Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Javed on 17 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANI CHAUHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT-01)
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSE01-000159-2011
SC 2241/2016
STATE Vs. MOHD. JAVED & ORS.
FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar
U/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Mohd. Javed
Sh. Abdul Majid
Address as per charge-sheet:-
H. No. 170A, Okhla Village, New
Delhi.
2. Abdul Majid (proceedings against
the accused are abated vide order
dated 19.03.2015)
Late Sh. Panna
Address as per supplementary
charge-sheet:-
H. No. 170A, Okhla Village, New
Delhi.
3. Zarina (proceedings against the
accused are abated vide order dated
12.11.2024)
W/o Sh. Abdul Majid
Address as per charge-sheet:-
H. No. 170A, Okhla Village, New
Delhi.
FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 1 of 50
Date of Institution : 17.01.2012
Date of Judgment : 17.03.2026
Final verdict : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
The marriage between victim Shabnam and accused Mohd. Javed was solemnized on 18.11.2005. Three children were born from the said marriage. The eldest child was the son was born in the year 2006. Subsequently, a daughter was born in the year 2007 and another daughter in 2010.
On 02.07.2011, victim was found hanging in a room of her matrimonial home. The room was locked from inside. Chandan broke open the window and opened the door from inside. The victim was brought down with the help of Chandan and Rafiq (neighbour). At that time, accused Javed was at his shop which was about 3 kilometers away from his residence. Victim was declared brought dead at the hospital. The cause of death was opined to be aphyxia due to strangulation. The instant FIR u/s 304B/498A/306/ 34 IPC was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Gulzar Ahmed (father of the victim) and investigation commenced.FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 2 of 50 Brief facts:
1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed naming Mohd. Javed as accused for offence punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Cognizance was taken by Ld Predecessor. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. Matter was then fixed for consideration on point of charge.
2. Later on, 1st supplementary charge-sheet was filed naming Mohd. Javed as accused and Abdul Mazid, Zarina, Danish as PO and Rubina @ Shabbo, Noor Mohd, Shama, Nagma, Praveen, Furkan, Farah, Nisha, etc., as suspects for offence punishable U/s 498A/302/304B/34 IPC. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. Matter was then fixed for consideration on point of charge.
3. Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame Charges for offences U/s 498A/304B/306 IPC against the accused Mohd. Javed vide order dated 23.05.2012. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
4. Later on, 3rd supplementary charge-sheet was filed naming Abdul Mazid and Zarina as accused persons for offence punishable FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 3 of 50 U/s 498A/304B/174A/34 IPC. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. Matter was then fixed for consideration on point of charge.
5. Later on, Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame Charges for offences U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC & 174A IPC against the accused Zarina vide order dated 15.04.2019. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
6. The proceedings against accused Mohd. Abdul Mazid and Zarina were abated vide orders dated 19.03.2015 and 12.11.2024.
Hence, the present judgment is only regarding the accused Mohd. Javed.
Prosecution evidence:
7. Prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case.
After this, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for examination of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Mohd. Javed denied all the allegations. He admitted that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2005. Jewelry articles were given in said marriage. No demand of money was made by the accused or his parents after about 2-3 months of the said marriage.
FIR No. 336/2011PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 4 of 50 He stated that the complaints were made due to normal domestic issues. The complaints were made at the instance of parents of the deceased and the same were compromised. No any further action was taken on said complaints as complainant / deceased was fully satisfied with compromise. He stated that he is innocent. He was falsely implicated in the case. He never made any demand of money or any valuables. It was his second marriage and when she came to know about the factum of his first marriage, she went in depression and due to depression she committed suicide.
9. After recording the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused persons chose to lead defence evidence.
10. However, the accused has failed to produce any defence witness. Hence, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. Final arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
12. Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that in the present case prosecution has successfully proved that accused has demanded dowry on several occasions. Victim would visit her parents' house and convey the demand of accused. The father of the victim once paid Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a vehicle. On several occasions, the FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 5 of 50 father of the victim paid different sums of money to the victim pursuant to the demand of the accused. He argued that there were injury marks on the body of the victim. He argued that victim was tortured by the accused and dowry was demanded. Victim committed suicide due to the dowry demand of the accused. Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that all prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects of the case. He submits that the contradictions, if any, are prevail in nature and do not affect the merits of the case. He submits that prosecution has unable to prove its case beyond the pales of reasonable doubts and the accused be convicted of all the offences with which he is charged.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that the parents of the victim have turned completely hostile during their cross-examination and have stated that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons and that the victim was unhappy as she was the 2nd wife of the accused. He argued that there was no demand of dowry 'soon before the death'. Thus, no offence u/s 304B IPC was made out. He further argued that there was no evidence of any instigation by any accused to the victim to commit suicide. He further argued that with respect to offence u/s FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 6 of 50 498A IPC, the prosecution has not proved any demand of dowry or consequential harassment on the ground of non-fulfillment of the alleged demand. He argued that there is no live link between allegations of harassment and the death of the victim. Ld. Counsel submits that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He prays for acquittal of the accused.
Relevant Provisions of law:
Section 498A IPC provides -
"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Section 304B IPC provides -
"Dowry death -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 7 of 50 otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life".
Section 306 IPC provides -
"Abetment of suicide.-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 34 IPC provides : -
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Law related to circumstantial evidence:
14. In order to appreciate the recorded evidence, it is incumbent to discuss the law applicable to circumstantial evidence.
15. Having considered the relevant law and the settled principal FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 8 of 50 with respect to the offences with which the accused has been charged with, I shall proceed with examining the evidence led by both the sides.
Evidence on record:
Prosecution witnesses deposed as follows:-
16. PW - 1 HC Mahipal Singh has deposed that he was working as duty officer on 02.07.2011 and on that day at about 08:05 PM, he received a message through wireless operator which he reduced vide DD No. 41A Ex.PW1/A. On 03.07.2011, he was working as duty officer and registered the FIR Ex.PW1/B and also recorded DD No. 31 as Ex.PW1/C.
17. PW - 2 Smt. Salma Malik (mother of the deceased) has deposed as follows:-
"I am residing at the above said address alongwith my family for the last 15 years. I have six children including four daughters and two sons. My deceased daughter Shabnam was the youngest among all my children. I had married my said daughter with accused in the year 2005. Marriage ceremony was held in a marriage hall at Daryaganj at Ansari Road. We had given articles including jewellery weighing about 20/25 tolas, complete furniture, clothes, refrigerator, washing machine etc. The same are mentioned in the list provided by my husband to the police. After about 2/3 months of the said marriage, accused and his parents started demanding money. About 2 ½ FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 9 of 50 years back accused Javed, present in the court, correctly identified, demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing gramin sewa vehicle. We have paid this amount of money to the accused. I have borrowed this amount of money from my another daughter Anju with the assurance that I will pay back this money in installments through my committee. Accused also used to demand money of amount of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- several times and I kept on paying these amounts of money to the accused. Accused also used to consumed liquor. He also used to harass, torture and beat my deceased daughter Shabnam. On this account, accused has also drove my daughter from his house several times and she used to come to my house. We used to make her stayed at our house. My daughter also used to collect money from her brother and daughter and would pay the same to the accused. I also used to pay money to my daughter for further handing them over to the accused Javed. I used to pay Rs. 3000/-, sometime 5,000/-, 10,000/- or 15,000/-.
