Delhi District Court
State vs :-Smt. Kiran Kohli Etc. on 31 March, 2008
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT
PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C.NO.158/07
STATE VERSUS:-SMT. KIRAN KOHLI ETC.
FIR NO.144/06
U/S 325/34 IPC.
PS KESHAV PURAM.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Every criminal trial raises two issues, both important : First is the
accused person guilty; Second if guilty what amount of punishment
should be awarded to him?
The law leaves the measures of punishment to the discretion of
the court. Nevertheless, it insist that the discretion be used judicially and
not arbitrarily. This implies that it is the bounden duty of the court to apply
its mind to the question and decide after due consideration of all the
relevant circumstances.
However, before the relevant circumstances are ascertained
and considered, it is important to also first know the object of punishment.
The object of punishment is the prevention of crime and every punishment
is intended to have a double effect, namely, to prevent the person, who
-:2:-
has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission and to prevent
other members of the community from committing similar crimes.
As regards the particular offender there are three ways of
preventing by punishment against the recurrence of an offence : (1) by
taking from him the power of offending (in-capacitation); (2) by taking
away the desire of offending (reformation); (3) by making him afraid of
offending (intimidation).
As regards other members of the community, who are disposed
to commit similar offences, the only way of providing by punishment
against the commission of the offence is by the deterrent ellect which the
punishment of an individual has upon others. In recent years the
reformative aspect of punishment, viewed in relation to both penal
treatment and the avoidance of the possibility of a new offender
becoming a persistent offender, has been receiving increased attention,
particularly with regard to young offenders.
Thus, in fixing the quantum of punishment the court takes into
consideration the nature of offence and the circumstances in which it
was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the
provocation which he has received, if the crime is one of violence, the
antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of sentence, his age and
character.
-:3:-
Thus, to shut a man up in prison longer than is really necessary is
not only bad for the man himself but is a useless piece of cruelty, and
economically wasteful and a source of loss to the community.
With the aforesaid background, I now come to the case in
hand wherein the three accused persons, namely, SMT. KIRAN KOHLI, SMT.
SONIKA CHHABRA & MS. TANYA KOHLI, who were held guilty for the
offence U/S 325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 27-3-2008.
I have heard ld. Counsel Sh. BS Rana for all the three convict
persons as well as ld. APP and also ld. Counsel Sh. Mukul Sharma for the
complainant. Both counsels Sh. Mukul Sharma for complainant as well as
ld. Counsel Sh. BS Rana for the convict persons filed their written
submissions also in support of their contentions.
Ld. Counsel for the convict persons submitted that the present
offence was not committed in a premeditated manner and as the same
took place in the midst of a quarrel so no element of prior deliberation
can be attributed to the three convict persons in causing any injury on the
person of Sudershan Chathrath, the deceased. It was further submitted
that the delay in removing Sudershan Chathrath to the hospital from the
scene of occurrence by her own brothers and sisters was also a major
contributory factor in her death. It was further stated that convict Tanka
Kohli is a young unmarried girl, aged about 21 years and is still pursuing her
education. It was thus stated that a sentence of imprisonment will
-:4:-
certainly ruin her entire life and including all prospects of her securing a
job.
As regards convict Smt. Kiran Kohli, it was stated that she was
an old lady, aged about 62 years and was suffering from a number of
ailments viz hypertension, heart problems and oestro arthatics. It was
further stated that out of her six daughters, three daughters were yet to be
married. It was also stated that during the course of trial, she had already
remained in jail for a period of about two months and has already
undergone a lot of trauma in facing the present criminal trial along with
her two daughters besides already facing a lot of hardship in her life on
account of her strained relationship with Charanjeet Kohli.
As regards convict Smt. Sonika Chhabra, it was stated that she
was aged about 33 years and was a mother of a small child of two years.
It was further stated that after her marriage in the year 1993, she shifted to
USA in 1997 and has since acquired citizenship over there. It was further
stated that her husband & in-laws were all residing in USA and at the time
of incident she happened to visit India in order to seek blessings of her
parents for her small minor son, who was born to her over there. It was thus
stated that already on account of the present trial, she has been residing
in India for a period of about two years except for one occasion when
she was granted permission by this court to visit her family in USA. It was
stated that she has also remained in jail for a period of about two months
-:5:-
during the course of trial.
Thus, while stating that none of the three convict persons have
any previous criminal record of any nature whatsoever, it was stated that
both Smt. Kiran Kohli and Smt. Sonika Chhabra be sentenced to the
period of imprisonment already undergone by them only.
In support of his contentions learned counsel for the convict
persons also placed reliance upon the case MATHAI VS. STATE OF
KERALA, 2005 CRI.LJ. 898 (SC), RADHA RANI VS. STATE OF MP, 1982 SC
CASES CRIMINAL 470 (II) & OM PARKASH & ORS. VS. STATE OF MP, AIR
1982 (SC) 783 (II).
On the other hand, ld. APP prayed for imposition of the
maximum sentence of imprisonment upon the three convict persons as on
account of their act an old lady lost her life and thus the convict persons
does not deserve any concession.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant also vehemently argued for
imposition of maximum sentence of imprisonment stating that the
legislature has provided a punishment of four years even under Section
335 IPC which is an exception to Section 325 IPC. It was further stated that
the act of the convict persons resulted in the death of Sudershan
Chathrath and thereby a family lost an old aged mother. It was further
stated that the convict persons have been unable to show any mitigating
circumstance or extenuating factors in their favour which could call for a
-:6:-
lesser sentence of imprisonment or their release on probation of good
conduct. It was further stated that the convict persons carried out an
unprovoked, sudden and concentrated murderous assault upon a
defenseless, old innocent, peaceful person, who had meant them no
harm. It was further stated that in fact the convict persons wanted to grab
the property of Charanjeet Kohli and they will not still stop in their activities
in achieving that objective. It was further stated that if the convict persons
are released on probation of good conduct then, it would inferrably give
them a feeling that they committed murder and got away with it and will
only embolden them to commit similar acts against Charanjeet Kohli and
other relatives. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon
certain head notes of different cases viz 1977 CRI LR (MAH) 161, 1984 ALL
IND. CRI. LR 187 (191) (P&H) & (1970) 36 CUT . L.T. 1325 (1328).
