Delhi District Court
(1) "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs . State Of Maharashtra", Cited As on 5 December, 2011
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 191/05
PS : Shahdara, Delhi
U/s : 304/201/498-A IPC
Unique Case ID : 02402R0 415372005
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Ajay Rawat S/o Sh. Prahlad Dass Rawat
R/o: F-120, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Kanta Devi W/o Sh. Prahlad Dass Rawat
R/o: F-120, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 31/2011
Date of Institution : 21.07.2005
Date of reserving judgment/order : 16.11.2011
Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2011
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Ajay Rawat and Kanta Devi were sent up by police of PS:
Shahdara, Delhi to stand trial for offence punishable under Section 304/201/498-A IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.05.2005, ASI Yogender Singh of PS Shahdara Delhi received the DD No. 42-A that "House FIR No. : 191/05 Page 1 of 49 -2- of his sister is located at F-120, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, behind Shyam Lal College and she was killed by her in- laws and her dead body was sent for cremation without conducting the postmortem examination". On receipt of the same, ASI Yogender Singh alongwith Ct. Subhash reached at the spot at F-120, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi where a dead body of one female whose name came to be known as Tripti W/o Ajay Rawat, was found in the first room of the first floor of house No. F-120, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi. The crowd was collected there. On inquiry, it was revealed that Tripti (deceased) had expired as she had fallen on the road from the second floor of the house. The blood was oozing out from the head of the dead body. ASI Yoginder Singh found the matter to be suspicious. ASI Yoginder Singh prepared the inquest papers and the dead body was sent to Mortuary GTB Hospital for postmortem. The spot was got photographed and the crime team was called at the spot. On inquiry, it was further revealed that at about 8.30 PM, a quarrel had taken place between accused Ajay Rawat and Tripti (deceased) on the roof of second floor of the house and soon after that quarrel, the incident had occurred.
3. In the meantime, brother of deceased namely Sh. Sumeer Rawat made one complaint to ASI at GTB Hospital, stating therein, his sister was married with accused Ajay in June 1996. After marriage, her sister was ill-treated by her in-laws and they were also giving beatings to her. Two-three years earlier also, on one day, her in-
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 2 of 49 -3-laws had given beatings to her regarding which a complaint was made at 100 number and PCR had referred the case to Police Station and the then SHO made them understand but they did not mend their ways and they have killed his sister yesterday. The complaint on 100 number was made by his other sister Sudha who lives at Hauz Khazi and since, then he was not informed by in-laws of his deceased sister. His father and other sister was at their house at Rajouri Garden. They were also not informed by the in- laws of deceased. He was going to Firozabad to attend the marriage and at about 10 PM, on 12.05.2005, his other brother-in- law (behnoi) informed him that Tripti (deceased) has fallen from the roof but before they reached at Delhi, his father had contacted 100 number from other relatives. At GTB Hospital, her in-laws had taken away the dead body without showing the same to his family members and his family members kept crying and when police was again contacted. The police, on their asking, had taken the dead body for the postmortem. In the meantime, he also came at about 4 PM and on seeing the dead body of Tripti (deceased), it is apparent that she has been beaten before her killing and the matter has been tried to shown as suicide. They did not inform them nor called the police. Firstly, they had taken her to Shanti Nursing Home and from there, they had taken her to GTB Hospital. The hospital officials also did not call the police. On the dead body, there are clear signs of beatings. The eye-lids were swallow and were blue and he could see only the face of his sister in the FIR No. : 191/05 Page 3 of 49 -4- mortuary. He also saw the death certificate there and there is an over-writing in the same in the column of duration of time. It is apparent that she has been killed after planning and conspiracy. Therefore, he makes request that her in-laws be arrested, so that, they do not destroy the evidence and dead body be shown to them before the postmortem. He also stated that Tripti (deceased) has two children and they would be the eye-witness. Their statements be also recorded.
4. The postmortem examination on the dead body was conducted on 13.05.2005 and doctor has opined the cause of death as "shock due to antemortem cranio cerebral damage produced by blunt force impact on head". On the basis of above-said complaint of Sh. Sumeer Rawat, FIR for the offence punishable U/s 304/201 IPC was registered. The statement of daughter of deceased Tripti Kumari Sakshi U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. Later on, accused Ajay Rawat was arrested. Thereafter, case was transferred to Crime Branch and investigation of this case was entrusted to S.I Shailender Tomar who seized the documents regarding the treatment of deceased at GTB Hospital. The subsequent opinion was also obtained from the doctor and doctor stated that injuries mentioned in the postmortem report were possible to cause by fall from height. However, as regards the manner in which the death was caused, it was stated that there is no definite opinion given regarding manner of death as it is the matter of investigation and IO can tell. Subsequently, offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC was FIR No. : 191/05 Page 4 of 49 -5- also added against accused Kanta Devi (mother-in-law of deceased) and accused Ajay Rawat. Thereafter, accused Kanta Devi was arrested. However, she was on anticipatory bail, therefore, she was released. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
5. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons, committed the case to the court of sessions vide order dated 17.08.2005.
6. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.10.2005, after finding prima-facie offence, charged accused Ajay Rawat for offences punishable U/s 302/201 IPC and also charged both accused i.e accused Ajay Rawat and Kanta Devi for offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 27 witnesses.
8. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :
(i) PW-1 Kumari Sakshi (aged about 8 years) is the daughter of deceased Tripti and accused Ajay Rawat.
She has, however, turned hostile towards the prosecution case.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 5 of 49 -6-(ii) PW-2 Sh. Sumeer Rawat is the complainant and brother of deceased. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW2/A.
(iii) PW-3 Sh. Dharm Prakash Rawat is the taya sasur of Tripti (deceased).
(iv) PW-8 Smt. Vijay Kumari is the sister-in-law of accused Kanti Devi. She has, however, turned hostile towards the prosecution case.
(v) PW-10 Smt. Kiran Rawat is the sister-in-law (bhabi) of deceased Tripti.
(vi) PW-11 Smt. Kastori Devi is the mother of deceased Tripti.
(vii) PW-15 Jyoti Rawat is the younger sister of deceased Tripti.
(viii) PW-18 Sh. Vijay Prakash Rawat is the elder brother-in-
law (jija) of deceased Tripti.
(ix) PW-27 Sudhir Babu is the brother of deceased Tripti. He proved his statement as Ex.PW27/A, regarding the identification of the dead body.
9. The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses :
(i) PW-6 H.C Hari Om is the witness of recording of disclosure statement of accused Ajay Rawat.
(ii) PW-7 Ct. Manoj Kumar obtained the photocopies of medical documents in relation to treatment of deceased FIR No. : 191/05 Page 6 of 49 -7- Tripti from GTB Hospital. He handed over the same to S.I Shailender Tomar who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The photocopies of those documents are mark A1 to A7 including application.
(iii) PW-9 ASI Rajpal is the duty officer who on the receipt of rukka registered the FIR U/s 304/201 IPC and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/A.
(iv) PW-12 S.I Suman Kumar was the Incharge Mobile Crime Team, N/E District who inspected the scene of crime.
(v) PW-13 S.I Ram Dhan was the duty officer on 13.05.2005.
who recorded DD No. 42-A and proved the same as Ex.PW13/A.