In the year 2008 or 2009, but I do not remember the exact date, I alongwith my husband and neighbours had gone to the house of accused We talked to the accused and his family and requested them not to treat my said daughter in the said manner. We wanted to take back out daughter to our Thereafter, altercation ensued and house because she was beaten badly. when were coming out from the said house, mother of the accused viz., Zareena caught hold my hairs and put me down and gave me fist and kick blow, and my husband was beaten by lathi/bottles. My husband had sustained injuries on his head and 14 stitches had to applied on his head. Thereafter, we gone to PS Jamia Nagar and from there we all three taken to hospital. My deceased daughter Shabnam was also given kick blows by her devar.FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 10 of 50 One day prior to present incident i.e, 01.07.2011, my daughter had come to my house. On that day, she talked to me and further demanded Rs. 1 lac by saying that her husband was demanding this money for purchasing another vehicle in addition to gramin sewa vehicle. I was sick at that time and was suffering from heart ailment, hence, my daughter did not give the detailed account with regard to the treatment meted out to her, on account of which she had come to my house that day. However, she had also told the said fact to my daughter in law with the request that she would not disclose it to me due to my illness. On that day my daughter after receiving call from her husband that if she is not getting the said money, she will go back to her in laws house. On that day, we did not have money. This fact was also told to me by my daughter.
On the next day i.e, the day of incident, sister of accused called me on my mobile phone that my daughter had fallen from staircase and sustained injuries. She again called me and told me that a quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife with regard to some chocolate. She did not disclose the complete facts. Thereafter, accused also called me and abused me and while abusing he kept on saying me "mar gayi, mar gayi". Thereafter, we all family members and our neighbours went to the house of accused persons and found that my daughter was lying dead in the room of her in laws. We had also noticed injury marks on the face of my deceased daughter and her body was also appearing to be bluish. My husband called police and police reached the spot and removed the dead body to the hospital.
On the next day, we had gone to the mortuary of AIIMS.
Whereon SDM was called and he had FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 11 of 50 recorded my statement Ex. PW2/A, which bears my signatures at point A. Police officials also taken photographs of scene of crime. Our relatives had also gone to the AIIMS mortuary.
Photographs Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/12 are the photographs pertaining to marriage of my daughter and I handed over these photographs to the police.
The original copy of the list mark P1 colly was retained by the family of accused and we were only given photocopy of the same, whose copy we had already handed over the police. However, my husband has brought the original copy of the list Ex. PW 3/B. At the stage PW 3 produced the original copy of the list Ex. PW 3/B same is seen and returned.
XXXX by Dr. Sarabjeet Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Javed I had not taken the consent of my deceased daughter while marrying with accused Mohd. Javed. It is correct that and my husband Gulzar had arranged the marriage after seeing the boy without taking the consent of my deceased daughter. I know at the time of marriage that accused is marrying second time with my daughter. I know prior to the marriage that accused had left his previous wife. It is correct that my deceased daughter was not happy because of this marriage as accused had already left his previous wife. It is correct that because my daughter was not happy with the marriage, therefore, there used to be quarrel between them and many times we tried to resolve the differences between the two. It is correct that my daughter used to remain depressed in the company of accused during the entire marital period till death as she was not happy with the marriage.
It is correct that boy and his family FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 12 of 50 members had not made any demands from us as they belongs in our relation. The relationship between both the families were normal. I have levelled the allegations of demand of Rs. 20,000/- or 25,000/- at various occasions at the dictate of police to make out the case. However, accused had not demanded any money from us neither we had given any money to accused. It is correct that the allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing Gramin Sewa vehicle was also levelled at the instance of police and as such accused had not demanded such money.
Dispute between deceased and accused were petty family disputes and not due to demand of dowry. The allegation of quarrel of the accused with me levelled at the instance of Panchayat because Panchayat advised me if I will not level such allegation, then case will not be made out against him.
I had lodged the present case because of the advises of various people. It is correct that no demand of dowry was made by accused and I levelled all the allegation at the instance of Panchayat and police. I do not want any further proceedings against accused in the present case.
At this stage, Id. Addl. P.P. requests to re- examine the witness as witness has deposed contrary to her earlier statement. Heard. Allowed. Re-examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State The statement which I made today is the correct account of the incident.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. At this stage, ld. Addl. P.P. requests to cross-examine the witness as witness has resiled from her previous statement. Heard. Allowed.
XXXX by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons and deliberately deposing contrary to the true version of incident.FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 13 of 50 It is correct that I had not made any complaint to any forum regarding the facts being induced or advised to depose in the manner in which I have made my earlier statement dated 25.08.2012. It is correct that I have compromised the matter with the accused. It is wrong to suggest that since I have compromised the matter with accused and it is on this account I am deposing falsely today. XXXX by Dr. Sarabjeet Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Javed Nil. Opportunity given."
18. PW - 3 Sh. Gulzar Ahmed (father of the deceased) has deposed as follows:-
"I am residing at the above said address alongwith my family for last 20 years. I am doing the work of sale and purchase of electric motors. I have six children including my deceased daughter Shabnam. Among them four are daughters and two are sons. I married my daughter Shabnam with accused Javed, present in the court, correctly identified, in the year 2005 as per Muslim rites and rituals. Marriage ceremony was held at Daryaganj. I have given several gifts to my said daughter in her marriage. There details are mentioned in the list which was provided by me to the IO. I had also handed over the list of the articles which I had given to the accused and his family on the occasion of birth of my two grand sons and one grand daughter. I had also handed over the list of expenditure incurred on account of booking of the hall where the marriage ceremony was held, as well as other expenditure incurred on account of said marriage. Copy of said lists running into five sheet are there on the record. Same are marked as Mark P-1 (colly.). I can produce their originals which are with me. My FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 14 of 50 deceased daughter Shabnam was blessed with three children from her wed lock with the accused.
After the marriage, accused started harassing my daughter Shabnam and started demanding dowry. Sometime, he used to demand cash amount Rs. 20,000/-. Sometime he used to demand cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- or 30,000/-. Sometime he used to demand vehicle which is meant for running a service of phat phat sewa. This phat phat sewa is being run from Okhla mor to Okhla village. I did not the know them of this vehicle. After every three months accused used to give beatings to my daughter Shabnam and kick her out from his house. I do not remember the date but once my daughter was beaten by the accused and she had called us. Thereafter, I alongwith my wife had gone to her matrimonial house at Okhla village. When we went there, we told the in-laws of my daughter as well as accused that we will be taking back our daughter since she was being beaten Thereafter, an altercation was ensued and accused and his family including mother and father gave beating to me as well as my wife. We were hit by pieces of bricks and stones. I had sustained injuries on my head, my wife has also sustained injuries on her chest. Accused Javed had also kick my deceased daughter on her stomach, who was pregnant at that time. We had gone to police station Jamia Nagar and made complaint to the police in this regard. Thereafter, police officials took us to AIIMS hospital for our medical examination. However, police did not take any action in respect of this incident. Accused used to demand money from my wife. Accused also used demanded cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- from me. I had given him cash amount Rs. 20,000/-. Even after paying this amount accused persons did not stop harassing and torturing my daughter. My wife had also paid money to the accused several times.FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 15 of 50 She can tell the same. Accused Javed had also demanded golden chain from my wife.
