Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Brij Pal Singh on 24 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 87/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0264342011
State Vs. (1) Brij Pal Singh
S/o Sher Singh
R/o Jhuggi No. 164,
Lakhi Park, K Block,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Guddi
W/o Brij Pal Singh
R/o Jhuggi No. 164,
Lakhi Park, K Block,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Vicky
S/o Brij Pal Singh
R/o Jhuggi No. 164,
Lakhi Park, K Block,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 186/2011
Police Station: Jahangir Puri
Under Sections: 302/304B/498A/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 29.9.2011
Date on which order were reserved: 13.1.2014
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 13.1.2014
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 1
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, from December 2010 to 17.6.2011 the accused Brij Pal Singh being the father in law of Janki; Guddi being the mother in law and the accused Vicky being the husband of Janki in furtherance of their common intention treated Janki with cruelty and harassed and even gave her beatings to meet their unlawful demands of dowry. It has been alleged that on 17.6.2011 all the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Janki by causing head injury to her. It is further alleged that on 17.6.2011 all the accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected Janki cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and caused head injuries to her, who died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BREIF FACTS:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2011 at about 9:05 PM information was received at Police Station Jahangirpuri which was lodged vide DD No. 20A regarding the giving of beating to a lady by her husband and subsequent hanging at 900 wali gali, pursuant to which SI Anil Kumar along with Ct. Shri Bhagwan reached the jhuggie cluster where they came to know that the incident had taken place at jhuggie No. 164, Lakhi Park, KBlock, Jahangirpuri. The PCR staff had already reached there and large number of public persons were present and a lady was found dead on a bed whose name they came to know later on as Janki @ Lali. In the St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 2 meanwhile the Ambulance from CATS had also reached the spot and the Incharge after checking the lady confirmed that she was dead. The spot was got inspected and photographed through Crime Team after which the dead body was sent to BJRM mortuary through Ct. Shri Bhagwan with a request to CMO Mortuary to preserve the same for 24 hours. On local inquiries the police came to know that the death of Janki had occurred within seven years of marriage on which information was sent to the SDM and family members of the deceased whereas the husband and parents in laws had been absconding.
(3) At about 1:30 AM (intervening night of 1718.6.2011) the Executive Magistrate Sh. M.P. Kushwaha reached the Police Station Model Town where he recorded the statement of Sharda Devi the mother of the deceased, brother Jitu Singh and father Jagat Singh wherein they made allegations on the husband of the deceased Janki namely Vicky, her mother in law Guddi and her father in law Brij Pal Singh of having harassed and tortured Janki on account of demand of dowry. On the statement of Smt. Sharda, the Executive Magistrate made his endorsement pursuant to which the present case registered.
(4) On the same intervening night the accused Vicky was apprehended from jhuggie Lakhi Park, K block side pursuant to a secret information after which he has been arrested and during interrogation the accused Vicky disclosed having committed the murder of his wife Janki.
Pursuant to his disclosure the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC Pipe from St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 3 his Jhuggi as the weapon of offence, which was then taken into possession. On 18.6.2011 the postmortem examination on the dead body of Janki was conducted by Dr. Bhim Singh who opined the cause of death as Head Injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 05.08.2011 accused Brij Pal and Guddi surrendered in the court of Ld. Illaka Magistrate after which they were arrested in the present case. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court.
CHARGE:
(5) Charges under Section 498A/34 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against all the three accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. An alternative charge under Section 304B/34 Indian Penal Code was also settled against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(6) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details No. 1. PW1 Sharda Devi Public witness - mother of the deceased 2. PW2 Jeetu Singh Public witness - brother of the deceased St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 4 3. PW3 Pale Public witness - neighbour of the accused 4. PW4 Sh. M.P. Kushwaha Official witness SDM 5. PW5 Bhagwan Das @ Bona Public witness - neighbour of the accused 6. PW6 Jagat Singh Public witness - father of the deceased 7. PW7 Dharmender Trivedi Official witness - CATS Ambulance Incharge 8. PW8 HC Sukhpal Singh Police witness - Duty Officer 9. PW9 Dharambir Singh Public witness - neighbour of the accused 10. PW10 HC Jiya Lal Police witness - PCR Van Incharge 11. PW11 SI Satpal Police witness - Crime Team Incharge 12. PW12 Ct. Dalbir Singh Police witness - Crime Team Photographer 13. PW13 Kishan Lal Public witness - neighbour of the accused/ owner of the PCO Booth 14. PW14 Ct. Mahipal Police witness who is a witness to the apprehension and arrest of accused Vicky 15. PW15 Dr. Bhim Singh Autopsy Surgeon 16. PW16 Balram Singh Public witness - neighbour of the accused 17. PW17 ASI Tahir Hussain Police witness 18. PW18 SI Anil Kumar Initial Investigating Officer 19. PW19 Inspector Dharampal Subsequent Investigating Officer List of documents: Sr. Exhibit No. Details of the Document Proved by No. 1. PW1/A Statement of Sharda Devi Sharda Devi 2. PW2/A Statement of Jeetu Singh @ Ravinder Jeetu Singh @ 3. PW2/B Statement of Jeetu Singh regarding dead Ravinder body identification 4. PW4/A Statement of Jagat Singh M. P. Kushwana 5. PW4/B Request for Autopsy 6. PW4/C Brief facts St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 5 7. PW4/D Form 25/35 8. PW4/E Dead Body identification 9. PW5/DA Statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C. Bhagwan Dass 10. PW7/A Assessment form Dharmender Trivedi 11. PW8/1 Copy of FIR HC Sukhpal Singh 12. PW 10/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Jiya Lal HC Jiya Lal 13. PW 11/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Satpal SI Satpal 14. PW 11/A Crime team report 15. PW 12/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Dalbir Singh Ct. Dalbir Singh 16. PW12/A1 to Photographs PW12/9 17. PW 12/B Negatives 18. PW 14/A Arrest memo of accused Vicky Ct. Mahipal 19. PW 14/B Personal search memo of Vicky 20. PW 14/C Disclosure statement of accused Vicky 21. PW 14/D Seizure memo of PVC Pipe 22. PW 14/E Seizure memo of Viscera 23. PW 15/A Postmortem report Dr. Bhim Singh 24. PW 15/B Subsequent opinion 25. PW 16/PX1 Statement of Balram Singh u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Balram Singh 26. PW 17/A DD No. 78B ASI Tahir Hussain 27. PW 17/B DD No. 20A 28. PW18/A & Seizure memo of room freshener, broken SI Anil Kumar PW18/B bangles and one copy 29. PW 18/C Site plan 30. PW 19/A Arrest memo of Brij Pal Inspector Dharampal 31. PW 19/B Arrest memo of Guddi 32. PW 19/C Disclosure statement of Brij Pal 33. PW 19/D Disclosure statement of Guddi
34. PW 19/DX1 Viscera/chemical examination report St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 6 EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Nineteen Witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(8) PW1 Smt. Sharda Devi is the mother of the deceased Janki. She has deposed that her daughter Janki @ Lali got married with accused Vicky on 10th December. She has further deposed that on 14.06.2011, she along with her husband went to the matrimonial home of her daughter Janki to take her to their home when her daughter complained that accused Vicky used to give beatings to her and also demanded money and asked her to bring the money from them. According to her, Janki also complained that all the family members did not allow the deceased to meet or talk to anybody and accused Vicky used to consume liquor and beat her. She has further deposed that on 17.06.2011, at the about 10.00 PM, police came to their house and then she came to know that her daughter had expired on which they went to the Police Station. She has also deposed that police had already apprehended accused Vicky whereas his parents were absconding.
According to the witness, she has her suspicion that her daughter had been killed by accused Vicky, his father namely Brijpal and mother of Vicky namely Guddi whom she has correctly identified in the Court. She has proved that her statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW1/A and police also recorded her statement.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 7 (9) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that after the death of her daughter, her statement was recorded by Inspector at Police Station on the same day and at that time, her husband, son and other persons were also present. According to the witness, the statement of her husband and son were also recorded simultaneously. She has further deposed that it took about one to two hours in the Police Station. She has testified that signatures were obtained on the statements and first of all, her husband signed the statement and has explained that she was disturbed at that time. The witness has also deposed that first of all, she was informed that her daughter was not well and admitted in the hospital and on hearing the same, she became unconscious and after some time, when she regained consciousness, she was told that her daughter had expired. She has further testified that firstly, the information regarding her daughter was served to them at their residence by the police on which they went to the Police Station and met the police official namely Mr. Dharampal, but she is not aware of his designation. According to her, the police informed that the dead body of her daughter was removed from her matrimonial house, which was found without clothes and it was removed with the help of a bed sheet. She has also deposed that accused Vicky was present at the spot i.e. at his house and he was crying that, "Maine Apni Biwi Ko Maar Diya" and his parents ran away from their house, which fact of uttering the said words, was told to her by the neighbours. She is not aware the name or address of that neighbour but states that he was residing near the house of accused St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 8 persons. She is not aware if the police recorded the statement of that neighbour. According to the witness, she only visited Police Station on 17.06.2011, after the death of her daughter and thereafter, she did not visit the Police Station. The witness has further deposed that prior to 17.06.2011, she along with her son did not make any complaint against the accused persons to the police nor any meeting or Panchayat was called for sorting out any dispute between the accused persons and her daughter. She is not aware if there was any quarrel or dispute prior to 17.06.2011 or that due to this reason, no Panchayat or meeting was held prior to 17.06.2011. According to her, the accused Vicky used to work as a Painter and further explained that after the marriage of her daughter with accused, she went to the matrimonial home of her daughter twothree times. The witness has also deposed that on 14.06.2011, when she along with her husband went to the matrimonial home of her daughter at about 12:00 Noon, at that time, the entire family was present there. She has admitted that on 14.06.2011, no quarrel took place in her presence and has further explained that they took tea there. According to her, none of her relative resides in the neighbor of accused persons. She has also deposed that they remained there for about one hour and since the accused persons refused to send her daughter with them on which they returned back. The witness has testified that her husband runs a tea shop and he earns sufficient money for their livelihood. According to the witness, she had only one daughter who was illiterate and was of 19 years, when her marriage was solemnized with the accused. She St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 9 has further deposed that her daughter never remained unhealthy, prior to her marriage nor she was mentally disturbed. She has denied the suggestion that prior to marriage, her daughter tried to commit suicide on one occasion. The witness has testified that she did not pay any money to the accused persons after the marriage of her daughter. She has denied the suggestion that accused Vicky or his parents did not kill her daughter, or that accused persons never demanded any money from them. She has also denied the suggestion that accused Vicky or his parents never beaten my daughter Janki. According to her, they never met any neighbour of the accused, whenever they visited the matrimonial home of her daughter. She has also deposed that her son is having a mobile phone, since the marriage of her daughter but Janki did not make any complaint on telephone regarding the beatings of quarrel, or any demand of money by the accused persons. (10) PW2 Jeetu Singh @ Ravinder is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that they were three brothers and one sister namely Janki who was the third child of his parents and was married on 10 th December with accused Vicky. According to the witness, on 17.06.2011, at about 9.30 PM, police from Police Station Jahangir Puri came to their house and informed that his sister Janki had expired at her matrimonial home and police had found the dead body of Janki at her matrimonial home. The witness has further deposed that they reached the Police Station and found that accused Vicky was already apprehended by the police and his parents were absconding. He has also deposed that on 14.06.2011, on Tuesday, his St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 10 parents went to the house of accused Vicky and when his mother returned to their house, she told that "Janki Bahoot Dari Huyi Lag Rahi Thi". According to the witness, he asked his mother as to why she had not brought Janki to their house, on which his mother replied that her inlaws did not allow her to bring Janki to their house. He has deposed that he has suspicion that his sister Janki was killed by accused Brij Pal, Guddi and accused Vicky whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. He has proved that his statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/A and having identified the dead body of his sister Janki vide his statement Ex.PW2/B and states that after the postmortem, dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW2/C. (11) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that at the time of marriage of his sister Janki, she was 21 years of age. He does not have any knowledge as to who was the mediator of the marriage of his sister Janki with accused Vicky and has voluntarily explained that his father might have known. According to him, after the marriage of Janki with accused Vicky, she came to their house only once till her death and she was brought by him just after two/three days of marriage when she remained their house for one day only and on the next day, accused Vicky brought her back to his house. He is not aware if Janki was happy at that time or not as he was at his workplace but states that his parents had asked the accused Vicky not to take her but he insisted upon bringing her back to his house. The witness has also deposed that he visited St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 11 the matrimonial home of Janki only once but he does not remember the date and states that it was about one month after her marriage to bring her to their house, but the accused persons did not allow her to take her to their house.
(12) He has further testified that his first statement was recorded by SDM in the Police Station on 18.06.2011 in the intervening night of 1718.06.2011. According to the witness, he visited 45 times, after the death of his sister. He has also deposed that first of all, statement of his mother was recorded by SDM but not in his presence. He has further deposed that the statements were recorded one by one in his room by the SDM. The witness has further deposed that he is a Peon in an office situated at Jahangir Puri Industrial Area. He has testified that at the time of marriage his sister Janki, he was having a mobile but his two other brothers were not having any mobile phone at that time. The witness has further deposed that he did not had talks with his sister on mobile phone but his mother had talks with his sister on phone. He is not aware as to how many times, she used to talk with his sister on phone, in a month. According to the witness, his sister used to call on the mobile phone of his neighborer and his mother talked with his sister on that phone. He has also deposed that for the first time he came to know about the quarrel in the matrimonial home of his sister prior to 14.06.2011 and that is why, his parents went to the matrimonial home of his sister on 14.06.2011 to take her back. He has explained that his youngest brother Babu went to the matrimonial home of St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 12 his sister and then, they came to know about the quarrel and subsequently his parents went to the matrimonial home of his sister on 14.06.2011. According to him, they did not make any complaint to the police regarding the beatings and harassment meted out to his sister and demand of dowry nor any Panchayat was called in this regard after 14.06.2011. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons had not harassed his sister, or had any quarrel with her, or that they never demanded any money from them. (13) PW3 Pale, a Beldar by profession is the neighbour of the accused and has deposed that on 17.06.2011, in the evening hours, he alongwith his friends Dharambir and Bona, was sitting in the park of K Block, Jahangir Puri. According to the witness, some children came and informed him that Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife on which they all went to the house of Vicky but the Jhuggie of the Vicky was found locked. He has testified that they then tried to see inside the Jhuggie in the light of a matchstick, which was in the hand of Bona and saw that the wife of Vicky was found lying dead on the bed. He has further deposed that they went to the PCO and telephoned the police pursuant to which Police reached the spot and opened the lock of the Jhuggie of the house of accused. According to him, they had heard that accused Vicky used to beat his wife and also not to allow her to go outside. He has correctly identified the accused Vicky in the Court.
