides was in unburnt condition. Reason of not obtaining her thumb impression on statement, given by PW4 is quite absurd to the effect that she was in a bad condition and speaking with great effort and that is why, her State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 36 of 45 signature or thumb impression were not taken. Thumb impression/signature is not done with mouth, but with hands or foot. One hand of the victim was in unburnt condition. Non obtaining of thumb impression is also making this court to disbelieve her statement.
34. Perusal of chargesheet and statement of the witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. shows that to corroborate that victim was fit to make statement, the police came out with the version that she made oral dying declaration to her sons and husband. But they i.e. PW13, PW24 and PW31 deposed that she did not tell them in the hospital that three lady accused persons had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and lit her to fire. Rather, PW13 went one step further by deposing that he could not talk to his wife for entire three days in the hospital as she was 100% burnt.
35. There is no corroboration of the dying declaration. PW13 deposed in cross examination that his brother broke the door open. It is pertinent to mention that it was PW23 Jagbir, brother of PW13, was the first person who had reached to the spot first. In this regard, PW13 is corroborated by PW27, who deposed that when he reached the spot, he found door of the house of victim bolted from inside. Had three lady accused persons set victim on fire in her house, there State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 37 of 45 is no explanation from prosecution how the door was bolted from inside.
The homicidal story has been cut short by cross examination of PW13 who deposed that initially he had told police that his wife had committed suicide. He further deposed that his nephew told him that his chachi had committed suicide. It is pertinent to mention that PW13 had come to his house on receipt of information on phone from his nephew.
The suicide note Ex.PW13/E2 is also cutting short the life of homicide death contained in dying declaration.
As per the dying declaration, kerosene oil was poured upon victim and then she was set ablaze. But PW32 deposed that when he alongwith PW33 reached the spot, he did not notice kerosene oil on walls and floor. PW33 also admitted that there was no smell of kerosene oil on the spot. As per FSL report Ex.PW39/A, the hair sealed by the doctor, did not smell kerosene and burnt match sticks and match box lifted from the spot, also did not smell kerosene. So, the version of burning by sprinkling kerosene oil is not corroborated.
36. Defence of accused Laxmi @ Lambo is that on the relevant date i.e. 07.12.2012, she was not present in her village from 7.00 am to 3.00 pm as she was on duty in village Qutubgarh where State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 38 of 45 she had marked her presence. PW35 deposed that he collected report Mark PW35/X dated 17.04.2013 from Sanitation Superintendent, CSE, Narela Zone, MCD to the effect that accused Laxmi @ Lambo was on duty on 07.12.2012 from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm. But he added that it was not feasible for MCD to supervise whether she had performed duty during the whole time.
DW2 deposed that accused Laxmi @ Lambo was working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector and her duty on 07.12.2012 was in Qutubgarh where her presence was marked at the time of arrival and departure. He further deposed that duty hours were from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm. He next deposed that the Assistant Sanitary Superintendent used to take physical attendance of the sweepers at 12:00 pm. DW1 accused Laxmi @ Lambo deposed that the attendance register dated 07.12.2012 was bearing his thumb impressions at serial no. 4. There is no material on record before this Court to hold that the MCD was not able to supervise presence of accused Laxmi @ Lambo at her duty place from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm. Her presence in village Qutubgarh at that time is proved by the attendance register. If Laxmi @ Lambo was present in village Qutubgarh from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm, she cannot be expected to present at another place i.e. her own village Mungespur at about 1.00
- 2.00 pm. Her defence is also making the probative value of the State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 39 of 45 dying declaration less.
37. As per PW13, PW24 and PW31, male accused persons used to abuse the victim and whenever she requested them not to do so, they used to threaten her. Further motive stated by them is that accused Seema, Laxmi @ Lambo and Santosh used to allege that two persons were on visiting terms with the lady.
Above kind of allegations suggest not more than routine bickering which were not sufficient to enrage the accused persons to murder victim by burning.
38. In view of above discussion, dying declaration is disbelieved.
39. SUICIDE NOTE:
The prosecution case is that suicide note was recovered from the house of deceased in the presence of her son Sumit. It is correct that Sumit deposed that he did not hand over suicide note to the police. Simultaneously, he admitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW32/D of the suicide note was bearing his signature at pointC. Merely because it has been deposed by Sumit that suicide note was not recovered in his possession, does not mean that it has been planted because such recovery has been proved by PW32 and PW33.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 40 of 45 Presence of signature of Sumit is also suggesting that such recovery was effected in his presence.
