Delhi District Court
State vs . Davinder Etc. Fir No.38/2011 ... on 31 August, 2019
State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY GULATI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Case No. 56768/2016
FIR No. 38/2011
PS Nangloi
U/s 302/307/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. DAVINDER
Son of Sher Singh
2. Smt. SUDESH
Wife of Shri Ramchander (Kale)
3. Smt. SATWANTI
Wife of Shri Davinder
(since deceased)
(Proceedings abated vide order dated 26.9.2017)
All residents of :
513, Balmiki Mohalla, Nangloi Village, Delhi.
Result: Acquitted Page 1 of 51
State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016)
Date of Institution : 17.04.2013
Date of Reserving Judgment : 30.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 31.08.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons have been charged with committing willful homicide of late Renu by setting her ablaze (allegedly) on account of a long standing property dispute between the deceased and accused persons. Deceased was allegedly set on fire in her makeshift kitchen on first floor of house no. 513, Balmiki Mohalla, Nangloi village where she was residing with her husband Vinod and 2 sons. The accused persons were close relatives of the deceased. Accused Davinder was the brother in law of late Renu (husband's elder brother) whereas accused Satwanti and Sudesh were sister'sinlaw of late Renu (i.e. wives of husband's brothers). However subsequently, accused Smt. Satwanti expired on 18.8.2017 during the trial of the case whereafter proceedings were abated against her vide order dated 26.9.2017.
Result: Acquitted Page 2 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) At the outset, it would require a highlight that the alleged incident of setting Renu ablaze was of 17.5.2010. Police was informed about the incident but in her initial statement to the police on 18.5.2010 in Safdarjung hospital, victim Renu stated that she caught fire when she was cooking in the kitchen. While she was still in hospital, another statement of Renu was recorded on 26.5.2010 wherein she stated that if the accused persons promised not to quarrel with her again, she would not take any further action. At this stage, it needs a highlight that there is nothing on record to show that as a result of the 2nd statement of Renu, any compromising statement was suffered by the accused persons. Renu was given extensive medical treatment as an indoor patient for about a month as a result of which she recovered and came back to her matrimonial home. Subsequent to her discharge, her condition deteriorated and was subsequently again admitted to hospital on 25.7.2010. When she was readmitted, 3 rd statement of Renu was recorded wherein for the first time she implicated the accused persons as the ones who had set her ablaze. However, no FIR was registered by the police. The police recorded 4 th Result: Acquitted Page 3 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) statement of Renu on 15.8.2010, just a day before her death on 16.8.2010. In this 4th statement also, Renu implicated the accused persons in terms of the 3 rd statement though with a minor improvement.
Since the police did not register an FIR even after the 4 th statement of late Renu, an application u/s 156 (3) was moved by the complainant before the ld. MM who directed for the registration of the FIR. After detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a closure report initially but even though the ld. trial court agreed with the findings of the Investigating officer, it did not accept the closure report on the ground that death of Renu was unnatural and trial should be held to reach out to the truth.
Initially three accused persons, namely Davinder, Smt. Sudesh and Smt. Satwanti were sent to face trial for the offences Punishable U/s 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC. However subsequently, accused Smt. Satwanti expired on 18.8.2017 during the pendency of the trial.
2. Facts emerging from the Chargesheet are as under:
The complainant who happened to be the younger Result: Acquitted Page 4 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) brother of deceased Renu, had moved an application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 30.8.2010 for registration of the case against her husband Vinod; Smt. Satwanti and Smt. Sudesh, both sistersinlaw (Jethani); and Davinder, brotherinlaw (Jeth) for the offences punishable under Section 302/307/120B read with 34 IPC. It was mentioned in the application that his sister Renu was married with Vinod on 11.1.1997. After the demise of parentsinlaw of his sister Renu, her brotherinlaw Davinder and both the sistersinlaw Smt. Satwanti and Smt. Sudesh (who also happened to be real sisters), hatched a conspiracy and started harassing Renu for leaving the house as they wanted to become the absolute owners of the house in which his sister Renu was residing after her marriage. On 17.5.2010 at 2.00 PM, accused Sudesh and Satwanti (since deceased) quarreled with Renu and threatened her of dire consequences whereafter again in the night at about 10.30 PM on the same date, when his sister was coming out of the kitchen, accused Sudesh and Satwanti started beating her with fists and blows whereas her husband Vinod hit danda on her head as a result of which his sister fell unconscious on the ground. On gaining consciousness, his sister saw that accused Sudesh was Result: Acquitted Page 5 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) standing there holding a plastic can in her hand. His sister felt heat around herself and found herself burning as a result of which she raised alarm and requested the accused persons to save her. However, instead of taking her to the hospital, accused persons told her that if she wanted to save her life, she would have to relinquish her share in the said house without disclosing the same to anyone. Since there was no other option for his sister, she agreed for the same whereafter her husband Vinod started throwing water on her body. Renu requested the accused persons to inform her parents so that she could be taken to hospital but her request was refused by the accused persons as they wanted to cover up their wrong doing against Renu.
On coming to know about the said incident from the neighbours, Smt. Rajrani, mother of Renu visited Renu's matrimonial house on 18.5.2010 and then took her to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital where the doctors refused to admit her on the pretext of it being a police case and referred her to Safdarjung Hospital where she was admitted in the ICU. The duty officer at Safdarjung Hospital informed the PS Nangloi whereafter ASI Ishwar Singh visited the said hospital in order to record the statement of Renu. It was alleged that on finding Renu not to be in a fit condition to make a statement, ASI Result: Acquitted Page 6 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) Ishwar Singh in connivance with the accused persons, recorded the statement of Renu of his own without obtaining any information from her.
On 6.6.2010, when the condition of Renu was still critical, the accused persons after taking discharge of Renu from Safdarjung Hospital on 6.6.2010, took her to her matrimonial house at Nangloi where she was kept in a room without providing her any treatment and medical attention resulting in her medical condition deteriorating. Since Renu was not in a position to bear the pain, she requested her husband to take her to the hospital but he did not pay any heed. When the complainant along with his mother Smt. Rajrani visited the matrimonial house of Renu, they noticed that her wounds were in a 'very bad state' consequent to which they took her to Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre (P) Ltd., Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
The complainant informed SI Balram about ASI Ishwar Singh being IO of the case who was telephonically informed by the SI Balram Singh to reach the hospital for recording the statement of Renu but ASI Ishwar Singh refused to come to the hospital where after SI Balram, in the presence of complainant, and other family members, recorded the statement of Renu on 25.7.2010. Renu Result: Acquitted Page 7 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) remained under treatment in Sanjeevan Hospital for about nine days when on 4.8.2010 the doctors of the said hospital informed the complainant about referring Renu to their other branch, namely Sanjeevan Specialty Hospital, Pahar Ganj, as they were not in a position to handle the case. The doctors at Sanjeevan Specialty Hospital, Pahar Ganj started treating Renu but on 14.8.2010 they also informed the complainant that there was no hope of Renu surviving. Police was again called on 15.8.2010 and another statement of Renu was recorded in the hospital, in the presence of her mother and brother (complainant). Renu eventually died on 16.8.2010 due to burn injuries suffered by her. ASI Ishwar Singh after completing the necessary formalities, handed over the body of Renu to her relatives.