I have carefully perused the record.
I have already dealt with the various circumstances which a
court has to consider before arriving at the crucial decision of fixing the
quantum of punishment for any particular crime. However, the entire
controversy as is evident from the submissions of both the parties which
has been otherwise been the concern of modern day jurists is as to
whether the deterrent theory of punishment or reformative theory of
punishment should be adopted. The probation of offenders act enjoins
upon the court that before sentencing a person it should consider as to
-:7:-
whether releasing him on probation of good conduct will be expedient
in the interest of justice or not. Certainly, a number of factors needs to be
considered in this regard in the light of the facts and circumstances of
every given case. Some of these factors are primarily the age of the
convict besides the circumstances under which the offence in question
was committed. The effect which a sentence of imprisonment might have
upon the life of convict or his other family members also needs to be kept
in mind. The manner in which the offence was committed is also an
important guiding factor in this regard. Last but not the least as to what
message such a sentence will send to the community at large meaning
thereby whether such a sentence of imprisonment will achieve its
objective of deterring a person to not to repeat such kind of offence
again and to also prevent other members of the community from
committing similar crimes.
However, the aforesaid circumstances does not mean that
court while considering the question of sentence will clearly overlook the
plight of the victim or that of his family members. In fact, the theory of
victimlogy is also increasingly gaining round and the court is under a duty
to keep in mind the effect of sentence upon the victim or upon his family
members.
In the present matter, the case of convict Sonika Chhabra
presents a very strange situation. She admittedly is a citizen of USA & her
-:8:-
husband and her in-laws are residing over there. She herself has settled in
USA since 1997. Incidentally, she happened to be present in India at the
time of incident and which led to her detention in India for a period of
about two years for which the present trial continued. She also remained
in jail for a period of about two months during the course of trial. On one
occasion she was granted permission by the court to go to USA and she
duly complied with all the conditions imposed upon her in that regard.
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, it has to be
seen as to whether sentencing her to a period of imprisonment now will
serve the ends of justice or not. It needs to be seen as to what effect it will
have on her own life and that of her minor son, aged about two years,
who is also now held up in India along with her besides her husband and
other in-laws who are now settled in USA. The effect of punishment on her
own marital life thus also needs to be kept in mind by the court. It is in the
light of same circumstances that the applicability of the provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act qua her are also to be seen. In fact, if she is
released on probation of good conduct then also she will be required to
stay within the jurisdiction of this court or at least in India for the period for
which she is released on probation of good conduct. This circumstance
will again lead to a peculiar situation wherein she and her minor son will
not be able to reunite with her family.
-:9:-
As regards the convict Ms. Tanya Kohli, who is an unmarried
young girl, aged about 21 years and is still pursuing her education and
who was even released on anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi the court has to see the effect which a sentence of imprisonment
may have upon her future life. Certainly, sending her behind bars will put
a permanent blot upon her future career in as much as she will not be
able to secure any Government job. Her all chances of getting married in
future will also become bleak. Over there she will be lodged with
hardened criminals which may further have an adverse affect on her life.
As regards convict Smt. Kiran Kohli, who is again an old lady,
aged about 62 years and is suffering from various ailments the effect of a
sentence of imprisonment needs to be seen. She has already remained in
jail for a period of about two months. She is fully dependent for her survival
and that of her daughter Ms. Tanya Kohli qua financial assistance upon
her brothers and sisters. She has already been facing a strained marital life
with Charanjeet Kohli.
Apart from the aforesaid mitigating circumstances which crops
up on record the circumstances in which the incident took place also
needs to be kept in mind by the court. As already discussed by me in my
detailed judgment, the incident took place during the course of a sudden
quarrel between the parties. It was during the course of the quarrel that
Sudershan Chathrath came to receive a push and she fell down on the
-:10:-
stairs. However, I have also dealt therein the conduct of her brothers and
sisters soon after the incident which resulted in delay of more than 1½
hours in removing her to the hospital. As already stated by me in my
judgment that it is purely an hypothetical situation as to what would have
been the consequence if Sudershan Chathrath was immediately
removed to the hospital. The said situation need not be dealt with over
here but the fact remains that the conduct of the complainant party also
was not completely aboveboard at the time of incident.
I may also state briefly that the case law relied upon by
learned counsel for complainant is also not at all applicable to the facts &
circumstances of the present case. The said case law clearly shows
infliction of a number of blows upon the victims by the convict persons
and which fact in itself puts the case in hand in different category from
the said cases relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant.
Coming to the plight of victim or that of her family members, I
may state that they have certainly lost their old mother but the entire
blame cannot be put squarely upon the present convict persons as
discussed by me herein above. However, an order of sending the convict
persons behind bars will certainly in no way lesson the plight or suffering of
the family members of victim. The court cannot go into the retributive
mode of punishment by providing tooth for tooth or eye for an eye.
-:11:-
It was also observed by "OSCAR WILDE" in the BALLAD OF
READING GOAL that :
The vilest deeds like poison weeds
Bloom well in prison air,
It is only what is good in man
That wastes and withers there.
I accordingly keeping in view the overall facts &
circumstances of the present case, coupled with the submissions of the
parties deem it appropriate that the interest of justice will be suitably met
if convict SMT. SONIKA CHHABRA, who has already remained in jail for a
period of about two months during the course of trial is sentenced to the
period of imprisonment already undergone by her and to further pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence U/S 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of
fine accused SMT. SONIKA CHHABRA will further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
As regards convict MS. TANYA KOHLI and convict SMT. KIRAN
KOHLI, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be
suitably met if they are released on probation of good conduct U/S 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act.
I accordingly hereby direct that convict MS. TANYA KOHLI and
SMT. KIRAN KOHLI be released on probation of good conduct U/S 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of two years upon their
-:12:-
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety
each in the like amount and to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace
and be of good behaviour.
I however impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- each upon both MS.
TANYA KOHLI and SMT. KIRAN KOHLI towards cost of proceedings U/S 5
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
A copy of the judgment as well as that of Order on Sentence
be given free of cost to all the convict persons.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 31-3-08.