When my daughter was kicked out from her matrimonial house, she used to come to our house. Thereafter, after some time accused would come and take her back to his house with our assurance that he will not do the same thing with her again. My daughter used to accompany her husband/accused.
Just one day before the present incident, my daughter had come to my home and she was alright. At that time she had talked to her mother and she was demanding money on behalf of the accused from her. The present incident happened on 02.07.2011. On that day, one of the sister of accused Javed called my wife on her mobile phone, whereby my wife was informed that my deceased daughter had died after falling from staircase. Thereafter, I alongwith my wife and wife of my brother viz., Shaheeda went to the house of accused. When we reached there, we found dead body of our dead was lying in the room of her mother in law/father in law. There were injury marks on the body of my deceased daughter including her face. Her body was also appearing to be blue. I immediately called police on 100 number. Police came at the spot and took photographs from the scene of crime and dead body of my daughter was sent for postmortem.
With regard to the harassment, torture and beating, accused and his parents to my daughter, she had also made several complaints to the police. Accused has demanded cash amount Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing vehicle for the said phat phat sewa and I have paid the said amount of money to the accused in cash.
On the next day i.e, on 03.07.2011, at AIIMS mortuary, one SDM was also called by police, who had recorded my statement before FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 16 of 50 postmortem of my deceased daughter. The said statement is Ex.PW3/A, which bears my signatures at point A. IO had also interrogated me with regard to the present incident, treatment and harassment and demand of dowry by the accused persons and he had also recorded my statement wherein I had given detailed accounts of incident. At the time of recording my statement by SDM, I was under mental agony and trauma because of death of my deceased daughter Shabnam, hence, I could not give the details sequence of the incident to which had happened with my daughter.
I have brought the list the of dowry articles given by me in the marriage of my deceased daughter.
The details of expenditure incurred in the marriage of my daughter which was prepared by my son was also handed over by me to the police. Copy of the same is Ex. PW 3/B. (OSR) (Objected to).
Witness further submits that original copy of the list is already marked as P1 colly was with the family of accused and he was only given and he was only given the photocopy of the same at the time of marriage and hence I cannot produce the same. This list was also signed by the father of accused namely Abdul Majid at point A and my son Feroz Khan at point B. XXXX by Dr. Sarabjeet Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Javed It is correct that I married my deceased daughter with the accused without her consent. It is also correct that she was not happy with the marriage because accused was already married and had left his earlier wife. It is also correct that we know prior to marriage that accused has left his previous wife and this fact was also known to my deceased daughter. It is also correct that my daughter did not remain happy in the company of FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 17 of 50 accused till her death because of his previous marriage. It is also correct that accused had not made any dowry demand from us or from my daughter at any point of time. It is also correct that all the disputes which were between accused and my deceased daughter were normal family dispute and not on account of dowry demand. It is correct that all the complaints we made at the instance of police and other persons against the accused to involve him in the present case.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. P.P. requests to re- examine the witness as witness has deposed contrary to his earlier statement. Heard. Allowed. Re-examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
The statement which I made today is the correct account of the incident.
At this stage, Id. Addl. P.P. requests to cross-examine the witness as witness has resiled from his previous statement. Heard. Allowed. XXXX by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused persons and deliberately deposing contrary to the true version of incident. It is correct that I had not made any complaint to any forum regarding the facts being induced or advised to depose in the manner in which I have made my earlier statement dated 25.08.2012. It is correct that I have compromised the matter with the accused. It is wrong to suggest that since I have compromised the matter with accused and it is on this account I am deposing falsely today. XXXX by Dr. Sarabjeet Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Mohd. Javed.
Nil. Opportunity given."
19. PW - 4 Sh. Irshad Ahmed (brother of father of the deceased) has deposed as follows:-
FIR No. 336/2011PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 18 of 50 The deceased Shabnam was the daughter of my elder brother namely Gulzar. She was married with accused Javed present in the Court today (correctly identified by the witness).
The marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused about 3-4 years prior to the occurrence.
I do not remember the date but it might be 5th or 7th July, 2011, my elder brother Gulzar received a telephonic call from the In Laws of deceased Shabnam and told him that his daughter Shabnam had died. On this information, I alongwith my brother Gulzar and his wife reached at the house of in laws of Shabnam at Okhla Village. I saw that at the house of accused the deceased Shabnam in dead condition. On inquiry, it was revealed that she was not well and due to which her death occurred. I observed the mark of injuries on the face and hands of the deceased. My brother Gulzar called the police. Thereafter, police got conducted the post-mortem upon the dead body of the accused Shabnam.
Prior to the death of the Shabnam about once or twice occasion, there were quarrel took place between Shabnam and her in laws. I heard that she was beaten up by her in laws.
At once, I also went to the house of In Laws of Shabnam in order to make understand her in laws and to pacify the matter. The co-accused Zarina is also present in the Court today. SDM recorded my statement in this regard which is now Ex.PW4/A bears my signature at point A. I also narrated the above said facts to the police.
I do not want to say anything more.
At this stage, Ld. Additional PP for the State wants to examine the witness u/s 154 Indian Evidence Act as he has not deposed in consonance with his earlier statement Ex.PW4/A. Heard. Allowed.FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 19 of 50 It is correct that the incident had occurred on 02.07.2011. I do not know if eight months prior to the death of the deceased she was beaten up by the accused persons. I do not remember today, if I had gone to the house of accused persons to make them understand about 08 months prior to the death of the deceased. It is correct that deceased Shabnam was the second wife of accused Javed. It is correct that accused Javed used to quarrel with deceased and beaten up her. It is also correct that prior to the death of the Shabnam, the parents of Shabnam and her brother went to the house of accused persons and there the parents and brother of deceased were beaten up by the accused persons and a report in this regard was made at PS Jamia Nagar, this incident was not took place in my presence but I heard about the same. It is correct that when I reached at the house of the accused persons and saw the dead body of the deceased then I observed the blue ink on the thumb of the deceased. It is correct that due to lapse of long time, I have forget some facts and could not depose the same during my examination in chief.
XXXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both the accused persons.
It is correct that whatever quarrels took place between the deceased Shabnam and her in laws were pertains to normally domestic issues. It is correct that no such quarrel between the deceased and her in laws had ever taken place for the demand of dowry.
20. PW - 5 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed as follows:-
"On 02.07.2011, injured Sabnam @ Nanhi was brought to AIIMS. She was examined by Dr. FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 20 of 50 Rajesh, Jr. Resident vide MLC No. 47504. As per MLC, she was brought in unresponsive state and was declared brought dead on 02.07.2011 at 09:35 p.m. The MLC is Ex.PW5/A which bears signature of Dr. Rajesh at point A. Dr. Rajesh, Jr. Resident has left the hospital. I can identify his signature as he had worked under me in capacity of Faculty Incharge, Medical Record Section, AIIMS.
On 03.07.2011, I was working as above. On that day, request to conduct the postmortem was submitted by the SDM Mr. Pravesh Ranjan Jha, SDM, Defence Colony on the body of deceased Sabnam @ Nanhi, 25 years female. Same is Ex.PW5/B (colly) which bears signature of Dr. Akhilesh Raj Jhamad, JR Forensic Medicine at point A. The postmortem examination was conducted vide PMR No. 744/2011 dated 03.07.2011 by Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Akhilesh Raj Jhamad, both JR Forensic Medicine. Both Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Akhilesh Raj Jhamad have left the hospital. I can identify their signatures as they had worked under me during the posting in the said department.