It is correct that the document containing admitted handwriting of the victim i.e. list of jewellery items prepared by victim, was given to police on 27.01.2013 whereas the incident had taken place on 07.12.2012. It is also correct that as per PW35, the said list was in unsealed condition with him till 18.02.2013. But these facts do not suggest that the list was tampered with by any person because the person who could have tempered that document, had already passed away on 09.12.2012. If anybody else than victim had written jewellery list, the same would not have matched with the suicide note as per CFSL report.
40. CFSL report opines that the suicide note was written by the same person by whom the jewellery articles list was written. It has been deposed by PW21 Rakesh that his sister handed him over her jewellery to keep the same in safe custody as the theft incidents were quite common in her area. For the purpose of identification of jewellery articles, she had written the list i.e. admitted document. It was written in the presence of PW21 Rakesh Kumar. Hence, it is held that the suicide note was written by prosecutrix herself.
41. But the suicide note is not credible due to following State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 41 of 45 reasons:
(i) The victim told the Executive Magistrate in dying declaration that she had kept a suicide note under a pillow which was placed on a bed in her house and that she had told about that note to her son Sumit after she was set ablaze. But PW31 Sumit deposed that her mother did not tell him about the suicide note.
(ii). As per suicide note, Dharampal, Shyam Lal, Dara Singh and Raj Kumar were responsible for her death. First, they levelled false allegations against him. But sons and husband of the victim deposed that the false allegations used to be levelled against victim by lady accused persons. They further deposed that male accused persons used to abuse victim in indecent language.
(iii). It is mentioned in the suicide note that one day when she was alone at home, all four persons did kukaram with her and threatened not to spare her family member if she disclosed anybody about the incident. When she complained to their family members, they also held her wrong. No date, month and year of the rape incident has come on record. It is not clear when the victim complained against male accused persons to their family members.
(iv). It is further mentioned in the suicide note that accused persons quarreled with her son several times. The sons have been examined as PW24 and PW31 and they did not depose that any of the accused had ever quarreled with them. Rather, it has been State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 42 of 45 deposed by PW31 Sumit that there were no quarrel between her mother and the accused persons. Victim's husband deposed it correct that his son Sumit was once electrocuted before the death of his wife and he was taken to the hospital and looked after by accused Laxmi @ Lambo. Deposition of PW13 in this regard is totally opposite to the above contents of the suicide note.
(v). It is further mentioned in the suicide note that the children namely Rohit, Rahul, Tarun, Chhotu and Sandeep of the accused persons were also complicit with them. None of the child was apprehended and chargesheeted by the police. It means that the prosecution also doubted the version of victim in that regard.
(vi). It is further mentioned in the suicide note that when she gave complaint to police against accused persons, they threatened to level false allegation of theft against her. It means that before 07.12.2012, she had given a complaint to the police against the accused persons regarding rape and threat, etc. But such complaint is not on the file. Such a complaint of cognizable offence could not have gone unnoticed.
(vii). It is further mentioned in the suicide note that accused Lambo and her son Rakesh were also complicit in the incident. Again, the police did not apprehend Rakesh suggesting that the prosecution itself did not believe suicide note in that regard.
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 43 of 45
(viii). Two sons and husband of the victim deposed that the prosecutrix used to tell them about the altercation with accused persons. They did not depose that the lady ever told them about rape. Had she been raped, she would have definitely told her husband and sons as the incident was major one.
42. In view of above discussion, the suicide note is also disbelieved.
43. CONCLUSION:
PW13, husband of the prosecutrix, deposed it correct that prior to the incident, his wife was under depression due to illness. PW34 Sunny also deposed that her mother used to remain upset as she was suffering from typhoid and depression.
The prosecution did not place on record any other evidence against the accused persons.
44. Accordingly, all accused persons are acquitted of the offences, they were charged with.
The personal and surety bonds of all the accused are hereby cancelled. Sureties are hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety(s), be State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc. SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 44 of 45 cancelled and the document(s) be returned to them.
45. However, in terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., all the accused persons have furnished personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety each of the like amount, which are accepted with the directions to appear before higher Court, in the event, they receive any notice of appeal or petition against the order.
File be consigned to record room.
UMED Digitally signed
by UMED SINGH
SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2019.12.20
GREWAL 12:56:18 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
On this 19th December 2019 ASJ: Special FTC (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi
State Vs. Laxmi @ Lambo etc.
SC No. 50844/16; FIR No. 406/12, PS Bawana Page No. 45 of 45