Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Vikas Mehta on 26 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 82/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0042492011
State Vs. (1) Vikas Mehta
S/o Jeet Lal Mehta
R/o House No. RZF38,
New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh,
PS Chhawla, Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Jeet Lal Mehta
S/o Late Munshi Ram
R/o House No. RZF38,
New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh,
PS Chhawla, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Sweety @ Suman Mehta
S/o Rajesh Verma
R/o House No. RZF38,
New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh,
PS Chhawla, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Asha Rani
W/o Jeet Lal Mehta
R/o House No. RZF38,
New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh,
PS Chhawla, Delhi
(Acquitted)
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 1
FIR No.: 395/2010
Police Station: Shalimar Bagh
Under Sections: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Session Court: 15.04.2011
Date on which order was reserved: 11.9.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced:5.10.2013
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, the accused Vikas Mehta was married with Neha on 2.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs on 2.11.2009 and he (Vikas Mehta) being the husband of Neha, accused Jeet Lal Mehta being the fatherinlaw, Sweety @ Suman Mehta being the sister in law and Asha Rani Mehta being the mother in law of Neha treated her with cruelty for dowry at House No. RZF38, New Roshanpura, Nazafgarh, Police Station Chhawla, Delhi between 2.11.2009 to 15.11.2009 and thereafter the accused Vikas Mehta and Neha started residing separately at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It has also been alleged that on 15.11.2010 at about 1:00 PM at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi the deceased Neha died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage since she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused Vikas Mehta, Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman Mehta and Asha Rani Mehta in connection with demand for dowry.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 2 BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2010 at about 3:15 PM Vikas Mehta S/o Jeet Lal Mehta had come to Police Station Shalimar Bagh and informed that his wife Neha had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. Pursuant to the said information DD No. 20A was lodged after which SI Rajan Pal along with Ct. Durga Das reached the spot i.e. second floor of House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Village, Delhi where the dead body of Smt. Neha was found lying on the bed with a chunni around her neck. On inquiry Vikas Mehta informed the police that there was a verbal altercation between him and his wife Neha after which he went to his work at about 9:00 AM and at about 1:302:00 PM he returned back along with his father Jeet Lal Mehta but found the door locked from inside. Vikas Mehta further informed the police that thereafter he brought a key maker from Sahipur Market and got the door opened when they found his wife Neha hanging from the ceiling fan and he along with his father Jeet Lal Mehta got Neha down. Thereafter the Crime Team was called to the spot who inspected the spot. At about 4:305:00 PM the parents of the deceased also reached the spot and information was sent to SDM Model after which the the dead body of Neha was sent to Mortuary BJRM Hospital.
(3) On 16.11.2010 the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Smt. Neeru the mother of the deceased Neha who informed the Executive Magistrate that the marriage of her daughter Neha was St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 3 solemnized with Vikas Mehta @ Sanju on 2.11.2009 and after oneone and a half month Vikas Mehta remained in jail in a car theft case and after his release Vikas Mehta took a room on rent in House No. 197, Second Floor, Gali No.2, Shalimar Village where he started residing along with Neha.
Smt. Neeru further told the Executive Magistrate that when Vikas Mehta was lodged in jail, his family members had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ from them on which they gave Rs.25,000/ to Smt. Asha Rani the mother in law of Neha. According to Smt. Neeru, her daughter Nehad had informed her that her father in law Jeet Lal Mehta had committed rape upon her and her inlaws including her husband, father in law, mother in law and sister in law i.e. Nanand/ Sister in law Sweety used to beat her so that she could not disclose about the incident of rape to anybody. Smt. Neeru had alleged that the inlaws of her daughter Neha had demanded a sum of Rs. Two Lakhs as dowry.
(4) The father of the deceased Neha namely Baldev Raj also adopted the said statement of Smt. Neeru and made his endorsement after which on the directions of the Executive Magistrate the present case was registered and the accused Vikas Mehta, Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety and Asha Rani were arrested. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
CHARGE:
(5) Charges under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 IPC were settled against the accused Vikas Mehta, Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety and Asha St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 4 Rani to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (6) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
Prosecution witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details
No.
1. PW1 Jatin Chaudhary Public witness - Landlord of the accused
2. PW2 Sachidanand Public witness - neighbour of the accused
3. PW3 Ravinder Chauhan Public witness - Key Maker
4. PW4 SI Manohar Lal Police witness - Draftsman
5. PW5 HC Vijay Laxmi Police witness - Duty Officer
6. PW6 Ct. Durga Dass Police witness who had reached the spot
along with SI Rajan Pal
7. PW7 Ct. Ishwar Singh Police witness who had deposited the
exhibits in FSL Rohini
8. PW8 HC Ram Asrey Police witness - to whom the initial
complaint of the deceased was marked
9. PW9 Smt. Neeru Public witness - Mother of the deceased
10. PW10 Ct. Dalbir Singh Police witness - Crime Team photographer
11. PW11 SI Satpal Singh Police witness - Crime Team Incharge
12. PW12 Ms. Kavita Goyal FSL Expert
13. PW13 HC Sarojini Police witness - Duty Officer
14. PW14 Baldev Raj Bhardwaj Public witness - father of the deceased
15. PW15 Sh. M.P. Kushwaha Official witness - the then Executive
Magistrate
16. PW16 HC Mukesh Chand Police witness - MHCM
17. PW17 SI Dori Lal Police witness - Duty Officer
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 5
18. PW18 Dr. V.K. Jha Autopsy Surgeon
19. PW19 SI Rajan Pal Initial Investigating Officer
20. PW20 Inspector Puran Chand Subsequent Investigating Officer
List of exhibited documents:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of the documents Proved by
No.
1 PW 4/A Site plan SI Manohar Lal
2 PW 5/A Copy of DD NO. 20A HC Vijay Laxmi
3 PW 5/D1 DD NO. 24A
4 PW 6/A Seizure memo of Exhibits Ct. Durga Dass
5 PW 8/A Complaint of Neha HC Ram Asrey
6 PW 9/A Statement of Smt. Neeru to the Smt. Neeru
Executive Magistrate
7 PW 10/A1 to Photographs Ct. Dalbir Singh
A10
8 PW 10/B CD of photographs
9 PW 10/D1 Crime team Report
10 PW 12/A FSL Report Ms. Kavita Goyal
11 PW 15/A Endorsement of Executive Sh. M.P. Kushwaha
Magistrate
12 PW 15/B Dead body identification statement
of Satish
13 PW 15/C Dead body identification statement
of Baldev
14 PW 15/D Form 25:35
15 PW 15/E Brief Facts
16 PW 15/F Request for postmortem
17 PW 16/A Copy of Register No. 19 Sr. No. HC Mukesh Chand
3704/10
18 PW 16/B Copy of RC 60/21/10
19 PW 16/C FSL Receipt
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 6
20 PW 17/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Dori Lal SI Dori Lal
21 PW 17/A FIR
22 PW 17/B Endorsement on Rukka
23 PW 18/A Detailed report of Postmortem Dr. V.K. Jha
24 PW 18/B Subsequent opinion
25 PW 18/C Subsequent opinion
26 PW 19/A Statement of Jeet Lal Mehta SI Rajan Pal
27 PW 19/B Statement of Vikas
28 PW 19/C Application for preservation of dead
body
29 PW 19/D Arrest memo of Jeet lal
30 PW 19/E Personal search memo
31 PW 19/F Arrest memo of Vikas
32 PW 19/G Personal search memo
33 PW 19/H Disclosure statement of Jeet Lal
34 PW 19/I Disclosure statement of Vikas
35 PW 19/J Seizure memo of Photographs
36 PW 19/K1 to Photographs
K7
37 PW 20/A Site plan Inspector Puran Chand
38 PW 20/B Request for Providing opinion
Regarding Ligature material
39 PW 20/C Request for providing opinion
40 PW 20/D Arrest Memo of Sweety
41 PW 20/E Arrest memo of Asha
42 PW 20/F Personal search memo
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Twenty Witnesses as under:
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 7
Public witnesses:
(8) PW1 Jatin Chaudhary is the landlord of the accused Vikas
Mehta and has deposed that he was residing at D1/22, Model Town, Delhi along with his family and was having one more house bearing no.197 at Gali No.2, Shalimar Village, Delhi where one room set situated on the second floor of the said house was rented out by him to accused Vikas Mehta, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,700/ about four months prior to the incident. According to him, the accused Vikas Mehta used to live in the said tenanted accommodation alongwith his wife. He has further deposed that on the next day of the incident, may be on 17.11.2010 or 18.11.2010, he received information from the Police Station that the wife of Vikas Mehta had committed suicide in the said tenanted house. (9) The Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to the witnesses wherein he has admitted he had rented out the said accommodation to accused Vikas Mehta on 10.08.2010 and he received information from the police on 16.11.2010 regarding the suicide committed by the wife of his tenant Vikas Mehta on 15.11.2010. (10) In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the exact date, on which his statement was recorded by the police, but states that it might be after two or three days of the incident.
According to him, no rent agreement was executed, while renting out the accommodation.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 8 (11) PW2 Sachidanand has deposed that he was residing as a tenant at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Village, Delhi since September, 2010 and was preparing for competition exams and also took tuition. He does not remember the exact date, but he was residing at the above premises and as per his usual routine, he had to reach for coaching at about 3.00 PM but on that day, at about 2.30 PM, when he came out of his accommodation situated on the second floor of the said house, he saw that Vikas Mehta alongwith one aged person, who was wearing spectacles were standing outside their tenanted room on the second floor and one other person was making the key of the lock, which was there on the door in the light of a candle. The witness has testified that he asked accused Vikas Mehta whether he had taken permission from the landlord, to which he (Vikas Mehta) replied in affirmative. He has further deposed that he came downstairs and when he reached on first floor, he heard the noise, "Fansi Fansi". However, since he was getting late and hence he went for the coaching and when he returned in the evening, he came to know that the wife of Vikas Mehta had committed suicide by hanging. He has correctly identified Accused Vikas Mehta in the Court.
(12) Ld. Addl. PP for the State put a leading question to the witness who admitted that the date of incident was 15.11.2010. (13) In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he used to pay Rs.4,000/ as rent but no rent agreement was executed nor any rent receipt was ever used to him by his landlord and has voluntarily explained St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 9 that police verification was got conducted, when he took the house on rent. He has testified that he used to take tuitions at BC Block, Shalimar Bagh and the distance between his residence and the place where he used to take tuitions, was about 2 KMs. According to the witness, it used to be dark in the staircase even during day time and, therefore, lights had to be switched on. He has also deposed that his statement was recorded by the police after about one week of the incident. He has denied the suggestion that he was not the tenant in that building or that he had not seen the accused getting the lock open.
(14) PW3 Ravinder Chauhan has deposed that he was in the business of making keys for the last about 22 years at BH Block Market, Shalimar Bagh and on 15.11.2010 at about 2.00 or 2.30 PM, accused Vikas Mehta came to him at his workplace and told him that he wanted to get open interlock of the main door of his residence on which Rs.150/ were mutually settled as remuneration. The witness has also deposed that thereafter, he alongwith accused Vikas Mehta reached at House No.197, Gali No.2, Second Floor, Shalimar Village, Delhi where in the light of candle, he prepared the key of the interlock, but even then, the door could not be opened, as it was bolted from inside and therefore he with the help of a screw driver, removed the bolt and opened the door. According to the witness, after opening the door, he saw that one lady was hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of Chunni. He has deposed that due to fear, he left the spot without taking his remuneration and he informed the police at St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 10 Police Station Shalimar Bagh. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (15) PW9 Smt. Neeru is the mother of the deceased and has deposed that marriage of her daughter Neha was performed with accused Vikas Mehta on 02.11.2009 which was a normal marriage (Thik Thaak). According to her, accused Vikas Mehta was arrested in a case of car theft, just after about one month of the marriage with her daughter and they came to know after two/ three months that accused Vikas Mehta was arrested in the said case. She has further deposed that sister in law of her daughter namely Sweety returned to her parental home from her in laws house in the month of March, 2010. The witness has testified that one day while accused Vikas Mehta was in the jail, Neha telephoned her (witness) and told that when her mother in law was not at home, her father in law came from outside and had committed "Galat Kaam" with her. She has explained that Neha told her that her father in law caught hold hands and face of her daughter and made her lie on the bed and did Galat Kaam. The witness has also deposed that father in law of her daughter raped her daughter which fact she (witness) did not tell to her husband. She has further deposed that she alongwith her sister Prem, her younger daughter Shivali went to the matrimonial house of her daughter Neha but Raju, accused Sweety and mother in law of Neha namely Asha Devi threatened them that in case if they disclosed this fact to anybody, they would kill them and also cause financial harm to them. The witness has testified that St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 11 Raju, accused Sweety and Asha Devi also demanded Rs.50,000/ from them to get Vikas Mehta released from jail. According to her, Neha was in another room, while they were talking with those three persons, but when the accused persons raised demand, Neha was there but Neha was sent to other room, only before extending threat to them. She has also deposed that pursuant to the said demand she paid Rs.25,000/ to accused Asha Rani, who handed over that amount to accused Sweety who counted the same and kept it. She has also deposed that accused Vikas Mehta returned home from jail after two to three days thereof and thereafter Asha, Sweety and Raju with a planning shifted accused Vikas Mehta and her daughter Neha to Shalimar Bagh but the address of the said house was never told to her and even her daughter was also asked not to disclose her address of Shalimar Bagh to her. According to the witness, when her daughter was got shifted to Shalimar Bagh by the accused persons, then one day her daughter telephoned her that her in laws were demanding Rs.2,00,000/ (Two Lacs) on which she (witness) told her daughter that it was not possible for her to arrange Rs.2,00,000/ (Two Lacs) on which accused persons extended threat that if Rs.2,00,000/ (Two Lacs) were not paid, her daughter would be killed which threat was extended to them by Raju on telephone on the asking of the other accused persons. (16) The witness Smt. Neeru has further deposed that on the occasion of Bhaiya Duj, she made so many telephone calls to accused Asha Devi at Najafgarh to send her daughter Neha at their home and they assured St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 12 that her daughter would be coming, but her daughter did not visit her home. She has testified that accused Sweety had not gone to her matrimonial home after the marriage of her daughter and all the accused persons, including Raju, used to visit the residence of her daughter at Shalimar Village and used to give her beatings. According to the witness, she came to know about this fact as her daughter used to call her on telephone from outside. According to her, two days after Bhai Duj i.e. on 16th at about 3.00 PM, they received information that her daughter had died on which she alongwith her husband went to Police Station from there, they went to BJRM Hospital where they identified the dead body of their daughter Neha. She has also deposed that her statement and also statement of her husband was recorded. According to her, while giving her statement, due to the death of her daughter, she was in deep grief and could not give the complete statement, including the name of Raju. She has proved her statement which is Ex.PW9/A. According to the witness, when they received telephone at 3.00 PM, she was not present there whereas her daughter Shivali attended the phone and on telephone accused persons asked her daughter Shivali, whether Neha had come to their house, on which her daughter Shivali replied that, "Tum Neha Ko Humare Ghar To Bhejte Nahin Ho Aur Humein Usese Milne Bhi Nahin Dete To Humse Yeh Sawal Kyoon Poochh Rahe Ho" which fact was told to her by her daughter. She has also deposed that after five/ten minutes thereof, accused persons again telephoned them and told that her daughter had died. The witness has St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 13 testified that thereafter accused Vikas Mehta telephoned them and said to Shivali, "Apne Baap Ko Bol, Apni Ladki Ki Laash Uthake Kyoon Nahin Le Jaata".