(BHARAT PARASHAR)
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI:DELHI
-:13:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT
PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C.NO.158/07
STATE VERSUS:- 1- SMT. KIRAN KOHLI,
W/O SH. CHARANJEET KUMAR KOHLI,
R/O C-2/57C, LAWRENCE ROAD,
DELHI.
2- SMT. SONIKA CHHABRA,
W/O SH. SANJAY CHHABRA,
R/O C-2/57C, LAWRENCE ROAD,
DELHI.
3- MS. TANYA KOHLI,
D/O SH. CHARANJEET KUMAR KOHLI,
R/O C-2/57C, LAWRENCE ROAD,
DELHI.
FIR NO.144/06
U/S 302/34 IPC.
PS KESHAV PURAM.
DATE OF INSTITUTION IN SESSIONS COURT:19-9-2007.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED:14-3-2008.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED 27-3-2008.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the -:14:- report u/S 173 Cr.P.C. is as under:
One Charanjeet Kohli, aged about 64 years was having matrimonial differences with his wife Smt. Kiran Kohli for a number of years. The said matrimonial differences accordingly had a consequential effect on the lives of their six daughters also. However, with the course of time three of the six daughters came to be married. However, during all this period, a number of litigations cropped up between the couple and incidentally both Charanjeet Kohli and Kiran Kohli continued to live in the same DDA flat i.e. C2/57C, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi in two separate bedrooms. The youngest unmarried daughter, namely, Tanya Kohli also used to live with her mother over there itself. Besides the two bedrooms, the said DDA flat situated at Second Floor had a drawing room.
Charanjeet Kohli had a number of brothers and sisters who allegedly tried to intervene in his matrimonial differences with Kiran Kohli so as to amicably resolve them but all such efforts went in vain. Two sisters of Charanjeet Kohli, namely, Sudarshan Chathrath and Veera Thapar used to live at Jamshedpur.
On 27.02.06, Sudershan Chathrath and Veera Thapar, the two sisters had come to Delhi from Jamshedpur and they decided to visit their brother Charanjeet Kohli at his aforesaid flat at Keshav Puram alongwith their yet another sister, namely, Geeta Malhotra and their one other -:15:- brother, namely, Rakesh Kumar Kohli. The four brother and sisters accordingly went to Keshav Puram in the car of Geeta Malhotra on 7.02.06 at about 02:30 pm which was being driven by their driver. Upon reaching Keshav Puram, while the three sisters got down from the car and proceeded towards the flat of their brother Charanjeet Kohli, Rakesh Kumar Kohli however went along with the driver to get the vehicle parked. Accordingly, Geeta Malhotra followed by Sudarshan Chathrath and Veera Thapar went up the stair case to the second floor flat of Charanjeet Kohli. Rakesh Kumar Kohli also in the meantime came and followed the three sisters in the stair case. When Geeta Malhotra allegedly knocked at the door of the flat then it was opened by Kiran Kohli. However, Kiran Kohli immediately caught hold off the hair (jurha) of Geeta Malhotra and started giving jerks to her. Incidentally, at that time one other daughter of Kiran Kohli, namely, Sonika Chabbra who though had settled in USA after her marriage was also present in the house as she had come to India along with her newly born son. The said two daughters, namely, Tanya Kohli and Sonika Chabbra also allegedly came at the door and along with Kiran Kohli, they all started using abusive and filthy language towards all the three sisters. During all this incident Kiran Kohli allegedly exhorted her two daughters to push Sudarshan Chathrath down the stairs so that the entire quarrel may come to an end. Upon this exhortation, both Sonika Chhabra and Tanya Kohli gave a hard push to -:16:- Sudarshan Chathrath. She as a result fell backward and her head struck against one of the platform on the stair case while her legs remained on the above two stairs. Sudarshan Chathrath as a result sustained injuries.
Rakesh Kumar Kohli who was following the sisters in the stair case immediately rushed to help her. Charanjeet Kohli who in the meantime had also come at the door of his flat, also tried to come out to help his injured sister but was allegedly prevented by Kiran Kohli and her two daughters from moving forward. Rakesh Kumar Kohli immediately asked his brother Charanjeet Kohli to bring a glass of water. However, when Charanjeet Kohli brought a glass of water, the accused persons even restrained him from handing over the glass of water to Rakesh Kumar Kohli and in the process some water fell down over there but Rakesh Kumar Kohli somehow managed to catch hold of the glass. He poured some water on the face of Sudarshan Chathrath but she did not respond at all. Geeta Malhotra in the meantime tried to inform the matter to the police at No. 100 but in all this commotion she was unable to talk properly and accordingly she gave her mobile phone to Rakesh Kumar Kohli to convey the information to the police. Charanjeet Kohli in the meantime asked Rakesh Kumar Kohli to bring an ambulance from the nearby temple and he himself in the meantime went away to call a doctor. The doctor who thus came at the spot however upon seeing Sudarshan Chathrath asked her to be removed to the hospital immediately and accordingly in -:17:- the ambulance brought by Rakesh Kumar Kohli from the nearby temple Charanjeet Kohli removed her to Sundar Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The two sisters, namely, Geeta Malhotra and Veera Thapar alongwith Rakesh Kumar Kohli followed the Ambulance to the hospital. However, at the hospital Sudarshan Chathrath succumbed to her injuries and expired on the intervening night of 27.02.06/28.02.06 at about 2:40 pm. In the meantime, upon receipt of the information about the incident SI Raj Singh went to the spot and found some public persons present over there. However, as injured was already removed to the hospital so he went over there and collected MLC of Sudarshan Chathrath. She was opined to be not fit for statement by the doctors but Geeta Malhotra met him over there. He accordingly recorded her statement and prepared a rukka. He thereafter again came back to the spot and sent the same through Ct. Tarsem Singh to PS Keshav Puram for registration of the case. In the meantime, Charanjeet Kohli and Rakesh Kumar Kohli also returned back to the spot and on their pointing out, he prepared a site plan. Accused Kiran Kohli and her elder daughter Sonika Chabra were arrested from the spot itself. He also recorded statements of Veera Thapar, Rakesh Kumar Kohli and Charanjeet Kohli u/S 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day upon the death of Sudarshan Chathrath, he carried out the inquest proceedings and got the Post-Mortem conducted upon her -:18:- dead body at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital. The third accused, namely, Tanya Kohli was however found to be missing. The subsequent investigation was however taken over by Inspector Sumer Singh of DIU, North West District. In the meantime, accused Tanya Kohli obtained anticipatory bail orders from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and was accordingly formally arrested by him in this case and was admitted to bail. Inspector Sumer Singh also visited the spot and recorded statement of one of the neighbourer, namely, Saroj besides making inquiries from HC Mahender Singh, the PCR Official who had initially reached the spot. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, he accordingly prepared the challan and submitted the same to court for trail.