(14) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he is 9th class pass. According to the witness, the police St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 13 recorded his statement on 19.06.2011 near the house of accused Vicky but the accused Vicky was not present there. He has testified that he is residing at K Block, Jahangir Puri since birth and knew the accused Vicky prior to the incident, from the very beginning. The witness has further deposed that he was on talking terms with accused Vicky. According to him, the Jhuggie of Vicky is at a distance of about five minutes from his Jhuggie but it is not visible from his Jhuggie. He has also deposed that accused Vicky was sleeping in a separate room, however, his parents i.e. accused Brij Bhan and Guddi were residing in the same premises. He has admitted that accused persons were having two Jhuggies but has explained that they used to reside together, except that then slept in separate jhuggies. The witness has further deposed that the park, where they were sitting, was at a distance of about two minutes walk from the Jhuggie of accused Vicky. He has also deposed that the children who gave him the information were of JBlock, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and has voluntarily explained that they also told that Vicky was under the influence of liquor and was saying that he killed his wife. He is unable to tell the names of those persons, who informed him about the death of wife of Vicky and has voluntarily explained that all those were friends of accused Vicky. The witness has also deposed that he did not inform the police about the description of those boys, who informed him about the said incident. According to him, they had seen the legs of the dead body of the wife of Vicky from the window of the Jhuggie, under the light of matchstick on which he noticed abrasion marks on the same (Neel Padi Huyi Thi). He St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 14 has also stated that he had never heard about the dowry, demanded by the accused persons. The witness has further deposed that accused Vicky was present in the streets of their locality and from there, he was arrested. He has also deposed that he never heard any torture, beating or any demand of dowry on behalf of the accused Brij Pal and Guddi, from the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that he never saw the dead body of the deceased or that he never made call to the police or that none had informed him about the death / killing of the deceased by accused Vicky.
(15) PW5 Bhagwan Dass @ Bona is also a neighbour of the accused who has deposed that on 17.06.11 at about 8:00 PM he along with his friends Dharmabir and Palley were sitting in the park where some small children came to them and told that Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife, after which they all three went to the Jhuggi of Vicky which was found locked outside. According to the witness, they lit the match stick and in that light they saw inside the jhuggi and saw that the wife of Vicky was found dead. He has proved that he went near the STD Booth and phoned to the police on which police reached the spot and broke the lock and carried out the investigation. The witness has also deposed that he knew Vicky prior to the incident and he used to give beatings to his wife. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police and he narrated the whole facts to the police. He has correctly identified the accused Vicky, his father Brij Pal and his mother Guddi in the Court.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 15 (16) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he is illiterate and is a labour doing baildari. According to the witness, he came before the court first time. He has also deposed that he narrated the story before the court whatever he saw. The witness has testified that he knew the accused Vicky since last 20 years and has no enmity with the accused, Vicky or his family members. He is unable to tell the exact date of the marriage of accused Vicky but states that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2011. He has further deposed that he has no visiting term with the accused Vicky who is residing in a jhuggi at a distance of about one minute walking distance from his house. He is not aware as to on what issues accused Vicky was quarreling with his wife. He has explained that he he did not see the accused, Vicky and his wife while quarreling. According to him, the distance between the K Block Park and the Jhuggi of the accused is about 20 steps. He has also deposed that the jhuggi was not visible from the said park where they were sitting and has explained that are two ways from K Block park for reaching the jhuggi of accused Vicky. He has also further testified that on 17.06.11 he went for his work and returned back at 7.30 PM after which he along with his friends were sitting in the park. The witness has further deposed that he saw the accused Vicky at 7.50 pm when they were sitting in the park while he was passing through the park. He has testified that after five minutes of his arrival from his job i.e. 7.35 PM he saw accused Guddi near the park and she was talking with one police official but he did not see accused Brij Pal St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 16 Singh on 17.6.11. The witness has further deposed that accused Vicky did not return to his jhuggi after arrival of the police and was apprehended by the police later on the same day. According to him, the police official who was talking with the mother of the accused namely Guddi was not present when he reached at the jhuggi of the accused.
(17) He has further deposed that on the day of the incident, accused persons were having two jhuggi and in one jhuggi elder brother of accused Brij Pal Singh along with his mother i.e. grand mother of accused Vicky were residing where in the other jhuggi entire family of accused Brij Pal were residing. According to him, there are nine family members in the family of accused Vicky. He has testified that the jhuggi of the accused persons is small in size but they have also encroached the land of the jhor from the back side. He has also deposed that when they reached the jhuggi of the accused, at that time it was dark inside the jhuggi and has voluntairly explained that after arrival of the police, lock was broken and they along with the police entered the jhuggi and at the instance of the police his friend, Dharambir switched on the light of the jhuggi. According to the witness, police reached at the spot within ten minutes after making the telephone. He has further deposed that wife of the accused Vicky was lying dead on the bed. He has testified that she was not found in hanging condition. The witness has also deposed that police remained at the spot for one hour and they made inquiries from the neighbourhood and also inspected the scene of crime. According to him, police did not do any St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 17 writing work in his presence and on the same day police did not lift any articles in his presence. He has also deposed that he was implicated in 7 to 8 cases and has added that he has been acquitted from the said cases and only two cases are pending against him. He has admitted that the police declared him B.C. (Bad Character) of the area. He has denied the suggestion that the police threatened him to depose against the accused persons that is why he is deposing falsely against the accused persons and has voluntarily explained by saying that it is not good that something had happened to daughters and daughterinlaws of others and he is concerned becuase he too has a daughter (Dusro ki bahu betio ke saath kuch bura ho jayen to yeh achi baat nahin. Mai bhe beti wala hun"). He has denied the suggestion that he did not see anything or that small children did not disclose to him anything. He is unable to tell the names of the children or the address of those children who told him the incident but states that they were residing in the other block. He is also not aware if the police tried to search for those children. According to witness, he has seen these children in the area even after the incident and has voluntarily explained that prior to this incident they used to visit the area daily along with accused Vicky. He has testified that he did not make enquiries from those children regarding their names and address after the incident and has voluntarily explained that he has no concern with them. According to the witness, he did not inform to the police regarding those children when they visited the area, after the incident. The witness has further deposed that he told to the police in his St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 18 statement that jhuggi was found locked from the outside. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW5/DA where the word "outside" is not found recorded. He has denied the suggestion that accused Vicky was residing separately from his parents in a separate jhuggi. He has stated that he is not aware about the temperament of the deceased if she was having loose temper or not and has voluntarily explained that he was residing away from their jhuggi.
(18) PW6 Jagat Singh is the father of the deceased who has deposed that he had married his daughter Janki @ Lali with accused Vicky S/o Brij Pal in December, 2010 with full pomp and show and had given all the dowry articles as per his capacity including Rs.17,000/ were given in cash in the marriage. The witness has also deposed that on 17th but it was summer season in 2011 at about 10:3011:00 pm, police officials from Jahangir Puri police station came to his house and they were told to reach the police station as he was informed that a quarrel had taken place with his daughter with her in laws. According to the witness, he along with his family members reached in the Police Station at about 12:00 midnight and came back to his house at about 4:00 AM. He has further deposed that police officials asked them to come on next day and in the Police Station they came to know that his daughter is no more and her body was in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and therefore, on the next date they went to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital from where he identified the dead body of his daughter and received the same. He has testified that prior to the death of St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 19 his daughter Janki, he and his wife had gone to the house of in laws of Janki as his wife told him that Janki had informed her that accused persons demanded money from her. He has also deposed that one day prior to her death, his son in law i.e. accused Vicky came to her house and took Rs. 500/ from him as he was in need of some rupees and at that time he was accompanied with twothree boys. According to the witness, his statement was recorded by a 'Sahib' in Police Station Jahangir Puri. (19) The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that the Executive Magistrate recorded his statement which is Ex.PW4/A. He has also admitted that many a time on the demand of Vicky and Brij Pal, he had given money to them after taking on loan and that his wife also told to him that many a time his daughter informed her that accused Vicky used to beat her, for non fulfilling their demand and this fact was told to him by his wife. He has admitted that the death of his daughter was not natural but when they reached at mortuary they noticed that there was a head injury and sharp injury mark on the back and having blood. According to the witness, he had stated to the Executive Magistrate that he had strong suspicious over the accused persons that accused persons have killed his daughter.
(20) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he is a labourer by profession and he can not assess his monthly income but states that it might be around Rs.3,000/ per month if he get wages for continuously for a month. According to the witness, he is St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 20 having three sons and deceased was his only daughter. He has further deposed that his two sons are younger to his deceased daughter and his one son is elder to his deceased daughter. He has testified that at the time when Janki was married only his son Jeetu was earning and nobody else in their family had a mobile phone. The witness has also deposed that his daughter Janki was not in touch with them through mobile phone. According to the witness, after marriage of Janki, he went to see her at her inlaws place twice and since, Janki had not come to their house after her marriage, therefore, he went to her inlaws house when the inlaws told him that Janki would come to his house after few days and therefore, he can leave, on which he returned to his home. The witness has testified that he went to Janki's house on 14.06.2011 where he met Janki at but he did not talk to her. He has also deposed that in his presence, his wife also did not talk to Janki on 14.06.2011 but Janki was however present in the house of inlaws and she also served meals to them. He has also deposed that he stayed at the inlaws house of Janki for one hour and had tea and snacks at her inlaws house but on that day i.e. 14.06.2011, Janki did not make any kind of complaint to him and has voluntarily explained that he is not aware if she had made any complaint to his wife. The witness has further deposed that on 14.06.2011, the inlaws of his daughter Janki, i.e. the accused persons did not make any complaint against Janki to him. He has testified that on that day, they also did not demand any kind of dowry from him and also did not demand any dowry from his wife in his presence and has voluntarily explained that his St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 21 wife later on told him that the accused were demanding dowry. (21) On a specific Court Question to specify what exactly was the demand raised by the accused with his wife, to which the witness replied that the vehicle (gadi) might have been demanded.
(22) The witness has testified that he did not hear it himself that any gadi was demanded by the accused from his wife and it was his wife who told him that his daughter Janki had told her that accused were demanding gadi. According to him, on 14.06.2011, all of them i.e. he himself and the accused were sitting together in the house of accused for one hour and during this time, only his wife went out of the room where her daughter informed his wife that she was being beaten by the accused on hands. He has also deposed that on 14.06.2011, he did not notice any injury on the hands of Janki and has voluntarily explained that on that day, she did not come and sat with them, therefore, he could not notice the same. He has further testified that one day prior to death of Janki, when Vicky came to his shop and met him, he did not demand any gadi. Prior to 14.6.2011, there was no demand of dowry from the accused at all and on 14.6.2011 also when they visited house of accused, they had very cordial talks. According to the witness, Janki was uneducated. He has denied the suggestion that prior to her marriage, Janki attempted suicide or that his wife never told him regarding beating of Janki by accused or regarding demand of any kind of dowry or regarding any kind of harassment meted out to her by the accused. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 22 (23) PW9 Dharambir Singh is also a neighbour of the accused persons. He has deposed that on 17.06.2011 he came back from his job and was standing at park, at K Block, Jahangir Puri, alongwith Bona and Paley. According to the witness, some children came to him and told that accused Vicky had committed the murder of his wife on which he along with Bona and Paley went to the side of jhuggi of Vicky and Bona raised noise, that if somebody was there inside the Jhuggi, but no response came from inside the jhuggi, as they were peeping through the window of jhuggi. The witness has also deposed that they entered inside the jhuggi through the windowpane, after removing the curtain and flashed a matchstick and in the light of matchstick, they saw that the wife of Vicky was lying dead, on the bed. He has further deposed that thereafter, they came out and Bona made a call from a nearby STD, at 100 number pursuant to which the Police came there and broke the lock of jhuggi. He has testified that the Police inspected the spot and took the dead body of the wife of Vicky. He has correctly identified the accused Vicky in the Court.
(24) A leading question was put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to the effect that accused Vicky used to beat his wife and did not allow her to go to her parental home, on which the witness replied that he himself did not see the beatings but he had heard from the neighbours about the same "Humne Aas Padosion Se Suna Tha Ki Jhagda Hota Tha, Par Humne Kabhi Dekha Nahin".
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 23 (25) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that Police did not ask him the names or address of those children, who informed him regarding the incident. He has explained that those children resided in JBlock, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. According to the witness, accused Vicky was seen running by him and children were chasing him. The witness has further deposed that he has never appeared before the Court. He has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the jhuggi of accused Vicky, or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO. He has further denied the suggestion that he never saw the accused running or children chasing him, or that children never informed him about any such incident.
(26) PW13 Kishan Lal is also a neighbour of the accused persons. He has deposed that he is residing on K571, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where he is also running a grocery shop and a PCO is installed on his shop. According to the witness, on 17.6.2011 at about 9:00 PM one person namely Bhagwan Dass came from the nearby jhuggies of 900 wali gali and made a call at 100 number from his PCO by saying that one lady was killed by her husband and thereafter he went away from there. He has testified that other persons following Bhagwan Dass and that is why he came to know his name. He has proved that his PCO number is 27637856 of MTNL and his statement was recorded by the police.
(27) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he did not give his ownership document of above said PCO St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 24 to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he is not the owner of the above said PCO. According to the witness, there is no procedure to give bills on his PCO to the maker of call therefore he did not give any bill to the above said person. He has denied the suggestion that no person namely Bhagwan Dass made call from any PCO in his presence.
(28) PW16 Sh. Balram Singh is again a neighbour of the accused persons. He has deposed that he is residing at Jhuggie No. A163, K Block, Lucky Park, Jahangirpuri, Delhi along with his family. According to the witness, he is having a paralytic attack which affected his leg as a result of which he is unable to do any work and remains at home. He has testified that the family of Brij Pal is his immediate neighbors and the son of Brij Pal namely Vicky was married about six months prior to the incident with one Janki @ Lali. He has further deposed that most of the time Vicky remained unemployed but some time he was doing the work of painting (safedi). The witness has also deposed that on a couple of occasions he had seen Vicky indulged into mar pitai with Janki and the behaviour of family members of Vicky with Janki was normal and he is not aware how the incident took place. According to him, whenever Vicky used to fight with his wife, they often used to take side of Janki. He has testified that on 17.06.2011 at about 4PM he heard the voices as if somebody was beating someone inside the house of Brij Pal and he also heard nasal voices as if somebody's mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice (Nak ke sur ki St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 25 awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho). He has further deposed that even previously on many occasions Vicky who was a habitual alcoholic had been indulging this kind of mar pitai/ quarrel not only with his wife but also with them and therefore he did not intervene. He has also deposed that it was only after some time when the police came that he came to know what had happened and he told them about what he had heard and seen.
(29) Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that police had recorded his statement on 19.06.2011 wherein he had told to police that Vicky often used to beat his wife in the state of intoxication but has denied the suggestion that his parents and family members sided him and Vicky did not permit her to go to her parental house. According to the witness, he also did not tell the police that Guddi, mother of Vicky and his father Brij Pal used to quarrel with their daughter in law and taunt her. However, when confronted with portion A to A1 of his statement Ex.PW16/PX1 the above fact was found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that when he heard the screams of Janki coming from the house, he asked Brij Pal and Guddi who were sitting outside the jhuggie after closing the door what had happened on which they told him that there was a quarrel between Vicky and Janki as it was a routine. However, when confronted with portion B to B1 of his statement Ex.PW16/PX1 where the above fact was found so St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 26 recorded. He has admitted that he had informed the police that after some time the voices stopped coming and he saw Vicky coming outside the house after which he and his parents i.e. Brij Pal and Guddi went away some where and has voluntarily explained that it was Vicky who had put the lock on the door before going away. He has also admitted that he had told the IO that on arrival of the police at 9 PM the dead body of Janki was recovered but he did not tell them that he strongly believed that the accused Vicky and his parents Brij Pal and Guddi were responsible for the death of Janki. However, when confronted with portion C to C1 of his statement Ex.PW16/PX1 the above fact was found so recorded. He has correctly identified the accused Vicky, Brij Pal and Guddi in the Court. (30) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that his house is just adjoining the house of Brij Pal and has voluntarily explained that there is a common wall. According to the witness, his relations with Brij Pal and Guddi are cordial but not with Vicky who is an alcoholic. He has admitted that Brij Pal has three sons and other two are residing separately in their own jhuggies and has voluntarily explained that they have three jhuggies. He has denied the suggestion that Brij Pal and Guddi used to reside with their other sons in their separate jhuggies and has voluntarily explained that they also resided with the accused Vicky. The witness has further deposed that he had told the police that on 17.06.2011 at about 4PM he heard the voices as if somebody was beating someone inside the house of Brij Pal and he also heard nasal voices St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 27 as if somebody's mouth has been pressed to suppressed the voice (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho). However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW16/PX1 the above facts were found so recorded in the manner as aforesaid and it is recorded that the witness has heard the screams of Janki coming from the house of Brij Pal. He has admitted that he had never seen Vicky beaten Janki and has voluntarily explained that he used to hear the voices of beating coming from their house. According to the witness, he had never seen any injuries on the body of Janki.