(17) A leading question was put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has admitted that they received telephone calls on 15.11.2010 and the first call might have been received at about 2.30 PM.
(18) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that her husband was doing tailoring work from home at the time of marriage of her daughter Neha and she (witness) used to help him in his work. She has also deposed that the marriage of her daughter was performed on a ground, situated near her house and about 40 to 50 persons had attended the marriage from their side and 40 Baraatis came from the side of accused persons. According to her, they did not verify the antecedents of the accused Vikas Mehta before marriage. She has denied the suggestion that they were knowing the entire facts about Vikas Mehta or that Neha forced them to get her married with Vikas Mehta. The witness has also testified that on the occasion of Sagaai, the accused persons gave a mobile phone to her daughter Neha since before that there was no telephone installed at their house which mobile phone Neha took with her at the time of marriage. According to the witness, her husband was having a mobile phone, but there was no landline phone at their house and she is not aware of the number of mobile phone of her husband. She has further St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 14 deposed that accused Vikas Mehta went to jail within one month of marriage and has voluntarily explained that even before the marriage of her daughter Neha, accused Vikas had gone to jail, but they were not informed. According to her, after one or two months of Sagaai ceremony, accused went to jail and when they inquired the accused Asha Rani used to tell them that Vikas Mehta had gone to the house of his maternal grandmother (Nani Ke Ghar). She does not remember the date of the Sagaai ceremony and states that Sagaai ceremony was performed about six months before the marriage. She has testified that neither she nor her husband had gone to jail to meet accused Vikas Mehta and has voluntarily explained that they were not aware about the same. She is not aware from which Police Station and in which case, accused Vikas Mehta gone to jail and and has voluntarily explained that Shakti sister of Asha Rani told her about jail visit of Vikas Mehta. She has denied the suggestion that Shakti never told her about the jail visit of accused Vikas Mehta. The witness has also deposed that she could not go through her statement before the SDM since she is illiterate. According to her, SDM read over the statement to her, but at that time, she was not in a position to understand, due to death of her daughter. The witness has testified that her husband Baldev Raj was also with her at that time and her husband did not put his signature on her statement. She has testified that she had told to the SDM that they came to know after two to three months that accused Vikas Mehta was arrested in the car theft case; that Sweety came to reside with her parents from her In St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 15 laws house in March 2010. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the above facts were not found recorded. According to the witness, her daughter told her after two to three months of the marriage about the jail visit of Vikas Mehta in a car theft case. She has also deposed that she had told the SDM that her daughter informed her on telephone that her fatherinlaw raped her when her motherinlaw was not at home. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found mentioned but it is mentioned that her daughter told her that she had been raped by her fatherinlaw Sh. Jeet Lal Mehta. According to the witness, her daughter told her about the incident of rape after about three to four months of marriage. She has further deposed that she visited the matrimonial home of her daughter twice or thrice after the marriage, once at Karwachoth, Deewali and once her daughter told her about the incident of rape. The witness has testified that she visited the matrimonial home of her daughter next day, when her daughter told her about the incident of rape. She has also deposed that she had told the SDM that she went to the Matrimonial Home of her daughter along with her sister Prem and daughter Shivali. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found so recorded. According to her, they reached the house of accused persons at about 1.00 or 1.30 PM and hardly remained there for about 30 minutes but did not bring Neha with them on that day. The witness has also deposed Neha visited her residence only once or twice after the marriage. She has testified that she did not tell St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 16 the SDM that she was threatened by the accused persons along with Raju that if they disclosed about the incident of rape to anybody, they would kill them and also cause financial harm to them. However, she told the SDM in her statement that Raju, Sweety and Asha Rani demanded Rs. 50,000/ from her. When confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A, the above fact was not found so recorded but it is mentioned that her daughter told her that her in laws were demanding Rs. 50,000/ to get their son Vikas Mehta released from Jail. According to her, she did not tell the SDM in her statement that her daughter Neha was present, when the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/ nor did she tell the SDM that accused persons sent Neha to another room before extending threats to them. The witness has further deposed that she paid Rs.25,000/ to the accused persons after two days thereof. She has also deposed that she and Shivali went to the house of accused persons to pay Rs.25,000/. The witness has explained that Rs. 10,000/ were lying at their residence, again said Rs.5,000/ were with her, she borrowed Rs.10,000/ from her elder sister Jay Rana and borrowed Rs. 10,000/ from her other sister Prem but she had not returned this amount to her sisters till date. According to her, she reached the house of accused persons at about 2.00 or 2.30 PM to give Rs.25,000/ and Raju and Jeet Lal Mehta were not present at home at that time and only Sweety and Asha Rani were at home. She does not remember, if she told the SDM that Asha, Sweety and Raju with a planning shifted the accused Vikas Mehta and Neha to Shalimar Bagh nor did she tell the SDM that accused persons St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 17 directed her daughter not to disclose the address of Shalimar Bagh to anybody. She has testified that accused Vikas Mehta and her daughter stayed at Shalimar Bagh only for 15 days. She has denied the suggestion that Vikas Mehta and Neha started living at Shalimar Bagh after one week of their marriage. She was not aware of the address of Vikas Mehta at Shalimar Bagh, when she gave her statement to the SDM. According to her, she had not told the SDM in her statement that Vikas Mehta was living in house no. 197, Second Floor, Gali No. 2, Shalimar Village. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was found so recorded). She has also deposed that she had not told her telephone number to the SDM in her statement but when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A, the telephone number of the witness was found mentioned. The witness has also testified that she had told the SDM in her statement that her daughter telephoned her from Shalimar Bagh that there was a demand of Rs. Two Lakhs from her in laws, however, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the word "Shalimar Bagh" was not found mentioned. According to the witness, she did not tell the SDM in her statement that accused persons threatened her that if Rs. Two Lakhs were not paid, then her daughter would be killed or that this threat was extended to her by Raju and has again stated that she had told the SDM that the accused persons telephoned her that if Rs. Two lacs was not paid, they would kill Neha. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW9/A, the above fact was not found so recorded. The witness has also St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 18 deposed that she did not tell the SDM that Raju telephoned to her extending threats on the asking of other accused persons nor did she tell the SDM that on the occasion of Bhaiya Dooj, she made a telephone call at the matrimonial home of her daughter and Asha Rani assured her that her daughter would visit, but she was not sent to her home. According to her, she told the SDM in her statement that Sweety had never gone to her in laws house after the marriage of her daughter; that all the accused persons and Raju used to visit the Shalimar Bagh residence of her daughter and beat her up. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found so recorded.
(19) She has further deposed that accused persons never gave beatings to her daughter in her presence. According to the witness, her daughter started telling about the incident of beatings after about one or two months of her marriage. The witness has also deposed that she had told the SDM in her statement that after the first phone attended by Shivali, another phone call came after 5 to 10 minutes telling that Neha had died. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found so recorded. According to her, she did not tell the SDM in her statement that Vikas Mehta said to Shivali on telephone "Apne Baap ko bol, apni ladki ki lash utha ke kyon nahi le Jata." The witness has further deposed that she was living in a rented accommodation comprising of one room at a monthly rent of Rs.1,600/. She has testified that monthly income of her husband is around Rs.6,000/ to Rs.7,000/. According to the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 19 witness, her husband also consumes liquor and they manage the household expenses with difficulty and has voluntarily explained that she also earn by working. The witness has further deposed that the Sagai ceremony of Neha was performed at Mohan Garden and two boxes of Sweet and one fruit basket was given to the accused persons in Sagai Ceremony. According to the witness, her daughter returned for Fera on the next day of marriage and then after one week and has voluntarily explained that accused persons were not allowing her daughter to visit her. She has testified that on 31.03.2010, Neha did not come to her residence along with her. She has identified her signatures on document Ex.PW9/DA and has voluntarily explained that her signatures, signatures of her daughter Shivali and signatures of her daughter Neha were obtained by the accused persons after threatening them. She has denied the suggestion that Ex.PW9/DA is in the handwriting of her daughter Neha. According to her, the said document was written by the accused persons themselves but she is not aware in whose handwriting out of the accused persons the said document was written and states that it was not written in her presence, it only bears her signatures. She has denied the suggestion that she took away Neha on 31.03.2010 forcibly or that Ex.PW9/DA is in the handwriting of Neha. The witness has also denied the suggestion that Neha was not willing to accompany her and that is why, she had written it. According to her, Neha came in the morning to visit her house after about one week of marriage and went back in the evening. The witness has further deposed that Neha St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 20 never visited her residence till she was alive. She has denied the suggestion that due to her conduct, her daughter was not visiting her. She has testified that Neha only studied upto 5th or 6th class. She has also deposed that Neha was not having any disease. She has admitted that both her daughters used to stay at the residence of her sister and has voluntarily explained that Isme burai kaya hai, main khud chhod ke jati thi, jab kaam par jati thi. She denied the suggestion that her daughter Neha was adamant or that her son Shivam had attempted to commit suicide and has voluntarily stated that he is only 14 years of age. She has admitted that on 01.11.2010, Vikas Mehta came to her residence on the occasion of Deewali and has voluntarily explained that he visited her residence as her husband was ill. The witness has also admitted that Neha also accompanied with Vikas Mehta at that time and has voluntarily explained that they went back after getting her husband admitted in the hospital. She has further admitted that Neha asked her to send Shivam and Shivali to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Bhai Dooj and has voluntarily explained that she did not send them and asked the accused persons to send her daughter. The witness has denied the suggestion that Neha was annoyed with her as she did not send Shivali and Shivam to her matrimonial home or that just two days before the death of Neha, she received telephone call of Neha and Vikas. She has also denied the suggestion that she had a quarrel with Neha on telephone and Neha was angry because she had not sent Shivam and Shivali to her matrimonial home on the occasion of Bhai Duj or that Neha told her that St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 21 she would never visit her residence. The witness does not recollect the time, when Raju made a telephone call demanding Rs.2 lacs and has voluntarily explained that she was not knowing that they would kill her daughter at that time. She has denied the suggestion that accused persons never demanded Rs.50,000/ or Rs.2 lacs or that she never paid Rs. 25,000/, as deposed by her. She is not aware on which date Vikas Mehta went to jail, or on which date, he was released from jail in the car theft case. She has denied the suggestion that Neha committed suicide due to her conduct and her adamency and has voluntarily explained that accused persons killed her daughter. She does not remember the mobile number which her husband used to keep.