The complainant also mentioned that while Renu was under treatment in Safdarjung Hospital, she had also sent a complaint on 5.6.2010 against the accused persons to the then Prime Minister, Home Minister, Lt. Governor and also to police authorities but despite that no action was taken against the accused persons. On the directions dated 3.2.2011 of Shri Gaurav Rao, the then learned MM, West District, FIR of the present case i.e. No. 38/2011 was registered at PS Nangloi on 10.2.2011 against the accused persons. The Result: Acquitted Page 8 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) investigation was marked to Insp. Dhirender Sharma who inspected the spot and obtained the inquiry report as well as the photographs from ASI Ishwar Singh. Insp. Dhirender Sharma also got prepared the scaled site plan through draftsman Insp. Mahesh Kumar whereafter on 22.2.2011, further investigation of the case was entrusted to Insp. M.L. Sharma of DIU/West District.
On 9.8.2011, the file of the present case was handed over to Insp. Anand Lakra (since deceased) who recorded the statements of parents as well as brother of deceased Renu and interrogated the accused persons.
After being entrusted with the investigation of the present matter, since Insp. Anand Lakra could not find any incriminating evidence against the accused persons during the investigation carried out by him, he proposed cancellation report against all the accused persons.
However, Shri Harvinder Singh, the then learned MM 03, West District vide order dated 22.2.2013 observed that though the investigation carried out by the IO appears to be reasonable but considering the fact that the death of a married lady under suspicious circumstances had taken place and in one of the dying declarations, Result: Acquitted Page 9 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) she had leveled allegations against the accused persons for her condition, the learned Court declined to accept the cancellation report and ordered for decision of the present matter by way of trial. Consequently, the accused persons named by deceased Renu i.e. Satwanti, Sudesh and Davinder were summoned.
All the three accused persons put in appearance before the court of learned MM on 12.4.2013 on which date, accused Sudesh and Satwanti were enlarged on bail whereas accused Davinder was sent to judicial custody. After supplying copies of chargesheet to all the accused persons, the learned MM vide order dated 15.4.2013, directed for committal of the matter to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE :
3. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 19.7.2013, Charge for the offences Punishable U/s 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against accused all the accused persons to which they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial. However, the charge was amended vide order dated 1.9.2015 passed by learned Predecessor whereafter charge only for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed Result: Acquitted Page 10 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) against all the accused persons.
EVIDENCE :
4. To prove its case, the prosecution, in total, has examined 11 witnesses.
5. The ld. Prosecutor dropped witnesses listed at serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 namely Smt. Dhanno and two sons of deceased i.e. Master Anurag and Master Shantanu as they were not supporting the prosecution case. Also, the learned Prosecutor dropped witnesses listed at serial Nos. 11 and 12 namely Dr. Ajay Sood and Ahalmad of the court of Shri Gaurav Rao as the relevant record i.e. death summary prepared by Dr. Ajay Sood, Ex. CX and the case file of complaint case, Ex. CA and order dated 3.2.2011, Ex. CB (whereby directions were given for registration of FIR) had not been disputed by the accused persons. Further, the accused persons admitted the MLC Ex. PX of deceased bearing No. 24301 dated 18.5.2010.
6. Brief description of the purpose for which each of the witnesses were summoned, is as follows -
Result: Acquitted Page 11 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) PW 1 Sudhir - complainant as well as brother of the deceased;
to depose regarding the incident of 17.5.2010 when victim was set on fire, allegedly by the accused persons and further developments.
PW 2 - Rajrani - mother of deceased; supported the prosecution case with regard to the allegation of accused persons harassing Renu and then setting the deceased on fire, and regarding her treatment in various hospitals; deposed substantially for the same purpose as PW 1.
PW 3 HC Pradeep Kumar - duty officer.
PW 4 - Dr. Manoj Dhingra - conducted autopsy on the body of deceased.
PW 5 - Dr. Satish Kumar - first examined the deceased, on the night of 17.5.2010.
PW 6 - Suresh - brother of deceased; for the same purpose as PW 1 and PW 2.
PW 7 ASI Brij Lal - recorded DD entry.
PW 8 - Insp. Dhirender Sharma - Investigating Officer. PW9 Insp. Mahesh Kumar - draftsman; prepared the scaled site plan.
Result: Acquitted Page 12 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) PW10 - SI Ishwar Singh - Investigating Officer; also recorded 2 statements of deceased Renu PW11 - SI Balram - Investigating Officer; recorded 1 statement of Renu.
7 PW1 Shri Sudhir, the complainant and younger brother of deceased Renu deposed that his sister was married to Vinod on 11.1.1997 and from their wedlock, two sons namely Shantanu and Anurag were born. Accused Sudesh and Satwanti (since deceased) were sistersinlaw (jethani) of his sister Renu whereas accused Davinder was her brotherinlaw (jeth). He further stated that at about 8.009.00 AM on 18.5.2010, Smt. Dhanno, cousin Nanad of Renu, telephonically informed them about the burn injuries suffered by Renu whereafter his mother and brother Deepankar took Renu to Agarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. The Witness also went to the said hospital. Renu was thereafter referred to Safdarjung Hospital where she remained under treatment for 1920 days. In the absence of any family member from her parents' side, Renu was got discharged on 6.6.2010 by her inlaws despite she not having fully recovered from Result: Acquitted Page 13 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) the injuries. Renu was taken to her matrimonial house after discharge from the hospital.