Upon committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge for the offence u/S 302/34 IPC and in the alternative for the offence u/S 304/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons by the then Ld. Predecessor of this court. The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge so framed against them and claimed trial. Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 14 witnesses. The accused persons were thereafter examined u/S 313 Cr.P.C. They however did not lead any evidence in their defence.
PW1 Geeta Malhotra was the complainant and the alleged eye-witness of the incident. In her deposition she reiterated the prosecution story while proving her complaint Ex.PW1/A lodged with the -:19:- police.
PW2 Rakesh Kumar Kohli, PW3 Charanjeet Kohli and PW7 Veera Thapar were the other three alleged eye-witnesses of the incident who all deposed almost on identical lines while rendering corroboration to the deposition of PW1 Geeta Malhotra.
I shall be discussing in detail the deposition of the aforesaid four witnesses at a later stage of my judgment.
PW4 ASI Mond. Swalay was the Duty Officer PS Keshav Puram who recorded FIR Ex.PW4/A. PW5 Dr. Upender Kishore had carried out the Post-Mortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Sudarshan Chathrath vide his report Ex.PW5/A. PW6 SI Mahender Lal was the Draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW6/A. PW8 Ct. Kaptan Singh was the DD Writer, PS Keshav Puram who had received the initial information about the incident and had conveyed the same to SI Raj Singh for further necessary action. He accordingly proved the said DD Entry No. 34B and 35B, both dated 27.02.06 as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively.
PW11 Dr. Mohd. Arshad of Sundar Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi proved the MLC Ex.PW11/A of Sudarshan Chathrath as was prepared by Dr. R.S. Sharma, who was no longer available in the services -:20:- of the hospital.
PW12 ASI Mahender Singh was the PCR Official who had received the initial information about a quarrel at the house of Charanjeet Kohli on 27.02.06 at about 12:59 hours. He accordingly filled the PCR Form Ex.PW12/A in this regard and forwarded it to the concerned official for further necessary action.
PW13 HC Devender Kumar was yet another Constable posted at PCR Headquarters who had received information about a quarrel in a family, from accused Tanya Kohili on 27.02.06 itself at about 15:08 hours. He accordingly filled up the PCR Form Ex.PW13/A in this regard and forwarded it to the concerned official for further necessary action. This witness also proved another PCR Form Ex.PW13/B filled up at PCR Headquarters itself by one HC Kanhayia Lal who too had received an information on 27.02.06 at about 15:10 hours from Phone no. 9811679996 wherein the informant stated "Kohli ka makan meri behan ka murder kar diya".
PW9 SI Raj Singh was the initial IO of the case who had reached the spot first in point of time. Upon receipt of information about the incident in his deposition, he reiterated about the investigation carried out by him besides proving the various documents/memos prepared by him during the course of investigation.
PW10 ACP Sumer Singh was the Second IO of the case who -:21:- took over the investigation of this matter on 10.03.06. He too deposed about the investigation carried out by him besides proving the various documents/memos prepared by him during the course of investigation.
PW14 Inspector Kharak Singh was looking after the work of SHO, PS Keshav Puram on the day of incident. Upon coming to know about the incident he had also reached the spot and he found that certain relatives of an old lady were removing her in an unconscious condition to the hospital in a private Ambulance. Upon inquiry at the spot, he came to know that some quarrel between brother and sisters of Charanjeet Kohli on the one hand and the present accused persons on the other hand had taken place. He further stated that he also came to know that Sudarshan Chathrath had received a push during the course of said quarrel and had thus fallen down in the stairs. He thus stated that he had accordingly conveyed the information to the PCR that no incident of murder had taken place and that it was a quarrel between the family members. He also admitted having conveyed the information viz.
"Murder koi nahi, behan ko dhakka de diya", as Ex.PW14/A so recorded in PCR Form Ex.PW13/B. He further stated that as SI Raj Singh in the meantime from PS Keshav Puram reached the spot so he returned back to his duty while directing SI Raj Singh to take further necessary action in the matter.-:22:-
In their statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be deposing falsely.
I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel Sh. Mukul Sharma for complainant and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. B.S. Rana for all the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as Ld. Defence Counsel also placed on record their written submissions in support of their arguments.
It was submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the present case is clearly the result of an afterthought as no such incident at all took place. It was stated that Sudarshan Chathrath being an old, sick and infirm lady fell down on the stairs on her own by slipping but her other brothers and sisters chose to take benefit from out of this situation so as to settle their scores with the present accused persons viz. a viz. Charanjeet Kohli. It was submitted that there was a great delay in even removing Sudarshan Chathrath to hospital after the incident in as much as Rakesh Kumar Kohli and complainant Geeta Malhotra did not care to remove her in their own car in which they had come over there with a driver and rather preferred to wait for the arrival of Ambulance. It was stated that as a number of litigations were going on between Charanjeet Kohli and Kiran Kohli on account of their matrimonial disputes so Geeta Malhotra and her brothers and sisters including Charanjeet Kohli found this -:23:- incident to be the most opportune moment to settle their scores with Kiran Kohli and her two daughters. It was further stated that from the treatment record of Sudarshan Chathrath at Sunder Jain Lal Hospital, it is clear that she was a patient of sugar and Blood Pressure (BP). It was further stated that the two daughters in fact were present inside the room at the time of the incident but were roped in by the complainant party so as to ruin their life. It was submitted that accused Sonika Chabbra had since settle down in USA alongwith her in- laws and had come to India alongwith her minor son to show him to her parents but the complainant party taking benefit of the present incident found a chance to harass her so that she may not go back to USA to live with her in-laws and her husband. As regards accused Tanya Kohli, it was submitted that she was an unmarried young girl and whose life was also sought to be spoiled by the complainant party in the garb of the present incident so as to force accused Kiran Kohli to arrive at a settlement with Charanjeet Kohli who had an eye over her property viz. the accused's flat at Keshavpuram. It was further submitted that despite the incident having taken place in the staircase of a cluster of flats, still no public independent witness was joined in the proceedings by the IO. The prosecution was thus stated to have miserably failed in proving its case against the accused persons. He also placed reliance on the information given to the PCR by Inspector Kharhak Singh who had initially reached the spot stating it to be an apt -:24:- description of the actual incident having taken place over there. They were thus prayed to be acquitted.