(vi) PW-16 Dr. S.Lal who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Tripti. He opined that the cause of death was shock due to antemortem caranio cerebral damage produced by blunt force impact on head. The time since death was about 12 hours. He proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW16/A, application of IO as Ex.PW16/B and subsequent opinion as Ex.PW16/C.
(vii) PW-17 H.C Surender Singh who proved the relevant entries regarding the complaint given by Sumeer Rawat to reader to ACP, SIT Section, Crime Branch, Delhi.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 7 of 49 -8-(viii) PW-21 Ct. Sanjeev is the photographer who took the nine photographs of the spot and proved the same as Ex.PW21/P-10 to PW21/P18 and its negatives as Ex.PW21/P1 to Ex.PW21/P9.
(ix) PW-22 Dr. Rajender Pal who was working as consultant in Shanti Nursing Home at Naveen Shahdara, Delhi and deposed that he did not attend any patient named Tripti W/o Ajay Rawat.
(x) PW-23 Sh. Kapileshwar, Record Clerk, GTB Hospital who proved the original treatment papers of deceased Tripti as Ex.PW23/P1 to P8.
(xi) PW-25 Dr. Jayesh, Master of Suregery, GTB Hospital who proved the signatures of Dr. Romil Chada on admission card of Tripti at point A on Ex.PW23/P1-A. He also proved the document Ex.PW25/A prepared in casualty, carbon copy of death certificate of Tripti as Ex.PW25/B having signatures of Dr. Romil at point A, according to which, the cause of death was cardiac respiratory failure. He also proved the signatures of Dr. Romil Chaddha on documents Ex.PW25/C and Ex.PW25/D. He also proved the death summary as Ex.PW25/D.
(xii) PW-26 Dr. R. Dua who was the HOD of Neuro Surgery Department at GTB Hospital in the year 2005 and on FIR No. : 191/05 Page 8 of 49 -9- 12.05.2005, at about 9.40 PM, Tripti (deceased) was admitted in the hospital with history of fall from height. She deposed that the patient expired on 13.05.2005, at about 1 AM and the patient was having severe brain injury as well as chest injury and was diagnosed having fracture on fourth and fifth ribs. She identified the signatures and handwritings of Dr. Romil Chadda on admission record as well as death certificate of deceased.
10. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of arrest and investigation :
(i) PW-4 Ct. Lokesh Singh is the witness of arrest of accused Ajay Rawat. He proved the arrest memo of accused Ajay Rawat vide Ex.PW4/A and his personal search memo vide Ex.PW4/B.
(ii) PW-5 Ct. Subhash is the witness who initially reached at the spot with IO/ASI Yogender Singh. He proved the seizure memo of one bottle filled with water vide Ex.PW5/A, seizure memo of shirt alongwith said bucket vide memo Ex.PW5/A, seizure memo of white peticoat and golden colour sari vide Ex.PW5/B, seizure memo of Paper which was handed over to them vide Ex.PW5/C.
(iii) PW-14 S.I Shalender to whom investigation of this case was assigned on 01.06.2005. He seized the medical FIR No. : 191/05 Page 9 of 49 -10- papers pertaining to deceased obtained from GTB Hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He also obtained two days police custody remand of accused Ajay Rawat on 06.06.2005.
(iv) PW-19 S.I Dinesh Kumar to whom investigation of this case was also assigned on 25.05.2005. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan of the spot vide Ex.PW19/A at the instance of ASI Yogender. He recorded the statement of Kumari Shakshi vide Ex.PW1/A. He also arrested accused Ajay Rawat.
(v) PW-20 ASI Yoginder Singh is the first Investigating Officer who reached at the spot on the receipt of DD No. 42-A. He inspected the spot initially. He also called the crime team and photographer at the spot. He also seized the water lying in the bucket after filling it in a plastic bottle and also seized shirt and bucket vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He also took up the inquest proceedings at the mortuary of GTB Hospital and also recorded the statements of the relatives of deceased regarding identification of dead body. He recorded the statements of Sumeer Rawat, Naresh Rawat and Ajay Rawat which are Ex.PW20/A1 to Ex.PW20/A3 respectively and statement of Sudhir which is Ex.PW27/A. He filled up the inquest form vide Ex.PW20/B. He in addition to other memos proved the request for postmortem vide Ex.PW20/C, receipt though FIR No. : 191/05 Page 10 of 49 -11- which dead body was handed over to Smt. Kanta Devi and Smt. Mithlesh vide Ex.PW20/D. He prepared rukka Ex.PW20/E and got the FIR registered.
(vi) PW-24 Inspector Ashok Kumar to whom the file of the present case was marked for further investigation on 07.06.2005. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Rawat which is Ex.PW24/A. He moved an application Ex.PW16/B in GTB Hospital seeking subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW16/C. He also recorded the statement of PWs including one Dharam Prakash Rawat and thereafter, added section 498-A IPC to Section 304/201 IPC. He formally arrested accused Kanta Devi who was on anticipatory bail. He after completing the investigation, prepared the challan and filed the same in the court.
11. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Ajay Rawat was partly recorded on 04.07.2011 by my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter, the matter was transferred from the court of my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter, when the matter was assigned to the court of the undersigned, the complete statements of accused persons were recorded on 23.08.2011, wherein, they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.
12. Accused Ajay Rawat in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C has stated FIR No. : 191/05 Page 11 of 49 -12- that he was sleeping in his house and his daughter namely Sakshi Rawat, aged about 13 years had woken him up and told him that his wife has fallen from second floor where they were residing. The railing of the second floor is about 2 feet. He does not know how she had fallen. He immediately took her to nearby Shanti Nursing Home, they advised them to take her to neuro ICU, GTB Hospital. Hence, from there, he immediately took her to GTB Hospital. His daughter, in the meanwhile informed Sh. Vijay Prakash Rawat, who in turned informed all relatives from in-laws side. All the relatives reached at GTB Hospital by 11.30 PM. His wife was declared dead by doctor at 1.00 AM (midnight). The relatives came to his house in van with the dead body. After the body was kept in the house at about 1.40 AM, his in-laws informed the police. At the relevant time, he had work offset printing and was financially well off. He is still having printing press at his house in the name and style of Gook Will Graphics. He want to submit documents showing his marriage with deceased (SA1 and SA2), bank deposits slip (SA3 to SA10), application for allotment of industrial plot (SA11 to SA37), registration certificate for vehicle scooter (SA38), treatment papers of Tripti Rawat (SA39 to SA41), purchase bill of offset printing machine (SA42), Payment bill and R/c, cover-note of car (SA43 to SA45), FIR of loss of RC (SA46), the fee receipts of Sakshi Rawat (SA47 to SA48). He stated that he is falsely implicated. Police has recorded false statement of his daughter and also obtained his signatures on blank papers. He choses to lead evidence in his FIR No. : 191/05 Page 12 of 49 -13- defence.
13. Accused Kanta Devi in her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C has stated that this is a false case. In her house on the ground floor, her elder son namely Naresh Rawat lives with his family. In the first floor, she was living with her husband and she had separate kitchen and on the second floor, her son Ajay Rawat was living with his wife and children. There was no dispute among her son and his wife and they were living happily and cordially. She is heart patient. Her husband was paralyzed and therefore, she was unable to go upstairs. Her daughter-in-law used to sit on the boundary wall of balcony which was having low height. She might have fallen on that account. She also choses to lead evidence in her defence.