PW 1 further deposed that since condition of Renu was getting serious, she was taken to Sanjeevan Hospital, Darya Ganj on 25.7.2010 from where she was shifted to Sanjeevan Hospital, Pahar Ganj on 4.8.2010 being a Superspeciality Hospital. Witness and his family members were informed by the doctor of Sanjeevan Hospital, Pahar Ganj on 14.8.2010 that if they wanted to take legal action, they could do so now as the chances of survival of Renu were very rare. Witness called up the police control room on 15.8.2010 whereafter SI Balram Singh came and recorded the statement Ex. PW1/A of Renu of which PW 1 had done the videography and a copy of the same was handed over to the police in a CD, Ex.P1. Renu expired at about 5.00 - 6.00 AM on 16.8.2010 whereafter postmortem examination was conducted on her body. The funeral was not attended by Renu's husband and her two sons at the request of this Witness. The Witness further stated that thereafter he made several visits to PS Nangloi in connection with registration of FIR against the accused persons but despite making requests to ASI Ishwar Singh as well as the SHO, since no action was initiated, he moved complaint Result: Acquitted Page 14 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) (Ex.PW1/B) under Section 156(3) Cr.PC before the concerned court.
Thereafter, on the directions of learned MM, FIR was registered by the police and pursuant to investigation, closure report was filed. Objections (Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E) were filed by the Witness and his family members to the closure report. PW 1 also stated that his sister Renu had also lodged a complaint (mark A) in June 2010 with the Commissioner of Police.
In cross examination, PW 1 deposed that on 18.5.2010, he received a call from Dhanno (cousin sisterinlaw of victim Renu) between 8.00 AM to 9.00 AM whereafter he went to Agarsen Hospital between 9.30 AM to 10.00 AM. He also deposed that his mother also received a call from Dhanno. He further deposed that he and his mother talked to the victim Renu in the hospital. Significantly however, the witness stated that no property dispute was pending in the court though the same was pending 3 to 4 years prior to the incident. The witness stated that when Dhanno called him up and told that his sister had got burnt, he responded by saying "theek hai main aa raha hun". The witness further stated that from Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, victim Renu was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where ASI Ishwar Singh came and talked to the doctor, Renu (after seeking Result: Acquitted Page 15 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) permission from the concerned doctor) as also the mother of Renu. It is relevant to highlight that the witness also admitted that ASI Ishwar Singh recorded the statement of his sister in the hospital. Further, the witness deposed that after discharge of Renu, he used to visit her at her matrimonial house but her husband never allowed her to be taken to any hospital. Eventually, PW 1 got readmitted Renu in Sanjeevani Hospital on 25.7.2010 on which date itself, the police came and recorded statement of Renu. Though the witness admitted his signature on the statement dated 25.7.2010 of Renu, he denied that he had tutored Renu into giving that statement. The witness also deposed about the complaint dated 5.6.2010 (mark A) which was purportedly sent by victim Renu to various higher authorities. Further, while deposing about this complaint, the witness admitted that at the time when the complaint was prepared, Renu was still in the hospital and that the complaint was got typed from an advocate. With regard to video recorder (handycam) with which he purportedly recorded the statement of Renu dated 15.8.2010, PW 1 stated that the same remained in his possession till about 4 to 5 months after recording of the statement. Significantly however, he admitted that the original cassette in the handycam was not handed over to the IO Result: Acquitted Page 16 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) but only the CD prepared from the cassette (the handycam was a cassette recorder). He denied that local/'desi' treatment was given to the victim by her mother. Towards the end of crossexamination, he denied stock suggestions regarding false implication of the accused persons.
8. PW2 Smt. Rajrani, mother of deceased Renu deposed that her daughter Renu was married to Vinod about 1617 years ago who used to live at Nangloi along with his father, two elder brothers namely Davinder and Kale and two sistersinlaws namely Sudesh and Satwanti. She stated that till the time fatherinlaw of Renu remained alive, she was kept well in her matrimonial house. The fatherinlaw of Renu had not made any Will and had died intestate. Both the sistersinlaw of Renu used to live on the ground floor whereas Renu was residing on the first floor. Both the sistersinlaw of Renu used to have frequent quarrels with her asking her to leave the said house. She further stated that the accused persons used to do "Tu Tu Me Me" with Renu and also used to beat her. On coming to know of the beatings being given to her daughter, the PW 2 visited her matrimonial house and requested them to adjust Renu in the said Result: Acquitted Page 17 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) house. She categorically stated that except accused Sudesh and Satwanti, no other person used to harass Renu.
The witness also deposed that on 17 th May (witness could not recall the year), there was a quarrel between Renu on one hand and accused Sudesh and Satwanti on the other hand in which both the accused told Renu that "teri maa hamare samne haath jod kar gai hai or tu gandi hai" whereafter both of them told Renu "shaam tak ghar khali kar de nahi to tere ko nahin chhodenge". Assuming the threat not to be serious being the daily routine, Renu went to the kitchen whereupon accused Davinder hit Renu with a danda from her back due to which she became unconscious on sustaining injuries on the back of her head. On gaining reconsciousness, Renu realized that some substance had been poured upon her and was set on fire. Her daughter raised hue and cry to save herself upon which the accused persons told her that they would save her life only when she would first give in writing about leaving the house and on her agreeing to do so, the accused persons poured water on her body.
On receiving the information about the said incident from some relative of Vinod, PW 2 along with complainant Sudhir (PW1) reached the matrimonial house of Renu on the next day of the Result: Acquitted Page 18 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) incident and noticed swelling on her body whereafter Renu was taken to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. She also stated that she could not talk much with her daughter due to pain in her injuries. As per the witness, Renu was writhing in pain "machhli ki tarah tadap rahi thi". Thereafter, Renu was transferred to Safdarjung hospital for treatment of the burn injuries where she remained under treatment for few days. After Renu's discharge from the hospital, PW 2 used to visit her in a week or ten days. On one of her visits, she noticed condition of Renu becoming worse whereupon she took her to Sanjeevani Hopital, Darya Ganj where Renu remained admitted for about 15 days. Since the treatment expenses were pending, the doctor of said hospital advised the PW 2 to shift Renu to their other branch at Pahar Ganj which had less treatment charges pursuant to which Renu was shifted to Sanjeevani Hospital, Pahar Ganj where she remained under treatment for about a week but her condition deteriorated. The doctor of said hospital informed them about few hours of survival of Renu and also advised for getting her statement recorded through the police. Accordingly the police was called. PW 2 narrated the entire incident of burn injuries suffered by her daughter Renu to a lady police official who later on gave the information at Result: Acquitted Page 19 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) some police station whereafter another police official namely Balram came there and recorded statement of Renu which proceedings were got videographed by complainant Sudhir (PW 1).
