Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Manoj Kumar on 25 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU; ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 195/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0677452007
State Vs. (1) Manoj Kumar
S/o Late Satya Narayan
R/o House No. 21,
Vishal Colony, Nangloi,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Satya Narayan
R/o House No. 21,
Vishal Colony, Nangloi,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Smt. Angoori
W/o Late Satya Narayan
R/o House No. 21,
Vishal Colony, Nangloi,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(4) Shalu Gupta
W/o Vinod Gupta
R/o House No. 21,
Vishal Colony, Nangloi,
Delhi
(Convicted)
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 1
FIR No.: 383/2007
Police Station: Nangloi
Under Sections: 498A/304B/302 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 19.11.2007
Date on which orders were reserved: 3.9.2012
Date on which judgment announced: 10.9.2012
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, between 2.4.2001 to 28.4.2007 at Bhuttonwali Wali Gali, Nangloi, Delhi the accused Manoj Kumar being the husband of Anita; Angoori Devi being the motherinlaw of Anita; Vinod brother in law (Devar) of Anita and Shalu being the sister in law (Devrani) in furtherance of their common intention subjected Anita to cruelty for demand of dowry. It has also been alleged that on 28.4.2007 the death of Smt. Anita had occurred otherwise than normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death Anita was subjected to cruelty and harassment by all the accused in connection with demand of dowry and all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Anita. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 28.4.2007 DD No. 65B was received in the Police Station Nangloi regarding the fact that Anita St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 2 W/o Manoj Kumar was got admitted in RML Hospital. Pursuant to the said information SI Raghuvir Singh reached RML Hospital and collected the MLC of Anita who was declared 'brought dead' by the doctors. One Kuldeep Singh Dalal the brother of the deceased met SI Raghuvir Singh who informed him that the marriage of his sister Anita was solemnized with Manoj Kumar in the year 2001. Since the death was causing within seven years of marriage, information was sent to SDM Punjabi Bagh and the dead body was got preserved at Mortuary.
On 29.4.2007 the parents of the deceased i.e. Amir Singh (Father), Satwanti Devi (Mother) and Kuldeep Singh Dalal (Brother) were called by the SDM who recorded their statements.
(3) The father of the deceased namely Amir Singh Dalal informed the SDM that the deceased Anita who was his youngest daughter, was married to Manoj Kumar on 2.4.2001 according to Hindu rites and customs and they had given dowry as per his capacity. According to Amir Singh Dalal, at that time accused Manoj was running a shop whereas his daughter Anita was working in RML Hospital as Staff Nurse and was earning Rs.15,000/ at that time and Rs.20,000/ at the time of her death. He further informed the SDM that after the marriage accused Manoj started consuming liquor and closed his shop on account of which the entire household affairs was running from the salary of her daughter Anita and Manoj started beating Anita on account of dowry demands and used to torture Anita. Amir Singh St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 3 Dalal alleged that the accused Manoj withdrew large amount from the GPF account of Anita and spent the same on his bad habits and all the family members of accused Manoj i.e. his mother Angoori Devi, his younger brother Vinod and the wife of his younger brother Shalu started beating to Anita on account of demand of dowry pursuant to which they (Amir Singh Dalal and his family members) visited the house of Anita on many occasions and made efforts to make the accused understand but the beatings to his daughter did not stop. According to Amir Singh Dalal, at last on 28.4.2001 all the accused committed murder of Anita.
(4) On the basis of the statement of Amir Singh Dalal, the present case was got registered. On 18.5.2007 the accused Manoj and Vinod were arrested, on 19.5.2007 the accused Angoori Devi was arrested and on 29.8.2007 the accused Shalu surrendered in the Police Station after which she was arrested. Pursuant to the arrest of accused Shalu, she got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Thapi with which all the accused inflicted injuries upon Anita. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the accused namely Manoj, Vinod, Angoori Devi and Shalu.
CHARGE:
(5) Charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code or in alternatively under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code were St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 4 settled against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as thirty two witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(7) PW2 Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dalal is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that he had five sisters and Anita was his third sister.
He has further deposed that on 02.04.2001 his sister Anita was married to accused Manoj according to Hindu Rites and Custom, and that his father had given sufficient dowry in the marriage and after the marriage, his sister went to her matrimonial home at Nangloi. He has further deposed that his sister's husband Manoj had three brothers and one sister. The eldest brother of accused Manoj namely Mr. Sajjan was living in Rohini with his family and that the Anita's matrimonial house was a twostorey building having a single room on second floor. He has further deposed that Manoj alongwith his sister Anita, his mother Angoori Devi and his younger brother Vinod along with his wife Shalu were staying on the first floor of the house as a joint family and Mr. Sushil elder brother of Mr. Manoj was staying on the ground floor of the same house with his family. According to him, immediately after her marriage, Anita came to know that Manoj was a hard degree St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 5 drunkard and his younger brother Vinod was a smack addict and nobody in the family was earning except his sister who was a Government Servant and was working as a Staff Nurse in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and was getting a handsome salary of Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ and was taking care of the household expenses. PW2 has further deposed that after few months of the marriage, Manoj was arrested by police from Timarpur Police Station in a case of attempt to murder and was sent to Tihar Jail. Rest of the family members in her inlaws' house started pressing his sister Anita to arrange for money to secure bail of Manoj and that her sister arranged money, hired an Advocate and arranged his bail which took several months. He has testified that under the pressure of her inlaws, Anita withdrew amount of Rs.45,000/ from her GPF Account in March, 2001, Rs.1,00,000/ in October, 2001 and Rs.75,000/ in May, 2002 which money was wasted by Manoj and Vinod in their drinking habit and smack addiction.
(8) This witness Kuldeep Singh Dalal has further deposed that thereafter the entire family consisting of Manoj, Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu started torturing his sister for demand of dowry and his sister was terribly upset so she attempted to commit suicide qua which he was informed and when he went to her house he came to know that she (deceased) had slit her both wrists. According to the witness, he along with accused Manoj removed her to Agrasen Hospital and after this St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 6 incident, all the four persons promised not to torture his sister due to which reason he had not informed the police but despite the same all the four accused persons continued beating and torturing his sister for money and hence his sister had to take loan from Cooperative society to fulfill their money demand. PW2 has further deposed that whenever his sister used to visit their house, his mother used to give her Rs. 10,000/, Rs.15,000/ to fulfill the demand of the four accused persons. The witness has alleged that in the month of November, 2005 all the four accused persons gave severe beatings to his sister and broke her leg and when he along with his father went to the house of the accused to know about the wellbeing of his sister the accused Manoj and accused Angoori Devi demanded Rs.20,000/ from them. He has testified that after twothree days, PW2 along with his father went to give Rs.20,000/ as demanded and there they saw that all the four accused persons were beating his sister on which they immediately intervened and his father handed over a sum of Rs.20,000/ to Angoori Devi. The witness has also deposed that after twothree days i.e. 10.11.2005 his sister telephoned him weeping and said she was being badly beaten by the accused persons and she begged him to save her after which when he reached the house of accused persons, he saw accused Manoj hitting his sister with his fist at the point of fracture which became unbearable for him on which he St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 7 brought his sister back to his house. After recovering his sister again went back to her matrimonial home. He has also deposed that after some days, accused persons again started torturing his sister so she called the PCR and police came but the accused persons apologized and the matter was settled. He has testified that one day while his sister was being beaten and she was crying, on hearing her voice elder brother of Manoj namely Sushil came upstairs to intervene and he was informed by his sister about the incident. According to the witness, on 27.02.2007 his sister again called up the PCR as accused persons were torturing her and demanding money from her. PW2 has further deposed that his sister came to their house on the occasion of Holi in the year 2007 and she told him and his family members that the accused persons have raised their money demand manifolds and also told them that all the accused persons threatened to kill her since after her death the entire Provident Fund would be theirs as accused Manoj is the nominee and in the event of her death, accused Manoj, who was a Pharmacist, would get the job in place of her (deceased) after which the accused Manoj would marry one girl with whom he used to talk in the night for hours and he would get huge dowry in the said marriage. According to the witness, his sister (deceased Anita) also informed his sister Vandana on telephone about the atrocities committed upon her. He has also St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 8 deposed that after 21.04.2007, they had not received any phone call from his sister Anita and on 28.04.2007 he received the phone from eldest brother of Manoj namely Sajjan Kumar informing him that his sister Anita was seriously ill and she had been removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and he also asked to reach there immediately. He has also deposed that he informed his sister Vandana after which he along with his mother, sister Vandana, her husband and his wife reached the Hospital and when they were passing through the emergency corridor of the said hospital, he saw accused Manoj standing in a shaded place to avoid detection and the other accused persons were sitting at the entrance of casualty entrance. The witness has testified that the doctor present on the emergency duty told them that their sister was brought dead to the hospital on which he requested the doctor to have a glimpse of the dead body and thereafter they observed and doctor also told them that his sister Anita was severely beaten before her death. He has also deposed that he went to the police post to lodge the complaint and by that time all the accused persons had run away. He has proved having given a written complaint in Nangloi Police Station on 29.04.2007 which is Ex.PW2/A. The witness Kuldeep Singh has further deposed that Investigating Officer from Police Station Nangloi asked him to come along with his parents on 29.04.2007 at about 9:00 AM as they had to go before the SDM. According to him, on 29.04.2007 at about 8:30 PM he along with his St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 9 father namely Amir Singh Dalal and his mother Smt. Satwanti Devi reached Police Station Nangloi after which the Investigating Officer took them to the SDM of the concerned area where the SDM firstly called his father in his cabin and recorded his statement and thereafter his mother Smt. Satwanti Devi was called and her statement was recorded. He has also deposed that the SDM instructed the police to go to RML Hospital to collect the dead body and also instructed them to remove the dead body to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for postmortem. He has testified that after postmortem dead body was handed over to them and that the SDM also recorded identification of dead body vide Ex.PW2/B and the dead body was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital Mortuary and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW2/C and the dead body was cremated by them in Bahadurgarh but no relatives of the accused came in the cremation ground.
(9) According to PW2 on 08.05.2007 he received a telephonic call from accused Manoj on his mobile disclosing that they had killed his sister for lust of money but the accused asked him (witness) to save his mother. He has also deposed that accused Manoj further said if he would save his mother then he would surrender and asked him to meet him at 5:00 PM at ISBT which information he (witness PW2) gave to the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that he along with the Investigating Officer reached at ISBT but accused did not come St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 10 there after which the telephone call was traced and it was from Raiwala, Distt. Dehradun, Uttaranchal. The witness has also deposed that he reached Raiwala where accused Manoj came at a liquor shop to buy liquor and he apprehended the accused and took him to nearby Police Station where he was interrogated by the concerned police officials and he disclosed that his mother and brother were hiding in a Dharmashala in Haridwar. The witness has testified that when accused Manoj was apprehended by him, one pocket diary fell from pocket of his shirt and the same was with him. He has proved that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (10) In his cross examination, the witness PW2 has stated that his first statement was recorded during the night intervening 28/29.03.2007 at about 3:00 AM in Police Station Nangloi and his next statement was recorded in the month of July by the police. He has denied that his second statement was recorded on 02.05.2007. The witness has further stated that his sister was married to Dilbagh Singh for the first time in the year 1994 at Nangloi and the second time his sister was married to accused Manoj Kumar on 02.04.2001. He has denied the suggestion that the second marriage of his sister was solemnized with Raj Kumar Khatri of some village in Jhajjar or that the said marriage was dissolved through Panchayat and has voluntarily added that the second marriage of his sister took place with accused Manoj. He has also denied the suggestion that his sister was suffering St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 11 from tuberculosis (TB) since 1999 or that his sister was treated in Apollo Hospital for TB from 11.08.99 to 18.08.1999 and has voluntarily added that investigations were done but TB was ruled out, which documents of Apollo Hospital are collectively Ex.PW2/D1 to Ex.PW2/D13. He has admitted that investigations were done of his sister in Banwari Lal Imaging Center on 28.01.2000 vide Ex.PW2/D14 and that his sister was suffering from nonhealing ulcer in her right leg. The witness has denied that his sister was treated for ulcer by Dr. Kochar of Ganga Ram Hospital but on seeing medical prescription Ex.PW2/D15 the witness admitted that his sister was treated for un healing ulcer by Dr. Kochar. It was further admitted by PW2 that his sister was treated for gangrene from Mission Hospital, Bahadurgarh prior to the marriage vide document Ex.PW2/D16 and that his sister had undergone certain tests from Lal Path Lab, Hanuman Road, New Delhi till 30.08.99 which are Ex.PW2/D17 and Ex.PW2/D18. He has stated that he has no knowledge if his sister had undergone tests from Lal Path Lab after marriage and has admitted that his sister had undergone a CT Scan vide Ex.PW2/D19 in Ganesh Diagnostic Imaging Center and has also admitted that his sister had taken treatment for infertility from Dr. Sandeep Talwar of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital vide Ex.PW2/D20 and report of related investigation is Ex.PW2/D21. The witness has also admitted that his sister was also St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 12 treated from Krishna Surgical and Maternity Home, Nangloi by Dr. Ajay Gupta and Dr. Aaradhna Gupta vide document dated 22.06.2002 which is Ex.PW2/D22. He has also admitted that she took treatment from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from Dr. Abha Majumdar and was admitted in Hospital on 29.10.2002 and was discharged on very same day vide document Ex.PW2/D23. The witness has further admitted that his sister was getting treatment from Janta Diagnostic Center, Nangloi vide document Ex.PW2/D24 and that his sister undertook tests from Lal Path Lab vide document Ex.PW2/D25 and Ex.PW2/D26. He has also admitted that his sister was treated in Ram Monohar Lohia Hospital on 20.03.2003 vide document Ex.PW2/D27 but he again said that he could not say if Ex.PW2/D27 pertain to his sister as her CGHS Card Number is not mentioned on it.
(11) In his further cross examination, the witness has deposed that the name of his sisters were Vinod, Shashi Prabha, Anita, Sangeeta and Vandana and that his sisters Vinod and Shashi Prabha had expired when they were 30/35 years of age who both had died natural death after their marriage. The witness has further deposed that they both had children from their respective marriages and that Shashi Prabha husband had remarried and that he was on visiting terms with the children of his above two sisters. PW2 has further deposed that he had gone along with ten to fifteen relatives to see Dilbagh Singh for St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 13 marriage with his sister Anita and that he had visited the matrimonial home of Anita and Dilbagh Singh numerous times and once or twice he had met accused Manoj in their house and that he had not talked with Manoj at that time. He has also admitted that Dilbagh and Anita had told him that accused Manoj was a very good friend of theirs and they had been visiting his house. According to him, he had met Sajjan who was elder brother of Manoj at the time of marriage of his sister Anita with Manoj and that he met Sajjan for the last time on 28.04.2007 in RML Hospital. He has stated that he was on talking terms with Sajjan and that he also know Sushil who was the elder brother of accused Manoj whom he met number of times. The witness has also deposed that Sushil along with his family was in the same house in which accused Manoj was and that he had cordial relations with Sushil. According to PW2 Sushil never visited his house and that in the year 20012002 accused Manoj and Anita had visited his house twice. He has denied the suggestion that Manoj and Anita had never visited his house after 2002. He has further stated that he had gone to meet Anita in RML Hospital number of times and even during the course of her treatment when she was admitted there but he is unable to tell the specific date, month or year but states that it was between 2003 and 2006. The witness has also deposed that he had never gone to the house of his sisters Vandana and Sangeeta on the occasion of Rakhi and has voluntarily stated that his sisters come and tied Rakhi to him. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 14 He has testified that they did not celebrate Bhaiya Duj and that he had never gone to the house of Anita on the occasion of Rakhi and neither he nor his wife had taken Anita to any doctor for her infertility treatment. He has deposed that Anita had received injury with a glass on her leg because of which she developed gangrene infection which was before her marriage with accused Manoj, however, he did not remember the exact date. According to him, Anita was taken to Sanjivani Hospital/ Mission in Bahadurgarh for the first time for her treatment for the injury she received with glass and that second time she was shown to some doctor after the marriage with accused Manoj so he could not tell the name of the doctor or hospital. He has denied that Anita had attempted suicide by cutting veins of her leg which subsequently developed into gangrene or that she refused treatment for the gangrene. The witness has also deposed that his sister Anita was a Staff Nurse and was posted in various departments namely Pediatrics, Female Psychiatry, Female Department and Emergency. According to the witness, Psychiatric Department was situated across the road and Anita remained in Psychiatric Department during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and was having shift duties as a Staff Nurse. He has further stated that Anita was not having a mobile phone. The witness has testified that she remained on night shifts in the Psychiatric Department and that she was not posted in deaddiction Centre of RML Hospital and was never treated in the Deaddition Centre. He has denied the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 15 suggestion that Anita was treated in Deaddiction Centre or that he had gone to meet her in the Deaddiction Centre. He has admitted that a case under Section 309 IPC bearing FIR No. 273/02 was registered against Anita but Anita was never arrested. According to the witness, he and Manoj used to accompany Anita in Court in her abovesaid case and he had appointed Sh. Shailender Singh Dahiya Advocate in the said case whom he knew for the last twenty years. He has also deposed that Anita was never admitted to bail as she was never arrested and he remained in constant touch with Shri Shailender Singh Dahiya Advocate. He has denied the suggestion that Anita was arrested and accused Angoori Devi stood surety for her. He has also stated that Anita had not informed him that an intimation had been sent by the police to the Superintendent, RML Hospital regarding her arrest. The witness has denied the suggestion that all the accused did not use to harass his sister Anita for demand of dowry or that accused persons had never demanded any dowry or that his sister had attempted suicide as she was drug addict and unable to bear a child or that she was suffering from untreatable illness. The witness has further stated that he is not aware if Anita was admitted to Agrasen Hospital prior to her marriage with accused Manoj. He has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not telling that Anita was admitted in Agrasen Hospital as he had stated in the medical record of Agarsen Hospital that Anita had attempted suicide or that he had got Anita admitted in Agrasen hospital St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 16 on 22.03.2000. He has also denied that he had got Anita discharged from Agrasen Hospital on 29.03.2000 prior to marriage of Anita with Manoj. However, he is not aware if Anita was again admitted in Agrasen Hospital on 16.05.2000 and was discharged on 20.05.200. The witness has deposed that he had gone to meet Anita in Agrasen Hospital when she was admitted there prior to her marriage with Manoj. The witness has denied that Anita never obtained any loan from Cooperative society to fulfill the demands of accused persons or that his mother never paid Rs.10,000/ or Rs.15,000/ to Anita whenever she visited their house to fulfill the demand of accused persons. He has also denied that Anita used to take money from her mother to meet her own requirement of drugs. The witness has stated that his sister Anita had remained on leave for ten days as her leg was plastered and she had also informed her office and also told him about the same. He has denied that no such information was given by Anita to her office or that he and his father had not gone to the house of accused persons and accused Angoori Devi never demanded Rs.20,000/ from them. The witness has further deposed that on that day on which Agnoori Devi had demanded Rs.20,000/ from him and his father, they had come from their house and normally they did not keep Rs.15,000/ or Rs. 20,000/ in their pockets all the time. He has also denied that after two three days i.e. on 10.11.2005 his sister had not telephoned to him weeping that she was being badly beaten by accused persons or that she St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 17 begged him to save her. The witness has voluntarily added that the telephonic call of 10.11.2005 was actually not made by Anita but call was made by elder brother of accused Manoj namely Sajjan so he brought Anita home. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not see accused Manoj hitting his sister with his fist at the point of fracture or that there was no fracture on the leg of his sister Anita. According to him, his sister with her broken leg had stayed with him in the year 2005 for about two months and he had got her treated by Dr. Kahsmere Singh Dalal, who was having his clinic at Main Rohtak Road, on the junction of Jhajjar at Bahadurgarh, and that Dr. Kashmere Singh Dalal was an Orthopedic. According to the witness, he has no document to show that treatment nor he handed over any document to the police after death of Anita with regard to her treatment at Dr. Kashmere Singh Dalal's clinic.
(12) The witness Kudeep Singh Dalal (PW2) has further deposed that his sister was not suffering from seizures but has admitted that his sister was suffering from gangrene prior to marriage to accused Manoj. He has further stated that it was not in his knowledge that his sister Anita remained admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital from 22.03.2000 to 29.03.2000. He has denied that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 02.05.2007 and has voluntarily added that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the intervening night of 28/29.04.2007. The witness has denied that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 18 accused Shalu and Vinod were having separate Kitchen or that they were living separately. He has also denied that accused Shalu and Vinod never interfered in the married life of his sister Anita or that Shalu and Vinod never demanded any money from his sister Anita or that they never harassed her. The witness has admitted that a case cause Section 309 IPC was registered against his sister Anita and she was facing trial in the said case. According to him, he had not mentioned exact dates in Ex.PW2/A regarding the demands and harassment. He has stated that his second statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C in the month of July, 2007. He has denied that since there was no demand of dowry and harassment, so he had not given the details in his complaint Ex.PW2/A or that the accused persons had not broken the leg of his sister Anita. The witness has further stated that he had not lodged any complaint regarding that incident and has denied that he had not lodged any complaint since her leg was not broken. The witness has further deposed that on 06.11.2005 he along with his father had gone to the house of his sister and at that time all the four accused persons were beating his sister and when his father paid a sum of Rs.20,000/ to accused Angoori Devi which were demanded by them on their previous visit, only then the beatings were stopped. He has denied the suggestion that they never went to the house of his sister on 06.11.2005 or that no sum of Rs.20,000/ was handed over to Angoori Devi or that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 19 he had concocted a story. He has further denied that the accused Manoj had not telephoned him on 08.05.2007 or that they had not admitted on telephone that they had murdered Anita. According to PW2 he had not requested the Investigating Officer to accompany him to Haridwar. He has denied the suggestion that accused were not arrested from Raiwala or from Haridwar or that accused Vinod was having a separate spare parts shop which was lying closed. PW2 has further stated that his sister Anita had taken accused Vinod to De addiction camp twice but he had no document to show. He has denied that accused Vinod was not admitted in deaddition camp or that his sister Anita died a natural death. The witness has further denied the suggestion that Anita suffered seizures on 27.04.2007 in the evening and discharged from RML Hospital on 28.04.2007 at about 9:30 AM. He has testified that he had seen the photocopy of OPD registration card of Anita bearing No.7368/07 dated 28.04.2007 and states it was a forged document. The witness has denied that on 28.04.2007 after her discharge from the hospital, Anita was so sick that there was no question of killing her or that in the evening of 28.04.2007 Anita again had a seizures and fell from the bed or that thereafter she was immediately removed to RML Hospital. He has also denied that accused Vinod and Shalu had shifted to a separate rental residence three months prior to the date of incident or that they were living on rent in the house of Vir Singh. The witness has further admitted that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 20 his sister had made his son and daughter namely Tapan and Sakshi her second nominees. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated all the accused persons so as to get the benefits of nomination made by his sister. According to PW2 Kuldeep Singh he was in his own business for the last about 24 years but he is unable to tell his income details from the year 1990 to 1997 as he does not remember whether he was an income tax payee. He has deposed that his income from 1997 to 2001 was approximately Rs.34 lakhs per annum and his average income between the period 2001 to 2007 was approximately Rs.45 lacs per annum. He has denied the suggestion that in the year 1997, he filed return for Rs.27,000/; in the year 1998 for Rs.47,000/ and in the year 2001 he filed return for Rs.1,15,000/. The witness testified that the name of his current CA was Sh. Akhil Mittal for the last three years and prior to that his CA was Mr. Surinder Bansal. According to him, he got married in the year 1989. He has deposed that he had not thought of getting Anita treated from Psychiatrist after she had attempted to commit suicide as she was living with the accused persons and he never advised Anita to get herself psychologically treated. He does not remember the expenses incurred by him in the marriage of his five sisters and states that his four sisters got married after 1990. The witness has further testified that neither he nor his father visited the house of accused Manoj prior to the marriage with his sister Anita. According to the witness, both Anita and Manoj St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 21 had agreed for the marriage due to which reason they had married her despite the fact that they were not happy with the marriage but on the insistence of Anita they agreed for the same. He does not remember who had fixed the date of marriage but states that he and his family had not gone to the house of accused persons to formally invite them for the marriage and other ceremonies. The witness has testified that Milni ceremony was not performed at the time of marriage at the gate of their house nor any tent was erected and there were only 2530 persons in the marriage from both sides. He has also stated that they had not booked any Halwai and the food was prepared by their family members at their house. According to the witness, accused persons had brought wari articles with them and that the marriage was performed without any pomp and show. He has admitted that accused Manoj was a Bachelor before marriage with Anita who was a widow but he is unable to tell if she was elder to accused Manoj. The witness has denied the suggestion that his sister was married with Raj Kumar of Jhajjar who was still working in RML Hospital or that they had forced Anita to marry Raj Kumar of Jhajjar that was why she attempted suicide. He has testified that his father retired in the year 1995 from DTC as a Senior Clerk and his mother retired as a Head Mistress in the year 1998. According to the witness, he never visited the house of Sajjan elder brother of accused Manoj and he never visited any relative of accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that Anita had not St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 22 complained against accused persons about any demand or torture hence there was no occasion for him to complain to them or that accused Angoori Devi was living separately in the house of Vir Singh along with accused Vinod. The witness has voluntarily added that accused Vinod had taken the house on rent of Vir Singh simply for showing but he was living in the same house along with his family and mother along with accused Manoj and Anita. The witness has also deposed that his mother had not seen the house of Vir Singh. He has denied the suggestion that the house of Vir Singh was a two room set and it was well furnished. He is not aware if accused Angoori Devi vacated the house after she was released on bail. He has denied the suggestion that accused Angoori Devi vacated the house as she was unable to pay the rent. According to PW2, there was a tenant on the ground floor of the house of accused Manoj and Anita but he had not met the said tenant after the death of Anita. He has testified that at the time of Anita there were many tenants in that house but he had not contacted them. The witness has also deposed that he had visited the house of accused Manoj after a week or ten days of the death of his sister Anita when he met one neighbour of accused Manoj but he did not know his name. The witness was questioned whether he had ever told the name of tenants who were living in the house of accused Manoj and Anita to the Investigating Officer to which he replied that he had not told the Investigating Officer about the tenants in the house of his sister Anita. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 23 He has deposed that the previous Investigating Officer of this case Inspector R.S. Malik was in the collusion with the accused persons and he (witness) had also lodged a complaint Ex.PX against him (inspector R.S. Malik) with the Commissioner of Police. He has denied the suggestion that he had made the complaint against the Investigating Officer as he was investigating the case according to the pattern of investigation, however, he wanted the Investigating Officer to investigate the case as per his directions. He has also denied the suggestion that he succeeded in getting the Investigating Officer transferred by making a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and getting the Investigating Officer of his own choice. The witness has also denied that the accused Manoj was not a drunkard or that she had never told him that accused Manoj was a drunkard as she was familiar with accused Manoj prior to the marriage. He has admitted that accused Manoj was a Pharmacist but has denied that accused Manoj was having a Chemist Shop and has voluntarily added that he was having a mechanic shop. He is not aware if accused Manoj was having a licence to run a chemist shop. The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused was having a licence to run a chemist shop. The witness has further stated that Anita used to tell him that she was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/ to Rs.20,000/. According to the witness, he used to supply the grocery articles, gas cylinder once or twice and he had supplied wheat to the accused persons for initial two/ St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 24 three years. He has further stated that Anita had told him that accused Manoj was arrested by Timarpur Police in an attempt to murder case and he had appointed Shri Shailender Dahiya, Advocate for accused Manoj in that case and that Mr. Shailender Dahiya Advocate had got accused Manoj bailed out in that case and as far as he remembered accused Manoj remained in Jail for about 67 months. According to the witness, Anita remained in her matrimonial home during that period. He has denied the suggestion that since Anita had no fear from accused persons so she remained in her matrimonial home during the period accused Manoj was in jail or that Anita had nothing to fear from accused Manoj so he arranged an Advocate for him and has voluntarily added that it was initial months of the marriage. The witness has testified that he is not aware when accused Manoj was acquitted in that case and states that Anita used to pay fee to Shri Shailender Dahiya, Advocate from her salary. PW2 has also deposed that accused Angoori Devi is a cancer patient and was operated upon and that Angoori Devi was admitted in the hospital after the marriage of Anita with Manoj. He has admitted that Manoj met with an accident after the marriage when he remained admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital for three to four. The witness has denied the suggestion under the pressure of her in laws, Anita had not withdrawn amount of Rs.45,000/, Rs.75,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ which was wasted by accused Manoj and Vinod in drinking and drugs. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 25 above said amount was spent on the treatment of Angoori Devi, Anita and Manoj. According to him, his sister Vandana got married on 7th November 2000. He has denied the suggestion that Anita had withdrawn the money from her account before and after the marriage of Vandana for expenses or that Anita had withdrawn Rs.45,000/ prior to her marriage to meet the marriage expenses of Vandana. He is not aware if Anita at the time of withdrawal of Rs.45,000/ from her GPF Account had mentioned that the said amount is required by her for the expenses of the marriage of her sister Vandana. The witness has further testified that his another sister namely Sangeeta married to Ashok, younger brother of Dilbagh (deceased husband of Anita) after the death of Dilbagh. He has admitted that his sister Sangeeta was blessed with two children. He is not aware whether accused Manoj and Ashok husband of his sister Sangeeta passed out Pharmacy Diploma from the same College and states that Ashok used to run a chemist shop. The witness has denied the suggestion that accused Manoj used to visit the house of Ashok. He has admitted that his deceased sister had no child either from first marriage with Dilbagh Singh and second marriage with accused Manoj or that Anita wanted to adopt child of his sister Sangeeta who was blessed with twins but later on one child expired due to which reason Anita was under depression as she was not having any child and started taking drugs for depression. According to PW2 Kuldeep Singh, there was a distance of 1 1½ KM between the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 26 houses of deceased Dilbagh Singh and accused Manoj and he had conversation with Sangeeta and Ashok regarding death of deceased Anita. He has admitted that when he had reached the Hospital for the first time he met Mr. Sajjan, brother of accused Manoj and did not converse with him. The witness has denied the suggestion that he had a conversation with Mr. Sajjan, brother of accused Manoj who told him that they received his call at a marriage of his cousin Neetu at Deepali Chowk along with Angoori Devi, Shalu and Vinod or that they all reached at Hospital straight from Deepali Chowk. He is not aware whether the Investigating Officer marked presence of himself, his mother and father when they had reached the police station while going for statement to be recorded by SDM. According to him, he gave his statement to the Investigating Officer on the intervening night of 28/29.4.2007 at 3:00 AM in the morning. The witness has stated that he did not give statement to Investigating Officer on 02.05.2007. He has denied that before giving statement to the SDM, he along with his parents discussed regarding the death of deceased. He has testified that his parents did not tell him about their statements made to the SDM and that his first statement on intervening night of 28/29042007 at 3:00 AM was recorded by SI Raghubir Singh Dhaiya and his second statement was recorded in the month of July, 2007 but he does not remember the date. According to the witness, the police official did not write any document at the time of arrest of accused Manoj at St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 27 Raiwala, Uttaranchal and the police of Haridwar did not prepare any document regarding arrest of coaccused Angoori Devi and Vinod at Haridwar. He has further deposed that immediately after arrest of accused Manoj, Uttaranchal police started for Dharamshala at Haridwar but he was not accompanying the police. According to the witness, the Uttaranchal Police did not take the accused Angoori Devi and Vinod in the presence of any of his relative at Dharamshala, Haridwar and accused Manoj himself identified accused Angoori Devi and Vinod after which all the three accused persons were kept in Raiwala Police Station after their arrest. The witness also deposed testified that he telephoned the Investigating Officer about the arrest of all the three accused persons while he was at Raiwala Police Station. He has also deposed that he was not having any Court order or direction from the Police for arresting accused Manoj and he had shown only the photocopy of FIR to the police official at Uttaranchal. The witness has further testified that on the instructions of Investigating Officer of Delhi Police the Uttaranchal Police official did not prepare any document regarding arrest of accused persons. According to him, the accused persons after arrest kept in the lockup of police station Uttaranchal of around six to seven hours and the SI Raghubir Singh Dahiya did not take the accused persons from Police Station Raiwala to any Magistrate. He has deposed that the accused were brought to Delhi by SI Raghubir Singh Dahiya along with were twothree more police St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 28 officers. He has denied that the accused persons Manoj, Angoori Devi and Vinod were not arrested at Raiwala, Haridwar or that they surrendered before the police official at Nangloi on 18.05.2007. The witness has further stated that when his first statement was being recorded he was under the shock as his sister was murdered so whatever was in his mind he stated to police officer. He is not aware as to who was the surety for Anita in the FIR No.273/02 PS Nangloi under Section 309 IPC but states that Sh. Shailender Singh Dahiya was the Advocate of Anita in the said case. He has denied the suggestion that no dowry demand was made by accused Manoj and Angoori Devi or that his deceased sister was having suicidal tendency as she was not blessed with any child. The witness has also denied that his sister Anita was addicted to drugs and whenever she was not having drugs she used to attempt suicide or that accused persons were present in the Hospital on 28.04.2007 at the time of admission of deceased Anita in the hospital or that the accused persons did not flee. The witness has testified that he stated in his examinationinchief as he heard SDM giving direction to police official to take the dead body from RML to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, however, he had not seen any written instruction given by the SDM in that regard. He has denied that the SDM did not give any oral instructions or that he has deposed falsely. (13) PW3 Smt. Satwanti Devi is the mother of deceased Anita. She deposed that her daughter Neeta (should be Anita) was married to St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 29 accused Manoj on 02.04.2001 according to Hindu rites and customs and that she and her husband had given sufficient dowry in the marriage. According to the witness, after the marriage her daughter went to her matrimonial home i.e. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. She has further deposed that her daughter Anita used to work as a staff nurse in RML Hospital and was drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/ per month whereas Manoj used to run a shop of scooter spare parts and after one month of the marriage, accused closed his shop and started consuming liquor. The witness has further deposed that younger brother of Manoj namely Vinod along with his wife Shalu and children who used to live with Manoj was a drug addict and the mother of accused Manoj also used to reside with them. She has testified that Vinod was jobless and the entire expenses of the family were borne by her daughter and in order to meet their expenses all the accused persons used to beat her daughter in order to extract money from her. PW3 has further testified that her daughter had told her that she had given a sum of Rs.45,000/ to accused Manoj prior to date of marriage and that all the accused persons were demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her on which she (Anita) had taken loan from her GPF and gave Rs. 1 lakh to Manoj and his mother and further that after some days all the accused persons demanded Rs.75,000/ from her daughter and her daughter again took loan from her GPF and gave St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 30 Rs.75,000/ to Manoj and other accused persons. She has alleged that whenever her daughter refused to give the money all the accused persons used to beat her. According to the witness, accused Manoj along with Bishan had attempted to commit murder of somebody due to which reason they were sent to Jail and accused persons again started torturing her daughter for money as her salary had drastically reduced because of deduction of loan so he had given his daughter Rs.15,000/ and Rs.20,000/ fourfive times but still all the accused persons used to beat her daughter for money. The witness has further deposed that being fed up due to harassment her daughter tried to commit suicide by cutting her wrist after which the accused persons begged pardon so they had not taken any action against them. The witness has stated that her daughter then took a loan from Cooperative Society from the hospital five times and in total her daughter took loan of Rs.60,000/ from the society but still harassment on account of money continued. She has testified that on 02.11.2005 she received a call from her daughter that the accused persons were severely beating her and had broken her leg and asked her (witness) to come immediately on which her husband and son went to the house of the accused persons where they came to know that the accused persons were demanding Rs.20,000/ from Anita. The witness has deposed that after twothree days, her son and her St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 31 husband went to the house of accused persons and gave a sum of Rs. 20,000./ to accused Angoori Devi and made all the accused persons understand. She has testified that on 10.11.2005 she received a call from the elder brother of accused Manoj who lived in Rohini who asked her to come and save Anita as the accused persons were beating Anita on which her son asked the elder brother of accused that he wanted to talk his sister Anita and thereafter Anita had told her son that accused persons were beating her and asked him to come and save her. Smt. Satwanti Devi (PW3) has further testified that Anita also told that accused Manoj was beating her on her leg where she had already received injury. According to the witness, her son and husband went to the house of accused persons and brought Anita back after which Anita remained with her for about two to three months and after her plaster was removed she again went back to her matrimonial home but the accused persons again started beating her for money. She has also deposed that her daughter called PCR once or twice but no action was taken against the accused persons. She has testified that Manoj told her daughter that one day he would kill her and withdraw all her GPF amount and also take job in her place. The witness has further deposed that she called her daughter on the occasion of Holi of the year 2007 when St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 32 she narrated all these facts to her and after two days she went back to her matrimonial home but again accused persons kept on demanding money from her. She has also deposed that on 21.04.2007 he received a call from her daughter who informed her that accused persons were demanding Rs.2 lakhs from her and her daughter again made a call from STD Booth on that day and narrated about her beatings. PW3 Smt. Satwanti Devi has further testified that on 28.04.2007 at about 09:45 PM her son received a call from the elder brother of accused Manoj who asked them to reach RML Hospital as Anita was serious on which she along with her son, daughterinlaw immediately rushed to RML Hospital and they also informed Vandana to reach RML Hospital as Anita was serious. The witness has deposed that she came to know from her son that on seeing them all the accused persons ran away from the hospital and that Anita was brought dead in the hospital. She has proved that her statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the SDM on 29.04.2007 and after ten to twelve days her statement was again recorded by the police.
(14) In her cross examination, the witness has deposed that first marriage of her daughter Anita was performed on 15.02.1994 at Nangloi and the marriage function of her daughter was performed at Nehru Park, Bahadurgarh and about 125 persons were present in the marriage and the dowry articles were given in the first marriage of her St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 33 daughter. According to the witness, her husband and her son had done the expenses and hence she was not aware about the expenses but states that the marriage was performed in a normal way. She has further deposed that she had three daughters namely Anita (deceased), Sangeeta and Vandana and the marriage of Vandana was performed in November 2000 and Sangeeta was married two years after the marriage of Anita. She has admitted that she had retired as a Head Mistress. According to the witness, Sangeeta was married from the same park from where Anita was married and that Vandana was married from the park of Sector6, Bahadurgarh. She is unable to tell the expenses incurred in the marriage of Vandana and Sangeeta and states that both the marriages were ordinary marriages. The witness has testified that she had one son namely Kuldeep who was married in the year 1990 and her daughterinlaw had not brought a single dowry item and no 'wari' articles were given by them to wife of Kuldeep. She has further deposed that the second marriage of Anita took place on 02.04.2001 with accused Manoj. The witness has denied that the second marriage of her daughter Anita was held with Raj Kumar Khatri at Jhajjar. According to her, the marriage of Anita with accused Manoj was performed at their house at H.No. 1408, Sector6, Bahadurgarh which is built in an area of 500 sq. meters. He has admitted that the said house is rented accommodation and that the marriage tent was put up in the house itself. She has deposed that there were about 2530 persons in St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 34 all in the marriage from both sides. She has denied the suggestion that her son Kuldeep had not attended the second marriage of Anita. She has admitted that the marriage was performed with the consent of accused Manoj and Anita and that the marriage was performed on the asking of Anita since Anita and Manoj were well known to each other before the marriage. According to her, she had not met accused Manoj prior to the marriage but her husband had met accused Manoj once before the marriage and none of her other family members except her son Kuldeep met accused Manoj before marriage. She has stated that the alliance was not acceptable to them but since Anita was insisting for the marriage they agreed. The witness has voluntary added that the accused Manoj was unemployed and was a drunker. She has denied the suggestion that at the time of marriage (Manoj) was having a Chemist Shop and has voluntarily deposed that he was having a scooter repair shop. PW3 has also deposed that she was not aware if accused Manoj was having a chemist shop at any point of time. She has denied the suggestion that she had complete knowledge of the profession of accused Manoj or that accused Manoj was a qualified Pharmacist and was running his own chemist shop. She has admitted that accused Manoj used to visit the first matrimonial house of Anita and has voluntary added that Manoj was friend of first husband of Anita. The witness has also admitted that at the time of marriage accused Manoj was a Bachelor and Anita was a Widow. She has testified that Anita St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 35 and her first husband Dilbagh remained together for about four years and that Anita had no child from the first marriage. She has admitted that there was no issue from the second marriage of Anita and has voluntary added that accused wanted to take the job of Anita after killing her. PW3 Smt. Satwanti Devi has also admitted that Anita used to visit her first husband's house in Nangloi even after the death of her husband. She has denied that Anita used to meet accused Manoj in Nangloi and has voluntarily added that accused Manoj used to meet her. According to her, Anita had told her that accused Manoj used to harass her and meet her despite her resistance but they had not gone to the house of accused Manoj to make him understand nor they made any complaint with the police or any higher authority. The witness has also deposed that Anita used to remain disturbed as she was unable to bear a child from her first as well as the second marriage. She has denied that Anita used to bring Fortwin and Pathadin from RML Hospital and used to keep them with accused Manoj or that thereafter she used to take the medicines from accused Manoj for her addiction. She has also denied that Anita used to have pain all over her body and has voluntarily explained that she was only having pain in her back and joint. The witness has further denied that Anita used to have joint pains as she was regular user of fortwin and pathadin or that Anita was being treated for TB. She has admitted that Anita was having nonhealing ulcer on her right leg, some time prior to her marriage with accused St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 36 Manoj. She is not aware if Anita had visited the house of accused Manoj fourfive times prior to her marriage with him. She has admitted that Manoj had his own house and states that it is a very old construction and constructed on a 80 Sq. yards plot. She has denied that it was a three storied house and has voluntarily added that it was a single storied house. The witness has also deposed that she had visited the house of accused after his marriage with Anita and lastly she visited the house of accused in March 2007 but she did not remember the date. She has also deposed that on 28.04.2007 she had gone to RML Hospital where all the accused persons were present along with their other relatives. According to the witness, her son and daughterin law accompanied her to the hospital and her daughter Vandana and her husband Manoj Rathi also joined them to the hospital. The witness has also deposed that they must had reached the hospital at about 10/10:30 PM and remained in the hospital for about one hour. According to the witness, her son remained in the hospital whereas she, her daughter and daughterinlaw came back home and her husband had not gone to the hospital since he remained at home. She has also deposed that police met her for the first time at her house on 12.06.2007 and recorded her statement and in her presence statements of her husband and her daughter Vandana were recorded. According to PW3, police did not meet her after 12.06.2007 and has voluntarily stated that the SDM recorded her statement. The witness has further testified that after St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 37 12.06.2007 police had not recorded statement of her relatives in her presence. According to the witness, both her statements regarding the accused Manoj started drinking liquor and stopped working after one month of the marriage and the other statement that he accused was a drunkard and unemployed prior to his marriage with Anita are correct. She has further stated that she had not seen any shop of accused Manoj prior to the marriage or after the marriage nor she had seen the shop of accused after it was closed as it was of no use and that she was told to her by her son and husband about the shop of the accused. She does not remember if her husband or her son had gone to see the shop of accused before his marriage with Anita or after the marriage or after the closure of the shop. She has testified that her daughter was having separate bed room in the back side of the house. According to her, she had not gone inside the kitchen of Anita nor she had gone in the room of Angoori Devi. She has admitted that she had met accused Angoori Devi, accused Manoj and his fourfive relatives for the first time at the time of marriage and did not meet his other relatives. PW3 has also deposed that once or twice she had gone to meet Anita in hospital after her marriage with accused Manoj and that she had not met Anita in the Hospital during her duty hours. The witness has also stated that Anita was not admitted in Apollo Hospital so she had not gone to meet her there. She has testified that she had never visited Dr. Abha Majumdar along with Anita and is not aware if Anita was being treated by Dr. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 38 Ajay Gupta and Anuradha Gupta. The witness has further deposed that she had visited Ganga Ram Hospital along with Anita for her treatment once but she had not gone to Dr. Kochar or to Banwari Lal Institute for her treatment nor she had not gone to RML Hospital along with Anita for her treatment. According to the witness, her daughter Anita had received an injury on her leg with a broken glass which later on developed into gangrene. She has denied that Anita had attempted to commit suicide in the year 1999 by cutting her veins/ arteries of her legs and the injury so received by her was intentionally not got treated by her which later on developed into gangrene. The witness has also deposed that Anita was never arrested by police as per her knowledge and nobody had stood surety for her daughter Anita. She does not remember if any member of her family had accompanied Anita to the Court. She has denied that FIR No. 273/2002 dated 30.03.2002 U/s 309 IPC was registered against Anita wherein she was arrested. She does not remember if she had met Anita in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital between 30.03.2002 till first week of April 2002. She has testified that accused Angoori Devi was suffering from cancer but she is not aware if Angoori Devi was operated upon and her breast was removed. The witness has also deposed that Angoori Devi was admitted in hospital for her cancer treatment and she must had gone to see Angoori Devi in the hospital but she is not aware if she was under regular treatment for cancer till the time of death of her daughter Anita. She is unable to tell St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 39 whether the cancer medicines were very costly nor is she aware if accused Angoori Devi had stood surety for Anita and thereafter accused Manoj stood surety for Anita or if they had engaged Sh. Shailender Dahiya as their Advocate in that case lodged against Anita under Section 309 IPC. The witness is also not aware if Anita had made any statement to the police between March 2002 and April 2002 during the course of investigation in the FIR No.273/02. According to the witness, her daughter had made allegations against accused persons between March 2002 and April 2002 but she has no document to show that Anita made allegations against accused persons between March 2002 to April 2002. She has denied the suggestion that no allegations were made by Anita against the accused persons.
(15) Smt. Satwanti Devi has further deposed that accused Manoj and her daughter Anita visited her twice or thrice between their marriage and death of Anita. She is unable to tell if Anita was having a mobile phone. She has admitted that the accused persons did not belong to their caste. She has deposed that after 1015 days of the marriage, accused Manoj had met with an accident and was hospitalized for two three days in Jaipur Golden Hospital but huge amount was not spent on his treatment which fact was told to her by Anita. The witness has also deposed that she had voluntarily never taken Anita for her infertility treatment and it was her inlaws who were showing Anita to the doctors and Anita was also showing herself in the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 40 hospital. She has testified that her daughter Vandana had attended the marriage of Anita but Sangeeta had not attended the marriage. She has denied that Anita had not given Rs.45,000/ to accused Manoj for marriage or that her daughter Anita told not her that accused persons were demanding Rs. 1 lac or that her daughter had not withdrawn a sum of Rs.1 lac from her GPF not she give it to the accused persons. The witness has further denied that Anita had withdrawn near about Rs. 1 lac from her GPF account for treatment of Manoj and Angoori Devi at the time of his accident and at the admission of Angoori Devi for her cancer treatment and has voluntarily added that Rs.1 lac was withdrawn by Anita for arranging the bail of accused Manoj as he was in custody in a case. According to the witness, her son Kuldeep had told her that accused Manoj and Bishan were in custody in a murder case but she had never visited accused Manoj in Jail to meet him in that case. She has denied that Anita was not tortured by accused persons for her salary or that she had not given Rs.15,000/ and Rs.20,000/ to her daughter Anita four to five times. The witness has deposed that she had not brought any document to show that she had given Rs.15,000/ and Rs.20,000/ to her daughter. In her further crossexamination the witness Satwanti Devi has deposed that she had signed Ex.PW3/A after going through the same. She is not aware if accused Vinod was having a separate motor parts shop. She has denied the suggestion that accused Shalu and Vinod were living separately and were having St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 41 separate kitchen or that accused Shalu and Vinod never interfered the married life of Anita and Manoj or that accused Shalu and Vinod started living separately in a rented house of Vir Singh three months prior to the date of incident. The witness has voluntarily stated that whenever she used to visit Anita they both were always found there and according to her, she had visited once on 23.03.2007. She is not aware if Anita was admitted in Agrasen Hospital w.e.f. 04.12.2006 to 08.12.2006 or if doctor had advised Anita not to walk. The witness denied that Anita had not visited her house on occasion of Holi on 04.03.2007. She is also not aware if Anita was admitted in RML Hospital w.e.f. 07.02.2007 to 11.02.2007. She is unable to tell the month, date and year when the accused persons demanded Rs. One lac from Anita. According to the witness, she had not stated to the SEM that one week prior to her death Anita had told her that accused persons were demanding Rs.2 lacs from her. The witness has also stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded her statement at her house on 12.06.2007. She has denied that accused Shalu and Vinod had never made any demand from her daughter Anita or that they had never beaten, harassed or tortured her. The witness has admitted that her daughter Anita had not made any complaint in writing against accused Shalu and Vinod and has denied that she had levelled false allegations with malafide intention to falsely implicate accused Shalu and Vinod in this case. According to her, she had not visited the house of accused St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 42 persons after the death of Anita nor she made any inquiries from the tenants of the accused or their neighbours.
(16) During the crossexamination of the witness, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had observed that the witness PW3 Smt. Satwanti Devi had brought the original pension passbook of Syndicate Bank having entries about credit and deposit of the bank, photocopy of which is Ex.PW3/X1 running in three pages. It was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for accused Manoj and Agoori Devi that the witness had produced the Passbook of her husband, which were never directed to be produced but the Ld. Addl. PP had clarified that these were the documents which was directed to be produced by the Court. (17) PW5 Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra is the colleague of the deceased who has deposed that she used to work in Female Psychiatrist Department in RML hospital and Anita used to work with her in the same department. According to the witness, as far as she recollects Anita was married to accused Manoj and whenever Anita used to meet her, she used to observe that she (Anita) always remained tense and perturbed. She has further deposed that when she used to ask the reason she (Anita) used to tell her that her husband gave her beatings after taking liquor and he drinks the whole day and did not do any work. According to the witness, Anita further told her that her husband had sold his chemist shop and got her GPF withdrawn and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 43 spent all her GPF money in drinking. This witness has further deposed that whenever, she saw Anita she was having bruises and ecchyomisis on her hands, legs and on her face. According to her, although Anita was earning Rs.20,000/ per month but she rarely had money to even drink a tea. She has testified that Anita was not keeping good health as she was suffering from cellulotis of her right or left leg after the marriage. According to the witness, Anita even took bath after duty hours in the staff bathroom of the Department as she told her that there was no water in her house because her sister in law (Devrani) had disconnected the electrical supply and had even removed the motor. She has further deposed that Anita used to take leave after 2½ months and whenever she used to talk her (Anita) on telephone she used to tell her that she had been badly beaten by her husband and she was also teased by her sister in law (Devrani) and told her that every member of her in laws family was the same and none was good to her. PW5 has further stated that Anita only had tops in her ear and apart from that she never had any jewellery inspite of earning a handsome salary. She has further testified that Anita's right hand was also not in good condition after her marriage and she asked Anita that she should live in the hostel on which she applied for hostel accommodation and was also allotted a house in hostel but she could not shift as she was not allowed to shift by her husband and was badly beaten by him. She has further deposed that she does not know if Anita used to bring her lunch. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 44 (18) With the permission of the Court, Ld Addl PP put leading questions to the witness wherein she has admitted that Anita told her that her mother in law Angoori Devi, her husband, her Dever Vinod and her Devrani Shalu were hungry wolves and they used to demand money from her. Witness has also stated that Anita used to tell her that mother in law, Devar and Devrani also used to beat her and once Anita was admitted in the hospital for her cellulotis treatment but nobody from her house came to see her. (19) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, PW5 has deposed that she joined RML hospital on 14.12.1990 and as far as she recollects Anita had joined in the year 1992. According to the witness, Anita was not suffering from tuberculosis but was suffering from some disease for which she was administered I.V. Fluids after the year 2000 and she was also administered steroids after which she gained weight. She is unable to tell the if the first marriage of Anita was performed in the year 1996 and has deposed that the first husband of Anita had expired. She is not aware if Anita was suffering from TB in the year 1999 and was getting treatment from RML hospital since she never met Anita at that time. PW5 has testified that in the year 2006 she was shifted in the same department as that of Anita and then she started regularly meeting Anita. She has admitted that prior to 2006 Anita was chronic patient of Deep Veins thrombosis and that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 45 Anita was suffering from unhealable ulcer that is cellulotis. The witness is not aware if Anita used to take Fortwin injections intravenously and states that she had never visited the matrimonial home of Anita. PW5 has also admitted that whatever she had stated in the Court was told to her by Anita but she is unable to tell any specific date, month and year of the incident told to her by Anita. She has denied the suggestion that Nurses do not wear jewellery in the hospital and has voluntarily added that it is only when the Nurses are doing procedure they are supposed to remove their jewellery from hands. She has also denied that Anita never complained to her about anything or that Anita never showed any injury marks to her. According to the witness, her statement was recorded by the Police but states that she does not recollect if she had told to the police in her statement that Anita used to take a bath in the office. She has deposed that she had stated to the police in her statement that the devrani of Anita had disconnected the electric supply and removed the motor; that accused Shalu used to tease Anita and also that Anita had not joined the hostel accommodation since her husband had refused, but she does not remember if she had stated to the police that right hand of Anita was not working properly. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW5/DA all the above facts were not found so recorded. Witness is unable to tell the specific date when Anita got admitted for her cellulotis treatment and has voluntarily deposed that Anita told her that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 46 she had no physical relations with her husband as he remained under influence of liquor the whole day. She is also unable to tell if Anita was admitted in the hospital w.e.f 22.09.2006 to 05.10.2006 and thereafter from 07.02.2007 to 11.02.2007. She has testified that Anita had told her once that her brother had visited her and had purchased some medicines for her and that she had told this to her when she was admitted in staff sick room. PW5 has denied that Anita had never told her that her in laws had ever demanded any dowry from her. She has admitted that Anita was her colleague and therefore she had come to depose in the court.
(20) PW7 Smt. Ameena Siddiqui is also the colleague of the deceased who has deposed that she knew Anita (deceased) for about 1415 years who was working as staff nurse in RML hospital, where she (witness) was also working as Nurse. According to her, probably in the year 2001 Anita got married with Manoj whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. According to the witness, they had a common changing room in ward in RML hospital where she, Anita and other staff nurses used to change their uniform and while changing the uniform, she noticed marks of beating on the body of Anita. The witness has further deposed that on inquiry Anita told her that her husband Manoj, her dever, whose name she does not remember, her devrani Shalu and her mother in law used to beat her as she St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 47 could not fulfill their demands of money. According to the witness, Anita also told her that she was being taunted as kangli and was tortured for not bringing dowry as per the expectation and was also kept hungry and was not provided food when she reached back to her house from her hospital duty at around 6:00 PM. Witness has also deposed that Anita never used to bring meal (lunch) for her as her in laws never prepared meal in the morning and used to say that they were not her servants. She has also stated that mostly Anita's husband Manoj used to accompany Anita to the hospital on salary day. According to her, about four - five days prior to Anita's death, she came to the hospital to take some treatment for injury in her feet and during those days, she was on leave. The witness has deposed that Anita appeared disturbed and when she (PW7) asked the reason, Anita looked at her husband Manoj who was also present there and replied that she was OK. She has testified that Anita wanted to say something to her but she could not say anything as her husband Manoj was with her. The witness has also deposed that probably on 27/28.04.07, she was on night duty when she received a call from emergency that Anita had been admitted as brought dead after which she rushed in the Emergency and noticed that Anita was lying dead and her husband, mother in law, her husband's brother etc. were present there. This witness has further deposed that she asked Manoj St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 48 as to how Anita died to which Manoj replied that she had a 'fit'. According to her, she questioned Manoj that why he did not take Anita to a nearby hospital when she suffered a "fit" but Manoj did not reply and slipped away. She has testified that she had noticed an injury mark of blue colour on Anita's forehead. (21) In her cross examination, this witness has stated that she was working in RML hospital for about 27 years. She has admitted that she used to discharge her duty in shifts, sometimes in night shift, evening and day shift and states that they have no standing order if one employee is present in the changing room generally the other employee shall not enter. This witness has further deposed that Anita performed night duties during her tenure of 1415 years and she along with Anita were kept several times in morning duty and she saw the body marks at the back of the deceased Anita in the changing Room and whenever, she was discharging her duties with her (Anita) she used to notice marks on her body. According to her, she did not make any effort to lodge police complaint and she had no knowledge about the earlier two marriages of deceased Anita. This witness has further deposed that deceased Anita did not disclose her that marriage with accused Manoj is a love marriage and she did not attend the marriage ceremony of Anita with Manoj. According to her, deceased Anita did not disclose to her that only 1015 persons attended the marriage and that her parents were against this love marriage or that her two sisters committed St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 49 suicide. PW7 has also deposed that she has no knowledge if deceased Anita attempted to commit suicide in the year 2003 and a case was also registered by police against her (Anita). Witness has also deposed that she has no knowledge whether in the above said case against deceased Anita, accused Angoori Devi and brother in law stood as surety. She is unable to tell the date, month or year when deceased Anita disclose to her about beating or asking of money and that she has no knowledge about her domestic life. This witness has also deposed that she generally took food in her house and that occasionally or some time she could not bring lunch at her hospital. She has testified that Anita told her that in the morning she could not take meal because of distance and paucity of time available to her in the morning hour and that deceased Anita used to purchase food from the canteen or sometimes she used to share with them. She has also deposed that she normally reached her home after duty hour at about 5:00 PM in the evening and that she never take meal after reaching home as she had already took lunch in the afternoon. She has no knowledge whether deceased Anita used to cook dinner or not. According to her, they get salary by cash as well as cheque. She is unable to tell the date, month and year when accused Manoj arrived in the hospital. She is also unable to tell whether it was left or right leg of deceased Anita which was injured. This witness has also deposed that deceased Anita never disclosed her about the incident when she attempted suicide by cutting veins of leg St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 50 with small pieces of glass and as a result some small glasses pieces entered in the wound. She has testified that she had not seen her leg injured for about five to six months prior to her death, however, she has no knowledge about earlier injury for her leg. According to the witness, she has no knowledge about the fact that deceased Anita was addicted to drugs through vaccines. She is unable to tell the exact date when Manoj came to hospital and said everything was OK but has clarified that it was three to four days prior to her death. This witness has further deposed that accused Manoj did not reply her question about not taking deceased Anita to nearby hospital and the staff of hospital users OPD of the hospital. She has admitted that being staff members they do not stand in a queue and sometimes get extra attention. She is unable to tell whether the blue injury mark was on left side on the head or right side of the head when deceased was brought in Emergency in the hospital. She has denied the suggestion that being an employee Anita was not getting special treatment or that she has not disclosed anything except the statement tutored to her by his brother. She has further denied the suggestion that Anita did not disclose anything to her but has admitted that deceased Anita was her colleague not a good friend. PW7 Smt. Ameena Siddqui has further deposed that Anita was known to her for last about fourteen to fifteen years. She has also explained that the police had recorded her statement in her ward. She has admitted that she had stated to the police in her statement that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 51 she was known to deceased Anita since 2004. According to the witness PW7, she had stated to the Police in her statement that they have have a common changing room in ward in RML hospital where, she, Anita and other staff nurses used to change their uniform, while changing the uniform, she noticed marks of beating on the body of of Anita and on her inquiry, she (Anita) told her that her husband, her devar, whose name she does not remember now, her devrani probably Shalu and her mother in law used to beat her; that Anita she never used to bring meal for her as her in laws never prepared meal in the morning and used to say that they were not her servants; that mostly Anita's husband Manoj used to accompany Anita to the hospital on salary day; that on inquiry from Manoj about how Anita died, Manoj told her that Anita suffered a fit and on which she asked Manoj as to why he had not taken Anita to some nearby hospital, Manoj did not reply and slipped. However, when she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW7/BX the said facts were not found so recorded. The witness has testified that she has no knowledge about the fact that deceased Anita was suffering from unhealable ulcer in her leg prior to her marriage with accused Manoj and that she has no knowledge that she was taking treatment for this since 2000. She has further deposed that she has no knowledge because of this illness, Anita used to take intravenous injection of medicine 'Fortwein" or if deceased Anita was a patient of DVT (Deep Veins Thrombosis). She has also no knowledge of admission of St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 52 deceased Anita in RML hospital in the year 2004 and the fact that decease Anita was admitted in RML hospital on 02.07.2007 till 04.07.2004, on 22.09.2006 till 05.10.2006 and on 07.02.2007 till 11.02.2007. According to the witness, during the said period, it may be possible that Anita may be on leave or availing some other shift duty. She has no knowledge about the fact that Anita being chronical patient of unhealable ulcer, was also suffering from 'fits' or if Anita was under
treatment for fits. According to PW7, the staff on duty at emergency informed her that deceased Anita was brought in the hospital in emergency and that her dead body was kept on a trolly duly covered where dead bodies were kept and that no doctor was available there. She has testified that dead body was kept at a distance of ten to fifteen feet from where staff was sitting and that relatives and parents were allowed to visit dead body at emergency. She has admitted that person was required to take permission from the doctor. According to her, she never visited in laws house of deceased Anita and after her death also, she did not visit the matrimonial home of Anita. She has denied that Anita did not tell her that her in laws and her dever and devrani made any demand of dowry or used to beat her. She is unable to tell any specific date, month or year when she told her about the above incidents. She is not aware if due to prolong illness particularly unhealable ulcer, Anita attempted to commit suicide or if any case under Section 309 IPC was registered against Anita. She has further St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 53 deposed that she had not checked whether Anita was having any injury on her head or not. The witness has also deposed that there was only one injury mark at her forehead of blue colour. According to her, in the year 2007 she was posted in ENT department but she is not aware in which department Anita was posted during the year 2007 and for how much period Anita was on leave. She has denied the suggestion that Anita never made any complaint of harassment, beating or demand of dowry to her at any point of time. PW7 has admitted that she deposed in the court as Anita was known to her. She has denied the suggestion that Anita never told her that she also was given beatings and the demand was also made by accused Vinod and Shalu. (22) PW8 Smt. Zinath Jaustin is another colleague of the deceased Anita. She has deposed that she was working as Nursing Sister in RML hospital since 06.06.1998 and she knew Anita for about ten to fifteen years since she (Anita) was also working as Nurse in the same hospital and also worked as a nurse in the same ward where she (witness) was working as a nurse for some years. The witness has testified that after the death of first husband of Anita she (Anita) got married to Manoj Garg which was Anita's second marriage but soon after her marriage with Manoj, Anita started remaining disturbed.
According to the witness, she had asked Anita about the reasons of her being disturbed, but Anita did not disclose the same. The witness has further deposed that while changing the uniform in the room, she had St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 54 noticed injury mark on the body of Anita and on inquiry, Anita told her that she was beaten by her husband Manoj. According to her, she advised Anita that she should stop Manoj from giving her beatings upon which she replied that she can control one person but cannot control the other family members when they all joined Manoj in giving beatings to her. She has testified that often Anita meet her in the bank in their hospital with her husband. She (Anita) did not bring lunch with her and occasionally they (colleagues) used to give their food to Anita and Anita had also told her that her husband Manoj and other in laws used to demand money from her and she often gave them money. According to PW8, Anita used to withdraw her salary and used to give the same to her husband and in laws who in turn used to give her pocket expenses. The witness has also deposed that Anita told her that she was provided with clothes from the side of her parents. (23) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that she did not state to the police in her statement that while changing the uniform in the room, she noticed injury mark on the body of Anita and inquiry, Anita told her that she was beaten by her husband Manoj. She has further stated that she did not state small facts to the police such as providing lunch and bringing her clothes from her parents. According to her, she had never met the first husband of the deceased Anita and has no knowledge about the first marriage and period of her (deceased's) stay with the first husband. She has St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 55 testified that she knew that Anita had no child from her first marriage but she has no knowledge if deceased Anita was taking treatment for infertility. The witness has deposed that she never felt that Anita was disturbed with the fact that she was not blessed with any child and states that she had no conversation in this regard. PW8 has denied the suggestion that due to her infertility, Anita used to remain disturbed or that she (witness) also accompanied Anita for her infertility treatment. According to her, she has no knowledge about the fact if Anita also took treatment from deaddiction centre. She has denied the suggestion that Anita used to take drugs or that Anita did not disclose to her that her husband used to beat her. The witness has also denied the suggestion that brother of Anita remained in her touch and has tutored her to depose as per his desire against the accused persons. She has testified that she had told the police in her statement that when Anita disclosed to her about the injuries on her body given by her husband, she advised her to be bold against her husband Manoj, upon which she said that she can control Manoj but not others who also joined him in beating her. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW8/B, the said facts was not found so recorded. She is unable to tell any particular day, month or year when deceased Anita told her about any beatings or any alleged demand. PW8 has admitted that Anita was her friend and states that brother of Anita namely Kuldeep also met her in this connection. According to her, she had not gone to the matrimonial St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 56 house of Anita before her death or even after her death. PW8 has admitted that she has deposed whatever Anita told her and she observed.
(24) PW9 Smt. Vandana Rathi is the real sister of the deceased who has deposed that Anita was married to accused Manoj on 02.04.2001 and that whenever Anita used to meet her, she used to disclose that her husband Manoj, her Devar Vinod, Devrani Shalu and mother in law Angoori Devi used to beat her as they could not meet their day to day expenses since Manoj was unemployed and was a liquor addict and Vinod also addicted to drugs and was not earning anything. The witness has further deposed they used to force Anita to bring money either from the place where she was working or from her parental home. According to her, on twothree occasions, she (Anita) was made to withdraw from her provident fund account and Anita had also told her that the above accused persons had even forced her to take a loan from the cooperative society, which she (Anita) took. She has testified that on occasions, her mother Smt. Satwanti Devi withdrew money from her father's account and also the money which was lying in their house and gave the same to Anita to give to her in laws for meeting their family expenses including the expenses incurred by Manoj and Vinod for consumption of liquor and drugs and after the money given to them was spent, they again used to give beatings to Anita and forced her to bring more money. The witness has deposed St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 57 that in the year 2005, Anita was beaten by the above accused persons and they demanded Rs.20,000/ Anita informed them about this demand on phone on which her brother Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dalal and father Sh. Amir Singh Dalal went to the house of above accused persons. According to PW9, her father gave Rs.20,000/ to Smt. Angoori Devi (accused) and they (brother and father of the deceased) found that Anita was being beaten by the above accused persons, they got Anita freed from their hands and in this manner, the demand for dowry of accused persons kept increasing day by day. (25) PW9 Smt. Vandana has further deposed that in the year 2006, she shifted her residence to Pitampura which falls on the way of Anita while she went to her hospital. Anita often used to come to her house when she (Anita) informed her that accused persons used to beat her as she could not meet their demands of dowry. According to the witness, she had also seen injury marks on the body of Anita. She has testified that Anita told her that the accused persons had told her that they would kill her and would marry Manoj again to some girl in the relation of Shalu at her paternal house as accused Manoj used to talk to that girl late in the evening for hours. According to the witness, Anita also informed her that Manoj told her that he is a pharmacist and if Anita would die, he would get the job in her place. The witness has testified that Anita had made a call to PCR on 27.02.2007 when accused persons had given beatings to her where the accused persons St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 58 asked for pardon. She has also deposed that in the morning of 21.04.2007, she received a phone call from Anita who appeared frightened and she (Anita) told her (witness) that Manoj, Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu were forcing her to bring Rs. Two lacs on which she (witness) told her that they would come to her parental house and would discuss this issue on 29.04.2007. The witness has further deposed that she told these facts to his brother Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dalal on phone and on 28.04.2007, she (witness) received a phone call from her brother that Anita was serious and admitted in RML hospital. She has deposed that she along with her husband went to RML hospital where her brother Kuldeep Singh, wife and her mother were present and when they went into the casualty, they found Anita dead. The witness has deposed that she had also noticed injury marks on the body of the deceased and many of colleagues of Anita (nurses) were also present there who told her (witness) that Anita appeared to have been given beatings. She has testified that all the above four accused persons and their other relatives were also present in the hospital but the moment they came out of casualty, she found that none of the accused persons were present there probably they had fled away. According to her, they believe that Anita was probably killed by all the above four accused persons.
(26) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that in the year 1999, Anita had undergone test for St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 59 tuberculosis but has voluntarily explained that the test were negative. She has further admitted that her sister Anita was suffering from unhealable ulcer at her leg prior to marriage with accused Manoj but has denied the suggestion that because of this disease, Anita used to take injection of medicine "fortwien" due to which reason she developed another disease DVT. She has also denied the suggestion that her sister Anita treated for infertility even during the subsistence of first marriage and also after second marriage or that Anita took treatment at Bahadurgarh for infertility. She has no knowledge whether her sister Anita was admitted on 04.12.2006 in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital for treatment of disease gangrene and has voluntarily added that her sister was never admitted in Mahraja Agrasen hospital and she never went to meet her at Maharaja Agrasent hospital. She has denied the suggestion that her sister was admitted in Maharaj Agrasen hospital for suspected suicide by poisoning on 22.03.2000 and remained there till 29.03.2000. The witness has however, admitted in that her sister was not blessed with a child either from first marriage or second marriage and has denied that because of disease gangrene, her sister Anita used to remain under unbearable pain. According to her, she is aware that her sister Anita remained at RML hospital from 22.09.2006 till 05.10.06. The witness has further stated that she made only one visit at RML hospital and has no knowledge whether her sister Anita remained admitted in RML Hospital on 07.02.2007 till St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 60 11.02.2007. She has however stated that it might be possible that her sister made another attempt to commit suicide on 29.03.2002. she has denied the suggestion that a case FIR No.273/2002 under Section 309 IPC Police Station Nangloi was registered against her sister for committing offence of attempt to commit suicide. The witness has also denied the suggestion that accused Angoori Devi stood surety in that case for her sister Anita or that the case against her sister under Section 309 of IPC was pending in the court of Sh. D.K. Jangala, Ld MM at Rohini Court till the death of her sister which case was abetted after the death of her sister.
(27) According to PW9 Ms. Vandana she never visited the matrimonial home of her sister Anita. She has stated that Anita used to go to her hospital by bus from Nangloi but she is not aware the routes of the bus. The witness has testified that the distance from Peera Garhi Chowk to her residence at Sharda Apartment might be about three kilometers because there are two red lights in between. She has no knowledge if any bus goes to RML hospital from Sharda Apartments. PW9 has admitted that RML hospital is not on the route of Sharda apartments. According to her, whenever Anita used to come to her, she used to engage an auto for her for going to Nangloi. The witness has deposed that Anita used to come to visit her house thrice a month during afternoon hours generally after morning duty. She has testified in the year 2005 she had visited her parental house where she came to St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 61 know about the demand of Rs.20,000/ by the accused persons, a month after Diwali festival. The witness has also deposed that no complaint was lodged by her, Anita, her brother Kuldeep or by her parents to the effect that Anita's leg was broken by the accused. According to the witness, she had mentioned to the police in her statement that it was the year of 2005 when the accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/. However, when the witness was confronted with her statement Ex.PW8/B, the year of 2005 was not found mentioned. According to PW9, her brother Kuldeep told to her in November 2005 about the fact that when they went to pay Rs.20,000/ to the accused persons, the accused were beating Anita. She has admitted that no amount was paid in her presence and no demand was made by any accused person from her sister in her presence and that her sister was not beaten in her presence. She has further admitted that she never went to see her sister in her matrimonial home so long as she was alive and that she never visited the matrimonial home of her sister even after her death nor she ever went with her sister to leave her at her matrimonial home whenever she came to her residence. She has denied the suggestion that her sister Anita started having seizures (fits) or that her sister was getting continuous treatment at RML hospital where she was employed. The witness was also denied the suggestion that her sister Anita suffered a fits attack on 27.04.2007 and was removed to RML hospital by accused Manoj, her husband at about 9.00 PM or that on 28.04.2007 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 62 at about 9.30 AM in the morning she was discharged from the hospital. She has further denied the suggestion that on 28.04.07 in the night again Anita suffered a fit attack at about 10 PM and again she was removed to RML hospital or that the above said attack was so severe that she died because of it. The witness has also denied the suggestion that there were no injury mark on the body of her sister when she was brought to RML hospital on 28.04.2007. PW9 has further denied the suggestion that her sister died a natural death or that accused Vinod and his wife Shalu used to live separately in a rented house, which was owned by one Bir Singh. She has also denied the suggestion that accused Shalu and Vinod have been falsely implicated in this case without any reason. She is not aware if accused Vinod was having an auto parts shop and used to work as a scooter mechanic. She has denied the suggestion that accused Vinod was not addicted to any drugs. According to her, she never met accused Vinod and Shalu and states that she saw the accused Vinod and Shalu for the first time in the hospital and thereafter in the Court. She has also denied the suggestion that she has deposed against the accused persons Vinod and Shalu because of the fact that deceased Anita was her sister. The witness has testified that she met police officials for the first time after the death of her sister Anita on 12.07.2007 and prior to it, she did not make effort to meet police officials. According to her, no police official came to her prior to 12.06.2007 for recording of her statement. She has admitted St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 63 that her sister Anita and Sangeeta were married in one family and that Sh. Ashok husband of Sangeeta is a Pharmacist and accused Manoj is also a pharmacist. She has also admitted that accused Manoj had visiting terms relations with Dilbagh Singh and Ashok and deceased Anita knew accused Manoj. She has also deposed that at the time of marriage of her sister Anita, accused Manoj was unmarried and her sister was widow of late Dilbagh Singh. According to her, she had attended second marriage of her sister Anita with accused Manoj which was solemnized at 1408, Sector06, Bahadurgarh, her parental house in which 2025 persons were present from both sides. She has testified that there was no arrangement made for any tent or Halwai and it was a simple marriage ceremony. She has admitted that second marriage was solemnized with the consent of her sister Anita and accused Manoj and that her parents and she herself were not happy with this second marriage. The witness has also deposed that they could not resist Anita because she was willing to marry accused Manoj and she has no knowledge whether her sister Anita know accused Manoj before her marriage. PW9 has admitted that accused Manoj and his family members on the day of marriage brought 'wari' articles and that her sister Sangeeta was blessed with one daughter out of the wedlock with Ashok but her sister Anita was not blessed with a child from the wedlock of late Dilbagh Singh. She has denied the suggestion that her sister was undergoing treatment for infertility due to which reason, she St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 64 was under depression. She has no knowledge whether Anita remained under treatment for infertility. According to her, on 29.04.2007 when she visited RML hospital, she saw all the four accused persons at the emergency ward gate but accused persons were not there when she came out from the emergency ward after half an hour. The witness has deposed that she went to Bahadurgarh at her parental house on 29.04.2007 where she remained till Tehranvi and no police official visited Bahadurgarh during the above said period. She has no knowledge of the fact that Angoori Deiv, accused has been suffering from cancer. She has, however, admitted that Angoori Devi remained under treatment for cancer till the death of her sister Anita. She has no knowledge of the fact that Angoori Devi has been receiving pension of her late husband. She has denied the suggestion that she know the fact about receiving pension by accused Angoori Devi but intentionally concealing. She has no knowledge if all the expenses of treatment were met with the pension amount. The witness has also deposed that just after the marriage she came to know that accused Manoj was habitual of taking liquor. She has denied the suggestion that accused Manoj consumed liquor within limit or that accused Manoj is not a habitual drunker and no record is maintained at Tihar Jail for his treatment of deaddiction. The witness has also denied the suggestion that her sister Anita used to take heavy doses of drug as she was suffering from depression and gangrene. She has denied the suggestion that accused St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 65 Angoori Devi was attending marriage on 29.04.2007 at Deepali Chowk or that accused Manoj or Angoori Devi never demanded dowry, harassed for dowry or demanded any money. She has also denied the suggestion that Angoori Devi was residing separately on the rented accommodation on the day of alleged incident. According to her, she had stated to the police the fact of withdrawing money by the Anita from cooperative society. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW8/B, the said fact was not found so recorded. (28) PW11 Sh. Jagan Nath has proved that on 02.1.2001, he performed the marriage ceremony of Anita and Manoj as per Hindu rites in the presence of their relatives. In his cross examination the witness has stated that he had performed marriage of Anita twice, second one in the year 2001 and first one, he does not recollect but it was prior to 2001.
(29) PW14 Balraj Pawar has deposed that he has a automobile workshop at Bahadurgarh and he knew Mr. Kuldeep Dalal and his family since 30 years back since he and Kuldeep Dalal studied together from the childhood. According to the witness, he had attended the second marriage ceremony of sister of Kuldeep Dalal i.e. Anita (since deceased) which was solemnized on 02.04.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with Mr. Manoj whom the witness has identified in the court. The witness has deposed that this marriage was solemnized by Pandit Jaganath, who belongs to Bahadurgarh. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 66 According to the witness, Kuldeep has five sisters and Anita was the third sister. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence, his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (30) PW16 Chetan is a private photographer who has deposed that he was running a photo studio with the name and style of Rajiv Studio situated at SBlock, Mangolpuri. According to him, on 29.042007, he was called by the police officials at SGM hospital, Manoglpuri on which he reached there with his digital camera. He has deposed that thereafter he was called in the mortuary where he took 13 photographs of a female body and after developing the same, he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer. He has proved the said photographs which are Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A13 are the same which were taken by him. The witness has also proved that the photographs were handed over to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/G and thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
(31) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he was employee of Rajiv Studio but he has not brought any documentary proof to show that he was the employee of Rajiv Studio. According to him, a bill was issued to the police officials by the owner of the studio and it was the owner of the shop who sent him to take the photographs. (32) PW21 Sh. Sushil Kumar S/o Late Sh. Satya Narain is the brother of the accused Manoj Kumar and has deposed that he deals in St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 67 the business of gems and stones. He further deposed that they are four brothers, his elder brother is Sajjan Kumar, who is a teacher and resides at Rohini for 1213 years; accused Manoj is younger to him and youngest is Vinod. He has also deposed that House No. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi was in the name of his father and about five years back, he was living on the ground floor of the said house. He has also deposed that his elder brother Sajjan was also residing with him at the ground floor prior to shifting to Rohini and Manoj and his wife Anita since deceased were residing on the first floor of the said house. The witness has also deposed that accused Vinod with his family and his mother were living in a rented accommodation in Extn. 2, Nangloi but he does not remember the number of the rented premises. According to him, accused Vinod was married with accused Shalu in the year 2001 and at that time they were residing at the house no. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and in the same year accused Manoj was married with Anita since deceased. Witness has further voluntarily added that in his opinion it was not a marriage since he along with his family were not invited being the elder brother, so much so that he was not even disclosed about the marriage of Manoj. PW21 has also deposed that at the time of marriage of accused Manoj and Vinod, they were doing their business near his house. According to him, accused Manoj was doing two works i.e. workshop of motorcycle St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 68 repairing and selling and repairing of the mobile. The witness has testified that he also heard that at that time, Manoj was having one pharmacy licence which was given to a shopkeeper and he used to give Rs.2000/ to Rs.3000/ to him. According to the witness, Vinod at the time of marriage was selling auto spare parts near his house and at that time, he used to have fourfive shops in the premises and one shop they used as his residence as House No.23, Extn. 3, Nangloi, Delhi. He has further deposed that his father retired from the Govt. Service and expired in the year 2000 and his mother was getting pension. The witness has testified that he heard that deceased Anita was employed as a staff nurse at RML Hospital. According to the witness, accused Manoj is kind hearting, cooperating and having sweet spoken, smart, educated person and the accused Vinod is simple man, less educated, respectful and obedient to elders. He has further deposed that accused Manoj occasionally used to take liquor and deceased Anita also used to take drugs and he had seen her many a times under the influence of drugs. The witness has also deposed that the relationship between Manoj and Anita "khat pat rehti thi, ek dusre ka bojh dho rahe the". He further deposed that Anita ko zarurat thi ek aise ghar ki jisme vo apne ko chupa sake aur Manoj ko zarurat thi ek aise patni ki jo medical line me karyarat ho, chahe sarkari ya gair sarkari". He has testified that in his presence, they both represent themselves as husband and wife and no altercation took place between them. The witness has St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 69 deposed that deceased Anita used to go to her duties in the morning as well as in the evening as per her schedule and she usually left her house two hours prior to duty time as she used to take time to reach at hospital. According to the witness, his mother Smt. Angoori Devi is suffering from Cancer and was operated upon for cancer in the month of SeptemberOctober, year 2000. He is not aware how much expenses have occurred in the said operation nor is he aware how much money used to be spent on medicine of his mother at the time of her treatment, but states that his brother Manoj used to spend the money for purchasing the medicine. He has also deposed that deceased Anita used to be taken to the hospital after and out twothree months regularly as she used to remain in inebriated condition and under the influence of drugs. The witness has further testified that on some occasion it was observed that she used to fell down in the house as well as outside the house. PW21 has also deposed that he has no knowledge about any major injuries caused to her but sometimes she used to receive injury at shoulder, head, legs. He has testified that Anita was having an unhealing ulcer in her leg but he never accompanied her to the hospital at any occasion and it was Manoj who used to usually take her to the hospital. According to the witness, Anita never shared with him any problem faced by her nor any incident happened with her. He has further deposed that he was not having talking terms with his family members due to marriage of Manoj with Anita and he never said St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 70 anything to deceased Anita except on one occasion when he sought her help for his treatment of piles in the hospital and the doctors examined him and gave medicines to him and after her death he was operated by doctor on his own expenditure. He has testified that all of his family members were of a cooperative nature with deceased Anita and they used to do all house hold work as deceased was not in a position to do any such work. The witness has deposed that whatever police asked him, he told them in his statement and whatever told by him in the Court were not asked by the police and these facts were not told by him to the police.
(33) With the permission of the court the Ld. Addl. PP for State put leading questions to the witness during which the witness Sushil Kumar deposed that he is an income tax payee and paid income tax from the year 2000 to 2003, after which he did not pay income tax as he was not in a position to give the tax. He has produced the original ration card and pan card, photocopy of ration card which is Ex.PW21/1 and photocopy of pan card is Ex.PW21/2. He has admitted that in the ration card, his address is H.No. 21/2, Extn. 3, Rohtak Road, Scooter Market, Nangloi, Delhi and that date of issuing of this ration card is 01.12.2009. The witness has not brought the ration card prior to 01.12.2009 and states that the old ration card was deposited against which the present ration card has been issued. He has denied the suggestion that the address stated by him in his earlier statement and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 71 the address shown in the ration card are different as he is living in the same house since 2009. He has testified that prior to 2009 he used to live on rent in Tyagi Vihar but he does not remember the number of that tenanted house at Tyagi Vihar and states that Tyagi Vihar falls in the area of Nangloi and he used to pay rent @ Rs.2,500/ PM but he did not remember the name of his landlord, however, he respectfully called him as Tyagiji. He has testified that he lived in the rented house since 2006 to 2009 and prior to 2006 he used to live in H.No. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi. The witness has also deposed that he left this house in the month of August/ September 2006 and prior to August/ September 2006 he was living in the house at Vishal Colony with his mother Smt. Angoori Devi, his two younger brothers namely Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar and the wife of Manoj and Vinod namely Anita (since deceased) and Shalu and children of his brother Vinod namely Ashu, Gazhal and Ujjwal. According to PW21, his wife Smt. Savita and his children Ravi and Rahul were also living in that house. The witness has also deposed that he is into business of sale of gems and stones from 2005 till date and prior to year 2005 he was a bike mechanic and at that time, he was earning Rs.200/ per day. He further deposed that he used to deal with synthetic, real and limitation gems and stones except diamond but stated that presently "bhuke marne ki naubat hai" which situation started when he started dealing with the business of stones and gems. He has admitted that he is not paying St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 72 income tax being a virtual papuer (bhuke marne ki naubat). According to him, he was married in the year 1996 when he was 2728 years and blessed with twins on 01.10.2000. He has denied the suggestion that he along with his wife left the children at his house and went away and has voluntarily deposed that after a month he along with his wife went to Mathura for fifteen days for roaming leaving children at home which happened in the year 2001. The witness has also denied that in the year 2001 due to financial crisis he along with his wife ran away from house after leaving their children and has voluntarily added that the financial crisis started since 2005 and he left his children with his mother. He has testified that his wife is of religious mind and she wanted to worship lord Radha and Krishna and he worshiped his wife at that time and now his wife started worshiping all the gods and he also started worshiping all the gods and goddesses. PW21 has denied the suggestion that on one occasion he went to Kalesar and worked there in a temple and has voluntarily deposed that he went to Kalesar with his friend Satpal. He has admitted that Satpal purchased a land there but has denied that he used to look after the land purchased by Satpal or that Satpal was paying him Rs.500/ per month for taking care of that land in Kalesar. The witness has also admitted that after death of Anita, he spent most of his time at Kalesar and less time in Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that he did so as he used to take financial help from Anita to run his family and after her death there was a St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 73 financial crisis; or that all his family members also came under financial crisis after death of Anita. PW21 has further denied the suggestion that whenever accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori Devi and Shalu used to harass or gave beatings to Anita (deceased), he used to pacify his family members. He has admitted that he had filed a complaint at Police Station Nangloi against accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori, Shalu and deceased Anita and has voluntarily added that this complaint was filed as he wanted to be separated from that house but he does not remember the contents of that complaint. He has also admitted that he had demanded his share of about Rs. 2 to 3 lacs from ancestral property in that complaint.
(34) During the examination of this witness, Inspector Mukesh Kumar, Police Station Miyawali Nagar on behalf of ACP Punjabi Bagh has produced a register containing the entry at Sl. No. 1866 Diary no. 12740/HAC West dated 09.08.2006 wherein the name of complainant is mentioned as Sushil Kumar Lilu R/o B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and in the column of nature of complainant it is mentioned as regarding family dispute which application was marked to the SHO Nihal Vihar on 21.08.2006 and thereafter on 17.10.2010, same was remand back to HAC West. Photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW21/X and the report of ACP regarding the destruction of record for the year 2006 is Ex.PW22/Y running in three pages. The witness is not aware if Vimal Hospital is situated at a distance of 200 meters from his house St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 74 B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and if Krishna Surgical and Maternity Home which is situated at the distance of 300 meters. He has also admitted that within a radius of one three kms of his house of Vishal Colony, Nangloi about ten to twenty Nursing homes and hospital are situated. He has deposed that he heard the name of Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini but he is not aware if it is situated at a distance of six kilometer from his house. The witness has also deposed that Aggarsen Hospital is situated at Punjabi Bagh and Ambedkar Hospital is situated at a distance of seveneight kms. He is not aware the distance from his house to RML hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital but states that these are situated in New Delhi area. PW21 Sushil Kumar has testified that it takes about one or one and a half hour to reach these two hospitals from his house and if one travels in TSR then it takes 45 minutes. He has no knowledge whether deceased Anita remained in the treatment from Krishna Surgical, Nangloi; Vimal Hospital, Nangloi; Aggarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh as well as Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar. He has admitted that in his complaint dated 09.08.2006 to ACP, Punjabi Bagh he had mentioned that his family members were not giving him, his share in the ancestral property i.e B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi. According to the witness, at that time he was residing in that house. He has admitted that deceased Anita and all the accused persons along with his family were residing there at that time and that Anita was the only government servant out of whole family. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 75 The witness has denied the suggestion that his share was not given by other family members because they were in financial crisis or that he had stated in his complaint dated 09.08.2006 before ACP that because of financial crisis accused persons are withdrawing PF contribution of deceased Anita regularly and also torturing and harassing her for the same. PW21 has also denied the suggestion that he further stated in his complaint that he tried to save her (Anita) from harassment and torture caused by accused persons and also stated that life of deceased Anita be saved from accused persons. The witness has admitted that first husband of deceased Anita Dilbagh Singh was the class fellow of accused Manoj and that accused Manoj had been visiting terms with deceased Dilbagh Singh. He has denied the suggestion that he had stated in his complaint that accused Manoj is involved in accidental death of Dilbagh Singh. The witness has admitted that on his above said complaint police officials came and suggested that it is a family dispute and they may work out some family settlement. He does not remember the name of police official as SI Prem Chand. He has denied that he was sympathizer of deceased Anita and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated the true and correct facts. He has denied that before court he did not state those true facts as per his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as he is under the pressure of his family members i.e accused persons.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 76 (35) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel he has admitted that on the day of incident accused Manoj was residing with deceased Anita at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and in that premises accused Manoj had two three tenants. The witness has denied the suggestion that that he was getting rent of one tenant. He is not aware whether one tenant used to pay rent to accused Angoori Devi and one tenant used to pay rent to accused Manoj. He has admitted that on 28.04.2007, there was a marriage of his uncle's daughter Neetu (daughter of Om Prakash) in their family and that all his family members were invited and the marriage function was scheduled at night at Punjabi Bagh. The witness has also admitted that on that day his mother accused Angoori, his brother accused Vinod and his wife accused Shalu were sent out by him to attend the marriage in a TSR and has voluntarily deposed that he had given them Rs.101/ which amount was given to them to deliver to his uncle as Shagan on his behalf. He has admitted that accused Manoj and deceased Anita were drug addict and that on the day of incident accused Angoori Devi, accused Vinod and accused Shalu used to live in a separate residence as tenant in Nangloi extension. The witness has further stated that he left B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi in the year 2006 because he had apprehension that deceased Anita and accused Manoj may cause any harm to him or his family as they were drug addicts. The witness has also stated that accused Angoori Devi, accused Vinod and accused St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 77 Shalu also left B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi house as they had also apprehension that they may be roped in a false case. He is not aware the name of landlord as Veer Singh where accused persons Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu were residing at the time of incident. The witness has stated that deceased Anita several times attempted to commit suicide as she was not capable of conceiving from first marriage as well as second marriage and that on one occasion a criminal case registered against deceased Anita for committing suicide and wherein his mother accused Angoori Devi stood surety for her. He has also stated that the mother of deceased Anita namely Satwanti, brother Kuldeep, father Amir Singh (now deceased) never complained that accused persons torturing and harassing her or complained to him. Medical Witnesses:
(36) PW6 Dr. V.K. Jha has deposed that on 29.04.07, he was posted in SGM Hospital as a Medical Officer in Mortuary and on that day, he conducted the postmortem on the body of Anita, 37 years old female daughter of Amir Singh Dalal. According to the witness, the body was sent by Executive Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh and the body was identified by S.I. Raghuvir Singh. He has further deposed that the deceased has alleged history of brought dead at RML hospital vide MLC no. E/49610/07. He has testified that the deceased was wearing suit salwar, inner, bra and underwear and the built of the body was St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 78 moderate. According to him, rigormortis was present on upper limb and postmortem staining were fixed at back; eyes were closed;
conjuctivae was normal and cornea was hazy; mouth was closed, and was inside the mouth cavity. He has proved that there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead.
2. Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm respectively.
3. Bruising left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm.
4. 2 healed ulcers 7 cm x 4 cm and 5 cm x 2 cm on lower end of right leg and dorsum of right foot.
5. Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm.
(37) He has further proved that on internal examination of head he observed that Sub Scalp hematoma was present on biparietal region, generalized sub dural hematoma and sub arachnoid hemorrhage over biparietal region. The witness has proved having opined the cause of death as coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party and that the head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The witness has testified that the postmortem findings are consistent with beating before death and time since death was St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 79 approximately 15 hours. According to him. Blood, viscera and clothes were sealed with the sample seal of mortuary and total number of inquest papers were 12 which were handed over to the Investigating Officer with the Postmortem report which is Ex. PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A. (38) The witness has also deposed that on 26.05.2007, Investigating Officer moved an application and asked whether injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report could have been caused by fist blows in response to which, he has opined that opinion expressed on the basis of Postmortem findings in Postmortem report no.329/07 is relevant and consistent and the injury number 1,2,3,5 can be caused by fist blows or hard object like danda which opinion is Ex.PW6/B. According to him, on 08.09.2007 the Investigating Officer submitted the weapon of offence with seal of BS and on opening the seal, it found containing a 'thapi' and after examination, he opined that the injuries no. 1,2,3, and 5 could have been caused by this weapon or similar such weapon. The witness has proved having prepared the sketch diagram which is Ex.PW6/C and after examination, it was sealed with sample seal of mortuary and the subsequent opinion dated 08.09.2007 is Ex.PW6/D. He has also deposed that approximately 20 photographs were taken during the time of conducting the postmortem under his supervision, which are mark A1 to A20.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 80 (39) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that external injuries mentioned at no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are not mentioned as injuries on examination of Dr. RML Hospital and that there is Forensic Department in the RML hospital but postmortem is not being done in RML hospital. According to the witness, he conducted the postmortem on 29.04.07 at 1.00 PM and it was not in his knowledge when the body was received in the hospital. He has admitted that deceased was declared dead on 28.04.2007 at 11.30 PM but has denied that injuries other than MLC mentioned in the Postmortem report are possible after death or that injuries no. 1,2,3 and 5 can be self inflicted. He has further denied the suggestion that injuries no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were possible even after death or that subsequent opinion dated 08.09.2007 was prepared by him at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that generally a head injury is possible with the blow of danda on the head even by one person. He does not remember who had deposited the dead body of Anita in the mortuary and states that he had not verified regarding depositing of the dead body in the mortuary. According to PW6 Dr. V.K. Jha the Investigating Officer had given the inquest papers to him in the mortuary before he conducted the postmortem. This witness has further deposed that he has not tallied the injuries on the body of deceased with the inquest report. He has admitted that in the inquest report prepared by the SDM no external St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 81 injury is mentioned on the body of Anita (deceased). According to the witness, he had not consulted the SDM who prepared the inquest report regarding the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased by him when no external injuries was mentioned on the body of Anita by the SDM on the inquest report and has voluntarily explained that no consultation was required as SDM was present throughout the postmortem with him. He has denied that injury no. 1,2,3 and 5 were not antemortem. PW6 has further admitted that the Investigating Officer showed him the MLC of Anita which was prepared by RML hospital before he conducted the postmortem and that no external injury was shown in the MLC prepared by RML hospital on the body of Anita. He has voluntarily added that the patient was brought dead in RML hospital. PW6 has admitted that patient (Anita) was properly examined in the RML hospital where she was taken first and after examination she was declared dead and has voluntarily added that as the patient was brought dead, generally the deceased was thoroughly examined during postmortem. He has deposed that he has no personal knowledge whether Anita was taken to RML hospital as dead and has admitted that in the MLC prepared by RML hospital, it was shown by the doctor that Anita was having non healing ulcer on her leg. He is not aware who had deposited the dead body of Anita at SGM Mortuary. He has denied the suggestion that injury no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 can be caused while taking the body in some vehicle or that injuries 1, 2, 3 and 5 have St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 82 been inflicted by some one intentionally on the dead body of Anita in order to make out a false case. He has further denied the suggestion that the postmortem report has been prepared by him at the instance of the complainant in order to falsely implicate the accused persons or that Anita died a natural death and the injuries mentioned above cannot be caused by fist and blows.
(40) PW10 Dr. Sunil Saxena has proved the MLC No. 49610 of Anita wife of Manoj Kumar, 37 years female prepared by Dr. Praveen RML Hospital according to which MLC the patient was brought dead in the hospital on 28.04.2007, which MLC is Ex.PW10/A. The witness has proved that on local examination following injuries were mentioned: "Two ulcers forming 7 x 4 cms and 5 x 4 cms on anterior aspect of left lower leg and left proximal aspect of dorsum of foot, incision and drainage done five months back."
(41) He has also proved the Death Report which is Ex.PW10/B which is also in the handwriting of Dr. Praveen.
(42) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that generally he prepare the MLC of the patient after their examination and he usually mention in his MLC all the injuries reported by him. A specific question was put to the witness whether Dr. Praveen was working under his control and as per the guidelines of Medical Council of India as well as per the procedure adopted by doctors for conducting St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 83 the MLC was aware by Dr. Praveen and as the HOD, whether he used to instruct doctors in this respect, to which the witness answered in affirmative and has stated that all the doctors posted in the department are generally observing all the guidelines and directions of Medical Council of India.
(43) He has testified that instructions were issued from time to time for observances of above and in brought dead cases, as there is no forensic department in the RML hospital hence the postmortem was conducted in associate hospitals, MLC are prepared and sent to the forensic department for a detail examination as per the guidelines of the Medical Council of India. The witness has voluntarily added that in all injured cases, brought to the casualty of RML hospital requiring medical formality, the injuries are recorded in every detail in casualty and also by the department referred to. According to him, so far as this MLC is concerned Dr. Praveen did not consult him and he has no personal knowledge of MLC Ex.PW10/A. A specific question was put to the witness that whether doctor, who attends the patients in case brought dead case mentions the visible injuries in the MLC, to which the witness answered that doctors who usually attend such kind of patient, mention the visible injury. He has voluntarily stated that since in the Emergency great rush of patients are to be faced by the doctors, hence the possibility that they may miss some injury to be mentioned in the MLC cannot be ruled out. He has admitted that if doctor observed St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 84 any head injury which is visible that may be mentioned in the MLC. The witness has not agreed with the suggestion given by the Ld. Defence Counsel that mentioning of head injury of a person brought dead at emergency is more important than saving the life of a live patient brought to emergency. He is unable to tell whether the injuries mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW10/A was on the covered portion of the body or visible portion of the body.
Police/ official witnesses:
(44) PW1 HC Pardeep Kumar has testified that on 02.05.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi and was performing his duties as Duty Officer from 1:00 am to 9:00 am, on that day, he received a ruqqa on the basis of which, he registered the case FIR No. 383/07 under Section 498A/304B/302 IPC which is Ex.PW1/A and also made endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the original ruqqa, and that after registration of the FIR, he handed over the original ruqqa and computerized copy of the FIR to Inspector RS Malik for investigation of the case. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons and hence, his testimony remained unrebutted. (45) PW4 SI Mahesh Kumar is the Draftsman who has deposed that on 27.05.2007 he was called by Inspector Rajinder Singh Malik at the spot i.e. First Floor House No. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and he reached there where on the instance of Investigating Officer Inspector St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 85 Rajinder Singh Malik he prepared rough site plan and took measurements. He has further deposed that on the basis of rough notes and measurements he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW4/A and the rough notes and measurements were destroyed by him after preparation of scaled site plan. According to him, point A in the site plan shows the place where accused Manoj Kumar, Vinod and Smt. Angoori Devi gave hits and fist to Smt. Anita W/o Manoj Kumar. (46) In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsels, this witness deposed that he is unable to tell how many storeyes were built in the house which was inspected by him. He has further deposed that the distance between wall and point A is about one feet. He has denied that distance between wall and point a is much more than one feet. (47) PW12 Sh. Satbir Singh Administrative Officer in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital has deposed that Anita (deceased) was working as staff nurse in the said hospital and the administrative office, they keep the detailed service record of staff nurses working in Dr. RML hospital.
He has produced the original service record pertaining to Anita M. Garg staff Nurse according to which record Mrs. Anita M. Garg had made Sh. Manoj Kumar as nominee for her retirement gratuity being entitled to receive 100 percent share in case of her death. According to the witness, this document is at page no.5 of the service record running into 55 pages and is collectively Ex.PW12/A. He has St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 86 further deposed that in column no. 5, of this form at page no.5, names of Sakshi Dalal (niece) and Tapan Dalal (nephew) are mentioned being entitled to receive 50 percent each share in the gratuity of Anita in case of prior death of Manoj Kumar i.e. first nominee. Similarly at page no. 6, there is a photocopy of form no.5 i.e. nomination for benefits under Central Government Employees Insurance scheme, where the nomination is in favour of Manoj Kumar and in case of the death of Manoj Kumar, the nomination is in favour of Sakshi Dalal (niece) and Tapan Dalal(nephew). According to him, at page no.7, there is a photocopy of form no. 3 giving family details of Anita dated 17.12.2003 wherein only the name of Manoj Kumar appear as husband. In his cross examination the witness has denied the suggestion that as per government rules, nominee is not entitled to benefits as a matter of right.
(48) PW13 Sh. Chen Singh Senior Account from Dr. RML Hospital & Nursing Home Staff Cooperate Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. has brought the summoned record of Smt. Anita Garg according to which Smt. Anita became member of this society on 13.04.2002 and on five occasions from 02.08.2002 to 27.11.2006, she took loan from the society, total of which came out to be Rs. 90,000/. The witness has deposed that after May 2007, Anita had not deposited the loan installment and an amount of Rs.25,000/ is still pending against her. He has also produced the original record of the said five occasions, on St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 87 which she took loan, which details are Ex.PW13/A. (49) In his cross examination the witness has admitted that in the loan application form no. 47 dated 19.07.2002, the purpose of loan is written in a different ink and not in the ink, which was used for filling up the form. According to him, the remaining application forms pertaining to the loan were in the same ink.
(50) PW15 Mrs. T. Rajan, Accounts Officer, RML Hospital has stated that she was working in the hospital since May 2005. According to the witness, she had produced the documents relating to Smt Anita Garg, Staff Nurse to the police i.e. information on GPF taken by Smt Anita Garg, Staff Nurse which certificate is Ex.PW15/A reflecting the amount withdrawn by Smt Anita Garg, Staff nurse; Letter dated 11.07.2007 regarding information of savings on income tax which is Ex.PW15B issued by her; certified copy of Form 16 which is Ex.PW15/C (as per income tax purpose her pay was Rs. 0 (zero) for 20012002); the calculations details which are Ex.PW15/D attested by her at point A and Income tax deduction for the year 20042005 which is Ex.PW15/E attested by her at point A according to which document there was no savings except GPF and rent receipt. She has deposed that police met her and recorded her statement and she provided the documents.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 88 (51) In her cross examination the witness has admitted that the document Ex.PW15/A is showing the amount of Rs.45,000/ withdrawn for the purpose of marriage of her sister and the amount of Rs.99,984/ is showing the amount for the treatment of her husband and the amount of Rs.74,931/ is showing the amount for the treatment of her mother in law. She has deposed that she has no personal knowledge of the case and she has deposed on the basis of official record. She does not remember personally whether Anita has produced the rent receipt Ex.PW15/DA and Ex.PW15/DB and the rent agreement Ex.PW15/DC.
(52) PW17 Sh. B.P. Mishra Sub Registrar, Nand Nagri has deposed that on 28.04.2007, he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh Sub Division and on that day in the night hours around 12 O'clock, he received message from Police Station Nangloi that one lady was admitted as brought dead at RML hospital and the body was still lying there. According to the witness, since it was night hours and the lady had already died hence he informed the police that he would reach the hospital in the next morning. He has testified that in the morning, he called the relatives of the deceased for recording their statements and around 8 AM, he recorded the statements of parents of the deceased Anita. He has proved having recorded the statement of Amir Singh Dalal which is Ex.PW17/A, bearing signatures of Amir St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 89 Dalal at point X attested by him at point Y with his seal impression. He has also proved having recorded the statement of Smt. Satwanti which is Ex.PW3/A signed by her at point X and attested by him at point Y with his seal impression. The witness has testified that he directed the police to shift the dead body to SGM hospital for postmortem and thereafter he also reached SGM hospital and recorded the statement of witness Kuldeep Dalal, brother of the deceased and Amir Singh Dalal, father of the deceased in respect of identification of the dead body, which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW17/B, attested by him at point X with his seal impression. According to him, Amir Singh Dalal signed Ex.PW17/B in his presence at point Y. He has also proved having signed the inquest paper, form 25 & 35 Ex.PW17/C and request of Postmortem which is Ex.PW17/D. The witness has further deposed that on the same day i.e. 29.04.2007 postmortem of the deceased Anita was conducted and during the Postmortem he remained present in the Postmortem room, Mortuary of SGM hospital. According to the witness, during the postmortem the photographs of the deceased were also taken and he directed the police officials to hand over the dead body of the deceased to her relatives. He has testified that on 1.05.2007 he made an endorsement on the statement of Amir Singh Dalal which is Ex.PW17/A after which he gave directions to the SHO Police Station Nangloi to register an FIR and for initiating action as per law which St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 90 endorsement in this regard from point Z to Z, signed by him with seal impression on the back of Ex.PW17/A. (53) In his cross examination, the witness has deposed that he had recorded the statement of parents of deceased at his residence but he does not remember, whose statement he recorded first. According to the witness both the witnesses i.e. Amir Chand and Satyawati remained at his residence for about 45 minutes and he had asked and explained to Satyawati to disclose all the facts regarding the incident. He has testified that witness Satyawati was in perfect state at the time of recording the statement. According to the witness, he was not conversant with the writing of Hindi language (since he belonged to Orissa), therefore, one person who came alongwith the said witnesses recorded their statement in Hindi and none other person was present there. He has further deposed that there were total four persons who came to his residence, including the two witnesses but he has no idea if the person who recorded the statements in Hindi was in their family member. The witness has also deposed that there was a possibility that Satyawati had written her statement in her own handwriting. He does not recollect, if the statement of Amir Singh was also recorded in the handwriting of Satyawati. According to the witness, he handed over the endorsement for conducting Postmortem to the Investigating Officer at around 9 AM. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the hospital or at the Mortuary at the time of postmortem at St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 91 SGM hospital or that no statement was made by Amir Singh. The witness has further denied that he made the endorsement in a casual manner. According to the witness, he did not give directions to the doctor who conducted Postmortem for taking photographs and he is aware as to who had taken over the photographs and how many photographs were taken. The witness has deposed that the inquest report was prepared by him after inspection of the dead body. He has admitted that the visible injuries present at the body of deceased are generally mentioned in the inquest papers. According to PW17, he had inspected the dead body of deceased Anita but he did not conduct a detail examination of the head of dead body nor he noticed any head injury by lifting her hairs. He has denied the suggestion that dead body of Anita was not having any head injury and that is why he had not mentioned it in his inquest report. He has testified that he had seen only the postmortem conducted by the doctor. He is unable to tell what type of injuries were there on the dead body. According to him, he had seen the doctors removing the hairs of the deceased at the time of postmortem but he had not seen the MLC of RML hospital and the other papers of the hospital. The witness has testified that he prepared the inquest record without seeing the MLC of RML hospital and has voluntarily added that he was informed that Anita was brought dead to the RML hospital and therefore he did not feel any necessity of seeing the MLC of the hospital. He has further deposed that he had seen only St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 92 the face of the deceased at the time of preparation of inquest report and therefore, he was not in a position to tell whether there was head injury or not. According to the witness, he did not notice any blood stains on the face of dead body and the doctor did not consult him during postmortem regarding his inquest report.
(54) PW18 Ct. Bijender Singh has deposed that on 02.05.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi as Constable and on that day, Duty Officer Ct. Pardeep Kumar handed over him envelopes after he took those envelopes on government vehicle bearing no. DL1SN- 4104 and delivered the same to Special Magistrate, Joint Commissioner of Police at Tilak Lane, Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) at Hauz Khas and Assistant Commissioner of Police Punjabi Bagh. He was not not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity and hence, his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (55) PW19 SI Bahadur Singh has deposed that on 27.02.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi as ASI and on that day he was on day emergency duty. According to him, on that day he received DD No.26A at about 04.00 PM after which he reached at house no. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi where one lady Anita W/o Sh. Manoj met him who told her that there was a dispute between husband and wife and told that she had not received any injuries. The witness has further deposed that Anita did not want any action against her husband and accordingly he filed the call. The witness has identified DD No.26 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 93 dated 27.02.2007 attested copy of which is Ex.PW19/A. (56) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he does not remember if he had stated to the Investigating Officer that Anita told him that she did not received any injury. He has denied the suggestion that he can not say if he had not stated so in his statement regarding the injury as there was no injury to Anita. He does not remember if he met any relative of Anita on that day and states that due to lapse of time, he is unable to tell if the tenants were present there or not.
(57) PW20 Mr. S. Mahto, Medical Record Technician, RML Hospital, New Delhi has produced the admission record of Anita age 37 years, wife of Sh. Manoj Kumar R/o B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi according to which the patient was brought dead to the Casualty at about 11.15 PM on 28.04.2007. He has proved the admission record running in five pages photocopy of which is Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/5; photocopy of original letter dated 01.06.2007 which is Ex.PW20/6; photocopy of the DFA letter which is Ex.PW20/7; photocopy of MLC which is Ex.PW20/8, photocopy of the note sheet of the official file which is Ex.PW20/9 and copy of the application of the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW20/10. He has further placed on record the admission register containing the entries in respect of patient Anita at serial no. 15234 in the hospital. According St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 94 to him, the patient was declared dead and photocopy of the entry in the register is Ex.PW20/11. He has also produced the CMO register containing the entries in respect of date i.e 27.04.2007 according to which the patient Anita was brought in the casualty with alleged history of headache at 12.05 AM in the intervening night of 27/28.04.2007, and entry in this regard is Ex.PW20/12, entry is at point X. He further deposed that the emergency serial number was started from E492XY/07 dated 27.04.2007. He further deposed that in this digit the XY meant for serial number and on 25.04.2007 the patient Anita was brought in the Emergency with the alleged history of pain in abdomen and this entry was made in the record vide serial number E/478XX/07. He has testified that the entry of the patient Anita is at serial number 76 and the word XX is used for the serial number of the patient, photocopy of which is Ex.PW20/13 bearing the entry at point X. He has has also brought Medial Emergency no. 4, Treatment Book, containing the entry dated 27.04.2007 from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM and as per entry at serial no.7 patient Anita was brought in the emergency and was given injection Voveran and subsequently, this entry was struck over by someone, attested copy of which entry is Ex.PW20/14 running in two pages up to 28.04.2007. According to the witness letter dated 26.09.2007 was issued to Sh. S.S. Rathi, Police Station Nangloi by the Medical Officer, which letter is Ex.PW20/15 and another letter dated 01.10.2007 issued by the Medical Officer to Sh. S.S. Rathi, Police St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 95 Station Nangloi vide Ex.PW20/16. He has proved the photocopy of the OPD Registration Card of the RML hospital having number E/49240/07 dated 27.04.2007 issued by the hospital, photocopy of the slip is Mark X. The witness has also produced the attendance treatment book ME4 containing the entry of patient Anita vide E/49240/07 photocopy of which entry is Ex.PW20/14. He has admitted that document particular regarding the OPD number, patient name and date are matching with the original record brought by him. This witness has not been crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
(58) The witness S. Mehato was recalled on 12.12.2011 but he is unable to produce the original slip bearing No. E49240/07 dated 27.04.2007, copy of which was Mark X since the original always given to the attendant of the patient. On specific Court Question, the witness was unable to explain with regard to the cutting on Ex.PW20/14 at S.No. 7 encircled X. This Court has observed that Mark X was a photocopy which has not been filed along with the charge sheet and prosecution was not relying upon the same because it was not filed along with the chargesheet. It was further observed that this document has been created at a later stage and contains certain manipulation by addition of observations regarding loss of consciousness and also mentioned other prescriptions. This Court St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 96 has also observed manipulation in the treatment book showing cutting at S.No.7 (Ex.PW20/14) and had an explanation in this regard would be necessitated for which purpose Medical Superintendent of RML hospital was directed to be called as Court witness.
(59) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he have no personal knowledge of any of the documents or their contents thereof and he has produced the official record on the direction of the Medical Superintendent. (60) PW22 HC Balwan Singh has deposed that on 28.04.2007 he was posted as MHC(M) at Police Station Nangloi and on that day, SI Raghbir Singh deposited one sealed parcel pursuant to which he made entry in register no.19 at Sr. No.5037, copy of which is Ex.PW22/A. He has also deposed that on 29.04.2007 SI Raghbir Singh deposited two sealed parcels along with sample seal and he made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 5040, copy of which is Ex.PW22/B. According to him, on 30.08.2007 Insp. Baljeet Singh deposited one sealed parcel on which he made an entry in register no. 19 at serial no. 5353, copy of which is Ex.PW22/C. The witness has testified that on 04.06.2007, case property was sent to FSL through Ct. Lalit Kumar vide RC No. 219/21 to FSL Rohini, Delhi and he made entry in this regard in the register at point X on Ex.PW22/B. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 97 According to him, Ct. Lalit Kumar handed over the receipt of the same with him which is Ex.PW22/D and photocopy of RC is Ex.PW22/E. The witness has testified that as per entry on 31.08.2007 one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of BS was handed over to SI S.S. Rathi for obtaining the opinion and entry in this regard is at point Y on Ex.PW22/C. The witness has also deposed that he deposited the parcels on the same day and he himself made entry in this regard at point Z on Ex.PW22/C. The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel despite an opportunity and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(61) PW23 ASI Jagmer Singh has deposed that on 18.05.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi as Head Constable and on that day accused Manoj and Vinod were arrested and accused Manoj made a disclosure statement. According to him, Investigating Officer prepared the arrest memo of accused Manoj vide Ex.PW23/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW23/B. He has proved that the accused Vinod was arrested vide memo Ex.PW23/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW23/D. According to him, thereafter the accused persons were brought to lock up of Police Station Nangloi. He has correctly identified the accused Manoj and accused Vinod in the Court. The witness has testified that on 19.05.2007 he again joined the investigation of this case at 09.00 AM St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 98 and on that day he along with Inspector R.S. Malik and accused Manoj left the police station for investigation and when they reached near the gate of the police station, accused Angoori met them on which the Investigating Officer called lady Ct. Sunita and thereafter the accused Angoori was also arrested who was kept in the police station in the custody of lady Ct. Sunita whereas they left the police station. According to the witness, accused Manoj led them to house no. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and pointed out the room where the deceased Anita was beaten on which the Investigating Officer prepared a pointing out memo which is Ex.PW23/F. He has testified that the Investigating Officer also prepared a site plan on the spot and searched the room and recovered one CGHS card of deceased Anita having the photograph of Anita, accused Angoori and treatment papers (about 70 papers) of the Anita which were seized vide memo Ex.PW23/G. He has identified the CGHS card No. 373644 reflecting the photograph of accused Manoj, accused Angoori and deceased Anita with their names, which card is Ex.PW23/H; passbook of Corporation Bank in the name of Anita is Ex.PW23/I and about 70 papers of medical treatment out of which some are Ex.PW2/D1 to Ex.PW2/D27 and remaining 43 papers are Ex.PW23/J1 to Ex.PW23/J43. He has further deposed that thereafter they returned back to police station and accused was confined in lock up. According to the witness, on the same day the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 99 accused persons were produced before the Court after their medical examination and sent to Judicial custody. He has correctly identified the accused Angoori Devi in the Court.
(62) The witness has also deposed that on 28.05.2007, he again joined the investigation of this case and on that day the Investigating Officer sent him to RML hospital for getting checked the GPF account of deceased Anita and he made inquire from Sh. S.K Gautam, Account Branch, Admn. Block, RML hospital and also recorded his statement. Thereafter he returned back and the statement was handed over to Investigating Officer and also recorded the daily diary in this regard. (63) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that in the arrest memo Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/C, the place of arrest has been shown as Near Bhooton Wali Gali which is situated at Nangloi, Delhi. According to him, when the accused Angoori Devi met them outside the police station no other person accompanied her at that time and has voluntarily stated that later on her son Sajjan reached there in his presence within five to seven minutes. He has testified that in the meantime, the Investigating Officer made inquiries from accused Angoori Devi and that the Investigating Officer conducted the complete search of the house at the time of recovery of the documents which was seized by the Investigating Officer. He has voluntarily added that accused himself produced all the documents to the Investigating Officer. He has also St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 100 deposed that one tenant Kirpal Singh on the ground floor was residing there. He has testified that Kripal Singh was the tenant and not the landlord and he did not make any inquiry from Kripal Singh nor he recorded his statement. He has admitted that Kripal Singh was residing in rented accommodation where Manoj and his deceased wife were residing. He has also deposed that prior to the arrest of Angoori Devi, they had gone to her house on number of occasions but he is unable to tell the exact number and the dates and has voluntarily stated that he had gone to her house along with the Investigation Officer Inspector R.S. Malik but whenever they had gone to the house of Angoori Devi, they found the house locked. According to the witness, he had gone to the house of accused Manoj and deceased on one or two occasions along with SI Raghuvir Singh but he is unable to tell the date. The witness has also deposed that the house of Manoj and deceased Anita was on the first floor and has voluntarily added that they were residing in one room on the first floor. According to him, the stairs of the house is about ten to fifteen feet away from the house of accused Manoj and deceased Anita. He has testified that on 19.05.2007 when they had gone to the house of Manoj for Nishandehi, apart from himself and Inspector R.S. Malik one other Constable was present whose name he does not recollect. He has further deposed that when they reached the house of Manoj it was open and therefore they entered which room was fully furnished. According to the witness, they stayed there for about St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 101 one hour from 10.00 AM to 11.00 AM and on that day they had come straight from the police station. He is not aware if any ravangi was made in the register while leaving the police station and has voluntarily stated that the Investigating Officer must have made the same. He has also deposed that they had gone to the house of Manoj on one more occasion after 19.05.2007 but he does not remember the specific dates and on that day also they did not met any person. He has denied that he had only gone to the house of Manoj alongwith the parents of the deceased to plant the weapon of offence. He is not aware whether the statement of Sajjan Singh, brother of accused was recorded and has voluntarily added that only the Investigating Officer can tell about the same.
(64) PW24 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry (FSL, Delhi) has deposed that on 04.06.2007 one parcel duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangol Puri, Delhi labeled as PMR No. 329/07 dated 29.04.2007 was received through Ct. Lalit Kumar for analysis. According to her, seals were intact as per specimen seal mentioned in the FSL Form and the parcel was opened by breaking the seal. It was found containing Ex.1A i.e stomach and pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a jar, Ex.1B i.e pieces of liver and spleen and kidney kept in a jar, Ex.1C blood sample volume approximate 100 ML kept in a jar. He has further deposed that all the above exhibits were examined by her chemically and she opined that St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 102 on chemical and TLC examination metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol and cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1A, Ex.1B and Ex.1C. She has further deposed that after examination remnants of exhibits sent to Laboratory for examination have been sealed with the seal of KVL, FSL, Delhi. She has proved her detailed report which is Ex.PW24/A which report and case property was forwarded vide forwarding letter Ex.PW24/B. She was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(65) PW25 Ct. Lalit Kumar has deposed that on 04.06.2007, he was posted at Police Station Nangloi and on that day he collected the sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SGM Mortuary and FSL form from MHC (M) as per direction of the Investigating Officer for depositing the same to FSL, Rohini. He has further deposed that he had deposited the same on the same day vide RC No. 219/21 and handed over the receipt was to the MHC(M). The witness has also deposed that the case property was not tampered by anybody till it remained in his custody. He was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(66) PW26 ASI Murti Devi has deposed that on 29.08.2007, she St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 103 was posted at Police Station Nangloi as Head Constable and on that day she joined the investigation of this case. According to her, on that day at about 03.00 PM she was called by Inspr. Prakash Chand Malik in his office and when she reached there, she and found accused Shalu Gupta and her mother Kamla present there and accused Shalu Gupta was making disclosure statement and Inspr. Prakash Chand Malik was reducing the same into writing. The witness has proved that she signed the disclosure statement made by Shalu Gupta and her mother also signed the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW26/A but it does not bear signature of Smt. Kamla. She has also deposed that accused Shalu Gupta was arrested at about 04.00 PM vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/B which was signed by Smt. Kamla at point B. She has proved that the personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/C which was signed by Smt. Kamla. She has testified that the accused Shalu Gupta was medically examined in SGM hospital and her MLC was handed over to Investigating Officer. (67) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that she remained in the room of Inspector upto 03.30 PM i.e. for about half an hour but she is unable to tell exact time of her stay in the room of Inspector. She has denied that no person in the name of Kamla was present in the office of Investigating Officer in her presence. According to the witness, prior to this case she was not known to accused Shalu Gupta. She has denied the suggestion that no St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 104 disclosure statement was made by accused Shalu Gupta in her presence or that she has signed the disclosure statement as well as arrest memo on the instructions of the Investigating Officer. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer had obtained the signature of accused Shalu Gupta on blank papers or that accused Shalu Gupta was arrested by the police officials prior to writing the disclosure statement.
(68) PW27 SI Raghuvir Singh (Retd.) has deposed that on 28.04.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi when he received DD No. 65 B, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A in respect of the fact that Anita W/o Manoj Kumar was got admitted in RML Hospital by her husband and declared brought dead. The witness has deposed that he reached alone at the hospital and collected MLC of Anita which is Ex.PW10/A. According to the witness, he inspected the dead body of Anita and brother of Anita namely Kuldeep Dalal met him there who told him that marriage of his sister deceased Anita was solemnized in the year 2001 with accused Manoj. The witness has testified that since the death had occurred within seven years of marriage, therefore he informed the SDM Punjabi Bagh and Duty Constable Subhash handed over one parcel containing the jewellery articles of deceased Anita which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW27/B. He has further deposed that he moved an application with the doctor for preservation of the dead body (which is not available to the judicial St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 105 file) after which he returned to Police Station and deposited the parcel in the Malkhana. He has testified that on the same day, Kuldeep Dalal brother of deceased Anita had given a complaint to him and he kept the same. He has also deposed that on 29.04.2007 he called the parents of deceased Anita namely Amir Singh and Smt. Satwanti Devi and Kuldeep Dalal and produced them before SDM who recorded the statement of Amir Dalal and Smt. Satyawanti Devi. According to the witness, the SDM directed the body to be sent for postmortem and thereafter the SDM prepared the inquest papers and postmortem on the body was got conducted during which the photographs of the dead body during postmortem were also taken. The witness has also deposed that prior to postmortem dead body was identified by Kuldeep Dalal and Amit Dalal and after postmortem dead body was handed over to its claimants vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He has testified that Duty Constable handed over sealed parcel containing the clothes of deceased and viscera as well as sample seal which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW27/C. He has proved having collected the postmortem report and thereafter got registered the FIR of this case on the directions of SDM after which the investigations were marked to Insp. R.S. Malik. According to the witness, he visited the spot of incident i.e B21, Bhooton Wali Gali, Nangloi on 28.04.2007 which house was found locked and he came to know that all the inlaws had ran away. The witness has also deposed that he deposited the case property with St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 106 MHC(M) and handed over the memos to Insp. R.S. Malik. According to the witness, he had also mentioned that photographs of the postmortem were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16/B. The witness has also stated that when he reached the hospital, husband of Anita was not there and he tried to search him but he was not traceable. (69) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels he has deposed that he had received DD No. 65B at 10.50 PM on 28.04.2007. He has admitted the fact mentioned in the DD entry that Anita was brought dead in the hospital by accused Manoj. According to him, when he reached the hospital only brother of the deceased Kuldeep Dalal met him there. He has testified that he informed the SDM from his mobile but he does not remember the mobile number of the SDM. The witness has further deposed that he came to know from the Duty Constable that sealed parcel was containing jewellery of the deceased and states that he had deposited this pullanda with MHC(M) at about 03.00 AM in the morning. According to him, he did not mention the FIR number at that time while depositing the same in Malkhana. The witness has also deposed that on 29.04.2007 at about 09.00 AM at Police Station he for the first time met Amir Singh and his wife Smt. Satwanti Devi and immediately he took them to SDM Punjabi Bagh and has voluntarily added that at that time Kuldeep Singh Dalal was also there. Witness has further deposed that he reached SDM around 10.00 AM and he was not present with SDM when he (SDM) had St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 107 recorded statements and states that SDM might have taken one hour for recording of statements. He does not remember whether he had made a departure and arrival entries in this respect. The witness has also deposed that SDM had prepared four inquest papers and that SDM did not give any written instructions to take photographs of the postmortem and has explained that SDM had given verbal instructions for the same. He has admitted that he had taken one photograph of his choice and has stated that he seized 13 photographs of the postmortem on the same day but he did not seize the negatives of the same. According to the witness, the photographs did not mention any date or time. He has testified that he never recorded the statement of Amir Singh, Satwanti Devi and Kuldeep Singh or any other witness. The witness has also deposed that he had visited the house where Anita died in the night hours on the same day, thereafter, he never visited the house where Anita died.
(70) PW28 Lady Constable Om Prabha has deposed that on 30.08.2007 she was posted at Police Station Nangloi and on that day she joined the investigation of this case. According to her, accused Shalu Gupta was in her custody and at the instance of Shalu Gupta they reached house no. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi at first floor where Shalu pointed out one room near the kitchen and informed that Manoj gave beatings to Anita with a Thapi used for washing the clothes. The witness has further deposed that thereafter Shalu led them at the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 108 second floor of the said house and told that she had hidden the Thapi there and herself lifted one Thapi from the bathroom which she handed over to them. She has proved that the Thapi was thereafter turned into a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of BS after which the Investigating Officer prepared pointing out memo of first floor vide Ex.PW28/A; pointing memo and recovery of Thapi of the second floor which is Ex.PW28/B. She has further deposed that thereafter they returned back to police station where the Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC(M) and accused was produced before the court and sent to judicial custody. She has correctly identified the accused Shalu and also identified the case property i.e. the Thapi which is Ex.PA as the same which was got recovered by the accused Shalu.
(71) In her crossexamination the witness has deposed that they went in the Gypsy of SHO but she is unable to tell the number of Gypsy due to lapse of time. According to the witness, she along with SHO and SI S.S. Rathi along with the accused went to Vishal Colony, but she is unable to tell the exact time when they reached there. She has testified that she did not count how many rooms were situated in first floor nor she can tell how many rooms were situated at second floor as she did not count the rooms. She has admitted that similar Thapi as Ex.PA is available in every house but has denied the suggestion that Thapi was planted by the police officials in connivance St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 109 with brother and other her family members of deceased Anita. She does not remember whether any other public person was accompanied them or not nor does she remember whether family members of deceased Anita accompanied them or not. She has denied the suggestion that brother and relative of deceased Anita were already present. According to the witness, she remained there for half an hour and she is not sure whether any other police officials was already present there. The witness has also deposed that no tenant was found at ground floor. She is not aware whether any tenant was there or not at ground floor. PW28 has also deposed that she did not ask any public person to accompany her in the proceedings. According to her, she did not measure the size of Thapi nor she had seen the Investigating Officer taking measurements of Thapi nor the sketch of the Thapi was prepared by the Investigating Officer in her presence. She has deposed that she remained with the Investigating Officer through out the proceedings in that house. She has denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigation or any proceedings as stated above or that she had signed the memos while sitting at police station. The witness has further denied the suggestion that Shalu Gupta did not point out the place of alleged recovery of Thapi or that accused Shalu Gupta did not lift Thapi from the bathroom and handed over to police. (72) PW29 Inspector Surender Singh Rathi has deposed that in July 2007 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Nangloi and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 110 on 11.07.2007 he joined the investigation of the present case along with Inspector Baljeet Singh, the then SHO Police Station Nangloi which on the instructions of Inspector Baljeet Singh he had gone to RML Hospital and collected the documents relating to accounts of the deceased, details regarding the nominations in the GPF and details of the loans taken by the deceased. He has proved that after collecting the details from the hospital he recorded statements of the Account Officer and the other officials of the department who had provided the above said details to him. The witness has further deposed that he also made local inquiries from the hospital and colleagues of the deceased who remained with her and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has deposed that he also obtained the record of the deceased regarding her treatment in the hospital on or before 28.04.2007. According to him, on the same day he went to the place of occurrence i.e. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and made local inquiries from the residents of the same building. PW29 has further deposed that there were tenants in the same premises but most of the persons told them that they were residing there for the last two to two and a half month and could not tell anything about the incident. He has testified that from the local inquiries they came to know that one of the brothers of the accused Manoj was residing at house no.23, Extension no.3, Nangloi, Delhi and when they reached the given address, they met one Sushil Kumar the brother of accused Manoj Kumar and he recorded his St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 111 statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after which he returned to the police station and handed over all the documents to the SHO Inspector Baljeet Singh and informed him about the investigations conducted by him. According to PW29, on 30.08.2007 he was present in the police station Nangloi when he was informed by Inspector Baljeet Singh that one Shalu Gupta had been arrested in this case and had disclosed regarding recovery of weapon of offence and she could get the same recovered. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he accompanied the SHO Inspector Baljeet Singh, the accused Shalu Gupta, lady Constable Om Prabha went to the place shown by Shalu Gupta in the official Gypsy and thereafter Shalu Gupta led them to B21, Vishal Colony where she pointed out towards the first floor as the place where the deceased Anita had been beaten with a Thapi which was thereafter kept on the second floor. He has proved that the pointing out memo was prepared by Inspector Baljeet Singh which is Ex.PW28/A and thereafter Shalu led them to the second floor where she got the thapi recovered from behind the door of the bath room and disclosed that it was the same thapi with which her Jeth Manoj had given beating to deceased Anita. He has proved that the seizure memo of the thapi was prepared which is Ex.PW28/B. According to him, the Investigating Officer measured the thapi whose handle was found to be 12.5 cms whose base was 32 cms and width was 5.5 cms and height was 3 Cms. He has proved that thereafter a pullanda was prepared with St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 112 the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of BS. According to him, thereafter they returned to the police station where the thapi was deposited in the Malkhana. PW29 has testified that on the next day i.e. 31.8.2007 on the instructions of Inspector Baljeet Singh he took the thapi to the Autopsy Surgeon at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and handed over the thapi to him for opinion. He has testified that Dr. Jha kept the thapi and his application seeking his opinion is Ex.PW29/A. (73) PW29 Inspector Surender Singh Rathi has further deposed that on 08.09.2007 he again went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital to find out about the opinion of Dr. Jha, the Autopsy Surgeon when Dr. Jha handed over his application Ex.PW29/A containing his opinion on the back side of the same and also returned to him the weapon of offence along with sketch/ drawing of the same which is Ex.PW6/C. The witness has further deposed that he returned back to the police station and handed over the opinion, the sketch of the thapi to the SHO Inspector S.N. Khan and deposited the thapi in the Malkhana. He has correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. Thapi which is Ex.PA.
(74) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that the first day when he went to the hospital (RML Hospital), he was alone and he did not move any application before Medical Superintendent asking him to provide him the details of the deceased staff nurse and all her colleagues working with her and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 113 has voluntarily stated that there was no need because he had already got this information from the office from where he was collecting her other details regarding her accounts etc. He is unable to tell the name of the officer who had provided him with this information or his status but states that he was there in the Accounts Office. According to the witness, he came to know that Anita was last on duty in the Psychiatric Department. He has testified that he did not obtain any details regarding all the staff nurses and doctors posted at Psychiatric Department and has voluntarily added that he came to know about the details of the nurses/ doctors posted from the office and also from the Psychiatric Department. He has admitted that the Psychiatric Department is situated separately from the rest of the hospital and states that it is across the road and adjoining the Administrative Block. He is not aware if approximately 23 nurses were posted in the Psychiatric Department at the relevant time. He has denied the suggestion that he had recorded the specific statements of nurses on the asking of brother of the deceased Sh. Kuldeep Dalal or that Kuldeep Dalal accompanied him when he went to the hospital. The witness has further testified that he reached the hospital at about 11.00AM and remained there till about 4.00PM and it took him about five hours to complete the entire proceedings. He has also deposed that he did not come to know at the hospital about the ailments with which the deceased was suffering from and states that he only collected the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 114 documents. He is not aware if the deceased had been undergoing treatment for drug addiction nor he came to know about same. He has denied that he was specifically informed by her colleague nurses that the deceased was a drug addict and had undergone treatment for the same which fact he did not deliberately record. According to PW29, he did not examine any doctor involved in the providing of treatment to the deceased as reflected from the documents collected by him and he only informed the Investigating Officer about what he had done and rest it was for him (IO) to decide who else was to be examined. He has denied the suggestion that he did not deliberately record the statement of the doctor who gave treatment to the the deceased or that he only collected those documents which were supporting the prosecution case and did not collect the other documents relating to the treatment of the deceased prior to her death.
(75) According to PW9 Inspector Surennder Singh on 11.07.2007 he reached House No. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi at about 5.15 PM and at that time only the main gate from where there was entry to the first and second floor was open and has voluntarily stated that all the rooms on the first floor were closed. He has testified that on that day he did not go the top floors and has voluntarily added that there was no need because the second and top floors were visible from the ground floor from the stair case which was open. He is unable to tell whether the rooms on the second floor were open and states that he did not go St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 115 to the second floor. He has admitted that he did not go to the first floor and has voluntarily added that he could see that all the rooms on the first floor were locked from the stair case. He is unable to tell how many rooms were there on the first floor. He has denied that he deliberately did not go the to the first and second floor or that the rooms were opened or that he did not do this because all the accused persons were already in custody by that time. The witness has testified that he did not note down the names and details of the tenant whom he met on the ground floor. He has further deposed that he also did not find out from them as to how they were inducted as tenants and states that the tenants whom he had met, had told him that they were not present in the premises at the time of incident and had been inducted as tenant later. He has denied that the tenants from whom he had made inquiries were old tenants and could not have been inducted later as the landlord was already in judicial custody. The witness has denied the suggestion that the tenants had specifically informed him that the deceased was a drug addict and often used to quarrel with accused Manoj whenever she had a craving for drugs or that he was also told by the tenants since she could not conceived even after 8 to 10 years of her marriage including her previous marriages, it was for this reason that she was addicted to drugs and had suicidal tendencies. According to PW29, he did not come to know during the local inquiry that the family of the previous husband of the deceased residing in the same colony. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 116 The witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiries with regard to the previous marriages of the deceased and did not come to know during his local enquiries that Manoj was a registered Pharmacist and was having his own chemist shop in the locality. He has further deposed that he also did not come to know during investigations that Manoj and the previous husband of the deceased were good friends and her previous husband was also having a chemist shop in the same area. He did not come to know in the local enquiries that the marriage between the deceased and Manoj was an outcome of love affair or that it was a simple marriage, nor he came to know during the investigations or from the local inquiries that the younger brother of accused Manoj i.e. Vinod, his wife Shalu and his mother Angoori was residing separately along with their children in the same area in Nangloi. He has denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statement of owner/ landlord of accused Vinod and states that he came to know about the other brothers of Manoj only from his brother Sushil during inquiries. He has denied the suggestion that no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was made by Sushil or that he has recorded the statement of Sushil of his own. According to him, on 11.07.2007 no other police official was associated with him during the inquiries/ investigations. He has denied that during the course of investigation the fact in respect of marriage of Neetu with Vivek (Om Prakash Garg's family) on 28.04.2007 came to his knowledge that the accused i.e. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 117 Vinod, Shalu and Angoori Devi had gone to attend the said marriage. The witness has also denied that on the same day he had properly searched the first and second floor of the house bearing no. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. According to him, accused Shalu Gupta was not arrested in his presence. He is not aware about the details of arrest of Shalu Gupta and therefore he is unable to tell whether anybody from her father's family was present in the police station on 30.08.2007. According to the witness, there was no lock on the staircase when he went to H. No.B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi on 30.08.2007. He has deposed that there were locks on the rooms of the first floor but no locks on the rooms of the second floor. According to him, on 30.08.2007 there were tenants present on the ground floor and has voluntarily added that there was one lady and a small child. He has also deposed that on that day no public witness was present in the investigations and nobody opened the locks of the first floor in his presence. He has admitted that thapi is commonly available in the families but has denied that no thapi was got recovered by Shalu Gupta and the same was planted on her in connivance with the brother of the deceased. The witness has also denied the suggestion that all documentation was done while sitting in the police station at the instance of the Investigating Officer and it is for this reason that no public witness was joined in the investigation or that they never visited the property bearing No. B21. Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. He has St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 118 denied the suggestion that the thapi had been planted during the intervening period of three months when the accused were away from the property. According to the witness, no blood stains were visible with naked eye on the thapi and he is not aware if the thapi was sent to FSL or not. He has denied the suggestion that Shalu never pointed out the place of the incident or that she never led them to the place of recovery of weapon of offence. He has also deposed that when the thapi was given to Dr. V. K. Jha, it was in sealed condition. The witness is unable to tell if Dr. Jha knew what was there in the sealed parcel and has voluntarily added that he did not tell him (Dr. Jha) that it was a thapi. He has denied the suggestion that Dr. Jha is giving reports in number of cases of their police station or that the report given by Dr. Jha is given on his tutoring and suggestion. The witness has further testified that when the thapi was returned it was sealed but he is unable to tell the details of the seal. He has denied that the sketch of the thapi had been prepared by him and it was only signed by Dr. Jha. (76) PW30 Inspector Rajender Singh has deposed that on 02.05.2007 he was posted as Inspector Investigation at Police Station Nangloi and on that day investigation of this case was handed over to him when he went to the place of incident i.e. H. No. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi where he prepared the site plan Ex.PW30/A. According to the witness, he made local inquiry and recorded statement of SI Raghuvir Singh. He has proved having recorded the statement of St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 119 Kuldeep Singh brother of the deceased and on 18.05.2007 he along with SI Raghubir Singh, HC Jagmer Singh, Ct. Balbir Singh reached at corner of Gali Bhooton Wali, Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi according to the information of secret informer and at about 9.009.15PM he arrested accused Manoj Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/A and took his personal search vide Ex.PW23/B. The witness has proved having arrested the accused Vinod Kumar vide Ex.PW23/C and took his personal search vide memo Ex.PW23/D. He has deposed that thereafter they returned to the police station and interrogated accused Manoj Kumar after which he record the disclosure statement of Manoj vide Ex.PW23/A. The witness has also deposed that on 19.05.2007 he along with HC Jagmer Singh, W/Ct. Sunita with accused Manoj Kumar were going to the house of Manoj Kumar when they found accused Angoori Devi just in front of police station at a distance of 15 feet and thereafter he arrested Angoori Devi vide Ex.PW30/B after which her personal search was taken through Lady Ct. Sunita vide Ex.PW30/C. According to the witness, thereafter they came back to the police station and Angoori Devi was left at the police station whereas he along with accused Manoj, HC Jagmer Singh went to the house of the accused Manoj at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi where accused Manoj pointed out the placed of incident and also pointed out the wall on which the head of the deceased was struck. He has proved having St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 120 prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW23/F; having prepared the site plan of the place of incident which is Ex.PW30/D wherein he had shown the wall at point A. The witness has testified that he also seized one CGHS card of deceased Anita bearing no. 373644 of RML Hospital, one pass book of Anita and about 70 documents of medical treatment of Anita from above said house vide memo Ex.PW23/G, the CGHS card is Ex.PW23/H; pass book is Ex.PW23/I; medical documents are ExPW2/D1 to Ex.PW2/D27 and Ex.PW23/J1 to Ex.PW23/J43. The witness has further deposed that all three accused were produced before the court and sent to Judicial Custody. According to him, on 26.05.2007 he made an application regarding the opinion of injuries vide Ex.PW30/E on which Dr. V. K. Jha gave his opinion vide Ex.PW6/B. The witness has further deposed that on 27.05.2007 he called the draftsman SI Mahesh and he along with him and SI Raghubir Singh reached the place of incident where SI Mahesh took measurement and rough notes at the instance of himself and SI Raghubir Singh. He has proved that on 28.05.2007 he wrote two letters to RML Hospital to inquire about the salary and GPF of the deceased Anita and HC Jagmer Singh went to the hospital and recorded statement of Sh. S. K. Gautam in this regard. According to the witness, on 04.06.2007 viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Lalit after which the investigation of this case was handed over to St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 121 Inspector Baljeet Singh. He has correctly identified the accused Manoj, Vinod and Angoori Devi in the Court today.
(77) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that no recovery was effected in consequence of the disclosure statement of accused Manoj but has denied that accused Manoj did not make any disclosure statement. He has also denied that he obtained signatures of accused Manoj forcibly on the fabricated disclosure statement or that the site plan was not prepared at the pointing out of accused Manoj. He has further denied that accused Manoj did not show the wall to him or other police official. He is unable to tell whether the deceased Anita was getting treatment for her mental decease nor is he aware whether deceased Anita was having Psychiatric tendency. He has admitted that deceased Anita was issue less but is not aware whether deceased Anita was getting treatment for conceiving a child (infertility). The witness has denied that the doctor informed him that the deceased Anita was not capable of conceive a child or that the deceased Anita was under mental depression due the reason that she was unable to conceive the child. According to him, Anita made an attempt to commit suicide much prior to the incident in this case. He has denied that he came to know that she made attempt to commit suicide twice prior to this incident. He has admitted that the marriage of deceased with Manoj was third marriage. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 122 (78) PW31 Retd. Insp. Parkash Chand has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted as Addl. SHO Police Station Nangloi and on that day investigations of the present case was handed over to him since the first Investigating Officer was out of station. According to the witness, on that day at about 1 PM he received information that the accused Shallu Gupta wanted in the present case would surrender in the police station Nangloi on which he called for the case file from the MHC(R) and after going through the file he came to know that the anticipatory bail application of Shallu Gupta had been dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Judge. He has testified that at about 11:30 PM Shallu Gupta appeared before him at Police Station Nangloi. According to the witness, he associated L/Ct. Ram Murti Devi in the investigations and interrogated Shalu Gupta after which he he arrested Shallu Gupta vide memo Ex.PW26/B and her personal search was conducted by L/HC Ram Murti Devi vide memo Ex.PW26/C after which he recorded her disclosure vide Ex.PW26/A. The witness has testified that in the said disclosure Shalu disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. thapi had been hidden by her at her own house at B21, Vishal colony pursuant to which he directed L/ HC Ram Murti Devi to take the accused Shallu Gupta to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where her medical examination was got conducted. However, since it was already late night she was kept in the lockup in the Police Station Paschim Vihar and produced before the Ld. MM on the next day. According to the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 123 witness, he thereafter returned the case file to Investigating Officer Insp. Baljeet Singh who had returned from leave. He has correctly identified the accused Shallu Gupta in the court. (79) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he did not visit the spot of the incident i.e. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi after arrest of Shallu Gupta. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of arrest Shallu Gupta had disclosed her address as the house of Veer Singh at Nangloi extension but he deliberately recorded the wrong address of B21. According to the witness, he arrest of Shallu Gupta was made at 4:00 PM and he interrogated Shallu Gupta before that and prepared the various documents i.e. the arrest report and the memo of jamatalashi/personal search and disclosure after her arrest. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Shallu Gupta did not make any disclosure and he had recorded the same of his own or that he had taken the signatures of Shallu Gupta on blank papers prior to her arrest which he converted into memos later on. The witness has testified that when Shalu Gupta came to police station she was accompanied by her mother Kamla Devi. He has further deposed that at the time of recording the disclosure of Shalu Gupta there was no public person present and Kamla Devi was present in the police station at that time. PW31 has admitted that the disclosure Ex.PW26/A does not bears the signatures of Kamla Devi. He has denied the suggestion that Kamla Devi was not St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 124 present at the time the disclosure was recorded and therefore her signatures are not present.
(80) PW32 ACP Sh. Baljeet Singh has deposed that on 20.06.2007 he was posted at Police Station Nangloi and on that day further investigations of the present case were marked to him. He has proved having prepared the charge sheet in respect of the three accused namely Manoj, Vinod and Angoori Devi and filed the same in the Court. According to him, Shalu Gupta, the accused wanted in the case had already surrendered on 29.08.2007 and on 30.08.2007 he received the case file from Insp. Parkash Chand wherein he found a disclosure statement of Shalu Gupta on the investigation file wherein she had disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. thapi had been kept by her in the bathroom at her house situated at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi. According to the witness, Shalu Gupta was brought to the police station from the lock up and they went to B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi where Shalu Gupta pointed out towards a room on the first floor of premises No. B21, Vishal Colony as the same place where Manoj, Vinod and Angoori had given beatings to the deceased with a thapi. He has also deposed that on this a pointing out memo Ex.PW28/A was prepared and thereafter she took them to a room on the second floor where she pointed out the bathroom situated on the side of the room near the staircase from where she herself got recovered a wooden thapi as the same with which the beatings had been given to the deceased. The St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 125 witness has proved that the said thapi was measured by him, its handle was 12.5 cm, body was measuring 32 cms and the width was 5cm and depth was 3cm. He has further deposed that thereafter he converted the thapi into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of BS and prepared the seizure memo of the same vide memo Ex.PW28/B. He has testified that thereafter they returned to the police station where the weapon of offence was deposited by him in the malkhana. According to the witness the accused Shallu Gupta was produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate and she was sent to Judicial Custody. He has also proved having recorded the statements of various police officials. The witness has further testified that on 31.08.2007 he directed SI S.S Rathi to take the weapon of offence to Autopsy Surgeon, SHM hospital for opinion and thereafter he was transferred and he handed over the file to the MHC(R). According to the witness, as per the record after collecting the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon the supplementary charge sheet was prepared and was filed by Insp. Shanoor Khan who was his successor SHO at police station Nangoli and whose signatures he duly identified having seen him signing in official course being his associate. The witness has correctly identified the accused Shalu Gupta in the Court and also identified the case property i.e Thapi which is Ex.PA.
(81) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he reached the police station at 7:30 AM in St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 126 the morning on 30.08.2007 and accused Shallu was called by the Insp. Parkash Chand prior to his reaching in police station from lock up about five to ten minutes prior to his arrival. According to the witness, he remained with accused Shallu at police station for about three to four hours and inquired from the police official in respect of production of accused Shallu before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate after her surrender in the police station and after her formal arrest who informed him that they had not produced her before the Ld. Illaka magistrate. He has testified that he had produced the accused Shallu before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate at about 44:15 PM on 30.08.2007 and that he was informed by Insp. Parkash Chand that he had obtained the medical examination of accused Shallu Gupta after her arrest on 29.08.2007. The witness has further deposed that he had not produced the accused Shallu before the Medical Officer on 30.08.2007 prior to her production before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Shallu first time appeared before him and she informed him that she was residing with her husband Vinod and mother in law Angoori Devi in a separate house i.e. house of Sh. Veer Singh at Nangloi Extension, New Delhi or that Shalu had also informed him that on the day of incident she along with her husband and mother in law attended the marriage of his relative and she was falsely arrested by Insp. Parkash Chand in the aforesaid case.
(82) On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that he St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 127 interrogated the accused Shallu Gupta having come to know of the disclosure made by her to Insp. Parkash Chand but he did not record any additional disclosure because she did not disclose anything more than which she had already done to Insp. Parkash Chand vide Ex.PW26/A. (83) He has testified that they reached the spot at about 11:00 AM and remained there till about one and a half hour. According to the witness, when they reached the spot they only met one lady and one child and rest of the premises were lock. He has admitted that there are a large number of residential houses in the vicinity but states that no public person joined the investigations despite his request to the neighbours. He is unable to tell the names and addresses of the persons who had refused to join the investigations and has voluntarily added they left without giving their names. The witness has further deposed that he did not give any written notice to the public persons refused to join the proceedings. According to him, the door of the bathroom from where the thapi was recovered was not locked but was shut. He has deposed that the staircase leading to the second floor does not has a door and anybody can reach the second floor and has voluntarily added that the bathroom has a door. He has denied the suggestion that anybody could use the bathroom and has voluntarily explained that all the floors has separate bathrooms but he did not notice anything in the said bathroom in the form of a mug or a bucket St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 128 to show that it was being used by any body. He has denied the suggestion that Shallu Gupta did not take them to premises to B21 nor she pointed out any room or premises nor she got any thapi recovered. He has admitted that thapi is an item of daily domestic use and is easily available in the market. The witness has testified that he did not notice any specific identification mark on the thapi nor he put any mark on it after its recovery and has voluntarily added that the FIR number and the details were mentioned on the cloth pullanda. He has also deposed that there were no visible blood stained on the thapi and there were no broken edges except the weer and tear of normal use were visible on the edges. He has denied the suggestion that the thapi has been planted only to work out the present case or that Shallu had disclosed that deceased was suffering from seizures and addicted to drugs due to which reason Shallu along with her husband, children and mother in law had shifted out from the house of accused Manoj. He has denied the suggestion that Shallu Gupta had disclosed that Anita could not conceive and was depressed on account of the same due to which reason she had became addicted.
Court Witness:
(84) Keeping in view the tempering of the medical record of RML Hospital, this Court vide order dated 13.12.2011 summoned the Medical Superintendent of RML Hospital. Pursuant to the same on St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 129 29.3.2012 Dr. T.S. Sidhu, Director Medical Superintendent, PGIMER, Dr. RML Hospital, Delhi has appeared before this Court and examined as CW1 wherein he has deposed that he had seen Ex.PW20/14 running into two pages and at point X there is a cutting.
According to the witness, he received a letter from the police official and when he gone through the original document, he found that the said entry was forged after which he issued a memorandum to the concerned Nursing Sister in Charge namely Mrs. V. Malhotra, Nursing sister and Sister in Charge, in whose custody the said register was supposed to be. He has placed on record the attested copy of the said memorandum dated 08.02.2008, which is Ex.CW1/A. The witness has further deposed that by that memorandum she was directed to be careful in future in order to avoid the occurrence of such incidents and he did not deem fit to obtain any explanation letter from her. He has also deposed that the photocopy of emergency ticket which is Ex.PW20/17 was issued in the name of Anita, emergency No. E/49240/07 of the CMO register but states that the said document Ex.PW20/17 does not bears any signatures of the doctor and when this emergency ticket was issued only portion encircled Y is filled by the registration clerk. He is unable to comment about the writing and other endorsement made on Ex.PW20/17 except portion Y. He is also unable to comment on the back written portion of Ex.PW20/17. The St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 130 witness has produced the original CMO (Casualty Medical Officer) Register wherein at Serial No.40 the name of patient Anita, age 34 years female with the history of headache was recorded who was referred to ME4 (Medical Emergency 4), photocopy of which entry is Ex.CW1/B duly attested by him at point A. He is unable to tell if Ex.CW1/B reflects that the patient was brought with the complaint of headache. He has admitted that Ex.PW20/17 does not reflect the Medical problem of Anita. According to the witness, he did not make any complaint to the police in respect of the forgery which was came in his notice and has voluntarily added that the same was brought to his notice by the police.
(85) With the permission of the Court the witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state wherein he has deposed that they did not make any formal complaint to the police despite having come to know about the forgery in the document Ex.PW20/14 and has denied that he had connived with the accused due to which reason he had not given any complaint to the police. He has admitted that the entire record as above remained in the custody and possession of the staff of the hospital and no public person has an access to the same. He has denied that he is deliberately trying to protect the erring officials of the staff of the hospital who had fabricated the record. The witness has also admitted that the deceased St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 131 Anita was a staff nurse in the hospital. According to him, in so far as he recollect there is no complaint about Anita having been brought to his notice regarding any kind of dereliction of duty, improper performance of duty or her being lacking in any manner in performance of her duties. He has admitted that under the existing administrative rules any employee found to be consuming or addicted to psychotropic substance is liable to be proceeded against departmentally and in so far as he recollect the department had never received any complaint against Anita of being addicted to any psychotropic or prohibited substance. CW1 has admitted that as per the official record deceased Anita has been shown to be the wife of Manoj Kumar. He is unable to tell if Manoj in his capacity as the husband of Anita had an access to the hospital and hospital staff and was aware of the administrative procedures and functioning of the hospital.
(86) In his crossexamination the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that the nursing staff is all under the control of Nursing Superintendent. On a specific Court Question he has admitted that he is the administrative head of the entire hospital staff including the nursing superintendent and the nursing staff. He is not aware if in the year 2001 Anita had attempted suicide and a case under Section 309 IPC was registered against her. He is St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 132 unable to tell whether Anita frequently remained on leave. The witness has denied the suggestion that in the emergency the injections Phenargan, Fortwin and Pethadin are easily available and has voluntarily added that they they are not easily available. He is unable to tell off hand as to how many injections of Fortwin and Pethadin are used in casualty on an average on day to day basis. He is also unable to tell if 400 ampules of the above injections on an average are used per day in the emergency. He has admitted that Junior Residents and regular doctors are usually on duty in the emergency. The witness has denied that he does not have direct contact with the Junior Residents in the emergency. He has denied that if the original of Ex.PW20/17 would have been available, he could identify the handwriting and has voluntarily added that it is difficult for him to identify the handwriting of each and every official of the staff in the hospital whether original or photocopy unless he is familiar with the person writing the note. He has admitted that on Ex.PW20/17 the portion mark encircled Y has been filled by clerical staff and that the clerical staff does not have the requisite knowledge to write the decease and therefore is not suppose write the nature of the ailment in the OPD/ emergency ticket. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(87) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 133 Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which they have denied.
(88) The accused Shalu Gupta has stated that she is innocent and at the time of incident she along with her mother in law, children and husband went to the marriage in the family of Om Prakash Garg where they reached at 7:00 PM. According to the accused, her elder brother in law Sajjan was already there who received a telephonic call and informed them that Anita was not well and hence, her husband along with her brother in law Sajjan and mother in law went to the hospital whereas she herself went to house along with children. She has stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case. (89) Similarly the accused Angoori Devi has stated that she is innocent and at the time of incident she along with her daughter in law Shalu, son and grandchildren went to the marriage in the family of Om Prakash Garg where they reached at 7:00 PM. According to the accused, her elder son Sajjan was already there who received a telephonic call and informed them that Anita was not well and hence, she herself, her son Vinod and Sajjan went to the hospital whereas her daughter in law Shalu went to house along with children. She has stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case. (90) The accused Vinod Kumar has similarly stated that he is innocent and at the time of incident he along with her mother, children and wife went to the marriage in the family of Om Prakash Garg where St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 134 they reached at 7:00 PM. According to the accused, his elder brother Sajjan was already there who received a telephonic call and informed them that Anita was not well and hence, he along with his mother and Sajjan and went to the hospital whereas his wife herself went to house along with children. He has stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case.
(91) The accused Manoj Kumar has stated that he is the first nominee of PF of his deceased wife Anita but the second nominee are Sakshi and Tapan the daughter and son of Kuldeep Singh. According to the accused, he had removed Anita to the hospital and asked his brother Sajjan telephonically to inform her parents. The accused has further stated that he remained in the hospital till the dead body was handed over to the complainant party. He has stated that he was falsely implicated in the case of attempt to murder in which case he has been acquitted. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(92) The accused Manoj Kumar has preferred not to examine any witness in his defence. However, the accused Vinod Kumar, Shalu and Angoori Devi have examined one witness i.e. Ajay Kumar Pandey as DW1 who has deposed that earlier he was residing at B21, Vishal Colony, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi as a tenant during the year 2006 to 2010 and he vacated the said house in the year 2010 after which he is residing at C19, Nangloi Extension. According to the witness, St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 135 apart from himself three other tenants were residing in the said house, one tenant was Vinod who used to reside in the house with his family comprising of wife, two daughters and one son and the other two tenants used to reside in the premises alone and not with their families.
According to DW1, he used to pay rent to Smt. Angoori Devi, the landlady who herself was residing on a rented premises and he used to pay rent to her at her house where she was residing on rent. The witness has further deposed that at the time when he came to this house in the year 2006 Vinod was already residing there with his family on first floor which is a three room set. The witness has also stated that he used to pay Rs.1200/ per month to Smt. Angoori Devi but he is not confirmed about the rent paid by Vinod, it could be Rs. 1000/ per month. He has further deposed that he is a vendor of ChholeKulche and in April 2007 he was residing in the said house. According to him, in the month of April 2007 Vinod used to reside in the same house but he is unable to tell if on 28.04.2007 he was present in the house or not. The witness has stated that there is a jaali on the ground floor towards the roof in the open portion from where one can see the sky. He has also deposed that the house is consisting of one bathroom and one toilet on the ground floor and first floor each and there is a common bathroomtoilet on the second floor. He has further testified that he used to reside in the house alone and his family was in the village and he used to wash his clothes. The witness DW1 has St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 136 stated that no lock was put on any portion on any floor and all floor remained open and only the rooms were locked when they used to go from there. According to him, the bathroom and toilet were separate on each floor and there is no lock on the bathrooms on each floor and anyone could use the toilet or bathroom of the top floor in case of urgency. He has also deposed that police came to the house and simply asked him some questions but did not record statement of any of the tenant. The witness has testified that he used to go to his work at about 11.00AM and return back at about 4.005.00 PM in the evening. In the Court this witness Ajay Pandey has been able to identify the accused Vinod and has wrongly identified his brother Manoj on which this Court had put a specific question to the witness whether he was sure that the person who he identified in the Court was residing on the top floor to which the witness has replied in affirmative and stated that the person whom he has identified in the court (accused Manoj) was the one who was residing on the top floor.
(93) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State duly assisted by Sh. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant, the witness has deposed that his tenant verification was not done when he shifted to this house. He is not aware if the tenant verification of Vinod was got done by the landlady or not. He has admitted that from the Jaal, the top and the portion inside the rooms of the tenant is not St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 137 visible and only the open space has been covered. He has also admitted that there is a main entrance to the building which is locked form inside during the night hours and that if there is nobody present in the house the main gate can be locked from outside. According to him, there is no separate door on the stair case on each floor and has voluntarily stated that there is only one door on the staircase on the top floor to prevent any person from coming down from the roof. He has denied the suggestion that if the said door is locked, no person can reach or come down from the portion of the tenant. He has admitted that thapi is an item of normal domestic use which can be found in most of the families. DW1 has further stated that he was using the bathroom and also the toilet of the top floor and has voluntarily added that when the family of Vinod used the bathroom and toilet on the ground floor, he used the toilet and bathroom on the top floor. According to the witness, the water supply in the premises is regular throughout the day and there are no fixed timings. He has admitted that most of the time the clothes are used to wash when he was not there and that the room on the top floor was having articles and nobody used to reside there. He has denied the suggestion that the other brother of Vinod and his wife also used to reside in the same premises and has voluntarily stated that neither mother nor the other brother of Vinod were residing in the house. The witness is unable to produce any tenancy agreement or rent receipt to show that he was residing in the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 138 said house as a tenant and has voluntarily stated that he is having a voter I.D. Card from the said address. He has admitted that Angoori Devi is still alive and is not related to him. He is not aware of the address where Angoori Devi was residing but stated that he can tell about the location. According to the witness he has not made any statement to the police regarding the present case and states that police had come in the premises in his presence. He has testified that the accused whom he has identified in the Court did not come with the police and has voluntarily stated that they came later with the police. He has denied the suggestion that the voter I.D. Card if any has been wrongly procured on the given address only to create evidence of his staying Delhi or that he is a planted witness only to create evidence to help the accused due to which reason he is unable to identify the accused Vinod correctly.
FINDINGS:
(94) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. First I propose to deal with all the allegations/ averments made by the various public witnesses and the witnesses connected with medical record of the deceased, individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 139
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
1. Kuldeep Singh He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed on the
Dalal (PW2) following aspects:
1. That on 02.04.2001 his sister Anita was married to accused Manoj according to Hindu Rites and Custom, and that his father had given sufficient dowry in the marriage and after the marriage, his sister went to her matrimonial home at Nangloi.
2. That his sister's husband Manoj had three brothers and one sister. The eldest brother of accused Manoj namely Mr. Sajjan was living in Rohini with his family and that the Anita's matrimonial house was a two storied building having a single room on second floor.
3. That Manoj alongwith his sister Anita, his mother Angoori Devi and his younger brother Vinod along with his wife Shalu were staying on the first floor of the house as a joint family and Mr. Sushil the elder brother of Mr. Manoj was staying on the ground floor of the same house with his family.
4. That immediately after her marriage, Anita came to know that Manoj was a hard degree drunkard and his younger brother Vinod was a smack addict and nobody in the family was earning except his sister who was a Government Servant and was working as a Staff Nurse in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and was getting a handsome salary of Rs.15,000/ to Rs.
20,000/ and was taking care of the household expenses.
5. That after few months of the marriage, Manoj was arrested by police from Timarpur Police Station in a case of attempt to murder and was sent to Tihar Jail. Rest of the family members in her inlaws' house started pressing his sister Anita to arrange for money to secure bail of Manoj and that her sister arranged money, hired an Advocate and arranged his bail which took several months.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 140
6. That under the pressure of her inlaws, Anita withdrew amount of Rs.45,000/ from her GPF Account in March, 2001, Rs.1,00,000/ in October, 2001 and Rs.75,000/ in May, 2002 which money was wasted by Manoj and Vinod in their drinking habit and smack addiction.
7. That thereafter the entire family consisting of Manoj, Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu started torturing his sister for demand of dowry and his sister was terribly upset so she attempted to commit suicide qua which he was informed and when he went to her house he came to know that she (deceased) had slit both her wrists.
8. That he along with accused Manoj removed her to Agrasen Hospital and after this incident, all the four persons promised him that they would not torture his sister due to which reason he had not informed the police but despite the same all the four accused persons continued beating and torturing his sister for money and hence his sister had to take loan from Co operative society to fulfill their money demand.
9. That whenever his sister used to visit their house, his mother used to give her Rs.10,000/, Rs.15,000/ to fulfill the demand of the four accused persons.
10. That in the month of November, 2005 all the four accused persons gave severe beatings to his sister and broke her leg and when he along with his father went to the house of the accused to know about the well being of his sister the accused Manoj and accused Angoori Devi demanded Rs.20,000/ from them.
11. That after twothree days he along with his father went to give Rs.20,000/ as demanded and there they saw that all the four accused persons were beating his sister on which they immediately intervened and his father handed over a sum of Rs.20,000/ to Angoori Devi.
12. That after twothree days i.e. 10.11.2005 his sister telephoned to him weeping and said she was being badly beaten by the accused persons and she begged St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 141 him to save her after which when he reached the house of accused persons, he saw accused Manoj hitting his sister with his fist at the point of fracture which became unbearable for him on which he brought his sister back to his house and after recovering his sister again went back to her matrimonial home.
13. That after some days, accused persons again started torturing his sister so she called the PCR and the police came but the accused persons apologized and the matter was settled.
14. That one day while his sister was being beaten and she was crying, on hearing her voice elder brother of Manoj namely Sushil came upstairs to intervene and he was informed by his sister about the incident.
15. That on 27.02.2007 his sister again called up the PCR as accused persons were torturing her and demanding money from her.
16. That his sister came to their house on the occasion of Holi in the year 2007 and she told him and his family members that the accused persons have raised their money demand manifolds and also told them that all the accused persons threatened to kill her since after her death the entire Provident Fund would be theirs as accused Manoj is the nominee and in the event of her death, accused Manoj, who was a Pharmacist, would get the job in place of her (deceased) after which the accused Manoj would marry one girl with whom he used to talk in the night for hours and he would get huge dowry in the said marriage.
17. That his sister (deceased Anita) also informed his sister Vandana on telephone about the atrocities committed upon her.
18. That after 21.04.2007, they had not received any phone call from his sister Anita and on 28.04.2007 he received the phone from eldest brother of Manoj namely Sajjan Kumar informing him that his sister Anita was seriously ill and she had been removed to St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 142 Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and he also asked to reach there immediately.
19. That he informed his sister Vandana after which he along with his mother, sister Vandana, her husband and his wife reached the Hospital and when they were passing through the emergency corridor of the said hospital, he saw the accused Manoj standing in a shaded place to avoid detection and the other accused persons were sitting at the entrance of casualty entrance.
20. That the doctor present on the emergency duty told them that their sister was brought dead to the hospital on which he requested the doctor to have a glimpse of the dead body and thereafter they observed and the doctor also told them that his sister Anita was severely beaten before her death.
21. That he went to the police post to lodge the complaint and by that time all the accused persons had run away.
22. That he had given a written complaint in Nangloi Police Station on 29.04.2007 which is Ex.PW2/A.
23. That Investigating Officer from Police Station Nangloi asked him to come along with his parents on 29.04.2007 at about 9:00 AM as they had to go before the SDM.
24. That on 29.04.2007 at about 8:30 PM he along with his father namely Amir Singh Dalal and his mother Smt. Satwanti Devi reached Police Station Nangloi after which the Investigating Officer took them to the SDM of the concerned area where the SDM firstly called his father in his cabin and recorded his statement and thereafter his mother Smt. Satwanti Devi was called and her statement was recorded.
25. That the SDM instructed the police to go to RML Hospital to collect the dead body and also instructed them to remove the dead body to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for postmortem.
26. That after postmortem the dead body was handed over to them and that the SDM also recorded identification St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 143 of dead body vide Ex.PW2/B and the dead body was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital Mortuary and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW2/C and the dead body was cremated by them in Bahadurgarh but no relatives of the accused came to the cremation ground.
27. That on 08.05.2007 he received a telephonic call from accused Manoj on his mobile disclosing that they had killed his sister for lust of money but the accused asked him (witness) to save his mother and further said if he would save his mother then he would surrender.
28. That the accused Manoj also asked him to meet him at 5:00 PM at ISBT which information he (witness PW2) gave to the Investigating Officer.
29. That he along with the Investigating Officer reached at ISBT but accused did not come there after which the telephone call was traced and it was from Raiwala, Distt. Dehradun, Uttaranchal.
30. That he reached Raiwala where accused Manoj came at a liquor shop to buy liquor and he apprehended the accused and took him to nearby Police Station where he was interrogated by the concerned police officials and he disclosed that his mother and brother were hiding in a Dharmashala in Haridwar.
31. That when accused Manoj was apprehended by him, one pocket diary fell from pocket of his shirt and the same was with him.
2. Smt. Satwanti Devi She is the mother of the deceased Anita and has deposed (PW3) on the following aspects:
1. That her daughter Anita was married to accused Manoj on 02.04.2001 according to Hindu rites and customs, which was a simple marriage and that she and her husband had given sufficient dowry in the marriage.
2. That after the marriage her daughter went to her matrimonial home i.e. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 144 Delhi.
3. That her daughter Anita used to work as a staff nurse in RML Hospital and was drawing a salary of Rs.
20,000/ per month whereas Manoj used to run a shop of scooter spare parts and after one month of the marriage, accused closed his shop and started consuming liquor.
4. That younger brother of Manoj namely Vinod along with his wife Shalu and children who used to live with Manoj was a drug addict and the mother of accused Manoj also used to reside with them.
5. That Vinod was jobless and the entire expenses of the family were borne by her daughter and in order to meet their expenses all the accused persons used to beat her daughter in order to extract money from her.
6. That her daughter had told her that she had given a sum of Rs.45,000/ to accused Manoj prior to date of marriage and that all the accused persons were demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her on which she (Anita) had taken loan from her GPF and gave Rs. 1 lakh to Manoj and his mother and further that after some days all the accused persons demanded Rs.
75,000/ from her daughter and her daughter again took loan from her GPF and gave Rs.75,000/ to Manoj and other accused persons.
7. That whenever her daughter refused to give the money all the accused persons used to beat her.
8. That accused Manoj along with Bishan had attempted to commit murder of somebody due to which reason they were sent to Jail and accused persons again started torturing her daughter for money as her salary had drastically reduced because of deduction of loan which he had given his daughter Rs.15,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ fourfive times but still all the accused persons used to beat her daughter for money.
9. That being fed up due to harassment her daughter tried to commit suicide by cutting her wrist after which the accused persons begged pardon and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 145 therefore they had not taken any action against them.
10. That her daughter then took a loan from Co operative Society from the hospital five times and in total her daughter took loan of Rs.60,000/ from the society but still harassment on account of money continued.
11. That on 02.11.2005 she received a call from her daughter that the accused persons were severely beating her and had broken her leg and asked her (witness) to come immediately on which her husband and son went to the house of the accused persons where they came to know that the accused persons were demanding Rs.20,000/ from Anita.
12. That after twothree days, her son and her husband went to the house of accused persons and gave a sum of Rs. 20,000./ to accused Angoori Devi and made all the accused persons understand.
13. That on 10.11.2005 she received a call from the elder brother of accused Manoj who lived in Rohini who asked her to come and save Anita as the accused persons were beating Anita on which her son asked the elder brother of accused that he wanted to talk his sister Anita and thereafter Anita had told her son that accused persons were beating her and asked him to come and save her.
14. That Anita also told that accused Manoj was beating her on her leg where she had already received injury.
15. That her son and husband went to the house of accused persons and brought Anita back after which Anita remained with her for about two to three months and after her plaster was removed she again went back to her matrimonial home but the accused persons again started beating her for money.
16. That her daughter called PCR once or twice but no action was taken against the accused persons.
17. That Manoj told her daughter that one day he would kill her and withdraw all her GPF amount and also St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 146 take job in her place.
18. That she called her daughter on the occasion of Holi of the year 2007 when she narrated all these facts to her and after two days she went back to her matrimonial home but again accused persons kept on demanding money from her.
19. That on 21.04.2007 she received a call from her daughter who informed her that accused persons were demanding Rs.2 lakhs from her and her daughter again made a call from STD Booth on that day and narrated about her beatings.
20. That on 28.04.2007 at about 09:45 PM her son received a call from the elder brother of accused Manoj who asked them to reach RML Hospital as Anita was serious on which she along with her son, daughterinlaw immediately rushed to RML Hospital and they also informed Vandana to reach RML Hospital as Anita was serious.
21. That she came to know from her son that on seeing them all the accused persons ran away from the hospital and that Anita was brought dead in the hospital.
22. That her statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the SDM on 29.04.2007 and after ten to twelve days her statement was again recorded by the police.
3. Ms. Gargi Bala She is the colleague of the deceased who has deposed as Kalra (PW5) under:
1. That she used to work in Female Psychiatrist Department in RML hospital and Anita used to work with her in the same department.
2. That Anita was married to accused Manoj and whenever Anita used to meet her, she used to observe that she (Anita) always remained tense and perturbed.
3. That when she used to ask the reason she (Anita) used to tell her that her husband gave her beatings after taking liquor and he drinks the whole day and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 147 did not do any work.
4. That Anita further told her that her husband had sold his chemist shop and got her GPF withdrawn and spent all her GPF money in drinking.
5. That whenever, she saw Anita she was having bruises and ecchyomisis on her hands, legs and on her face.
6. That although Anita was earning Rs.20,000/ per month but she rarely had money to even drink a cup of tea.
7. That Anita was not keeping good health as she was suffering from cellulotis of her right or left leg after the marriage.
8. That Anita even took bath after duty hours in the staff bathroom of the Department as she told her that there was no water in her house because her sister in law (Devrani) had disconnected the electrical supply and had even removed the motor.
9. That Anita used to take leave after 2½ months and whenever she used to talk her (Anita) on telephone she used to tell her that she had been badly beaten by her husband and she was also teased by her sister in law (Devrani) and told her that every member of her in laws family was the same and none was good to her.
10. That Anita only had tops in her ear and apart from that she never had any jewellery inspite of earning a handsome salary.
11. Ahat Anita's right hand was also not in good condition after her marriage and she asked Anita that she should live in the hostel on which she applied for hostel accommodation and was also allotted a house in hostel but she could not shift as she was not allowed to shift by her husband and was badly beaten by him.
12. That Anita told her that her mother in law Angoori Devi, her husband, her Dever Vinod and her Devrani Shalu were hungry wolves and they used to demand money from her.
13. That Anita used to tell her that mother in law, Devar and Devrani also used to beat her and once Anita was St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 148 admitted in the hospital for her cellulotis treatment but nobody from her house came to see her.
4. Smt. Ameena She is also the colleague of the deceased who has deposed Siddiqui (PW7) on the following aspects:
1. That she knew Anita (deceased) for about 1415 years who was working as staff nurse in RML hospital, where she (witness) was also working as Nurse.
2. That in the year 2001 Anita got married with Manoj whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court.
3. That they had a common changing room in ward in RML hospital where she, Anita and other staff nurses used to change their uniform and while changing the uniform, she noticed marks of beating on the body of Anita.
4. That on inquiry Anita told her that her husband Manoj, her dever, her devrani Shalu and her mother in law used to beat her as she could not fulfill their demands of money.
5. That Anita also told her that she was being taunted as kangli and was tortured for not bringing dowry as per the expectation and was also kept hungry and was not provided food when she reached back to her house from her hospital duty at around 6:00 PM.
6. That Anita never used to bring meal (lunch) for her as her in laws never prepared meal in the morning and used to say that they were not her servants.
7. That mostly Anita's husband Manoj used to accompany Anita to the hospital on salary day.
8. That about four - five days prior to Anita's death, she came to the hospital to take some treatment for injury in her feet and during those days, she was on leave.
9. That Anita appeared disturbed and when she (PW7) asked the reason, Anita looked at her husband Manoj who was also present there and replied that she was OK.
10. That Anita wanted to say something to her but she could not say anything as her husband Manoj was with her.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 149
11. That on 27/28.04.07 she was on night duty when she received a call from emergency that Anita had been admitted as brought dead after which she rushed in the Emergency and noticed that Anita was lying dead and her husband, mother in law, her husband's brother etc. were present there.
12. That she asked Manoj as to how Anita died to which Manoj replied that she had a 'fit'.
13. That she questioned Manoj that why he did not take Anita to a nearby hospital when she suffered a "fit" but Manoj did not reply and slipped away.
14. That she had noticed an injury mark of blue colour on Anita's forehead.
5. Ms. Zinath Justin She is another colleague of the deceased Anita and has (PW8) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she was working as Nursing Sister in RML hospital since 06.06.1998 and she knew Anita for about ten to fifteen years since she (Anita) was also working as Nurse in the same hospital and also worked as a nurse in the same ward where she (witness) was working as a nurse for some years.
2. That after the death of first husband of Anita she (Anita) got married to Manoj Garg which was Anita's second marriage but soon after her marriage with Manoj, Anita started remaining disturbed.
3. That she had asked Anita about the reasons of her being disturbed, but Anita did not disclose the same.
4. That while changing the uniform in the room, she had noticed injury mark on the body of Anita and on inquiry, Anita told her that she was beaten by her husband Manoj.
5. That she advised Anita that she should stop Manoj from giving her beatings upon which she replied that she can control one person but cannot control the other family members when they all joined Manoj in giving beatings to her.
6. That often Anita meet her in the bank in their hospital with her husband.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 150
7. That Anita did not bring lunch with her and occasionally they (colleagues) used to give their food to Anita and Anita had also told her that her husband Manoj and other in laws used to demand money from her and she often gave them money.
8. That Anita used to withdraw her salary and used to give the same to her husband and in laws who in turn used to give her pocket expenses.
9. That Anita told her that she was provided with clothes from the side of her parents.
6. Smt. Vandana She is the real sister of the deceased who has deposed as Rathi (PW9) under:
1. That Anita was married to accused Manoj on 02.04.2001 and that whenever Anita used to meet her, she used to disclose that her husband Manoj, her Devar Vinod, Devrani Shalu and mother in law Angoori Devi used to beat her as they could not meet their day to day expenses since Manoj was unemployed and was a liquor addict and Vinod also addicted to drugs and was not earning anything.
2. That they (accused) used to force Anita to bring money either from the place where she was working or from her parental home.
3. That on twothree occasions, she (Anita) was made to withdraw from her provident fund account and Anita had also told her that the above accused persons had even forced her to take a loan from the cooperative society, which she (Anita) took.
4. That on occasions, her mother Smt. Satwanti Devi withdrew money from her father's account and also the money which was lying in their house and gave the same to Anita to give to her in laws for meeting their family expenses including the expenses incurred by Manoj and Vinod for consumption of liquor and drugs and after the money given to them was spent, they again used to give beatings to Anita and forced her to bring more money.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 151
5. That in the year 2005, Anita was beaten by the above accused persons and they demanded Rs.20,000/ Anita informed them about this demand on phone on which her brother Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dalal and father Sh.
Amir Singh Dalal went to the house of above accused persons.
6. That her father gave Rs.20,000/ to Smt. Angoori Devi (accused) and they (brother and father of the deceased) found that Anita was being beaten by the above accused persons, they got Anita freed from their hands and in this manner, the demand for dowry of accused persons kept increasing day by day.
7. That in the year 2006, she shifted her residence to Pitampura which falls on the way of Anita while she went to her hospital.
8. That Anita often used to come to her house when she (Anita) informed her that accused persons used to beat her as she could not meet their demands of dowry.
9. That she had also seen injury marks on the body of Anita.
10. That Anita told her that the accused persons had told her that they would kill her and would marry Manoj again to some girl in the relation of Shalu at her paternal house as accused Manoj used to talk to that girl late in the evening for hours.
11. That Anita also informed her that Manoj told her that he is a pharmacist and if Anita would die, he would get the job in her place.
12. That Anita had made a call to PCR on 27.02.2007 when accused persons had given beatings to her where the accused persons asked for pardon.
13. That in the morning of 21.04.2007, she received a phone call from Anita who appeared frightened and she (Anita) told her (witness) that Manoj, Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu were forcing her to bring Rs. Two lacs on which she (witness) told her that they would come to her parental house and would discuss this issue on 29.04.2007.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 152
14. That she told these facts to his brother Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dalal on phone and on 28.04.2007, she (witness) received a phone call from her brother that Anita was serious and admitted in RML hospital.
15. That she along with her husband went to RML hospital where her brother Kuldeep Singh, wife and her mother were present and when they went into the casualty, they found Anita dead.
16. That she had also noticed injury marks on the body of the deceased and many of colleagues of Anita (nurses) were also present there who told her (witness) that Anita appeared to have been given beatings.
17. That all the above four accused persons and their other relatives were also present in the hospital but the moment they came out of casualty, she found that none of the accused persons were present there probably they had fled away.
18. That they believe that Anita was probably killed by all the above four accused persons.
7. Sh. Jagan Nath This witness has proved that on 02.1.2001, he performed (PW11) the marriage ceremony of Anita and Manoj as per Hindu rites in the presence of their relatives.
8. Balraj Pawar This witness has deposed as under:
(PW14) 1. That he has a automobile workshop at Bahadurgarh and he knew Mr. Kuldeep Dalal and his family since 30 years back since he and Kuldeep Dalal studied together from the childhood.
2. That he had attended the second marriage ceremony of sister of Kuldeep Dalal i.e. Anita (since deceased) which was solemnized on 02.04.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with Mr. Manoj whom the witness has identified in the court.
3. That hat this marriage was solemnized by Pandit Jaganath, who belongs to Bahadurgarh.
4. That Kuldeep has five sisters and Anita was the third sister.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 153
9. Chtean (PW16) He is a private photographer who has deposed as under:
1. That he was running a photo studio with the name and style of Rajiv Studio situated at SBlock, Mangolpuri.
2. That on 29.042007, he was called by the police officials at SGM hospital, Manoglpuri on which he reached there with his digital camera.
3. That thereafter he was called in the mortuary where he took 13 photographs of a female body and after developing the same, he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer.
4. He has proved the said photographs which are Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A13 are the same which were taken by him which photographs were handed over to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/G.
10. Sushil Kumar He is the real brother of the accused Manoj Kumar and (PW21) Vinod Kumar. This witness has reslied from his previous statement given to the police. However, he has admitted the following aspects:
1. That Manoj and his wife Anita since deceased were residing on the first floor of House No. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi.
2. That accused Vinod was married with accused Shalu in the year 2001 and at that time they were residing at the house no. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and in the same year accused Manoj was married with Anita since deceased.
3. That at the time of marriage Vinod at the time of marriage was selling auto spare parts near his house.
4. That accused Manoj occasionally used to take liquor.
5. That that the relationship between Manoj and Anita was not cordial (khat pat rehti thi, ek dusre ka bojh dho rahe the. Anita ko zarurat thi ek aise ghar ki jisme vo apne ko chupa sake aur Manoj ko zarurat thi ek aise patni ki jo medical line me karyarat ho, chahe sarkari ya gair sarkari).
6. That he left this house in the month of August/ September 2006 and prior to August/ September 2006 he was living in the house at Vishal Colony with his St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 154 mother Smt. Angoori Devi, his two younger brothers namely Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar and the wife of Manoj and Vinod namely Anita (since deceased) and Shalu and children of his brother Vinod namely Ashu, Gazhal and Ujjwal.
7. That presently he is at the verge of starvation (bhuke marne ki naubat hai) which situation started when he started dealing with the business of stones and gems.
8. That he is not paying income tax being a virtual pauper (bhuke marne ki naubat).
9. That he along with his wife went to Mathura for fifteen days for roaming leaving children at home which happened in the year 2001.
10. That he had filed a complaint at Police Station Nangloi against accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori, Shalu and deceased Anita becuase he wanted to be separated from that house but he does not remember the contents of that complaint.
11. That within a radius of one three kms of his house of Vishal Colony, Nangloi about ten to twenty Nursing homes and hospital are situated.
12. That Aggarsen Hospital is situated at Punjabi Bagh and Ambedkar Hospital is situated at a distance of seveneight kms.
13. That in his complaint dated 09.08.2006 to ACP, Punjabi Bagh he had mentioned that his family members were not giving him, his share in the ancestral property i.e B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi.
14. That deceased Anita and all the accused persons along with his family were residing there at that time and that Anita was the only government servant out of whole family.
15. That the first husband of deceased Anita Dilbagh Singh was the class fellow of accused Manoj and that accused Manoj had been visiting terms with deceased Dilbagh Singh.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 155 MEDICAL EVIDENCE
11. Dr. V.K. Jha This witness has proved having conducted the postmortem (PW6) examination on the body of the deceased Anita vide report Ex.PW6/A and there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead.
2. Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm respectively.
3. Bruising left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm.
4. 2 healed ulcers 7 cm x 4 cm and 5 cm x 2 cm on lower end of right leg and dorsum of right foot.
5. Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm.
He has proved that on internal examination of head he observed that Sub Scalp hematoma was present on biparietal region, generalized sub dural hematoma and sub arachnoid hemorrhage over biparietal region. The witness has proved having opined the cause of death as coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party and that the head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The witness has also proved that the postmortem findings are consistent with beating before death and time since death was approximately 15 hours.
He has proved that on on 26.05.2007, Investigating Officer moved an application and asked whether injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report could have been caused by fist blows in response to which, he has opined that opinion expressed on the basis of Postmortem findings in Postmortem report no.329/07 is relevant and consistent and the injury number 1,2,3,5 can be caused by fist blows or hard object like danda which opinion is Ex.PW6/B. The witness has also proved that on 08.09.2007 the Investigating Officer submitted the weapon of offence with seal of BS and on opening the seal, it found containing a 'thapi' and after examination, he opined that the injuries no. 1,2,3, and 5 could have been caused by this weapon or similar such weapon. The witness has proved having St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 156 prepared the sketch diagram which is Ex.PW6/C and after examination, it was sealed with sample seal of mortuary and the subsequent opinion dated 08.09.2007 is Ex.PW6/D. He has also deposed that approximately 20 photographs were taken during the time of conducting the postmortem under his supervision, which are mark A1 to A20.
12. Dr. Sunil Saxena This witness has proved the MLC No. 49610 of Anita wife (PW10) of Manoj Kumar, 37 years female prepared by Dr. Praveen RML Hospital according to which MLC the patient was brought dead in the hospital on 28.04.2007, which MLC is Ex.PW10/A according to which on local examination following injuries were mentioned: "Two ulcers forming 7 x 4 cms and 5 x 4 cms on anterior aspect of left lower leg and left proximal aspect of dorsum of foot, incision and drainage done five months back."
He has also proved the Death Report which is Ex.PW10/B which is in the handwriting of Dr. Praveen. (95) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused persons.
Identity of the accused:
(96) In so far as the identity of all the accused are concerned, the same is not disputed. The accused Manoj is the husband of the deceased Anita; Angoori Devi is the mother in law, Vinod is the brother in law (dever) and Shalu is the sister in law (devrani) being the wife of Vinod. Even otherwise, they have been correctly identified in the Court by the family members of the deceased namely Kuldeep Singh Dalal (PW2), Satwanti Devi (PW3) and Vandana Rathi (PW9).
In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of all the accused St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 157 stand established.
Unnatural death within seven years of marriage :
(97) The case of the prosecution is that Anita (deceased) was first married to one Dilbagh Singh who had expired after which she was married to accused Manoj on 2.4.2001 whereas it is alleged by the accused that Manoj was the third husband of Anita, the second marriage of Anita being with Raj Kumar Khatri of Jhajjar. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined the brother of the deceased Kuldeep Singh (PW2), mother Satwanti Devi (PW3), sister Vandana Rathi (PW9) and Sushil Kumar (PW21) the brother of the accused Manoj and Vinod. In their first statements to the SDM it has been alleged by the family members of the deceased that the accused Manoj was the second husband of the deceased and they stood by their version in the Court. They have been exhaustively cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels and a specific suggestion has been made to them that the deceased was earlier married to one Raj Kumar Khatri after the death of Dilbagh Singh which suggestion has been specifically denied by the family of the deceased. Under the given circumstances, it was necessary for the accused to have either produced the details of Raj Kumar Khatri (regarding his identity or his address) or to have examined any witness to this alleged marriage of the deceased with Raj Kumar Khatri which has not been done. This being St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 158 so, it is evident that these are only bare allegations which the accused have not been able to prove or substantiate. (98) It has come on record and duly admitted by the complainant that after the death of Dilbagh Singh, the younger sister of the deceased namely Sangeeta was married to the younger brother of Dilbagh Singh namely Ashok. It stands established that the marriage between the accused Manoj and Anita (deceased) was solemnized on 2.4.2001 and it also stands established that it was a love marriage to which the parents of the deceased Anita were not agreeable but it was only on insistence of Anita that this marriage was accepted by the family members of deceased. It is also borne out from the testimonies of brother, mother and sister of the deceased that only a simple ceremony of marriage had taken place attended by few family members which was without any pomp and show, so much so that even the services of a Halwai was not taken. It is also admitted that the death of the deceased was occurred on 28.4.2007 and as per the postmortem report the death has been caused as a result of blunt force impact establishing that it was an unnatural death. I hereby hold that the death of the deceased Anita was an unnatural death within seven years of marriage (within six years).
Medical Evidence/ Cause of Death:
(99) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined Dr. V.K. Jha (PW6) and Dr. Sunil Saxena (PW10). Dr. V.K. Jha (PW6) is St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 159 the Autopsy Surgeon who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 29.4.2007 vide postmortem report Ex.PW6/A whereas Dr. Sunil Saxena (PW10) has proved the MLC prepared by Dr. Praveen who had left the services of RML Hospital, which MLC is Ex.PW10/A according to which Anita was brought dead to the hospital. I may specifically mention that Dr. Sunil Saxena has duly explained in the MLC do not show the injuries since in 'brought dead' cases the injures on the body are left out as the detail examination of the body has to be done by the Forensic Department as has happened in the present case. (100) Dr. V.K. Jha (PW6) has proved that there were five external injuries on the body of the deceased which are as under:
1. Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead.
2. Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm respectively.
3. Bruising left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm.
4. 2 healed ulcers 7 cm x 4 cm and 5 cm x 2 cm on lower end of right leg and dorsum of right foot.
5. Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm.
(101) Dr. V.K. Jha has further proved that on internal examination of head he observed that Sub Scalp Hematoma was present on St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 160 biparietal region, generalized sub dural hematoma and sub arachnoid hemorrhage over biparietal region. He has has proved that the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Dr. V.K. Jha has also proved that the postmortem findings are consistent with beating before death and time since death was approximately 15 hours (which is compatible to the time as claimed by the prosecution). He has further proved that on the request of the Investigating Officer he has also given an opinion with regard to the weapon of offence vide Ex.PW6/B and had stated that injuries no.1, 2, 3 and 5 can be caused by fist blows or hard object like danda. He has also proved that on 8.9.2007 the weapon of offence i.e. the Thapi was produced before him for subsequent opinion and he prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW6/C and after examination, he had opined that the injuries no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 could have been caused by the Thapi or similar kind of weapon which opinion is Ex.PW6/D. Dr. V.K. Jha has further confirmed and proved that twenty photographs were taken at the time of postmortem under his supervision which photographs are Ex.PW16/A1 to Ex.PW16/A13.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 161 (102) In view of the aforesaid I hereby hold that the medical evidence is compatible with the prosecution version of the unnatural homicidal death of the deceased i.e. death on account of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Tampering/ Forgery of medical record of the deceased by the accused:
(103) An argument has been raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the deceased Anita was suffering from seizures/ fits as a result of which she had fallen down after which she was brought to the hospital.
He has also pointed out that even earlier to that Anita had been suffering from unhealable ulcer and was addicted to drugs. In this regard, they have placed their reliance on the photocopy of OPD slip No. 49240/07 dated 28.4.2007 (Emergency Ticket original of which has not been placed on record) which is Ex.PW20/17 which the accused Vinod and Shalu had filed along with their bail applications in order to show that Anita was brought to the hospital with a case of sudden loss of consciousness. They have also placed their reliance on the corresponding entry of the said document (Emergency Ticket) was shown in Treatment Book of medical Emergency No.4 copy of which is Ex.PW20/14.
(104) Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that specific allegations have been made against the earlier Investigating Officer St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 162 who has not properly investigated the case. He has also pointed that the Medical Superintendent of RML Hospital namely Dr. T.S. Sidhu has been examined as CW1 who has confirmed that the entry Ex.PW20/14 has been forged and a Departmental Inquiry has been initiated in this regard.
(105) I have considered the rival contentions and I may mention that vide order dated 13.12.2011 this court had already observed that the OPD slip bearing No. 49240/07 dated 24.8.2007 (Ex.PW20/17)was in fact filed by the accused Vinod along with his bail application filed by Sh. R.S. Mahala advocate pursuant to which an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the then Investigating officer Inspector Baljeet Singh duly forwarded by Addl. PP for the State on 2.8.2010 requesting that the original of the said OPD Slip be placed on record. A reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the accused (duly signed by the accused Vinod) before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court informing that the aforesaid document relied upon by the accused Vinod in his bail application was not traceable which fact also finds a mention in the order of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court dated 27.11.2010. Further, during the examination of S. Mehto (PW20) Medical Record Officer, RML Hospital he is unable to explain with regard to the cutting on Ex.PW20/14.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 163 (106) It is writ large from the above that Firstly this document Ex.PW20/17 is only a photocopy which has been produced by the accused, whose original is not available with the Department. The document is an OPD Slip original of which should have been with the patient/ attendants who had brought the patient and the photocopy of the same being produced by accused Vinod and Shalu at the time of their bail, it is presumed that they would have been in possession of the original. What is it that prevented them from placing on record the original of this document/ OPD Slip? This being the background, an adverse inference is being drawn against the accused Vinod and Shalu for their failure to produce the original OPD Slip (Ex.PW20/17) and the possibility of their having deliberately withheld the same knowingly that the same was a forged document cannot be ruled out. (107) Secondly as per the testimonies of ASI Jagmer Singh (PW23) and Inspector R.S. Malik (PW30) that a number of medical papers of Anita (Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/D27 and Ex.PW23/J1 to Ex.PW23/J43 were recovered from the house of accused but the above documents did not contain this document (Ex.PW20/17) which were subsequently filed by the accused with their bail applications. It was for the accused to explain from where they procured the same being an aspect within their Special Knowledge with they have not been able to explain.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 164 (108) Thirdly the Treatment Book of Emergency No.4 containing the entry dated 27.4.2007 at serial no.7 pertaining to Anita (Ex.PW20/14) was found to be manipulated/ fabricated record bearing many cuttings and manipulations showing that the same had been procured. The fact that accused Manoj was regularly visiting the hospital along with the deceased also stands established, hence the possibility of his conniving with the lower functionaries at RML Hospital for creating forged document cannot be ruled out since it is only the accused who stand to benefit out of the same. (109) Lastly this fact has been confirmed by the Director Medical Superintendent of RML Hospital namely Dr. T.S. Sidhu (who has been examined as a Court Witness as CW1) who has deposed that after going though the document Ex.PW20/14 he found that the said entry had been forged. Pursuant to the same, an FIR bearing No.167/2012, under Sections 468/471/34 Indian Penal Code has also now been registered at Police Station Nangloi against the present accused namely Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu.
(110) In view of the above, no reliance can be placed on this forged and fabricated record of the hospital sought to the relied upon by the accused showing that the deceased had been brought to the hospital on 28.4.2007 (vide Ex.PW20/14). Rather, on the contrary the fact that the said document was got fabricated (presumably at the instance of the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 165 accused) for its use during trial, is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused.
Motive and Intent of the Crime:
(111) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Anita was a Nurse and at the time of her death was posted at RML Hospital. The accused Manoj was a friend of her deceased husband Dilbagh Singh as they had done their Pharmacy Course together. After the death of Dilbagh Singh the accused Manoj wanted to marry Anita. In fact they were bother interested in marrying each other and it was against the wishes of her family members that Anita had married Manoj who was known to her being a friend of his deceased husband Dilbagh Singh. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused Manoj was a regular drunkard/ habitual alcoholic and his brother Vinod was a drug addict, there being no earning member in the family Manoj wanted to marry a girl who was into the medical line whether or not in a government service and therefore, it was in this background that he married Anita only for money. It is further the case of the prosecution that the motive for the murder of deceased was two fold, first the lust for money since Manoj was the nominee of the deceased in her Service Record and wanted to get a government job in her place and second because after the death of the deceased Anita, the family of Manoj (Angoori, Vinod and Shalu) wanted to marry Manoj to another girl who was a relation of St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 166 Shalu with whom he used to frequently talk over the phone during the night for long durations.
(112) The prosecution in support of their case have placed their reliance on the salary/ GPF Account showing that Manoj was the nominee who have been entitled to all benefits of gratuity and also the fact that she had time and again withdrawn her GPF amount and spent the same on the accused persons.
(113) Before coming to the evidence on record, I may observe that the motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive only strengthens the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted.
Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 167 (114) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
(115) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].
(116) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the testimonies of the family members of the deceased particularly of Kuldeep Singh (PW2), Satwanti Devi (PW3) and Vandana Rathi (PW9) are clear and conclusively establish that there was a history of Domestic Violence being inflicted upon the deceased Anita, both mental and physical; that Anita was being teased and taunted by her sister in law Shalu, frequently beaten by her husband Manoj, Angoori Devi (mother in law), Vinod and Shalu; that her entire salary was taken by her husband Manoj and her Service Record proves that the deceased frequently withdrew money from her GPF account St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 168 and even took loan from a Cooperative Society and also from her mother to meet the demands raised by the accused. The testimonies of the above family members of the deceased find due corroboration from the testimonies of other independent witnesses particularly of Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra (PW5), Ms. Ameena Siddiqui (PW7) and Ms. Zinath Justin (PW8) who are also staff nurses at RML Hospital and had often in the changing room of the nurses seen the marks of violence (bruises) on the body of the deceased and when questioned the deceased frequently told them about the violence which was inflicted upon her by the accused persons. These witnesses have also proved that the deceased Anita seldom brought lunch and had little money to spent on herself (at times she had no money even for a cup of tea despite her handsome salary). They had also seen accused Manoj frequently coming to the hospital with Anita on the day of salary and have proved that the entire salary of Anita was used to be taken by Manoj and his family and Anita was only given some pocket money. These witnesses are neither related to the deceased nor are inimical to the accused. They were colleagues of the deceased and their presence in the hospital is natural and probable. There is also no reason to disbelieve their version that they had on many occasions seen bruise marks on the body of the deceased and it is only natural for anybody under similar circumstances to have questioned her with regard to the same and they hence came to know about the problem of the deceased. Their St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 169 testimonies also find independent corroboration from the service record of the deceased which has been duly proved by Smt. T. Rajan (PW15), Accounts Officer, RML Hospital who has placed on record the detailed GPF withdrawal certificate showing that Anita had taken a loan of Rs. 45,000/ in March 2001 which according to her was required for her sister's marriage; a sum of Rs.99,984/ in October 2001 for her husband's treatment and a sum of Rs.74,931/ in May 2002 for treatment of her mother in law. Further, PW12 Sh. Satbir Singh Administrative Officer in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital has also proved the service record of the deceased Anita showing that the first nominee of the deceased was her husband Manoj Kumar being entitled to receive 100 percent share in case of her death, which record is Ex.PW12/A. (117) I may further observed that the prosecution has also examined the real brother of Manoj and the son of Angoori namely Sushil Kumar as their witness as PW21. This Sushil Kumar is the real brother of the accused Manoj and Vinod, brother in law of accused Shalu and son of accused Angoori Devi. Initially during the investigations he had made specific allegations against the accused of having killed the deceased Anita for money but when examined in the Court he has not supported the earlier version given by him to the police in this regard and understandably so being the kin of the accused. Though in his testimony before this Court Sushil Kumar (PW21) has not supported the case of the prosecution yet his testimony St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 170 to the extent that it finds independent corroboration, can always be relied upon. From the testimony of this Sushil Kumar (PW21) the following aspects which find independent corroboration, stand established:
➢ That accused Manoj was the class fellow of first husband of deceased Anita namely Dilbagh Singh and that accused Manoj had been visiting terms with deceased Dilbagh Singh (not disputed by the accused).
➢ That he (Sushil Kumar) was residing along with Vinod and Manoj at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi (not disputed/ uncontroverted).
➢ That the deceased Anita was working at RML Hospital and had been withdrawing large amount of money from her salary and helping their mother who was suffering from Cancer and bearing other expenses in the house.
➢ That the entire family was into financial crises and the deceased Anita was the only earning member of the family. ➢ That at the time of the incident he (Sushil Kumar) was residing at Kalesar.
➢ That he (Sushil Kumar) had a dispute with the accused with regard to partition of property and had also filed a complaint against the accused Vinod Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Angoori Devi, Shalu and also against Anita (which was on St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 171 account of a family dispute).
(118) Hence, in view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that the motive of crime was in fact lust for money. The accused Manoj and Vinod being totally unemployed and addicted to alcohol (Vinod also to drugs) it was the deceased who was running the entire family. In the Service Record Manoj was the nominee of the deceased and naturally after her death was the beneficiary (both financially and in terms of job entitlement).
The deceased was not inimical to anybody. Who else but Manoj with whom the deceased was staying as his wife, could have killed her. (119) However, in so far as the aspect of marrying Manoj to another girl who was a relation of Shalu the allegations made in this regard are oral and non specific. Neither the name nor the details of the said girl with whom Manoj used to talk for hours have been provided or proved.
Recovery of the weapon of offence:
(120) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was being regularly subjected to harassment and torture. As per allegations she was severely beaten by her husband and in laws and on the date of the incident she was brought dead to RML Hospital with multiple injuries and the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. V.K. Jha opined that the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 172 other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and postmortem findings were consistent with beating before death. The case of the defence is that the deceased had a bout of fits/ seizures as a result of which she fell down from the bed and sustained the injuries (so reflected on her body). (121) In this regard the findings of Dr. V.K. Jha (PW6) in postmortem report Ex.PW6/A and his subsequent opinion Ex.PW6/B are relevant wherein he opined that the postmortem findings are consistent with beating before death and that injury No.1 (Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead); Injury No.2 (Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3cm x 2 cm respectively), Injury No.3 (Bruising on left forearm 3 cm x 2cm and 2 cm x 1 cm) and Injury No. 5 (Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm) can be caused by fist blows or hard object like danda; meaning thereby that the injuries were not self inflicted and also cannot be on account of fall.
Had the injuries been on account of fall, the same would have been present on the same side of the body. The nature of the injuries and their uneven presence on various parts of the body, establish that they could not have been on account of an accidental fall but were homicidal in nature.
(122) Further, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.8.2007 the accused Shalu surrendered in the Police Station and after her arrest she made a disclosure statement pursuant to which the accused Shalu she St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 173 got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Thapi from the bathroom of second floor.
(123) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.
(124) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
a) Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
b) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(125) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 174
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. (126) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
(127) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)"
and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 175 in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: "Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 176 the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information. . . .. ...... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(128) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 177 under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 178 that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.
(129) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 179
".... In order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.
(130) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 180 and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(131) Section 8 of the Evidence Act makes conduct of a person a relevant fact for the proof of any fact in issue. Evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person, which is deposed to by a police officer is admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. (Prakash Chand Vs. State reported in AIR 1979 SC 400).
(132) Applying the settled principles of law, it is evident that when the Thapi was allegedly got recovered at the behest of accused Shalu, the same was produced before the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. V.K. Jha (PW6) for opinion and after examining the Thapi, he opined that the the injuries no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 could have been caused by the Thapi or similar kind of weapon which opinion is Ex.PW6/D. Dr. V.K. Jha has also proved having prepared the sketch of the Thapi vide Ex.PW6/C and also identified the Thapi in Court as Ex.PA.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 181 (133) Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the Thapi has been planted upon the accused since it was recovered much later. He has also argued that the Thapi is an item of common domestic use and the chances of the same being planted cannot be ruled out. In this regard, I may mention that the accused Shalu had surrendered in the Police Station on 29.8.2007 and after a sustained interrogation she disclosed that beating had been given to the deceased with a Thapi which was lying at her house. This Thapi had been got recovered at the instance of accused Shalu and SI Surender Singh Rathi (PW29) and Lady Ct. Om Prabha (PW28) have proved the said recovery and seizure vide Ex.PW28/B. (134) Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the place of recovery of Thapi was accessible to general public and anybody could have planted this Thapi at the place from where the alleged recovery had been done. In this regard, I may observe that the Thapi was recovered from the second floor where the incident had taken place. Both the floors were in exclusive possession of the accused persons and the question of any other person having an access to the same does not arise. The photographs of the place on incident are also present on the Judicial File which show that the bathroom has a wooden door with a latch and hence there is little possibility that some other person could have planted the same there.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 182 (135) Further, this fact that the death of the deceased was caused by hitting her with a Thapi was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused Shalu. There being no eye witness to the incident, it was on the basis of the injuries present on the body of the deceased, that Dr. V.K. Jha opined that the injuries could have been caused by fists blows or a hard object like a danda. This opinion of Dr. V.K. Jha only reflected a possibility. It was only when the accused Shalu made a disclosure about the weapon of offence being a Thapi that it came to be known to the Investigating Agency the object with which the injuries were caused to the deceased was this Thapi. It is this aspect that the blows were given to the deceased with a Thapi which is a "disclosure of relevant fact" as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Evidence Act which was earlier not in the knowledge of the Investigating Agency and came to their knowledge only when it was so disclosed by the accused Shalu and is therefore, admissible in evidence being the discovery of a fact as contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(136) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has duly proved the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. the Thapi which is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused specifically so because the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. V.K. Jha has duly proved that the injuries i.e. bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead, bruising on right St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 183 forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3cm x 2 cm respectively, bruising on left forearm 3 cm x 2cm and 2 cm x 1 cm and bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm could be caused by this Thapi Ex.PA or a similar weapon.
Subsequent conduct of the accused:
(137) As per the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. (138) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceedings, in reference to such suit or proceedings, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
(139) It is hardly said that there any action without a motive.
Conduct of a person to proceedings in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant. As per the provisions of Section 8 the conduct whether previous or subsequent an offence against whom is the subject of inquiry is relevant if the conduct influences or influenced by any fact in issue or a relevant fact as it throws light upon a person's motive, intention, goodfaith etc. Subsequent act of a person which is St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 184 indicative of desire to avoid or stifle judicial inquiry into an offence of which the party doing the act is accused or suspected is relevant. The conduct of a person immediately after the offence is relevant under these circumstances and in the absence of any explanation for such act the presumption would be against such person.
(140) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the conduct of the accused Manoj Kumar becomes relevant on three counts. Firstly being the husband of the deceased with whom the deceased was residing immediately before the incident in the same house and the accused Manoj Kumar having brought the deceased Anita to the hospital, it was for the accused Manoj Kumar to have satisfactorily explain as to what had happened to the deceased and to provide an explanation for the various injuries/ bruises present all over the body of the deceased (Reference in this regard be made to Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act). While admitting the deceased to the hospital the accused Manoj Kumar gave the history of seizure and fall from the bed to the hospital authorities which has been found to be incorrect. The Postmortem Report Ex.PW6/A categorically reveals that the death was cause on account of coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the postmortem findings are consistent with beating before death. This St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 185 demolishes the explanation given by Manoj Kumar and it is this conduct of Manoj Kumar of providing false information to the hospital authorities regarding the cause of injuries present on the body of the deceased, which is a relevant fact and raises a finger of suspicion on him.
(141) Secondly at the time of the incident the deceased Anita was residing at her matrimonial home at Nangloi and the nearest hospital as admitted by Sushil Kumar (PW21) the real brother of accused Manoj & Vinod, is either Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital or Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. At the first instance the deceased was not rushed to the nearest hospital. Any other person under similar circumstances would have rushed the injured to the nearest hospital in order to save the life of such injured which did not happen. Strangely, Anita was taken to RML Hospital which is situated at a distance of more than 45 minutes from Nangloi. Why is it that Manoj instead of rushing Anita to the nearest Hospital which are equally well equipped, took her to a hospital situated at a distance of more than 45 minutes from her residence? Why no attempts were made to save her life at the first instance? It is this conduct of the accused Manoj which is relevant and raises a finger of suspicion on him.
(142) Lastly the fact that as soon as the doctors at RML Hospital declared the deceased as 'brought dead', Manoj Kumar and his family St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 186 absconded leaving behind the dead body of the deceased. As claimed by the accused, had it been that the death of Anita was natural on account of a fall due to fits and seizures, then what is it that made the accused leave the body behind in the hospital and abscond. It is this conduct of the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori Devi and Shalu of having absconded after the incident, which is relevant and again points a finger of suspicion towards the guilt of the accused persons. Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(143) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused Manoj Kumar and Anita (deceased) was a love marriage.
which was initially not approved by her family members. This was the second marriage of Anita, her first husband Dilbagh Singh having expired and Manoj being the friend of Dilbagh Singh (both having studied Pharmacy together) used to frequent his house and after his death had proposed marriage to Anita which was not approved by her family members. It is also the case of the prosecution that soon after the marriage Anita was being subjected to regular harassment and torture by her husband and inlaws including the accused Vinod, Angoori Devi and Shalu which was on account of demand of dowry. (144) Before coming to the evaluation of evidence 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 187 is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 188 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. (145) 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.
(146) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 189 security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
(147) 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.
(148) 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. v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 190
"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."
(149) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 191 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.
(150) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 192 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.
(151) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties".
This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 193 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."
(152) 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... St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 194 A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure."
(153) 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.
(154) 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.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 195 (155) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to 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.
(156) 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 196 Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
(157) 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).
(158) 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 197 term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. (159) 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."
(160) 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 198 adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
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...." (161) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 199 ''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."
(162) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 200 accused can be convicted....."
(163) 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. (164) Applying the settled principles of law as discussed herein above to the facts of the present case, I may observe that apart from the family members of the deceased, the prosecution has also examined three independent witnesses i.e. Ms. Gargi Kalra (PW5), Ms. Ameena Siddiqi (PW7) and Ms. Zinath Justin (PW8) the colleagues of the deceased in the RML Hospital whose testimonies are being evaluated as under:
(165) Firstly coming to the testimony of Kuldeep Singh Dalal (PW2) the real brother of the deceased who is the most material witness of the prosecution who had even witnessed the infliction of violence on the deceased, has supported the prosecution version. This witness has been subjected to a sustained crossexamination wherein he has consistently supported the version given by him earlier. From the evaluation of the testimony of Kuldeep Singh the following aspects emerge:
➢ That Manoj was the husband of Anita from the second marriage, her earlier husband Dilbagh Singh having expired and this marriage between St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 201 Manoj and Anita was a love marriage which was not approved by the family of Anita.
➢ That after marriage Anita resided with Manoj in the same house where his mother Angoori, brother Vinod and his wife Shalu along with their children also resided.
➢ That Manoj was a hard degree drunkard and his younger brother Vinod was smack addict and nobody in the family was earning except Anita.
➢ That Anita was a Govt. servant and was working as Staff Nurse in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and was getting an handsome salary of Rs.
15,000/ to Rs.20,000/ and was taking care of the household expenses.
➢ That after few months of the marriage Manoj was arrested by police from Timar Pur Police Station in a case of attempt of murder and was sent to Tihar Jail when rest of the Family members started pressing Anita to arrange money to secure bail of Manoj and Anita was compelled to arrange money, hire an advocate and arrange for his bail which took several months.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 202
➢ That under the pressure of her in laws Anita withdrew amount from GPF account Rs. 45,000/ in March 2001. Rs. 1 lac in October ,2001 and Rs.
75,000/ in May 2002 and all this money was wasted by Manoj and Vinod in their drinking habit and smack addiction.
➢ That thereafter the entire family consisting of Manoj Angoori Devi. Vinod and Shalu started torturing Anita for demand of dowry and being terribly upset Anita attempted to commit suicide by slitting her wrists on which Kuldeep Singh went to the house of Anita after which he and Manoj removed her to Aggarsen hospital and after this incident the above said four person promised not to torture Anita.
➢ That despite the above the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu continued to beat and torture Anita for money as a result of which Anita had to take a loan from cooperative society to fulfill their money demands.
➢ That whenever Anita visited her maternal house, her mother Satwanti Devi used to give her money i.e. Rs.10,000/ Rs.15000/ in order to fulfill St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 203 the demands of the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu.
➢ That on one occasion when Kuldeep Singh along with his father went to the house of the accused to find out about the well being of Anita, the accused Manoj and Angoori Devi demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/ from them.
➢ That after two three days Kuldeep Singh and his father went to give Rs.20,000/ as demanded and there they saw that all the four accused persons were beating Anita on which they intervened and his father handed over Rs.20,000/ to Angoori Devi.
➢ That after two three days i.e 10/11/2005 Anita telephoned to Kuldeep Singh and while weeping informed him that she was being badly beaten by accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu and begged him to save her on which Kuldeep Singh reached the matrimonial house of Anita and saw the accused Manoj hitting Anita with his fist at the point of fracture.
➢ That this sight became unbearable for Kuldeep Singh and he brought Anita back to his house but after recovering Anita again went back to St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 204 her matrimonial home.
➢ That after some days the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu again started torturing Anita so she called PCR and when the police came the accused apologized on which the matter was settled.
➢ That one day while Anita was beaten she was crying and on hearing her voice the elder brother of Manoj namely Sushil came upstairs and intervened and saved her. Kuldeep Singh was informed about this incident by Anita.
➢ That on 27/02/2007 Anita again made a PCR call as accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu were torturing her and demanding money from her.
➢ That in the year 2007 Anita came to her parental house on the occasion of Holi and informed her family members that the accused have raised their money demands manifolds and had also threatened to kill her saying that after her death the entire Provident Fund would be their as Manoj was her nominee.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 205
➢ That Anita further told Kuldeep that accused persons had told her that in the event of her death accused Manoj who is a Pharmacist would get the job in her place and thereafter Manoj would marry a girl with whom he used to talk in the night for hours and would get huge dowry in the said marriage.
➢ That Anita told Kuldeep Singh that she had also informed her sister Vandana on telephone about the atrocities committed upon her.
➢ That after 21.04.07 neither Kuldeep Singh nor his family received any call from Anita and on 28.04.2007 the eldest brother of Manoj namely Sajjan Kumar telephoned to them and informed them that Anita was seriously ill and had been removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital asking him to reach there immediately.
➢ That Kuldeep Singh immediately informed his sister Vandana after which he alongwith his mother Satwanti, sister Vandana, her husband and his wife reached the RML hospital and while they were passing through the emergency corridor of the Hospital Kuldeep Singh saw accused Manoj was St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 206 standing in a shaded place to avoid detection and thereafter the accused absconded.
➢ That Kuldeep Singh came to know that
Anita had been brought dead and on seeing the
dead body he found injury marks/ bruises on the
same.
(166) Coming next to the testimony of the mother of the deceased
namely Smt. Satwanti Devi (PW3) who has similarly corroborated the testimony of Kuldeep Singh (PW2). Satwanti Devi has also been cross examined at length and has supported the version given by her to the Investigating Agency at the first instance and has corroborated the testimony of Kuldeep Singh on the following aspects:
➢ That Manoj was the husband of Anita from the second marriage, her earlier husband Dilbagh Singh having expired and this marriage between Manoj and Anita was a love marriage which was not approved by the family of Anita and hence the marriage was performed without any pomp and show being a simple marriage.
➢ That after one month of the marriage
accused closed his shop and started consuming
liquor and the younger brother of Manoj namely
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 207
Vinod who used to reside in the same house along
with his wife Shalu and child, was a drug addict.
➢ That mother of the accused Angoori Devi
also used to reside with them.
➢ That Vinod was also jobless and the entire
expenses of the family were borne by Anita.
➢ That in order to meet their expenses all the
accused persons used to beat Anita and extract
money from her.
➢ That Anita had told Satwanti that she had
given a sum of Rs.45,000/ to accused Manoj prior to date of marriage and that the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu were demanding Rs.1 lac from her.
➢ That Anita took loan from her GPF and gave Rs.1 lac to Manoj and his mother Angoori but again after some days all the accused demanded Rs. 75,000/ from Anita and she was compelled to take loan from her GPF and gave Rs.75,000/ to Manoj and the other accused (Vinod, Angoori and Shalu).
➢ That whenever Anita refused to give the
money all the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and
Shalu used to beat her.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 208
➢ That accused Manoj along with another
person by the name of Bishan had attempted to
commit murder of somebody and were therefore sent to jail after which accused Vinod, Angoori and Shaluagain started torturing Anita for money.
➢ That since the salary of Anita had drastically reduced because of deduction of loan so Satwanti Devi had given Anita a sum of Rs.15,000/ and Rs.20,000/ on four five occasions by withdrawing the same from her account (withdrawals reflected from the passbook of witness Satwanti Devi) but still all the accused used to beat Anita for money.
➢ That being fed up because of the harassment Anita tried to commit suicide by cutting her wrist but since the accused persons begged pardon therefore no action was taken against them.
➢ That Anita had taken a loan from Co operative Society from the hospital five times totaling to Rs.60,000/ from the society but her harassment on account of money continued.
➢ That on 2.11.2005 Satwanti Devi received a call from Anita that the accused persons were St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 209 severely beating her and had broken her leg and asked her to come immediately on which her husband (father of Anita) and son (Kuldeep Singh) went to the house of the accused where they came to know that the accused (Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu) were demanding Rs.20,000/ from her.
➢ That after two three days Kuldeep Singh (brother) and father of Anita went to the house of the accused and handed over a sum of Rs.20,000/ to accused Angoori Devi and also tired to counsel the accused and make them understand.
➢ That on 10.11.2005 Satwanti Devi received a call from the elder brother of accused Manoj who resided in Rohini, who asked her to come immediately and save Anita as the accused persons were beating her on which Kuldeep Singh (brother of Anita) asked the elder brother of the accused to put him on the line with Anita after which Anita spoke Kuldeep Singh and told him that the accused persons were beating her and that he should come and save her.
➢ That Anita also told Kuldeep Singh that Manoj was beating her on the same leg on which St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 210 she had already received an injury and on hearing this Kuldeep Singh and the father of Anita went to the house of accused persons and brought Anita back after which Anita stayed with them for about two three months and after her plaster was removed she again went back to her matrimonial home.
➢ That the accused persons again started beating her for money on which Anita had even made a PCR call on a couple of occasions but no action was taken against the accused.
➢ That in the year 2007 Satwanti Devi called Anita to her house on the occasion of Holi when Anita came there and told Satwanti Devi and her family that Manoj had threatened her that one day he would kill her and withdraw all her GPF amount and also take job in her place.
➢ That after two days of Holi (2007) Anita went back to her matrimonial home but again the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu kept on demanding money from her.
➢ That on 21.4.2007 Satwanti Devi received a call from Anita who informed her that accused persons were demanding Rs. 2 lacs from her and St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 211 again made a call from STD Booth on the same day and narrated to her about beatings.
➢ That on 28.4.2007 at about 9:45 PM Kuldeep Singh received a call from the elder brother of Manoj asking him to reach RML hospital as Anita was serious and when they reached there Satwanti Devi came to know from Kuldeep Singh that all the accused persons had run away on seeing them and also came to know that Anita had been brought dead to the hospital.
(167) Coming next to the testimony of Ms. Vandana Rathi (PW5) the sister of the deceased. Vandana Rathi has also corroborated the versions given by Kuldeep Singh and Smt. Satwanti Devi on the following aspects:
➢ That Manoj was the husband of Anita from the second marriage, her earlier husband Dilbagh Singh having expired and this marriage between Manoj and Anita was a love marriage which was not approved by the family of Anita and hence the marriage was performed without any pomp and show being a simple marriage.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 212
➢ That whenever Anita used to meet Vandana, she disclosed that her husband Manoj, her Devar Vinod, Devrani Shalu and mother in law Angoori Devi used to beat her as they could not meet their day to day expenses since Manoj was unemployed and was a liquor addict and Vinod also addicted to drugs and was not earning anything.
➢ That the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu used to force Anita to bring money either from the place where she was working or from her parental home.
➢ That on twothree occasions Anita was made to withdraw from her provident fund account.
➢ That Anita also disclosed to Vandana that the accused had compelled her to even take a loan from the cooperative society.
➢ That on many occasions Smt. Satwanti Devi had withdrawn money from her father's account and also the money which was lying in their house and gave the same to Anita to give to her inlaws for meeting their family expenses including the expenses incurred by Manoj and Vinod for consumption of liquor and drugs.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 213
➢ That after the money given to the accused was spent, they again used to give beatings to Anita and force her to bring more money.
➢ That in the year 2005, Anita telephoned to her and told her that she was beaten by the accused persons and they demanded Rs.20,000/ on which Kuldeep Singh Dalal and her father Sh. Amir Singh Dalal went to the house of accused persons.
➢ That her father gave Rs.20,000/ to the
accused Smt. Angoori Devi.
➢ That when her father and brother had gone
to the house of Anita, they found Anita was being
beaten by accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and
Shalu and got Anita freed from their (accused)
hands.
➢ That the demand for dowry of accused
persons kept increasing by the day.
➢ That in the year 2006, Vandana had shifted
her residence to Pitam Pura which fell on the way of Anita while she used to go to her hospital and Anita often come to her house and told her about the beatings which the accused persons used to give to her as she could not meet their demands of dowry.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 214
➢ That Vandana had also seen injury marks
on the body of Anita.
➢ That Anita informed her that the accused
persons had told her that they would kill her and
would marry Manoj again to some girl in the
relation of Shalu at her paternal house as accused Manoj used to talk to that girl in the evening for hours.
➢ That Anita also informed her that Manoj told her that he is a Pharmacist and if Anita would die, he would get the job in her place.
➢ That Anita had told Vandana that on 27.2.2007 she (Anita) had made a call to PCR when accused persons had given beatings to her but did not press the issue when the accused sought pardon from her.
➢ That in the morning of 21.4.2007, Vandana received a phone call from Anita who told her that Manoj, Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu were forcing her to bring Rs.2 lacs and while Anita was speaking to her, she appeared frightened on which Vandana told her that they would go to their parents house on 29.4.2007 and discuss this issue.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 215
➢ That on 28.4.2007 Vandana received a call from her brother (Kuldeep Singh) that Anita was serious and admitted in RML Hospital on which she and her husband rushed there and found Anita brought dead in the Casualty.
➢ That Vandana noticed injury marks on the body of Anita and she was told by the Nurses that Anita appear to have been given beatings.
➢ That when they came to the hospital none of the accused were present and had fled away.
(168) It is evident from the aforesaid that all these witnesses (Kuldeep Singh, Satwanti Devi and Vandana Rathi) have corroborated each other on material particulars and from the joint analysis of their testimonies, it stands established that Manoj was the husband of Anita from the second marriage, her earlier husband Dilbagh Singh having expired; that this marriage between Manoj and Anita was a love marriage which was not approved by the family of Anita and hence the marriage was performed without any pomp and show being a simple marriage; that after marriage Anita resided with Manoj in the same house where his mother Angoori, brother Vinod and his wife Shalu along with their children also resided; that Manoj was a hard degree drunkard and his younger brother Vinod was smack addict and nobody St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 216 in the family was earning except Anita who was a Staff Nurse in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and she was drawing a handsome salary and was taking care of the household expenses. It further stands established that after a few months of the marriage Manoj was arrested by police from Timar Pur Police Station in a case of attempt of murder and was sent to Tihar Jail when rest of the Family members started pressing Anita to arrange money to secure bail of Manoj; that Anita was compelled to arrange for money to hire an advocate to secure his bail which took several months; that thereafter under the pressure of her in laws Anita also withdrew a sum of Rs.45,000/ in March 2001, Rs. 1 lac in October, 2001 and Rs.75,000/ in May 2002 from her GPF account and all this money was wasted by Manoj and Vinod in their drinking habit and smack addiction and that thereafter the entire family consisting of Manoj, Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu started torturing Anita and being terribly upset Anita attempted to commit suicide by slitting her wrists after which she was shifted to Aggarsen hospital. It is also established that the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu continued to beat and torture Anita for money as a result of which Anita had to take a loan from cooperative society to fulfill their money demands and whenever Anita visited her maternal house, her mother Satwanti Devi used to give her money i.e. Rs.10,000/ Rs.15000/ in order to fulfill the demands of the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu (which fact finds independent corroboration from the entries in St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 217 the passbook Ex.PW3/X1 indicating the said withdrawals); that on one occasion when Kuldeep Singh along with his father Amir Singh Dalal went to the house of the accused to find out about the well being of Anita, the accused Manoj and Angoori Devi demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/ from them and after two three days when they went to give Rs. 20,000/ as demanded, they saw that all the four accused persons were beating Anita on which they intervened and handed over Rs.20,000/ to Angoori Devi.
(169) Further, from the joint reading of the testimonies of Kuldeep Singh, Satwanti Devi and Vandana Rathi, it further stands established that on 10.11.2005 Anita telephoned to Kuldeep Singh and informed him that she was being badly beaten by accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu and begged him to save her on which Kuldeep Singh reached the matrimonial house of Anita and saw the accused Manoj hitting Anita with his fist at the point of fracture on which it became unbearable for Kuldeep Singh and he brought Anita back to his house but after recovering Anita again went back to her matrimonial home; that even thereafter Anita was harassed and tortured by accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu and on two occasions she had even called the PCR but did not press the charges as the accused had apologized to her; that in the year 2007 on the occasion of Holi Anita came to her parental house and informed her family members that the accused have raised their money demands manifolds and had also St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 218 threatened to kill her saying that after her death the entire Provident Fund would be their as Manoj was her nominee and that in the event of her death accused Manoj who is a Pharmacist would get the job in her place and thereafter Manoj would marry a girl with whom he used to talk in the night for hours and would get huge dowry in the said marriage; that on 28.04.2007 the eldest brother of Manoj namely Sajjan Kumar telephoned to Kuldeep Singh and informed them that Anita was seriously ill and had been removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital asking him to reach there immediately and when the family of Anita reached the RML hospital and while they were passing through the emergency corridor of the Hospital, they saw accused Manoj was standing in a shaded place to avoid detection and thereafter the accused absconded; that in the RML Hospital they came to know that Anita had been brought dead and on seeing the dead body of Anita they found numerous injury marks/ bruises on the same and were told by the doctors that she was perhaps beaten.
(170) Here, I may observe that it has also been alleged by Kuldeep Singh that a few months after the marriage, Manoj was arrested by police from Timarpur Police Station in a case of attempt to murder and was sent to Tihar Jail and this aspect has not been disputed by the accused. Further, it is also alleged that Anita had been withdrawing from her GPF Account to be spent on her husband and mother in law which aspect again find independent corroboration from the GPF St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 219 Account of the deceased (duly proved by the witnesses from the RML Hospital). Also the fact that the accused Manoj was the nominee of Anita finds established from the Service Record of the deceased Anita (duly proved by the witnesses from the RML Hospital). (171) The testimonies of Kuldeep Singh, Satwanti Devi and Vandana Rathi find independent corroboration from the testimonies of Ms. Gargi Kalra (PW5), Ms. Ameena Siddiqi (PW7) and Ms. Zinath Justin (PW8) who are all Staff Nurses working at RML Hospital where the deceased was posted at the time of her death.
(172) Coming first to the testimony of Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra (PW5), the relevant portion of her testimony is as under:
"........ As far as I remember Anita was married to Manoj, present in the Court as accused. Whenever Anita used to meet me I used to observe that she always remained tense and perturbed. When I used to ask the reason she used to tell me that her husband gave her beatings after taking liquor and he drinks the whole day and does not do any work. She further told me that her husband had also sold his chemist shop. She further told me that her husband had got her GPF withdrawn and spent all her GPF money in drinking. Whenever, I saw Anita she was having bruises and ecchyomisis on her hands, legs and on her face. Although Anita was earning Rs.20,000/ per month but she rarely had money to even drink a tea. She has not keeping good health as she was suffering from Cellulotis of her right or left leg after the marriage. Anita even St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 220 used to take bath after duty hours in the staff bathroom of the department as she told me that there was no water in her house because her sister in law (devrani) had disconnected the electrical supply and has even removed the motor. Anita used to take leave after 2 ½ months and whenever I used to talk her on telephone she used to tell me that she had been badly beaten by her husband and she used to be teased by her sister in law (devrani). Anita told me that every member of her inlaws family is the same and none is good for her. Anita only had tops in her ear and apart from that she never had any jewellery inspite of earning a handsome salary. Anita's right hand was also not in good condition after her marriage. I asked Anita that she should live in the hostel, on this she applied for hostel accommodation. She was allotted a house in hostel but she could not shift as she was not allowed to shift by her husband and she was badly beaten by him. I do not know if Anita used to bring her lunch.
At this stage ld. APP wants to put leading question to the witness. Heard. Allowed.
It is correct that Anita told me that her mother in law Angoori Devi, her husband, her devar Vinod and her Devrani Shalu were hungry wolves and they used to demand money from her. It is correct that Anita used to tell me that mother in law, Devar and Devrani also used to beat her..."
(173) Coming next to the testimony of Ms. Ameena Siddiqui (PW7), the relevant portion of the same is as under: St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 221
"...... I knew Anita (deceased) for the last 1415 years. She was working as Staff Nurse in RML Hospital where I was also working as Nurse. Probably in the year 2001 Anita got married with Manoj, identified correctly, present in the Court as accused.
We have (had) a common changing room in ward in RML Hospital, where I, Anita and other staff nurses used to change out uniform. While changing the uniform I noticed marks of beating on the body of Anita. On my inquiry, she (Anita) told me that her husband Manoj, her dever whose name I do not remember now, her devrani probably Shalu and her mother in law name I do not remember, used to beat her as she could not fulfill their demands of money. She has also told me that she was taunted as kangli and also tortured for not bringing dowry as per the expectation. She had also told me that she was kept hungry and was not provided food when she reached back to her house from her hospital duty at around 6:00 PM. She never used to bring meal (lunch) for her as her in laws never prepared meal in the morning and used to say that they were not her servants.
Mostly Anita's husband Manoj used to accompany Anita to the hospital on Salary Day.
About 45 days prior to Anita's death, she came to the hospital to take some treatment for injury in her feet. During those days she was on leave. She appeared disturbed, I asked the reason, she looked at her husband Manoj who was present there and replied she is OK. She wanted to say something to me but she could not say anything as her husband St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 222 Manoj was with her.
Probably on 2728.4.2007, I was on night duty when I received a call from emergency, that Anita had been admitted as brought dead. I rushed in the emergency there I noted Anita lying dead. Her husband, mother in law, her husband's brother etc. were present there. I asked Manoj as to how Anita had died. Manoj replied that she had a "fit". I question Manoj that why he did not take Anita to a nearby hospital when she suffered a "fit". Manoj did not reply and slipped the way. I had noticed an injury mark of blue colour on Anita's forehead....."
(174) The testimonies of Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra (PW5) and Ms. Ameena Siddiqui (PW7) find due corroboration from the testimony of Ms. Zinath Justin (PW8). The relevant portion of the testimony of Ms. Zinath Justin is as under:
"..... I am working as Nursing Sister in RML Hospital since 6.6.1998. I know Anita for about 1015 years. She was also working as Nurse in the same Hospital. She also worked as a Nurse in the same ward where I was working as a Nurse for some years.
After the first husband of Anita expired, she got married to Manoj Garg present in Court today. It was Anita's second marriage with Manoj Garg. After her marriage with Manoj, she remained disturbed. I asked reasons of her being disturbed. She did not disclose. While changing the uniform in the room, I noticed injury marks on her body. On inquiry, she told me that she was beaten by her St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 223 husband Manoj. I advised her that she should stop Manoj from giving her beatings upon which she replied that she can control one person but cannot control the other family members when they join Manoj in giving beatings to her. Often she met me in the bank in our hospital with her husband. She did not bring lunch with her. Occasionally we used to give our food to her. She had also told me that her husband Manoj and other inlaws used to demand money from her and she used to give them the money at times.
She used to extract her salary and used to give the same to her husband and inlaws and they in turn used to give her pocket expenses. She told me that she was provided with clothes from the side of her parents....."
(175) A joint reading of the oral testimonies of the above independent witnesses, establish the following facts:
➢ That Anita was a Staff Nurse at RML Hospital and Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra, Ms. Ameena Siddiqui and Ms. Zinath Justin were also working in the same hospital.
➢ That although Anita was earning Rs.20,000/ per month but she rarely had money to even drink a tea. ➢ That they noticed that Anita always remained tense and perturbed.
➢ That Anita used to tell her colleagues that her husband gave her beatings after taking liquor and he used to drink the St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 224 whole day and did not do any work.
➢ That her husband had sold his chemist shop and got her GPF withdrawn and spent all her GPF money in drinking. ➢ That the colleagues of Anita noticed marks of beating on the body of Anita in the common changing room in ward in RML hospital.
➢ That they often saw Anita having bruises and
ecchyomisis on her hands, legs and on her face.
➢ That Anita used to take bath after duty hours in the staff
bathroom of the Department as she told her colleagues that there was no water in her house because her sister in law (Devrani) had disconnected the electrical supply and had even removed the motor.
➢ That Anita used to tell her colleagues that she was being badly beaten by her husband and frequently teased by her sister in law (Devrani Shalu) and that every member of her in laws family was the same and none was good to her. ➢ That Anita only had tops in her ear and apart from that she never had any jewellery inspite of earning a handsome salary. ➢ That Anita had applied for hostel accommodation but she was not allowed to shift by her husband Manoj and was badly beaten by him.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 225 ➢ That Anita had told her colleagues that her mother in law Angoori Devi, her husband, her Dever Vinod and her Devrani Shalu were hungry wolves and used to demand money from her.
➢ That Anita used to tell her colleagues that mother in law, Devar and Devrani also used to beat her and once Anita was admitted in the hospital for her cellulotis treatment but nobody from her house came to see her.
➢ That Anita was being taunted as kangli and was tortured for not bringing dowry as per the expectation. ➢ That Anita was kept hungry and was not provided food when she reached back to her house from her hospital duty. ➢ That Anita never used to bring meal (lunch) for her as her in laws never prepared meal in the morning and used to say that they were not her servants.
➢ That mostly Anita's husband Manoj used to accompany Anita to the hospital on salary day.
➢ That Anita used to extract her salary and used to give the same to her husband and in laws who in turn used to give her pocket expenses.
➢ That on 27/28.04.07, when Anita was admitted as brought dead, Ms. Ameena Siddiqui asked Manoj as to how Anita died to which Manoj replied that she had a 'fit' and fell St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 226 down from the bed on which she questioned Manoj that why he did not take Anita to a nearby hospital when she suffered a "fit" but Manoj did not reply and slipped the way. ➢ That there was an injury mark of blue colour on Anita's forehead at the time when she was brought dead in the hospital. (176) I may mention that all these witnesses i.e. Ms. Gargi Kalra (PW5), Ms. Ameena Siddiqi (PW7) and Ms. Zinath Justin (PW8) were colleagues of the deceased who used to take their lunch together and share the changing room. It is only natural for them to have seen the injury marks on the body of the deceased. They are independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. It is a matter of common knowledge that in cases involving family dispute or dowry demands/ death public persons/ citizens are reluctant to intervene particularly when the proceedings in question involve a criminal offence concerning the close family of the victim the husband or close family members of the victim. There is general apathy and indifference on the part of public to assist the Law Enforcement Agencies in such proceedings because they do not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment and inconvenience to them, without any commensurate benefit. This being so, when in the present case the colleagues of the deceased have themselves come forward and informed St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 227 the Police and the Courts about the injustice meted out to the deceased, there is no reason to suspect their intent or doubt their version. They are all witnesses whose presence in the hospital is expected and probable being the employees on duty. It is only natural that they would have seen the injury marks on the body of the deceased Anita when she came across them in the changing room or otherwise. It is also natural that these witnesses having seen the bruises and ecchyomisis on the body of Anita would have questioned her with regard to its cause and hence there is no reason to doubt them, when they say that they were informed by Anita (the victim/ witness whose presence cannot be secured in the Court on account of her death) that the said injuries were caused by the accused on account of the beating given to her.
(177) In their testimonies these witnesses are very categorical and have specifically deposed that they had seen the bruise and ecchyomisis on the body of the deceased Anita on many occasions and hence under the given circumstances it is natural for any person to have made inquiries from the affected person (Anita) with regard to the cause of the same. Therefore, what was told to these witnesses (Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra, Ms. Ameena Siddiqui and Ms. Zinath Justin) cannot be excluded on the ground of it being a hearsay and is an admissible evidence. The presence of bruises on the body of the victim is a Relevant Fact and the witnesses who were the colleagues of the victim working in the same St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 228 hospital having noticed the same and questioned the deceased about it, the response of the deceased that it was her husband and the other family members i.e. the mother in law, sister in law and brother in law who used to beat her, provide an explanation to this Relevant Fact.
Hence, this explanation so given to her colleagues cannot be excluded on the ground of it being a hear say since it tends to explain the existence of a relevant fact (bruises on her body). (178) Coming now to the aspect of 'Cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, I may observe that it is a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grievous injuries to her or danger to her health or life. The expression 'Willful' indicates a conduct which in order to be culpable is deliberate aimed at causing injuries to the health of the woman or bringing miseries to her. In the present case the culpability so attributed to the accused stand established from the voluminous evidence which has come on record as discussed herein above. The entire salary of Anita was being usurped by the accused persons and she was regularly tortured so as to compel her to arrange for money to enable the accused to meet their financial requirements so much so that she had to withdraw money from her GPF Account and also borrowed money from the Cooperative Society and her mother. She seldom brought lunch to the office and had little money to spend on herself for purchasing even a cup of tea and on many occasions it St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 229 was her colleagues who shared their lunch with her. The bruises and ecchyomisis on her body were noticed not only by her paternal family but also by her colleagues when she changed her dress in the changing room which injuries were caused to her on account of the beatings given to her by the accused. Throughout the subsistence of her marriage with the accused she suffered this worst kind of domestic violence for which there can be no justification. The deceased Anita was harassed both mentally and physically and coerced to fulfill the unlawful demand of her husband's family who was in financial destitution. It is this conduct of the accused of causing physical harm and of causing repeated mental harassment to the deceased Anita by asking her to get more money, which constitutes 'Cruelty' as defined under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and make them culpably liable for the same.
(179) Coming next to the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code, the term 'Dowry' as contemplated under Section 304B Indian Penal Code 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. The demand, if any, has to be in St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 230 connection with the marriage and there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. (180) In the present case, no doubt, the entire harassment meted out to the accused was on account of demand of money made by the accused persons but there is no evidence to suggest that the said demand was in connection with the marriage. The evident on record conclusively establishes that the marriage between the accused Manoj and deceased Anita was a love marriage where a simple ceremony had taken place without any pomp and show as the family of Anita was not agreeable to same nor was any consideration promised. The evidence on record, no doubt, conclusively establishes that the physical and mental harassment which was meted out to the deceased was on account of financial reasons, the husband of Anita accused Manoj Kumar being a habitual alcoholic and a wifebeater, the brother in law Vinod being a drug addict and the entire family being in financial destitution (in the words of Sushil Kumar PW21 bhukhon marne ki naubat aa gayi thi) yet, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any demand for dowry had been made by the accused persons. (181) Anita herself being employed, rather being the only earning member of the family, the domestic violence in the form of abuses, taunts and beatings were directed on her in order to pressurize and compel her to arrange for money from various sources so as to enable the accused to fulfill their day to day financial requirements. I may St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 231 observe that previously on one occasion Anita had even attempted to commit suicide by slitting her wrists on which a case under Section 309 IPC was registered against her and I am sure if there was any demand for dowry made by the accused, she would have certainly reported the same to the police which she did not do. It is also established from the evidence on record that Anita had also made PCR calls but eventually did not press the charges against the accused. This again is indicative of the fact that the deceased was being harassed and tortured but this was not directed towards demand for dowry as legally and technically contemplated under Section 304B Indian Penal Code though I have no hesitation in holding that the background of the extreme brutal kind of domestic violence which was inflicted upon the deceased and the manner in which the death of Anita has occurred, it is a case of homicide connected with the greed of the accused persons. Charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code stands established against Manoj:
(182) A charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was also settled against the accused Manoj, Vinod, Angoori and Shalu. Before coming to the merits of the evidence which has come on record, I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 232 likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid and this is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. There are five exceptions provided to the above. Firstly culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. I may observe that this exception is also subject to the proviso that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person; the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence; the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Secondly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 233 property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Thirdly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without illwill towards the person whose death is caused. Fourthly Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. (183) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to bring on record sufficient evidence which establishes that there was a long history of a spate of Domestic Violence being inflicted upon the deceased Anita, both mental and physical. It stands established that Anita was being teased and taunted by her sister in law Shalu, St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 234 frequently beaten by her husband Manoj when her mother in law Angoori Devi, Devar Vinod and Devrani Shalu who were residing in the same premises often joined; that her salary was being taken away by her husband Manoj and under the presence of the accused she frequently withdrew money from her GPF account, took a loan from the Cooperative Society and also from her mother to meet the financial requirements and demands of the family of the accused; that Anita seldom brought lunch and had little money to spent on herself (at time she had no money even for a cup of tea despite her handsome salary; that Anita silently suffered this all perhaps because she was a widow from first marriage and her second marriage with the accused Manoj a love marriage which was not approved by her family. (184) This being the background the fact that Anita was brought dead to the hospital by Manoj on 28.4.2008 at 11:30 PM with multiple injuries all over her body, a finger of suspicion is raised upon the accused. The medical evidence establishes that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital with as many as five injuries present on different parts of the body. The Autopsy Surgeon has proved that on internal examination Sub Scalp hematoma was present on biparietal region, generalized sub dural hematoma and sub arachnoid hemorrhage was present over biparietal region. The cause of death has been opined to be Coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party and that the head injuries were sufficient to cause St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 235 death in ordinary course of nature. The Autopsy Surgeon has also successfully proved and established that the postmortem findings were consistent with beating before death. Initially on the asking of the Investigating Officer the Autopsy Surgeon had opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased i.e. Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead; Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm respectively; Bruising left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm and Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm could be caused by fist blows or hard object like danda. However, later when the weapon of offence i.e. Thapi Ex.PA was got recovered by the accused Shalu and the said Thapi was produced before the Autopsy Surgeon (sketch of which is Ex.PW6/C) he subsequently opined (vide Ex.PW6/C) that the above injuries could be caused by this Thapi or similar kind of object. There is no reason to doubt this opinion. The nature of injuries specifically the Sub Scalp hematoma on biparietal region and generalized sub dural hematoma and sub arachnoid hemorrhage over biparietal region could not have been caused either on account of fall or by simple fist blows. The injury as reflected is deep and spread over the entire biparietal region. It is reflected from the postmortem report that this injury is generalized and not localized over a small area which could have been the case if it was a fist blow. The injury being deep and generalized reflects the use of a weapon which is St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 236 blunt could be in the nature of a danda or a Thapi as proved by the prosecution and under no circumstances could be self inflicted or accidental (injuries being present on different parts of the body and not on one side as would have been the case if it was a fall). (185) The above medical evidence conclusively establishing the cause of death to be Coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party, the only question which now arises is who is this other party who had mercilessly, repeatedly and brutally thrashed Anita and clubbed her to death? From the evidence on record it stands established that at the time of the incident, the deceased Anita was residing with her husband Manoj on the second floor of the premises i.e. B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi and in the same premises the accused Vinod, Shalu and Angoori resided on the first floor. It also established from the MLC Ex.PW10/A and from the testimony of Ms. Ameena Siddiqui (PW7) that it was Manoj who had brought the deceased Anita to the hospital with injuries all over her body. This being so, the circumstances under which Anita expired and how she had received injuries all over her body, were within the special knowledge of the accused Manoj Kumar and he was the best person who could have offered an explanation with regard to the injuries present on the body of the deceased Anita leading to her death without any difficulty and the onus under these circumstances would not be on the prosecution but would shift on the accused. Since the facts relating St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 237 to the same being especially within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special rule in Section 106 of the Evidence Act to meet exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible to disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
(186) In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram reported in 2006 (12) SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"....... The principle is well settled. The provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. He must furnish an explanation which appears to court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 238 which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are especially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain....."
(187) Further, in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State reported in 2010 (9) SCC 747, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"....... If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances, where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 239 says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him...... "
(188) Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the onus of proving how Anita received the fatal injuries shifts upon the accused Manoj being facts which are specially within his knowledge. When asked by Ms. Ameena Siddiqui (PW7) the Nurse on duty in the hospital as to how Anita had received injuries Manoj gave a history of fall pursuant to seizures (a fact which is also reflected in the MLC Ex.PW10/A). He did not stop at that and when Ms. Ameena Siddiqui asked him why he did not rush Anita to nearby hospital (the evidence on record shows that it is admitted by Sushil Kumar PW21 the real brother of Manoj that Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital and Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital are the nearest hospitals from his house which are hardly at a distance of hardly 1015 minutes and even a judicial notice can be taken of this fact that RML hospital is more than 45 minutes away from Nangloi the place where the incident had occurred) on which the accused Manoj had no answer and he slipped away.
(189) The MLC Ex.PW10/A confirms and establishes that the history of fall on account of seizure was given by Manoj and the postmortem report demolishes this claim of the accused Manoj. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Manoj did not give any explanation St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 240 for the same. He has admitted that he was present in the hospital but has denied having given the history of a fall pursuant to seizures to PW7 Ameena Siddiqui. It is evident that Manoj is speaking a lie because even the MLC Ex.PW10/A reflects that he had given this history to the doctor on duty when he brought the deceased to the hospital.
(190) From the evidence on record it stands established that it was the accused Manoj Kumar who had brought Anita to RML Hospital where she was declared brought dead. The accused Manoj Kumar has failed to offer any explanation and presumption under Section 106 of the evidence Act can legitimately be drawn that the accused concealed the material facts which were within his special knowledge. He did not offer any exculpatory explanation to discharge the burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act and the explanation so offered by him is misleading and is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused. (191) This being the background and considering the large number of injures present on various parts of the body of the deceased which according to the Autopsy Surgeon were caused by blunt object; the force with which two consecutive blows were given on the forehead a vital organ (there being two internal injuries on the forehead as evident from the postmortem report though only one injury is reflected externally); the impact of which was so great that it resulted into Sub Scalp hematoma on biparietal region, generalized sub dural hematoma St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 241 and sub arachnoid hemorrhage over biparietal region on account of which the victim immediately slipped into Coma is indicative of and also establishes the criminal intent so attributed to the accused. An abusive alcoholic husband and a compulsive wifebeater who clubs his wife to death, whether or not under the influence of alcohol or for greed of money, is presumed to be aware of the consequences of his act that by repeatedly hitting his wife on her vital organ (forehead) with force would be fatal to her. The medical evidence on record coupled with the voluminous evidence proving the history of domestic violence which was being inflicted on the deceased prior to her death connected with the extreme greed of the accused for money only to compel the deceased to arrange for finances as the family of the accused was in a state of extreme financial destitution establishes and proves the necessary intent so attributed to the accused Manoj Kumar as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code to cause head injuries to the deceased Anita which were sufficient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature, for which he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. (192) In so far as the accused Vinod, Angoori Devi and Shalu are concerned, it stands established that they were residing on the first floor at the time of the incident and there presence at the spot of the incident does not stand established. There is no evidence on record St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 242 whatsoever to suggest that Vinod, Shalu and Angoori were present on the second floor (in the portion where accused Manoj and the deceased Anita were residing) at the time of the incident when Anita was beaten or that they in any manner shared any common intention or instigated, abetted or caused the death of Anita as aforesaid. Even otherwise, the postmortem report does not indicate the involvement of many persons because had that been so there would have been some indication of it on the body of the deceased to establish the same which is not the case. Hence, in view of the above, benefit of doubt is being given to them for the same for the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Defence of the accused:
(193) The defence raised by the accused Manoj, Vinod, Shalu and Angoori Devi is three fold. Firstly the accused Vinod, Shalu and Angoori who were previously residing on the first floor of the same house where Manoj and the deceased Anita used to reside, had shifted to another house about a year prior to the incident; Secondly the deceased was having psychological problems as was suffering from incurable ulcers and TB as a result of which she could not conceive and wanted to adopt the child of her sister Sangeeta which Sangeeta had refused and it is for this reason that Anita had become suicidal and even on a previous occasion she even attempted to commit suicide and Lastly that the deceased Anita was a diehard drunkard and drug addict St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 243 who used to remain in an inebriated condition throughout the day so much so that she was unable to even do her day to day chores. (194) In order to prove their First defence regarding the accused Manoj and deceased Anita residing separately from the other accused at the time of the incident, they have heavily relied upon the testimonies of Sushil Kumar (the real brother of the accused Manoj and Vinod, the son of Angoori and brother in law of Shalu) and Ajay Kumar Pandey. The Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out that both these witnesses are very categorical in their deposition having proved that Vinod and his wife Shalu and Angoori Devi used to reside separately at the time of the incident. He submits that Ajay Kumar Pandey is an independent witness and there is no reason to doubt his testimony. In this regard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the only evidence on record is in the form of oral testimonies of Sushil Kumar and Ajay Kumar Pandey both of whom are witnesses who are totally unreliable. It is argued that the witness Sushil Kumar being the son of Angoori Devi and real brother of accused Manoj and Vinod, has deliberately tired to save them from penal consequences whereas the witness Ajay Kumar Pandey is a planted witness who was not even able to identify the accused Vinod in the Court. (195) I have considered the submissions made before me and I may observe that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Sushil who is the real brother of accused Manoj & Vinod, son of Angoori St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 244 Devi and brother in law of accused Shalu. It is writ large from his testimony that he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he possibility of his having done so only to save his family members from penal consequences cannot be ruled out. In his testimony Sushil Kumar has not provided any address of the place where Vinod and his family along with Angoori Devi had shifted. He has vaguely stated that it was the house of Veer Singh. It is impossible that Sushil Kumar would not have been aware of the details of the said address where the accused were allegedly residing. If he is aware that it was in the house of one Veer Singh, it was equally possible for him to have either provided the address of this Veer Singh or to have secured the presence of this Veer Singh in the Court, which has not been done. (196) Further, in so far as Ajay Kumar Pandey (DW1) is concerned he has rather supported the prosecution case and in his deposition has stated that there was another tenant in the said house namely Vinod who used to reside in the house along with his family comprising of two daughters and one son and used to pay rent to Angoori Devi. He has proved that Vinod used to reside on the first floor of the said house and is unable to tell whether on 28.4.2007 Vinod was present in the house or not. He has further stated that he could identify this Vinod Kumar but when asked to identify Vinod in the Court, he instead identified Manoj as the one who was residing on the top floor. It is writ large that this witness Ajay Kumar is a planted St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 245 witness. He claims that he was a tenant of Angoori Devi but in the Court does not identify her as landlady to whom he used to pay the rent. Further, in his crossexamination he has denied that the other brother of Vinod and his wife and mother of Vinod also used to reside in the same house. This being the background, I hold that Ajay Kumar Pandey is a planted witness who during his deposition before this Court has come up with a totally new story. He does not identify the accused persons correctly so much so that he is also not able to identify his own landlady (alleged) Angoori. His testimony is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.
(197) On the other hand the testimonies of the family members of the deceased i.e. brother Kuldeep Singh Dalal (PW2), mother Satwanti Devi (PW3) and sister Vandana Rathi (PW9) are very clear. They have specifically deposed that the accused Angoori Devi, Vinod and Shalu were residing in the same premises on the first floor. I, therefore, hold that the accused Vinod, Angoori and Shalu have not been able to prove that at the time of the incident they were residing separately. (198) Coming to the Second defence raised by the accused that the deceased was having psychological problems as was suffering from incurable ulcers and TB as a result of which she could not conceive and wanted to adopt the child of her sister Sangeeta which Sangeeta had refused and it is for this reason that Anita had become suicidal, I may observe that the only allegations made in this regard are St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 246 oral which are in the form of suggestions made to the family members of the deceased (Kuldeep Singh, Satwanti Devi and Vandana Rathi).
These allegations also do not find any support from the medical evidence on record. Had it been so that the deceased was facing problems in conceiving and was wanting to adopt the child of her sister Sangeeta, I am sure that the deceased Anita herself being a Nurse employed in a Government Hospital would have certainly got herself examined and obtained treatment for the same. Her husband (accused Manoj) would also have been examined and the medical record of both the deceased and of Manoj would have been available, which is not the case. Further, the fact that the deceased had attempted a suicide on a previous occasion does not establish her suicidal tendencies on account this medical problem (of not conceiving). Rather, keeping in view the history of domestic violence (both mental and physical) being inflicted upon the deceased, the possibility of the accused themselves being the cause of her miseries and trauma leading her to make an attempt on her life cannot be ruled out.
(199) Lastly coming to the defence raised by the accused that the deceased Anita was a diehard alcoholic and drug addict so much so that she was unable to do her day to day chores, I may observe that in order to substantiate their claim the Ld. Defence Counsels have placed their reliance on the testimony of Sushil Kumar (PW21) who in his testimony before the Court has deposed that the deceased Anita was St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 247 alcoholic and addicted to drugs and most of the time remained in an inebriated condition so much so that she was not in a position to work at home. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has pointed out that Sushil Kumar (PW21) being the real brother of the accused Manoj & Vinod, son of Angoori Devi and brother in law of Shalu, has mischievously tried to give a twist to the prosecution case by initially becoming a witness of the prosecution and thereafter by resiling from his earlier statement during his deposition before the Court by making such scandalous allegations which do not find support from any other source. He has submitted that had it been that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and drugs, then this would have certainly reflected in the testimonies of her colleagues and also borne out from her service record. Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that it was open to the accused to have made this suggestion to the colleagues of the deceased examined in the court but they have deliberately not done so. He has also pointed out that the deceased was on active duty and had been performing her job diligently and properly, there being no complaints against her at any point of time, her record being unblemished and in this regard has placed his reliance on the testimony of the Court Witness Dr. T.S. Sidhu.
(200) I have considered the rival contentions. I may observe that the allegations made by the accused regarding the deceased being a die hard alcoholic and drug addict who always used to remain in an St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 248 inebriated condition, is a clear after thought. The said allegations do not find support from any source. Had the deceased been an alcoholic as alleged, the condition of the body organs as observed during the postmortem would have reflected the same and this fact would have found a mention in the postmortem report which is not the case nor any suggestion has been made by the accused to the Autopsy Surgeon who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. Further, the testimony of the Court Witness Dr. T.S. Sidhu (CW1) Director/ Medical Superintendent from the RML Hospital (where the deceased was posted) puts an end to this controversy. He has proved that the Department had never received any complaint against Anita of being addicted to any psychotropic or prohibited substance and has very categorically deposed that no complaint of Anita had been brought to his notice regarding any kind of dereliction of duty, improper performance of duty or her being lacking in any manner in performance of her duties. The relevant portion of his testimony in this regard is as under:
"..... In so far as I recollect there is no complaint regarding Anita having been brought to my notice regarding any kind of dereliction of duty, improper performance of duty or her being lacking in any manner in performance of her duties. It is correct that under the existing administrative rules any employee found to be consuming or addicted to psychotropic substance is liable to be proceeded St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 249 against departmentally. In so far as I recollect the department had never received any complaint against Anita of being addicted to any psychotropic substance...."
(201) The above testimony specifically demolishes the claim of the accused that the deceased was an alcoholic and drug addict who remained in an inebriated state so much so that she was unable to do her work.
(202) In view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the accused have not been able to prove and substantiate any of the defence so raised by them as herein above.
Role of the Investigating Officer Inspector R.S. Malik not above board:
(203) The Ld. Counsel for the complainant through the Ld. Addl.
Public Prosecutor has made serious allegations against the first Investigating Officer Inspector R.S. Malik. He has alleged that the manner in which the first Investigating Officer investigating the case was totally biased, motivated and directed to help the accused. He has submitted that the role of Inspector R.S. Malik is not above board and he was colluding with the accused persons due to which reason the complainant was compelled to make a specific complaint against him to the senior police officers alleging the same which complaint is Ex.PX and pursuant to the same the further investigations were handed over to St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 250 another Investigating Officer. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be read in the light of this background of the first Investigating Officer being won over by the accused.
(204) The Ld. Defence Counsel has on the other hand submitted that these are bare allegations which have been made by the complainant on legal advise only to pressurize the Investigating Agency to fall in line.
(205) I have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through the contents of the above complaint Ex.PX. Without going into the merits of the same, I may observe that the allegations made by the complainant may not be all that unfounded or else there was no reason why despite the fact that the cause of death was opined by the Autopsy Surgeon as head injury consequent to blunt force impact by the other party, there was any requirement for the Investigating Officer to have sought a subsequent opinion by asking the Autopsy Surgeon if the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been on account of a fist blow. The possibility of this having been done deliberately perhaps to mitigate the offence, cannot be ruled out. Further, it is also evident from the record that he did not apply for a police custody remand of the accused which would have been necessitated for purposes of investigations and recovery of the weapon of offence. Also, he did not make any efforts to call the Crime Team for inspection St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 251 of Scene of Crime nor he made any inquiries from the other residents of the same building or the neighbours which was essential. A young girl had been clubbed to death at the house of her husband/ inlaws and it is strange that nobody in the area noticed anything or is it that the Investigating Officer was too unconcerned to inquire about the same. Also, no serious efforts appeared to have been made by him to apprehend the accused at the first instance.
(206) I may note that in a case where the initial investigations are lacking, the accused have sufficient thinking time in order to cover up for their lapses as has happened in the present case. The Investigating Officer is under certain legal and a professional obligations and if he is found deliberately lacking then such a conduct is required to be placed before the senior officers for appropriate action. I am hence compelled to direct that the aforesaid lapses committed by Inspector R.S. Malik be placed before his Department for information and appropriate action. FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(207) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 252
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(208) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the identity of all the accused stands established accused Manoj Kumar being the husband of the deceased Anita; Angoori Devi mother in law; Vinod Kumar brother in law (Devar) and Shalu being the sister in law (Devrani) of the deceased. Further, from the evidence St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 253 on record, the following aspects stand established:
➢ That Anita (deceased) was working as Staff Nurse in RML Hospital and was first married to Dilbagh Singh who unfortunately expired in the year 2007 and accused Manoj Kumar was a friend of Dilbagh Singh having done their Pharmacy Course together who frequently visited them. ➢ That the marriage between the accused Manoj Kumar and Anita (deceased) was a love marriage which solemnized on 2.4.2001 without any pomp show and the family of Anita was not very happy with her alliance with Manoj.
➢ That after the marriage Anita shifted to her matrimonial house at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi where she was residing with Manoj on the second floor and the accused Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu were residing on the first floor.
➢ That at the time of marriage the accused Manoj Kumar was running a scooter repair shop but after the marriage he closed the same.
➢ That both the accused Manoj Kumar and Vinod were alcoholic (in fact Vinod was also a drug addict) and were jobless hence the entire burden of running the house shifted upon Anita who was the only earning member of the family.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 254 ➢ That Anita was being regularly beaten, tortured and harassed by the accused persons and she often had bruises on her back which was noticed by her colleagues which indicated that she was being subjected to violence.
➢ That the deceased Anita used to spend her entire earnings for running the family; that Anita had even withdrawn a sum of Rs.45,000/ from her GPF Account in March 2001, Rs.1,00,000/ in October, 2001 and Rs.75,000/ in May, 2002 for spending on her family (husband and mother in law). ➢ That every month on the day of her salary the accused Manoj used to go to RML Hospital (workplace of Anita) with Anita and take her salary.
➢ That deceased Anita had also taken a loan from Co operative Society which money she spent on her matrimonial family.
➢ That after a few months of the marriage, Manoj was arrested by police from Timarpur Police Station in a case of attempt to murder and Anita was compelled to arrange for money to hire an Advocate and arranged for his bail.
➢ That being fed up with the accused on account of repeated harassment and torture, the deceased Anita had on a previous occasion attempted to commit suicide by slitting both her wrists on which a case under Section 309 IPC was registered St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 255 against her.
➢ That on account of this harassment Anita had even made calls to PCR but did not press the charges against Manoj.
➢ That in the month of November, 2005 all accused persons gave severe beatings to Anita and broke her leg and on 10.11.2005 when the brother of Anita namely Kuldeep Singh reached the house of accused persons, he saw accused Manoj hitting Anita with his fist at the point of her fracture. ➢ That Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra, Ms. Ameena Siddiqui and Ms. Zinath Justin the colleagues of the deceased Anita often saw bruise marks on the back of the deceased Anita while in the changing room (of the Nurses) and when they inquired from her, she told them about the harassment and torture caused by the accused persons.
➢ That despite the fact that the deceased Anita was earning a handsome amount yet she did not have money even to have a cup of tea and she seldom brought her lunch.
➢ That on 28.4.2007 Anita was brought to RML hospital by the accused Manoj where she was declared 'brought dead' and there were injury marks on the body of the deceased and when Ms. Ammena Siddiqui the colleague of the deceased asked Manoj as to how Anita died Manoj replied that she had a bout of 'fit' on which she questioned Manoj that why he did not take St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 256 Anita to a nearby hospital but Manoj did not reply and slipped away.
➢ That on 18.5.2007 pursuant to a secret information, the accused Manoj Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Angoori Devi were arrested and on 29.8.2007 the accused Shalu surrendered in the Police Station after which she was arrested.
➢ That pursuant to her arrest the accused Shalu got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Thapi from the bathroom of second floor of her house.
(209) The postmortem report of the deceased establishes that as many as five injures were present on the body of the deceased Anita and the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the postmortem findings were consistent with beating before death. It has also been established that after the arrest of the accused Shalu, she got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Thapi which was produced before the Autopsy Surgeon who after examining the same opined that the injury no.1 (Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead); injury no.2 (Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm respectively) injury no.3; (Bruising left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm); injury no.5 (Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 257 cm x 2 cm) were caused by the Thapi recovered by the accused Shalu. (210) 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. (211) 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 arrest of the accused, 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.
(212) Hence, in view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold the accused Manoj Kumar (husband of the deceased) guilty of the offence under Sections 498A and Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, I hereby St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 258 hold the accused Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and benefit of doubt is being to them (Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu) for the charge under Section 302 IPC. All the accused are also acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code as the prosecution has not been able to successfully establish that the death of the deceased was a Dowry Death as contemplated under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. (213) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 14.9.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 10.9.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 259 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU; ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 195/2011 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0677452007 State Vs. (1) Manoj Kumar S/o Late Satya Narayan R/o House No. 21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Vinod Kumar S/o Late Satya Narayan R/o House No. 21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Smt. Angoori W/o Late Satya Narayan R/o House No. 21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi (Convicted) (4) Shalu Gupta W/o Vinod Gupta R/o House No. 21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi (Convicted) St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 260 FIR No.: 383/2007 Police Station: Nangloi Under Sections: 498A/304B/302 Indian Penal Code Date of judgment: 10.9.2012 Arguments concluded on: 18.9.2012 Date of sentence: 25.9.2012 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State with Sh. Kuldeep Singh brother of the deceased. All the convicts in Judicial Custody. ORDER ON SETENCE: (1) Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 10.9.2012 the
accused Manoj Kumar has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Manoj Kumar, Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu have been guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code but acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
(2) The deceased in the present case namely Anita was working as a Staff Nurse at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital. Initially she was married to one Dilbagh Singh who expired after which Anita got married to accused Manoj Kumar who was a friend of Dilbagh Singh. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 261 The case of the prosecution is that the accused Manoj Kumar was married to Anita (deceased) on 2.4.2001 after which she started residing with the accused Manoj Kumar on the second floor at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi whereas the accused Angoori Devi (mother in law), Vinod Kumar (brother in law-Devar) and Shalu (sister in law-Devrani) were residing on the first floor on the said premises. As per the allegations all the accused persons used to subject Anita to cruelty and also harassed and tortured her for money. On 28.4.2007 Anita was brought to RML Hospital by the accused Manoj Kumar with injury marks on her body but was declared 'brought dead'. (3) On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses including Kuldeep Singh (brother of the deceased), Smt. Satwanti Devi (mother of the deceased); Vandana Rathi (sister of the deceased); Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra; Ms. Ameena Siddiqui and Ms. Zinath Justin the colleagues of the deceased and also on the basis of medical and other circumstantial evidence on record, it was observed by this Court that the identity of all the accused was established, the accused Manoj Kumar being the husband of the deceased Anita; Angoori Devi the mother in law; Vinod Kumar the brother in law (Devar) and Shalu being the sister in law (Devrani) of the deceased. It also stands established that Anita (deceased) was working as Staff Nurse in RML Hospital and was first married to Dilbagh Singh and accused Manoj Kumar was a friend of Dilbagh Singh having done their Pharmacy St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 262 Course together; that the marriage between the accused Manoj Kumar and Anita (deceased) was a love marriage which solemnized on 2.4.2001 without any pomp show and the family of Anita was not very happy with her alliance with Manoj; that after the marriage Anita shifted to her matrimonial house at B21, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi where she was residing with Manoj on the second floor and the accused Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu were residing on the first floor; that at the time of marriage the accused Manoj Kumar was running a scooter repair shop but after the marriage he closed the same; that both the accused Manoj Kumar and Vinod were alcoholic (in fact Vinod was also a drug addict) and were jobless hence the entire burden of running the house shifted upon Anita who was the only earning member of the family; that Anita was being regularly beaten, tortured and harassed by the accused persons and she often had bruises on her back which was noticed by her colleagues which indicated that she was being subjected to violence; that the deceased Anita used to spend her entire earnings for running the family; that Anita had even withdrawn a sum of Rs.45,000/ from her GPF Account in March 2001, Rs. 1,00,000/ in October, 2001 and Rs.75,000/ in May, 2002 for spending on her family (husband and mother in law) and that every month on the day of her salary the accused Manoj used to go to RML Hospital (workplace of Anita) with Anita and take her salary. It further stands established that deceased Anita had also taken a loan from Co St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 263 operative Society which money she spent on her matrimonial family. (4) It has also been established that after a few months of the marriage, Manoj was arrested by police from Timarpur Police Station in a case of attempt to murder and Anita was compelled to arrange for money to hire an Advocate and arranged for his bail. It has further been established that being fed up with the accused on account of repeated harassment and torture, the deceased Anita had on a previous occasion attempted to commit suicide by slitting both her wrists on which a case under Section 309 IPC was registered against her. It also stands established that on account of this harassment Anita had even made calls to PCR but did not press the charges against Manoj. (5) The prosecution has been able to successfully establish that in the month of November, 2005 all accused persons gave severe beatings to Anita and broke her leg and on 10.11.2005 when the brother of Anita namely Kuldeep Singh reached the house of accused persons, he saw accused Manoj hitting Anita with his fist at the point of her fracture; that Ms. Gargi Bala Kalra, Ms. Ameena Siddiqui and Ms. Zinath Justin the colleagues of the deceased Anita often saw bruise marks on the back of the deceased Anita while in the changing room (of the Nurses) and when they inquired from her, she told them about the harassment and torture caused by the accused persons. These witnesses have also proved that despite the fact that the deceased Anita was earning a handsome amount yet she did not have money even to have a cup of tea St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 264 and she seldom brought her lunch.
(6) It has also been established that on 28.4.2007 Anita was brought to RML hospital by the accused Manoj where she was declared 'brought dead' and there were injury marks on the body of the deceased and when Ms. Ammena Siddiqui the colleague of the deceased asked Manoj as to how Anita died Manoj replied that she had a bout of 'fit' on which she questioned Manoj that why he did not take Anita to a nearby hospital but Manoj did not reply and slipped away. The postmortem report of the deceased establishes that as many as five injures were present on the body of the deceased Anita and the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the postmortem findings were consistent with beating before death. It has also been established that after the arrest of the accused Shalu, she got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Thapi which was produced before the Autopsy Surgeon who after examining the same opined that the injury no.1 (Bruising of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right forehead); injury no.2 (Bruising on right forearm and arm 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm respectively) injury no.3; (Bruising left forearm 3 cm x 2 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm); injury no.5 (Bruising on left leg and right leg 3 cm x 2 cm, 2 cm x 2 cm) were caused by the Thapi recovered by the accused Shalu. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 265 (7) In view of the aforesaid, vide a detail judgment dated 10.9.2012 the accused Manoj Kumar has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Manoj Kumar, Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu have been guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. All the accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. (8) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Manoj Kumar is aged 39 years is a Chemist by profession. He has a family comprising of aged widow mother - convict Angoori Devi and three brothers including convict Vinod Kumar. He has already remained in judicial custody for about five years, four months and seven days.
(9) The convict Angoori Devi is a senior citizen aged about 75 years. She has already remained in judicial custody for about one year and ten days. The convict Vinod Kumar aged about 37 years, is 9th class pass and is an Auto Mechanic by profession. He has already remained in judicial custody for about four years, three months and twenty two days He has a family comprising of wife (convict Shalu aged about 30 years), one son and two daughter. The convict Shalu has remained in judicial custody for about Two years, one month and four days.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 266 (10) In so far as the convict Manoj Kumar is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that he was convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and hence, the case is not covered under the Rarest of Rare category. In so far as the other convicts are concerned, it is argued that the convicts Vinod Kumar, Angoori Devi and Shalu are first time offenders. It is pointed out that the convict Angoori Devi is a senior citizen and is a patient of cancer. He has argued that the convict Vinod and Shalu are having one son and two daughters and any harsh view would be detrimental not only to the convicts but also to the school going children. He prays for a lenient view.
(11) The Ld. Public Prosecutor has on the other hand, has prayed for a stern view to be taken against the convict Manoj a habitual alcoholic and has argued that he does not deserve any mercy for having brutally thrashed and clubbed his wife to death without any provocation which he has done only for money. He has submitted that the case in hand falls within the 'Rarest of Rare' category and prays for imposition of death penalty and in this regard has placed his reliance on the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (13) SCC 689. Ld. Addl. PP has also pointed out that the convict Manoj Kumar is a person with a criminal mentality and even previously was involved in in a case of violence/ quarrel in respect of which FIR No. 448/01, Police Station Timar Pur, under Sections 307/324/34 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 267 Indian Penal Code was registered.
(12) He has further argued that in so far as the convicts Angoori Devi, Vinod Kumar and Shalu are concerned, keeping in view the nature of allegations involved they do not deserve any kind of leniency. He has further pointed out that the convicts, in order to save themselves from penal consequences have tried to play with the process of law by fabricating and forging a false medical record in connivance with the officials of RML Hospital which they have used in the present case (Ex.PW20/14 on which Shalu and Vinod have placed their reliance while filing the bail application before the Ld. District Judge) in respect of which a separate FIR bearing No.167/12, has also been registered at Police Station Nangloi under Sections 468/471/34 Indian Penal Code. He has also pointed out that the accused Vinod Kumar was also involved in another case bearing FIR No. 366/94, Police Station Nangloi, under Sections 392/34 Indian Penal Code showing that he has scant respect for law and is hence not entitled to any mercy. The Ld. Addl. PP has also 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. (13) I have considered the submissions made before me. I have considered the submissions made before me and on these rival St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 268 contentions, I take a stock of rulings relied upon by the parties. In the case of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. The Hon'ble Court further 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 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 St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 269 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
(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.
(14) The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], where 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.
(15) I may further observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered an alternative option and substituted the death penalty with life imprisonment with the directions that the convict must not be St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 270 released for the rest of his life in the case of Swami Shradhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 (13) SCC 767 which principle was also applied by our own High Court in the case of Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 528/09 decided on 31.8.2009 wherein Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in this case pertaining to the killing of an eye witness and injuring of his security officer in a shoot out by the accused in full public view, examined this facet pertaining to the sentencing procedure i.e of consideration of alternative options while referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as rendered in the case Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in JT 2009 (7) SC 249. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog also considered the various alternatives available, in the light of Section 433 Cr.P.C. and Section 433A Cr.P.C. regarding the meaning of the sentence for imprisonment for life and the power of the executive to grant remission but, not before a period of 14 years of imprisonment. In the case of Santosh Kumar Satish Bhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharastra (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the important facet pertaining to the sentencing procedure being a consideration of alternative options. (16) Discussing the nature and the content of the Rarest of Rare dictum, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case had observed that "......a real and abiding concerned for the dignity of human life St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 271 postulates resistance to taking a life through instrumentality of law. That ought not to be done, save in the rarest of rare cases, where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed...." It was further observed that ".... imprisonment for life as penalty entails, is that the accused must remain in prison till his life i.e would never be set free from jail. The executive, however, has the power of remission under Section 433 Cr.P.C which is subject to the restriction imposed by section 433A Cr.P.C as per which a person sentenced to imprisonment for life or one whose sentence of death has been commuted to imprisonment for life cannot be released from prison unless he/she has served at least 14 years of imprisonment...." Hence, the alternative option considered by the Court was to pass a direction that the accused who has been held guilty would not be released from prison till a sentence more than 14 year imprisonment has been suffered by the accused who has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (17) I may note that India has been ranked the worst country for women, amongst G20, by a Global poll conducted by Trust Law, a legal news service run by Thomson Reuters Foundation. According to the Center for Social ResearchDelhi, Domestic violence affects a wide section of Indian society with 35 percent of women aged 15 to 49 having experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. According to the National Family Health Survey 59% of women in Bihar have at some point of time been beaten by their husbands. In St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 272 Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu the incidents of wife beating were between 4046%. Spousal violence has caused an injury in at least one in seven married or divorced women. (18) Activists are concerned over the existing feeling in the society despite the legal prohibitions that beating wives is not a big thing and therefore in most of the cases a woman does not report the abuse either out of fear or because they voluntarily choose to ignore the same and hence the statistics do not show the true extent of the problem. It is argued that women face discrimination at each stage of life, resulting in everything from female feticide and the neglect of girl children to child marriage and disregard for widows and violence against women has a lot to do with patriarchal values which are not challenged within our educational system. Once deeply engrained it is very difficult to dislodge them and hence Domestic Violence continues in India "unabated".
(19) The present case is a glaring instance of such unabated domestic violence inflicted upon the deceased Anita a trained Nurse employed in a leading Government Hospital in Delhi by her husband Manoj Kumar and her in laws over the period of subsistence of her marriage and she chose to suffer the same in silence, perhaps because she was a widow from the first marriage and had married the convict Manoj despite the opposition of her family. The convict Manoj who was the friend of the deceased husband of Anita (namely Dilbagh St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 273 Singh) initially exploited Anita emotionally and married her, which was for money. Unfortunately, it was only after her marriage that Anita discovered that Manoj and his brother Vinod were diehard drunkards and a habitual alcoholics (Vinod was also addicted to drugs) and both had no source of income since after the marriage Manoj had closed down his shop and Anita was left to fend for the entire family being the sole earning member. It is also borne out from the evidence on record that Manoj was totally dependent upon Anita for his finances and the Salary Record of Anita shows that she had been withdrawing her GPF for spending the same on her husband and inlaws (mother in law). The injuries present on the body of Anita which were noticed by her colleagues over the period of years spoke about the domestic violence which was being inflicted upon her and she chose to suffer the same in silence. Finally the injuries found present on the body of the Anita speak for themselves. The Doctor conducting the Postmortem has given a definite opinion that the postmortem findings were consistent with beating before death and the death was caused on account of coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force impact by other party which head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The injuries indicate that the extent of force used by the convict was so great that she slipped into Coma. (20) Wife beating is the worst kind of Domestic Violence inflicted on a woman and no civilized society can tolerate the same. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 274 This is something which is totally unacceptable in the legal framework and even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari Alias Jolly and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (13) SCC 689 while taking a strong note of the aforesaid, observed that dowry death cases fell within the 'Rarest of Rare' category warranting death sentence. In the words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra ".....Indian society has become a sick society...... What is the level of civilsation of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society become.... Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialization of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand.....". (21) In the present case the depravity of the convicts Vinod, Angoori Devi and Shalu, particularly of the convict Manoj who were St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 275 under a moral and legal obligation to provide emotional, psychological and financial security to Anita (wife of Manoj), was not only confined to the unabated domestic violence which they had been inflicting upon Anita during the period of subsistence of the marriage (between Manoj and Anita), but also got compounded by the fact that they were throughout exploiting Anita financially by usurping her salary and it is Manoj who ultimately became the cause of her death when he mercilessly and brutally inflicted repeated blows on her body with a blunt object/ Thapi, one of which blows was on the forehead as a result of which Anita immediately slipped into Coma and expired. What further aggravates his conduct is the fact that instead of providing her with immediate medical attention and first aid by rushing her to the nearest hospital he rather chose to take her to RML Hospital which is more than 45 minutes away from her house thereby ensuring her death. This being the background I am of the considered view that in so far as the convict Manoj Kumar is concerned, it falls within the category of Rare Case calling for alternative options [Ref: Swami Shradhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 (13) SCC 767]. I hereby award the following sentence to the convict Manoj Kumar:
(a) For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convict Manoj Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life - Till the rest of his life with St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 276 the directions that he shall not be considered for any remissions and fine for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
(b) For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code the convict Manoj Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) years and fine for a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(22) Further, in so far as the convict Vinod Kumar, Angoori Devi and Shalu are concerned, I award the following punishment to them:
(a) For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, the convict Vinod Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months. St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 277
(b) For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, the convict Angoori Devi is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months.
(c) For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, the convict Shalu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two months. (23) Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial in the present case as per rules.
(24) The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they 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.
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 278 (25) Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to all the convicts free of costs and another copy be attached with their jail warrants.
(26) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 25.9.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. vs. Manoj Kumar Etc., FIR No.383/07, PS Nangloi Page No. 279