(31) On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that he had no interaction with Janki and had never personally seen her except on one occasion when she was newly married and she had touched his feet for his blessings after which he had never seen her personally since she used to be in veil (ghunghat).
(32) He has denied the suggestion that on the day of incident Brij Pal and Guddi were not at home and has voluntarily explained that before the crowd had collected he saw them in the house but thereafter there was so much of a crowd which had gathered that he could not see them. According to him, when he saw Brij Pal and Guddi he saw them passing from the front of the adjoining jhuggie. He has denied the suggestion that he did not hear any voices of Janki as claimed by him or that he had not noticed Vicky beating Janki inside his house. He has further denied the suggestion that St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 28 Brij Pal and Guddi were not present in the jhuggie at the time of the incident or had not run away after the incident as claimed by him or that the behaviour of Vicky with his wife was also cordial.
Witness of Medical Record:
(33) PW15 Dr. Bhim Singh has proved that on 18.6.2011 at about 12:30 PM he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Janki @ Lali W/o Vicky aged about 18 years female on the request of Sh. M.P. Kushwaha, Executive Magistrate, Model Town with alleged history of found dead on 17.6.2011 at about 9:05 AM. He has proved that on examination he found following external injuries:
1. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible).
2. Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm (left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline.
3. Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed.
4. Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm.
5. Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm.
6. Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow.
7. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule).
8. Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 29 region.
(34) He has also proved that on internal examination of Head - Effusion of blood in scalp tissues over frontal left, parietal region and occipital region measuring 4 cm x 3cm, 5cm x 3 cm and 5 cm x 3 cm was present; Brain shows multiple contusions below injuries with patchy subarachnoied organs were congested. According to the witness, he opined that death was due to Coma consequent upon head injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by hard blunt object and time since death was about 20 hours. The witness has proved having prepared the detailed postmortem report which is Ex.PW15/A and after postmortem he handed over the clothes, blood and viscera in salt solution and sealed them with the seal of hospital and handed over the same to police with all inquest papers along with the sample seal. He has testified that on 5.7.2011 he received an application from Inspector Dharam Pal along with a sealed pullanda for a subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence. According to the witness, on opening the sealed pullanda with intact of DP, he found one solid plastic danda (rod) measuring 72.5 cms in length and 7 cm in circumference and he prepared the diagram of the same. He has proved having opined that the Injury No.2 to 8 mentioned in the Postmortem Report Ex.PW15/A could be possible by the said plastic danda and injury No.1 could be due to pressure from thumb by the accused and his St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 30 detailed subsequent opinion in this regard is Ex.PW15/B. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. the plastic solid danda examined by him which is Ex.P1.
(35) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that at the time of postmortem, subordinate staff were present for his help. He has admitted that he has not mentioned about the subordinate staff in his postmortem report. He has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the postmortem report fairly and had given a false report as per instructions of the police.
Police/ Official witnesses:
(36) PW4 Sh. M.P. Kushwaha has deposed that on 17.06.2011 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Model Town, Delhi and on that day, in the night hours at about 11.00 PM, he received information from SHO, PS Jahangir Puri about the death of one lady namely Janki @ Lali, on which he directed SHO to call the Crime Team and got inspected the scene of crime and dead body to be preserved at BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that on the intervening night of 1718.06.2011, at about 1.30 AM, he reached Police Station Model Town and recorded statement of Sharda Devi, mother of deceased vide Ex.PW1/A which was attested by him at point B and he directed SHO to take legal action and he (witness) made endorsement in this regard, from point X to X on Ex.PW1/A. He has also proved having recorded the statement of Jagat Singh, father of deceased, vide Ex.PW4/A St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 31 and also having recorded statement of Jeetu Singh vide Ex.PW2/A. He has also proved having prepared inquest papers i.e. request for autopsy which is Ex.PW4/B, brief facts which is Ex.PW4/C, form 25.35 which is Ex.PW4/D and also recorded statement of body identification vide Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW4/E. According to the witness he also directed the IO to handover the dead body to its claimants.
(37) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he verified the facts on the basis of the statement of witnesses and then made his endorsement. According to the witness, he did not inspect the scene of crime nor made any inquiry from the neighboures and has added explained that it is the duty of police officials. He has testified that whatever witnesses told him, he recorded the same in their statements. He has denied the suggestion that he recorded the statement of witnesses in mechanical manner or that he did not verify the facts. (38) PW7 Dharmender Trivedi has deposed that on 17.6.11, he was on duty on Alfa 1 CATS in BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM when at about 9:00 PM he received a call from PCR that a female had hanged in the jhuggis of K1 Block in house no. 901, on which he along with Alfa 1 CATS reached the spot where they found that police was present there. According to the witness, they found that the female was already dead and thereafter, they returned back to the hospital as there was no reason to stay there. The witness has also deposed that they filled up the assessment form at hospital/ Base. He has proved the attested copy of the St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 32 Assessment Form which is Ex.PW7/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (39) PW8 HC Sukhpal Singh has deposed that on 18.06.2011, he was working as Duty Officer, from 12.00 midnight to 12.00 noon at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day SHO Yashpal Singh handed over a rukka to him, upon which he got registered the FIR No.186/11 U/s.
498A/304B/34 IPC through the Computer Operator, copy of which FIR is Ex.PW8/1. According to him, after registration of FIR, the copy of FIR was handed over to Inspector Dharampal Singh. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (40) PW10 HC Jiya Lal is a formal witness being the Incharge of PCR Van who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 17.6.2011 at about 9:00 PM a PCR call regarding hanging of a lady was received on which he went to the scene of crime at Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, KBlock, Jahangir Puri. According to the witness, inside the Jhuggi a lady namely Janki w/o Vicky was lying on Bed and CATS Ambulance van also reached the spot and declared her dead. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (41) PW11 SI Satpal is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 33 17.6.2011 he visited the scene of crime at Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangir Puri with Crime Team where he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report which is Ex.PW11/A. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (42) PW12 Ct. Dalbir Singh is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW12/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 17.6.2011 he along with the Crime Team reached the spot i.e. Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, KBlock, Jahangir Puri where he took the photographs of the scene of crime which photographs are Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A9 and the negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW12/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(43) PW14 Ct. Mahipal has deposed that on 18.6.2011 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day the accused Vicky was apprehended near his jhuggi and was thereafter arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW14/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B after which his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/C. He has further deposed that thereafter he along with Inspector Dharampal, SI Anil and accused Vicky reached at Jhuggi No. 164, Lucky Park, KBlock Jahangir Puri from where the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC pipe from under the bed of his jhuggi which PVC pipe was converted St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 34 into a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed by the seals of DP and was then seized vide memo Ex.PW14/D. According to the witness, the seal was handed over to him after use after which they went to BJRM Hospital. He has testified that on the directions of Inspector Dharampal, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased Janki after which the dead body was handed over to her relatives. The witness has further deposed that the Autopsy Surgeon handed over one wooden box and one pullanda containing the viscera and the clothes of the deceased with two sample seals to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/E. He has also deposed that accused Vicky was also got medically examined.
(44) He has correctly identified the accused Vicky in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one PVC pipe as the one which was got recovered by the accused Vicky from under the bed in the jhuggie, which PVC Pipe is Ex.P1.
(45) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that they remained near the jhuggie for 1015 minutes after which they brought the accused to the police station where all the memos were prepared. According to the witness, at about 1:001:30 AM i.e. intervening night of 1718.06.2011 they reached the house of the accused again. He does not remember whether the jhuggie of the accused was locked from outside or whether he does not remember who opened the door of jhuggie. According to him, it was single storied jhuggie and there was St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 35 only one door in the jhuggie. He has testified that no one was available inside the jhuggie when they reached there and has voluntarily explained that some public persons were gathered outside the jhuggie. The witness has also deposed that at that time they remained there for about 30 minutes and there was only one bed inside the jhuggie and a Kitchen was also there. He is not aware if any public person out of persons gathered outside the jhuggie were called to join the investigations or not. He has admitted that there was no blood stains on the recovered piece of pipe. He is not aware is any chance print was lifted from recovered pipe or not and has voluntarily explained that the pipe was picked up by the Investigating Officer with the help of cloth. The witness has also deposed that he returned back the seal to the Investigating Officer in the evening of 18.06.2011. He has denied the suggestion that he did not join investigations of the present case or that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that above said PVC pipe was not recovered at the instance of the accused Vicky. He has also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that he had signed all the memos without going through the contents of the same at the police station.
(46) PW17 ASI Tahir Hussain has deposed that on 17.06.2011 he was posted at police station Jahangipuri and was on emergency duty and on that day on receipt of 78 B at about 7:25 PM vide Ex.PW17/A on the PCR call regarding the daughter in law having consumed some poisonous substance and was lying in house No. K901, Jahangirpuri, he reached house St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 36 No. K901 Jahangirpuri. He has further deposed that he met the landlord Sunil Kumar and when he made inquiries from him, he told him that no such incident had taken place in his house after which he made inquiries from surrounding jhuggies and met one lady by the name of Guddi who informed him that there was no such incident. The witness has testified that he asked her to help him to find the jhuggie but she took him all other jhuggies except her jhuggie where he could not find anything and therefore returned to the Police Station. He has further deposed that at about 9 PM another call was received vide DD No.20A Ex.PW17/B which was attended to by SI Anil Kumar. According to him, later he came to know that the incident in question with regard to the earlier call had taken place at jhuggie No. 164, Lucky Park, Jahangirpuri where dead body of one lady by the name of Janki was found and Guddi was her mother in law. (47) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the spot pursuant to any DD No. 78 B or met Guddi. According to the witness, he had made a wapsi on his return to the Police Station but he did not mention about other details regarding having met Guddi at the spot. He has also denied the suggestion that the story of meeting Guddi had been concocted by him at a later stage only to wriggle out the departmental action as he had not attended the call properly.
(48) PW18 SI Anil Kumar is the initial Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 17.06.2011 he was posted at police station Jahangirpuri St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 37 and on that day at about 9:05 PM he received DD No. 20 A which is Ex.PW17/B regarding the beating to a lady by her husband and subsequent hanging at 900 wali gali, pursuant to which he along with Ct. Shri Bhagwan reached the jhuggie cluster where they came to know that the incident had taken place at jhuggie No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangirpuri. He has further deposed that when they reached the jhuggie No.164 he found that the PCR staff had already reached there and large number of public persons were present and a lady was found dead on a bed. According to the witness, he noticed that there was frothing (jhag) from her mouth and broken bangles pieces lying on the floor. The witness has also deposed that he preserved the scene of crime and immediately informed the crime team about the same. He has testified that in the meanwhile the Ambulance from CATS had also reached the spot and the Incharge after checking the lady confirmed that she was dead. According to him, Crime Team came to the spot and inspected the scene of crime and took photographs of the same. He has proved having lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. room freshener, broken bangles and one copy and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of dibbi and cloth and thereafter sealed the same with the seal of AK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B. He has further deposed that thereafter he sent the dead body to BJRM mortuary through Ct. Shri Bhagwan with a request to CMO Mortuary to preserve the same for 24 hours and made inquiries regarding the parental family of deceased and came to know that they were original St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 38 residents of Mukundpur after which he sent information to them and also informed the SDM. The witness has also deposed that he came to know that all the family members i.e. husband and parents in laws were absconding and there was nobody in the house. He has testified that the SDM also reached the spot at about 10:00 PM after which since the family members of the deceased had reached the Police Station. According to him, the SDM also went to the Police Station and there recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased and got the FIR registered after which the investigations were handed over to Inspector Dharampal. (49) He has further testified that on the intervening night of 17/18.06.2011 at around 1AM (midnight) he was searching for Vicky, the husband of the deceased in the area when a secret information was received that he was present at the corner of the jhuggi cluster and on receipt of this information he sought the assistance of the beat personals. He has also deposed that thereafter on the pointing out of secret informer he along with HC Narender, the beat constable apprehended one boy from the place where the jhuggie Lakhi Park starts, K block side and on interrogation he disclosed his name as Vicky, the husband of the deceased. According to the witness, he disclosed that he was hiding in the area in order to watch the movement of police and whatever was happening and also disclosed that he had killed his wife. The witness has testified that he brought him to the police and handed him over to the Inspector Dharampal Singh who then interrogated him at length and arrested him. He has proved the arrest memo of accused St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 39 Vicky which is Ex.PW14/A, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B and his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW14/C. He has also proved that thereafter the accused Vicky took them to his jhuggie and disclosed that the pipe with which he had inflicted injuries on his wife was hidden by him under the bed and thereafter he got the said PVC pipe recovered from under the bed. According to him, the Investigating Officer converted the said PVC pipe into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of DP and prepared its seizure memo vide Ex.PW14/D. He has proved that the Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan on his pointing out which site plan is Ex.PW18/C after which they then returned to the police station, where accused was put in the lock up and the case property was deposited in the malkhana.
(50) He has further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 18.06.2011 in the morning he accompanied the SDM and the Investigating Officer to the hospital where the postmortem of the deceased was got conducted after the identification of her body by her brother and father and after the postmortem her body was handed over to her father. According to him, the accused was then produced in the court by the Investigating Officer and got remanded to Judicial Custody by the court of Ld. Illaka Magistrate. He has correctly identified the accused Vicky in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. PVC pipe as the one which was got recovered by the accused Vicky from under the bed in the jhuggie, which pipe is Ex.P1. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 40 (51) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 9:15 PM on 17.06.2011 where about 1520 persons were gathered there and PCR staff was standing outside the jhuggie, however door was open. According to the witness, he did not observe any broken lock lying near the door of the jhuggie and no public person was inside the jhuggie when he reached there. He has testified that on inquiry from neighbors it was revealed that other occupants of the house are absconding after the incident but he did not record any statement in this regard. The witness has also deposed that he remained at the spot for about two hours at the time of his first visit and it did not come into his knowledge that there are three jhuggies of accused persons in the area. According to the witness, nobody took interest in joining the proceedings therefore he did not ask anybody to join the investigations. He has testified that after seeing the broken bangles, water lying on the floor and positions of bed sheets on bed, he came to the conclusion that there was some resistance from the side of deceased. He has also deposed that there was only one single bed inside the jhuggie. He has further testified that he did not find any blood spots inside the jhuggie. The witness has also deposed that on a casual seeing of the body he did not notice blood oozing out from the visible parts of the body of deceased and has voluntarily explained that he noticed frothing from the mouth of the deceased and there was some reddishness near the nose. He has further deposed that parents of the deceased came directly to the police station. According to him, he had St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 41 left the beat staff i.e. HC Narender at the spot to preserve the scene of crime but he did not lock the jhuggie as such. He has also deposed that the first time he saw the SDM at the spot and has voluntarily explained that the SDM inspected the spot and went back to the police station. He has explained that the Crime Team came first and the SDM came later but the dead body had already been shifted to the mortuary before the SDM came to the spot. He has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime had been disturbed and manipulated before the crime team and the SDM came to the spot.