14. Accused persons examined DW-1 Sh. Satender in their defence.
15. I have heard Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State, Sh.
Y.S Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant and Sh. Pankaj Tomar & Sh. Gulshan Antal, Advocates for the accused persons. I have also gone through the record.
16. The charge against accused Ajay Rawat is that he committed the murder of his wife Tripti by pushing her off the terrace of the second floor of the house to the ground and secondly that, after causing the death of his wife, he did not inform the police and thereafter by taking the dead body of his deceased wife from the FIR No. : 191/05 Page 13 of 49 -14- hospital to his house for the purpose of cremation without informing anyone with intent of screening himself from legal punishment, he has committed offence punishable U/s 201 IPC.
17. To prove the above-said charge, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Kumari Sakshi. PW-1 Kumari Sakshi is the daughter of deceased Tripti and accused Ajay Rawat and she is the most material witness of this case. She was aged about 8 years when examined in the court. She, however, did not support the prosecution case and stated that she used to reside with her parents on the third floor of the house. On the ground floor, her tauji namely Naresh was residing. Her grand-mother was residing on the first floor of the house. Nobody used to quarrel with her mother or beat her in her presence. Her father did not use to quarrel with her mother or beat her. Her grand-mother also did not used to quarrel with her mother or beat her. She further stated that on 12.04.2005, in the evening time, she was playing in the Gali. When she was climbing the stairs to her house, she heard the noise of 'Thud'. She looked out of the window of her house, she saw that her mother Tripti had fallen down. She had then woken-up her father who was sleeping at that time. She had then rung-up to her Vijay mausiji at her home. Her father had then gone down stairs, and taken her mother to the hospital. She had not gone to the hospital at that time and had remained at home. She was declared hostile towards the prosecution case. She was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. P.P for the State, wherein, she denied that FIR No. : 191/05 Page 14 of 49 -15- her father Ajay Rawat used to give beatings to her mother Tripti in her presence and denied that on 12.05.2005 there was a quarrel between her father Ajay Rawat and mother Tripti. She also denied that her mother had fallen down from the third floor railing to the road below due to push of her father Ajay Rawat, at that time.
18. PW-2 Sumeer Rawat, brother of the deceased, is the witness of hearsay as he has reached subsequently to the hospital. He testified that on 12.05.2005, in the night time, his second brother- in-law namely Sh. Vijay Prakash Rawat telephoned him that Tripti had fallen from roof which was told to him by Sunny son of Nanad of Tripti. He reacted the same and told Vijay that she was murdered and also told him to inform the police at 100 number. Sh. Dharam Prakash Rawat, father of Vijay Prakash informed the police. Police did not taken any action on the information. He was later on, informed by his family members that when the accused persons were taking away the body of Tripti from the hospital, on asking, they had told that they are shifting her to another ward in the same hospital but instead of shifting her there, they had taken away her body to their home, at that time. He further stated that at that time, he was at Firozabad and on the receipt of this information, he alongwith his family proceeded to Delhi and on coming to Delhi, they came to know that Tripti was in GTB Hospital and he came to GTB Hospital and he found Ajay Rawat alongwith ASI Yogender Singh sitting outside of mortuary. He saw the papers kept by ASI Yogender Singh and he found the over-writing on the FIR No. : 191/05 Page 15 of 49 -16- death certificate and his suspicion arose that his sister Tripti had been murdered by the accused persons. He also saw many injury marks on the faces as well as on the head of Tripti. He further stated that he went to the second floor portion of the house, where room of his sister was located. He saw that second floor portion was at the height of about 22 feet. In case, someone falls from that height on the ground, then injuries on his legs, hands are bound to occur. There were no such injuries on the dead body of his sister, not even a scratch. He stated that there was a bucket kept on the side of room of deceased. One green coloured shirt having blood over it was there in that bucket. He stated that said bucket or shirt were not seized in his presence. He further stated that autopsy on dead body was done. ASI Yogender Singh asked for the report and doctor told that autopsy report would not be available that day. He stated that since, there were overwriting and cutting on certificate Mark PX at mark X, his suspicion got strength that it were doctors of the hospital, who were in connivance with police. He stated that since his report was not lodged nor autopsy report was given by the doctor, he immediately rushed to the office of National Women Commission and gave complaint Ex.PW2/A in writing to them.
19. PW-3 Sh. Dharam Prakash Rawat testified that he is taya sasur of Tripti. Tripti was married to Ajay about 10-11 years ago. In the month of May 2005, at about 8 PM, he received an information tot he effected that Tripti had fallen down from third floor. His son Vijay Prakash had informed about the incident. His son gave a FIR No. : 191/05 Page 16 of 49 -17- telephone call and asked him to inform police control room. Accordingly, police control room was telephonically informed about the incident. His grand son gave a telephone call to police control room and informed about the incident and admission of Tripti in GTB Hospital.
20. PW-8 Vijay Kumari is the sister-in-law of accused Kanti Devi. She stated that she is not aware as to what was the cause of death of Tripti. She reached at house of accused persons around 9.00 to 10.00 am. Her dead body was lying in the house of the accused, at that time. She had not seen the dead body of Tripti after removing coffin. She did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
21. PW-10 Smt. Kiran Rawat merely states that on 12.05.2005, she was at Kanpur and returned to Delhi on 13.05.2005.
22. PW-11 Smt. Kastori Devi is the mother of deceased. She testified that about two years ago, she received an information that Tripti had expired. She received information about her death at about 9.30 PM. Dimple, daughter of sister of her son-in-law came to their house and gave the sad news that Tripti had fallen from the roof. She alongwith Sudhir came to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, at about 12.00 in the night. Her daughter Sudha was present in the hospital alongwith her sister-in-law (jethani). She stated that accused and his family members were also present in the gallery of the hospital.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 17 of 49 -18-She became disturbed and thereafter, she was taken out. One of the eye of Tripti was black and bulging out of eye socket. She stated that she was not allowed to see her dead body. Her dead body was immediately taken away from the hospital. She saw her dead body at mortuary subsequently.
23. PW-15 Jyoti Rawat is the younger sister of Tripti (deceased). She testified that on 12.05.2005, Vijay gave a telephone call and told her that Tripti had fallen from roof of her house. On that very day, Tripti had talked to her on phone at about 7.30 PM. Vijay had made her telephone call around 9.00 PM. She perceived that Tripti was under fear. When, she inquired as to what the matter was, then Tripti told that her husband was sitting in front of her and she disconnected the line. She stated that when, she received telephone call of Vijay, she gave telephone call at the house of accused Ajay. It was attended by Naincy. On hearing her voice, she recognized her and uttered that mausi was on line and told this fact to Arti, who disconnected the line. Thereafter, receiver was put of the hook and her efforts to connect the line again failed.