In her crossexamination, PW 2 deposed that on 18.5.2010, she went to the matrimonial home of Renu on the scooter of her son Dipankar. She deposed about Renu having been taken to Agarsen Hospital and her subsequent shifting to Safdarjung Hospital where accused persons were present alongwith husband of Renu. The witness was confronted with her statement to the police wherein she had not stated about the allegations of accused Sudesh and Satwanti having constant quarrels with her daughter Renu or that the accused persons used to beat her. The witness further deposed that in her statement to the police, she had stated about the quarrel between the accused persons Sudesh and Satwanti, and Renu in the afternoon of 17.5.2010 and had further stated regarding the incident of her daughter Renu having been hit on her back by accused Davinder. She also stated that in her statement to the police, she had mentioned about the accused persons agreeing to extinguish the fire only in case of her daughter Renu giving in writing that she would leave the house. (It is relevant to highlight that after being repeatedly Result: Acquitted Page 20 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) confronted with her statement which was purportedly recorded by the police, the witness voluntarily stated that "police se to mera vaasta hi nai para, maine jo baat batai vo court mein batai). The witness admitted that after discharge of Renu, she used to visit her house regularly and subsequently since her condition was deteriorating, she shifted Renu to Sanjeevani Hospital, Darya Ganj. Towards the conclusion of her crossexamination, the witness denied the suggestion that she had applied traditional medicine on the wounds of her daughter Renu because of which her condition deteriorated. Significantly, she categorically admitted that the police did not record her statement at any point of time. She further denied the stock suggestions regarding false implication of the accused persons.
9. PW3 HC Pradeep Kumar, the duty officer recorded FIR (Ex. PW3/A) of the present case on the basis of rukka handed over to him by Insp. Dhirender Sharma on 10.2.2011.
The witness was not crossexamined.
10. PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra deposed that he along with Dr. Deepak Sharma had conducted postmortem on the body of Renu Result: Acquitted Page 21 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) at about 2.00 PM on 16.8.2010. Deceased had alleged history of sustaining burn injuries on 17.5.2010. The doctor noticed following external injuries on the body of the deceased :
(i) Dermo epidermal burn injury over part of front of chest, abdomen, both arms not involving hands, both legs above knee joint, neck part of face, forearm and scalp skin was peeling off at places exposing yellow greenish base with foul smell, all body hair were burnt and singed at places. Total body surface involved in burn is about 55%.
(ii) Wound 4 X 3 cms raw? Pressure sore with pus at margins on dependent part of both buttocks in back.
The doctor also noticed following internal injuries on the body of the deceased:
On back of head over occipital prominence wound 5 X 3 cms pressure sore with pus margins on reflecting the scalp yellow discolouration of scalp present effusion of blood over right frontal region.
The doctor/PW 4 opined that death was due to septicemia consequent upon burn injuries and all the injuries were antemortem and could be possible due to flames of fire. The doctor/PW 4 prepared Result: Acquitted Page 22 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) the postmortem report Ex.PW4/A. PW 4 further deposed that on the application dated 15.9.2010 received from the Investigation Officer, he also opined the following:
(i) After going through the distribution of burn area over the body, possibility of burn being accidental in nature cannot be ruled out.
(ii) Wound 5 X 3 cms on back of head at occipital prominence is a pressure sore as described in postmortem report and is not an injury.
The Witness handed over his opinion Ex. PW4/B to the IO which also bears the signature of Dr. Deepak Sharma.
Court question was put to the Witness with regard to his opinion regarding "possibility of burns being accidental in nature cannot be ruled out" to which the Witness replied that deceased suffered burn injuries on 17.5.2010 and expired on 16.8.2010, and since postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted three months of the burn injuries, he had stated that he could not rule out whether the burn was accidental, suicidal or homicidal.
The doctor/PW 4 was not crossexamined.
Result: Acquitted Page 23 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016)
11. PW5 Dr. Satish Kumar deposed that Renu who had sustained burn injuries was brought to his clinic i.e. Day Care Centre at about 12.15 AM on 17.5.2010. After examining her, he advised her relatives to take her to a big hospital for treatment. The police recorded his statement Ex. PW5/A. In the crossexamination, this witness proved his statement Ex. PW5/A. He admitted that when the patient Renu was brought to his clinic, she told him that she got burnt while she was cooking food. He also admitted that at that time, smell of kerosene was not coming from the body of patient Renu. He further admitted that when the patient Renu was brought to his clinic, she was fully conscious and oriented and was responding correctly to his queries.
12. PW6 Suresh, 2nd brother of deceased Renu, deposed in his chief examination that Renu used to remain tense as Vinod was a drunkard and was not providing any household expenses to Renu. Vinod was not bearing any responsibility towards his wife, children and the household expenses. The Witness also deposed that when he reached home from his office on 18.5.2010, he was informed about Result: Acquitted Page 24 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) admission of Renu in Safdarjung Hospital. He visited Renu at Safdarjung Hospital and noticed severe burns injury on her body. On his inquiry from Renu, she disclosed that she was assaulted by her husband Vinod and the accused persons. PW 6 further deposed that inlaws of Renu had never informed them about the said incident and that she was not taken to any hospital by the inlaws. The incident came to the knowledge of parental house of Renu through neighbours of inlaws of Renu whereafter his mother and brother visited Renu at her matrimonial house and removed her to the hospital. Renu remained under treatment for a considerable period whereafter she expired in Sanjeevani Hospital, Darya Ganj. He stated that Renu had lodged complaint Ex. PW1/DB during her lifetime (Ex. PW1/DB is the statement of Renu dated 26.5.2010).
In cross examination, PW 6 deposed that 3 to 4 years after the marriage of his sister Renu, they came to know that she was being harassed by her inlaws but they did not complain about the same to any authorities. He admitted that no dispute was pending in any civil court regarding the property between Renu and her in laws prior to 17.5.2010. He denied the suggestion that he got to know about the burning incident involving his sister in the morning Result: Acquitted Page 25 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) of 18.5.2010 but asserted that he got to know about the same in the evening hours of 18.5.2010. The witness denied his signatures on Ex.PW1/DB but admitted those of Dipankar who was the other brother of victim Renu. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/DA wherein he had not mentioned to the police about the fact that Renu was not taken to any hospital despite burn injuries and that she was writhing in pain till the time his mother (PW 2) and brother removed Renu to the hospital. The witness admitted that though condition of Renu had improved in Safdarjung Hospital, she had not been completely cured. He denied that his mother was giving 'desi' treatment to Renu on her burn injuries. He admitted that he did not lodge any complaint before any authority even after discharge of Renu from the hospital. Towards the end of his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that accused persons had been falsely implicated so as to extract money from them or that his sister Renu had informed that she had sustained burn injuries while cooking.
