Delhi District Court
State vs Satinder Kumar Bhati on 16 April, 2009
1
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati
U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC
PS Lajpat Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.K. NAGPAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK COURT)(SOUTH DELHI DISTRICT,PHC
NEW DELHI
Session Case No.05/08
State Versus Satinder Kumar Bhati,
S/O Sh Bhim Pal Bhati,
R/O 1/2558, Ram Nagar,
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032
FIR No. : 561/99
Police Station : Lajpat Nagar
Under Sections :302/406/498-A IPC
Date of conclusion of
final arguments : 06.04.2009
Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 16.04.2009
J U D G M E N T:
1 The accused was sent to face trial by SHO, PS Lajpat Nagar on the allegations that one Smt. Lalita Bhati was admitted in Safdarjung hospital by her brother Sh Manoj Kumar/PW7 on 18.03.99 with 96% burns and an intimation in this regard was given by the Duty Constable of the hospital to the police and the same was recorded vide DD No. 29 in PP Garhi, PS Lajpat Nagar. PW17/HC Nasoo Ahmed had reached Safdarjung hospital and had moved an 2 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar application on which injured/victim Smt. Lalita Bhati was declared unfit for making statement by the doctor and hence he had recorded statements of the parents and brother Sh Manoj Kumar of the above injured/victim, in which they have not suspected any foul play in suffering of the above burn injuries by Smt. Lalita Bhati. 2 PW17 HC Nasoo Ahmed had then reached at the spot of incident, i.e. out side house No. G-20, East of Kailash, New Delhi and got the same photographed. He had also seized one plastic can having some kerosene oil, one lid ,one match box and one burnt chappal from the spot. On next date, i.e. on 19.03.01, the injured/victim Smt. Lalita Bhati was declared fit for making statement by the doctor attending her and her statement was recorded by PW17 in the question-answer form and in that statement Smt. Lalita Bhati had claimed that she had herself put her on fire and statement of the accused Satinder Kumar Bhati, who is the husband of the injured/victim Smt. Lalita Bhati, was also recorded by him in which he had expressed his ignorance regarding the incident. 3 On 21.03.00 the victim/injured Smt. Lalita Bhati had expired in the above said hospital and the information in this regard was given to 3 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar the police at about 8.40 PM and the same was recorded in the above PP vide DD No. 5 and on receiving of a copy of the same PW17 and PW20/SI Arun Kumar have both reached in the above said hospital. They had got conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and the same after the postmortem was handed over to her relatives. They had also obtained death report and death summary of the deceased from the hospital. The report of the postmortem of the deceased was subsequently collected by the IO/PW20 from the above said hospital on 19.05.99, in which the cause of death of the deceased was opined to be scepticemia following ante mortem burn injuries.
4 One written complaint dated 20.04.99 was made by the complainant Sh P S Bhati/PW5, who is the father of the deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati to the DCP, South District, in which some allegations of demand of dowry, causing of physical and mental harassment and giving beatings etc. to the deceased by the accused were made by the complainant and it also contained the allegations that the deceased was brought to the house of the complainant by the accused on his scooter and then the accused had fled away from the spot after putting kerosene oil on the deceased and putting her on fire. Some inquiry was conducted regarding the allegations made in 4 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar the above written complaint and then this FIR was registered at PS Lajpat Nagar initially U/Ss 306/498A IPC on 03.06.99. During investigation of the case IO/PW20 had prepared the site plan of the spot and had also recorded statements of the witnesses, including statements of children and some relatives of the deceased and also of some neighbour of the complainant.