24. PW-18 Sh. Vijay Prakash Rawat testified that on 12.05.2005, at about 8.30 PM, he was present at Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Sunni, nephew of accused Ajay Rawat, gave him a telephone call and informed that Tripti had fallen from the roof. He became disturbed on hearing that information. He gave a telephone call at the house of accused Ajay Rawat but none lifted the receiver. He gave 20-30 FIR No. : 191/05 Page 18 of 49 -19- telephone calls at the house of accused Ajay Rawat, but none responded. Receiver was lifted by Arti several times, at the house of accused Ajay Rawat, she called Hello and then put the receiver on cradle. He stated that since there were several incidents of altercations between Tripti and Ajay Rawat prior to that day, hence, he thought that it was not a case of accident and consequently, he took decision to ask his son to give call to PCR. They went to GTB Hospital, where accused persons and sister of accused Ajay Rawat were present outside the hospital premises. They were not allowed to meet Tripti on the pretext that she was being treated in the hospital. Sudhir Rawat and his father gave a telephone call to PCR, when accused Ajay Rawat was taking away dead body of Tripti.
25. PW-27 Sudhir Babu testified that on information received from his nephew namely Dimple regarding murder of his sister Tripti, he went to GTB Hospital on 12.05.2005 at about 11.45 PM. He saw the body of his sister in the mortuary on the next day in the morning. He was not allowed to go inside the ward by the in-laws of his sister including accused who were standing outside the ward. He was told by the accused persons that his sister was under treatment, whereas, in fact, she had already been murdered. She gave call to 100 number. He stated that on the next day i.e on 13.05.2005, he had identified the dead body of his sister Tripti.
26. PW-20 ASI Yogender Singh is the initial IO. He testified that on FIR No. : 191/05 Page 19 of 49 -20- 13.05.2005, DD No. 42-A was recorded in PS Shahdara and same was assigned to him for action in the matter around 2.15 AM. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Subhash proceeded for the informed place i.e F-120, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi. They reached there around 2.30 AM. He saw a dead body of a lady namely Tripti W/o Ajay Rawat was lying on the first floor of the said house in the first room. Several persons were present there. He conducted enquiries regarding death of Tripti from the persons present there and it was revealed that she had fallen from the second floor of the said house. He observed that blood was oozing from the head of the dead body. Persons who were present there were uttering that a quarrel had taken place between Ajay Rawat and Tripti and soon after that quarrel, this incident had occurred. From the perusal of the entire facts and circumstances from the spot, he found the matter to be suspicious. Crime Team was summoned at the spot and spot was photographed. He took the dead body in his custody and sent the same to Subzi Mandi Mortuary through Ct. Subhash. Thereafter, he proceeded second floor of the said house and found that a bucket filled with water upto 3/4th portion. It was appearing mixed with blood and was looking read. A shirt was also lying in that very bucket. Accused Ajay was not present there at that time. He took the entire water lying in the bucket in possession after filling it in the plastic bottle and converted the shirt and bucket into a cloth parcel and prepared memo Ex.PW5/A. FIR No. : 191/05 Page 20 of 49 -21-
27. PW-5 Ct. Subhash similarly corroborated PW-20 ASI Yogender Singh regarding receipt of information vide DD No. 42-A and their reaching at the spot. He testified that on the ground floor of the said house dead body of a lady named Tripti W/o Ajay Rawat was lying. A little blood was oozing out of the head of the dead body. A crows had collected there in the house. Dead body was taken into possession and removed to GTB Hospital Shahdara, Delhi. A bucket was kept by the side of the dead body, wherein, a blood stained shirt was lying. There was about 8 litres of water in the said bucket. One bottle was filled with that water and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Shirt was kept in a polythene bag and same was also taken into possession alongwith said bucket vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He stated that next day, postmortem on the dead body was conducted.
28. PW-16 Dr. S.Lal who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Tripti (deceased) found following ante-mortem injuries on dead body of deceased :-
(1) Surgical stitched wound with seven stitches. After opening the stitches, a lacerated wound of size 4 x 0.5 cm into bone deep present on left parietal area, 6 cm above the left pinna.
(2) Multiple bruises reddish bluish in colour (three in number) in area of 5 x 3 cm present over tip of left shoulder.
(3) Reddish bruise of 7 x 4 cm present on left side of lower back, just above the glutial fold and 5 cm left to midline.FIR No. : 191/05 Page 21 of 49 -22-
(4) Reddish bruise 6 x 4 cm present on right side of lower back, 5 cm right to midline and just above the glutial fold.
(5) Reddish bluish bruise 5 x 2 cm present over right upper glutial fold, 4 cm below the injury No. 4 and 4 cm right to midline.
(6) Reddish abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm present dorsum of right foot, 3 cm in front of medial malleolus.
(7) Reddish bruise 5 x 3 cm present on front of lower right thigh, 6 cm above the upper border of right patella.
29. The direct evidence as per the prosecution case is PW-1 Kumari Sakshi daughter of deceased who has not supported the prosecution. Therefore, we have to see whether there is any circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The circumstantial evidence is based on suspicion which had aroused in the mind of brother and other relatives of the deceased regarding fact of not informing them and that the dead body was taken stealthily from the hospital.
30. The suspicion probably has gained ground since it is noticed in India that in large number of cases, women die during the matrimony. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant has given the Statistics regarding the Inequality and Crime against Women in India. As per the statistics, every 3.5 minutes, one crime was committed against women in India in the year 2002. In the year 2002, 7,895 women were murdered due to dowry, as per report of FIR No. : 191/05 Page 22 of 49 -23- NCRB. 21 women were murdered everyday and one woman was murdered due to dowry every 66 minute. 49,237 women faced domestic violence in their marital homes. Over 40% of married women in India faces physical abuse by their husbands. However, the courts are bound in exercising jurisdiction to follow the law of land. In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, before arriving at the decision of conviction, the following tests must be satisfied :-
1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established ;
2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3) the circumstance, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
31. In the present case, the death certificate of the deceased which is Ex.PW25/B shows the time of death as 1.00 AM on 13.05.2005 and it shows the cause of death as cardio respiratory failure with head injuries. In the column No. 14 (of Ex.PW25/B) regarding duration of disease, four hours is written, however, there is some cutting on the same. The hospital record Ex.PW23/P1-8 shows that FIR No. : 191/05 Page 23 of 49 -24- she was admitted in the hospital on 12.05.2005 and days of stay as four hours. Discharged on 13.05.2005 as expired. The OPD card of deceased Ex.PW25/A dated 12.05.2005 shows the timing as 9.40 PM. It further shows the timing of examining of patient by S.R Neuro Surgery at 10.10 PM and advising the admission of patient in Neuro ICU. Further treatment is shown as Ex.PW25/C at 11.15 PM and thereafter, the examination notes are written by the doctor. At the same time, there is a referral to ENT Department Ex.PW25/D and Death Summary is Ex.PW25/E which shows that she (Tripti) was declared dead at 1.00 AM. Therefore, as per the documents, patient was examined at 9.40 PM and died at 1.00 AM. The doctor has given the duration as four hours in the death certificate and it appears that over-writing has been made from three hours to four hours. If we taken the timing from 9.40 PM to 1.00 AM, then it comes between three to four hours. Therefore, raising of suspicion on this issue is without any basis.