On the other hand Ld. APP as well as Ld. Counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the contentions of Ld. Defence counsel stating that deceased Sudarshan Chathrath was not suffering from any ailment much less from sugar or Blood Pressure (B.P.) or that she had not suffered from any paralytic stroke earlier as alleged by Ld. Defence Counsel. Reliance was placed on the initial information given to the PCR by Rakesh Kumar Kohli wherein it was stated that "behan ka murder kar diya". It was thus stated that this initial information given to the PCR clearly rules out the possibility of any concoction of a story at a later point of time. It was further stated that though there was no inordinate delay in the registration of the case but on account of an unexpected incident having taken place the other brothers and sisters of Sudarshan Chathrath were in a state of shock and thus could not have been expected to give an impromptu statement. It was further stated that accused persons had earlier also quarreled with Charanjeet Kohli at about 1:00 pm as was evident from the earlier information received at PS Keshav Puram. It was further stated that the accused persons found it to be an appropriate moment to settle their scores with Charanjeet Kohli and his brother and sisters. The deposition of the witnesses was stated to be cogent, convincing and reliable. The prosecution was thus stated to have been -:25:- successful in proving its case against all the three accused persons. They were thus prayed to be convicted.
I have carefully perused the record.
At the outset, it will be important to state certain admitted set of facts which have come up on record primarily as facts not disputed.
The fact that Charanjeet Kohli and accused Kiran Kohli were having matrimonial disputes for a long period of time is a fact not disputed by the accused persons. In the said dispute, the daughters of Kiran Kohli and especially accused Tanya Kohli and Sonika Chhabra were siding with their mother i.e accused Kiran Kohli is also a fact not disputed and is rather apparent on record. In fact, accused Tanya Kohli had earlier also filed some suit for injunction against Charanjeet Kohli, copy of which has been placed on record by the complainant party. It is also not in dispute that both Charanjeet Kohli and Kiran Kohli used to reside in the same two bedroom flat i.e C2/57C, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi occupying one bed room each. The fact that Tanya Kohli also used to reside along with her mother Kiran Kohli in the same flat is also not in dispute. Coming to the day of incident, I may also state that the presence of Sonika Chhabra in the said flat on the impugned day is not only stated to by the prosecution witnesses but has also not been disputed by the accused persons themselves. The accused persons by giving suggestions -:26:- that at the time of incident Tanya Kohli was sitting in a room and Sonika Chhabra was also present in the room along with her minor son clearly goes to establish their presence in the said house on the day of incident.
It is in the light of the aforesaid admitted set of facts that the impugned incident needs to be viewed and analyzed.
I may once again state at the threshold itself that though some quarrel did appear to have taken place on that day between accused persons on the one hand and the complainant party on the other hand but, the manner in which it has been projected to have taken place by the prosecution witnesses does not appear to be the probable sequence of events. I shall be demonstrating herein after as to how the present incident does not appear to have taken place in the manner in which it is stated to have taken place by the prosecution witnesses.
The fact that deceased Sudershan Chathrath on that day sustained injuries in the stairs leading to the flat of the accused persons has also not been disputed by the accused persons. However, the important and sole question around which the entire prosecution story revolves around is as to whether Sudershan Chathrath was pushed down the stairs by the accused persons as claimed by the prosecution witnesses or she fell on her own after loosing balance being an old aged ailing lady as claimed by the accused persons. Certainly, if the plea of defence -:27:- taken by the accused persons is found to be having any element of truth then no guilt on the part of the accused persons can be imputed but, on the other hand, if it is found that she was pushed down the stairs by the accused persons then, it will be important to see and analyze as to in what circumstances she was pushed down or with what intention she was pushed down the stairs. The subsequent events which took place qua the removal of Sudershan Chathrath to Sunderlal Jain Hospital where she was given treatment for few hours before she finally succumbed to her injuries and died are also primarily not in dispute. However, it is the intervening period between the time when she fell down and till the time she came to be removed to Sunderlal Jain Hospital which again is a matter to be looked into as to whether there was any intentional delay on the part of her brothers and sisters, who were accompanying her at the time of incident so as to create some sort of evidence against the accused persons or not.
It will be worthwhile to note over here that in support of the prosecution story, we have primarily on record the deposition of four important witnesses, namely, PW1 Geeta Malhotra, PW2 Rakesh Kumar Kohli, PW3 Charanjeet Kohli and PW7 Veera Thapar. In fact, it is only PW1 Geeta Malhotra and PW7 Veera Thapar, who claims themselves to be the actual eye witnesses of the incident in which Sudershan Chathrath allegedly came to be pushed down the stairs. Clearly, they all are closely -:28:- related to each other being the brothers and sisters of deceased Sudershan Chathrath. As per the statement of PW1 Geeta Malhotra, PW2 Rakesh Kumar and PW7 Veera Thapar, they had gone to the flat of accused persons in order to meet their brother Charanjeet Kohli, who was passing through a bad phase in his matrimonial life. From a bare perusal of their deposition also, it is clear that in the said matrimonial dispute between Charanjeet Kohli and accused Kiran Kohli they were on the side of Charanjeet Kohli. This conduct of theirs was even otherwise natural as Charanjeet Kohli was their real brother. However, all these facts & circumstances of the present case puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the deposition of these witnesses with a greater degree of care and caution. Ordinarily, the deposition of relatives, who often are called interested witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they were relatives of the deceased, if otherwise, their deposition is found to be trustworthy and their presence at the time of incident is also established.