5 The accused had filed an application for his anticipatory bail and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.06.99 of the Ld. A.S.J. The complainant had then filed one application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused on the grounds that the allegations for the U/s 302 IPC were also there against the accused, but the above said application of the complainant was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.99 of the Ld. A.S.J. with the observations that the anticipatory bail granted to the accused vide previous order dated 16.06.99 of his Ld. Predecessor was not for the offence U/S 302 IPC and the state is not debarred from proceeding in accordance with the law under the said section. Section 302 IPC was also subsequently added in place of Section 306 IPC and the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable U/Ss 302/406/498A IPC on 10.07.00 and cognizance thereon was taken by the Ld. M.M. 5 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar concerned and NBWs were issued against the accused for his failure to attend the court proceedings. The accused had approached the Hon'ble High Court and he was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to surrender in the court of the Ld. M.M. while his NBWs were kept in abeyance. The accused had also moved one other application for his anticipatory bail after filing of the charge sheet, but the Ld. A.S.J had refused to interfere in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court and the anticipatory bail application of the accused was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.00. 6 However, subsequently the accused was granted bail by the Ld. M.M. concerned on his surrender vide order dated 22.08.00 and the above said order was challenged by the complainant before the Hon'ble High Court, but the Hon'ble High Court had refused to cancel the bail, as is gathered from the record. Being dis-satisfied the complainant had preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and during pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court and in compliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court the accused had surrendered in the court of the Ld. A.S.J. ( during the pendency of the trial) on 16.01.01 and was taken into custody. The above SLP was finally disposed off by the Hon'ble Apex 6 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar Court on 23.03.01 and the bail granted to the accused by the Ld. M.M. concerned was cancelled giving liberty to the accused to apply for regular bail application to be disposed off on merits. The accused was finally bailed out in this case by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court vide order dated 03.02.04, during pendency of the trial. 7 After the cognizanceof the offences was taken as per the charge sheet, the provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC were complied with by the Ld. M.M. concerned and the matter was committed to the sessions court for trial and the charges asgainst the accused were framed by this court on 30.10.01 for the offences U/Ss. 302/406/498A IPC.
8 Prosecution in support of its case has examined total 21 PWs on record and the facts regarding which they have deposed are as under:-
9 PW1 ASI Ramesh is the duty officer of this case and he has proved the FIR recorded by him as Ex. PW1/A. 10 PW2 Sh. Sher Singh is a distant relative of the complainant and 7 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar he has claimed to have seen the accused near market of C-Block, East of Kailash, in the evening of the date of incident. 11 PW3 Dr. B. Swain had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati and he had duly proved the postmortem report of the deceased as Ex. PW3/A, which was conducted on the application Ex.PW3/B of the IO. 12 PW4 SI Shashi Bala was posted in CAW Cell, South-West District on 09.06.99 and she had recorded the statement of the complainant in proceedings conducted on his complaint in the above said cell. Vide her report Ex. PW4/A on the record, which was also endorsed by Inspector and ACP of the above cell, she had recommended for addition of section 406 IPC in this case, which already stood registered.
13 PW5 Sh. P.S. Bhati is the complainant of this case and he has made detailed depositions in this court regarding the demand of dowry articles and cash etc. by the accused, causing of physical and mental harassment of the deceased by the accused and giving of beatings by the accused to the deceased in connection with the 8 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar above demands. He has also stated that in the evening of 18.03.99 the deceased was brought out side his house by the accused and the accused had fled away from the spot after pouring kerosene oil on his daughter/deceased and after putting her on fire. In his statement he has also proved his statement regarding identification of the dead body of his daughter recorded by the police as Ex. PW5/A, his statement recorded by the police in Safdarjung hospital as Ex. PW5/B, his written complaint dated 20.04.99 made to the police as Ex. PW5/C and a list of dowry articles given in the CAW cell as Ex.PW5/D. 14 Smt. Krishna Bhati is the mother of the deceased and she has not supported the prosecution version and has simply stated that she does not know how her daughter Smt. Lalita Bhati had received burn injuries.
15 PW7 Sh. Manoj Kumar Bhati is the brother of the deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati and son of the complainant Sh.P.S. Bhati. He has also deposed that on 18.03.99 at about 7/7.30 PM he was present in his house and had come out on hearing some noise and he had noticed that some person was burning in front of their house. He has also stated that he tried to extinguish the fire and subsequently he 9 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar had found that the above person was his sister Smt. Lalita Bhati. 16 PW8 Master Himanshu Bhati is the son of the deceased and the accused and he claims to have seen his parents and his uncle going on scooter from their house with a plastic can of yellow colour containing kerosene oil in bag (thaila), sometime before the incident. 17 PW9 Dr. Savita had examined the injured/deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati in Safdarjung hospital and has proved her MLC as Ex.PW9/A. 18 PW10 Km. Jyoti is the daughter of the deceased and the accused and she has also claimed that in the evening of the date of incident her mother/deceased and her father/accused had left the house separately after a gap of about 10 minutes and her mother was having a jute bag at that time.
19 PW11 Sh. Charanjit Singh is the neighbour of the complainant and he claims that on 18.03.99 at about 7/7.15 PM he was taking a walk in the park of G-Block, East of Kailash and he had seen flames and had rushed opposite to the house No. G-20, where he found that one human body was burning. He also claims to have seen the 10 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar accused running from the spot with a kerosene oil can and match box.