32. Further, PW-15 Jyoti Rawat stated that on that very day i.e on 12.05.2005, Triptil had talked to her on phone at about 7.30 PM. She inquired from her as to where Sumeer was. She told her that he had gone to Firozabad. She further inquired as to when Sumeer would be back. She told her that she was not aware about his arrival. She perceived that Tripti was under fear. When, she inquired as to what the matter was then Tripti told that her husband was sitting in front of her and she disconnected the line. The fact that PW-15 had spoken to her immediately before her death but FIR No. : 191/05 Page 24 of 49 -25- she had not stated anything to her would further show that deceased Tripti was not under any apprehension. Although, PW-15 has stated on her own perception that she (Tripti) was under fear but that cannot be taken as legal proof and merely the fact that she had disconnected the telephone line because her husband was sitting in front would not by itself show that she being under-fear of her husband being disconnected the telephone as she herself had made the telephonic call to PW-15. PW-15 Jyoti Rawat has categorically stated that she had never made telephone call at the house of accused Ajay Rawat. Meaning thereby, Tripti had herself made the phone call to her.
33. PW-16 Dr. S.Lal, opined that the cause of death was shock due to antemortem cranio cerebral damage produced by blunt force impact on head. Time since death was about 12 hours. PW-16 stated that on 23.06.2005, he gave the subsequent opinion on the application of the IO. The subsequent opinion was asked by the IO and two questions were therein (1) whether the injuries mentioned in the PM report were possible to cause by fall from height and (2) Whether the Injuries are homicidal or suicidal or accidental. In reply to the first question, the doctor opined that the injuries mentioned in the PM report were possible to cause by fall from height and in reply to the second question, the doctor replied that there is no definite opinion given regarding the manner of death, it is the matter of investigation, the IO can tell.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 25 of 49 -26-34. PW-2 Sh. Sumeer Rawat had stated that he had not noticed the injury on the other part of the dead body which occur due to fall and had also seen the second floor and there is a wall which is 2½ feet from which it is not possible that one may fall. As regards the injury, the doctor had categorically stated that these injuries on the dead body are likely to be caused by fall and merely since the witness has stated so, it cannot be much importance as he is not expert in the forensic sciences. Even otherwise, the injury as recorded by doctor is at variance with this witness as there were injury on foot, thigh and arms, as per the postmortem report. As regards the opinion of the witness that it is not possible that one may fall from the second floor, if there is a wall of 2 ½ feet. Again, this is the opinion of the witness which has no scientific basis. Therefore, the same is also be ignored.
35. Further, coming to the fact of removal of the dead body from the hospital. PW-27 Sh. Sudhir Babu in his cross-examination has stated that his mother, his father, two sisters namely Pinki @ Rashmi, Jyoti and himself had gone to GTB Hospital. He made alarm when accused persons were removing the dead body of his sister without permission. Meaning thereby, they were present in the hospital, at that time. PW-18 Sh. Vijay Prakash Rawat has stated that at about on 12.05.2005, at about 8.30PM, Sunny, nephew of accused Ajay Rawat, gave him a telephone call and informed that Tripti had fallen from the roof. As per the statement of PW-1 Kumari Sakshi recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C, she has informed FIR No. : 191/05 Page 26 of 49 -27- Sh. Prakash Rawat about the incident. Even, while PW-1 was examined in the court, she stated that she had called Vijay Mausiji at her house. Therefore, the family members of the deceased were already informed about the incident and they had reached at GTB Hospital when the deceased was under-going treatment. Therefore, it cannot be said that since, they were not informed about the fall and there was an attempt to destroy the evidence without their knowledge. PW-11 Smt. Kastori Devi testified that she alongwith Sudhir came to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, at about 12.00 in the night. Her daughter Sudha was present in the hospital alongwith her sister-in-law (jethani). Sudha was weeping, since, she was not allowed by the doctors to meet Tripti. She stated that one of the eye of Tripti was black and bulging out of eye socket and Tripti was having injuries over her head. Meaning thereby, that she had seen the dead body and her statement to the fact that she was not allowed to see the dead body at the hospital is incorrect. PW-15 Jyoti Rawat stated that in the hospital, she was not allowed by the accused persons to visit Tripti. As per the medical documents, the deceased Tripti was being treated by Neuro ICU. In any case, they could not be allowed to see her in the ICU, keeping in view of her serious condition. There is also statement of different witnesses that they repeatedly made telephone call at the house of Ajay Rawat but phone was not picked up, which is also quite natural that as accused Ajay Rawat or his family could not have picked up the phone as they were busy in the treatment of FIR No. : 191/05 Page 27 of 49 -28- Tripti. Moreover, they had already informed about the fall to the family members of the deceased. It is further stated that somebody heard the phone and later on, put the same on cradle, which alone does not in any manner show that accused persons, in any manner, tried to hide the death of deceased as the information regarding injuries of the deceased was already conveyed to them.
36. There is one more circumstance that there was a bucket lying having the red colour water containing green shirt. Ld. Counsel for the accused in this regard has stated that it was the shirt of the accused which got blood stains on account of lifting of Tripti (deceased) for treatment and there was no attempt to destroy the same as the same was lying in the house itself, to which, I am inclined to agree.
37. Moreover, all the circumstances suggested are only on the basis of suspicion. The suspicion itself is not sufficient to take the place of legal proof. In the absence of any other evidence on record, it cannot be said that it was accused Ajay Rawat who has pushed the deceased Tripti to her death and also tried to destroy the evidence by taking away her dead body stealthily from the hospital to their house for cremation without informing anybody. The family members of the deceased were present at the hospital when the death certificate was issued and deceased was declared dead.
38. PW-15 Jyoti Rawat has stated that accused Ajay Rawat had taken FIR No. : 191/05 Page 28 of 49 -29- away the dead body of Tripti stealthily and thereafter, they made efforts to approach the police. She was confronted with this portion of her statement where it was not recorded. Therefore, she had made improvement to this effect. PW-15 Jyoti Rawat, however, denied the suggestion that her father had gone to the house of accused in that very van, in which, dead body of Tripti was taken. However, the father of deceased had expired, so, he could not be examined. Therefore, his version could not be taken.
39. The deceased was discharged from the Government Hospital after the death certificate was given and there is also presence of police in the hospital. The removal of dead body in this manner as suggested is not likely and there is no investigation in this aspect that there was any foul-play played by the doctors at the hospital in connivance with the accused. Therefore, merely on the basis of suspicion without there being any evidence, it cannot be believed that the dead body was taken by accused from the hospital stealthily despite the presence of family members of deceased. Therefore, offence punishable U/s 201 IPC is not proved against accused Ajay Rawat.
40. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has cited the following judgments in support of their case :
(1) "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra", cited as JT 2006 (9) SC 50.
(2) "Yuvraj Amber Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra.", cited as 2006 (10) SCALE 369.FIR No. : 191/05 Page 29 of 49 -30-
(3) "State of West Bangal Vs. Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors", cited as 2000 SCC (Crl.) 1516.
(4) "Visveshwaran Vs. State", cited as 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporters 350 (SC).
(5) "Bhoginbhai Harjibhai Vs. State", cited as 1983 SC 753. (6) "State of U.P Vs. Devender Singh", cited as 2004 (10) SCC 616.
(7) "State of U.P Vs. M.K Anthony", cited as 1985 SCC 505. (8) "Nika Ram Vs. State of H.P", AIR 1972 SC 2007.