13. PW7 ASI Brij Lal deposed that DD No.17A Ex. PW7/A regarding "ablazing sister of the caller by her inlaws", was recorded by HC Manoj Kumar on 15.8.2010.
Result: Acquitted Page 26 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) In crossexamination, this witness admitted that he was not posted at PS Nabi Karim in the year 2010 and therefore, he did not have any personal knowledge about the present case. He also admitted that DD no. 17A was neither recorded by him nor recorded in his presence.
14. PW8 Insp. Dhirender Sharma deposed that he along with ASI Ishwar Singh visited the crime scene i.e. House No. 513, Balmiki Mohalla, Village Nangloi, Delhi where he prepared the site plan (Ex. PW8/B) at the instance of ASI Ishwar. On 13.2.2011, ASI Ishwar Singh handed over to him 37 documents comprising of inquiry report, reply to the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, PM report of deceased, Forensic Expert Report, DD entries and seven photographs, vide memo Ex. PW8/C. PW 8 further deposed that he made inquiries from accused Davinder on 16.2.2011 at PS Nangloi. The Witness also deposed that draftsman SI Mahesh prepared the scaled site plan of the crime scene at the instance of ASI Ishwar Singh.
This witness was crossexamined on behalf of all the accused persons wherein he had responded to the questions put to him Result: Acquitted Page 27 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) by the ld. Defense counsel regarding arrest of accused Davinder.
15. PW9 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman deposed that he along with Insp. Dhirender Sharma and ASI Ishwar Singh visited first floor of House No. 513, Balmiki Mohalla, Nangloi Village, Delhi on 19.2.2011 and there, at the instance of ASI Ishwar Singh, he took rough notes and measurements and thereafter on the basis of same, prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW9/A on 9.3.2011.
16. PW10 SI Ishwar Singh deposed that on receiving the information at about 9.05 PM on 18.5.2010 regarding admission of a lady namely Renu at Safdarjung Hospital with burn injuries, he visited the said hospital and collected MLC Ex. PX of Renu. After perusing the said MLC, he came to know that Renu was brought to the hospital at about 1.15 PM on that day by her mother Smt. Rajrani. Renu was found fit for statement (as per PW 10) whereafter PW 10 recorded her statement Ex. PW6/DX who informed that while she was in the kitchen, accidentally her chunni came in contact with fire due to which she sustained burn injuries. At that time, husband of Renu namely Vinod was also present in the hospital. The PW also Result: Acquitted Page 28 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) recorded the statement of Vinod Ex. PW10/A whereafter he returned to police station.
The Witness also deposed that at about 4.55 PM on 25.5.2010, he came to know of the information received by the duty officer vide DD No. 57B (Ex. PW10/B) regarding regaining of consciousness by Renu and she was found fit for giving her statement pursuant to which he visited Safdarjung Hospital and moved application (Ex. PW10/C) before the concerned doctor for obtaining "Fitness Certificate" of Renu. After the patient was declared fit for statement (endorsement at point X on the application Ex. PW10/C) , PW 10 recorded second statement Ex. PW1/DB (dt. 26.5.2010) of Renu in the presence of Dipankar, brother of Renu in which she stated about her quarrel with all the three accused persons and also stated that only if the accused persons would never quarrel with her or beat her in future that she would not initiate any legal action against them.
PW 10 further deposed that while he was on leave, a call was received from Sanjeevani Hospital on 25.7.2010 which was attended by ASI Umed Singh (since deceased). Pursuant to his joining duties after availing the leave and collecting file from ASI Umed Singh, he came to know that ASI Umed Singh had recorded Result: Acquitted Page 29 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) third statement Ex. PW1/DA of Renu after obtaining her fitness from the concerned doctor vide his application Ex. PW10/D. In the third statement, Renu had levelled allegations against the accused persons of setting her ablaze. On 25.7.2010 itself, ASI Umed Singh also recorded the statements Ex. PW10/E1 to Ex. PW10/E6 of public persons, namely Dilbagh Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Azad, Omwati, Sunil and Krishna. Subsequently, SI Balram of PS Nabi Karim informed him regarding receipt of information vide DD No. 25A (Ex.PW10/F) regarding readmission of Renu in Sanjeevani Hospital, Pahar Ganj on 15.8.2010. SI Balram visited the said hospital and recorded statement Ex.PW1/A of Renu. The witness further deposed that information vide DD No.6A (Ex. PW10/G) was received at PS Nangloi on 16.8.2010 regarding death of Renu.
PW 10 moved an application (Ex. PW10/H) before the concerned doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Renu for obtaining his opinion. Later on, he called the crime team for inspection of the crime spot and the photographer who took seven photographs (Ex. PW10/I.1 to Ex. PW10/I.7) of the spot. Application was moved on 18.8.2010 before the doctor of Safdarjung Hospital for obtaining the opinion on the MLC of Renu. After Result: Acquitted Page 30 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) registration of the case on 10.2.2011, on the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. PC moved by mother and brother of Renu, he handed over all the documents on 13.2.2011 pertaining to the investigation conducted by him to Insp. Dhirender. He also stated about his visit to the place of incident along with Insp. Dhirender and the draftsman in connection with preparation of site plan and the scaled site plan at his instance.
In the crossexamination, this witness deposed that he made inquiries from Dr. Satish, who had examined Renu at the first instance and recorded his statement. This witness proved the statement of Dr. Satish as Ex. PW5/A. He also proved the statement of Dhanno dt. 18.08.2010, Ex. PW10/DA which was also recorded by him (Dhanno was dropped as a prosecution witness). He admitted that Dipanker, brother of deceased Renu was already present with Renu in the hospital on 26.05.2010. He denied the suggestion of ld. Defense counsel that the second statement of Renu Ex. PW1/DB was recorded by him at the instance of Dipanker or that Renu had not made such statement before him. He also denied the suggestion that at the time of recording the first statement of Renu dt. 18.05.2010, her mother and brother were present with her. He admitted that statement Result: Acquitted Page 31 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) Ex. PW1/A dt. 15.08.2010 of Renu was not recorded in his presence.