20 PW12 Sh. Surender Nath Sharma was running a shop in the neighbour-hood of the accused Satinder Kumar Bhati in Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and he has simply stated that on 18.03.99 the deceased had come to his shop at about 4.00 PM for purchasing kutu-atta and since it was not available at his shop, she had gone a little ahead to his shop for purchasing the same and she had went to her home.
21 PW13 Sh. Sarwan Kumar is also a neighbour of the complainant and he has deposed that on 18.03.99 at about 7.30 PM when he was coming from his duty, he had seen a body burning in front of house No. G-20, East of Kailash of Sh PS Bhati. He also claims to have seen one person running from the spot after throwing a plastic can and match box on the spot and in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P P for the State he has also stated that the above person was the accused Satinder Kumar Bhati, present in the court, who was known to him earlier to the date of incident. 11
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 22 PW14 Smt. Shashi Bala is the aunt (Mausi) of the deceased and she has claimed that the deceased had talked to her thrice on telephone at about 12 Noon, 3.00PM and 5.00PM on the date of incident regarding demand of some cash amount and regarding her taking to the house of her parents by the accused in connection with the above demand. She has also claimed that during her visit in Safdarjung hospital on 19.03.99 at about 2/2.30 PM, on being asked the deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati had told her that what ever was done was done by the accused Satinder Kumar Bhati, but she would not tell it to the police for the sake of her young children and she wanted to save the accused as she herself was dying.
23 PW15 Ms. Indu Bala has claimed that PW8 Master Himanshu and PW10 Kumari Jyoti were taking tuitions from her between 6.30PM to 7.30PM on the date of incident.
24 PW16 Ms Kanta Sachdeva is the neighbour of the accused and she has simply stated that she had come to know regarding burning of Smt. Lalita Bhati on the next date and she does not know how she got fire.
12
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 25 PW17 HC Nasoo Ahmed is the initial IO of this case and he has deposed regarding his visit to Safdarjung hospital on 18.03.99 on receipt of DD no. 29. He has also proved his application Ex. PW17/A made to the doctor on which the deceased/injured/victim was declared unfit for making a statement. He has also proved the statements of the father, mother and brother of the deceased, recorded by him on the said date, as Ex. PW5/B, (wrongly typed as PW5/A instead of PW5/B), Ex. PC and Ex. PB respectively. He has also deposed regarding his visit at the spot and the seizure of the above said articles like plastic can and match box etc. vide memo Ex. PW17/B. He has further stated that injured was declared fit for making statement on 19.03.99 and has also proved her statement recorded by him as Ex. PW17/C. He has also claimed to have visited the above said hospital along with IO/SI Arun Dev on receiving of an information regarding the death of the injured. 26 PW18 Sh. Ram Swaroop is the washerman of the locality of the accused and he has simply claimed that on 18.03.99 the accused Satinder Bhati or his son Himanshu had not brought any clothes to him for ironing.
13
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 27 PW19 Ct. Rajpal has simply taken the rukka written by IO/PW20 SI Arun Dev to PS for registration of the FIR and has brought back the same with a copy of the FIR and had handed over the same to the IO. 28 PW20 SI Arun Dev is the subsequent IO of this case, to whom the investigation of the case was assigned on 21.03.99 after the death of Smt. Lalita Bhati. On receiving a copy of the DD NO.5 Ex. PW20/A, he had visited Safdarjung hospital alongwith PW17 HC Nasoo Ahmed and had recorded statements of one Sh Chhatar Pal Singh and Sh P S Bhati/PW5 Ex. PW20/C and Ex. PW5/A respectively regarding identification of the dead body of the deceased. He had also prepared prepared the inquest papers Ex. PW20/B and the brief facts Ex. PW20/D and got conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased vide application Ex. PW3/B and had collected the death report Ex. PW20/E and death summary Ex. PW20/F. After post mortem he had handed over the dead body of the deceased to her father/PW5. Since from the statements of PW5 Sh P S Bhati, PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati and PW7 Sh Manoj Kumar recorded by PW17 earlier there was no suspicion on any body, PW17 had not got registered any case in the matter. PW20 had also collected the postmortem report Ex. PW3/A. 14 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 30 On 03.06.99 on receiving written complaint Ex. PW5/C from the complainant Sh P S Bhati in dak alongwith letter Ex. PW20/G to the area DCP for registration of the case U/S 498A and 306 IPC, also endorsed by SHO and the ACP of the area, he had made endorsement Ex. PW20/H on the aforesaid complaint and sent rukka and got the case registered. He had also visited the spot of incident on the same day and had prepared site plan Ex. PW20/J, and had conducted local inquires and also recorded the statements of PW4 Smt. Shahsi Bala, PW5 Sh. P S Bhati, PW8 Master Himanshu Bhatti and PW10 Baby Jyoti at the spot.