On external examination, the deceased was found to have wearing white colour salwar, kurta, bra and baniyan. Rigor mortis was present over the lower portion of body. Abdomen was distended due to putrefaction gases. Skin over the abdomen was greenish discoloured. Marbling was present over neck and shoulder. Nail tips and oral mucosa was bluish discoloured. Face was congested and petechiae were present over neck.
Following antemortem injuries were found mentioned in the Postmortem Report:
1. A faint yellowish brown colour ligature mark incompletely encircling the neck was present over the upper part of neck horizontally at anterior and lateral aspect of neck. It is situated 5 c.m. from FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 21 of 50 chin and 8 c.m. from supra sternal notch.
2. An abrasion of brown colour of size 2.5 X 0.5 c.m. was present over the right side of neck. 1 c.m. from the chin in the midline of neck.
3. An abrasion of brown colour of size 3 X 0.5 c.m. was present over left side of neck. 7 c.m.
from midline of neck and 8 c.m. from the tip of mastoid process.
On dissection of neck, extravasation of blood was present. Haematoma was present in subcutaneous tissues and neck muscles and thyrohyoid complex. Thryohyoid complex was intact.
4. A contusion of red colour of size 10X5 c.m. was present over the inner aspect of right arm.
The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
The viscera were preserved to rule out any intoxication. All injuries were ante mortem in nature.
The following items were handed over to IO in sealed condition with sample seal.
a). Gauze piece soaked with deceased blood.
b). Clothings as mentioned.
c). Nail clippings of both hands.
XXXXX by accused persons.
Nil. Opportunity given."
21. PW - 6 Ms. Shahida Begum (wife of brother of father of the deceased) has deposed as follows:-
"I am residing at the above said address with my family. I am doing the work of handicraft at my residence. Sabnam @ Nanhi was daughter of my Jeth. She was got married with accused Javed in year 2005. She was having three children, out of which two daughters and one son. After marriage, accused Javed used to beat Sabnam @ FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 22 of 50 Nanhi and he used to tell me about the conduct of the accused. She had made several complaints about the act of accused Javed but due to intervention of elder persons, the matter was sorted out. Prior to two years of the year 2011 when the incident took place with Sabnam @ Nanhi, one day the accused Javed and his family members had locked Sabnam @ Nanhi in a room. She was not provided any food for 3 / 4 days and she was kept locked in a room. She had written the phone number of her brother on a slip and handed over the same to a lady to whom she called Chachiya saas and asked her to call at her house otherwise accused Javed and his family members will kill her. Chachiya Saas had made a call to Kasif, brother of Sabnam @ Nanhi and asked him to come or send someone otherwise Sabanam @ Nanhi would be killed. Salma mother of Sabnam @ Nanhi told me about the said fact on which I reached at the house of Salma. Thereafter, I alongwith other relatives of Sabnam @ Nanhi i.e. her parents, myself and other relatives reached at police station for help and thereafter alongwith police officials we reached at the house of Javed in the area of Okhla, Jamia Nagar. Police official entered in the room and rescued Sabnam @ Nanhi. Accused Javed and his family members had also misbehaved and quarreled at that time. Thereafter, accused Javed and his parents and we came at PS where inquiry was made by the police officials in which Sabnam @ Nanhi had told about the act of accused Javed. After writing in the PS, we had brought Sabnam @ Nanhi at house. Sabnam @ Nanhi remained for about one month at her mother's house. Thereafter, accused Javed and his parents took Sabnam @ Nanhi with them with the assurance not to torture and harass her. Thereafter, some quarrel used to take place but same were sort out with the intervention of elders FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 23 of 50 of the family members.
On 02.07.2011, I had gone at the house of Salma where I found that the family members were sitting silently. They told me that Sabnam @ Nanhi had expired. When I asked which Sabnam then they told Nanhi as I used to call her as Sabnam @ Nanhi. When I asked them as to how they came to know about it on which they told that they had received the telephonic call of accused Javed that Sabnam @ Nanhi had expired. Thereafter, I made a call to sister of accused Javed namely Fara to know about the fact to whom I introduced myself as chachi of Sabnam @ Nanhi and asked her as to what happened. She also told me that Sabnam @ Nanhi is no more.
After knowing the said fact, we had made 100 number call on which police officials of PS Darya Ganj came and we informed about said fact to them. Thereafter, we had informed that if any mishapping took place at the house of accused Javed as we are going to his house to verify the fact of death fo Sabnam @ Nanhi.
Thereafter, I alongwith other family member of Sabnam @ Nanhi, reached at the house of accused Javed in Okhla where we found the dead body of Sabnam @ Nanhi was lying on the cot on the found floor of the house. After removing the bed sheet for which her body was cover, I saw that there was a blue mark on the thumb of the hand of Sabnam @ Nanhi and there were marks on her neck. When I asked as to why there was blue mark on her thumb. They did not reply in this regard. She was office going. Thereafter, 100 number call was made and police officials of PS Jamia Nagar came to whom we told about the complete facts of the incident. I am sure that the accused Javed had murdered / killed Sabnam @ Nanhi. After the incident, accused Javed had also threatened us over phone and FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 24 of 50 personally as we can do whatever against him "Jo tum se kara jai karlo". My statement was recorded by the police. Accused Javed is present in Court today and correctly identified by witness. XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both accused Mohd. Javed and Zarina.
The marriage of the accused Javed and deceased Shabnam was arranged marriage. It was second marriage of accused Javed. It is correct that police had recorded my statement. It is wrong to suggest that the disputes between the accused Javed and deceased Shabnam were ordinary disputes between a husband and wife. It is wrong to suggest that deceased Shabnam was unhappy with the fact that she was the second wedded wife of accused Javed. Deceased Shabnam had agreed for the said marriage. It is wrong to suggest that her marriage to accused Javed was solemnized without taking her consent by her parents. I had told the police during investigation that accused had threatened us by saying "jo tumse kara jaye kar lo". Confronted with statement under section 161 Cr PC of the witness dated 03.07.2011 now marked as Mark PW6/DA where it is not so recorded. I had not made any separate complaint regarding such threat. (Vol. I had mentioned about the same to the police during investigation). It is wrong to suggest that I had not visited the house of Ms. Salma on 02.07.2011. It is wrong to suggest that I had not visited the house of accused Javed at Okhla. It is wrong to suggest that the quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons took place as normal domestic quarrels. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
22. PW - 7 Sh. Haffijuddin has deposed as follows:-
"In the year 2011. I do not remember the date or month due to lapse of time. On that day, FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 25 of 50 Ms. Salma and Guljar the parents of the girl Shabnam wake me up in the night at around 1-2 am. They asked me that their daughter Shabnam being beaten and I should accompany them to the matrimonial house of their daughter in Okhla. In the matrimonial house of the Shabnam I talk to her husband namely, Javed and tried to make him understand that he should not indulge in physical violence with Shabnam. However, the verbal altercation aggravated and turned into physical violence. Some one called the police also. I alongwith both the family members went to PS on that day. Accused Javed present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness).