17. PW11 SI Balram deposed that while being posted as SI at PS Nabi Karim, he received DD No. 17A at about 1.25 PM on 15.8.2010 from Sanjeevan Hospital, Pahar Ganj regarding burn injuries suffered by the "sister of caller at the hands of her inlaws". Accordingly, he visited Sanjeevan Hospital and found Renu admitted there. On being found fit for statement, he recorded the statement of Renu Ex. PW1/A and obtained her thumb impression over the same. Since Renu was residing in Nangloi and the incident had also taken place at Nangloi, he passed on the information regarding recording of statement of Renu to PS Nangloi whereafter ASI Ishwar Singh of PS Nangloi visited PS Nabi Karim to whom the statement Ex. PW1/A of Renu as well as copy of DD No.17A Ex.PW7/A was handed over.
In the crossexamination, this witness deposed that he had taken verbal permission of the concerned doctor prior to recording statement of Renu. He denied the suggestion that statement of the deceased Ex. PW1/A was recorded at the instance of mother and brother of the victim. He admitted that there is no endorsement of any doctor on the statement of victim Ex. PW1/A and further Result: Acquitted Page 32 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) that no fitness certificate was obtained from the doctor. Rest of the crossexamination of PW 11 is not relevant.
18. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons while recording their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they admitted the factum of solemnization of marriage of Renu with Vinod, her residing with them at Nangloi after the marriage as well as about her death on 16.8.2010. However, they denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution witnesses stating that false complaint was lodged against them. The CD prepared by the complainant was also a false one. They took the plea that Renu got burnt while she was cooking food at the gas stove whereafter immediately, firstly she was taken by her husband Vinod and his cousin Smt. Dhanno on 17.5.2010 to Dr. Satish Kumar who after providing first aid, advised them to take her to a hospital. Renu was first taken to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital and thereafter, to Safdarjung Hospital from where she was discharged after fully recovering from the injuries suffered by her. Consequent to her discharge from Safdarjung Hospital, mother of Renu regularly visited her and applied Coconut oil and Giya Baat and tried other desi Result: Acquitted Page 33 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) treatment on the wounds of Renu due to which septic was caused on the injuries of Renu and her condition worsened, leading to her death on 16.8.2010. The accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defense.
19. DW1 Shantanu, who happened to be the son of deceased Renu deposed that at about 11.00/11.15 PM on 17.5.2010 when his mother (deceased Renu) went to the kitchen located at the first floor of the house for cooking food for his father, he heard loud voices of his mother and on coming out from the bedroom, he saw his mother in flames. She poured 12 mugs of water on herself. His father also came there who poured more water on his mother whereafter she was taken to a nearby nursing home by his father. On inquiring by this Witness from his mother, she informed that while cooking food on the gas stove, when she was in the process of taking the box containing ghee from the slab, her chunni caught fire.
The Witness further deposed that she was again taken to MGS Hospital the next day where she remained under treatment in the hospital for about 2025 days whereafter she recovered a lot and was able to do her own personal work like going to washroom etc. Result: Acquitted Page 34 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) However, after 45 days of her discharge from the hospital, maternal grandmother (Nani) started visiting her and started performing 'desi ilaz' by applying coconut oil after mixing some desi medicine in the same on the body of his mother. Due to this, her condition started deteriorating resulting in her lying on the bed and sustaining bed sore on her head. The maternal grandmother was asked not to give such type of treatment but she did not stop and continued with same treatment for about 3045 days whereafter his mother Renu was taken by her mother and brother Tony to their house. Later, on 15.8.2010, he came to know about the death of his mother in hospital. The Witness stated that police made inquiries from him and he also gave his written statement dated 18.8.2010 Ex. DW1/A to the police. DW categorically stated that his mother expired due to wrong treatment given to her by his maternal grandmother.
In crossexamination, the witness stated that on hearing the cries of his mother when she caught fire, people from the neigbourhood gathered but the accused persons who were staying in the same house on the ground floor, did not come up on the first floor. He denied that there was a property dispute between his mother and the accused persons or that the accused persons used to quarrel with Result: Acquitted Page 35 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) his mother. The allegations levelled regarding the day of incident were denied in toto.
20. I have heard Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Shri C. Prakash, ld. Counsel for both the accused persons and have perused the record carefully.
FINDINGS :
21. The prosecution case rests on the truthfulness of the statement which deceased Renu gave immediately before her death i.e. on 15.8.2010. As is evident from the evidence led, police/ Investigating Officer recorded 4 statements of the deceased, last of which was just 1 day prior to her death and in which she specifically levelled allegations against the accused persons as the ones who had set her on fire on 17.5.2010 after sprinkling kerosene oil on her. The first version of the incident was given to the police by the deceased on 18.5.2010, on the day following the incident which happened on the night of 17.5.2010 wherein deceased Renu passed off the incident as an accident resulting from burning of her chunni while cooking. In her second statement recorded on 26.5.2010, while she was still in the Result: Acquitted Page 36 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) hospital and under treatment, she again did not implicate the accused persons but only stated that she will not file complaint against them if they agree never to trouble her again. There is nothing in this statement from which it can be inferred that accused persons were in any way complicit in the alleged crime. The statement of deceased recorded on 26.5.2010, at best, gives rise to a very feeble assumption that accused might have been involved in the alleged crime. This statement was given by Renu after deliberating with her brother Dipankar, whose signature appear on the statement along with those of Renu.
22. It is important to highlight that none of the public witnesses i.e. brothers (PW 1 and PW 6) and mother (PW 2) gave any explanation in the chief examination or cross examination as to why did'nt either of them or the deceased herself (i.e. after she was discharged from Safdarjung Hospital), got lodged an FIR at the earliest available opportunity. There is no assertion on behalf of either of them that no implicating statement against the accused persons were given since the deceased wanted to have peace in the house or she did so for the sake of family respect/honour or for saving Result: Acquitted Page 37 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) her matrimonial life. It also needs a specific highlight that as per PW6, husband of deceased was a drunkard and had no sense of responsibility towards his family. Renu herself was stated to be earning livelihood for the family by working as a maid. In such a family situation, it really makes no sense, even for the sake of arguments, that deceased would have refrained from implicating the accused persons to save family honour or her own matrimonial life which in any case was not a happy one at all. Infact, if the prosecution allegations were true, it would have made sense if Renu had given statement against the accused persons (assuming that they had really been involved in the alleged crime) because had she done so, it would have solved the problem of constant nagging/quarrels with the accused persons. It really does not stand to reason that despite being constantly troubled by the accused persons and even being set on fire by them, Renu suddenly became so magnanimous that she would not have implicated the accused persons at the mere assurance of the accused persons that they would never trouble her again. What is interesting is that there is no statement on record of the accused persons that they ever assured the victim that she will not be troubled again by them.
Result: Acquitted Page 38 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016)
23. What is more intriguing is that if Renu had actually been set on fire by the accused persons, why did the brothers or mother of the deceased not take her home after she was discharged from the hospital? No mother has the courage or insensitivity to knowingly push her children into a situation which she knows to be perilous. As has already been highlighted above, saving the marriage could not have been a consideration given the pitiable condition of the marriage itself. The only inference that can be drawn is that the alleged incident of Renu being set on fire by the accused persons never really happened.
24. Apart from the above factors, there are contradictions in the testimony of public witnesses, some of them being quite material. To start with, PW 1 deposed that after hearing the news of his sister Renu, his mother went to her house alongwith her son Dipankar (brother of Renu and PW 1) and he directly went to the hospital. On the other hand, PW 2 Rajarani stated that she went to the house of Renu alongwith Sudhir PW 1. In cross examination, when PW 1 was asked about his communication with Dhanno (cousin sisterinlaw of Result: Acquitted Page 39 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) Renu) when she informed about Renu's condition, he stated as under
- Thik hai main aa raha hoon. It is quite surprising that despite being given news of such exigency, the witness quite nonchalantly simply informed her that he is coming. He did not bother to ask as to what was the possible cause of her burning or any similar query which would have been the most probable reaction. It also needs a highlight that Dhanno was initially cited as a witness but was later dropped by the prosecution since she was not supporting the prosecution case which further puts a doubt on whether at all it was Dhanno who had informed the complainant about burning of Renu. Perusal of the statement of Dhanno recorded by the police reveals that infact it was son of Renu who had called up the complainant and thereafter, Dhanno talked to the complainant. Thus the assertion of public witnesses that they got information about Renu's burning incident from the neighbours is falsified. With regard to admission of deceased to Sanjeevani hospital Dariyaganj and her subsequent shifting to Sanjeevani hospital Paharaganj, there appears a contradiction between the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2. PW 1 deposed that Renu was shifted since the Sanjeevani hospital Paharganj was a superspeciality hospital whereas PW 2 deposed that Result: Acquitted Page 40 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) she was shifted because the 2nd hospital had lower rate of medical treatment charges.
25. With regard to shifting of the deceased to Sanjeevani hospital on 25.7.2010, there is a material contradiction. PW 2 stated in her examination in chief that when she took Renu for her subsequent admission in hospital since her condition was worsening, her husband Vinod was present whereas in her cross examination, she denied the presence of Renu's husband Vinod when she took Renu to hospital. An impression was sought to be conveyed by the prosecution that Vinod was preventing Renu from getting proper treatment. However, the testimony of PW 2 as highlighted above, negatives this impression or in any case, is contradictory.
26. It further needs a highlight that there is no witness to the alleged constant quarrels and nagging of the deceased by the accused persons. Though prosecution has sent up accused Davinder to face trial, PW 2 very categorically stated that her daughter Renu was harassed only by accused Sudesh and Satwanti. It needs a highlight that in the complaint under section 156 (3), allegations had been Result: Acquitted Page 41 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) levelled against husband of Renu i.e. Vinod as well but he was not summoned by the ld. MM. In regard to his role, there is patent contradiction in the testimony of PW2 and PW6. PW6 deposed that Renu was assaulted by accused persons and Vinod whereas PW2 deposed that it was accused Davinder who hit her with a danda. Further, she did not implicate Vinod at all.
27. Another factor deserves a mention. Even though statement of deceased was recorded for the first time on 18.5.2010, on the day following the alleged incident, the police officials did not collect any burnt clothes of Renu nor visited the incident site till 16.8.2010. There is nothing on record to show that any container of kerosene oil or other inflammable liquid was seized by the police officials which in any case was not possible since incident scene was visited by the IO after a delay. Even the narration of alleged incident, as given by PW 2 does not inspire One of the accused persons allegedly hit the deceased with a danda which made her unconscious. Thereafter, when she regained consciousness, she felt some liquid having been poured on her and then realised that she was on fire when she felt heat. She is then stated to have pleaded to the accused Result: Acquitted Page 42 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) persons for help who in turn took a promise from her that she would leave the house. On her assurance, they poured water on her. It is simply not believable that while being on fire, the deceased could have possibly had this bargaining conversation with the accused persons as mentioned above.
28. PW 1 claimed to have videographed the statement of Renu dt. 15.8.2010 with a handycam. Presence of brother of the deceased (PW 1) while her statement was being recorded itself is sufficient to doubt its veracity and raise a suspicion that the statement of Renu was tutored. Even when her statement dt. 26.5.2010 was being recorded, her brother Dipankar was besides his sister Renu. Signature of Dipankar appear on the statement along with signatures of Renu. In regard to the videography, few aspects need a mention. In his examination in chief, PW 1 stated that just 2 days after the videography with the handycam, he had disposed off the handycam. In his cross examination however, he stated that he kept the handycam for a few months after the recording. The handycam was a cassette recorder whereas what was handed over to the Investigating officer was a CD. The recording in a CD was done by a person named Result: Acquitted Page 43 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) Bunty (as per PW 1) but he was never cited as a witness. An application to summon him was moved on behalf of the complainant which was disposed off with directions to the prosecution to consider whether Bunty is to be summoned under section 311 CrPC but no such application was filed thereafter. There is thus no evidence with regard to authenticity of the CD. In any case, it could not be proved in accordance with law. Infact, PW1 in his crossexamination, admitted that he never handed over the original cassette to the IO but only the CD.
29. There are a total of four statements of deceased Renu on judicial record. The first statement was recorded on 18.05.2010 by ASI Ishwar Singh on the day when Renu was admitted in Safderjung hospital. Second statement was recorded on 26.05.2010 when Renu was still undergoing treatment in the hospital as an inpatient. Third statement of Renu was recorded on 25.07.2010 when Renu was got readmitted in Sanjeevani hospital for treatment of burn injuries. Fourth statement was recorded on 15.08.2010, which was just a day before Renu expired. (Renu expired on 16.08.2010).
Result: Acquitted Page 44 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016)
30. In all the four statements, deceased gave a different version of the occurrence of 17.05.2010 when she sustained burn injuries.
31. In her first statement, Renu (deceased) stated that her clothes caught fire while she was preparing dinner around 10:30 PM. In her first statement, Renu did not implicate anyone. What is pertinent is the testimony of PW5/ Dr. Satish, who first examined Renu on the night of 17.05.2010 immediately, after she sustained burn injuries. This witness deposed that patient Renu had informed him that she caught fire while cooking. In the second statement dt. 26.05.2010, Renu stated that on 17.05.2010, she had a quarrel with the accused persons. However, she did not want to file any complaint provided they (i.e. accused persons) do not quarrel with her in future. In her second statement also she did not allege anything against the accused persons. It is relevant to highlight that the second statement of Renu was obtained by SI Ishwar Singh after seeking opinion from the doctor on the fitness of patient Renu to give statement. The first statement (dt. 18.05.2010) however was recorded by SI Ishwar Singh on the basis of MLC, as per which the patient was conscious.
Result: Acquitted Page 45 of 51State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016)
32. In the third statement dt. 25.07.2010, Renu for the first time alleged that accused persons initially had a quarrel/scuffle with her on 17.05.2010 in the morning and then the same night at about 10:30 PM, the accused persons first hit her on the head and then set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene. She further stated that on 18.05.2010, she was shifted to the hospital by her mother Smt. Rajrani. In this third statement, there was nothing stated by Renu as to how were the flames/fire doused. In the fourth statement, Renu improved upon her 3rd statement and specifically alleged that accused Satwanti hit her on the head as a result of which she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she realised that her clothes were on fire and she heard the accused persons conversing that she (i.e. Renu) will be finished today. Thereafter, she again lost consciousness. Towards the end of her 4 th statement, she alleged that accused persons had set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her.
33. In the backdrop of these four statements, few relevant aspects deserve a highlight. First aspect is regarding the presence of kerosene oil on the body of Renu. PW 5 Dr. Satish who first Result: Acquitted Page 46 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) medically examined Renu, specifically deposed that he did not detect any smell of kerosene coming from Renu. MLC of Renu prepared on 18.05.2010 also does not state anything about the possible presence of Kerosene. PW 4 Dr. Dhingra deposed about the possibility of Renu sustaining burns from accidental flames but his testimony is not of much value since he also stated that in view of postmortem having been conducted after a period of three months from date of sustaining burn injuries, it was not possible to give a definite opinion. Second aspect is regarding the testimony of PW2 who deposed that accused persons used to constantly trouble the deceased on account of a property dispute and eventually, burnt her on account of the same. However, what is surprising is that none of the four statements of late Renu give away even a hint of any property dispute between Renu and accused persons. Surprisingly, neither PW 1 nor PW 6 deposed anything regarding harassment of Renu on account of property dispute. Further, as has already ben highlighted, the narration given by PW2 in regard to the alleged 'bargaining' by accused persons with Renu before agreeing to douse the flames, is not substantiated by any evidence at all. The final 2 statements of late Renu didn't say a word about how were the flames on her body put Result: Acquitted Page 47 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) off. It is thus strange that when Renu herself did not say anything about how did she manage to put out the flames, how did PW2 come up with the narration that before dousing the flames on the body of Renu, the accused person bargained with her to agree to leave the house. In the 4th statement, the narration by Renu becomes almost improbable when she stated that initially she lost consciousness when she was hit on the head but after being set on fire, she regained consciousness and then became unconscious again. It is impossible for any person to lose consciousness while he/she is on fire. Also, in regard to the 4th statement of Renu, it needs a highlight that it is only at the asking of the doctor at Sanjeevani Hospital that the complainant thought of calling the police to get the statement of Renu recorded which means that left to him, he probably would not have called police on 15.8.2010.
34. It also needs a highlight that even the 3 rd statement of late Renu where she implicated the accused persons for the first time, does not appear to be free from tutoring. This statement bears the signature of the complainant which means that even this statement was recorded in the presence of the complainant and thus possibility Result: Acquitted Page 48 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) of Renu having been tutored cannot be ruled out, especially keeping in mind that the implication of accused persons came about by way of this 3rd statement which was recorded 2 months after the actual incident. After the 3rd statement was recorded, the IO further recorded statements of public persons i.e. neighbourers, none of whom supported the version of Renu that she was set on fire by the accused persons which possibly explains partly, as to why no FIR was registered after the 3rd statement.
35. Further, deposition of PW 11 who recorded the statement of Renu on 15.8.2010 shows that no fitness certificate was obtained by him from the doctor before recording the statement of Renu. It was imperative for PW 11 to have obtained written opinion of the doctor with regard to fitness of Renu since her medical condition was extremely critical which was the reason why police had been summoned. In addition, the statement was recorded in the presence of the brother of the deceased who purportedly video recorded it. Both these factors put a significant doubt on whether the statement dt. 15.8.2010 was voluntary and truthful and whether or not it was actually recorded as per the narration of PW 11. With regard to Result: Acquitted Page 49 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) the motive of the alleged crime, PW 1 and PW 6 admitted that there was no pending property dispute. Thus the very motive behind the alleged crime could not be proved. Still further, in the complaint filed u/s 156 (3) as also the deposition of PW6, allegation was levelled against the husband of Renu i.e. Vinod hit Renu with a danda. However, neither PW 1 nor PW 2 deposed in Court anything about the role of Vinod in the incident except that Vinod did not provide timely medical help to Renu. Relevant to highlight that Renu herself, in her statement dt. 25.7.2010, said that on 17.5.2010 her husband Vinod was not present when she was set ablaze by accused persons. The testimony of public witnesses is thus contradictory and incoherent, in addition to being improbable.
36. It needs a further highlight that the accusation that victim Renu was hit on the back of her head with a danda, is not substantiated by the medical record since the injury on the back of her head was a pressure sore. Further, the allegations levelled by PW 2 that victim Renu was got discharged from Safdarjung Hospital, even though she had not recovered, is not supported by the discharge summary issued by Safdarjung Hospital at the time of discharge of Result: Acquitted Page 50 of 51 State Vs. Davinder etc. FIR No.38/2011 (56768/2016) Renu wherein the condition of patient has been stated to be satisfactory.
37. For the foregoing reasons, prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Davinder and Smt. Sudesh are thus acquitted of the Charge under Sec.302/34 IPC.
38. They are directed to furnish PB/SB for Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety in the like amount, in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
39. Further it is ordered that the case property of this case, if any, be disposed of/destroyed after the expiry of period of filing of appeal, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY GULATI
ANNOUNCEDGULATI
IN THE OPEN Date: ( AJAY GULATI )
2019.09.04
COURT ON: 31.08.2019 ASJ05
16:09:01 +0530 (West), THC, Delhi.
Result: Acquitted Page 51 of 51