31 On 12.06.99 on receipt of record/report of the CAW cell, he had also added section 406 IPC to the case and during the course of investigation of this case he had also recorded statements of PW15 Sh P S Bhati, PW11 Sh Charanjit Singh and PW13 Sh Sarwan Kumar. On 14.06.99 he had visited at the house of the accused, but the accused was not found available. On 17.06.99 he had again visted there and had formally arrested the accused. On 15.11.99 he was transferred and the investigation was taken over by SI Surender Chahal (not examined in this case).
15
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 32 PW21 Sh Ram Pal was posted as a Line-man in Bijli Ghar, G- Block, East of Kailash on the day of incident and he had seen the deceased Smt Lalita Bhati sitting alone on a stone near the shop of a presswala at about 7/7.15 PM. He has claimed that after about 10/15 minutes he came out of the Bijli Ghar on hearing cries and he had seen that Smt Lalita Bhati had received burn injuries and she was removed to hospital by Mr P S Bhati and his son.
33 Entire incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution was put to the accused while recording his statement U/s 313 CrPC, but the same was denied by him to be incorrect. He has claimed that his deceased has purchased a flat which was fradulently sold by her parents (PW5 and PW6) and the deceased had quarreled with them on this issue as she had also invested her money in the business of her father and because of this quarrel she had set herself on fire and committed suicide. He has also claimed that he had not set her on fire and statement to this effect was also given by the deceased to the duty Doctor.
34 Accused has also examined one Insp. Puran Singh in his 16 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar defence as DW1. DW1 was posted in the District Crime Cell as Inspector on the day of incident and on receiving of a complaint from the complainant Sh PS Bhati to the DCP/South District against the I.O. of this case, he had made some inquiry and had submitted his report Ex. DW1/A in the matter.
35 I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh S K Dass, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, Sh H M Singh, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Sh. Anil Gaur, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire case file. 36 It is argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State as well as the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Ss 302/406/498A IPC for which the charges were framed against the accused, as there is sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to establish the case of the prosecution. They have also relied upon the depositions of PW8 Master Himanshu and PW10 Baby Jyoti, i.e. children of the accused and the deceased, who had seen the accused and the deceased leaving their house shortly before the alleged incident and it is being argued that they both are the 17 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar witnesses who have lastly seen the deceased with the accused. They have also relied upon the statements of PW11 Sh Charanjit Singh and PW13 Sh Sarwan Kumar and both of them also claim to have seen the accused running away from the spot of incident shortly after the incident. They have further referred to the statements of PW2 Sh Sher Singh and PW14 Smt Shashi Bala in this regard and it is being argued that PW2 had also seen the accused near the spot of incident shortly after the incident and PW14 is allegedly a witness of the dying declaration made by the accused. They have also argued that motive of the accused behind murder of the deceased and her cruel treatement in terms of section 498A IPC is also established on record because there is sufficient evidence in the form of statements of PW5 Sh P S Bhati, PW7Sh Manoj Kumar, PW8 Master Himanshu and PW10 Babay Jyoti that there were demands of dowry and other articles made by the accused from the deceased before her death and she was being being harassed and beaten by the accused in connection with the above said demands. They have further referred to the statements made by PW4 SI Shashi Bala and PW 15 Ms Indu Bala in this regard. It is further argued that the prosecution has successfully proved on record the list of the dowry articles/istridhana given to the accused at the time of his marriage with the deceased 18 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar and the depositions of the above witnesses, who are the family members of the deceased are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S 406 IPC also.