41. Now, I shall deal with the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for the complainant. In the case of "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State", the deceased was married with the appellant about 7 years ago before the incident and he used to ill treat her and used to harass for making demand of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing of Tempo. In the same year, she had stayed for about 15 days at her parental home and disclosed the same to them and she was often beaten and not provided food. Father of deceased took her to her matrimonial home and requested the appellant not to ill-treat her but showed his inability to pay the same. After few months, he received the information that she had died on account of snake bite. However, in the postmortem, the doctor disclosed that she had died due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck and on the basis of the same FIR was registered. The Hon'ble Supreme court shifted the burden on the accused U/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act, to show the circumstances as to how she died, in view of his contradictory version from the medical evidence and held that since the FIR No. : 191/05 Page 30 of 49 -31- explanation given by him is false, appellant convicted.
42. In the judgment of "Yuvraj Ambar Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra", appellant was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, wherein, deceased was last seen with the appellant by PWs in a room.
43. In the judgment of "State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors.", the deceased was abducted and beaten by the appellant for not paying the ransom in the presence of all the eye- witnesses and thereafter, his dead body was found on the next day. The Hon'ble Supreme Court using Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, shifted the burden on the accused and convicted him.
44. The case of "Visveswaran Vs. State" is rape case, in which, accused who was the police official had abducted the victim and taken her in taxi and thereafter, raped her. He was not identified in the court as he had grown beard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non-holding of TIP in the circumstances of the case is not fatal and dismissed the appeal.
45. The case of "Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat" is also case of rape, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that overmuch importance should not be given to the minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses for different reasons as there is a likelihood of various factors affecting the FIR No. : 191/05 Page 31 of 49 -32- observation and the witness may get overawed by the court atmosphere.
46. The case of "State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh" is of rape and murder, in which, the deceased was seen at Sugar-cane Kohlu of the father of the appellant and also seen going alongwith the appellant to the Sugar-cane field and later on, the dead body was recovered in the sugar-cane field. The father of the appellant did not permit the complainant to have a look at sugar-cane field. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of circumstances, convicted the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
47. In the judgment of "State of U.P Vs. M.K Anthony", the respondent was charged for committing the murder of his wife. He was serving as a clerk in the cash office of the Central Railway at Jhansi and was staying with his wife Anna Kutty deceased and two children at Jhansi in the quarter of R.P.F. His wife was admitted in the hospital for some gynecological disorder and surgical operation was performed. When she was confined in the hospital, the respondent had left his two minor children with PW-1. It was revealed that she had a tumor on the uterus and a major operation which may cost around Rs. 600/-. He consulted PW-1 to take his wife to Kerala for major operation. He had to pay Rs. 206/- to the hospital but he did not had the necessary cash. He asked PW1 to advance loan but he was not in a position to do so. PW-14 advanced loan at the instance of PW-1. When deceased was being FIR No. : 191/05 Page 32 of 49 -33- brought home from the hospital, on the way, respondent picked up his two children from the house of PW-1 and requested him to send his wife to the house of respondent to look after his ailing wife. On the next day ie. 27.02.1973, PW1 went with his wife and children to the house of the respondent and found that Smt. Anna Kutty (deceased) and two children of the respondent lying on the ground and their clothes soiled with blood. On 01.03.1973, when PW-1 went to the house of accused, respondent started weeping and went near the photo of Jesus Christ and uttered something and then confessed that his wife had fatal disease and he was in trouble without money. He was already debted and did not get any help anymore from others, therefore, he had murdered his wife and children. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied on his extra- judicial confession.
48. In the judgment of "Nika Ram Vs. State of H.P", accused was alone with his wife in the house when she was murdered with 'khukri' and the relation of accused with deceased were strained. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, it point towards his guilt.
49. The judgments in respect of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act are not applicable on the facts of the present case as these judgments were on their own facts. Presumption U/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the facts of the present case as the time of alleged fall in the present case is about 7.30 PM in the FIR No. : 191/05 Page 33 of 49 -34- month of May i.e summer when the people are generally keept moving in street and the area in which the house of deceased Tripti is located, is thickly populated where children were playing. The presumption U/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act only attracted in those cases where there is no other person except accused with deceased and he is required to explain. The burden cannot be fastened on the accused in this case. The cited judgments are also on their own facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
50. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also cited State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh [2007 Crl.L.J 964] and State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma & Ors. [2006 (4) Crimes 757], judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Wherein, the Hon'ble High Court reverses the judgment of Ld. Trial Court and also stated that circumstances are fully established and taken action against the hostile witnesses. In the present case, the witnesses who turned hostile towards the prosecution case are PW-1 Kumari Sakshi who is child and PW-8 Smt. Vijay Kumari who is a woman and further, there is no material available on record to show that PW-1 and PW-8 have stated falsehood. Therefore, I deem it not expedient to take any action against them.
51. Now we are left the the charge for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A/34 IPC against accused Ajay Rawat and Kanta Devi. PW-3 Sh. Dharam Prakash Rawat testified that Tripti was FIR No. : 191/05 Page 34 of 49 -35- married to Ajay about 10-11 years ago. Ajay and Tripti has been visiting his house. After about 6-7 years ago, his son Vijay Prakash told him that an altercation was going on at the house of Ajay and he should go there and resolve dispute between Ajay and Tripti. He went to matrimonial home of Tripti where his brother met him and his brother told that he as well as his wife advised his brother and his sister-in-law (bhabi) to keep Tripti in cordial atmosphere. Thereafter, he came back to his house. He was informed that in- laws and husband of Tripti used to harass, torture and beat her. However, there is no cross-examination on this issue but apart from this fact that he had gone to her matrimonial home 6-7 years ago before the incident, he had advised them, the other portion that he was informed that Tripti used to be harassed and tortured cannot be read in evidence as the same is on the basis of information given to him by someone and is hearsay.
52. PW-10 Smt. Kiran Rawat testified that as and when, she used to visit her parental home. Tripti used to tell that there used to be quarrel with her for dowry. Tripti used to tell that her husband Ajay used to demand a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, 20,000/- and other dowry from her. Since, the business of accused Ajay was not prospering, there used to be a quarrel with Tripti. She stated that on 17.03.2005, on the birthday of her son Sunit Rawat, Tripti came to join the celebration. Tripti came alongwith her husband namely Ajay Rawat. Tripti wanted to stay for a night at their house. At that juncture, accused Ajay Rawat told that he would not stay and FIR No. : 191/05 Page 35 of 49 -36- returned his home that very day. On that issue, Ajay and Tripti reasoned. In her presence, Ajay Rawat assaulted Tripti. She advised Ajay not to behave in that fashion. Ajay stayed for that night at their residence. Ajay and Tripti quarreled for whole of the night. While leaving for her matrimonial home in the morning, Tripti told that Ajay used to assault her in that very fashion at her matrimonial home. Ajay commented that he would teach her a lesson at her matrimonial home, since, she was showing more importance at her parental home. She further stated that on 08/09.04.2005, Tripti again visited their house, to pay visit to them. She told that business of Ajay was not flourishing. She noticed that Tripti was in a grip of fear. At that juncture, Tripti had not divulged any other fact before her.