Thus, with this background, if we see the deposition of these witnesses and primarily that of PW1 Geeta Malhotra then, it is found that as soon as she knocked at the door of the flat, the same was opened by accused Kiran Kohli and the other two accused persons followed her to the door. She further stated that immediately upon opening of the door accused Kiran Kohli caught hold of her hair and started giving violent -:29:- jerks. She further stated that during all this period while the accused persons were using abusive and filthy language towards them then accused Kiran Kohli also exhorted her two daughters to give a push to Sudershan Chathrath so as to bring to an end the entire quarrel. It was thereafter that accused Sudershan Chathrath and Tanya Kohli allegedly gave a push to Sudershan Chathrath, who as a result fell down on the platform behind and sustained injuries.
The aforesaid set of facts which have been deposed to by all the prosecution witnesses throws up some interesting points to be pondered upon. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that PW1 Geeta Malhotra or her other sisters and brother had informed either Charanjeet Kohli of their impending visit or for that matter Charanjeet Kohli or the accused persons were having any knowledge of the proposed visit of the brother and sisters of Charanjeet Kohli. This fact in itself makes it quite improbable that upon knocking of the door three persons from the house which comprised of an old lady, aged about 62 years i.e accused Kiran Kohli, another lady aged about 33 years i.e accused Sonika Chhabra and also having a minor child with her and yet another girl, aged about 20 years i.e accused Tanya Chhabra will altogether rush towards the door to open it. This is certainly contrary to the normal human behaviour as is observed in routine. It is highly improbable that upon knocking of the door of a flat almost all the family members -:30:- rushes towards the door to open it. Furthermore the fact that immediately on opening of the door accused Kiran Kohli without any exchange of words or provocation first of all grabbed the hairs of PW1 Geeta Malhotra and started giving jerks to her is also highly improbable.
Apart from the aforesaid two highly improbable facts, it will be worthwhile to note that the prosecution has been unable to bring on record any circumstance which could show that Sudershan Chathrath was in fact responsible for any nature of quarrel between Charanjeet Kohli and accused Kiran Kohli. Except for stating at one place that Sudershan Chathrath had once intervened in the settlement of quarrel between Charanjeet Kohli and accused Kiran Kohli about 5/6 years prior to the incident, it was nowhere shown as to on what account the accused persons could be holding a specific grudge against Sudershan Chathrath from out of all the brothers and sisters of Chranjeet Kohli. It is also nowhere ascertainable from the record as to how with the death of Sudershan Chathrath, the disputes between the parties could have come to an end.
It is in the light of these facts that the utterance allegedly made by accused Kiran Kohli calling upon her two daughters to give a push to Sudershan Chathrath so as to bring to an end the entire quarrel needs to be seen and analyzed.
Apart from the aforesaid circumstances if the place where the -:31:- incident actually took place is seen then certain other improbabilities also crops up on record. As per the scaled site plan Ex.PW6/A of the place of incident the stairs of the flats at Keshav Puram which are nothing but old DDA Flats were of width between 3 feet to 3½ feet with walls on both sides. Now, PW1 Geeta Malhotra stated that out of the three sisters, she in fact had first reached the door of the flat of the accused persons and had knocked at it. She further stated that her sister Sudershan Chathrath and Veera Thapar followed her in that sequence. She further stated that her brother PW2-Rakesh Kohli was all the more behind them. On the other hand, PW7 Veera Thapar stated that PW1 Geeta Malhotra, who was ahead of them was being followed by her and thereafter Sudershan Chathrath was in the last. Thus, we have two contradictory versions on record viz as per PW1 Geeta Malhotra she was followed by Sudershan Chathrath and PW7 Veera Thapar in that sequence but, as per PW7 Veera Thapar she was next to PW1 Geeta Malhotra and Sudershan Chathrath was following her in the stairs. However, if we see and analyze either of the two possibilities then it is found that the incident as has been projected to by the prosecution seems to be highly improbable.
If PW1 Geeta Malhotra was followed by Sudershan Chathrath and PW7 Veera Thapar in that order then as per the site plan Ex.PW6/A, there were only four stairs just outside the door of the flat of accused persons. After the four steps, there was a platform where Sudershan -:32:- Chathrath had allegedly fallen down during the course of incident and the stairs while going down thereafter takes a turn from the said platform and it was on the stairs after the said turning where PW2-Rakesh Kumar was allegedly present at the time of incident. Thus, if PW1 Geeta Malhotra had been caught hold of by accused Kiran Kohli and if the other two co- accused persons had allegedly given a push to Sudershan Chathrath then in all eventualities she would have first struck PW7 Veera Thapar, who was following her. In those circumstances in a staircase which was of width between 3 feet to 3½ feet only with walls on both sides, it is highly improbable that Sudershan Chathrath, who was in the middle of the three sisters upon having been given a push would have straight away fallen on the platform behind without first striking against PW7 Veera Thapar. Admittedly, PW7 Veera Thapar was also an old lady, aged about 66 years and it again appears to be highly improbable that despite her sister allegedly falling upon her after having been given a push by the accused persons, she managed to save herself but was unable to catch hold of her falling sister. This eventuality clearly seems to be highly improbable. In fact, as per site plan Ex.PW6/A also PW7 Veera Thapar was standing on the end of the platform just behind Sudershan Chathrath and there does not appear to be any reason as to why she was not able to catch hold of her sister during the course of said quarrel when she was falling down or as to how the head of Sudershan Chathrath could have -:33:- straight away fallen on the platform below without her first striking away with PW7 Veera Thapar. These circumstances throws up an inference that probably PW7 Veera Thapar had also by that time not reached even the said platform by which time Sudershan Chathrath had fallen down on the platform. Her introduction at the said position and thereby planting her to be an eye witness of the incident seems to be more probable an inference arising from out of the facts & circumstances of the present case. Thus, reasonable doubts arises as to the veracity of the deposition of PW7 Veera Thapar.
Coming to the other eventuality viz that PW1 Geeta Malhotra was followed by PW7 Veera Thapar and thereafter by Sudershan Chathrath as stated to by PW7 Veera Thapar then the said situation is not only improbable but impossible and is even contrary to the position of the witnesses and that of deceased as shown in the site plan Ex.PW6/A. In that eventuality, it would have been impossible for accused Sonika Chhabra and Tanya Kohli to first pass through PW1 Geeta Malhotra followed by PW7-Veera Thapar and to thereafter give a push to Sudershan Chathrath down the stairs. Thus, the said eventuality is not at all possible.
The aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case thus clearly gives rise to a situation where PW1 Geeta Malhotra followed by Sudershan Chathrath had first reached the door of the flat of the accused persons. The other two brother and sister, namely, PW7 Veera Thapar and -:34:- PW2 Rakesh Kumar had in all eventuality not yet reached on the said turning of the stairs which directly led to the flat of the accused persons. However, it appears that after PW1 Geeta Malhotra knocked at the door of the flat then accused Kiran Kohli opened the door and upon finding PW1 Geeta Malhotra standing over there some quarrel started between them. In fact, this taking place of sudden quarrel between them is also the result of another circumstance which admittedly took place a few hours before at the flat of accused persons. The visit of the brother and sisters of Charanjeet Kohli was probably also on account of the said earlier circumstance which had taken place during the course of day. As per PCR Form Ex.PW12/A a quarrel had taken place at the flat of the accused persons between Charanjeet Kohli and Kiran Kohli at about 1pm on that day. Information about the same was given to the PCR at that time and consequently SI Raj Singh upon inquiry conveyed back the information to the Control Room by stating that it was a family quarrel between husband, wife and daughter. It appears that on account of the said earlier quarrel which had taken place few hours prior to the present incident in question, the brother and sisters of Charanjeet Kohli decided to visit him over there. Even if they had not come to the house of their brother on account of the said quarrel then also their co-incidental visit on that day within few hours of the said earlier incident must have given some suspicion in the mind of accused Kiran Kohli that the brother and -:35:- sisters of Charanjeet Kohli have come over there on account of the said earlier dispute.
Be that as it may be, exchange of hot words leading to some quarrel appears to have taken place at the door of the flat of the accused persons. Certainly no presumption can be drawn by the court merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises but, it appears from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses that accused Kiran Kohli was probably not inclined to allow entry to the brother and sisters of Charanjeet Kohli which they must be insisting upon. This inference is not far fetched and is clearly inferable if the entire situation in which the incident allegedly took place is visualized in as much as three sisters and one brother of Charanjeet Kohli decides to visit him in a two bedroom, DDA Flat situated on the second floor where estranged wife of Charanjeet Kohli is also residing in the second bedroom with her two daughters, who also are on enimical terms with Charanjeet Kohli. It further appears that on account of the hue and cry which must have taken place at the door of the flat the two daughters of accused Kiran Kohli must have also come at the door. The presence of Tanya Kohli at the time of incident at the door itself further gets fortified from the message given by her to PCR while conveying information about "Parivarik Jhagra" (family quarrel) at 1508 hours. The subsequent information given by PW2 Rakesh Kumar from mobile phone no.9811679996 which allegedly -:36:- belonged to PW1 Geeta Malhotra that "KOHLI KA MAKAN MERI BEHAN KA MURDER KAR DIYA" also seems to be a reflection of the attitude of the complainant party at the time of incident. It is quite strange as to how Charanjeet Kohli at that crucial moment i.e at 1510 hours itself when the incident had just taken place could gather that his sister has already died. If it was not so then, there was no reason for him to convey the information that murder of his sister has been committed. This again speaks volume about the conduct of other brothers and sisters of Sudershan Chathrath in not first caring to attend to their injured sister and to rather first convey the information about the incident to the police so that the accused persons could be taken to task. Once again the PCR form Ex.PW14/A vide which information was sent about the incident was sent to the Control Room upon verification and it mentions the version of the police officer who stated that "GAHRELOO JHAGRA MURDER KOHI NAHI, BEHAN KO DAKHA DEY DIYA JO INJURED HAI, AMBULANCE HOSPITAL LE JA".
Thus, it appears that in the course of the said quarrel when accused Kiran Kohli must have been accompanied by her two daughters and on the other hand, Charanjeet Kohli, who admittedly had come to the door of his flat upon hearing the hue and cries, some scuffle between the two groups must have taken place. However, from the overall facts & circumstances of the present case coupled with the information given by -:37:- Inspt. Kharak Singh to the Control Room stating that "BEHAN KO DHAKA DEY DIYA". It appears that during the course of said scuffle Sudershan Chathrath came to be pushed away by the accused persons and on account of which she fell down with her head hitting against the platform behind.
However, the more interesting and strange is the conduct of the parties subsequent to the incident. The incident allegedly took place at around 3pm or so as is evident from the information given to the PCR by different persons. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution witnesses that they had gone to the spot in a vehicle of PW1 Geeta Malhotra which was being driven by their driver. Thus, it is quite strange that if PW2 Rakesh Kumar Kohli was able to comprehend the seriousness of the situation in as much as he preferred to give the information to the PCR stating that his sister has been murdered then what prevented him and his other brother Charanjeet Kohli and two sisters, namely, PW1 Geeta Malhotra and PW7 Veera Thapar in first removing Sudershan Chathrath immediately to the nearest hospital for immediate medical attention. They could have immediately removed the said old lady in the vehicle in which they had come to the house of Charanjeet Kohli. The presence of driver all the more would have facilitated the immediate removal of Sudershan Chathrath to the nearest hospital. Strangely enough the brothers and sisters preferred to first call some doctor from -:38:- nearby and instead of removing Sudershan Chathrath in their own car preferred to go and call ambulance from a nearby temple. A perusal of the MLC prepared at Sunderlal Jain Hospital further shows that there is some overwriting on the time of arrival of the patient at the hospital. It appears that the time 4.45pm has been overwritten as 3.45pm. However, as the concerned doctor, who had prepared the MLC was not produced by the prosecution, being not available so no clarification in this regard could be sought from him but, if the alleged history as is mentioned in the MLC is seen then some doubts arises as to the cutting existing on the time of arrival as mentioned in the MLC. In the history, the doctor has further stated that the patient fell from stairs about one hour back. However, in the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A, it has been mentioned by Dr. Upender Kishore (PW5) in the brief history recorded by him as per the inquest papers that the patient was taken to Sunderlal Jain Hospital at 4.45pm on 27-2-2005. It thus becomes crystal clear that the said overwriting in the MLC as to the time of arrival of the patient at the hospital seems to have been made subsequently. Once again in the absence of the concerned doctor having been not examined, no responsibility can be fixed upon anyone at whose instance the said overwriting might have been made. However, in the overall facts & circumstances of the present case, the same seems to be an attempt on the part of the prosecution to wriggle out of the situation in which a delay of more than 1½ hours admittedly -:39:- took place in removing Sudershan Chathrath to the hospital from the spot after she fell down. This fact again raises certain important questions which though may now appear to be hypothetical in nature in as much as whether Sudershan Chathrath could have survived the said injuries sustained by her in the incident, if she had been provided immediate medical attention by her brothers and sisters by removing her to the nearest hospital in their own car available to them at that point itself or not. This wastage of crucial time in fetching an ambulance from a nearby temple clearly resulted in wastage of crucial time which probably was one of the reasons aggravating the deteriorating condition of Sudershan Chathrath on account of the injuries sustained by her in the incident.