37 On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that there is no direct evidence led by the prosecution on record to prove the charge for the offence U/S 302 IPC against the accused and even the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution on record in the form of the depositions of PW8 Master Himanshu and PW10 Baby Jyoti is very weak and they both being the child witnesses, are not worthy of giving any credit as they both were under the influence of the complainant at the time of making statements in the court. He has also argued that even the statement of PW 11 Sh Chanderjit Singh and PW13 Sh Sarwan Kumar cannot be given any weight as they both are the planted witnesses by the IO and he has also heavily relied upon the previous statements made by complainant/PW5 Sh P S Bhagi, PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati and PW7 Sh Manoj Kumar and the dying declaration of the deceased made to the initial IO HC Nasoo Ahmed/PW17 on the date of incident itself, i.e. 18.03.99, wherein no foul play in the commission of the above incident has been alleged. He has also argued that it was a simple case of unanetted suicide which has been given a different colour by the police in collusion with 19 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar the complainant. He has further argued that even PW 14 Smt. Shashi Balal is a planted witness and cannot be relied upon. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to lead on record any satisfactory evidence, oral or documentary, to even prove the charges for the offences U/Ss 406/498A IPC as all the allegations have been made by the above witnesses of the family of the deceased after a long time and only for the first time in the court after solemnization of the marriage of the deceased with the accused before about 15/16 years of the incident. It is further argued that even the motive of demand of dowry and harassment for non-fulfilment of the same has not been proved by the prosecution on record and thre is a huge delay in registration of this FIR and there is no satisfactory explanation furnished by the prosecution on record to explain the above delay, and hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case 38 On appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution on record for the offence U/S 302 IPC, it is observed that PW2 Sh Sher Singh has claimed that he had seen the accused in the evening of the date of incident, i.e. 18.03.99, near the market of C- Block, East of Kailash when the accused was starting his scooter No. DL-9S-C-0680 and he had wished the accused and had asked him as to why he was 20 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar there, but the accused was nervous and he had started his scooter and sped away towards Lajpat Nagar. Though no specific time of his seeing the accused has come on record, but it is the case of the prosecution that it was after the alleged incident of burning of the deceased at about 7/7.15 PM. On perusal of the statement of this witness as a whole, it is found that he is not trust worthy and there is every possibility that he is a planted witness. His depositions as made in this court regarding his subsequent visit to the house of the deceased and the other subsequent developments regarding the incident cast serious doubts on his alleged presence near the spot of incident on the alleged date and time of incident. He is a distant relative of the complainant/PW5 and in his chief-examination itself he has claimed that when he had reached the house of the complainant after seeing the accused at the above said place, he had seen that Sh P S Bhati/PW5 and Smt. Krishna Bhati/PW6 had wrapped something in a piece of cloth and they as well as their son Sh Manoj Bhati/PW7 had put that wrapped thing in a car. But it is strange that he was not able to see what was the said thing which they had wrapped in a cloth. He has also stated that thereafter PW5 Sh P S Bhati and PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati had sat on the back seat and PW7 Sh Monoj Bhati drove the car with the above said wrapped thing in a 21 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar cloth and he was told by PW6 Smt. Krishna Bhati to remain in her house till they return. He has further claimed that subsequently he was told by another dauther namely Ms Vandana of PW5 and PW6 that the above wrapped thing taken by the above PWs in the car was her sister Lalita Bhati, who was burnt in the above incident. He has also claimed that subsequently when PW6 Smt Krisna Bhati had returned from Safdarjung hospital late in the night, then he had come to know from her that deceased Lalita Bhati had received 96% burn injuries and she was admitted in Sardarjung hospital. In his cross examination, he has also claimed that there was darkness at the spot and he had not touched the above thing wrapped in the cloth. 39 The above depositions made by this witness cannot be just believed because it cannot be accepted that he was not able to find out that there was a burnt human body being shifted to the hospital after being wrapped in a cloth. Though during his cross examination he has also claimed that he had seen kerosene oil lying outside the house of PW5 and he also noticed one plastic can lying out side their house, but he had admitted that he had not stated the above facts to the police in his statement recorded by the police and hence his these depositions can only be termed as an improvement and cannot 22 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar be given any weight. He has further claimed in his cross examination that when he had asked PW6 regarding the incident on the next morning, after staying in their house for the said night, he further told by PW6 Smit Krishna Bhati that when she was cooking food in her house on the date of incident, she had received a call at about 6.00 PM from accused Satinder Bhati that Lalita Bhati had left his house and she was waiting for her daughter Lalita Bhati out side her house and he was further told by PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati that accused Satinder has put Smt Lalita Bhati on fire outside their house. But even his these depositions are also held to be improvements because he has also admitted that no such depositions were made by him in his previous statement U/S 161 CrOPC recorded by the police and hence the same are also liable to be ignored. Even otherwise,his these depositions cannot be considered in evidence as PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati has not corroborated the same, as she has not supported the prosecution version ans had turned hostile. 40 Even otherwise, also there are also other material contradictions in his statement as to when he had told PW5 Sh P. S. Bhati and PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati regarding his seening the accused Satinder near market of C Block, East of Kailash on the above date of 23 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar incident because at one place he has stated that he had told this fact to them on next date of the incident, but at other place he has stated that he did not tell this fact to them even during his two meetings with them between the date of death of deceased and her "teharveen"(date of performance of her last rites). Therefore the statement of PW2 Sh Sher Singh is not of any help to the case of the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S 302 IPC and it cannot be given any weight and he is held to be a planted witness.