I can also identify the accused Jareena (accused is absent and exempted for today and her identification is not disputed by the defence counsel).
The police did not meet me in connection with the case for any inquiry. The Shabnam was killed and she was taken to hospital and thereafter brought back after postmortem. I do not know who have killed Shabnam.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP request to put leading questions to the witness.
Heard. Allowed.
I was not manhandled or beaten by the accused or the family members. I had called PCR by dialing 100 number. The parents of the Shabnam was also got medically examined by the police on the said date. I had received information regarding killing of Shabnam by her in-laws. However, I am not sure if this information was received on 02.07.2011.
XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both the accused.
As per me the accused Javed and deceased Shabnam did not had a love marriage. I do not know whether it was first marriage of accused FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 26 of 50 Javed. It was first marriage of deceased Shabnam. I know the family of Shabnam since the year 2001. The marriage was solemnized with the consent of deceased Shabnam. It is correct that there was a tailor shop below the floor of my house at the time of said marriage. I do not know whether there was a boy namely, Tanveer working in said shop and deceased Shabnam and he wanted to get married. It is wrong to suggest that since it was second marriage of accused Javed therefore, deceased Shabnam was not happy with this marriage. I do not know whether Shabnam was happy in the marriage with accused Javed or not. It is correct that when I had gone to the house of Shabnam regarding the quarrel, it was an ordinary quarrel between married couples. The parents of Shabnam had informed me that her in-laws had killed her. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
23. PW - 8 Sh. Rafiq has deposed as follows:-
In the year 2011 I was working as security guard. On the date of incident I had left my place of work i.e., Sant Nagar and had reached my house at about 3-4 pm due to fever. I was called by father of accused Javed and thereafter, my niece came to me to call me at their house as her aunt (mami) is not opening the door of room. I went to 3rd floor where they were living and found that the door of the room closed from inside. We made efforts to open the door and thereafter break open the window and thereafter, open the door of room. Inside the room I saw Shabnam hanging from the ceiling fan with dupatta. She was brought down and doctor was called. On the advice of the doctor she was taken to the hospital. I did not go to the hospital. However, I came to know that she was declared dead in the hospital. The parents of FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 27 of 50 wife of Javed were informed. Police also reached there. The police officials also made inquiry from me and recorded my statement. Both the accused persons are my relatives and therefore, I can identify them. Accused Javed present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness).
I can also identify the accused Jareena (accused is absent and exempted for today and her identification is not disputed by the defence counsel).
XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both the accused.
On the day of the incident, I called accused Javed telephonically. It is correct that he was called telephonically since he was not present in the house. The width of the staircase at the house of accused Javed two or two and a half feet. It is correct that while bringing down Shabnam through staircase, some scratches was caused to her body.
24. PW - 9 Sh. Abdul Qudus has deposed that follows:-
"I earlier used to reside on rent at Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. I am a vegetable vendor and even at that time I used to sell vegetables. I used to sell vegetable at Okhla Head. The incident is about 10-12 years ago. I do not remember date or month or year. It was evening hours. It was around 4.00/5.00 pm. I heard noise and public also gathered. We reached at the house of Javed in front of whose house I used to sell vegetables. I saw that people were banging on the window. The window was broken and then the door was opened. One girl i.e. wife of Javed was hanging inside the room. She was brought down. Doctor was called and he said that she shall be taken to the hospital. Javed was not present but was called by the neighbour by FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 28 of 50 making call to him. He also arrived then. I did not go to the hospital with the lady.
Accused Javed is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness. Accused Jareena is also present in the court today (Correctly identified by the witness).
At this stage, Ld. Substitute Addl.PP wants to put a leading question to the witness.
Heard, Allowed.
It may be possible that incident was of 02.07.2011. It is correct that one person went inside through the window and thereafter opened the door but I am not sure whether his name was Chandan and he used to work at a electricity shop at 170B, Village Okhla.
XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both accused.
I was selling vegetable at the said spot for more than 15 years. I have not heard any quarrel happening at the house of Javed."
25. PW - 10 Sh. Chandan has deposed as follows:-
"I do not remember the exact date and year of the incident. However, it might be 11-12 years back. At that time, I used to work at Electrical Shop at Okhla Main Market near to Chabbra Store. It was of about 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM in the evening, I heard hue and cry and one of the relatives of the deceased had also taken one iron hammer from my shop and I also followed him. I saw that Mother of the Javed and some other relatives approximately 3-4 persons and they were trying to break the window of the house. They broken the window and asked me to go inside as I was the thin amongst them. I went inside the room and saw that wife of Javed was hanging from the ceiling fan and I unbolt the lock and opened the door of the room and the father-in-law namely FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 29 of 50 Majeed alongwith their relatives entered inside the room. The relatives of the deceased had got down the body and tried to pour some water in her mouth. Thereafter, I left the spot for my shop.
I can identify the both the accused persons, if shown to me.
Accused Javed and Jareena are present in the Court today, witness correctly identified both of them.
XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both the accused persons.
Accused Mohd. Javed was not present at or around the room where the body of deceased was got down. I had never noticed and heard any quarrel between accused Javed and his wife. "
26. PW - 11 Sh. Ram Bahadur has deposed as follows:-
"I do not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident. It might be more than 10 years. At that time, I used to work in the Grocery Shop at Okhla Main Market near Chabbra Store. Today I do not remember the exact time but the incident was of around 3-4 PM. The house of the deceased was near to the place of my work. I heard hue and cry from the 2nd floor and some people were trying to break the window. I also reached to the spot alongwith Chandan. After breaking the window, they sent Chandan inside the room and got opened the door which was locked from inside. When we entered we saw that one lady who was the wife of Javed was hanging from the ceiling fan. We all help in getting down the body and make her to lie on the bed and water poured in the mouth of the deceased. Thereafter, I returned to my shop.
At this stage, Ld. Additional PP requests to put leading questions to the witness as witness could not depose the entire facts stated to the FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 30 of 50 police.
Heard. Allowed.
I do not know whether I have stated to the police that the date of incident was of 02.07.2011 and the time was of 4-4:30 PM. I also do not remember that the house of the deceased was 170A, Okhla Gaon. I also do not remember whether accused Javed had came there after and took his wife to hospital. It is correct that later on, I came to know that the wife of Javed had expired.
I can identify the accused Javed and Jareena, if shown to me.
Witness correctly identify the accused Javed and Jareena present in the Court today. XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. LAC for both the accused persons.
I had never noticed or heard any quarrel between accused Javed and his wife. "
27. PW - 12 HC Gajender Singh has accompanied the IO when the postmortem was conducted at AIIMS Mortuary. The handing over memo of the dead body is Ex.PW12/A and seizure memo of viscera, blood in gauze, nails and clothes of the deceased is Ex.PW12/B.
28. PW - 13 HC Pardeep Kumar is witness to the formal arrest of the accused Mohd. Javed. The arrest memo Ex.PW13/A and his personal search memo is Ex.PW13/B.
29. PW - 14 Sh. Vijay Pal @ Sonu / private photographer who clicked the photographs of the crime scene. The photographs are FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 31 of 50 collectively Ex.PW14/A and the negatives are collectively Ex.PW14/B.
30. PW - 15 HC Baljeet has deposed that he is appearing on behalf of SHO PS Dariyaganj. The Court has summoned the record of complaints dated 30.03.2008 and 28.04.2009. However, the same have been destroyed as the records upto 2017 have been destroyed vide order No. 10316-90/Genl(R)/DCP/C dated 29.03.2022. The certificate copy of the said order is Ex.PW15/A.
31. PW - 16 HC Rajeev Kumar has deposed that he is appearing on behalf of Reader to ACP CAW Cell, Central District, Dariyaganj, Delhi. The Court had summoned the record of original complaint dated 27.01.2009 by one Shabnam. However, all the old record prior to 2017 had been destroyed as per the order of Additional ACP, Central District. The said order is order No. 47860/909/Genl(R)/ DCP/C dated 21.10.2021. He has also brought the original of the same. The certificate copy of the said order is Ex.PW16/A (OSR).
32. PW - 17 HC Anil Bhati has deposed that he is appearing on behalf of ACP Headquarters, South East District. The Court had summoned the record of original complaints dated 09.02.2010 and 21.01.2009 of one Shabnam. However, all the old record prior to FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 32 of 50 2017 have been destroyed as per the order of ACP / Headquarters South-East Delhi. He has brought the original order No. 11476/565/HAR/SED dated 23.06.2021. The certificate copy of the said order is Ex.PW17/A (OSR).
33. PW - 18 Inspector Pankaj Gulliya who arrested accused Abdul Majid and Zareena after they surrendered before Ld. MM vide memo Ex.PW18/P1 and Ex.PW18/P2 and their disclosure statements were also recorded vide memo Ex.PW18/P5 and Ex.PW18/P6. He also moved an application Ex.PW18/P3 for one day police custody of both the accused persons for recovery of chunni. However, the chunni could not be found and non-recovery memo Ex.PW18/P4 regarding the same was prepared.
34. PW - 19 Mohd. Abbas has deposed as follows:-
"I have been residing at the above-
mentioned address by birth. This property is my ancestral property.
I know the accused persons since long as they used to reside opposite to my shop at the above-mentioned address. I do not remember the exact date of the marriage of accused Mohd. Javed S/o Sh. Majid and Ms. Zareena. Probably, the accused Mohd. Javed was got married to Shabnam probably in the year 2005. Wife of accused Mohd. Javed was short-tempered by nature (garam mizaz ki thi). She could go to any extent. Shabnam had committed suicide almost 10-15 years back. I do not remember the exact date and year of her FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 33 of 50 suicide due to lapse of time.
Accused Mohd. Javed had one brother and 8 sisters. All of them had got married. I do not know anything else about the case. I do not know the cause of death of wife of Mohd. Javed.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP request to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement on material aspect.
Heard. Allowed.
XXXX by Sh. Ashok Debbarma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Police had made inquiries from me once after the death of deceased Shabnam.
It is wrong to suggest that I have stated to the police that Shabnam used to have fights with her in-laws and her husband even the matter was reported to the police but later on, it was settled.
Confronted with the statement of the witness recorded u/s 161 CrPC dated 03.09.2011 marked as Mark PW19/A1 from Point A1 to A2.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused Mohd. Javed and Zareena present in the Court today.
XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for both the accused Mohd. Javed and Zareena.
Nil. Opportunity given."
35. PW - 20 Ms. Shaheena has deposed as follows:-
"I am running a cosmetics shop at the afore-mentioned address from the last 18-20 years. Deceased Shabnam was also residing in my vicinity after a gap of 4-5 shops from my above- said shop. She was residing at her house along with her family members. She was residing at her house along with her husband Javed, father-in- law, mother-in-law Zareena, 2 sister-in-laws and one brother-in-law. Shabnam used to come on my shop to meet me.FIR No. 336/2011
PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 34 of 50 Deceased Shabnam had committed suicide prior to 12-13 years at her house. On the day of incident, on hearing the noise, I went to the house of the deceased Shabnam at about 4 to 4:30 PM. At that time, there were number of public persons present at the residence of the deceased Shabnam. When I went to the residence of the deceased, deceased was lying on the floor outside of the house.
I came to know at the spot that the dead body of Shabnam was taken out from the room after breaking the window and then, opening the door of the room.
Shabnam was the 2nd wife of the accused Javed. I heard that there were quarrels taking place between the accused Javed and deceased. I usually heard the noise of their quarrels from the house of the deceased. Danish is the brother of the accused Javed. Police has made inquiry from me and recorded my statement in the present case.
I can identify the accused Javed and Zareena, if shown to me.
At this stage, witness has correctly identified both the accused.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP request to cross examine the witness as she is resiling from her previous statement on material aspect.
Heard. Allowed.
XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State.
It is wrong to suggest that the quarrels used to take place even between the deceased with accused Zareena and Abdul Majeer (father-in-law of deceased). Confronted with 161 CrPC statement of the witness dated 05.03.2012 marked Mark PW20/A1 from Point A1 to A2 where such fact has been mentioned.
It is wrong to suggest that once or twice she had quarrel with Danish (brother-in-law of FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 35 of 50 deceased) also. Confronted with 161 CrPC statement of the witness dated 05.03.2012 marked Mark PW20/A1 from Point A2 to A3 where such fact has been mentioned.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not deposing the factum of quarrel by the accused Zareena, Abdul Majeer with the deceased as I have been won over by the accused Zareena.
It is correct that the date of incident i.e. the suicide of Shabnam was 02.07.2011. XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for both the accused.
Nil. Opportunity given. "
36. PW - 21 Sh. Pravesh Ranjan Jha has deposed as follows:-
"In intervening night of 02-03.07.2011, I was posted as SDM, Defence Colony, Delhi. In the night of 02.07.2011, I received call from police station Jamia Nagar regarding the present incident i.e. death of lady Ms. Shabnam at Okhla Village.
Next day i.e. on 03.07.2011, I reached AIIMS Mortuary where the dead body of the deceased had been preserved by the police where I met the family members of the deceased. Here the statement of father of the deceased Sh. Gulzar and other relatives namely Salma Malik and Irshad Ahmed were recorded before me. All the statements were recorded by my subordinating staff / police officials and it was written as per the narration of the witnesses. The statement of Sh. Gulzar Ahmed is already Ex.PW3/A bearing my signatures at Point B. The statement of Salma Malik is already Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at Point B. The statement of Irshad Ahmed is already Ex.PW4/A bearing my signatures at Point B. They suspected that the deceased had been killed by her husband and other in-laws. It was FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 36 of 50 also alleged by them that dowry was also demanded by the in-laws off and on.
The dead body was got identified by the relatives of the deceased vide identification memo Ex.PW21/P1 and Ex.PW21/P2 both bearing my signatures at Point A. Form 25.35 (1) C regarding unnatural death report was prepared by the IO/ Inspector G. S. Rawat and was countersigned by me. Same is now Ex.PW21/P3 bearing my signatures at Point A. On the basis of the allegations, I directed the SHO PS Jamia Nagar to register the FIR against the suspects under appropriate Sections of Law. The letter regarding the same is now Ex.PW21/P4 bearing my signatures at Point A. Later on postmortem report was brought by the police official before me and as per the same, cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and viscera was preserved to rule out intoxication. I forwarded the PM report to the SHO vide letter dated 07.07.2011. Same is now Ex.PW21/P5 bearing my signatures at Point A. XXXX by Sh. Raj Singh, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for both the accused.