(52) According to witness ASI Tahir Hussain, they did not stay for very long at the spot on 1718.06.2011 at the time of apprehension of the accused. He has also deposed that he did not join any public person in the police party when he received the secret information about the accused Vicky and has voluntarily explained that it was midnight. He has testified that the place from where the accused was apprehended is about 150 meters away from his jhuggie. He has also deposed that when he received secret information he was already searching for the accused in the area on foot. He has admitted that all the documents relating to the apprehension, arrest and disclosure of the accused do not bear his signatures. He has denied the suggestion that he had not participated any of the proceedings relating to apprehension, arrest, disclosure, recovery etc or that it is for this reason his signatures are not present on the same. The witness has also denied the suggestion that all the documents as aforesaid were prepared while sitting in St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 42 the police station by the Investigating Officer of his own. (53) PW19 Inspector Dharampal is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 17.06.2011 he was posted as Additional SHO Police Station Jahangirpuri and on that day at about 9:00 PM call was received vide DD No.20A already Ex.PW17/B on which SI Anil was sent to attend the same. He has further deposed that he also reached the spot at about 9:30 PM and found a dead body of a young girl was lying inside the jhuggie and large number of public persons had gathered around the jhuggie. He has testified that SI Anil and other beat staff were already present there and Crime Team was called at the spot who inspected the scene of crime. According to he witness, the SDM was also informed as he came to know that the death of the girl had occurred within seven years of her marriage and her parents were also informed. He has further deposed that the SDM came to the Police Station at night and since the parents of the deceased had also reached the Police Station , their statements were recorded by the SDM after which he directed for registration of the case. He has also deposed that after registration of the case, the further investigations were handed over to him. The witness has testified that on the early morning hours of 18.06.2011 SI Anil who had apprehended Vicky, the husband of the deceased produced before him and also handed over to him the various exhibits which he had lifted at the spot along with seizure memo of the same. He has proved having interrogated Vicky and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW14/A, his personal search was St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 43 also conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/C. He has also testified that he handed over the exhibits to Ct. Mahipal and went to the spot and thereafter the accused Vicky took them to his jhuggie from where got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. PCV pipe which he had hidden under his bed. The witness has proved having converted the said PVC pipe into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of DP and prepared its seizure memo vide Ex.PW14/D and also prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Anil which site plan is Ex.PW18/C. He has further deposed that they then went to BJRM Hospital where the SDM had also reached and the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased vide Ex.PW2/B and by father Jagat Singh vide Ex.PW4/E. He has also deposed that on the directions of SDM the postmortem of the deceased was conducted after which the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased namely Jagat Singh vide Ex.PW4/B. According to him, the doctors preserved the Viscera of the deceased and handed over the Viscera petti to him duly sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital, on which he seizure memo of the Viscera petti was prepared vide Ex.PW14/E. He has testified that the accused Vicky was then produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate and was remanded to Judicial Custody after which they returned to the Police Station where they deposited the case property in the malkhana and he recorded the statements of various witnesses who were then discharged.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 44 (54) The witness has further testified that on 20.06.2011 he obtained the Postmortem report from the doctor at BJRM hospital and on 05.07.2011 he moved an application before the Autopsy Surgeon for obtaining the opinion with regard to the weapon of offence on which the doctor gave his opinion vide Ex.PW15/B. He has also deposed that on 05.08.2011 Brij Pal and Guddi surrendered in the court of Ld. Illaka Magistrate and after taking permission from the Ld. MM, he then interrogated them and thereafter arrested them. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Brij Pal which is Ex.PW19/A, the arrest memo of Guddi which is Ex.PW19/B, disclosure statement of accused Brij Pal which is Ex.PW19/C and disclosure statement of accused Guddi which is Ex.PW19/D. He has further deposed that thereafter both the accused were remanded to Judicial Custody. According to him, on 20.08.2011 he got the scaled site plan prepared from SI Manohar Lal and recorded his statement and discharged him. He has testified that on 21.08.2011 he obtained the report of Crime Team which is Ex.PW11/A and recorded the statements of various officers. According to the witness, one register had been recovered at the spot and he felt that it was containing the writing of the deceased and hence on 09.09.2011 when accused Vicky was produced in Judicial Custody, he interrogated him after which accused Vicky disclosed that the register was bearing his handwriting and not of the deceased Janki who was totally illiterate which fact was also confirmed by the parents of the deceased. He has testified that he send the Viscera peti to FSL after filling the FSL form, after which he prepared the charge sheet and St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 45 filed the same in the court.
(55) He has correctly identified the accused i.e. Vicky, Brij Pal and Guddi and also the case property i.e. one PVC pipe as the one which was got recovered by the accused Vicky from under the bed in the jhuggie which is Ex.P1.
(56) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that when he reached the spot at about 9:30 PM about 1520 public persons were present at the spot and he only conducted the casual inspection of the dead body but did not find any visible signs of injuries on the body. He has also deposed that he had made inquiries from the neighbors with regard to the death of the deceased and has voluntarily explained that they told him that there was a dispute between husband and the wife and the father in law and mother in law were also present there at that time. The witness has further deposed that one of the person from whom he made inquiries were Bhagwan Dass, Pale and Dharamvir but he did not produce Bhagwan Dass, Pale and Dharamvir before the SDM nor he record their separate statements when he reached the spot. He has explained that the neighbour Balram had also told him all these things but he did not produce Balram before the SDM. According to him, he did not see the SDM at the spot and he (SDM) had reached the Police Station at around 12 midnight. He has admitted that the SDM did not inspect the spot of the incident or the dead body and has voluntarily explained that he inspected the dead body in the mortuary. He has denied the suggestion that he did not reach the spot as claimed by him St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 46 or that it is for this reason that no documents was prepared by him. According to the witness, when he reached the spot, the room where the body was lying was open and the family members were not present. He has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime had already been disturbed before the crime team had come to the spot and has voluntarily explained that SI Anil had got preserved the same. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the medical examination of the accused was not got conducted and that he made no request to the doctors to get the alcohol test of the accused conducted. According to him, the accused was produced in the BJRM hospital for his medical examination on 18.06.2011 at 2:30 PM. He has denied the suggestion that accused Vicky had himself come to the Police Station to inform about the incident but he falsely implicated him in the present case at the instance of the parents of the deceased. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused Vicky or his parents Brij Pal and Guddi did not make any statements as claimed by him or that the disclosure statements of Brij Pal and Guddi were recorded by him of his own. (57) The witness has further deposed that no public witness was joined at the time of interrogation of Vicky, Brij Pal and Guddi and it did not come to his knowledge during investigations that accused persons were having three jhuggies in the area nor it come to his knowledge during investigations that accused Vicky and his wife Janki used to reside separately. He has denied the suggestion that there was no demand of any dowry by the accused persons or that the accused Vicky did not get any St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 47 PVC pipe recovered or that the same had been planted on him only to work out the case. The witness has admitted that he has not placed the viscera/ chemical examination report on record and that the viscera/ chemical examination report received from the FSL does not show the presence of any common poison and is not incriminating qua the accused. He has placed on record the copy of FSL Report which is Ex.PW19/DX1. He has denied the suggestion that the above report had been deliberately withheld only to give benefit of the same to the prosecution or that he has not conducted free and independent investigations or that the same had been led by the parents of the deceased. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the deceased was having a suicidal tendency and had even previously attempted suicide which aspect he has deliberately not investigated. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(58) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating material was put to them which they have denied. The accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. According to them the accused Vicky started residing separately along with his wife Janki (deceased) soon after the marriage which marriage was a simple ceremoy and there was no demand of dowry. They have also stated that both Vicky and Janki were living happily without any interference in their married life. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 48
They have further stated that on the day of incident both of them had gone to Mandi when somebody informed them about the incident on which he (Brij Pal) called the police at 100 number.
(59) The accused Vicky has also stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he used to reside separately form his parents along with his wife Janki (deceased) at Jhuggi No. 164 just after of his marriage whereas his parents are residing separately in Jhuggi No. 165 and both the jhuggies are in the name of his mother Guddi. He has further stated that his marriage with the deceased was a simple ceremony and there was no demand of dowry and they were living happily. The accused has also stated that before her death Janki was insisting to go to her parental home and also insisted him to accompany her to her parental house and do business with her father which was not agreeable to him on which she used to remain unhappy with him. He has stated that on the day of incident they both had their lunch together and thereafter she asked him to go outside of the jhuggi as she had to change her clothes on which he came out of the jhuggi and sat under the tree in front of the jhuggi of his chacha. The accused has also stated that after some time his sister Santosh came to him in perplexed and informed him that Janki had hanged herself on which he rushed towards his jhuggi and found the jhuggi locked from inside and Janki was hanging inside with the chunni. He has further stated that he went on the roof of the jhuggi and broke the roof and entered inside the jhuggi and thereafter he got her down but in that process St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 49 they both fell down as she was stout body and due to fall her head stuck on the corner of the bed and she received injury. According to the accused, he conveyed this information to his parents who had gone to Mandir and perhaps his father called the police.
(60) The accused have examined one witness in their defence. DW1 Ms. Santosh is the daughter of accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi and sister of accused Vicky. She has deposed that she is studying in class 7th in Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, K Block, Jahangirpuri. According to the witness, her brother Vicky and his wife Janki used to reside separately in Jhuggi No. 164 whereas she along with her parents and two brother namely Ricky and Arjun and sister Pinky were residing in different jhuggi bearing no. 165. She has further deposed that on 17.6.2011 her summer vacation were going on and on that day she was studying in her jhuggi. The witness has also deposed that her mother, father, two brother and sister had gone to Mandir when she heard that her brother Vicky came to have lunch as he usually did. She has testified that her bhabhi Janki was inside her jhuggi and doing her household when her brother Vicky asked her to give him lunch after which her brother Vicky took his lunch and came out of the jhuggi and sat under the tree which is nearby their jhuggi. The witness has also deposed that she had heard her bhabhi saying to her brother that she was going to change her clothes. According to the witness, her pen was not working properly so she went to her bhabhi and knocked the door of her jhuggi and asked her if she was having a pen but her Bhabhi did not reply so St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 50 she peeped from the window and found that her bhabhi had hanged herself on the wooden balli of the roof. The witness has testified that she raised an alarm and called her brother who was still sitting under the tree on which her brother rushed to the jhuggi and peeped from the window and saw her bhabhi hanging and thereafter he went on the roof and after breaking the roof, he went inside the jhuggi and got her bhabhi down but in that process both her brother and bhabhi fell down on account of which the head of her bhabhi stuck on the corner of the bed and she received injury. (61) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that they are five brothers and sisters i.e. three brothers and two sisters and she is the youngest. According to the witness, only her one brother i.e. Vicky is married whereas all others are unmarried. She has deposed that only her bother Vicky and his wife used to reside separately whereas all of them are residing with their parents in a separate jhuggi. The witness has also deposed that the incident took place about 5:30 PM. She is not aware if her parents had informed the police about what she had seen. She is also not aware if her parents had informed any other authority including the court about what she had seen. According to the witness, her brother did not receive injuries when he fell down and in her presence no photographs of the broken roof were taken. She has denied the suggestion that nothing of this kind had happened and that is why no photographs of the broken roof were taken or that his brother did not receive injuries when he fell down because no such incident had taken place. The witness has also St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 51 denied the suggestion that her brother had given beatings to her bhabhi on account of which she sustained injuries or that her brother and her family were continuously demanding dowry and harassing her bhabhi on account of the same and on her refusal she was beaten. She has further denied the suggestion that being attached to his brother Vicky and her family she is deposing falsely on their tutoring only to save them from penal consequences.
FINDINGS:
(62) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under
and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness Public witnesses:
1. Smt. Sharda Devi She is the mother of the deceased Janki and has deposed (PW1) on the following aspects:
1. That her daughter Janki @ Lali got married with accused Vicky on 10th December.
2. That on 14.06.2011, she along with her husband went to the matrimonial home of her daughter Janki to take her to their home when her daughter complained that accused Vicky used to give St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 52 beatings to her and also demanded money and asked her to bring the money from them.
3. That Janki also complained that all the family members did not allow the deceased to meet or talk to anybody and accused Vicky used to consume liquor and beat her.
4. That on 17.06.2011, at the about 10.00 PM, police came to their house and then she came to know that her daughter had expired on which they went to the Police Station.
5. That police had already apprehended accused Vicky whereas his parents were absconding.
6. That she had her suspicion that her daughter had been killed by accused Vicky, his father namely Brijpal and mother of Vicky namely Guddi whom she has correctly identified in the Court.
7. That her statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW1/A and police also recorded her statement.
2. Jeetu Singh @ He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed on the Ravinder (PW2) following lines:
1. That they were three brothers and one sister namely Janki who was the third child of his parents and was married on 10th December with accused Vicky.
2. That on 17.06.2011, at about 9.30 PM, police from Police Station Jahangir Puri came to their house and informed that his sister Janki had expired at her matrimonial home and police had found the dead body of Janki at her matrimonial home.
3. That they reached the Police Station and found that accused Vicky had already been apprehended by the police and his parents were absconding.
4. That on 14.06.2011, on Tuesday, his parents went to the house of accused Vicky and when his mother returned to their house, she told that "Janki Bahoot Dari Huyi Lag Rahi Thi".
5. That he asked his mother as to why she had not brought Janki to their house, on which his mother replied that her inlaws did not allow her to bring St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 53 Janki to their house.
6. That he had suspicion that his sister Janki was killed by accused Brij Pal, Guddi and accused Vicky whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court.
7. That his statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/A.
8. That he identified the dead body of his sister Janki vide his statement Ex.PW2/B and after the postmortem, dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW2/C.
3. Paley (PW3) He is the neighbour of the accused and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 17.06.2011, in the evening hours, he alongwith his friends Dharambir and Bona, was sitting in the park of K Block, Jahangir Puri.
2. That some children came and informed him that Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife on which they all went to the house of Vicky but the Jhuggie of the Vicky was found locked.
3. That they then tried to see inside the Jhuggie in the light of a matchstick, which was in the hand of Bona and saw that the wife of Vicky was found lying dead on the bed.
4. That they went to the PCO and telephoned the police pursuant to which Police reached the spot and opened the lock of the Jhuggie of the house of accused.
5. That they had heard that accused Vicky used to beat his wife and also not to allow her to go outside.
4. Bhagwan Das @ He is also a neighbour of the accused and has deposed on Bona (PW5) the following lines:
1. That on 17.06.11 at about 8:00 PM he along with his friends Dharmabir and Palley were sitting in the park where some small children came to them and told that Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife, after which they all three went to the Jhuggi of St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 54 Vicky which was found locked.