At this stage, I may also state that though ld. defence counsel has tried to put forth certain suggestions to all the prosecution witnesses that Sudershan Chathrath was a patient of high blood pressure or was diabetic or had suffered a paralytic stroke about an year ago or so but, I failed to find any corroboration to the said contentions of learned defence counsel from the records at least as regards the paralytic stroke alleged to have been suffered by Sudershan Chathrath. Certainly, as Sudershan Chathrath was an old aged lady, aged about 66 years, so she must be having some or the other old age related problems and as is apparent from her treatment record her sugar levels were also on a higher side but, I do not find any such abnormality in the parameters of -:40:- Sudershan Chathrath as have been recorded by the doctors which could show that on account of the injuries sustained by her in the incident the deterioration in her condition accelerated. In fact, if we see this argument from the other point of view that if the accused persons were aware that Sudershan Chathrath had suffered a paralytic stroke or was suffering from various ailments as now claimed by them then they cannot escape from their liability of quarrelling with such a person, who was having so many diseases of serious nature and at such a place where she was likely to loose her balance.
However, I do not intend to enter into any further discussion qua this line of argument as in a criminal trial it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and the prosecution can not take benefit of the weaknesses of the defence. The said plea was probably taken by the accused persons while alleging that on account of her said ailments Sudershan Chathrath was unable to maintain her balance in the stairs and thus fell down. As I have already shown that this fact does not appear to be at all possible in the overall facts & circumstances of the case and thus it does not require any further discussion.
With the aforesaid background, I now come to the most important aspect of the matter as to whether the accused persons are liable for any of the offences qua the injuries sustained by Sudershan -:41:- Chathrath in the incident which finally led to her death or not. It is now clear that a quarrel did take place between the parties on the stairs just outside the door of the flat of the accused persons and during the course of physical scuffle Sudershan Chathrath came to be pushed down the stairs. However, merely on account of the fact that Sudershan Chathrath came to be pushed down the stairs which resulted in injuries to her and finally leading to her death, it cannot be concluded that the accused persons were having any intention to commit her murder. I have already discussed herein above that there was no reason for the accused persons to specifically pinpoint their anger towards Sudershan Chathrath so as to bring to an end the entire quarrel, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, for she was no where responsible for the on going matrimonial dispute between Charanjeet Kohli and accused Kiran Kohli. Thus, no such intention to commit the murder of Sudershan Chathrath can be attributed to the accused persons in the impugned incident.
Furthermore, no knowledge can also be imputed upon the accused persons that by that act they were likely to commit the death of Sudershan Chathrath. The intention of cause such bodily injury as were likely to cause death of Sudershan Chathrath is also not attributable to the accused persons in the overall facts & circumstances of the case.
Thus, in my considered opinion, the charge for the offence U/S -:42:- 302 IPC cannot hold ground against either of the three accused persons qua the death of Sudershan Chathrath. Similarly, I may also state that the accused persons can also be not held guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Once again no such intention or knowledge is attributable to them to cause such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death of Sudershan Chathrath. The incident also cannot be stated to have been committed under such circumstances that the act of the accused persons in all likelihood would have resulted in such injuries to Sudershan Chathrath as were sufficient or likely to cause her death. Thus, the accused persons in my considered opinion cannot be held guilty of the offence U/S 304/34 IPC also.
However, since a quarrel did take place between the two parties resulting in physical scuffle between them and during the course of which Sudershan Chathrath fell down in the stairs upon receiving a push which all the more appears to have been given with an intention to thwart their entry inside the flat by the accused persons, the responsibility of causing grievous injuries on the person of Sudershan Chathrath by the accused persons cannot be escaped away by them.
I thus in the overall facts & circumstances of the case while acquitting all the three accused persons, namely, KIRAN KOHLI, -:43:- SONIKA CHHABRA & TANYA KOHLI of the offence U/S 302/34 IPC or for the offence U/S 304/34 IPC, hold them guilty of the offence of voluntary causing grievous hurt upon the person of Sudershan Chathrath.
I thus hold them guilty of the offence U/S 325/34 IPC and convict them thereunder.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27-3-2008.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI -:44:- FIR NO.144/06 U/S 302/34 IPC.
PS KESHAV PURAM.
27-3-08 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present on bail with ld. Counsel Sh. BS Rana. Complainant in person with ld. Counsel Sh. Mukul Sharma.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 27-3-08 all accused persons, namely, Smt. Kiran Kohli, Smt. Sonika Chhabra and Ms. Tanya Kohli have been acquitted of the offence U/S 302/34 IPC or for the offence U/S 304/34 IPC and have been convicted of the offence U/S 325/34 IPC.
Case is now adjourned for Arguments on Sentence to 29-3-08.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 29-3-08 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All convict are present along with their ld. Counsel Sh. BS Rana. Complainant in person with ld. Counsel Sh. Mukul Sharma. Arguments on point of sentence heard at length.
Case is now adjourned for Order on Sentence to 31-3-08 at 2pm.
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI -:45:- FIR NO.144/06 U/S 302/34 IPC.
PS KESHAV PURAM.
31-3-08 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All convict are present in court along with counsel Sh. BS Rana. Complainant in person with ld. Counsel Sh. Mukul Sharma. Vide my separate detailed Order, Order on Sentence has been announced.
Documents of their sureties, if any be returned forthwith. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-3-2008.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI