Delhi District Court
St. vs . Anshuman @ Tullu on 3 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
SC No.33/2015
ID No. 02406R0033122013
FIR No. 360/12
U/s: 306 IPC
Police Station : Vasant Vihar
State
Vs.
Anshuman @ Tullu
s/o Lagan Dev Shahi,
r/o H.No.251A, Munirka Village,
New Delhi .... Accused
Date of Institution : 16.02.2013
Final arguments concluded: 03.07.2017
Judgment pronounced on:03.07.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Anshuman @ Tulli has been tried and prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case as per charge sheet is as under:-
On 03.11.2012, DD No.38A regarding fall of a lady in unconscious state was received at PS Vasant Vihar, pursuant to which SI Pradeep Kumar alongwith Ct. Kripal reached the spot and found tjat the lady had been already removed by PCR Van and HC Attar Singh was found available at the spot. Thereafter, crime team was called and the place of incident was got inspected and inquiries were made FIR No.360/12 1 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu from the people present at the spot. The lady was identified as Megha @ Soni wife of Anshuman i.e. the present accused. Thereafter DD No.43A was received by the IO regarding admission of said lady vide MLC No.33813/12 pursuant to which IO alongwith Ct. Kripal reached JPNATC AIIMS and collected MLC no.33813/12 with alleged history of fall on 03.11.2012 at about 7.30pm and the injured was declared as brought dead by the doctor on said MLC. The relatives of deceased were informed, who told that it would take time for them to reach Delhi from Bihar and therefore, DD No.5A was kept pending. On 05.11.2012, the dead body of deceased Megha @ Soni after its identification was sent for postmortem and postmortem on the dead body was conducted vide PM No.77/12 at JPNATC AIIMS and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to deceased's brother Gaurav.
2. On 06.11.2012, the mother of the deceased Smt. Sudha Rani gave a written complaint to the IO. As per the contents of said complaint, the complainant had three daughters including the deceased and one son. The deceased was her youngest daughter, who got married to accused Anshuman on 18.06.2004 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, initially everything was just perfect between the deceased and her husband but later on, it was noticed that the couple stopped taking calls from complainant and his family and gradually the accused started cutting all the family connection by not taking their phone calls and by talking to them rudely and abusively. When the inquiries were made about the said behaviour of the accused, it got revealed that accused was having illicit extra marital affair. The accused used to not come home for FIR No.360/12 2 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu extended period of fortnights. After discovering this fact, the complainant personally visited her daughter at Delhi and found that accused did not use to come home for many days on the pretext that he had to travel for office work. The accused also did not give any heed to the complainant's advice when she tried to make him convince that family is equally important as the office work. During the year 2009-2010, complainant's daughter in law received a distress SMS from the deceased. After a month or so, complainant again started getting distress call from her daughter regarding prolonged absence of deceased's husband and regarding the threats extended by her husband for stopping her from making any call to her family members. After knowing about the said conduct of the accused, complainant's husband came over to Delhi to see his daughter i.e. the deceased but despite having stayed for three days at Delhi, he could not meet her because accused neither allowed complainant to pick up his call nor he himself picked up the call of complainant's husband.
3. At the occasion of marriage of complainant's son, deceased visited her parental home with complainant's brother Shyam Manohar but the accused did not come. During that time, complainant came to know from her daughter that accused and his mother used to threaten the deceased that they would end her life someday and would never accept the deceased as their daughter in law unless she brings sufficient amount of cash, car or other household articles. After returning from marriage, Anshuman asked the deceased not to speak to her family members. On or around 30.10.2012, complainant got a call from deceased wherein she stated FIR No.360/12 3 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu that, " I am scared Anshuman is saying for many days as your time has come, I shall give you freedom, art salvation ones and for all" and disconnected the call. On 03.11.2012, complainant heard from her son that Megha i.e. the deceased was no more as she fell down from the terrace but the complainant could not believe that her daughter could do that and she suspected the involvement of accused in the death of her daughter and requested police to take legal action.
4. On the aforementioned complaint Ex.PW1/A made by deceased's mother, IO prepared the rukka Ex.PW17/C and got an FIR Ex.PW26/D u/s 306 IPC registered. Investigation was carried out, statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC recorded; the mobile phone of the complainant wherein she received the forwarded message from her daughter in law was seized; the opinion regarding the cause of death on the PM report of the deceased was taken and the cause of death was opined to be a result of crush injury of the head due to blunt force impact. All injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature and could be caused from fall from height. The viscera was also preserved to rule out the presence of concomitant poison or drug in the blood of the deceased. However, the report on the viscera was awaited and the chargesheet was filed before the court of concerned Magistrate on 05.02.2013. After compliance of section 207 Cr.PC, ld. Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. After committal, the case came to be assigned to this court on 16.02.2013.
5. Vide order dated 22.03.2013, the charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.360/12 4St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses in total.
7. PW-1, Smt. Sudha Rani is the mother of the deceased. It is on her complaint Ex.PW1/A, the FIR was registered. As per her examination in chief, her daughter Megha @ Soni was married to accused Anshuman and she remained happy with accused till 2006. In the first week of January 2007, her daughter called PW1 on her mobile and told that her husband Anshuman used to come home after gap of 15 days and whenever he was at home, he would remain busy on his mobile phone. PW1 was further informed by the deceased that whenever she (deceased)asked accused in that regard, she was given beatings by the accused with belt and same also caused welts on her body. On 10-11.07.2007, PW1 reached Delhi and went to the house of accused where she found her daughter alone as the accused was not present at home. PW1 stayed with the deceased for 20 days and in the meantime, accused came home only on one occasion and that too for going to Singapore as told by him. Since PW1 entertained a doubt therefore, she asked for the passport to confirm but PW1 was not shown any passport by the accused, rather she was scolded by the accused. Thereafter, accused left for Singapore citing some official assignment. However, when his number was dialed without any ISD code, his phone started ringing. Thereafter, PW1 stayed at accused's house for 4-5 days, purchased some grocery articles for her daughter and also gave her money. Thereafter, PW1 came back to her house in Bihar.
FIR No.360/12 5St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu
8. As per PW1, whenever she called her daughter on telephone, either her daughter would not answer her call or if she would attend, she used to ask PW1 not to ring her as the same was not liked by her husband Anshuman. In March 2007, marriage of accused's brother Guddu was scheduled at Bihar but he came to attend the marriage with the deceased just one day before and left for Delhi on the very next day of marriage. Thereafter, deceased had the frequency of talking to her parents once in six months as they were informed by the deceased that her husband did not use to like the same. PW1 further deposed that in April 2010, a message was received from deceased on the mobile phone of her daughter in law that, "Gaurav se kaho, Tullu ka haath kate, wo hamei maarne ka dhamki deta hai, Delhi police mei complaint karo, ye gandh macha kar rakhe huye hain. Usse shaadi ke saath fere ka yaad dilao. Mera oxygen khatam ho gaya hai, Shanker Bhagwan ka aadesh". The said message was forwarded to complainant by her daughter in law as she was in Ranchi. Thereafter, PW1 telephoned her son Gaurav, who came to Delhi and tried to contact deceased and her husband but none of them answered his call. Since the accused was in habit of frequently changing houses, the son of complainant/PW1 was not aware of the residential address of accused. Next day, at 11:00 am, Gaurav was able to contact accused at his mobile he was asked by accused to reach at some pre-decided place from where accused took him to his house. Gaurav met his sister Soni, who was found to be fragite and weak and when Gaurav asked accused as to why deceased was in such condition, the accused told him that he would get her treated. Next day, Gaurav came back to Bihar and told PW1 about the deceased's poor health condition.
FIR No.360/12 6St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu
9. PW1 further deposed that she wanted to visit deceased to see her but accused never used to like their visit and once he even told deceased that if anybody from her family would visit his house, he would shunt out the deceased from the house and would kill her. PW1 further deposed that in the year 2010, Anshuman had asked deceased to bring Rs.2 lacs from her parents and PW1 was informed about same by her daughter but PW1 did not do anything pursuant thereto.
10. It was further testified by PW1 that in September 2012, she was informed by her daughter Soni i.e. deceased that except mattress and few clothes there were no other household articles at her house. She was further told that a tiffin serviceman used to bring food and sometime even he did not come. She further testified that since she was working as a teacher in a private school, therefore, she assured her daughter to visit her in Diwali vacations. PW1 further deposed that in the last days of October 2012, she had received a call from her daughter wherein she informed that her husband used to tell her, 'tumko mukti de dete hain". PW1 further deposed that her vacation was to start from 05.11.2012, but she received a phone call from her son in law i.e. accused on 03.11.2012 at about 8.30-9pm, whereby informing her that some lady had jumped from their house. Consequently, PW1 telephoned her son Gaurav at Gaya, who reached Delhi next morning. In the meantime, PW1 also informed her brother Ram Manohar and Shyam Manohar, who were posted at Bangalore as well as her other daughter Mukta and her husband Pawan and they both reached AIIMS hospital on the information received from brother FIR No.360/12 7 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu of PW1 Shri Ram Manohar, who was working as Security officer. On 04.11.2012, PW1 boarded a train for Delhi and reached Delhi on 05.11.2012 in the morning. PW1 further deposed that when her another son in law namely Pawan had visited AIIMS hospital, he had come to know about death of deceased but he did not disclose it to his wife Mukta so as to avoid any hue and cry and instead came back home with Mukta without disclosing about deceased's death to her. Pawan, however, informed Gaurav about death of Soni when he reached home, but he did not tell PW1 about the same. PW1 was merely informed that deceased was hospitalized. PW1 came to know about death of deceased only on her arrival to Delhi on 05.11.2012 and after that she immediately submitted her complaint Ex.PW1/A at PS Vasant Vihar. As per PW1, her son Gaurav had also given complaint earlier. She further deposed that after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them at AIIMS hospital and the cremation was done at Delhi. In her cross examination by ld. Addl. PP, PW1 deposed that the SMS from her daughter in law was received by her in April 2010 and not in May 2010. She further admitted the suggestion that she made the complaint on 06.11.2012 and not in 05.11.2012 and on the same very date, the FIR was lodged and she also handed over her mobile phone to the IO and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1B. Further as per her deposition, the CD Ex.PW1/P1 of the marriage of deceased was also handed over to IO and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. During her examination, PW1 also identified the mobile phone of dual sim make Micromax as Ex.PW1/P2.
11. PW2 Birender Kumar Singh is the father of deceased. He FIR No.360/12 8 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu deposed that on 18.06.2004 marriage of his younger daughter Megha @ Soni was solemnized with accused Anshuman in village Jhapaha. After marriage, Anshuman came Delhi alongwith his daughter. Till 2006, his daughter remained happy with the accused and during this period, he was in touch with his daughter through telephone or correspondence. After 2006, whenever he made phone calls to his daughter or tried to correspond with her, she did not pick up his phone calls nor responded to his correspondence/letter. However, whenever, she contacted them in 4 to 6 months, she was asked about the reason for not picking up the phone calls to which she stated that her husband Anshuman did not allow her to talk with them and further used to threat her that she would have to face dire consequences in case she tried to contact them. He further deposed that in April, 2012, he (PW2) visit his daughter Mukta @ Meenu at Delhi to attend a marriage function but the deceased and her husband did not attend the said marriage. As the accused was in the habit of changing his accommodation frequently, they tried to contact them on telephone, but since they did not pick up his phone calls, he (PW2) went back to his native place without meeting his daughter Megha @ Soni i.e. deceased. Till 03.11.2012, PW1 tried to contact his daughter Megha on telephone, but she never responded to his phone calls. He further deposed that on 03.11.2012, he (PW2) received a phone call of his daughter Mukta @ Meenu that Megha @ Soni is no more as she jumped from her matrimonial house. Since PW2 at that time was suffering from heart disease, therefore, he could not come to Delhi to receive the dead body of his daughter Megha. His wife and son Gaurav however, had come to Delhi and they cremated his daughter Megha @ Soni, in Delhi itself. He further deposed that on FIR No.360/12 9 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu 01.02.2013, he alongwith his son had come to Delhi and police of PS Vasant Vihar recorded his statement and handed over the photographs Mark PW2/P-1 & PW2/P-2 of marriage of his deceased daughter to the police and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A.
13. PW3 Smt. Shilpi is the sister in law (Bhabhi) of deceased Megha @ Soni. She deposed that she was married with Gaurav Kumar on 06.06.2009 and deceased Megha had also attended her marriage in Muzaffarpur and remained there for about 2-3 days. After marriage of PW3, deceased returned back to Delhi and thereafter, she never met PW3 though occasionally she used to talk to the deceased on telephone. She further deposed that in the month of April, 2010 in the evening time, when she was in her parental house, she had received a message from the deceased on her mobile phone no.9470726783 and she (PW3) immediately forwarded said message to her mother in law. Thereafter, she deleted the said message from her mobile. She further deposed that the deceased used to generally remain in tension as her husband used to dislike her and harass her. On 03.11.2012, she came to know from her family members that Megha had committed suicide due to harassment caused by her husband. Upon this information, she (PW3) also came to Delhi alongwith her in laws and her statement was also recorded by the police. She further deposed that she could not identify the husband of deceased as he neither attended her marriage nor visited their house. On putting leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW3 further stated that the mobile no. 09770726783 has been wrongly mentioned by the police as her correct mobile no. is 9470726783. The police officials FIR No.360/12 10 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu inadvertently mentioned initial digits of her mobile no. as 97 in place of 94.
14. PW4 Gaurav Kumar is the brother of deceased. In his examination in chief, he testified that he was in profession of Marketing and doing his job in Bihar. On 18.06.2004, marriage of his elder sister Megha @ Soni took place in Muzaffarpur, Bihar with accused Anshuman Sahi. The said marriage was a love-cum-arrange marriage. At the time of marriage, accused Anshuman was in a private job in Delhi. After 3-4 days of marriage, he (accused) had taken his sister to Delhi. They both were living happily till about three years of their marriage. After that, some problems started between them and they started secluding themselves from all their relations including PW4 and his parents. He further testified that whenever they used to make any call to his sister, she used to tell them that her husband did not like their reaching out to her and whenever they made any call to accused, he also never received the same. He further deposed that in the year 2007, his mother was informed by the deceased Megha on telephone that she was living alone as her husband Anshuman had not returned home for last 4-5 days. Thereafter, his mother visited Delhi to meet the deceased and remained there with her for about 15 days. During that period, Anshuman was not regular in visiting home. It is further stated by PW4 that his mother tried to resolve their issues and thereafter, they also remained happy for about 4-5 days.
15. PW4 further deposed that in the year 2009, only his sister Megha visited them for attending his marriage but accused despite FIR No.360/12 11 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu having been requested by PW4 did not come to attend his marriage. After marriage, his sister returned back to Delhi after 3-4 days. He further deposed that in the month of April 2010, his wife Shilpi had received a message from his sister Megha @ Soni on her mobile phone, and the contents of that message were 'Tullu mujhe pareshaan karta hai, usko sabak sikhao, jaldi se Dilli aao'. Thereafter, in the month of January 2011, PW4 came to Delhi and tried to contact accused on his mobile because PW4 was not aware of his address but, accused did not respond to his calls. However, at last when PW4 made a call from a PCO, accused picked up the phone call and thereafter, PW4 came to know the location/address of the house of his sister. After PW4 reached at the house of his sister i.e. deceased, he found the deceased unwell. PW4 further advised both the accused and deceased to live happily and peacefully. On the same date, PW4 came back from the house of his sister and stayed over night at the house of his relative and next day, he returned back to Muzaffarpur. In the month of November -2012, when PW4 was at Gaya, he received a phone call from his mother informing him that Anshuman had called her and told her that a lady had fallen down from the roof of his house as informed by his (accused's) landlady. Thereafter, PW4 continuously tried to contact the accused but accused did not pick up his phone call. He also made calls on his sister-Megha's mobile phone, but she was also not picking up the call. After about half an hour, phone of his sister was answered by a person, who later disclosed himself as a policeman and informed him about his sister having fallen from the roof of her house. On the next day, PW4 reached Delhi and straightway went to PS Vasant Vihar. His statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded by the police. He was also taken to AIIMS Hospital where he FIR No.360/12 12 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu identified the dead body of his sister vide identification memo Ex. PW4/. After postmortem, he received the dead body of his sister vide delivery memo Ex. PW4/C. After about 10-15 days, he again visited Delhi alongwith his father and handed over the CD as well as photographs of marriage of his sister with accused. The IO seized the CD vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and the said CD is Ex. PW1/P-1. The photographs Ex. PW2/P-1 to P-2 were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A.
16. PW-5 Shyam Manohar Singh is the maternal uncle (Mama) of deceased. As per his deposition in examination in chief, he was working as Deputy Manager in 'Floor Kotes Pvt. Ltd.' at Bangalore. His sister used to live in Muzaffarpur (Bihar). Deceased Megha @ Soni was his niece (Bhanji). She was married with accused Anshuman in the year 2004 in Muzaffarpur and after marriage, both of them (Megha and her husband) started living in Delhi. After about three years, he came to Delhi and went to the house of Megha and at that time, both of them were living happily. In the year 2009, the marriage of his nephew Gaurav (Bhanja) took place, and at that time, he was living in Bangalore. At the time of said marriage, his nephew informed him on telephone that accused was not allowing Megha to attend his marriage and pursuant to Gaurav's request, he (PW5) came to Delhi and talked to deceased Megha as well as her husband i.e. accused. Accused Anshuman though allowed Megha to go alongwith him (PW5) but he expressed his inability to come with them and assured to come after one day by air. PW5 accordingly brought deceased to Muzaffarpur but, despite their making calls to Anshuman, he did not come to Muzaffarpur to attend the marriage of Gaurav. PW5 further FIR No.360/12 13 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu deposed that whenever, he or his wife used to call Megha or Anshuman, none of them used to pick up their phone calls. It is further stated by PW5 that on 03.11.2012, he had received a phone call of Gaurav for informing him that deceased Megha had fallen down from the roof. Next day, PW5 reached Delhi and identified the dead body of Megha in AIIMS Mortuary and his statement Ex. PW-5/A in this regard was recorded. After postmortem, the dead body was also received by them vide memo Ex. PW4/B.
17. PW-6 HC (Retired) Ramphal is the Duty Officer. As per his examination in chief, 03.11.2012 he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar as Head Constable and working as Duty Officer from 4.00 PM to 12.00 midnight. On that evening, at about 8.44 PM, he received a call, through Seera-60 that a lady is lying unconscious in Gali, near Vasant Vihar Depot. He recorded this message vide DD No. 38-A Ex. PW6/A and handed over copy of the same to HC Attar Singh for investigation. On the same day, at about 8.45 PM, he again received call through Seera-60 that a lady had fallen down from roof of restaurant, near Munirka Rama Bus Depot. The said message was also recorded vide DD No. 38-A Ex. PW6/B and said DD was also handed over to HC Attar Singh. On the same day, he also received a call from AIIMS Trauma Centre at 11.05 PM, regarding admission of one injured (unknown), aged about 40 years, female, due to fall near Vasant Vihar Depot, and the said message was recorded vide DD No. 43-A Ex. PW6/C. He further deposed that on 06.11.2012, he had received a rukka from SI Kuldeep Kumar on the basis of which, FIR bearing No. 360/12 Ex. PW6/D, u/s 306 IPC was registered. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW6/E and returned back copy of the FIR alongwith original FIR No.360/12 14 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu rukka to SI Kuldeep Kumar, for investigation.
18. PW7 HC Ravinder deposed that on 06.11.2012 he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar and on that day, he had joined the investigation of present case with IO/SI Kuldeep Kumar and arrested accused Anushuman from House no. 251-A, Munirka village, New Delhi and IO prepared arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/B.