2. That they lit a matchstick and in that light they saw inside the jhuggi and saw that the wife of Vicky was found dead.
3. That he went near the STD Booth and phoned to the police on which police reached the spot and broke the lock and carried out the investigation.
4. That he knew Vicky prior to the incident and he used to give beatings to his wife.
5. That his statement was recorded by the police and he narrated the whole facts to the police.
5 Jagat Singh He is the father of the deceased who has deposed as under:
(PW6) 1. That he had married his daughter Janki @ Lali with accused Vicky S/o Brij Pal in December, 2010 with full pomp and show and had given all the dowry articles as per his capacity including Rs.
17,000/ were given in cash in the marriage.
2. That on 17th in summer season of 2011 at about 10:3011:00 pm, police officials from Jahangir Puri police station came to his house and informed them that a quarrel had taken place with his daughter with her in laws.
3. That on this he along with his family members reached the Police Station at about 12:00 midnight and came back to his house at about 4:00 AM.
4. That police officials asked them to come on next day and in the Police Station they came to know that his daughter is no more and her body was in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and therefore, on the next date they went to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital from where he identified the dead body of his daughter and received the same.
5. That prior to the death of his daughter Janki, he and his wife had gone to the house of in laws of Janki as his wife told him that Janki had informed her that accused persons demanded money from her.
6. That one day prior to her death, his son in law i.e. accused Vicky came to her house and took Rs.500/ St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 55 from him as he was in need of some rupees and at that time he was accompanied with twothree boys.
7. That his statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate vide Ex.PW4/A.
8. That many a times on the demand of Vicky and Brij Pal, he had given money to them after taking on loan.
9. That his wife also told to him that many a time his daughter informed her that accused Vicky used to beat her, for non fulfilling their demand and this fact was told to him by his wife.
10. That the death of his daughter was not natural but when they reached at mortuary they noticed that there was a head injury and sharp injury mark on the back and there was blood.
11. That he had strong suspicious over the accused persons that accused persons have killed his daughter.
6. Dharambir Singh He is also a neighbour of the accused persons who has (PW9) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 17.06.2011 he came back from his job and was standing at park, at K Block, Jahangir Puri, alongwith Bona and Paley.
2. That some children came to him and told that accused Vicky had committed the murder of his wife on which he along with Bona and Paley went to the side of jhuggi of Vicky and Bona raised noise, if somebody was there inside the Jhuggi, but no response came from inside the jhuggi, while they were peeping through the window of jhuggi.
3. That they entered inside the jhuggi through the windowpane, after removing the curtain and flashed a matchstick and in the light of matchstick, they saw that the wife of Vicky was lying dead, on the bed.
4. That thereafter they came out and Bona made a call from a nearby STD, at 100 number pursuant to which the Police came there and broke the lock of jhuggi.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 56
5. That the Police inspected the spot and took the dead body of the wife of Vicky.
6. That he himself did not see the accused giving beatings to Janki but he had heard from the neighbours about the same "Humne Aas Padosion Se Suna Tha Ki Jhagda Hota Tha, Par Humne Kabhi Dekha Nahin".
7. Kishan Lal He is also a neighbour of the accused persons and has (PW13) deposed as under:
1. That he is residing on K571, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where he is also running a grocery shop and a PCO is installed on his shop.
2. That on 17.6.2011 at about 9:00 PM one person namely Bhagwan Dass came from the nearby jhuggies of 900 wali gali and made a call at 100 number from his PCO by saying that one lady was killed by her husband and thereafter he went away from there.
3. That other persons following Bhagwan Dass and that is why he came to know his name.
4. That his PCO number is 27637856 of MTNL and his statement was recorded by the police.
8. Balram Singh He is again a neighbour of the accused persons and has (PW16) deposed on the following lines:
1. That he is residing at Jhuggie No. A163, K Block, Lucky Park, Jahangirpuri, Delhi along with his family.
2. That he had a paralytic attack which affected his leg as a result of which he is unable to do any work and remains at home.
3. That the family of Brij Pal is his immediate neighbors and the son of Brij Pal namely Vicky was married about six months prior to the incident with one Janki @ Lali.
4. That most of the time Vicky remained unemployed but some time he was doing the work of painting (safedi).
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 57
5. That on a couple of occasions he had seen Vicky indulged into mar pitai with Janki and the behaviour of family members of Vicky with Janki was normal and he is not aware how the incident took place.
6. That whenever Vicky used to fight with his wife, they often used to take side of Janki.
7. That on 17.06.2011 at about 4PM he heard the voices as if somebody was beating someone inside the house of Brij Pal and he also heard nasal voices as if somebody's mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho).
8. That even previously on many occasions Vicky who was a habitual alcoholic had been indulging this kind of mar pitai/ quarrel not only with his wife but also with them and therefore he did not intervene.
9. That it was only after some time when the police came that he came to know what had happened and he told them about what he had heard and seen.
10. That Vicky often used to beat his wife in the state of intoxication.
11. That after some time the voices stopped coming and he saw Vicky coming outside the house after which he and his parents i.e. Brij Pal and Guddi went away some where and it was Vicky who had put the lock on the door before going away.
12. That on arrival of the police at 9 PM the dead body of Janki was recovered.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
9. Dr. Bhim Singh He is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved having (PW15) conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Janki @ Lali vide his postmortem report Ex.PW15/A according to which there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 58
1. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible).
2. Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm (left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline.
3. Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed.
4. Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm.
5. Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm.
6. Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow.
7. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule).
8. Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region.
He has proved that the death was due to Coma consequent upon head injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by hard blunt object and time since death was about 20 hours.
Dr. Bhim Singh has further proved his subsequent opinion with regard to the weapon of offence which opinion is Ex.PW15/B according to which the Injury No.2 to 8 mentioned in the Postmortem Report Ex.PW15/A could be possible by the said plastic danda and injury No.1 could be due to pressure from thumb by the accused.
Police/ Official witnesses:
10. Sh. M.P. He is the Executive Magistrate who has proved the Kushwaha (PW4) following aspects:
1. That on 17.06.2011 in the night hours at about 11.00 PM, he received information from SHO, PS Jahangir Puri about the death of one lady namely Janki @ Lali, on which he directed SHO to call the Crime Team and got inspected the scene of crime and dead body to be preserved at BJRM Hospital.
2. That on the intervening night of 1718.06.2011, at about 1.30 AM, he reached Police Station Model Town and recorded statement of Sharda Devi, St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 59 mother of deceased vide Ex.PW1/A which was attested by him at point B and he directed SHO to take legal action and he (witness) made endorsement in this regard, from point X to X on Ex.PW1/A.
3. That he recorded the statement of Jagat Singh, father of deceased, vide Ex.PW4/A, recorded the statement of Jeetu Singh vide Ex.PW2/A and prepared the inquest papers i.e. request for autopsy which is Ex.PW4/B, brief facts which is Ex.PW4/C, form 25.35 which is Ex.PW4/D and also recorded statement of body identification vide Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW4/E.
4. That he also directed the IO to handover the dead body to its claimants.
11. Dharmender He is the Incharge of CATS Ambulance who has deposed Trivedi (PW7) as under:
1. That on 17.6.11, he was on duty on Alfa 1 CATS in BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM when at about 9:00 PM he received a call from PCR that a female had hanged in the jhuggis of K1 Block in house no. 901, on which he along with Alfa 1 CATS reached the spot where they found that police was present there.
2. That they found that the female was already dead and thereafter, they returned back to the hospital as there was no reason to stay there.
3. That they filled up the assessment form at hospital/ Base and the attested copy of the Assessment Form is Ex.PW7/A.
12. HC Sukhpal He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Singh (PW8) proved having registered the FIR No.186/11 U/s.
498A/304B/34 IPC through the Computer Operator, copy of which FIR is Ex.PW8/1.
13. HC Jiya Lal He is a formal witness being the Incharge of PCR Van who (PW10) has proved that on 17.6.2011 at about 9:00 PM a PCR call regarding hanging of a lady was received on which he went to the scene of crime at Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, K St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 60 Block, Jahangir Puri where inside the Jhuggi a lady namely Janki w/o Vicky was lying on Bed and CATS Ambulance van also reached the spot and declared her dead.
14. SI Satpal (PW11) He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has proved that on 17.6.2011 he visited the scene of crime at Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, KBlock, Jahangir Puri with Crime Team where he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report which is Ex.PW11/A.
15. Ct. Dalbir Singh He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer (PW12) who has proved that on 17.6.2011 he along with the Crime Team reached the spot i.e. Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangir Puri where he took the photographs of the scene of crime which photographs are Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A9 and the negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW12/B.
16. Ct. Mahipal This witness has joined investigations with the (PW14) Investigating Officer who has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 18.6.2011 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day the accused Vicky was apprehended near his jhuggi and was thereafter arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW14/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B after which his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/C.
2. That thereafter he along with Inspector Dharampal, SI Anil and accused Vicky reached at Jhuggi No. 164, Lucky Park, KBlock Jahangir Puri from where the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC pipe from under the bed of his jhuggi which PVC pipe was converted into a cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed by the seals of DP and was then seized vide memo Ex.PW14/D.
3. That the seal was handed over to him after use after which they went to BJRM Hospital.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 61
4. That on the directions of Inspector Dharampal, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased Janki after which the dead body was handed over to her relatives.
5. That the Autopsy Surgeon handed over one wooden box and one pullanda containing the viscera and the clothes of the deceased with two sample seals to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/E.
17. ASI Tahir This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
Hussain (PW17) 1. That on 17.06.2011 he was posted at police station Jahangipuri and was on emergency duty and on that day on receipt of 78 B at about 7:25 PM vide Ex.PW17/A on the PCR call regarding the daughter in law having consumed some poisonous substance and was lying in house No. K901, Jahangirpuri, he reached house No. K901 Jahangirpuri.
2. That he met the landlord Sunil Kumar and when he made inquiries from him, he told him that no such incident had taken place in his house after which he made inquiries from surrounding jhuggies and met one lady by the name of Guddi who informed him that there was no such incident.
3. That he asked her to help him to find the jhuggie but she took him all other jhuggies except her jhuggie where he could not find anything and therefore returned to the Police Station.
4. That at about 9 PM another call was received vide DD No.20A Ex.PW17/B which was attended to by SI Anil Kumar.
5. That later he came to know that the incident in question with regard to the earlier call had taken place at jhuggie No. 164, Lucky Park, Jahangirpuri where dead body of one lady by the name of Janki was found and Guddi was her mother in law.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 62
18. SI Anil Kumar He is the initial Investigating Officer who has proved the (PW18) following documents:
Ex.PW18/A & Seizure memo of room freshener, broken Ex.PW18/B bangles and one copy from the spot Ex.PW14/A Arrest memo of the accused Vicky Ex.PW14/B Personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW14/C Disclosure statement of the accused Vicky Ex.PW14/D Seizure memo of the PVC Pipe Ex.PW18/C Rough site plan
19. Inspector He is the subsequent Investigating Officer of the present Dharampal case and apart from the documents proved by the various witnesses, he has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW19/A Arrest memo of accused Brij Pal Singh
Ex.PW19/B Arrest memo of accused Guddi
Ex.PW19/C Disclosure statement of accused Brij Pal
Ex.PW19/D Disclosure statement of accused Guddi
Ex.PW19/DX1 Viscera Report
(63) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence
against the accused.
Identity of the accused:
(64) In so far as the identity of the accused persons are concerned,
the same is not disputed. The accused Brij Pal Singh is the father in law of the deceased Janki, accused Guddi is her mother in law and the accused Vicky is her husband. All the accused have been identified in the Court by the various family members of the accused and the various public witnesses St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 63 as such. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of all the accused persons and their relationships stands established. Unnatural Death within seven years of marriage:
(65) It is an admitted case of both the parties that the marriage between the accused Vicky and Janki @ Lali in December 2010 and she died an unnatural death on 17.6.2011 i.e. within Seven years of her marriage (precisely within Six months of the marriage).
Medical Evidence:
(66) Dr. Bhim Singh (PW15) has proved having conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Janki vide his postmortem report Ex.PW15/A according to which there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible).
2. Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm (left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline.
3. Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed.
4. Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm.
5. Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 64
6. Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow.
7. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule).
8. Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region.
(67) The witness has also proved having opined that death was due to Coma consequent upon head injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by hard blunt object and time since death was about 20 hours. Dr. Bhim Singh (PW15) has also proved that pursuant to the application of the Investigating Officer, he examined the weapon of offence i.e. one solid plastic danda (rod) measuring 72.5 cms in length and 7 cm in circumference, after which he opined that the Injury No. 2 to 8 [Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline; Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed; Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm; Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm; Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow; Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule) and Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region] could be possible by this PVC pipe. He has further opined that the injury No.1 [Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible)] could be due to pressure from thumb by the accused and his detailed subsequent St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 65 opinion in this regard is Ex.PW15/B. (68) Here, I may observe that the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bhim Singh (PW15) has also noticed frothy discharge from mouth and this aspect finds a specific mention in the Postmortem Report where the Autopsy Surgeon on internal examination of the lungs observed that both lungs were congested, edematous on cut section, oozing of hemorrhagic frothy fluid present. The photographs Ex.PW12/A2, Ex.PW12/A3 and Ex.PW12/A6 confirm the existence of frothing from the mouth and nose of the deceased. In this background, the testimony of Balram Singh (PW16) the next door neighbour of accused who has deposed that he heard the screams of the deceased Janki which was followed by nasal voices as if her mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho) becomes relevant as any attempt to muzzle/ muffle the voice of a person by forcibly pressing the mouth can cause this kind of frothing from the nose and mouth on account of partial smothering since even the Autopsy Surgeon has opined that the injury on the neck is on account of pressing of neck of the deceased by thumb. This coupled with the fact that even the Autopsy Surgeon has opined the cause of death to be Coma consequent upon antemortem head injury which leads me to conclude that the injuries present on the body of the deceased are homicidal and not suicidal. I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 66 Allegations against the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi:
(69) The accused Brij Pal Singh is the father of accused Vicky and Smt. Guddi is his mother. As per allegations made by the prosecution soon after the marriage of the deceased Janki with the accused Vicky, she was subjected to harassment and torture on account of dowry and was frequently beaten by her husband and parents in law i.e. Brij Pal Singh and Guddi. In this regard the prosecution has placed their heavy reliance on the testimonies of the parents of the deceased and her brother. (70) However, before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 67 reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. (71) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(72) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 68 failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498 A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
(73) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 69 (74) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(75) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 70 or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. (76) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 71 demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(77) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 72 connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
(78) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 73 money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure....."
(79) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(80) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 74 This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
(81) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 75 whatever it might be.
(82) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
(83) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 76 must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (84) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(85) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 77 is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(86) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
(87) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 78 observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul coldblooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....." (88) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (89) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, Firstly I may observe that the only allegations made by the mother of St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 79 the deceased namely Smt. Sharda (PW1), brother Jeetu (PW2) and father Jagat Singh (PW6) and their testimonies are not backed or corroborated by any documentary record in the form of medical report of the deceased nor there is any other independent witness including the Mediator of the marriage to confirm the aspect of dowry demand. (90) Secondly the allegations regarding the demand made by the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi are vague and non specific. No date or time has been specified when the said demands were made. Further, it has not been specified as to what was demanded and only simple allegations made are that the deceased had complained to her parents that her husband used to beat her after consuming liquor and demanded money and had also complained that the family members did not allow her to meet or talk to anybody. In so far as the allegations against Brij Pal Singh and Guddi are concerned, neither Smt. Sharda (PW1) the mother of the deceased nor Jeetu Singh (PW2) the brother of the deceased nor Jagat Singh (PW6) the father of the deceased have made any specific allegations against them and they have only expressed their suspicion that because the deceased had a quarrel with her in laws she might have been killed by them (accused) and I may note that even this aspect of quarrel one day earlier as alleged against Brij Pal and Guddi has not been established.
(91) Thirdly in so far as the accused Vicky is concerned (whose allegations and charges shall be dealt with separately), he was an habitual drinker/ alcoholic, a fact which has been established from the testimonies of St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 80 not only the family members of the deceased but also from the testimonies of the other residents of his area including Balram Singh. The allegations of demand are pointedly towards this accused Vicky but the same is not in the nature of a dowry demand. He was unemployed most of the time and needed money from time to time to take care of his addiction for alcohol and hence whatever little amount he used to take from his inlaws at his own level, which demand has not been specified anywhere, was to satisfy his addiction on day to day basis and the beatings that was given to deceased was under the influence of alcohol. In fact Balram Singh the neighbour has proved that during these quarrels everybody sided with the deceased Janki and not the accused and on one occasion he (Balram Singh) was beaten. (92) Fourthly no complaint to any authority including the police has been made at any point of time with regard to any previous incident of harassment on account of demand of dowry etc. Though there are allegations made to the SDM that many times on demand of the accused, money had been given to them by taking a loan. However, these allegations are vague and no person or source from where Jagat Singh the father of the deceased had taken this loan, or what was the amount of loan taken, or what was the amount given to the accused and to which accused, or details of place where such amount was given and in whose presence has been specified. All allegations are highly general and non specific. (93) Lastly from the testimonies of the independent public witnesses who are the neighbours of the accused persons i.e. Pale (PW3), Bhagwan St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 81 Das @ Bona (PW5), Dharambir Singh (PW9), Kishan Lal (PW13) and Balram Singh (PW16), it is writ large that the present of the accused Brij Pal and Guddi in the house at the time of the incident as alleged, is not established nor there are any allegations that at any point of time they had misbehaved with their daughter in law or had physically tortured or harassed her in any manner.
(94) This being the background, it is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above that though the deceased Janki had died an unnatural death at her matrimonial house and the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Brij Pal Singh, Guddi and also Vicky. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by these accused. All the allegations made against them in this regard are vague, general and non specific.
Hence, in this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi regarding harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry, beyond reasonable doubt. The allegations made by the family of the deceased regarding demand of dowry are totally vague and no specific in relation to time, place and extent of demand. Hence, the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 82 (95) In so far as the accused Vicky is concerned though the allegations of demand and harassment are there, yet the same are not connected with dowry. However, his case being on a different footing is being dealt with separately.
(96) Further, in so far as the alternative charge under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the presence of Brij Pal Singh and Guddi at the spot of incident at the time of incident has neither been alleged nor established. Rather, both these accused in their statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure explained that at the time of the incident they had gone to the Temple when somebody informed them about the incident on which it was Brij Pal Singh who had made a call at 100 number and this fact the prosecution has deliberately tried to underplay. This I conclude because after this call was received, it was marked to ASI Tahir Hussain (PW17) who on the face of it, did not properly attend to the same and in the Court when he was questioned on the same, he tried to defend himself by saying that he did go to the spot but there he met Guddi who told him that no such incident had happened on which he returned to the Police Station. He does not deny this call and hence even though the Investigating Officer has withheld the same but since this aspect is borne out and even admitted by the prosecution witnesses, hence it cannot be disbelieved. It is unbelievable and also improbable that ASI Tahir Hussain would have gone to the spot and returned back to the Police Station as claimed by him because Firstly when ASI Tahir Hussain was crossexamined and asked to St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 83 clarify if he had recorded this fact of the accused Guddi having told him that no such incident had happened in his arrival/ Wapsi entry, he denied having done so; Secondly, there was no reason for Guddi to have told the Police that no such incident had happened when it was her husband Brij Pal himself who made a call to the PCR; Thirdly assuming that she did, there was no reason why ASI Tahir Hussain should have made no inquiries either from the neighbours or from the daughterinlaw of Brij Pal/ Guddi who as per the PCR caller was stated to have consumed poison and it is difficult to believe that he (ASI Tahir Hussain) could have returned after making this casual inquiry from the mother in law Guddi and if he has done so it is highly improper; Fourthly even otherwise it is difficult to believe this version of ASI Tahir Hussain because soon after the fight between the accused Vicky and the deceased Janki even the neighbours were alerted and become aware that something had gone wrong and large crowd of persons had collected and it is for this reason that when SI Anil reached the spot he found a large crowd of persons which surprisingly ASI Tahir Hussain did not find. Lastly I am sure that if ASI Tahir Hussain would have gone to the spot as claimed by him and if Guddi would have told him that the call was wrong, he would have closed the DD Entry holding that the call was not found to be correct which he did not do. It is this which makes me conclude that in order to protect ASI Tahir Hussain for his initial inaction and to conceal the same as he probably never even reached the spot on receipt of call or in the alternative in case if he did, he did not make proper inquiries St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 84 and returned to the Police Station despite the information given by the caller being serious. This probably explains the reason why the parents in law of the deceased namely Brij Pal and Guddi have been made an accused and I find merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel that this was done only to defend this inaction by ASI Tahir Hussain and protect him departmentally and legally from any action.
(97) It has also come on record that the accused are having two jhuggies and sometimes they reside with their other sons. It is admitted by the residents of the area that the accused Brij Pal and Guddi used to share their time with their children. Sometimes they used to reside with accused Vicky and other times with the other children in the other jhuggi. Further, none of the public witnesses who are residents of the area i.e. Pale (PW3), Bhagwan Das @Bona (PW5), Dharambir Singh (PW9), Kishan Lal (PW13) and Balram Singh (PW16) have even remotely mentioned about the presence of the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi at the time of the incident and even on the aspect of infliction of cruelty the only allegations made are against Vicky who was habitual alcoholic and wife beater and not against the accused Brij Pal and Guddi. It has also come on record in the testimony of Balram that whenever there was a quarrel between Vicky and the deceased Janki everybody sided with deceased Janki. The only person whose presence at the spot has been established at the time of the incident is the accused Vicky. The witnesses Bhagwan Dass @ Bona (PW5) who had made a call to the police from the PCO of Karan Singh (PW13), his St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 85 friends Paley (PW3) and Dharambir Singh (PW9) have all corroborated and supported each other with regard to the presence of Vicky at the spot of the incident but are not as categorical in so far as Brij Pal and Guddi are concerned.
(98) In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that in so far as the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against them beyond reasonable doubt and hence benefit of doubt is being given to both the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi for the alternative charge under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code.
Allegations against the accused Vicky:
(99) The accused Vicky is the husband of the deceased Janki. It has been established that the deceased has expired within a period of six months of her marriage (within seven years of marriage). There are allegations against him by the parents of the deceased and her brother regarding repeated demand of dowry. It has also been alleged that the accused Vicky used to frequently beat and torture the deceased Janki under the influence of liquor being a habitual alcoholic. Rather, it is writ large from the testimonies of the parents and brother of the deceased that it was accused Vicky who used to raise the demand and when Janki was unable to meet the said demands there are allegations that he used to beat herup after consuming alcohol. The prosecution in this regard placed its reliance on the St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 86 testimonies of Smt. Sharda (PW1) mother of the deceased, Jeetu (PW2) brother of the deceased and Jagat Singh (PW6) father of the deceased and neighbours/ residents of the area i.e. Pale (PW3), Bhagwan Das @Bona (PW5), Dharambir Singh (PW9) and Balram Singh (PW16). (100) Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Pale (PW3), Bhagwan Das @Bona (PW5), Dharambir Singh (PW9) and Balram Singh (PW16) hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed before this Court is reliable, truthful and could be relied upon. In this regard I may observe that it is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 87 evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978). (101) It is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to withstand the test of cross examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of crossexamination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965).
(102) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 88 case, I may mention that in so far as Smt. Sharda (PW1), Jeetu (PW2) and Jagat Singh (PW6) are concerned there is little on which their credibility can be shaken. They are the immediate family of the deceased and have corroborated each other Firstly on the aspect of marriage of the deceased Janki with the accused Vicky (a fact which has not been disputed);
Secondly that after the marriage the accused Vicky used to demand money from Janki whereas there are no direct and specific allegations against the accused Brij Pal and Guddi and Lastly that Vicky was an alcoholic and used to frequently beat her up under the influence of alcohol and this statement of the parents and brother of the deceased finds independent corroboration from the testimony of Balram Singh who is the neighbour of the accused and was staying next to accused Vicky. Hence, in this background when we proceed to analyze the credibility of this witness Balram Singh it is borne out from the record that this Balram Singh is the next door neighbour of the accused who is residing in a highly congested jhuggi cluster/ shanties where whatever happens in the adjoining house becomes known to the people staying around particularly the next door neighbour there being little privacy. This Balram Singh is a paralytic and does not have much mobility and hence stays at house most of the time. There is no history of any kind of animosity between the family of the accused and Balram, rather most of the time in his testimony Balram does not hold anything against the accused Brij Pal and Guddi whereas it is only Vicky against whom he has made allegations of being an alcoholic which even the other neighbours and the St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 89 parents of the deceased confirm. There is no reason why his testimony should be viewed with doubt and in so far as the allegations against the accused Vicky is concerned, the relevant portion of the testimony of Balram Singh (PW16) is reproduced as under:
"........ I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family. I am having a paralytic attack which is effected my leg as a result of which I am unable to do any work and I remain at home. The family of Brij Pal is my immediate neighbors. The son of Brij Pal namely Vicky was married about six months prior to the incident with one Janki @ Lali. Most of the time Vicky remained unemployed but some time he was doing the work of painting (safedi). On the couple of occasions I had seen Vicky indulged into mar pitai with Janki. The behaviour of family members of Vicky with Janki was normal and I do not know how the incident took place. Whenever Vicky used to fight with his wife, they often used to take side of Janki. On 17.06.2011 at about 4PM I heard the voices as if somebody was beating someone inside the house of Brij Pal and I also heard nasal voices as if somebody's mouth has been pressed to suppressed the voice. (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho). Even previously on many occasions Vicky who was a habitual alcoholic had been indulging this kind of mar pitai/quarrel not only with his wife but also with us and therefore I did not intervene. It was only after some time when the police came that I came to know what had happened and I told them about what I had heard and see.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the state, seeks permission to put leading questions to the witness as he is St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 90 not giving the complete details.
Heard, Permission granted.
It is correct that police had recorded my statement on 19.06.2011. It is correct that I had told to police that Vicky often used to beat his wife in the state of intoxication but it is wrong to suggest that I told to suggest that I also told the police that his parents and family members sided him and Vicky did not permit her to go to her parental house. I also did not tell the police that Guddi, mother of Vicky and his father Brij Pal used to quarrel with their daughter in law and taunt her. Confronted with portion A to A1 of statement EX PW 16/PX1 where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I had told the police that when I heard the screams of Janki coming from the house, I asked Brij Pal and Guddi who were sitting outside the jhuggie after closing the door what had happened then they told me that there was a quarrel between Vicky and Janki as it is a routine. Confronted with portion B to B1 of statement EX PW 16/PX1 where it is so recorded. It is correct that I had informed the police that after some time the voices stop coming and I saw Vicky coming outside the house after which he and his parents i.e. Brij Pal and Guddi went away some where. Vol. it was Vicky who had put the lock on the door before going away. It is correct that I had told the IO that on arrival of the police at 9 PM the dead body of Janki was recovered but I did not tell them that I strongly believed that the accused Vicky and his parents Brij Pal and Guddi were responsible for the death of Janki. Confronted with portion C to C1 of statement EX PW 16/PX1 where it is so recorded. I can identify the accused Vicky, Brij Pal and Guddi who are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 91 (103) He has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has informed that he has cordial relations with Brij Pal Singh and Guddi but no with Vicky who is a habitual alcoholic. According to him, he had told the police that on 17.6.2011 at about 4:00 PM he heard the voices as if somebody was beating someone inside the house of Brij Pal and he also heard nasal voices as if somebody's mouth had been pressed to suppress the voice. He did not see the accused beating his wife Janki but had heard voices of beating from their house. On a specific Court Question he has explained that he has no communication with Janki and had also not seen her except in the marriage when she touched his feet for blessings and thereafter she used to being in veil (ghunghat). This witness Balram Singh has explained that he is a paralytic which paralysis has affected his legs as a result of which he is unable to do any work and most of the times remains at home on account of which he has witnessed this incident. He has also explained that even previously on many occasions Vicky who is a habitual alcoholic had been indulging into quarrel/ mar pitai/ quarrel not only with his wife but also with neighbours including himself and therefore he did not intervene thinking that it was a routine matter. I find this explanation given by Balram Singh natural and plausible. It is writ large that Balram has given a clean chit to Brij Pal Singh and Guddi but in so far as Vicky is concerned he has not mince any words to inform that not only was the accused Vicky a habitual alcoholic but frequently gave a beating to his wife Janki and on one occasion even he (witness Balram) was beaten. He has St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 92 further explained that in this dispute between the accused Vicky and deceased Janki everybody sided with Janki. This only establishes the independence of his observation and the fact that he is in no way inimical to the family of the accused and has deposed on the basis of whatever has been seen and noticed by him from time to time and hence there is no reason to disbelieve this witness Balram more so because his testimony also finds independent corroboration from the testimony of the other residents of the same area i.e. Paley (PW3), Bhagwan Das @ Bona (PW5) and Dharambir (PW9).
(104) Coming now to the testimony of the other residents of the area who have independently corroborated the version given by Balram, I may observe that Pale (PW3) is also a resident of the same area who along with his other friends Bhagwan Das and Dharambir who at the time of the incident were present in a park near the house of the accused when they heard about the incident and all of them rushed to his house and found the door locked from outside on which one of them lighted a matchstick at the window on which all of them saw the deceased Janki lying dead on the bed in the room after which one of them i.e. Bhagwan Das @ Bona made a PCR call. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced as under:
"....... I am a Beldar by profession.
On 17.06.2011, in the evening hours, I alongwith my friends Dharambir and Bona, was sitting in the park of K Block, Jahangir Puri. Some children came and told that Vicky was telling that he has killed his wife. We all St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 93 went to the house of Vicky. The Jhuggie of the Vicky was found locked. We tried to saw inside the Jhuggie in the light of matchstick, which was in the hand of Bona. We saw that the wife of Vicky was found lying dead on the bed. We went to the PCO and telephoned the police. Police reached the spot and opened the lock of the Jhuggie of the house of accused. Accused Vicky is today present in the Court, correctly identified. We heard that accused Vicky was used to beat his wife and also not to allow her to go outside. Police recorded my statement....."
(105) The testimony of Pale find due corroboration from the testimony of his other friends who were sitting with him i.e. Bhagwan Das @ Bona (PW5) who had actually made the call and Dharambir (PW9). The relevant portion of the testimony of Bhagwan Das @ Bona (PW5) is as under:
"....... On 17.06.11 at about 8 PM I along with my friends Dharmabir and Palley were sitting in the park. Some small children came to us and told that Vicky was telling that he killed his wife. We all three went to the Jhuggi of Vicky. The jhuggi was found locked outside. We lit the match stick and in that light we saw inside the jhugi and saw that the wife of the said Vicky was found dead. I went near the STD Booth and phoned to the police. Police reached at the spot broken the lock and did investigation. I know Vicky prior to the incident. He used to give beatings to his wife. My statement was recorded by the police and I narrated the whole facts to the police. I identified the accused Vicky, his father Brij St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 94 Pal and his mother Guddi and they all three present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness)....."
(106) Similarly, Dharambir Singh (PW9) who was present at the spot along with Paley and Bhagwan Das @ Bona, has corroborated their testimonies in toto. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"....... On 17.06.2011, I came back from my job and was standing at park, at K Block, Jahangir Puri, alongwith Bona and Paley. Some children came to me and told that accused Vicky had committed the murder of his wife. I alongwith Bona and Paley went to the side of jhuggi of Vicky. Bona raised noise, that if somebody was there inside the Jhuggi, but no response came from inside the jhuggi, as we were peeping through the window of jhuggi. We entered inside the jhuggi through the windowpane, after removing the curtain and flashed a matchstick and in the light of matchstick, we saw that the wife of Vicky was lying dead, on the bed. Thereafter, we came out and Bona made a call from a nearby STD, at 100 number. Police came there and had broken the lock of jhuggi. Police inspected the spot and they took the dead body of the wife of Vicky. Accused Vicky is present in the Court today, witness identified by the witness by pointing out towards him, correctly identified.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the State requests to put a leading question, regarding the behaviour of accused Vicky with his deceased wife.
Heard.
Allowed.
Question : Is it correct that accused Vicky used to beat his wife and did not allow her to go to her parental St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 95 home?
Answer : "Humne Aas Padosion Se Suna Tha Ki Jhagda Hota Tha, Par Humne Kabhi Dekha Nahin".
(107) All these three witnesses are the residents of the area and had reached the Jhuggi of Vicky on hearing about the incident and are part of the crowd which gathered at the Jhuggi and then gave information to the police. All these persons have no history of animosity with the accused. Rather, they are known to the family of the accused for many years and have deposed that they did not see the actual incident but on coming to know of the incident they reached the spot and thereafter lit a matchstick and in the light of matchstick they saw Janki lying on the bed on which a call had been made by the police by them (as confirmed by Kishan Lal - PW13). The above three witnesses have also stated that when the children came to them they informed them that the accused Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife. This portion of their testimonies is not admissible in evidence being a hear say as the said children who heard Vicky saying so have not been made witnesses in the case and cannot be treated as an Extra Judicial Confession. However, in so far as their testimony relating to the details connected with the scene of crime and what they saw when they reached the spot is concerned, is admissible in evidence. Their oral testimonies find due corroboration from the Medical and Circumstantial Evidence in the form of Crime Team Report and photographs of the scene of crime. It is writ large that the door was locked from outside and when the Police entered they St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 96 found broken pieces of bangles lying here and there with injury marks on the body of the deceased. No doubt, this witness Bhagwan Das @ Bona is a Bad Character of the area but that does not make him an incompetent witness. He has explained that he is a resident of the area and was present there at the time and had reached the spot along with his other friends. He has also explained that he is extremely sensitive to these issues since he himself has a family and if something wrong happens to the daughters and daughtersinlaw of some other person, then it is not a good thing 'Dusro ki bahu betion ke saath kuch bura ho jayen to yeh achi baat nahin. Mai bhi beti wala hun'.
(108) It is further established that this witness Bhagwan Dass @ Bona (PW5) himself had made a call to the police establishing his presence at the spot and this lends credence to his testimony because even the PCO Owner Kishan Lal (PW13) has confirmed this aspect. The father of the deceased namely Jagat Singh (PW6) who had seen the dead body of the deceased in the morning he also noticed head injury and sharp injury mark on the back having blood, which fact finds due corroboration from the testimony of Paley (PW3) who has stated that when they saw the dead body in the light of the matchstick he noticed bruises on the body. The Postmortem Report Ex.PW15/A also confirms the swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region. (109) Coming now to the defence of the accused Vicky, his sole defence is that he was not present in his house at the time of the incident St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 97 and the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. He has stated that his sister Santosh (DW1) who was present at the house had come and informed him that the deceased was not opening the room on which he went home and found the deceased hanging on which he entered the Jhuggi by breaking the roof and when he tried to got her down, both he and the deceased fell down as a result of which the head of the deceased struck on the corner of the bed and she received injuries. This defence of the accused Vicky does not convince me. The photographs of the spot placed on record taken by the Crime Team show that there is no breaking of roof and none of the neighbours or the police officers who had first reached the spot claim that some portion of the roof was broken and even otherwise, had that been so I am sure that the public persons who found the door locked would have entered the room from the roof as claimed by the accused or would have mentioned this fact of the roof being broken. In fact none of these witnesses have even been crossexamined on this aspect. It is also claimed by Vicky that the deceased Janki was a stout woman and when he tried to get her down, he fell down along with the deceased. Here, I may observe that the photographs of the deceased Janki taken by the Crime Team Photographer reflect that she was a woman with average built and under no circumstances could be called stout. Further, if the deceased had received injuries on falling, how is it that there were no corresponding injuries on the body of the accused Vicky. I may further observe that the Postmortem Report given by the Autopsy Surgeon do not reflect any injury present on the body of the St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 98 deceased which could be on account of suicidal hanging, rather the injuries present on the head (fatal injury) and back of the deceased have been opined to be antemortem in nature establishing that they were inflicted before her death which could not have been the case if the death was due to suicidal hanging and these injuries were caused while getting her body down from the roof. This Postmortem Report nails the lie of the accused. This being the background, I hold that the defence offered by the accused in the form of oral testimony of his younger sister Ms. Santosh (DW1) is devoid of merit.
(110) Further, it has been proved by various prosecution witnesses i.e. Ct. Mahipal (PW14), SI Anil Kumar (PW18) and Inspector Dharampal (PW19) that pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PW14/C the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC pipe from his Jhuggi which was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/D. The said PVC pipe was then produced before the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bhim Singh (PW15) who had examined the same and opined that the Injury No.2 to 8 [Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline; Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed; Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm; Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm; Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow; Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule) and Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region] was possible by the said PVC Pipe and the Injury No.1 [Reddish St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 99 abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible)] could be due to pressure from thumb by the accused, which subsequent opinion in this regard is Ex.PW15/B. This fact finds an independent corroboration from the testimony of Pale (PW3) who claimed that when they saw the legs of dead body of the wife of Vicky from the window of the Jhuggie, under the light of matchstick, there were abrasion on the legs of the dead body. Further, the witness Balram Singh (PW16) has also claimed that he had heard the sounds of beatings and cries of the deceased Janki from inside the house of Brij Pal but he did not intervene thinking that it was a routine affair as accused Vicky used to beatup his wife regularly and on one occasion had even beaten him (witness). He has also claimed that he heard nasal voices as if somebody's mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho). Here, I may observe that there was frothing from the mouth and nose of the deceased, as confirmed in the photographs taken by the Crime Team Ex.PW12/A2, Ex.PW12/A3 and Ex.PW12/A6 and also established from the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A, which lends independent credence and confirmation to the testimony of Balram Singh (PW16) that he had heard muffled voices because frothing is only possible due to head injury or when the cries of the victim were being muffled resulting into feeble breathing by the victim causing oozing out of froth from the chest region through natural orifices i.e. nose and mouth as he has happened in the present case. This establishes that the accused Vicky first brutally beatup his wife with a PVC St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 100 pipe and pushed her on the ground on which she received the fatal head injuries and then in order to silence her screams he pressed her mouth on account of which the neighbour Balram had heard the muffled voice of Janki. Here, I may note that it is a matter of common knowledge that neighbours particularly in Jhuggi/ Jhopri Clusters comprising of persons who are illiterate daily wagers are slow to interfere in private affairs between husband and wife even where this kind a brutality taking this to be a routine matter. In the present case Balram Singh (PW16) has explained that Vicky was a habitual alcoholic who used to beatup his wife of less then six months marriage in routine. He is an handicapped person and has explained that on one occasion even he (Balram) was beaten by the accused Vicky, Under the given circumstances, with the accused being a habitual wife beater and alcoholic it is natural for Balram to have stayed away this being a routine affair till such time he came to know about the death of the deceased when he did speakup to the police and it certainly goes to his credit that despite being close to the family of the accused he has in his deposition before the Court stoodup against the acts of accused Vicky and by his first version given to the police. I hold his statement to be worthy of credit which cannot be doubted.
(111) In view of the above discussion, I hereby observe that the evidence on record conclusively establishes that the accused Vicky is a habitual alcoholic and being unemployed would require money for fulfilling his day to day demands of alcohol and has been demanding money from his St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 101 inlaws for the said purpose. As already discussed earlier while deciding on the allegations made against Brij Pal Singh and Guddi, the demands raised by the accused Vicky for small amount from time to time were not in the nature of dowry as contemplated under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. They were rather for the purposes of fulfilling his day to day requirements particularly for alcohol and hence under the given circumstances he is acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. (112) Further, in so far as the charge under Section 498A IPC is concerned, it has been established from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as discussed herein above that the accused Vicky who was a compulsive and habitual alcoholic had been ruthlessly beating his newly married wife (an aspect established from the testimonies of the parents of the deceased Jagat SinghPW6 and ShardaPW1, brother of the deceased namely JeetuPW2, neighbours namely PalePW3, Bhagwan Das @ Bona PW5, Dharambir SinghPW9 and Balram SinghPW16) which act is squarely covered within the definition of 'Cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
(113) In so far as the alternative charge framed against the accused Vicky under Section 302 IPC is concerned, his presence at the spot at the time of the incident in the same room where the body of the deceased was found stands conclusively established. As per the provisions of Section 106 Evidence Act, it was for the accused Vicky to have explain where he was at the time of the death of the deceased and in his defence he does not dispute St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 102 his presence but rather claims that he was sitting outside under the tree when his sister informed him about his wife having committed suicide which explanation is contrary to the evidence which has come on record and has been held to be unconvincing and incorrect (particularly in view of the Postmortem Report of the deceased, opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon with regard to cause of death coupled with the statement of the neighbour Balram Singh). It stands conclusively established that on the date of incident i.e. 17.6.2011 the accused Vicky first ruthlessly gave beatings to his wife Janki with the PVC Pipe on account of which she received injuries i.e. Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm (left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline); Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed; Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm; Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm; Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow]. Thereafter he tried to strangulate her by pressing her throat with his hand which fact is established from the Injury No.1 i.e. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible) and thereafter he probably hit her head due to which she received head injury i.e. contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule); Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region. It has also been established that the accused also tried to ward off her scream by putting his hand on her mouth which sound was heard by Balram Singh on account of which there was frothing from her mouth and nose at the time when she expired which death St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 103 was however on account of the head injury which the deceased had received in the incident. It is this head injury which has been opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and hence I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the necessary intent and knowledge of the accused Vicky (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to cause death of his wife Janki for which he is held guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(114) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established; The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 104 all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(115) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution the following aspects stand established:
➢ That the marriage between the accused Vicky and Janki (now deceased) was solemnized in December 2010 (which aspect has not been disputed).
➢ That after the marriage Janki shifted to her matrimonial house i.e. Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, KBlock, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where she normally remained in veil (ghunghat) and seldom exposed herself to the neighbours.
➢ That the accused Brij Pal Singh is the father in law of the deceased Janki and the accused Guddi is her mother in law who sometimes used to reside with the accused and sometimes with their other son. ➢ That accused Vicky is a habitual alcoholic and at the time of the incident was unemployed.
➢ That the accused Vicky used to frequently give a beating to his wife Janki under the influence of liquor and and also demanded money from his inlaws to meet his day to day requirements. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 105 ➢ That on 17.6.2011 the accused Vicky gave beatings to his newly married wife Janki with a PVC Pipe and her cries were heard by the next door neighbour Balram Singh, who is a paralytic and mostly remained at home but he did not intervene thinking that it was a routine affair.
➢ That Balram Singh also heard nasal voices as if her mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho).
➢ That residents of the area then saw Vicky sitting outside his house saying that he had killed his wife.
➢ That on hearing this some children went to Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir and Paley who are residents of the same area and were sitting in the park and informed that Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife.
➢ That on hearing this they all (Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir and Paley) immediately went to the Jhuggi of Vicky which was found locked with large number of persons outside.
➢ That Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir and Paley then tried to see inside the Jhuggi and Bhagwan Das lighted a matchstick and in the light of the same, they looked inside the Jhuggi from the window and saw that the wife of Vicky (i.e. deceased Janki) was lying dead on the bed.
➢ That Bhagwan Das @ Bona then went to the PCO Booth of Kishan St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 106 Lal and made a call to PCR from telephone No. 27637856 ➢ That pursuant to the PCR Call, SI Anil Kumar reached the spot and in the meanwhile the CATS Ambulance also reached the spot and after examining Janki declared her dead.
➢ That injury signs were noticed on the body i.e. legs, hands & head of the deceased Janki.
➢ That thereafter information was sent to the SDM and the dead body was shifted to mortuary of BJRM Hospital.
➢ That on the same night the SDM recorded the statements of the parents and brother of the deceased after which the present case was registered.
➢ That on the same intervening night i.e. 1718.6.2011 the accused Vicky was apprehended from the corner of Jhuggi clusters and was then arrested and during his interrogation, he disclosed having committed the murder of his wife.
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC Pipe from inside his Jhuggi with which he had inflicted injuries over the head of Janki.
➢ That the statement of Balram Singh the next door of the accused was recorded and he has appeared in the Court and proved that the accused Vicky was a habitual and compulsive alcoholic who used to beat his wife almost daily and nobody intervened because on one occasion when he (Balram Singh) intervened he was also beaten. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 107 ➢ That Balram Singh has also proved that Brij Pal Singh and Guddi most of the time used to remain with other son and he had never seen them misbehaving with Janki and rather most of the time when accused Vicky used to quarrel with Janki, they used to side Janki. ➢ That Balram Singh has proved on 17.6.2011 he had heard the screams of Janki coming from the Jhuggi of accused Vicky and also heard the voices of beating as if somebody was beating someone and then he heard as if her mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice and then he saw Vicky locking the door of the Jhuggi and going away. ➢ That Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Paley and Dharambir who are all residents of the same area and neighbours of the accused have also proved that the accused Vicky used to beat his wife Janki frequently. ➢ That Kishan Lal has proved that it was Bhagwan Das @ Bona who had made a PCR call from his telephone booth.
(116) The testimonies of the independent witnesses i.e. Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir Singh, Paley and Balram Singh have been held to be authentic and credible. Further, the Medical Evidence on record shows that there were as many as Eight Injuries over the body of the deceased which were antemortem in nature. It has been proved that the death was due to Coma consequent upon head injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by hard blunt object. Further, it has been proved that the injuries no. 2 to 8 could have been caused by the PVC Pipe got recovered by St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 108 the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement.
(117) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(118) In so far as the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi are concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above that though the deceased Janki had died an unnatural death at her matrimonial house and the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Brij Pal Singh, Guddi and also Vicky. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by these accused. All the allegations made against them in this regard are vague, general and non specific. Hence, in this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi regarding harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry, beyond reasonable doubt. The allegations made by the family of the deceased regarding demand of dowry are totally vague and no specific in relation to time, place and extent of demand. Hence, the accused Brij Pal Singh and St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 109 Guddi are acquitted of the charges under Section 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code. They are also acquitted of the alternative charge under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code.