I had ascertained the voluntariness of the witnesses as they were present before me and there was no such atmosphere of any pressure or coercion on them. It was not expressly mentioned by me when the statements of witnesses were recorded but it was implied.
Q. Did you ask any oral question to the witnesses before recording their statements? A. I had asked them that what exactly was their grievance and after hearing them, thereafter their statements were recorded.
It was done verbally and it was not mentioned in writing about their oral questioning.
I do not recall where the statements were recorded by my subordinating staff or police FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 37 of 50 official and therefore, I have mentioned the same in alternative in my examination in chief. I do not remember whether all the statements were written by the same person.
It is wrong to suggest that IO himself had recorded the statements of the witnesses and the same were not recorded in my physical presence and I only signed the statements / documents already prepared by the IO as per his convenience."
37. PW - 22 ASI Ved Prakash who executed process u/s 82 CrPC against the accused Abdul Majid and Zareena and his statement was recorded regarding the execution of process u/s 82 CrPC before the Court on 15.10.2011. The certified copy of that order is Ex.PW22/P1.
38. PW - 23 Retired SI Shiv Kumar was the police official who shifted the dead body to AIIMS, Mortuary and therein sweeper working there handed-over the wearing jewelry which was found on the dead body to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo marked as Mark PW23/A1.
39. PW - 24 W/HC Sunni was the police official who joined the proceedings of the present case during the PC remand of accused Zareena and Abdul for search of chunni.
40. PW - 25 Retired Inspector G. S. Rawat has deposed as FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 38 of 50 follows:-
"The witness has submitted that he had undergone one brain surgery due to certain issues regarding his right ear, at Sarvodaya hospital, Faridabad in October last year and since then his memory is weak. However, he shall depose the facts of the case as far as he can recall.
On 02.07.2011, I was posted at PS Jamia Nagar as Inspector, ATO. On that day, I had gone to the spot of incident i.e. Okhla Village. Duty Officer had informed me that ASI Shiv Kumar had gone to the spot as information was received regarding dead body of a female. I do not remember the house number probaly it was H. NO. A-43 something, Okhla Village. Therein at the Ground Floor, there was dead body of a female and relatives were gathered. ASI Shiv Kumar and Ct. Gajender were also present there. The photography of the spot was got conducted. Dead body was sent to the AIIMS mortuary through ASI Shiv Kumar. The identity of the deceased was found to be Shabnam w/o Javed. SDM, Defence Colony was informed.
On next day i.e. 03.07.2011, the relatives of deceased came in the mortuary. The SDM, Defence Colony namely Praveen Ranjan Jha prepared the inquest proceedings. The dead body was got identified. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives. ASI Shiv Kumar obtained the viscera exhibits after the postmortem and deposited the exhibits in the police malkhana. On the basis of inquest proceedings, the present case FIR was registered and investigation was marked to me.
I recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e the relatives whose statements were earlier recorded by the SDM, the FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 39 of 50 persons who identified the dead body, photographer and the police officials associated with the proceedings of the case. I prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Shiv Kumar. Same is Ex.PW25/P1, bearing my signature at point A. Efforts were made to search the accused. However, the accused persons had fled after locking their house.
On 06.07.2011, accused Javed surrendered in the Court. I along with one Constable arrested the accused in the Court. His arrest memo, personal search, disclosure statement and conviction slip was prepared. The arrest memo is already Ex.PW13/A, bearing my signature at point B. His personal search memo is already Ex.PW13/B, bearing my signature at point B. His police remand was taken from the Court for 2 days for the purpose of investigation and arresting the co-accused.
On 07.07.2011, the accused Javed was taken to the spot of occurrence and he disclosed about the incident. He disclosed that he was residing on second floor with his wife and she had committed suicide by hanging at the Second Floor. At the time of suicide the room was bolted from inside. He stated that he called certain persons at that time. Said persons were called for investigation. Statement of one Chandan and other persons were recorded who told that Chandan came and broke the jaali of the window and went inside and opened the latch from inside. He told that thereafter, the dead body was taken down and brought on the ground floor. The statement of Chandan and three other eye-witness of the said facts were recorded by me. The disclosure of accused was also recorded. Same is now Ex.PW25/P2, bearing my signature at point A. The other accused were not found.
The next day i.e. on 08.07.2011, accused FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 40 of 50 Javed were produced in the Court and remanded to JC.
Accused Javed is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness.
On 10.08.2011, I again conducted investigation and the father of deceased Gulzar Ahmed came at the PS and handed over me the copy of the complaints made by Shabnam dated 09.02.2010, 27.01.2009, 28.04.2009, 30.03.2008 & 21.01.2009 and photocopy of nikahnama and 10 photographs of the date of marriage. I prepared the seizure memo of the same which is now Ex.PW25/P3, bearing my signature at point A. The copies of the complaint is now Mark PW25/A (colly) (running into 11 pages). I have also sent the above said 5 complaints for verification addressing to ACP, CAW Cell, Central District and SHO, Daryaganj. The same is now Ex.PW25/P4 and Ex.PW25/P5, bearing my signatures at point A. 10 photographs of the marriage is now Ex.PW25/P6 (colly), bearing my signature at point A. I had sent the exhibits to FSL i.e. 4 sealed parcels and 1 sealed corrugated box through Ct. Ram Prakash. The acknowledgment is now Mark PW25/B and PW25/C. During course of the investigation, I have also prepared the handing over memo of dead body. Same is already Ex.PW12/A, bearing my signature at point B. I have also prepared the seizure memo of the 4 exhibits and one sample seal from the AIIMS mortuary and the same is already Ex.PW12/B, bearing my signature at point B. I have got issued NBWs against other co-
accused namely Zarina and Abdul Majid and proceedings under section 82 and 83 was initiated against accused persons dated 03.08.2011. My application regarding the said proceeding is Ex.PW25/P7, bearing my signature at point A. I have also recorded the statement of all the FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 41 of 50 witnesses and after completion of investigation, I filed the charge-sheet against the accused Md. Javed in the Court. Later on, I had also filed application to the Court on 02.05.2012 vide Ex.PW25/P8, relating to the subsequent opinion regarding nature of death of deceased and its negatives and photographs. The same are already Ex.A1 (colly) and Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW12/B (colly). I also filed the FSL report from Department of Biology and Chemistry through my application dated 24.04.2012. My application is now Ex.PW25/P9, bearing my signature at point A. The FSL report is already Ex.AX2 (colly) and Ex.AX3.
During investigation subsequent opinion was taken regarding cause of death of the deceased from the Board of Doctors. Said team of six doctors had visited the crime scene and had taken the photographs of the crime scene also. The Chunnis using which the handing was committed was not recovered. However sample chunni was used by the team of doctors to verify the facts at the crime scene. Said sample Chunnis were seized and deposited in the Malkhana vide seizure memo now Ex.PW25/P10 bearing my signatures at point A. The report furnished by the Board of Doctors was submitted in the Court.
In the month of May, 2012, brother of accused Mohd. Javed namely Danish was also arrested his vide arrest memo Ex.PW 25/P11 bearing my signatures at point A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/12 bearing my signature at point A.His disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW 25/13 bearing my signature at point A. When the accused Danish was arrested he was on a motorcycle and same was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/P14 bearing my signature at point A. FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 42 of 50 Then I file supplementary charge-sheet against him.
I had also filed supplementary charge-
sheet against the accused Zarina and Abdul Majid as PO after execution of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against them (proceedings against said accused are already abated).
I handed over the file to the MHC( R) as two other accused i.e. parents of accused Mohd. Javed were yet to be arrested.
Initially case was registered u/s 304 B IPC but when in the PM report the cause of death was mentioned as strangulation and therefore section 302 IPC was added. However, after the orders of Ld. Sessions Court regarding inconsistency between medical evidence and the statement of witnesses, subsequent opinion was taken from the Forensic Experts/ doctors as aforementioned, the Board of Doctors gave a report regarding cause of death being possible by suicide by hanging. I collected the report. I recorded the statements of the witnesses as and when they joined the investigation with me. I collected and attached all the documents collected during the investigation and prepared the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet against the accused persons and filed in the Court as per the Rules.
xxxxx Sh. Raj Singh, LAC for accused Mohd. Javed.
It is correct that on 03.07.2011, relative of the deceased had come to mortuary in the hospital. I also recorded statement of two said witnesses (Vol. The statement of relatives was also recorded by executive Magistrate). I had recorded the statement of witnesses of said witnesses in presence of Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate also signed the said statements recorded by me. (Vol. I had written the statement on the dictation of the Executive Magistrate). It is FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 43 of 50 wrong to suggest that I had already written the statement of said witnesses as per my convenance and at later stage, I had obtained the signature of Executive Magistrate upon them.
It is correct that it was second marriage of accused Javed with the deceased. I had not visited the parental house of the deceased. I had not made any inquiries from the friends of the deceased lady. Shahida and one more person were examined by me from the parental side of the deceased and recorded their statements.
The previous complaints given by the family of the deceased against the accused persons to the police were verified by me during the investigation. It was revealed during investigation that they were disposed off being settled between the parties. I did not come across the version of the accused recorded by the previous inquiry officers on the aforesaid complaints during my investigation.
It is wrong to suggest that I had taken the disclosure of the accused by illegal means and using force or that it was not given voluntarily by the accused. The disclosure of the accused was recorded in the police station.
It is correct that no FIR was registered or NCR was lodged on the previous complaints of the deceased / her family.
It is wrong to suggest that I have not conducted fair investigation in this case or that I have filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons by falsely implicating them at the instance of family members of deceased.
It is wrong to suggest that I prepared the documents and memos to suit the out come of my biased investigation at the instance of the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
FIR No. 336/2011PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 44 of 50 Discussion On Merits:
41. Having considered the relevant law and the settled principal with respect to the offences with which the accused has been charged with, I shall proceed with examining the evidence led by both the sides.
42. To establish an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prosecution is required to prove that:
(1) death of the woman/victim was caused by burns, bodily injury, or unnatural circumstances;
(2) death occurred within 7 years of marriage; (3) that she was subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband or his relatives (4) such cruelty was directly linked to a demand for dowry, which is defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (5) Soon Before" Requirement: The cruelty must have occurred "soon before" her death, implying a live link between the harassment and the death
43. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides as under:
Definition of "dowry".--In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 45 of 50 directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents 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 2 [or any time after the marriage] 3 [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. 4 * * * * * Explanation II.--The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
44. The victim died by Suicide on 02.07.2011. Thus, the death of the victim was not a natural death. The victim died by strangulation due to hanging. All the injuries mentioned in the MLC and other medical documents of the deceased are consequential to hanging. She was found hanging from a dupatta in a room which was locked from inside. The window of the room was broken and thereafter, room was opened from inside and her dead body was taken down. No other cause of death of the victim is evident from the medical records proved by the prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that victim was physically assaulted prior to her death.
FIR No. 336/2011PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 46 of 50
45. There is no dispute with respect to marriage between accused Mohd. Javed and deceased Shabnam @ Nanhi. It was the second marriage of accused Mohd. Javed and first marriage of deceased.
46. In the present case marriage between the accused Mohd Javed and the victim was solemnized in the Year 2005. Thus, the victim's death was within seven years from the date of her marriage.
47. Now it is to be seen that whether victim Shabnam was subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband Mohd Javed or any of his relatives.
48. In their statements to the SDM, Smt. Salma, mother of deceased and Sh. Gulzar Ahmed, father of the deceased had stated that on various occasions accused had demanded money through deceased and on some occasions, money was also given, however, no specific date and time of any such demand is mentioned. Moreover, both these persons have stated in their statements that Shabnam had visited their home on 01.07.2011 and was perfectly alright. Thus, no allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty was stated to have been made immediately before the death of Shabnam.
49. Smt. Salma deposed as PW2, while her husband Sh. Gulzar Ahmed deposed as PW3. Their testimony is almost identical. During FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 47 of 50 their examination in chief, both of them have levelled the allegation of dowry which is a material improvement from their previous statements made to the SDM. However, during cross-examination, PW2 and PW3, both admitted that consent of Shabnam was not taken prior to her marriage with Mohd. Javed. It was the first marriage of Shabnam and 2nd marriage of accused Mohd. Javed due to which Shabnam was unhappy and used to remain depressed. Both of them admitted that there was no demand of any dowry as accused are their relatives. They admitted that the allegations of dowry were levelled at the instance of police to make out a case. Both of them admitted that all the disputes between Shabnam and accused Javed were petty family disputes. Both of them admitted that there was no demand of any dowry and Shabnam was not harassed or tortured in context of any demand. Both these witnesses have significantly dented the case of the prosecution. The other witness PW4 Sh. Irshad Ahmed and PW6 Smt. Shahida Begum did not depose about any dowry demand made in their presence. They also did not give any time or the particular of any alleged demand. Their testimony is mostly hearsay and vague in nature.
50. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond the pales of reasonable doubt that the accused Mohd. Javed or any of his relative made a dowry demand soon before the death of deceased FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 48 of 50 Shabnam or meted out any harassment to her on account of her or her family's failure to fulfill any such demand. Further, as per the deposition of PW2 and PW3, Shabnam used to remain depressed as she was not happy with her marriage with accused Mohd. Javed. There is nothing on record to show that accused Mohd. Javed abetted suicide of Shabnam.
51. When the entire evidence of the present case is cumulatively read and appreciated in the background of the settled principle of law, the evidence brought in by the prosecution is replete with infirmities, contradictions and improvements and found not supporting by the other witnesses and there is considerable improvement, contradiction and infirmities in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not worthy of acceptance and there is a serious shadow of doubt cast upon it and not worthy of inspiring any confidence.
52. As discussed in preceding paragraphs, the inherent infirmities and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses strike at the very root of the prosecution story rendering it to be improbable and unbelievable. The shoddy investigation also did not help the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in the opinion of this FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 49 of 50 Court, there is no doubt that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
53. Thus, in view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Mohd Javed is acquitted for offences U/s 498A/304B/306 IPC.
Personal Search items of accused, if not already released, be released to him as per rules.
(Announced in the Open Court
on 17.03.2026) Digitally signed
by Shivani
Shivani chauhan
chauhan Date:
2026.03.17
16:09:13 +0530
(SHIVANI CHAUHAN)
Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01 South-East District, Saket Courts New Delhi FIR No. 336/2011 PS Jamia Nagar State v. Mohd. Javed & Ors. Page no. 50 of 50