53. PW-10 Smt. Kiran Rawat in her cross-examination, she stated that in August 1996, Tripti made a complaint against her husband and in-laws before her for the first time. She stated that in 1996, Ajay Rawat was running a printing press. She went to matrimonial home of Tripti for the first time, when she gave birth to a female child and she went to matrimonial home of Tripti for the last time in 2001, when birthday of her son was to be celebrated. On that day, Tripti was happy. She, however, was confronted with her statement that Tripti had come to her house on 08.04.2005 and told that business of Ajay Rawat was not flourishing. This part is not mentioned in her statement Ex.PW10/DA, therefore this part is an improvement. She further stated that as and when, Tripti talk to her that dowry was FIR No. : 191/05 Page 36 of 49 -37- demanded from her, she named Kanta Devi and Ajay Rawat as the persons, who used to demand dowry from her. She was also confronted with this portion regarding the dowry demand made by her mother-in-law and husband used to demand dowry from her, which is also an improvement. In her cross-examination on behalf of accused Ajay Rawat, she stated that Tripti used to meet them almost on every week. Ajay Rawat never stopped her in paying a visit to them. Accused Ajay Rawat used to visit them alongwith Tripti and used to leave after sometime.
54. PW-10 Smt. Kiran Rawat has stated that Tripti used to tell that her husband used to demand money but no time, place, or particulars have been given, as to when, Tripti told them regarding the dowry demand.
55. PW-15 Jyoti Rawat testified that Tripti used to remain distressed at her matrimonial home and as and when, she used to meet her, she used to tell that she was living distressed life at her matrimonial home. She told her that accused Ajay Rawat was demanding money from her, which demand was not fulfilled by her. She further told that the accused persons i.e her husband and mother-in-law used to beat her. Complaint was made to police at two occasions. Police had gone twice to her matrimonial home. Tripti compounded her grievance with her husband and mother-in-law. She told her that accused Ajay Rawat demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at two occasions. He demanded money from her on 31.01.2004. This FIR No. : 191/05 Page 37 of 49 -38- demand was made by accused in her presence, since, on that day, they are going to attend a marriage in neighborhood. She again stated that they were going to attend the marriage in a car and at that juncture, accused Ajay Rawat gave a telephone call to her brother Sumeer and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Her brother Sumeer was present with them in the car. Her brother told that he was unable to meet that demand. Accused Ajay Rawat again raised a demand of Rs. 20,000/- in 2005 prior to Holi Festival, which fact was told to her by her brother Sumeer. She stated that on Holi Festival, Tripti came and told that since Sumeer had not paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as demanded by her husband, she was being harassed by them on that account. When, she saw her, she found her harass. She went to her matrimonial home after Holi Festival. PW-15 in her cross-examination has stated that she does not know as to what job Ajay Rawat was doing at the time of his marriage. Accused Ajay Rawat was residing with Tripti on second floor portion, while his mother alongwith other members of family was residing on first floor premises of the house. She admitted that Tripti was having a separate kitchen. She had gone to the house of accused for about four or five times. She denied the suggestion that accused Ajay Rawat runs a printing press. She admitted that accused Ajay Rawat never raised dowry demands before her father and mother.
56. There is no cross-examination of PW-15 with respect to demand raised on 31.01.2004. The demand made at the time of Holi and on FIR No. : 191/05 Page 38 of 49 -39- 31.01.2004 was, however, not made to her. On one occasion, she stated that she was going in the car with her brother when Ajay Rawat gave telephonic call to his brother and on second occasion, her brother told her regarding the demand. However, there is no cross-examination with respect to the complaint made to the police. The fact as stated by Tripti (deceased) to them are however, not admissible in evidence as same are not covered U/s 32 of Indian Evidence Act and being hearsay are inadmissible. Therefore, her testimony apart from the fact that she saw Tripti and found her harass, other portion of her testimony regarding demand of dowry is inadmissible.
57. PW-18 Sh. Vijay Prakash Rawat testified that since, there were several incidents of altercations between Tripti and Ajay Rawat prior to that day, hence, he thought that it was not a case of accident. However, as to what was the nature of altercations and whether the altercations were normal wear and tear of matrimonial life or was harassment with respect to dowry is not elaborated by this witness. Therefore, his testimony to this effect is also inconsequential.
58. PW-2 Sh. Sumeer Rawat testified that after marriage of his sister Tripti, both the accused persons alongwith father of the accused Ajay Rawat namely Prahlad Rawat (since expired) and Naresh Rawat the elder brother of accused Ajay Rawat started harassing, torturing and maltreating his sister Tripti Rawat, on account of FIR No. : 191/05 Page 39 of 49 -40- demanding the rent fare of the room in which his sister was residing with accused Ajay Rawat. Ajay Rawat used to demand money for unlawful dowry. Once on 31.01.2004, when they were going to attend a marriage., accused Ajay Rawat telephoned him and demanded Rs. 20,000/-. However, he refused him as he was going to attend the marriage at that time and he was also not having such amount at that time. He stated that prior to Holi of 2005, once again, Ajay demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as a dowry, however, he could not arrange the same and hence he refused. He further stated that after few days of marriage of his sister, accused Ajay Rawat fell ill. He was admitted in some hospital, probably Deepak Hospital, Laxmi Nagar. He went to see him in that hospital. His father met him outside hospital premises. He told him that he should take his sister Tripti to her parental home. His sister told him that she want to stay in the hospital to take care of her husband. He further stated that after two or three years of marriage of his sister Tripti, accused persons and their other two associates had beaten his sister. Prahlad Dass (father of accused Ajay who is no more) and Naresh Rawat were associates of the accused persons. This fact was informed to him by his sister on telephone. He made a telephone call to PCR and requested PCR officials to accompany them, since he was apprehensive that they may assault him also. He went to the house of accused persons alongwith PCR officials. At that time, accused persons and their associates ran away from there. Munia sister of accused Ajay FIR No. : 191/05 Page 40 of 49 -41- was present in the house. Tripti was also not present in the house at that time. Munia told them that Tripti had gone somewhere alongwith her husband. Thereafter, after a span of one and a half or two years, Tripti was again beaten. She told him on telephone that she was beaten by accused persons and their associates during night hours. He again gave a telephone call to PCR and reached her matrimonial home alongwith PCR officials. Accused persons and their associates, referred above, were taken to police station. No report was lodged and matter was settled somehow. He stated that he saw Tripti and she was having injuries on her forehead. He came to know that accused persons demanded money from his sister. Tripti told him that her mother-in-law had asked her to bring money from her parental home. They made a complaint about this incident to Sh. Dharam Prakash Rawat, father-in-law of his sister Sudha. He went to house of accused persons to advise them. As and when he saw Tripti, he found her sad.
59. PW-2 Sh.Sumeer Rawat in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion that accused Ajay Rawat was running a printing press at that time which is contradictory to other witnesses including his mother. He stated that they were not told as to what income Ajay Rawat used to earn in those days. He stated that neither he can affirm or deny that in those days Ajay Rawat used to earn Rs. 10,000-15,000/- a month. He cannot tell as to how many times, he visited the house of Tripti. Accused Ajay Rawat resides at second FIR No. : 191/05 Page 41 of 49 -42- floor portion of his house. He stated that his mother and brother also reside in separate portions. He admitted that he had not mentioned regarding the demand of Rs.20,000/- in his complaint Ex.PW2/A. He stated that accused Ajay Rawat demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 31.01.2004 as well as prior to Holi of 2005. He does not recollect whether accused Ajay Rawat raised dowry demand prior to 31.01.2004 or not. He stated that till the death of Tripti, he never made complaint in respect of those dowry demands. He denied the suggestion that no such dowry demand was made by accused Ajay Rawat. However, there is no cross- examination of this witness in respect of the PCR call made by him and matter was resolved at the Police Station and that he had seen injuries on the forehead of Tripti.
60. PW-11 Smt. Kastori Devi testified that in the year 2004, Tripti told that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- were demanded from her. This demand was raised, when her son was to attend marriage of Seema, who was daughter of his friend. Tripti met her for the last time in the marriage of sister of her son-in-law. Tripti came to her house and thereafter, went to join the said marriage. Accused Ajay had also come to their house alongwith Tripti. Accused Ajay showed his annoyance before her, since, Tripti had left her mother-in-law at her house and had come to join the marriage. She stated that since they could not pay money to accused Ajay, in pursuance of his demand, his daughter Tripti was killed. Money was demanded from her son Sumeer.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 42 of 49 -43-61. PW-11 Smt. Kastori Devi, is the witness regarding the demand was hearsay as the demand was made from Sh. Sumeer Rawat. In her cross-examination, PW-11 has stated that once they made complaint to father of Vijay about ill-treatment of Tripti, since, he acted as a mediator in the marriage. She stated that twice police reports were lodged about ill-treatment of Tripti by her husband and in-laws. She denied the suggestion that accused Ajay never demanded money from them. She, however, contradict other witness by stating that accused Ajay was having a house and was running a printing press.
62. PW-11 Smt. Kastori Devi was cross-examined with respect to the police reports lodged by them about the ill treatment and when she stated so, no suggestion was put to her that no such reports have been lodged. Therefore, from the testimony of this witness, it is established on record that complaint was made to father of Vijay about the ill-treatment of Tripti. Sh. Dharam Prakash Rawat has also stated that he has visited the house of in-laws of Tripti to advise them. It is also gone unchallanged on record that twice the police reports were made to PCR when Tripti had made complaint regarding the ill treatment and the matter was resolved once at the police station and once, accused persons were not found at their home. Thereafter, there is demand of Rs.20,000/- made from PW-2 which he did not pay. Now the question is whether these demands are dowry related demands and the ill-treatment of Tripti was on account of dowry demands.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 43 of 49 -44-63. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that an isolated demand cannot be termed as dowry.
64. In a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as "Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana" cited as AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2839, it was held that the demand made even subsequent to the marriage amounts to dowry demand.
65. In view of the past conduct of accused Ajay Rawat and the demands made by him amounts to cruelty within the definition of Section 498-A IPC.
66. However, as regards accused Kanta Devi. PW-2 Sh. Sumeer Rawat stated that accused persons used to beat his sister Tripti (deceased). The allegations are not specific and no particulars are given as to how she was ill-treated. The alleged demand made by Kanta Devi was told by Tripti (deceased) to PW Sumeer, which is hearsay and inadmissible. Admittedly, accused Kanta Devi was living with her husband in a separate portion and having separate kitchen. Therefore, there is no evidence on record against accused Kanta Devi. Accused Kanta Devi is entitled to be acquitted.
67. Now coming to the defence of accused Ajay Rawat. Defence Witness-1 Sh. Satender testified that accused Ajay Rawat lives in the house opposite to his house and is his neighbourer. The accused used to treat his wife very well. Tripti used to visit our FIR No. : 191/05 Page 44 of 49 -45- house and we also used to visit her. She never disclosed that any dowry was demanded from her husband, accused Ajay Rawat or his family members. He had attended the marriage of accused Ajay Rawat. The in-laws of Ajay Rawat had given very few dowry articles. No dowry was demanded in his presence. DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had gone to the marriage with other baraties in a bus. He stayed at the place of marriage for 15 to 20 minutes and returned from there after taking dinner. He stated that he does not know what happened in the marriage prior and after leaving the place of marriage. He stated that in his presence, the in-laws of accused Ajay Rawat had given Fridge, Sofa, Double-bed and other house-hold articles.
68. Therefore, DW-1 Sh. Satender was an outsider, so, he would not know as to whether any demand was being made by the accused from his in-laws and his wife Tripti. Moreover, he states that deceased was friendly with his wife but the wife with whom deceased Tripti used to share her personal life has not been examined as witness. Therefore, in the face of evidence, defence of the accused does not stand.
69. Accordingly as per the above-discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC against accused Ajay Rawat beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Ajay Rawat is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC.
FIR No. : 191/05 Page 45 of 49 -46-70. Accused Kanta Devi is acquitted from the charges against her as there is no evidence on record against her. Bail bond of accused Kanta Devi stands cancelled. Her surety discharged.
71. Let the accused Ajay Rawat be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in the open court today i.e on 30.11.2011 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-04/NE/KKD/DELHI/30.11.2011 FIR No. : 191/05 Page 46 of 49 -47- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI State Vs. Ajay Rawat FIR No. : 191/05 S.C. No. 31/2011 PS : Shahdara, Delhi U/s : 304/201/498-A IPC 05.12.2011 ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr.: Sh. S.K Dass, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state Convict Ajay Rawat on bail with Sh. Pankaj Tomar, Advocate.
Sh. Sumeer Rawat, Brother of the deceased/complainant with Sh. Somnath Bharti, Advocate.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
It is submitted on behalf of the convict that convict is aged about 40 Years. He has two children namely Sakshi aged about 13 years and Nikhil aged about 10 years to support. The convict is giving them education in a good school, for which, he is paying quarterly fees of Rupees 9,200/- for Sakshi and Rs. 5,700/- for Nikhil. It is further submitted that mother of convict is aged about 76 years who is suffering from diabetes and heart problem and convict is the sole bread earner of his family. There is no other person in his family who can look-after his two children and his old aged mother. It is further submitted that convict is running a printing press and has laborer working in the press and in case, he is sentenced to imprisonment, his family as well as his workmen will suffer. It is also submitted that convict is facing trial for the last six years FIR No. : 191/05 Page 47 of 49 -48- and he has already remained in Judicial Custody for 08 months and 07 days. Therefore, the lenient view is prayed for.
On the other hand Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the complainant have submitted that maximum punishment provided for offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC be awarded as the convict has infact harassed his wife (deceased) throughout her matrimonial life and he used to ill-treat her. Therefore, if any leniency is shown to the convict, it shall give encouragement to the other similar placed persons. Therefore, convict be given the maximum punishment provided under the law.
Sh. Sumeer Rawat, brother of the deceased/complainant states that acquittal of the accused Ajay Rawat from the charges U/s 302 IPC and U/s 201 IPC is wrong.
This court cannot make any comment on the above-statement of complainant as the court has already passed the judgment in this regard.
In the present case, the convict is held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC. The offence U/s 498-A IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
The mitigating circumstances stated to be that convict Ajay Rawat has two children and he has faced trial for the last six years.
In offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC, there will always be the children of convict and the court cannot loose the sight of the fact that they were also the children of the mother who was ill treated. Further, the cases of this nature are on rise. The cruelty takes place within the four FIR No. : 191/05 Page 48 of 49 -49- walls of the house unless the punishment is severe, it will not have deterrent effect.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met in sentencing the convict Ajay Rawat to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months.
Since, the convict has already remained in Judicial Custody for 08 months and 07 days, the benefit U/s 428 Cr.PC is given to the convict.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e on 05.12.2011 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-04/NE/KKD/DELHI/05.12.2011 FIR No. : 191/05 Page 49 of 49