(119) In so far as the accused Vicky is concerned, the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(120) The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the accused Vicky is a habitual alcoholic and being unemployed would require money for fulfilling his day to day demands of alcohol and has been demanding money from his inlaws for the said purpose. The demands raised by the accused Vicky for small amount from time to time were not in the nature of dowry as contemplated under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and hence under the given circumstances he is acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 110 (121) Further, in so far as the charge under Section 498A IPC is concerned, it has been established from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as discussed herein above that the accused Vicky who was a compulsive and habitual alcoholic had been ruthlessly beating his newly married wife (an aspect established from the testimonies of the parents of the deceased Jagat SinghPW6 and ShardaPW1, brother of the deceased namely JeetuPW2, neighbours namely PalePW3, Bhagwan Das @ Bona PW5, Dharambir SinghPW9 and Balram SinghPW16) which act is squarely covered within the definition of 'Cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and hence, the accused Vicky is held guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. (122) In so far as the alternative charge framed against the accused Vicky under Section 302 IPC is concerned, it stands conclusively established that on the date of incident i.e. 17.6.2011 the accused Vicky first ruthlessly gave beatings to his wife Janki with the PVC Pipe on account of which she received injuries i.e. Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm (left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline); Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed; Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm; Reddish blue contusion front of right hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm; Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow]. Thereafter he tried to strangulate her by pressing her throat with his thumb which fact is established from the Injury No.1 i.e. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 111 side of neck just below ramus of mandible) and thereafter he probably hit her head due to which she received head injury i.e. contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule); Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region. It has also been established that the accused also tried to ward off her scream by putting his hand on her mouth which sound was heard by Balram Singh on account of which there was frothing from her mouth and nose at the time when she expired which death was however on account of the head injury which the deceased had received in the incident. It is this head injury which has been opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and hence I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the necessary intent and knowledge of the accused Vicky (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to cause death of his wife Janki for which he is held guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.
(123) Be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Vicky on 17.1.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 13.1.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 112
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 87/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0264342011 State Vs. (1) Brij Pal Singh S/o Sher Singh R/o Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Acquitted) (2) Guddi W/o Brij Pal Singh R/o Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Acquitted) (3) Vicky S/o Brij Pal Singh R/o Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 186/2011 Police Station: Jahangir Puri Under Sections: 302/304B/498A/34 IPC Date of Conviction: 13.1.2014 Arguments concluded on: 22.1.2014 Date of Sentence: 24.1.2014 St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 113 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Vicky in Judicial Custody with Sh. Deepak Sharma Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations, from December 2010 to 17.6.2011 the accused Brij Pal Singh being the father in law of Janki; Guddi being the mother in law and the accused Vicky being the husband of Janki in furtherance of their common intention treated Janki with cruelty and harassed and even gave her beatings to meet their unlawful demands of dowry. It has been alleged that on 17.6.2011 all the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Janki by causing head injury to her. It is further alleged that on 17.6.2011 all the accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected Janki cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry and caused head injuries to her, who died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution including the parents and brother of the deceased i.e. Sharda Devi, Jagat Singh & Jeetu; neighbours of the accused i.e. Pale, Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir Singh, Kishan Lal and Balram Singh and also on the basis of the medical evidence on record, this Court vide detail judgment dated 13.1.2014 acquitted the accused Brij Pal Singh St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 114 and Guddi of the offence under Section 302/304B/498A Indian Penal Code. However, the accused Vicky has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302/498A Indian Penal Code.
Vide the detail judgment this Court has observed that the prosecution has been able to establish that the marriage between the accused Vicky and Janki (now deceased) was solemnized in December 2010 (which aspect has not been disputed); that after the marriage Janki shifted to her matrimonial house i.e. Jhuggi No. 164, Lakhi Park, KBlock, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where she normally remained in veil (ghunghat) and seldom exposed herself to the neighbours; that the accused Brij Pal Singh is the father in law of the deceased Janki and the accused Guddi is her mother in law who sometimes used to reside with the accused and sometimes with their other son; that accused Vicky is a habitual alcoholic and at the time of the incident was unemployed; that Balram Singh has also proved that Brij Pal Singh and Guddi most of the time used to remain with other son and he had never seen them misbehaving with Janki and rather most of the time when accused Vicky used to quarrel with Janki, they used to side Janki.
This Court has also observed that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused Vicky used to frequently give a beating to his wife Janki under the influence of liquor and and also demanded money from his inlaws to meet his day to day requirements; that on 17.6.2011 the accused Vicky gave beatings to his newly married wife Janki with a PVC Pipe and her cries were heard by the next door neighbour Balram Singh, St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 115 who is a paralytic and mostly remained at home but he did not intervene thinking that it was a routine affair because on one occasion when he (Balram Singh) intervened he was also beaten; that Balram Singh also heard nasal voices as if her mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice (Nak ke sur ki awaz jaise kisi ne kisi ka muh daba diya ho); that after sometime he saw Vicky locking the door of the Jhuggi and going away; that Balram Singh has proved on 17.6.2011 he had heard the screams of Janki coming from the Jhuggi of accused Vicky and also heard the voices of beating as if somebody was beating someone and then he heard as if her mouth has been pressed to suppress the voice.
Further, the prosecution has proved that the residents of the area then saw Vicky sitting outside his house saying that he had killed his wife; that on hearing this some children went to Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir and Paley who are residents of the same area and were sitting in the park and informed that Vicky was saying that he had killed his wife; that on hearing this they all (Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir and Paley) immediately went to the Jhuggi of Vicky which was found locked with large number of persons outside; that Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir and Paley then tried to see inside the Jhuggi and Bhagwan Das lighted a matchstick and in the light of the same, they looked inside the Jhuggi from the window and saw that the wife of Vicky (i.e. deceased Janki) was lying dead on the bed; that Bhagwan Das @ Bona then went to the PCO Booth of Kishan Lal and made a call to PCR from telephone No. 27637856. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 116
This Court has also observed that the prosecution has been able to establish that pursuant to the PCR Call, SI Anil Kumar reached the spot and in the meanwhile the CATS Ambulance also reached the spot and after examining Janki declared her dead; that injury signs were noticed on the body i.e. legs, hands & head of the deceased Janki; that thereafter information was sent to the SDM and the dead body was shifted to mortuary of BJRM Hospital; that on the same night the SDM recorded the statements of the parents and brother of the deceased after which the present case was registered; that on the same intervening night i.e. 1718.6.2011 the accused Vicky was apprehended from the corner of Jhuggi clusters and was then arrested and during his interrogation, he disclosed having committed the murder of his wife; that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC Pipe from inside his Jhuggi with which he had inflicted injuries over the head of Janki; that Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Paley and Dharambir who are all residents of the same area and neighbours of the accused have also proved that the accused Vicky used to beat his wife Janki frequently; that Kishan Lal has proved that it was Bhagwan Das @ Bona who had made a PCR call from his telephone booth.
The testimonies of the independent witnesses i.e. Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir Singh, Paley and Balram Singh have been held to be authentic and credible. Further, the Medical Evidence on record established that there were as many as Eight Injuries over the body of the deceased which were antemortem in nature. It has been proved that the death was St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 117 due to Coma consequent upon head injury, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by hard blunt object. Further, it has been proved that the injuries no. 2 to 8 could have been caused by the PVC Pipe got recovered by the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement.
In so far as the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi are concerned, this Court has observed that though the deceased Janki had died an unnatural death at her matrimonial house and the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused Brij Pal Singh, Guddi and also Vicky. It has also been observed that the prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by these accused. All the allegations made against them in this regard are vague, general and non specific. Therefore, both the accused Brij Pal Singh and Guddi have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code and also of the alternative charge under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code.
In so far as the accused Vicky is concerned, this Court has observed that the evidence on record conclusively established that the accused Vicky is a habitual alcoholic and being unemployed would require money for fulfilling his day to day demands of alcohol and has been demanding money from his inlaws for the said purpose. The demands raised by the accused Vicky for small amount from time to time were not in the nature of dowry as contemplated under Section 304B Indian Penal St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 118 Code and hence under the given circumstances he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
Further, in so far as the charge under Section 498A IPC is concerned, it has been established from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as discussed herein above that the accused Vicky who was a compulsive and habitual alcoholic had been ruthlessly beating his newly married wife (an aspect established from the testimonies of the parents of the deceased Jagat Singh and Sharda, brother of the deceased namely Jeetu, neighbours namely Pale, Bhagwan Das @ Bona, Dharambir Singhand Balram Singh) which act is squarely covered within the definition of 'Cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and hence, the accused Vicky has been held guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
Further, in so far as the alternative charge framed against the accused Vicky under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court has observed that it has been established that on the date of incident i.e. 17.6.2011 the accused Vicky first ruthlessly gave beatings to his wife Janki with the PVC Pipe on account of which she received injuries i.e. Contused reddish abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm (left side middle of back horizontally placed, 11 cm lateral to midline); Contused reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm right side of back, para spinal area horizontally placed; Contused 5 cm x 2 cm outer surface of left arm; Reddish blue contusion front of right St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 119 hand thinner eminence 5 cm x 2 cm; Contused abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm left elbow. Thereafter he tried to strangulate her by pressing her throat with his thumb which fact is established from the Injury No.1 i.e. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm (left side of neck just below ramus of mandible) and thereafter he probably hit her head due to which she received head injury i.e. contusion 2 cm x 1 cm (left ear lobule); Swelling (hematoma) over head in frontal, parietal and occipital region. It has also been established that the accused also tried to ward off her scream by putting his hand on her mouth which sound was heard by Balram Singh on account of which there was frothing from her mouth and nose at the time when she expired which death was however on account of the head injury which the deceased had received in the incident. It is this head injury which has been opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, this Court has held that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the necessary intent and knowledge of the accused Vicky (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code) to cause death of his wife Janki for which he has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Vicky is aged about 25 years having a family comprising of aged parents, one elder and one younger brother and two younger sisters. He is 8th class pass and is a painter by profession. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is the only bread earner in the family and is having St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 120 dependent minor sisters and a mentally retarded brother to look after. He has also argued that the convict Vicky is a young boy and is not having any other case. He has prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict Vicky.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convict Vicky. It is also stated that the convict has not been able to show any mitigating circumstances in his favour which could make out a case for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life.
I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 121 imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:
(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality;
or
(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity. The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 122
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 123
The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is the desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
This unfortunate case relates to a young girl aged 18 years coming from a lower middle class family hardly married for Six Months who had been beaten to death by her husband i.e. convict Vicky who was a habitual alcoholic and a wife beater. These instances of young women beaten to death soon after their marriage on account are on increase and if we want the society to be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever a drastic crime of this nature is detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the Courts should exercise Zero Tolerance for the same and deal with the offender ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment.
In the present case the marriage between the victim and the convict was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu Rites where Marriage is considered sacramental and believed to be ordained in heaven. In the religious rites performed at the marriage altar, the man accepts the woman as his better half by assuring her protection as Guardian; ensuring food and St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 124 necessities of life as a Provider; guaranteeing companionship as of Mate and by resolving that he shall share with her the pleasures and sorrows in the pursuits of life and also promises to observe the Dharma. I ask a question to myself. Has the convict Vicky fulfilled these obligations? What kind of necessities of life he provided to his newly married wife Janki? What kind of protection and companionship he ensured to her and what Dharma he has observed when he himself was the perpetrator of the physical cruelty upon her? It is evident from the record that the there were as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased Janki which shows the extent of brutality committed upon the deceased. There can be no excuse or justification for the act of violence on a helpless women.
Now I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors in the present case are that the convict Vicky is a young boy and has no previous criminal involvement. The aggravating factors are that the deceased Janki who was the wife of the convict Vicky was brutally killed by the convict by giving PVC pipe blows on her head. It has been confirmed by the neighbours (witness Balram Singh) that the convict Vicky was a habitual drinker and gave frequent beatings to his deceased wife and in case if any neighbour intervened, he too was not spared.
After having considered the submissions made before me and the various aggravating and mitigating factors, I hold that the case in hand certainly does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare or least even in St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 125 category of Rare Case. Therefore I award the following sentences to the convict Vicky:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
2. For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by him during the trial.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Before I end, I may observe that in the present case the manner St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 126 in which the Executive Magistrate Sh. M.P. Kushwaha has conducted the inquest proceedings is highly improper and not as per the requirements and procedure prescribed under the provisions of Sections 174 to 176 Cr.P.C. It is not only in this case but this Court has also observed that even in the other cases where the inquest is conduct by the SDMs/ Executive Magistrates in cases of unnatural deaths of young girls within seven years of marriage (covered under Section 174 (3) (i) & (ii) Cr.P.C.) very rarely do these Magistrates/ Officers conducting the inquest visit the spot of incident, make inquiry or inspect the scene of crime and usually end the said proceedings after recording the statements of the parents. The actual/ physical inspection of the dead body is rarely conducted or details noted in the proceedings. The scene of crime/ offence is also rarely inspected so as to collect the first hand information with regard to the exact status of the spot soon after the incident. None of the neighbours or other persons who may be the witnesses to incident or may provide relevant information are examined. The only proceedings which these Executive Magistrates/ SDMs conduct is recording the statements of the parents of the deceased and that too most of the time by calling them to their office or the Police Station (as has happened in the present case). The irregularities and illegalities noticed do not end here. There are cases where the statements so recorded have been observed to be in the handwriting of the Police Officers, Readers to SDM etc. and no certification with regard to the same being on the dictation of the Magistrate or with regard to the correctness of the same is given. St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 127 Even in the present case the Executive Magistrate Sh. M.P. Kushwaha did not visit the scene of crime at the first instance and rather called the parents and brother of the deceased to the Police Station where he recorded their statements. When asked in the Court why he did not visit the scene of crime, he replied that it was not his job but the job of the police. This is despite the specific provisions of Section 174 Cr.P.C. read with Section 176 Cr.P.C. clause (1) which provides that when the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage and the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other committed an offence in relation to such woman [the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) of clause (ii) of sub Section (3) of Section 174 Cr.P.C.] then any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to the investigations held by the police officer and if he does so, he shall have all powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence. This being the background what is it that prevents these Executive Magistrates from holding an indepth inquiry as contemplated under law as aforesaid, as has happened in the present case. Any how, under no circumstances can the Executive Magistrate justify his inaction in this regard by saying that it was the job of the police. If the Executive Magistrate says so then either he is not aware of the existing legal provisions in this regard or this is only a pretext/ ploy to escape the liability for his inaction. Having noticed these irregularities/ illegalities in a number St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 128 of cases being dealt with by me, I am now compelled to bring this fact on record so that it is brought to the notice of the competent authority for necessary action. I hereby direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi so that necessary directions with regard to the manner in which the SDMs are required to conduct the inquest proceedings are issued so as to duly sensitize these officers in this regard.
Further, certain observations have been made on the conduct of ASI Tahir Hussain in the detail judgment dated 13.1.2014 and hence a copy of the judgment is directed to be placed before the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (NorthWest) for necessary action as per law under intimation to this Court.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 24.1.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Brij Pal Singh Etc. FIR No. 186/11, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 129