19. PW-8 Sunita Tokas is the landlady of the house no.251-A, Munirka Village, New Delhi, second floor of which was let out to the accused. As per her deposition, in April 2012, she had let out second floor of her said house to the accused who started living there alongwith his wife Megha @ Soni. On 03.11.2012, at about 8.00 PM, her husband was informed that someone had fallen down from the roof of aforementioned house and her husband accordingly, informed her (PW8). Thereafter, PW8 made telephonic call to the accused as well as other tenant, but accused told her that he was not at home and would confirm the same from his home, however, he failed to call back. As per PW8, the accused was happily living with his wife and they never heard about any quarrel between them. Police never recorded her statement. After taking permission from the court, learned Public Prosecutor cross examined the said witness (PW8) and in her cross-examination she further came out with the deposition that the distance between her house and the building where accused was living as tenant was about 20 meters. She denied the suggestion that police recorded her statement on 01.02.2013. The whole statement marked as Mark PW8/A was read over to the witness, FIR No.360/12 15 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu however, she denied to have made any such statement to the police. She also denied the suggestion that she had stated in her statement that on 03.11.2012, at about 8.00 PM she had heard loud voice and pursuant to which when she came out, she had seen one lady lying in the street with her face downwards with the blood oozing out and when she reached near her, she identified her to be her tenant Megha. She further denied the suggestion that she had telephoned Anshuman after seeing the deceased in said condition and she was informed by Anshuman that he was in Faridabad at that time.. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of the accused who was her tenant.
20. PW-9 Ram Rattan Singh is the husband of PW8 and his testimony is more or less on the same lines as deposed by PW8. As per his version, after receiving the information regarding someone having fallen down from his building 251-A, Munirka Village, New Delhi, when he reached the spot he found lot of public having gathered there and from them he came to know that one lady who was living on the second floor of 251-A had fallen down from the third floor of said building and said lady had already been taken to the hospital by the PCR Van. Thereafter, PW9 also made a phone call to his wife who in turn contacted both the tenants and came to know that one of the tenants had gone to Hyderabad and another tenant Anshuman was stated to be in Faridabad. After sometime, police officials reached at the spot and asked him to lodge a complaint in this regard. He (PW9) met the IO/SI Kuldeep and at that time, their tenant - Anshuman whom PW9 correctly identified in the court, was also there. At that time, PW9 came to know from the accused that his FIR No.360/12 16 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu wife had jumped from third floor of the building and she was declared brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter, police recorded his statement Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that upon his asking accused had informed him that there never had been any quarrel between him (accused) and his wife. On the same day, police also arrested the accused in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/B. After taking permission from the court, witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State wherein he denied the suggestion that police had recorded his statement mark PW9/X on 06.11.2012 or that in said statement he had stated that accused used to quarrel with his wife Megha on some small/petty issues, or that he (accused) used to come at home rarely, or that he also used to harass his wife Megha. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being the landlord of the accused.
21. PW10 Ct. Om Prakash deposed that on 05.11.2012, he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar. On that day, he joined the investigation of present case with SI Kuldeep Singh and went to mortuary AIIMS, Trauma Centre. After postmortem of deceased Smt. Megha @ Soni w/o Anshuman, dead body was handed over to her relatives vide delivery memo Ex. PW4/C. After postmortem, doctor also handed over one box containing viscera of deceased and he handed over the same to the IO who seized the same alongwith sample seal of hospital vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. His statement in this regard was also recorded by the IO.
22. PW11 Ct. Kripal Singh deposed that on 03.11.2012, he was FIR No.360/12 17 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu posted at PS Vasant Vihar. On that day, he joined the investigation of present case with IO/SI Kuldeep Singh and on receipt of DD no.38A, he alongwith IO reached at house no.251-A, Munirka Village where they came to know that one lady had jumped from the roof and she had already been removed to hospital by the PCR van. He further deposed that thereafter, IO had called the Crime team to visit the spot. In the meantime, on receipt of another DD no.43A, they reached at JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi where, as per MLC, one unknown lady was admitted due to fall from roof at Munirka village and the doctor had declared that lady as 'brought dead'. At that time, Duty Constable Jagbir also handed over two kadas worn by the deceased, wrapped in a yellow colour paper to the IO and same was duly seized and sealed by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. The witness during his examination identified said kadas as Ex. PW11/P-1 (colly).
23. PW12, Ct. M. Balaji deposed that on 03.01.2013, he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar and on that day he had obtained one visera box alongwith one sample seal and forwarding letter from MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 186/21/12 dated 03.01.2013. He handed over the copy of RC to MHC(M). As per his examination, the exhibits remained intact till the same remained in his possession.
24. PW13 HC Rajender Prasad is a formal witness who proved on record the relevant entries in register no.19 with regard to deposit of two kadas of deceased by the IO on 03.11.2012 and regarding deposit of one viscera box alongwith sample seal of hospital on 05.11.2012 and articles of personal search of accused on 06.11.2012 FIR No.360/12 18 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu as Ex. PW13/A, Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW13/C respectively. He further deposed that on 03.01.2013, he had sent viscera box to FSL, Rohini thorugh Ct. M. Balaji vide RC No.186/21/13 and he also made entry to this effect at point X in register no.19.
25. PW14 Dr. Thejaswi H.T., Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia hospital, New Delhi, deposed that on 05.11.2012 he was posted at AIIMS hospital as Sr. Resident and on that day, he had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Megha @ Soni w/o Anshuman, aged 40 years, vide PM report no. TC 771/12. On examination, he found the following injuries on the body of deceased:
1. Crush injury of right side of the head and face was present, with multiple lacerations in the face and scalp, with parts of brain matter seen out side.
2. Fracture of the right knee joint present.
3. Fracture of the right ankle join present.
4. Reddish coloured abrasion measuring 33 cms X 16 cms was present on the front of the right side of the abdomen.
The time-since-death was around 3/4th of the day (body was in cold storage).
26. As per PW14, the cause of death of the deceased was 'shock' as a result of crush injury of the head due to blunt force impact. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and could be caused due to fall from height. However, viscera was preserved to rule out common poisoning and drug (sedative-hypnotics) over dose. He proved on record the postmortem report as Ex. PW14/A and deposed further that he had handed over postmortem report; inquest papers (25 in numbers); dead body; viscera; clothes of deceased; and articles, to the IO.
FIR No.360/12 19St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu
27. PW-15, Dr. Neelesh Tiwari is a Sr. Psychiatrist from World Brain Centre Hospital from whom the IO had collected the medical record of the deceased as she was undergoing treatment in said hospital. As per his version, IO of the case had showed him treatement papers/OPD papers of various dates running into five pages Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/E and after going through the said OPD papers, he had opined as under:
"As I have seen last on 04.10.2011, so it is not possible for me to recall everything about the patient, but as per my prescription, I am able to say that the patient was suffering from 'Paranoid Schizophrenia'. As per my OPD slips, I have to draw this inference that the patient improved remarkably on 11.07.2011. Later on, obsessive symptoms emerged in patient (these symptoms are in the form of repeated, intrusive, against the patient's will, stereotyped thought which comes against the will of the patient and anxiety provoking). Patient was also added treatment for these symptoms. Last, I saw the patient as per the record, is on 04.10.2011.
This is chronic long term disabling mental illness, in which, patient should not stop taking medication, otherwise, relapse is very common and can lead to anything from aggression, homicide to suicide."
He proved on record his opinion on the basis of aforementioned OPD papers as Ex. PW-15/F.
28. PW-16, Dr. Pankaj Verma is a Sr. Resident (Medicines), AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi who proved on record the MLC of the deceased as Ex. PW16/A by identifying the signatures of Dr. Saurabh Kumar who prepared the MLC of the deceased and with whom PW16 had worked and had seen him writing and signing during the course of duties. He deposed that as per the MLC the said injured was brought dead at about 9.01 PM, with alleged history of fall from second floor on 03.11.2012 at 8.30 PM, at Munirka, New Delhi. The said injured/deceased was examined by the said Dr. Saurabh Kumar, FIR No.360/12 20 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu the then Sr. Resident and on examination, he found visible injuries i.e. laceration wound 7x2x2 cm with brain matter exposed at right fronto- parietal region and deformity in left lower leg and ankle.
29. PW17, SI Kuldeep is the IO of the case. As per his examination in chief, on 03.11.2012 he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar on emergency duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. On receipt of DD no.38A in respect of fall of a lady from roof near bus depot Munirka, he alongwith Ct. Kirpal reached at H. No. 251, Munirka village, Delhi where HC Attar Singh and Ct. Anil were already present and it was revealed that injured lady had already been taken to hospital by PCR. Place of incident was got inspected and photographed by Crime Team. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, on receipt of DD no.43A Ex. PW6/C regarding admission of injured namely Smt. Megha @ Sonu w/o Anshuman at JPN ATC AIIMS, he alongwith Ct. Kirpal reached the hospital and collected the MLC of injured Megha. It was mentioned in the MLC that injured Megha was brought dead in the hospital. Duty Ct. Jagbir handed over him one yellow colour envelope, containing articles recovered from the person of deceased. On checking the said envelope, it was found containing one pair of kada, made of yellow metal and he sealed the same in a parcel with the seal of KK and took the same in police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. The parents of deceased, who were living in Bihar were informed by him through mobile phone. He came to know about the phone number of deceased's parents when he visited first time on receipt of call at house of Smt. Megha as one phone call was coming on the mobile phone lying in the room and said call was of her brother. He further deposed that none of relatives of deceased and her husband met FIR No.360/12 21 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu them at the spot or in the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Kirpal returned to PS. On 05.11.2012, the parents of deceased came to PS and he (PW17) recorded the statement of deceased's brother namely Gaurav vide Ex. PW4/A. The statements of her parents were not recorded at that time as they were emotionally upset and told him (PW17) that they would make a complaint against deceased's husband Anshuman later on. PW17 further testified that he alongwith family members of deceased and Ct. Om Prakash reached at AIIMS hospital and moved an application for postmortem on the dead body of deceased Megha vide Ex. PW17/A. The form 25.35 (1)(b) which was part of inquest proceedings was already filled up by him on 03.11.2012 when he visited the hospital and the same is Ex. PW17/B. He got conducted the postmortem and after the postmortem deadbody of deceased Megha was handed over to her parents and brother vide memo Ex. PW4/C. After the postmortem, viscera of deceased was handed over to him which was duly sealed with the seal of hospital and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A and deposited in Malkhana. IO further deposed that on 06.11.2012, Smt. Sudha Rani i.e. mother of deceased came to the police station and gave a written complaint Ex. PW1/A, on the basis of which he prepared rukka Ex. PW17/C and got the FIR Ex. PW6/D was registered and the same was handed over to him for investigation. Smt. Sudha also handed over him one mobile phone stating that she had received a message of her daughter which was sent by her to her daughter in law Smt. Shilpi and the same message was forwarded to her by Smt. Shilpi on said mobile phone. The said mobile phone was sealed in a parcel with the seal of KK and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he FIR No.360/12 22 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu alongwith HC Ravinder, complainant and brother of complainant reached at the spot. Shri Ram Rattan, who was landlord of the house where deceased Smt. Megha was residing, met them and at his instance, he prepared site plan Ex. PW17/D. Anshuman, husband of deceased Megha was also found present at the house. On the identification of complainant, he was apprehended and after interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A. Personal search memo Ex. PW7/B was also prepared. He recorded statements of witnesses who had joined the investigation. Thereafter, they returned to the police station. Parcel of mobile phone and articles recovered during personal search of the accused were deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, one CD of marriage of deceased was also handed over to him by deceased's parents and same was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded and statement of Gaurav and his wife Shilpi u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. During investigation, PM report of deceased Ex. PW14/A was collected, viscera of deceased was also sent to FSL on 03.01.2013 through Ct. M. Bala. Later on FSL report was also collected by PW17 and the same was filed in the court. The report is Ex. PW17/E.
30. Some medical prescriptions were also recovered from the house of deceased which were taken into police possession and he made investigation about those medical documents. Some of those documents are Ex. PW15/A to PW15/F. He also made inquiries from Dr. Nilesh Tiwari of World Brain Centre Hospital and the said doctor had given his opinion vide Ex. PW15/F. He also collected photographs from the office of Crime team which were placed on record as Ex.
FIR No.360/12 23St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu PW17/1 to PW17/6. He also collected the report prepared by crime team. He further deposed that he was also handed over the photographs Ex. PW2/P1 to P2 of deceased's marriage by her parents. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court. He further stated that on 03.11.2012, when he reached at the spot, he had made inquiries from the owner of the house Shri Ram Rattan and recorded his statement as Ex. PW9/A.
31. All the material witnesses of the prosecution case were duly cross examined by the Defence counsel and relevant part of their cross examination shall be discussed in the later part of judgment.
32. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused but the same was denied by him as wrong and incorrect and he came up with the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as he never ill treated his wife nor raised any demand of dowry. He further pleaded that his wife was suffering with paranoid schizophrenia with suicidal tendencies and he was getting her treated to the best of his abilities. However, unfortunately, in his absence his wife jumped from roof and died. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated by his in laws under the influence of other people. He did not wish to lead any evidence in his defence and case was adjourned for final arguments.
33. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP Sh. R.K. Mehta and Ld. FIR No.360/12 24 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu Defence counsel Sh. Vikas Arora and also carefully perused the entire record.
34. Ld. Defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused as there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence of abetement to suicide. Counsel further argued that even the testimony of the relatives of the deceased including her parents who have been examined as prosecution witnesses is nothing but hearsay evidence and even in said evidence it is alleged that the deceased was not keeping in touch with her parents and other relatives as deceased did not use to pick up their phone calls and whenever she was able to reach out to them she used to tell them that her husband did not use to like her contacting her parents. Counsel further submitted that though the allegations even otherwise are not conclusively proved on record but assuming for the sake of arguments, that allegations are true even in that case the same are not sufficient to make out a case of abetement within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. It is further argued that the deceased was suffering from 'paranoid schizophrenia' with suicidal tendencies as is evident from the testimony of PW15 Dr. Naresh Tiwari from World Brain Centre Hospital fromwhere the deceased was undergoing treatment for said disease and deceased committed suicide due to said mental ailment.
35. It is further urged that on the basis of the medical record of the deceased which the IO seized from the house of the accused, PW15 has given the opinion to the effect that the patient i.e. deceased whose medical documents were shown to him, was suffering from FIR No.360/12 25 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu paranoid schizophrenia and she last visited him for her treatment on 04.10.2011. As per testimony of PW15, paranoid schizophrenia is chronic long term disabling mental illness in which patient should not take medication, otherwise, relapse is very common and can lead to anything from aggression, homicide to suicide and said opinion of the doctor is Ex. PW15/F.
36. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP countered the arguments by submitting that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused through clinching evidence of deceased's parents, brother, sister in law and maternal uncle who have categorically deposed that deceased was under mental tension due to the unbecoming behaviour of accused who never allowed her to contact her parents nor he himself had been taking care of his wife as he used to stay away from home for days together on false pretexts.
37. Before dwelling upon the evidence adduced on record, I deem it appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of law. As noted above, the accused was charged for the offence for abatement of suicide punishable u/s 306 IPC. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing.
38. While suicide in itself is not an offence, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. "Abetment" has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. I deem it appropriate to reproduce FIR No.360/12 26 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu Section 107, which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act; and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
39. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9SCC 618 , Hon'ble Apex Court examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation" defined in sec. 107 IPC as under:-
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
40. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each FIR No.360/12 27 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
41. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment and dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words " instigation" and "goading". The Hon'ble Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
42. In M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, while referring to the above referred previous judgments, it was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The FIR No.360/12 28 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
43. While keeping in mind the aforementioned law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to abetment of suicide, the careful analysis of the evidence adduced on record in this case shows that the allegations raised in the statement of prosecution witnesses in support of the complaint even at their face value do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused. The allegations that the accused did not allow the deceased to talk to her parents or allow her parents to visit her house at Delhi or accused being unconcerned in keeping any relation with the relatives of the deceased, even if believed to be true are not sufficient to fall within the definition of "instigation" given in Section 107 IPC. PW1 has alleged that she was informed by her daughter i.e. deceased that her husband used to visit home after a gap of fifteen days and whenever she asked him about the reason for the same, he used to give her beatings with belt and same also caused welts on her body. However, the allegation is general as no specific instance has been mentioned nor any date, month, year or occasion of any such incident has been disclosed. Moreover, said testimony of PW1 does not find any corroboration from the testimony of any other witness nor there is any other evidence in support. Furthermore, in the complaint Ex. PW1/A which led to registration of present FIR, no such allegations FIR No.360/12 29 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu have been raised by PW1. Here, it is also pertinent to mention that since the suicide was committed beyond the period of seven years from the date of marriage, presumption of section 113A Indian Evidence Act is not attracted.
44. As per the prosecution case, in the month of April, 2010 sister in law of deceased who has been examined as PW3 had received a distress SMS from the deceased on her mobile phone number 9470726783 which she immediately forwarded to her mother in law's mobile phone. During investigation, the mobile phone of deceased's mother on which she allegedly got the said forwarded message from her daughter in law i.e. PW3 was seized but in absence of proving the source of said SMS i.e. the mobile phone of the deceased as well as the mobile phone on which the SMS was originally received, said fact of distress message allegedly sent by deceased has remained unproved on record. In the complaint Ex. PW1/A, it is alleged that on 30.10.2012 PW1 had received a telephonic call from the deceased saying that " I am scared. Anshuman is saying for many days as your time has come. I shall give you freedom and salvation once and for all" and then she disconnected the calls. In this regard, PW1 in his examination in chief has deposed that in the last day of October, 2012 she had received a call from her daughter wherein she informed that her husband used to tell her "Tumko Mukti de dete hai."
45. However, the above allegation does not seem to be true in view of the fact that during investigation IO had seized certain medical report/OPD receipts of the deceased from her house and also FIR No.360/12 30 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu sought the opinion of the concerned doctor on said papers regarding her health condition. Said medical papers are lying on record as Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/E which shows that deceased was undergoing treatment from World Brain Centre and Research Institute, New Delhi. Perusal of Ex. PW15/E shows that certain point wise notings were made by the doctor to the effect that somebody is recording; spying; paranoid thinking; irrelevant talk. During investigation, the opinion of said doctor Dr. Neelesh Tiwari was also taken wherein he opined that the deceased was suffering from paranoid 'schizophrenia' which is a chronic long term disabling mental illness, in which patient should not stop taking medication, otherwise, relapes is very common and can lead to anything from aggression, homicide to suicide. The said doctor has been examined by the prosecution as PW15 and he proved the said medical papers as well as his opinion as Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/F. The said documents reflects that the deceased had visited World Brain Centre and Research Institute for her treatment on 09.03.2011, 30.03.2011, 09.05.2011, 11.07.2011 and 27.08.2011 which also shows that the husband of the deceased i.e. accused herein had been taking due care of her health and had been taking her to hospital for treatment of said mental ailment. In the background of said circumstances, there is every possibility that the deceased might have made aforementioned distress calls and distress SMS to her parents and relatives under the influence of said disease.
46. As is apparent from the postmortem report Ex. PW14/A prepared by Dr. Thejaswi H.T., there were no marks of physical assault on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was shock as a result of crush injury of the head due to blunt force impact FIR No.360/12 31 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu caused due to fall from height. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of death of the deceased the accused was at home. As per PW8 i.e. the landlady of the house where the couple was residing as tenant, when she (PW8) tried to contact the accused on his phone, she was informed that the accused at that time was in Faridabad. As per viscera report of FSL dated 13.03.2013 Ex.PW17/E, no concomitant intoxicant was found in the body of deceased.
47. Considering the above discussed facts and circumstances, it can safely be concluded that accused is not even remotely connected with the offence u/s 306 IPC. Hence, what to talk of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case even by the standards of preponderance of probabilities. From the circumstances of the case, it appears that the unfortunate incident of suicide occurred on account of mental illness of the deceased as she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which at times lead to suicidal tendencies and there is absolutely no material to show any instigation or aiding on the part of accused in commission of suicide by the deceased. Accordingly, accused Anshuman @ Tullu is acquitted for the offences u/s 306 IPC. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled and discharged.
48. In terms of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC accused Anshuman @ Tillu had furnished his personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court for a period of six months for his appearance before Hon'ble High Court in the event, the State wishes to file the appeal challenging the present order.
FIR No.360/12 32St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 03.07.2017 (Sunena Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No.360/12 33 St. Vs. Anshuman @ Tullu