(20) PW14 Baldev Raj Bhardwaj is the father of the deceased who has deposed that he is a ladies tailor and his wife is a housewife and also indulged in the business of supplying of Namkeen, Napkins etc. in the parlors. According to the witness, Neha was his daughter who was got married with accused Vikas Mehta on 02.11.2009 which was was mediated by Smt. Sita, who was the Mausi of accused Vikas and was known to his wife. He has further deposed that the said marriage was organized as per the demands of the accused Vikas Mehta, his mother Asha Rani, his sister Suman @ Sweety whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. He has also deposed that after three months of the marriage, accused Vikas Mehta was lodged in the jail in a case of car theft and remained in jail for about one or one and half month and subsequently, his bail application was St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 22 moved by the accused persons. He has further deposed that after being released from the jail, accused Vikas along with Neha shifted to Shalimar Village on rent but he does not remember the address of the said house after which they shifted to another house in Shalimar Village at Gali No.2, House No.197, Second Floor. He has testified that when the accused was in jail, he alongwith his wife went to the matrimonial house of his daughter Neha when accused Asha Rani and Suman @ Sweety demanded Rs. 50,000/ for obtaining the bail of accused on which he paid only Rs. 25,000/ to them. According to him, at that time he met with his daughter and the money was delivered through his wife to the accused persons. He has also deposed that at that time, his Saali (sister in law) namely Prem Lata also accompanied his wife. He has explained that the said Rs.25,000/ were arranged by him of his own and with the help of some other persons. The witness has testified that when his statement was recorded by the SDM, at that time, he came to know through his wife that accused Jeet Lal Mehta had committed rape with his daughter Neha but he was not aware about the date of such rape and was also not aware about the said incident because he was busy in his tailoring work as well as due to his illhealth. He has again stated that when the accused Vikas Mehta released from jail, thereafter he suffered a paralytic attack and was not well and the talks were held between accused persons and his wife. He has also deposed that after the marriage, his daughter used to talk with them on phone, but after about five months of the marriage, the accused persons had taken the phone from St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 23 her. According to the witness, his daughter usually talked to his wife and on one or two occasion talked to him on phone for asking his work and has voluntarily explained that she made such telephone call by hiding herself from the eyes of accused persons (Chori Chhupe Phone Karti Thi). He has testified that on 15.11.2010, at about 3.00 PM, his younger daughter Shivali telephoned him and told that "Jeet Mehta Ka Phone Aaya Tha Aur Woh Puchh Raha Tha Ki Kyaa Neha Yahaan Aayi Hai Ya Nahin" on which she replied to Jeet Lal Mehta that, "Jab Tum Diwali Ya Bhaiya Duj Par Neha Ko Nahin Aane Dete Ho To Ab Kyoon Puchh Rahe Ho Ki Neha Yahaan Aayi Hai Ki Nahin Aayi Hai". According to him, after about 30 minutes or one hour, another call was received on his mobile and its number was something 92507835, but complete number he does not remember, as the same has been pickpocketed by somebody. He has testified that accused Jeet Mehta made the said call and told that "Apni Ladki Ko Uthakar Le Jaao, Woh Mar Chuki Hai" after which Jeet Mehta again telephoned him and told, "Tumhari Ladki Ne Phansi Laga Li Hai". According to him, when he asked him about the condition of Neha (Woh Thik Hai Ki Nahin) Jeet Mehta replied that she had expired (Woh Mar Chuki Hai). The witness has testified that he asked the address on telephone and thereafter he alongwith his friend reached there i.e. at H.No.197, IInd Floor, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and noticed that his daughter was found lying dead on the bed and police was already present there. He has further deposed that police removed the dead body and postmortem was got conducted and St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 24 he appeared before the SDM on 16.11.2010. According to the witness, at that time, none of the accused persons or from their family was present there and only the family members from their side were present there. He has testified that the SDM got recorded statement of his wife Neeru and he (witness) also read the said statement and made his endorsement at point X on Ex.PW9/A and signed the same at point X1. The witness has proved having identified the dead body of his daughter Neha vide identification memo Ex.PW15/C. He has also deposed that on one occasion his daughter Neha telephoned and told them that the accused persons were demanding Rs.2 Lakhs from her on which he showed his inability to pay the same. According to the witness, on one occasion his daughter Neha telephoned them from the phone of neighbour and told them that since the accused Jeet Lal Mehta had committed rape on her person, therefore, she was not allowed to go out of the house and she was confined in a room of the house and one of the family members of the accused always remained present in the house, to guard the said room. He has alleged that accused persons also subjected his daughter to beatings, so that she may not disclose the fact of rape, committed with her by accused Jeet Lal Mehta. According to the witness, he had suspicion that all the accused persons had killed his daughter and tried to give it a colour of suicide by hanging her on the ceiling fan. He has explained that in the marriage of his daughter Neha with accused Vikas Mehta, they had voluntarily given one gold ring and one set weighing about 5 tolas of gold and the accused persons had given St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 25 gold jewellery weighing about 5 tolas to his daughter. According to him, the gold jewellery, which were given by them was belonged to his wife which was given to her by her mother. He has also deposed that on the day of marriage, at the time of Vidaai, accused Jeet Lal Mehta demanded Rupees One Lac from them, in lieu of articles on which he tried to convince accused Vikas Mehta that such a huge amount cannot be arranged immediately, but he replied that in this regard, whatever his father said, he had to do that and hence under compelling circumstances, he arranged Rs. One Lac from his relatives i.e. Jai Rana, Mohit Rana, his friend Virender Kumar, Prem Lata and one Seema, as well as from the Kanyadaan and handed over the same to the accused Jeet Lal Mehta only after which the Vidaai ceremony was concluded. He has further deposed that the accused persons also made a demand of Rs.10,000/, in lieu of the photography done in the marriage but he paid them only Rs.5,000/. He has testified that just after the marriage accused Sweety got removed all the jewellery articles of his daughter Neha and kept the same with her and also started quarreling with his daughter Neha which fact was told to them by his daughter. According to the witness, his daughter also told them that accused Sweety used to harass her. He has further deposed that after the marriage, accused Jeet Lal Mehta started teasing his daughter Neha (Chhedkhani Karta Tha) on which his daughter called his wife on this aspect and the accused persons got recorded something from his wife and daughter. According to the witness, at the time of bail of accused Vikas St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 26 Mehta, Rs.25,000/ were handed over to accused Sweety and when accused Vikas Mehta released on bail and came to house, his daughter Neha told him about the incident of rape, committed by his father accused Jeet Lal Mehta, but the accused Vikas Mehta told her that "Koi Baat Nahin. Kabhi Kabhi Mere Pitaji Ko Bhi Khush Kar Diya Karo". He has also deposed that he came to know about this fact through his wife Neeru after the death of his daughter Neha and prior to two or three days of the death of his daughter Neha, accused Jeet Lal Mehta demanded Rs.2 lacs and told them to either pay Rs.2 lacs to him or take their daughter back. The witness has testified that Jeet Lal also threatened them that if the said Rs.2 lacs is not paid, Neha would be killed by them and the accused Asha Rani, Sweety and Jeet Mehta also threatened them on phone that either give Rs.2 lacs or otherwise, Neha would be killed by them. According to the witness, all these facts were not disclosed to the SDM, since he was not well at that time and his wife told these facts to the SDM. He has also deposed that the Roka ceremony was held six months prior to the marriage of his daughter Neha with accused Vikas Mehta and at that time he requested the accused persons that the marriage may be solemnized after twothree years and has voluntarily added that he was not even agreed for Roka ceremony but accused persons insisted him to do the same. He has also deposed that on the asking of accused persons, the marriage of Neha with accused Vikas Mehta was solemnized early.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 27 (21) A leading question was put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the letter Ex.PW8/A was put to the witness and it was suggested to them that the signature of daughter Neha appeared at point X, to which the witness replied that it might be the signature of his daughter Neha.
(22) In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that he is not aware if the letter Ex.PW8/A was written in the handwriting of his daughter Neha, or any of his family members or if his daughter came to their house on 02.08.2010. He has denied the suggestion that his address is Mohan Garden, Gurudwara Road, N12, (which is written on letter Ex.PW8/A). He has admitted that he is residing in Mohan Garden and none of the accused resides in Mohan Garden. He does not remember, if his daughter Neha gave any complaint in Police Station Shalimar Bagh, of her own, or at his instance. The witness has also deposed that prior to the death of his daughter Neha, she visited their house seven months ago and has voluntarily explained that when he got paralytic attack, she came to meet him. He has further deposed that he got paralytic attack, about four months after the marriage of Neha and remained on the bed for about one week. The witness has also deposed that before the marriage of Neha, he was doing a job at Rajender Nagar with Sunita Boutique, but he does not remember her address. According to the witness, he did not have a fixed salary but he used to get sometimes Rs.10 thousand, sometimes Rs.12 thousand or Rs.15 thousand, as per season. The witness has testified that he St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 28 took a shop on rent at Mohan Garden at B103, prior to threefour months of the death of his daughter Neha and used to run a boutique under the name and style of Manhar Boutique. The witness has placed on record one visiting card of Manhar Boutique which card is Ex.PW14/D1 but states that two telephone numbers printed on the said card do not belong to him and has voluntarily explained that the said numbers were of the previous holder of the said boutique, which was later on taken by him on rent with all the articles affixed in it. He has admitted that the number written on the front by pen i.e. 9250843817, belongs to him. The witness has also deposed that he used to go to his boutique at 8.00 AM and returned from there from 9.00 PM or 10.00 PM. According to him, Sita is residing in RZF Block, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh who never met him after the marriage of Neha and has voluntarily explained that she met with his wife after the marriage for two/ three times. He has testified that before marriage the accused persons did not make any demand from them for the marriage and has voluntarily explained that they made demands on the day of marriage itself. He does not recollect if he had told the SDM or the police about the fact that the marriage was organized as per the demands of accused Vikas Mehta, Asha Rani and Suman @ Sweety. He is unable to tell as to for which offence, from which Police Station, under which FIR and in which jail, the accused Vikas Mehta was lodged, after three months of his marriage with Neha. He has also deposed that he never visited any Court or jail, to meet Vikas Mehta and has voluntarily added that the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 29 accused persons did not tell him the particulars of the case and this fact came to his knowledge at the time of his bail, when they made demands of Rs.50 thousand. According to him, he and his family were not aware for about one month about the lodging of accused Vikas Mehta in Jail and this fact came to their knowledge at the time of his bail when Neha disclosed this fact to them and thereafter, they went to her matrimonial house. The witness has further deposed that at that time, the accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/, but they could not pay the same on the same day and paid Rs. 25,000/ to the accused persons after twothree days, after arranging the same which said amount was paid by his wife and Prem Lata. He is unable to tell if somebody else also accompanied them, when they went to give the said amount to the accused at the matrimonial house of Neha. The witness has also deposed that his Saali Seema was residing near their house and after the marriage of Neha, his wife used to leave his remaining two children at her house and went for her job.
(23) The witness Baldev Raj has further deposed that he did not tell to the SDM when the statement of his wife Neeru was recorded to which he gave consent that the marriage of his daughter was organized as per the demands of accused Vikas Mehta, his mother Asha Rani and his sister Suman @ Sweety. According to the witness, he and his wife told to the SDM that after three months of the marriage accused Vikas Mehta lodged in jail in a car theft case. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found so recorded but it has been St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 30 mentioned as "one and a half month after the marriage." He has testified that he did not tell to the SDM that when the accused Vikas was in jail, he alongwith his wife went to the matrimonial home of his daughter Neha and at that time accused Asha Rani and Suman @ Sweety demanded Rs. 50,000/ for obtaining the bail of accused Vikas and has voluntarily explained that his wife might have told the same to the SDM. He is not aware when accused Vikas Mehta was arrested in car theft case. He has denied the suggestion that accused Vikas was never arrested in any car theft case. The witness has also deposed that his wife went to the matrimonial house at about 2.303.00 PM where the accused Asha Rani and Suman demanded Rs.50,000/, after about two months of marriage of his daughter Neha and remained there for about 3060 minutes but his daughter Neha did not meet him during this visit. According to him, at that time he told the accused Asha Rani and Suman that he would try to give some money after some time and has voluntarily explained that after twothree days he sent his wife with Rs.25,000/ to the accused to hand over the same to them. He has explained that he borrowed Rs.12,000/ to Rs.13,000/ from one of his friend who is known as Baba Chai Wala but he is not aware of his actual name and returned his money in installments. He does not remember if his wife or he told the SDM that the said Rs.25,000/ were arranged by him and with the help of some other persons. He has also stated that he had told the SDM that he came to know through his wife that accused Jeet Mehta committed rape with his daughter Neha and he was not St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 31 aware about the date of such incident of rape. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A the said fact was not found so recorded. He is unable to tell from which jail and on which Jail accused Vikas Mehta was released. According to the witness, he got paralytic attack in the month of May or June 2010 but he is unable to tell if he or his wife in his presence told to SDM that his daughter used to talk with them on phone but after about five months of the marriage accused persons had taken the phone from her. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found so recorded. He has testified that his daughter telephoned him by hiding herself from the eyes of accused persons for asking his work about two or three days before Diwali in the year 2010. He has also deposed that mobile number 9250843817 remained with him when he used to go to his boutique. According to him, on 15.11.2010 he left his house for his boutique at 8.00AM and at about 2.45PM he received a call from his daughter Shivali that Jeet Mehta made her a call asking about the whereabout of Neha as to whether she had come to their house. He has also deposed that at about 3.454.00PM he received call from Jeet Mehta on his mobile who informed him that his daughter Neha had committed suicide on which he left his boutique and went to the Village Shalimar Bagh at the factory of Raju and his brother where the labourers met him. The witness has further deposed that thereafter he called Jeet Mehta on his mobile who told him the address of Vikas Mehta in Village Shalimar in Gali no.2 and then he reached at the house of Vikas Mehta at about 6.006.15PM where St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 32 accused Vikas Mehta, his mother Asha Rani, police persons were present and his daughter Neha was lying with half portion of body on bed and half portion on floor and was died. He has also deposed that his daughter Shivali was having her own phone but he does not remember its number. The witness has testified that he remained there for about one and a half to two hours and took the dead body of Neha to hospital at Jahangir Puri from where they came to police station Shalimar Bagh with the police and his family members also reached there. According to him, they all left the Police Station at about 10.30PM and has voluntarily explained that at that time accused persons were also sitting in the police station. He has also deposed that on the next day he, his wife Neeru and other family members also reached in BJRM Hospital at Jahangir Puri where the SDM came and statement of his wife Neeru was recorded in his presence at about 4.30PM. The witness has further testified that they remained in the hospital till 6.307.00PM. He does not remember if his wife or he himself told to the SDM that accused Jeet Mehta had made the said call and told that "apni larki ko utha le jao, wo mar chuki hai" and he again telephoned and told that "tumhari larki ne phansi laga lee hai". According to him, his daughter Neha telephoned him that the accused persons were demanding Rs.2,00,000/ from her but he showed his inability to pay the same, about two days before Bhai Dooj in the year 2010, again said it was on Vishwakarma Day. He has testified that he never made the statement before the court on 19.12.2012 that on one occasion his daughter Neha St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 33 telephoned him from the phone of a neighbourer and told that since the accused Jeet Lal Mehta had committed rape upon her therefore she was allowed to go out of the house and she was subject to confinement in a room of the house and one of the family members of the accused always remained present in the house to guard the said room. He has further deposed that in his presence the accused persons never gave beatings to his daughter Neha. He does not remember if he or his wife told the SDM that on the day of marriage at the time of Bidai accused Jeet Lal Mehta demanded Rs. One Lac from them in lieu of articles but he tried to convince accused Vikas Mehta that such a huge amount cannot be arranged immediately but he replied in this regard that whatever his father said he (witness) had to do that. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A where it was not found so recorded. He does not remember if he or his wife had told to the SDM that under compelling circumstances he arranged the said Rs. One Lakh from his relatives i.e. Jai Rana, Mohit Rana, friend Virender Kumar, Prem Lata and one Seema and from the Kanyadaan and handed over the same to Jeet Lal Mehta and thereafter the Bidai Ceremony was concluded; that the accused persons also made a demand of Rs.10,000/ for photography done in the marriage but he paid them only Rs.5,000/; that just after the marriage accused Sweety got removed all the jewelery articles of his daughter Neha and kept the same with her and she also started quarreling and harassing his daughter Neha; that after the marriage accused Jeet Lal Mehta started teasing his daughter St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 34 Neha (chhed khaani karta tha) and his daughter told his wife on this aspect and the accused persons got recorded something from His wife and daughter. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/A the above facts were not found so recorded.
(24) According to the witness, he never came to know from his wife about these facts of teasing his daughter Neha at the end of accused Jeet Lal Mehta and about recording something from his wife and daughter and has again stated that he came to know about these facts at the time of recording the statement by SDM through his wife. He has also deposed that for the first time he came to know from his wife that when accused Vikas Mehta released on bail, his daughter Neha told him about the incident of rape committed by his father accused Jeet Lal Mehta but the accused Vikas Mehta told her that "koi baat nahin kabhikabhi mere pitaji ko bhi khush kar diya karo". He does not remember if he or his wife told to the SDM that when accused Vikas Mehta released on bail, his daughter Neha told him about the incident of rape committed by his father accused Jeet Lal Mehta but the accused Vikas Mehta told her that "koi baat nahin kabhi kabhi mere pitaji ko bhi khush kar diya karo". However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A the above fact was not found recorded. The witness has testified that he asked his wife as to why she did not tell these facts to him, on which she replied that as he was having ill health and heart patient so she did not inform him above facts to him. The witness has further deposed that his daughter Neha visited his house only one time St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 35 when accused Vikas Mehta was in jail and on that day he met with an accident. He has also deposed that he visited the house of Vikas Mehta three times and the last time he visited their house, Vikas Mehta was in jail but his wife Neeru visited many times to the house of Vikas Mehta. The witness has also deposed that neither he nor his wife Neeru made any complaint against accused persons prior to her death and has voluntarily explained that his daughter Neha made a complaint at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons never demanded Rs. Two Lacs from them nor they ever threatened that if the said Rs. Two Lac is not paid, Neha would be killed by them. He is unable to produce any document to show that he was running a boutique on rent basis, as stated by him on previous date and has voluntarily explained that his neighborers and labourers can prove the same and the name of landlord of the shop is one Bhalla. He has further deposed that he went to the Police Station after 10 or 15 days of recording of statement of SDM but the police was not recording his statement properly and therefore he did not make any statement to the police afterwards. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter Neha was never harassed by the accused persons for any demand or otherwise or that he was making false improvements in his statement being father of the deceased. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he was making false statement regarding rape committed by accused Jeet Lal Mehta or that Neha never gave any information regarding harassment, demand or rape by accused Jeet Lal Mehta to them at any St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 36 occasion either personally or on phone.
(25) With the permission of the Court the witness was reexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the point of his previous statement which he made in the court on 19.12.2012. The witness has deposed that his statement was recorded on 19.12.2012 correctly and his wife informed him that on one occasion his daughter Neha telephoned to them from the phone of neighbour and told them that since accused Jeet Lal Mehta had committed rape on her person therefore she was not allowed to go out of the house and she was subjected to confinement in a room of the house and one of the accused persons remained at the house to guard the said room and has voluntarily explained that he gave this statement on the basis of information given to him by his wife.
(26) In his further crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that his wife had told him that Neha made a call from the phone of a neighbourer in Gali no.2 Shalimar Bagh but she did not inform him about the date of telephone made to her by his daughter Neha. According to him, accused Jeet Lal Mehta, his wife Asha Rani and Suman @ Sweety were residing at Najafgarh whereas the accused Vikas Mehta, Raju and his daughter Neha was residing in Village Shalimar Bagh. He has denied the suggestion that his wife never told this fact to him. Witnesses of medical record:
(27) PW18 Dr. V.K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital has deposed that on 16.11.2010 at about 3.00PM he conducted the postmortem St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 37 on the dead body of Neha W/o Vikas Mehta aged 19 years on the request of M.P. Kushwaha Executive Magistrate with alleged history of hanging as per brief facts of the case. According to the witness, on examination he found following external injuries:
1. Bruise of size 3cm x 2cm on left leg.
2. An obliquely placed ligature mark present on front and sides of neck, going upwards and backwards towards posterior hairline. The length of the ligature mark is 28cm and width is 3.4cm. There is knot on right side of the neck in posterior hairline. Ligature mark was placed 5cm below chin and 5cm and 3cm below right and left ear lobule respectively on sides. The skin over the ligature mark was hard and parchmentised. On dissection of the neck tissue underneath the ligature mark was pale and glistening.
(28) According to the witness, after postmortem examination cause of death was kept pending for want of blood and viscera report and the blood and viscera on a common salt, chunni (ligature material) were sealed with the seal of the hospital and handed over to the police with sample seal. He has proved the detail Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW18/A and has deposed that the postmortem report and all the inquest papers ten numbers were also handed over to the police.
(29) The witness has also proved that on 04.10.2011 he received the application of the Investigating Officer regarding cause of death after receipt of viscera report. According the him, he perused the viscera report St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 38 which is Ex.PW12/A and gave his opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure produced by ante mortem ligature hanging and Injury no.1 mentioned in the PM Report Ex.PW18/A could have been caused by striking with hard object. He has proved his detailed subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW18/B. The witness has further deposed that on the same day he also received an application regarding the opinion about the ligature material from the Investigating Officer and received one packet in sealed condition with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and on opening the same it found to contain a ligature material i.e. Chunni and after examining the same he gave his opinion that the ligature mark mentioned in the above said Postmortem Report Ex.PW18/A could have been caused by the ligature material examined or similar such chunni. He has also proved having opined that the ligature material was sufficient to sustain the weight of the body of the deceased vide his detailed subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW18/C. The witness has testified that after examining the same, he again resealed the chunni in a cloth pullanda with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital and handed over the same to the police with sample seal. He has correctly identified the chunni which was found with the dead body and also which was examined by him later on, which Chunni is Ex.P1. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 39 FSL Expert:
(30) PW12 Ms. Kavita Goyal, Sr. Scientific Officer has deposed that on 26.11.2010, one sealed parcel was received in the office of FSL, in connection of this case and was marked to her for analysis. According to her, seals of polythene bag was intact and tallied with the specimen seal as per forwarding letter. She has further deposed that Parcel no.1 was one polythene bag, sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital Delhi, labeled as PMR No.1362 dated 16.11.2010 i.e. viscera of Neha and found to contain Ex.1A i.e. stomach and piece of small intestine with contents kept in a sealed jar; Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a sealed jar and Ex.1C i.e. blood sample volume approximate 10 ML. kept in a sealed vial. She has proved that on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in the above mentioned exhibits. The witness has also proved having prepared her detailed report which is Ex.PW12/A. (31) She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity and her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Police / official witnesses:
(32) PW4 SI Manohar Lal is the Draftsman who has deposed that on 26.11.2010, he along with Inspector Pooran Chand of Police Station St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 40 Shalimar Bagh visited the place of occurrence i.e. House no. 197, Gali no.
2, Shalimar Village, Delhi where he took the measurement on the place of occurrence at the instance of Inspector Pooran Chand and took rough notes. According to the witness, on the basis of the said measurement and rough notes, he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW4/A of the place of occurrence and after preparation of the scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes.
(33) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 26.11.2010 but he does not remember, how many rooms were there in house no. 197, Gali no. 2, Village Shalimar, Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that he prepared the site plan on the instruction of the Investigating Officer while sitting in the Police Station or that he did not visit the spot.
(34) PW5 HC Vijay Laxmi has deposed that on 15.11.2010, she was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh as HC and was working as Duty Officer from 08.00 AM to 4.00 PM. She has also deposed that on that day, at about 3.15 PM one Vikas Mehta came to the Police Station and informed that his wife Neha had committed suicide inside the room by hanging herself with a fan on which she recorded the said information vide DD No.20A copy of which is Ex.PW5A which she handed over to PSI Rajan Pal, who left for the spot along with Ct. Durga Das and Vikas Mehta after which she informed the SHO about the information received. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 41 (35) In her crossexamination the witness has deposed that according to DD register, PSI Rajan Pal returned to the Police Station at about 6.10 PM vide DD no. 24A copy of which is Ex.PW5/D1. (36) PW6 Ct. Durga Dass has deposed that on 15.11.2010, he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day, at about 3.15 PM, on receipt of DD No.20A, he alongwith SI Rajan Pal reached the spot i.e. House No.197/2, IInd Floor, Shalimar Village, Delhi where in a room situated at IInd floor, dead body of a lady namely Neha was lying on the bed in the position that her back was touching the bed and there was a Chunni entangled in her neck. According to the witness, the Crime Team reached the spot and inspected the spot and photographed the same. He has also deposed that the father and other relatives of deceased also reached there and the dead body of the deceased was shifted by him from the spot to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, as per the instruction of Investigating Officer and he remained deputed at Mortuary till 16.11.2010, when the postmortem was conducted and during this period, dead body was not tampered by anybody. According to him, after the postmortem Dr. V.K. Jha handed over two pulandas in sealed condition alongwith one sample seal, stated to be containing viscera of deceased and ligature material (Chunni) which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and hence his testimony has gone uincontroverted.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 42 (37) PW7 Ct. Ishwar Singh has deposed that on 26.11.2010, he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day as per the instructions of Investigating Officer he collected the viscera of deceased Neha in sealed condition alongwith sample seal FMT BJRM Hospital, collected from MHCM Shalimar Bagh and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No.63/21/10 and obtained the receipt of the same and handed over the said receipt to the MHCM. He has proved that there was no tampering with the said viscera, during the period, it remained with him. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontorverted.
(38) PW8 HC Ram Asrey has deposed that on 02.08.2010, he was posted at Police Station Shaliamr Bagh and on that day, he received a complaint of Neha Mehta regarding atrocities committed upon her by her husband which complaint is Ex.PW8/A but no telephone number of the complainant was there and therefore, he could not contact her and record her statement. He has also deposed that he submitted his report accordingly to the SHO.
(39) During the examination of the witness, it was observed by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court that the report was submitted after the death, which clearly shows that it was manipulated and the address of the complainant was mentioned on the complaint, despite which no effort was made by this witness, who was duty bound to meet the complainant St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 43 and record her statement and hence he had committed dereliction of duty. This Court has observed that the Ld. Predecessor Court has accordingly directed action against the erring officer. (40) The said witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
(41) PW10 Ct. Dalbir Singh has deposed that on 15.1.2010, he was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, North West District Delhi and on that day, he alongwith members of Mobile Crime Team, visited the scene of crime i.e. H.No.197, IInd floor, Gali No.2, Village Shalimar, Delhi and took the photographs of the scene of crime, as per direction of the Investigating Officer and after developing the same, they were handed over to the Investigating Officer alongwith the CD. He has proved the Eleven photographs available on judicial file which are Ex.PW10/A1 to Ex.PW10/A10 and the CD is Ex.PW10/B. (42) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that he received the information from the Incharge Crime Team that he was to go to Shalimar Bagh with Mobile Crime Team at about 3.45 PM and they reached there at about 4.15 PM. According to him, at the spot Investigating Officer alongwith two or three police officials were already present but he did not notice the public persons, because he was busy in taking the photographs. The witness has testified that he took the photographs of the stairs, front side of room, inside the room of the scene of crime and took the photographs of only one room. He has also deposed that they remained at St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 44 the spot for about 30 minutes. According to him, the Incharge Crime Team prepared his detailed report, which was prepared in his presence vide Ex.PW10/D1 which was handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that all the members of Mobile Crime Team reached at the spot and also returned from the spot in the government vehicle. The witness has testified that the digital camera, which he used was a government camera and the photographs were got developed in the private lab and CD was also prepared there but he does not remember the name of the said lab and on which date, the photographs were got developed. (43) PW11 SI Satpal Singh has deposed that he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team and on that day on receiving information, he alongwith mobile Crime Team reached at the spot i.e. H.No.197, IInd floor, Gali No.2, Village Shalimar, Delhi and inspected the scene of crime. According to the witness, photographer Ct. Dalbir took the photographs of the scene of crime. He has proved having prepared detailed report Ex.PW10/D1 which he handed over to the Investigating Officer. (44) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that SHO, SI Rajan Pal and other police officials were already present at the spot and two/ three public persons were also present there. According to the witness, they remained at the spot from 4.15 PM to 4.45 PM and he added the words, "Digital Photo Kiye Gaye" from point X to X on Ex.PW10/D1 at the spot and has voluntarily explained that the pen was changed. He has denied the suggestion that he did not add the said words at the spot, or that St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 45 the same were added later on at the instance of Investigating Officer. (45) PW13 HC Sarojini has deposed that on 2.8.2010 she was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and her Duty Hours were from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. According to her, on that day at about 2:00 PM Neha Mehta R/o Mohan Garden, Gurdwara Road, Delhi came to her and handed over a written application to her on which she made entry on the application vide DD No.14A copy of which is Ex.PW14/A which she handed over to HC Ram Asrey.
(46) In her crossexamination the witness has deposed that she remained posted in the Police Station upto year 2011. According to the witness, Neha alone came to the Police Station and the application was already written. She is not aware whether HC Ram Asrey made any arrival entry in respect of DD No. 14A of the said application. (47) PW15 M.P. Kushwaha the then Executive Magistrate Model Town has deposed that on 16.11.2010 SDM Model Town directed him to conduct the Inquest Proceedings of this case on which he went to BJRM Hospital where he recorded the statement of Neeru the mother of deceased Neha vide Ex.PW9/A on which the dather of Neha namely Baldev Raj made his endorsement. The witness has proved having made his endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW15/A and directed the SHO to lodge FIR u/s. 498A/304B IPC. According to him, police was also present in the hospital and thereafter he also prepared the inquest papers. He has proved having recorded the statements of Satish Kumar and Baldev Raj in St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 46 respect of identification of dead body which are Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/C; having filled Form 25 (35) which is Ex.PW15/D; Brief Facts which are Ex.PW15/E and request for postmortem vide Ex.PW15/F. The witness has deposed that he directed the Investigating Officer in the postmortem request to handover the dead body after postmortem to the parents.
(48) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached BJRM Hospital at about 11:00 AM where the Investigating Officer along with the parents of the deceased were already present. According to the witness, he did not notice if any accused of this case were also present in the hospital. He has testified that Neeru and Baldev Raj were in this proper senses and he had read over and explained their statements to them and thereafter they signed the same. He does not remember if he had asked them to say anything else except the statement they had given nor does he remember as to how much time was taken in recording the statement. He has denied the suggestion that he recorded the statements as per the Brief Facts of the case. The witness has admitted that Baldev Raj made endorsement regarding the correctness of statement given by Neeru and stated that this statement was also his statement.
(49) PW16 HC Mukesh Chand has deposed that on 16.11.2010 he was posted as MHCM at Police Station Shalimar Bagh when SI Rajan Pal got deposited two parcels duly sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 47 alongwith the sample seal in Malkhana vide entry no. 19 at serial no. 3704/10 which is Ex.PW16/A and on 26.11.10 he got them deposited through Ct. Ishwar Vide RC no. 63/21/10 vide Ex.PW16/B by the direction of Investigating Officer and Ct. Ishwar handed over him the acknowledgment of acceptance of exhibits in FSL which is Ex.PW16/C. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (50) PW17 SI Dori Lal is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW17/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW17/A and his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW17/B. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.
(51) PW19 SI Rajan Pal has deposed that on 15.11.2010 he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on that day at about 3.15PM he received DD No.20A vide Ex.PW5/A regarding commission of suicide by a lady by hanging on which he along with Ct. Durga reached at the place of incident i.e. H.No. 197/2, Second Floor, Shalimar Village, Delhi where Vikas Mehta and Jeet Lal Mehta met him and the dead body of Neha was found on the bed and the chunni was found around her neck and her tongue was coming out from her mouth. The witness has further deposed that he examined Jeet Lal Mehta and Vikas Mehta and recorded their statements St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 48 vide Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B respectively after which he immediately informed SHO who reached the spot. He has also deposed that he called the Crime Team at the spot and the Crime Team of photographer took photographs and they inspected the scene of crime. He has testified that he called the parents of the deceased Neha at the spot through Vikas Mehta and they made allegations against accused Vikas and Jeet Lal on which he also immediately informed SDM Model Town after which he shifted the dead body of Neha to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Durga Lal. He has proved having made an application for preservation of dead body vide Ex.PW19/C. The witness has also deposed that he locked the room where the dead body of the deceased was found. According to him, on 16.11.2010 Sh. MP Kushwaha Executive Magistrate reached BJRM Hospital and inspected the dead body and also made inquiries from the parents of the deceased Neha and he recorded the statement of Smt. Neeru mother of the deceased which was agreed by the Baldev Raj the father of the deceased. The witness has proved having prepared the inquest documents, statements for identification of the dead body, brief facts and request for postmortem and the same were placed before the Executive Magistrate who verified the same and then put his signatures. He has also deposed that on the direction of the Executive Magistrate postmortem on the dead body of Neha was conducted by Dr. V K Jha after which the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased and Dr. V.K. Jha handed over one pullanda containing the viscera of the deceased and St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 49 another pullanda containing ligature mater chunni in sealed condition with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL Delhi to him with sample seal and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. He has testified that the Executive Magistrate gave directions to the SHO Police Station Shalimar Bagh to lodge the FIR U/s 498A/304B of IPC after which he with all the documents and seized articles reached the Police Station and produced the same before the SHO alongwith direction of the Executive Magistrate. The witness has further deposed that the Executive Magistrate also visited the spot along with him and on 16.11.2010 he along with Investigating Officer Inspector Pooran Chand reached the spot and the lock was opened by him and Investigating Officer inspected the place of incident. (52) The witness has further deposed that on 17.11.2010 he alongwith IO Inspector Pooran Chand, WSI Ina Kumari and one constable reached at RZF38, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, Delhi where accused Vikas Mehta and Jeet Lal Mehta met them and they were interrogated by the Investigating Officer after which the accused Jeet Lal Mehta was arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/D and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW19/E. He has proved that the accused Vikas Mehta was also arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/F, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW19/G, after which disclosure statement of Jeet Lal Mehta was recorded vide Ex.PW19/H and disclosure statement of accused Vikas Mehta was recorded vide Ex.PW19/I. The witness has also deposed that St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 50 thereafter they reached at the place of incident where accused Vikas produced the photographs of his marriage with deceased Neha and Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/J which photographs are Ex.PW19/K1 to Ex.PW19/K7.
(53) He has correctly identified the accused Vikas and Jeet Lal in the Court and also the case property i.e. the chunni which was found around the neck of the dead body at the spot which Chunni is Ex.P1. (54) In his crossexamination the witness has admitted that DD No. 20A was got recorded by accused Vikas Mehta after reaching the Police Station and that he accompanied with Vikas Mehta to his house. He has further deposed that as per the DD entry, the Duty Officer informed the SHO about the incident. The witness has also deposed that he called the person who broke open the lock of the room in which Neha committed suicide through Beat Constable who confirmed that he had broken the lock of the said room. According to the witness, he did not record his statement at that time. The witness has also deposed that accused Vikas Mehta gave information to his inlaws from mobile phone after about 15 or 20 minutes of their reaching at the spot. He has testified that Crime Team reached the spot at about 4.00PM and Photographer took about 78 photographs from the spot. According to him, Baldev Raj, Neeru and some other relatives of deceased Neha reached at the spot at about 4.305.00PM. He has testified that the allegations against Vikas Mehta and Jeet lal were made by Neeru and one another lady who accompanied them. He has further deposed that St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 51 they remained there till 6.00PM and thereafter left for Mortuary with dead body of Neha. The witness has also deposed that Sh. MP Kushwaha SDM inspected the dead body of deceased Neha at about 11.30AM and statement of Neeru mother of the deceased was recorded by Executive Magistrate while sitting in the room by the side of Mortuary after inspection of the dead body. He has further deposed that the Executive Magistrate took about one - one and a half hour in recording the statement and Baldev Raj father of the deceased and other relatives including ladies were also present at the Mortuary at that time. The witness has testified that Executive Magistrate gave written directions to the SHO Police Station Shalimar Bagh to register a case at about 5.005.30PM after which he reached Police Station at about 6.006.30 PM. He has also deposed that the Executive Magistrate visited the spot along with him at about 7.00PM and Inspector Pooran Chand reached at the spot on 16.11.2010 at about 9.009.30PM. He is not aware as to who were informed about the arrest of accused Jeet Lal and Vikas Mehta. He has further deposed that Vikas Mehta took out photographs from the almirah after taking out from the album from the room in which the dead body was found.
(55) PW20 Inspector Puran Chand is the Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 16.11.2010 he was posted at Police Station Shalimar Bagh as Inspector Investigation and on that day at about 9.30PM after registration of the FIR the investigation was handed over to him and he received the copy of FIR and original statement with rukka. According St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 52 to the witness, at about 9.40 PM SI Rajan Pal met him and handed over the documents to him after which he alongwith SI Rajan Pal reached the place of occurrence at Shalimar Village. He has proved that at the instance of Rajan Pal he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW20/A and thereafter they returned back to the Police Station. He has further deposed that on 17.11.2010 he along with SI Rajan Pal WSI Ina and Ct. Ajay Pal went to the SDM Office at Rampura and recorded statement of Sh. MP Kushwana, Executive Magistrate after which they reached at H.No. RZF38, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, Delhi where Vikas Mehta and Jeet Lal Mehta met them and they were interrogated by him one by one. Witness has also deposed that he arrested accused Vikas Mehta vide Ex.PW19/F and also arrested accused Jeet Lal Mehta vide Ex.PW19/D and took his personal search vide Ex.PW19/E. He has further testified that he recorded disclosure statement of Vikas Mehta vide Ex.PW19/I and of Jeet Lal Mehta vide Ex.PW19/H. According to him, thereafter they reached at the place of incident Shalimar Village where at the instance of the accused Vikas handed over the album containing photographs of his marriage with Neha to him and took out seven photographs from the album which are Ex.PW19/K1 to Ex.PW19/K7 and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/J. He has testified that thereafter they returned back to the Police Station and recorded the statement of witness SI Rajan Pal and on the next day accused was sent to Judicial Custody.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 53 (56) He has further deposed that on 23.11.2010 he collected the photographs and CD and also collected the Crime Team Report. According to the witness, on 25.11.2010 he collected the Postmortem report and inquest documents from BJRM Hospital Mortuary and on 26.11.2010 viscera of the deceased was sent to the FSL, Rohini from the Malkhana of Police Station Shalimar Bagh through Ct. Ishwar. He has also deposed that on the same day in the evening the scaled site plan was got prepared through SI M. L. Meena and he recorded his statement. He has proved that on 31.01.2011 he collected the FSL result which is Ex.PW12/A and on 01.02.2011 he moved an application to CMO Mortuary, BJRM Hospital regarding the cause of death and on 04.02.2011 regarding ligature material vide Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/C. He has also deposed that he obtained the opinion of doctors which are Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C. He has further testified that during his investigation on 01.02.2011 he arrested accused Suman @ Sweety vide Ex.PW20/D and was released on bail as she was on Anticipatory Bail. He has also proved having collected the scaled site plan and recorded statement of witnesses. The witness has also deposed that after completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet against accused Vikas Mehta, Jeet Lal Mehta and Suman @ Sweety in the Court. According to him, 18.03.2012 with the permission of the court he arrested Smt. Asha Rani vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/E and took her personal search. He has proved having submitted charge sheet against Asha Rani. He has correctly identified all the accused persons, Accused Vikas, St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 54 Jeet Lal, Suman and Asha Rani in the Court.
(57) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the copy of the FIR was handed over to him by Ct. Durga Dass at about 9:30 PM at Police Station and when they visited the place of incident the room was locked which was opened by SI Rajan Pal who was having the keys of that room. He has further deposed that he made inquiries from the neighborhood but no formal statement was recorded of those persons. According to him, they remained at the spot for about 45 minutesone hour and then returned to Police Station. He has testified that the said house was having threefour stories and there were threefour rooms in each storey. He has also deposed that the place of incident was on the second floor and there were threefour tenants in that story and only ladies were present in other room.
(58) The witness has further deposed that on 17.11.2010 they reached at SDM Office, Rampura at about 3:454 PM and immediately thereafter he recorded the statement of Sh. M.P. Kushwaha Executive Magistrate. He has testified that place of incident is about 3035 Kms from the house of accused Jeet Lal Mehta at Najafgarh. According to him, he arrested Jeet Lal Mehta and Vikas Mehta between 66:45 PM and the information about their arrest was given to Rajeev Mehta S/o Jeet Lal Mehta. He has further deposed that Ex.PW8/A was given to him by HC Ram Ashre in the month of November or December 2010. He does not recollect the exact date but states that he recorded the statement U/s 161 Cr. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 55 P.C. of HC Ram Ashre on that day. He has admitted that Ex.PW8/A is in the different handwriting from the word "Neha Mehta" at point X in red encircled in this document. The witness has also deposed that during His investigations he could not get admitted handwriting or signatures of Neha Mehta from her parents and therefore he could not do any investigations as to who was the actual author of Ex.PW8/A and has voluntarily explained that Baldev Raj, father of Neha Mehta told him that signatures at point X in red encircled are of his daughter Neha Mehta but he did not record his statement to this effect. The witness has further deposed that Baldev Raj told him this fact on 19.11.2010 that Neha Mehta gave a letter in Police Station Shalimar Bagh and by that time Ex.PW8/A was not collected. He has denied the suggestion that Baldev Raj never met him after 15.11.2010 or that after 15.11.2010 he gave many notices to Baldev Raj to reach police station in order to join the investigations of the present case but he never turned up for this purpose and has voluntarily explained that he gave those notices to Baldev Raj after 19.11.2010. The witness has also deposed that he gave notices under Section 91 Cr. P.C. to Baldev Raj on 27.11.2010 and 22.12.2010 which are Ex.PW20/DX1 and Ex.PW20/DX2. According to him, even after these notices Baldev Raj never came to the police station for making his statement or to give any documentary evidence regarding making payment to the accused persons by them. He has deposed that he also gave notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Baldev but he flatly refused to except the notices. He has testified that Vikas Mehta started living in the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 56 room where the alleged incident took place form 10.08.2010. He does not remember the case in which accused Vikas Mehta was arrested or the date on which he was arrested and on which date he was released on bail from jail. The witness also does not remember whether he had mentioned the same in his case diaries or not. He has admitted that he did not mention these facts in challan. He has further deposed that he has filed involvement of Vikas Mehta with the challan. The witness has testified that he has not cited any public witness of village Shalimar, Mohan Garden where the parents of deceased Neha were residing and of Najafgarh because no one came forward to depose in the case. He has denied the suggestion that accused Vikas Mehta never went to Jail in this case or that they have wrongly implicated the accused persons in this case. The witness has also denied the suggestion that Ex.PW8/A has been fabricated later on in connivance with Baldev Raj and other police officials. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE WITNESS:
(59) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons which they have denied. The accused Vikas Mehta has stated that he shifted to House No. 197/2 Second Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi just after three months of his marriage. According to him, Neha was depressed due to the conduct of her mother as she never sent Shivali and Shivam who are brother and sister of St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 57 Neha in his house inspite of several calls made by Neha and after a gap of twothree days Neeru used to quarrel with Baldev Raj, due to her family problems she took this wrong step. The accused has further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he and his father Jeet Lal Mehta went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh to give information about the suicide of Neha from where SI Rajan Pal along with Ct. Durga accompanied them.
(60) The accused Jeet Lal Mehta has stated that his son Vikas had shifted to House No. 197/2 Second Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi just after three months of his marriage. According to him, on 15.11.2010 at about 11:00 AM his son Vikas telephoned him that the door of his house locked from side and despite his best efforts he could not find Neha on which he came at Shalimar Bagh and his son Vikas called one Ravinder Chauhan in order to break open the door. The accused has also stated that later on his son Vikas told him that Neha was depressed due to the conduct of her mother as she never sent Shivali and Shivam who are brother and sister of Neha in the house of Vikas Mehta inspite of several calls made by Neha and after a gap of twothree days Neeru used to quarrel with Baldev Raj, due to her family problems she took this wrong step. The accused has further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
According to the accused, he and his son Vikas Mehta went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh to give information about the suicide of Neha from where SI Rajan Pal along with Ct. Durga accompanied them. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 58 (61) The accused Sweety @ Suman has stated that she was married to Rajesh Verma on 6.12.2001 i.e. much prior to the incident and at the time of incident he was residing with her husband at House No. 2115, Gama Chowk, Wadhwa Colony, Panipat. According to her, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The accused has also stated that she never demanded anything from anyone as deposed by the witnesses and all the allegations against him are incorrect.
(62) The accused Asha Rani has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, she never demanded anything from anyone as deposed by the witnesses and all the allegations against him are incorrect.
FINDINGS:
(63) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments and also the evidence on record.
My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(64) In so far as the identity of the accused persons are concerned, the same has not been disputed. The accused Vikas Mehta is the husband of the deceased Neha; Jeet Lal Mehta is the father in law of the deceased;
Sweety is the sister in law (Nanand) of the deceased and Asha Rani is the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 59 mother in law of the deceased. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused persons stand established.
Death within seven years of marriage:
(65) It is an admitted case of both the parties that the marriage of the deceased Neha had taken place with the accused Vikas Mehta on 2.11.2009 and she had expired on 15.11.2010 i.e. Eleven months and Seventeen days of her marriage (within seven years of her marriage) which aspect stands established.
Medical / Forensic Evidence:
(66) Dr. V.K. Jha (PW18) has proved having conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Neha on 16.11.2010 at about 3.00PM vide postmortem report Ex.PW18/A according to which there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Bruise of size 3cm x 2cm on left leg.
2. An obliquely placed ligature mark present on front and sides of neck, going upwards and backwards towards posterior hairline. The length of the ligature mark is 28cm and width was 3.4cm. There was knot on right side of the neck in posterior hairline. Ligature mark was placed 5cm below Chin and 5cm and 3cm below right and left ear lobule respectively on sides. The skin over the ligature mark was hard and parchmentised. On dissection of the neck tissue underneath St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 60 the ligature mark was pale and glistening.
(67) Initially Dr. V.K. Jha had kept pending the opinion on the cause of death and has proved that on 04.10.2011 pursuant to the application of the Investigating Officer regarding cause of death after receipt of viscera report which is Ex.PW12/A duly proved by Ms. Kavita Goyal (PW12) according to which on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in the exhibits. The witness Dr. V.K. Jha (PW18) has proved having perused the viscera report Ex.PW12/A and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure produced by ante mortem ligature hanging and Injury no.1 mentioned in the PM Report Ex.PW18/A could have been caused by striking with hard object, which opinion is Ex.PW18/B. (68) Dr. V.K. Jha (PW18) has also proved having examined the ligature material i.e. Chunni and having opined that the ligature mark mentioned in the Postmortem Report Ex.PW18/A could have been caused by the ligature material examined or similar such chunni and the ligature material was sufficient to sustain the weight of the body of the deceased vide his detailed subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW18/C. This report of the Autopsy Surgeon is compatible to the photographs taken by the Crime Team Photographer which are Ex.PW10/A1 to Ex.PW10/A10. Further, I St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 61 may observe that the ligature mark was obliquely placed on front and sides of neck, going upwards and backwards towards posterior hairline, thereby establishing the suicidal nature of hanging.
(69) In so far as the bruise mark present on left leg of the deceased is concerned, it confirms the physical violence being inflicted upon the deceased. The evidence on record show that even previously Neha (deceased) had made a complaint to the police on 2.8.2010 wherein she had stated that her husband Vikas Mehta used to harass and beat her almost regularly and she was fedup of the atrocities committed upon her by her husband. This injury on the body of the deceased is compatible to the prosecution version that the deceased had committed suicide on account of the repeated physical harassment torture being inflicted upon her by her husband Vikas Mehta and I hereby hold that the medical and forensic evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case that being fed up with the atrocities and torture inflicted upon her by her husband Neha committed suicide and her death was on account of suicidal hanging with the Chunni Ex.P1.
Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test) and Section 306 IPC:
(70) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Neha was married to the accused Vikas Mehta on 2.11.2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies and on 15.11.2010 she had committed suicide St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 62 on account of harassment caused by her inlaws on account of demand of dowry. It has been alleged that just after one month of the marriage the accused Vikas Mehta was arrested in a car theft case and a sum of Rs.
50,000/ was demanded by the family of the accused from the family of the deceased to secure his bail on which the parents of the deceased gave a sum of Rs.25,000/ to accused Asha Rani. Further, as per allegations after the release of accused Vikas Mehta, as a matter of strategy he (Viask Mehta) along with Neha were shifted to a rented accommodation at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Village, Delhi i.e. the house of Jatin Chaudhary on a monthly rent of Rs.2,700/. It has also been alleged that the father in law of Neha namely Jeet Lal (father of accused Vikas Mehta) had committed rape upon her (Neha) which fact was known to all the family members of Vikas Mehta and Neha was subjected to harassment and was kept in confinement so that she would not disclose this incident to anybody. The parents of the deceased have also alleged that the accused persons had demanded a sum of Rs. Two Lakhs from them and also executed threats to them. It is alleged that Neha was not permitted to meet her parents so much so that on the occasion of Bhai Duj which was two days before the incident, she was not permitted to go to her parental house and hence, on account of harassment caused to her by the accused persons, she committed suicide by hanging herself on the ceiling fan on 15.11.2010.
(71) The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2010 at about 3:15 PM the accused Vikas Mehta went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh and St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 63 informed that his wife Neha had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. Pursuant to the said information DD No. 20A was lodged after which SI Rajan Pal along with Ct. Durga Das reached the spot i.e. second floor of House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Village, Delhi where the dead body of Smt. Neha was found lying on the bed with a chunni around her neck. On inquiry Vikas Mehta informed the police that there was a verbal altercation between him and his wife Neha after which he went to his work at about 9:00 AM and at about 1:302:00 PM he returned back along with his father Jeet Lal Mehta but found the door locked from inside. Vikas Mehta further informed the police that thereafter he brought a key maker from Sahipur Market and got the door opened when they found his wife Neha hanging from the ceiling fan and he along with his father Jeet Lal Mehta got Neha down. At about 4:305:00 PM the parents of the deceased also reached the spot and information was sent to SDM Model after which the the dead body of Neha was sent to Mortuary BJRM Hospital.
(72) On 16.11.2010 the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Smt. Neeru the mother of the deceased Neha on the basis of which the present was FIR was registered. In support of its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of Smt. Neeru (PW9) mother of the deceased and Baldev Raj Bhardwaj (PW14)father of the deceased.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 64 (73) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 65 is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(74) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(75) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498 A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 66 torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand. (76) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
(77) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under: St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 67
"Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(78) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 68 girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
(79) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 69 promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(80) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 70 property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
(81) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry"
any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 71 the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."
(82) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out.
(83) The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(84) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 72 cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
(85) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
(86) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 73 agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
(87) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 74 (88) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused...."
(89) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 75 It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(90) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
(91) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 76 unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."
(92) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (93) Coming first to the case against the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Asha Rani and Sweety @ Suman i.e. the parents in law and married sister in law /Nanand of the deceased, their case stands on a different footing to that of husband Vikas Mehta since at the time of the incident both the deceased and accused Vikas Mehta were residing separately at Shalimar Bagh whereas the other accused were residing at Nazafgarh. Applying the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 77 settled principles of law as aforesaid to the facts of the present case it is evident from the record that the only evidence on record is the oral testimonies of the parents of the deceased i.e. Smt. Neeru (PW9) and Baldev Raj Bhardwaj (PW14). From a combined reading of the testimonies of both these witnesses and from the evidence adduced the following aspects emerge:
➢ That the marriage between the deceased Neha and the accused Vikas Mehta was solemnized on 2.11.2009 which was an arranged marriage through one Smt. Sita who is the Mausi of the accused and was known to Smt. Neeru (mother of the deceased). I may note that Sita has not been cited as a witness nor examined by the prosecution. ➢ That soon after one month the accused Vikas Mehta was lodged in jail in a theft case where he remained for one - one and a half month (the detail involvements of Vikas Mehta have been attached along with the chargesheet).
➢ That during this period a demand of Rs.50,000/ was raised to secure the release of the accused Vikas Mehta but the parents of the deceased can only arrange for Rs.25,000/ which they handedover to Asha Rani who in turn handed over the same to Sweety @ Suman who counted the amount and kept the same with her (oral testimonies of parents of the deceased).
➢ That accused Sweety @ Suman Mehta the married sister of the accused Vikas Mehta/ daughter of Jeet Lal and Asha Rani returned to St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 78 her house in the month of March 2010 on account of her matrimonial dispute and started staying there (oral statement of parents of the deceased).
➢ That the deceased Neha had disclosed to her mother Smt. Neeru on telephone that on one occasion Jeet Lal had committed rape upon her (oral statement of parents of the deceased).
➢ That the deceased Neha was given beatings and she was confined in a room so that she could not disclose the incident of rape to anybody (oral statement of parents of the deceased).
➢ That a demand of Rs. Two lakhs was raised by the accused persons but the parents of the deceased could not arrange for the same on account of financial constraints (oral statement of parents of the deceased).
➢ That after the release of the accused Vikas Mehta from jail, he started residing separately with deceased Neha at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi at 1.8.2010 belonging to Jatin Chaudhary at a monthly rent of Rs.2,700/ (oral statement of parents of the deceased and Jatin Chaudhary).
➢ That the accused Jeet Lal, Asha Rani and Sweety used to frequently come to their house along with one Raju and threaten the deceased Neha that in case if their demand was not fulfilled they would kill her (oral statement of parents of the deceased).
➢ That the deceased Neha was also beaten and even subjected to St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 79 harassment and torture and given beatings on account of the fact that her parents were not able to meet the demands raised by the accused persons (oral statement of parents of the deceased). (94) Both Smt. Neeru (PW9) and Baldev Raj Bhardwaj (PW14) have been subjected to a sustained crossexamination. They have admitted that the marriage in question was a simple marriage and a maximum 4050 persons had attended the same. Baldev Raj Bhardwaj is a Tailor by profession and according to them, they have not verified the antecedents of Vikas Mehta. It is admitted by both Smt. Neeru (PW9) and Baldev Raj Bhardwaj (PW14) that at the time of Sagai the accused had gifted a mobile phone to the deceased Neha which she was using since during that period they (parents of the deceased) did not have the facility of landline phone though it is claimed that Baldev Raj was having a mobile phone with him and this mobile phone was being used by the deceased till her death. (95) I have given my careful consideration to the oral testimonies of the parents of the deceased and also to the other evidence which has come on record. It is evident that Firstly Jatin Chaudhary (PW1) is the landlord of the premises No. 197 at Gali No.2, Shalimar Village, Delhi in which Vikas Mehta and Neha were residing from 10.8.2010 till 15.11.2010. He has proved that only Vikas Mehta and Neha were residing alone in the tenanted premises. There were large number of other tenants also in the building and the question of the deceased being under any kind of pressure and threats from the parents in laws or sister in law who were residing St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 80 separately (at House No. RZF38, New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh, PS Chhawla, Delhi) does not arise. She was staying separately with her husband and running her households as she wanted and was free to move about. She had access to help from neighbours (i.e. other residents / tenants of the complex) in case of necessity and hence the oral allegations made by the parents of the deceased against the accused Jeet Lal, Asha Rani and Suman of harassment do not appear to be probable and correct. Rather, Suman herself was into matrimonial crises with her husband and there is no question of her having tortured the deceased. Rather, on the other hand the possibility that the return of Suman to her matrimonial house being the reason for shifting of the deceased and the accused Vikas Mehta to a separate residence appears to be more probable.
(96) Secondly Sachidanand (PW2) is another tenant residing in the same complex who has proved that on 15.11.2010 at about 2:30 PM when he came out of his room he saw the accused Vikas Mehta alongwith an aged person wearing spectacles who were both standing outside their tenanted room while another person was making the key of the lock of the door which they were trying to open. According to the witness, he asked accused Vikas Mehta whether he had taken permission from the landlord to which they replied in affirmative. This independent witness Sachidanand establishes the presence of Vikas Mehta and his father Jeet Lal Mehta at the spot on the date of incident when they were trying to open the lock of the room where the deceased Neha had committed suicide. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 81 (97) Thirdly Ravinder Chauhan (PW3) who is the Key Maker has proved that on 15.11.2010 at about 2.00 or 2.30 PM accused Vikas Mehta came to him and told him that he wanted to get open interlock of the main door of his residence on which Rs.150/ were mutually settled as remuneration. He has further proved thereafter he alongwith accused Vikas Mehta reached at House No.197, Gali No.2, Second Floor, Shalimar Village, Delhi where he prepared the key of the interlock but the door could not be opened thereafter since it was bolted from inside and hence he removed the bolt with the help of a screw driver and opened the door when he saw that one lady was hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of Chunni on which he got so extremely scared that went away without taking the money. The photograph Ex.PW10/A7 taken by the Crime Team confirms that the lock installed on the door was interlocking and could be operated from both the sides i.e. inside as well as outside. The photographs also show that a key with a chain was hanging on the inside portion of the door and Latch/ kundi on the lower portion of the door which had been removed by the key maker. This establishes that the door was bolted/ latched from inside on account of which it did not open with the key from outside the key maker had removed the bolts with the screw driver and opened the door.
(98) Fourthly one of the most important document which has been deliberately underplayed by the Investigating Agency as it belies the claims made by the parents of the deceased regarding dowry harassment is the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 82 complaint made by Neha to the Local Police on 2.8.2010 which is Ex.PW8/A. This has been duly proved by HC Sarojini (PW13) and also by PW8 HC Ram Asrey. HC Sarojini (PW13) has proved that on 2.8.2010 at about 2:00 PM Neha Mehta R/o Mohan Garden, Gurdwara Road, Delhi had came to her and handed over a written complaint against her husband on the basis of which DD No.14A which is Ex.PW14/A was recorded and was marked to HC Ram Asrey. The said complaint Ex.PW8/A reads as under:
".... Savinay nivedan yeh hai main Neha Mehta apne pati ke atyaachaaroon se dukhi hokar ek jori kaproon mein apni mataji ke yahan jaa rahi hoon. Mere pati ka naam Vikas Mehta / Sanju Mehta hai. Meri shaadi san 2 November 2009 dinank ko hui thi. Jab se lekar aaj tak vah mujhe maarta raha hai. Jiske karan main uske atyacharoon se bahut dukhi hokar apne matapita ke yahan hamesha ke liye rehne jaa rahi hoon. Aap log meri sahayta karein. Aapki ati kripa hogi....."
(99) Unfortunately HC Ram Asrey (PW8) to whom the complaint was marked did not take any action on the said complaint and the only explanation he gave during his examination was that there was no address or contact number on the complaint due to which reason he could not contact her and record her statement after which he submitted his report to the SHO. I may note that the Ld. Predecessor of this Court while recording the testimony of HC Ram Asrey has specifically observed that this report St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 83 (to SHO) was submitted after the death, which clearly shows that it was manipulated. It was also observed that address of the complainant was mentioned on the complaint despite which no effort was made by HC Ram Asrey, who was duty bound to meet the complainant and record her statement and hence he had committed dereliction of duty. (100) The manner in which the complaint of the deceased was overlooked by the officer to whom it was marked shows the causal approach of the Local Police in handling the complainants relating to domestic violence and torture. Neither HC Sarojini (PW13) at the time of lodging the DD No.14A asked the complainant to give any other contacts nor HC Ram Asrey (PW8) to whom it was marked diligently followed up the same. A timely intervention on the part of the police could have perhaps helped the deceased but it did not happen.
(101) The perusal of the complaint made by deceased Neha which is Ex.PW8/A shows that she had only made allegations against her husband Vikas Mehta and none else. Had there been any demand of dowry either of Rs.50,000/ or Rs. Two Lakhs as alleged by her parents or any kind of harassment by her inlaws or being allegedly raped by Jeet Lal Mehta, I am sure the deceased Neha would have specifically mentioned the same which she did not do. This complaint Ex.PW8/A belies the oral allegations made by the parents of the deceased that the deceased was being harassed by her parents inlaws and sister in law. I further note that Neha had been residing St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 84 separately with her husband Vikas Mehta in a tenanted premises. Therefore, the allegations that her inlaws prevented her from moving out and communicating with others does not appear to be correct. If she can go to the Police Station and give a written complaint there is nothing which would have prevented her from giving the details of the harassment being cause to her.
(102) Fifthly the statement of the mother of the deceased has not been recorded by the SDM immediately after the death of the deceased Neha but on the next day. Hence, the possibility of her having incorporated these facts of dowry harassment and rape by the father in law Jeet Lal Mehta being aggrieved by the death of her daughter in order to seek a revenge, cannot be ruled out and hence her testimony is liable to be read with caution. Incidentally the oral testimonies of the parents of the deceased do not find any confirmation or corroboration from any other source.
(103) Sixthly it is apparent from the evidence on record that at the time of Sagai the accused had given a mobile phone to Neha which mobile phone she was using even after her marriage, a fact which was admitted by the parents of the deceased. Given the background of the case that the deceased Neha used to reside with her husband separately in a rented accommodation situated in a complex having a large number of other tenants, the allegations that she was not in a position to approach her parents or that her mobile phone had been taken away or that she had St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 85 borrowed somebody else mobile phone and informed her parents about the incident does not appear to be probable and natural. All these allegations are non specific and vague. The mobile number which the deceased Neha was using has not been given to the Police nor the various numbers from which she used to make a call to her parents. Hence, in this background it is difficult to believe the oral versions of the parents in so far as allegations of dowry related harassment is concerned.
(104) Seventhly neither the landlord Sachin Chaudhary (PW1) nor the other tenant namely Sachidanand (PW2) have spoken any word about the personal relations between the deceased and the accused. I am sure that if they had noticed anything abnormal they have spoken about it, which they have not done. They are independent witnesses and have no interest either with the complainants or with the accused. I may observe that Sachidanand (PW2) was residing in the same complex on the same floor and had he noticed any kind of harassment being inflicted upon the deceased by her inlaws, he would have told the police or the Court of the same which is not the case.
(105) Lastly Baldev Raj Bhardwaj (PW14) the father of the deceased has in his testimony specifically deposed in the Court that his daughter had never told him anything directly and it is his wife who had told him that Neha had informed her regarding the demand of dowry, harassment and torture. Hence, his testimony is based upon hearsay. In this regard, I may observe that in her first statement made by Smt. Neeru St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 86 (mother of the deceased) to the SDM she had stated that her daughter had told her about the incident of rape being committed upon her by Jeet Lal Mehta and the harassment being made out to her whereas in the Court she has made a material improvement that her daughter had informed her about the same telephonically. On the one hand she claimed that the telephone which Neha was using even after the marriage had been taken back by the accused persons and on the other hand that her daughter had given her information on telephone. This is a material contradiction. Even otherwise, as already observed herein above, the deceased Neha appeared to be a well informed girl aware of her rights who even on a previous occasion had gone to the Police Station and made a complaint against her husband Vikas Mehta where she only complained of beating by Vikas Mehta. I am sure that in case of any demand of dowry by her in laws or harassment by them as alleged now by her parents she would have surely informed the Local Police or raised the issue before appropriate authority which she did not do. (106) Hence, in view of the above it is writ large from the above that in so far as the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety and Asha Rani are concerned, the allegations against them of causing harassment to the deceased Neha do not stand established and proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence they are acquitted of the charge under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
(107) Further, in so far as the provisions of Section 304B Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 87 prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above that though the deceased Neha had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house i.e. house of her husband Vikas Mehta (where they were residing on rent) but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani residing separately from the accused Vikas Mehta and the deceased Neha at Nazafgarh. All the allegations made against them are vague, general and non specific. Being aggrieved by the death of the deceased, the possibility of their false implication by the family of the deceased on this count cannot be ruled out. Hence, in this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani regarding demand of dowry which allegations are totally vague and non specific in relation to time, place and extent of demand. I am of a considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused, for which all the accused accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. (108) Now coming next to the allegations against accused Vikas Mehta whose case stands on a different footing since at the time of the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 88 incident he along with the deceased were residing separately at Shalimar Bagh, I may observe that even prior to her death Neha had gone to the local police and complained to them about the physical harassment and torture / domestic violence which Vikas Mehta was inflicting upon her ever since her marriage. Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently argued that in so far as accused Vikas Mehta is concerned even if there is no evidence to confirm the demand of dowry yet in view of the allegations of physical harassment and torture on account of which the deceased was compelled to commit suicide, he is liable for abetment to suicide under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. (109) I have considered the submissions made and I may observe that the word 'Suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and required no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
(110) Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal Law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types.
1. Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.
2. Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 89 (111) This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide had been abrogated. (112) In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offence is beyond to the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC. (113) 'Abetment' has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that:
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
(114) Explanation 2 which has been inserted alongwith Section 107 reads as under :
"Explanation 2 - whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to be and the doing of that act."
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 90
(115) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in VII (2001)SLT 356 has in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation" as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forwards, provoke, incite of encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred......"
(116) In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another, reported in IV(1993)CCR392(SC)=(1994)DMC138 (SC)=(1994)SCC 73 the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 91 similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (117) The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is also required an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. (118) It is a settled law that the act of abetment has to be put in consonance with the entire evidence of the case. The act of abetment attributed to the accused cannot be viewed or tested in isolation and hence what would constitute instigation is the entirety of evidence depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.
(119) Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the present case I may observe that it is evident from the complaint made by Neha (deceased) which is Ex.PW8/A which unfortunately the Local Police did not take seriously and failed to initiate appropriate action within reasonable time, that there are specific allegations against the accused Vikas Mehta of physical violence even since the date of marriage. In her complaint to the police written by the deceased Neha she had specifically mentioned that she was fedup with the atrocities committed upon her by Vikas Mehta and could no longer stay with with him on account of the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 92 physical torture and harassment inflicted upon her. (120) I may further observe that the accused Vikas Mehta is a person with a criminal background being involved in large number of cases of theft, snatching, Excise Act, Arms Act etc. (as many as 18) since the year 2004 and his criminal background was concealed from the family of the deceased when the alliance was fixed. Soon after her marriage after about one to one and a half months he again went to jail and it must have come as a shock to the deceased Neha. The details of his involvements which are attached along with the charge sheet are reproduced as under:
1. FIR No. 179/2004, u/s. 457/380 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
2. FIR No. 347/2004, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
3. FIR No. 374/2004, u/s. 399/402 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
4. FIR No. 376/2004, u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh.
5. FIR No. 182/2006, u/s. 78,61/1/14 Excise Act, PS Najafgarh.
6. FIR No. 331/2007, u/s. 379/427/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
7. FIR No. 454/2007, u/s. 380 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
8. FIR No. 494/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh
9. FIR No. 509/2004, u/s. 379/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
10. FIR No. 532/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
11. FIR No. 927/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
12. FIR No. 972/2007, u/s. 379/411/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh.
13. FIR No. 978/2007, u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh.
14. FIR No. 979/2007, u/s. 25 Arms Act & 411 IPC, PS Najafgarh. St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 93
15. FIR No. 632/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Tilak Nagar.
16. FIR No. 534/2008, u/s. 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Dwarka.
17. FIR No. 20/2010, u/s. 379/34 IPC, PS Chhawla.
18. FIR No. 281/2009, u/s. 379/411/34 IPC, PS Nangloi.
(121) The above criminal record of the accused Vikas Mehta has not been controverted by the defence. For a newly married girl when her husband goes to jail within one to one and a half month of the marriage, it is a huge shock and further to add to her woes even her married sister in law namely Sweety @ Suman returned to her parental house and started staying with them and what made life miserable for her was the fact that Vikas Mehta had been regularly beating and torturing her (as evident from the communication to the police Ex.PW8/A). This establishes the allegations against the accused Vikas Mehta of having inflicted physical brutality upon his wife which even continued after they separated and started residing in a rent accommodation. The postmortem report of the deceased Neha shows that there was a bruise of size 3cm x 2cm on her left leg which has been opined to be a blunt force mark thereby conclusively establishing that even before her death she had been beaten/ thrashed. Who else could have beaten or thrashed her causing the injury on her leg except for the accused Vikas Mehta with whom she was residing. After all the deceased Neha had been residing in the premises in question alone with the accused Vikas Mehta. It is the accused Vikas Mehta who should have St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 94 explain how Neha received the said injury which he has not been able to tell to the Court, thereby confirms the aspect of physical violence upon the deceased. When this incriminating evidence was put to the accused Vikas Mehta under Section 311 Cr.P.C. he simply stated that it is a matter of record.
(122) Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that there is a possibility that the deceased had been killed and thereafter hanged on the ceiling fan once the door was bolted from outside. I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that this claim of the prosecution belies from the fact that the door as reflected in the photograph Ex.PW10/A7 is an interlocking door which can be locked from both the sides. The said photograph also show a key with chain hanging in the lock in the inner/ inside portion and the latch/ kundi on the lower portion which was bolted and screws opened (by key maker), establishing that the door was locked by the deceased Neha from inside and not by any other party from outside. The key maker Ravinder Chauhan (PW3) has proved that he tried to open the door after preparing the key of the lock but it could not opened and hence he removed the screws with the help of the screw driver and open the door. This coupled with the fact that there was nobody else in the room nor there is any other way how any other person would enter the room after the door was closed, proves that it is the deceased Neha herself who locked herself from inside and committed suicide. Further, as discussed herein above the ligature mark was obliquely placed on front and St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 95 sides of neck, going upwards and backwards towards posterior hairline, thereby proving the suicidal nature of hanging, the entire controversy in this regard is hereby put to rest.
(123) The allegations against the accused Vikas Mehta are of inflicting extreme mental and physical cruelty upon his wife Neha (deceased). He is a wifebeater who from the day of the marriage had been regularly beating his wife and fed up with the atrocities, Neha had even previously gone to the police and made a complaint to them. Being fed up with the atrocities, physical torture and harassment inflicted upon her, she decided to end her life. It is this torture and harassment inflicted upon her by the accused which which instigated and enticed Neha to end her life on account of which she committed suicide by hanging herself. This fact is confirmed from her complaint to the Police Ex.PW8/A where she states that her husband Vikas Mehta used to harass and beat her almost regularly and she was fedup of his atrocities and could no longer stay with with him on account of the physical torture and harassment inflicted upon her. In her complaint to the police the words "....main Neha Mehta apne pati ke atyaachaaroon se dukhi hokar ek jori kaproon mein apni mataji ke yahan jaa rahi hoon....." and further when she states ".... Mere pati ka naam Vikas Mehta / Sanju Mehta hai. Meri shaadi san 2 November 2009 dinank ko hui thi. Jab se lekar aaj tak vah mujhe maarta raha hai. Jiske karan main uske atyacharoon se bahut dukhi hokar apne matapita St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 96 ke yahan hamesha ke liye rehne jaa rahi hoon...." reflects the kind of torture which the deceased had faced in the hands of her husband Vikas Mehta from the first day of her marriage. She has not named anybody else and has held Vikas Mehta solely responsible for her condition. It is writ large that Vikas Mehta had been battering his wife from the very first day of his marriage which had become intolerable for the deceased. I may observe that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person of doing a thing and in the present case the positive act attributed to the accused Vikas Mehta (not of her other in - laws i.e. father in law Jeet Lal Mehta, mother in law Asha Rani and Sweety @ Suman sister in law who were residing separately) is of infliction of physical violence upon the deceased. The evidence on record shows that this is not a case where the deceased Neha could be held to be hypersensitive. Rather, on the contrary it is writ large that even after her deceitful marriage in which the criminal background of her husband Vikas Mehta was withheld from her she continued to stay with him. Within almost month and a half of his marriage Vikas Mehta back to jail leaving his newly married wife at the mercy of his parents. Neha continued to stay with them without any complaints but Vikas Mehta was the one who inflicted physical violence on her right from the date of his marriage and made life miserable for her compelling her to return to her mother's house. Thereafter again she tried to adjust with him when she and Vikas Mehta were separated from the rest of the family and started residing on rent at St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 97 Shalimar Bagh. The bruises on her body as evident from the postmortem report confirms that even thereafter Vikas Mehta did not mend his ways and hence being fed up of being beaten up regularly she decided to end her life.
(124) In his background, I hereby hold the accused Vikas Mehta guilty of the offence under Section 498A and 306 Indian Penal Code (and not under Section 304B IPC for the reasons discussed herein above). Here, I clarify that though no separate charge for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code had been framed yet from the evidence which has come on record it has emerged that the proximate cause of the suicidal death of deceased was the act of the accused Vikas Mehta of inflicting mental and physical cruelty upon her. Hence, in terms of the provisions of Section 221 and 222 Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby hold the accused Vikas Mehta guilty of Section 498A IPC and Section 306 IPC (not under Section 304B IPC).
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(125) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 98
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(126) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:
➢ That the accused Vikas Mehta is the husband of the deceased Neha;
accused Asha Rani is the mother in law; accused Jeet Lal Mehta is the father in law and the accused Sweety @ Suman is the married sister in law (Nanand) of the deceased Neha.
➢ That marriage between the accused Vikas Mehta and Neha was solemnized on 2.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs which St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 99 alliance was fixed through Sita who is related to both the parties. ➢ That there was no demand of any kind of dowry or otherwise by the accused at the time of marriage.
➢ That the accused Vikas Mehta was involved in many criminal cases of vehicular theft which fact was concealed from the family of the deceased at the time of marriage.
➢ That after about one to one and a half month the accused Vikas Mehta was lodged in Jail in some case.
➢ That after his release from jail the accused Vikas Mehta started beating and harassing Neha.
➢ That on 2.8.2010 Neha Mehta gave a written complaint to the police against the accused Vikas Mehta wherein she had alleged that her husband Vikas Mehta used to regularly beat her from the date of her marriage.
➢ That the accused Vikas Mehta took a room on rent at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (owned by Jatin Chaudhary) on 10.8.2010 after which he along with his wife Neha started residing there.
➢ That on 15.11.2010 when Vikas Mehta was not present at his rented accommodation, Neha committed locked the door from inside and committed suicide by hanging herself on the ceiling fan with the help of a chunni.
➢ That Vikas Mehta along with his father Jeet Lal Mehta came to the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 100 rented accommodation and noticed the room locked on which Vikas Mehta called the key maker Ravinder Chauhan prepared the key of the interlock but the door could not be opened as it was bolted from inside.
➢ That thereafter Ravinder Chauhan removed the bolt and opened the door and finding the deceased hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of Chunni, he left the spot without taking his remuneration. ➢ That both Vikas Mehta and Jeet Lal Mehta got down the deceased and laid her on the bed.
➢ That thereafter the accused Vikas Mehta himself went to Police Station Shalimar Bagh and informed the police of the incident. ➢ That on the next day the SDM recorded the statement of Smt. Neeru the mother of the deceased on the basis of which the present FIR was registered and the accused were later on arrested.
➢ That on 16.11.2010 Dr. V.K. Jha conducted the postmortem examined on the body of deceased Neha.
(127) The medical evidence on record establishes that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature pressure over neck structure produced by ante mortem ligature hanging and the Injury no.1 i.e. bruise on the left leg could have been caused by striking with hard object. The medical and forensic evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case that being fed up with the atrocities and torture inflicted upon her by her husband Neha committed suicide and her death was on account of St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 101 suicidal hanging with the Chunni Ex.P1.
(128) It has been established that the death of Neha was caused otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage (precisely within eleven months and seventeen days of her marriage) and it has emerged from the evidence on record that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband Vikas Mehta (who used to regularly beat her and tortured her which she could not bear and decided to end her life) soon before her death which was sufficient instigation or enticement to the victim to end her life.
(129) The evidence on record shows that this is not a case where the deceased Neha could be held to be hypersensitive. Rather, on the contrary it is writ large that even after her deceitful marriage in which the criminal background of her husband Vikas Mehta was withheld from her she continued to stay with him. Within almost month and a half of his marriage Vikas Mehta back to jail leaving his newly married wife at the mercy of his parents. Neha continued to stay with them without any complaints but Vikas Mehta was the one who inflicted physical violence on her right from the date of his marriage and made life miserable for her compelling her to return to her mother's house. Thereafter again she tried to adjust with him when she and Vikas Mehta were separated from the rest of the family and started residing on rent at Shalimar Bagh. The bruises on her body as evident from the postmortem report confirms that even thereafter Vikas Mehta did not mend his ways and hence being fed up of being beaten up St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 102 regularly she decided to end her life.
(130) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (131) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link in so far as the offence of harassment and cruelty inflicted upon the deceased Neha by the accused Vikas Mehta is is concerned.
(132) In his background, I hereby hold the accused Vikas Mehta guilty of the offence under Section 498A and 306 Indian Penal Code St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 103 (and not under Section 304B IPC). Here, I clarify that though no separate charge for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code had been framed yet from the evidence which has come on record it has emerged that the proximate cause of the suicidal death of deceased was the act of the accused Vikas Mehta of inflicting mental and physical cruelty upon her. Hence, in terms of the provisions of Section 221 and 222 Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby hold the accused Vikas Mehta guilty of Section 498A IPC and Section 306 IPC (not under Section 304B IPC). (133) In so far as the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety and Asha Rani are concerned, the allegations against them of causing harassment to the deceased Neha do not stand established and proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence they are acquitted of the charge under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Further, in so far as the provisions of Section 304B Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that though the deceased Neha had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house i.e. house of her husband Vikas Mehta (where they were residing on rent) but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani residing separately from the accused Vikas Mehta and the deceased Neha at Nazafgarh. All the allegations made against them are vague, general and non specific. Being aggrieved by the death of the deceased, the St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 104 possibility of their false implication by the family of the deceased on this count cannot be ruled out. Hence, in this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani regarding demand of dowry which allegations are totally vague and non specific in relation to time, place and extent of demand. I am of a considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani in the commission of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of conduct of the accused, for which all the accused accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
(134) Be listed for arguments on sentence in respect of the convict Vikas Mehta on 11.10.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 5.10.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 105
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 82/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0042492011 State Vs. (1) Vikas Mehta S/o Jeet Lal Mehta R/o House No. RZF38, New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh, PS Chhawla, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Jeet Lal Mehta S/o Late Munshi Ram R/o House No. RZF38, New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh, PS Chhawla, Delhi (Acquitted) (3) Sweety @ Suman Mehta S/o Rajesh Verma R/o House No. RZF38, New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh, PS Chhawla, Delhi (Acquitted) (4) Asha Rani W/o Jeet Lal Mehta R/o House No. RZF38, New Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh, PS Chhawla, Delhi (Acquitted) St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 106 FIR No.: 395/2010 Police Station: Shalimar Bagh Under Sections: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code Date of conviction: 5.10.2013 Arguments concluded on: 24.10.2013 Date of sentence: 26.10.2013 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Vikas Mehta in Judicial Custody with Sh. Saurabh Tyagi Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations, the accused Vikas Mehta was married with Neha on 2.11.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs on 2.11.2009 and he (Vikas Mehta) being the husband of Neha, accused Jeet Lal Mehta being the fatherinlaw, Sweety @ Suman Mehta being the sister in law and Asha Rani Mehta being the mother in law of Neha treated her with cruelty for dowry at House No. RZF38, New Roshanpura, Nazafgarh, Police Station Chhawla, Delhi between 2.11.2009 to 15.11.2009 and thereafter the accused Vikas Mehta and Neha started residing separately at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It has also been alleged that on 15.11.2010 at about 1:00 PM at House No. 197, Gali No.2, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi the deceased Neha died under unnatural circumstances within seven St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 107 years of her marriage since she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused Vikas Mehta, Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman Mehta and Asha Rani Mehta in connection with demand for dowry.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly Smt. Neeru - mother of the deceased and Baldev Raj Bhardwaj - father of the deceased and also on the basis of the medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on record, vide a detail judgment dated 5.10.2013 this court has acquitted the accused Jeet Lal Mehta, Sweety @ Suman and Asha Rani of the charges under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code. However, the accused Vikas Mehta has been held guilty of the offence under Section 498A and 306 (lesser offence) Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304B Indian Penal Code for which he has been accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Vikas Mehta is stated to be a young boy aged about 28 years having a family comprising of parents, one elder brother and one elder sister. He is a matriculate and at the time of arrest was doing the work of steel polishing. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that keeping in view the family background a lenient view be taken against the convict.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed for a stern view against the convict keeping in view the allegations involved. He submits that the convict Vikas Mehta is responsible for the unnatural death of the deceased who was a young girl of 19 years. He further submits St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 108 that the convict is involved in Eighteen other cases and hence he deserves no leniency.
I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that apart from the present case the convict Vikas Mehta has a history of involvement in as many as Eighteen criminal cases, details of which are as under:
1. FIR No. 179/2004, u/s. 457/380 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been acquitted.
2. FIR No. 347/2004, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been convicted.
3. FIR No. 374/2004, u/s. 399/402 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been acquitted.
4. FIR No. 376/2004, u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been acquitted.
5. FIR No. 182/2006, u/s. 78,61/1/14 Excise Act, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been convicted.
6. FIR No. 331/2007, u/s. 379/427/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been discharged.
7. FIR No. 454/2007, u/s. 380 IPC, PS Najafgarh, in which case untrace report has been filed.
8. FIR No. 494/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been Convicted.
9. FIR No. 509/2007, u/s. 379/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein untrace report has been filed.
10. FIR No. 532/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein untrace St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 109 report has been filed.
11. FIR No. 927/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Najafgarh, which case has been settled.
12. FIR No. 972/2007, u/s. 379/411/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, which is still pending trial.
13. FIR No. 978/2007, u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been acquitted.
14. FIR No. 979/2007, u/s. 25 Arms Act & 411 IPC, PS Najafgarh, wherein he has been discharged.
15. FIR No. 632/2007, u/s. 379 IPC, PS Tilak Nagar, wherein he has been acquitted.
16. FIR No. 534/2008, u/s. 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Dwarka, wherein he has been Convicted (period already undergone).
17. FIR No. 20/2010, u/s. 379/34 IPC, PS Chhawla, wherein he has been acquitted.
18. FIR No. 281/2009, u/s. 379/411/34 IPC, PS Nangloi which is still pending trial.
It is writ large from the above that the convict Vikas Mehta is involved into a large number of criminal cases out of which he has been convicted in four cases.
This unfortunate case relates to a young girl aged 19 years coming from a lower middle class family hardly married for eleven months who voluntarily chose death being unable to withstand the physical torture and harassment which her husband, a person with a criminal background, St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 110 was inflicting upon her right from the date of her marriage. Earlier too i.e. on 2.8.2010 being unable to withstand this physical torture and harassment of husband Vikas Mehta, the deceased Neha had decided to go back to her parental house and in this regard had also made a complaint to the police (Ex.PW8/A). Sadly, neither the police chose to take any action nor her parental family and she subsequently returned to stay with her husband Vikas Mehta at a rented accommodation at Shalimar Bagh i.e. separately from her inlaws. The extent of brutality which was inflicted upon her is also evident from the postmortem report of Neha and the bruise on her left leg confirms the physical torture to which she was subjected by her husband/ convict Vikas Mehta compelling her to end her life.
These instances of young women choosing to end their lives soon after their marriage on account of harassment and torture are alarming on increase and if we want the society to be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever a drastic crime of this nature is detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the Courts should exercise Zero Tolerance for the same and deal with the offender ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment.
In the present case the marriage between the victim and the convict was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu Rites where Marriage is considered sacramental and believed to be ordained in heaven. In the religious rites performed at the marriage altar, the man accepts the woman as his better half by assuring her protection as Guardian; ensuring St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 111 food and necessities of life as a Provider; guaranteeing companionship as of Mate and by resolving that he shall share with her the pleasures and sorrows in the pursuits of life and also promises to observe the Dharma. I ask a question to myself. Has the convict Vikas Mehta fulfilled these obligations? What kind of necessities of life he provided to his newly married wife Neha from whom he had concealed his criminal background and within a month and a half of the marriage was confined at jail leaving her at the mercy of his family? What kind of protection and companionship he ensured to her and what Dharma he has observed when he himself was the perpetrator of the physical violence upon her right from the day of her marriage with him? To my mind the convict deserves no mercy and hence I award the following punishment to him:
1. For the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
2. For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 112
Both the above sentences imposed by this Court shall run concurrently. However, it is clarified that the sentence in the present case shall RUN CONSECUTIVE to the sentences so imposed upon the convict in other cases and SHALL NOT BE CONCURRENT to the sentence imposed in the present case.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him, as per rules.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Before I end, I may observe that before her death the deceased Neha had even made a complaint at Police Station Shalimar Bagh when she personally went to the Police Station and gave a written complaint to the Duty Officer W/HC Sarojini regarding the physical torture and beating being inflicted upon her by her husband Vikas Mehta which complaint was then marked to HC Ram Asrey who conveniently sat over it without taking any action and after having come to know of her death manufactured a report and submitted the same to the SHO in order to avoid action against him. This conduct of HC Ram Asrey came to light when he was examined St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 113 in the Court and the Ld. Predecessor of this Court immediately intervened and vide order dated 12.8.2011 directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned to take action against HC Ram Asrey for his failure to discharge his duties as per rules, making a false report, dereliction of duty and deposing falsely in the Court that there was no address of the complainant on account of which he could not take any action. I am of a firm belief that a Public Servant who fails to perform his duty to the determent of the life and liberty of another has to be made accountable and there can be no escape. Hence in this background, I direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi with the directions to intimate to this Court within a period of one month from the receipt of this order the action initiated by the department against HC Ram Asrey (as directed by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 12.8.2011).
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one of order on sentence be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 26.10.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
St. Vs. Vikas Mehta & Ors., FIR No. 395/10, PS Shalimar Bagh Page No. 114