41 Now coming to the statements made by PW5 Sh. P S Bhati, PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati and PW7 Sh Manoj Kumar Bhati, i.e. father, mother and brother respectively of the deceased, it is observed that even the statements made by the above witnesses cannot be given much weight for proving the charge for the offence U/S 302 IPC framed against the accused. As stated above, PW6 Smt. Krishna Bhati had turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version of seeing the accused running away from the spot after pouring kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and after putting her on fire and even during her cross examination conducted by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, after she was got declared hostile, she 24 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar had denied all the suggestions given to her by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State in this regard. She has simply stated that her daughter Smt Lalita Bhati had received burn injuries but she does not know how her daughter had received burn injuries. She has even denied meeting with police or making any statement to the police. 42 PW7 Sh Manoj Kumar has though deposed regarding the above incident of burning of the above Smt Lalita Bhati/deceased, but even he has not made any specific depositions, either in his chief examination or in his cross examination, regarding seeing the accused Satinder pouring kerosene oil on her sister and putting her on fire and running away of the accused from the spot of incident after doing the same.
43 Though PW 5 Sh P S Bhati /complainant in his statement has claimed that on 18.03.99 the accused had come with his daughter on a two wheeler scooter and just in front of his house the accused Satinder had poured kerosene oil on his daughter and had set her on fire and had run away from the spot, but he has also stated in his statement that he as well as his other family members had come out of their house only after hearing of cries of his daughter and his wife 25 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar PW 6 was the first to come out of the house followed by his daughter Vandana and thereafter he /PW 5 and PW 7 Sh. Manoj Kumar had come out of their house simultaneously. He has also stated that he had seen his daughter lying on the ground and burning and they had poured some water on their burning daughter, but the depositions made by this witness clearly show that they were even not aware that the person burning outside of their house was the deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati till the water was poured by them on her person and blanket was wrapped on her body the fire on her body had been extinguished by them and. He has also deposed that when he had come out of his house, the accused had already left the site and he was subsequently told by his wife that she had seen the accused at the site. His these depositions clearly show that this witness had himself not seen the accused pouring kerosene oil on his daughter or putting her on fire or running away from the spot. His further depositions regarding being told by his wife/PW 6 Smt Krishna Bhati regarding seeing the accused near the spot have not been corroborated by PW 6 Smt. Krishna Bhati, as she turned hostile during her examination in this Court and has not supported the prosecution version in this regard. Hence the testimony of this witness is also of no help to the case of the prosecution, as far as the charge 26 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar for the offence U/ S 302 IPC framed against the accused is concerned.
44 Even otherwise, Ld. Defence Counsel has also relied upon a judgment titled as Parsuram Pandey and others Vs. State of Bihar ,AIR 2004 SC 5068 that the witness who reached at the spot on hearing the noise of gun shots cannot be said to be an eye witness of firing and the propositions of law as laid down in the above said case are also applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the same, PW 5 Sh. P S Bhati and PW 7 Sh Manoj Bhati also cannot be considered to be the eye witnesses of the offence of murder.
45 Now coming to the depositions made by PW 8 Master Himanshu and PW 10 Baby Jyoti, who both are children of the deceased and accused Satinder Bhati, it is observed that they both are being alleged to be the witnesses of the fact of last seeing the deceased in the company of the accused. But on appreciation of their statements made in this court it is observed that even the depositions made by these witnesses in this court are not found to be convincing enough. PW 8 in his statement has claimed that he had 27 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar returned back to his house after taking tuition at about 5.00 PM on the day of incident and after some time his mother had also reached home with kuttu atta and refined oil and then some quarrel had taken place between his mother and father. This witness claims that then he was sent to give some clothes for ironing and so he went outside and thereafter started playing outside the house and when he was playing he had seen his father along with his mother and his uncle, whose name he does not remember now, going on a scooter and there was a plastic can of yellow colour containing kerosene oil, which was put in a bag (thaila). It just cannot be believed that he was able to see the plastic can and its colour and kerosene oil contained therein, which was kept in a bag, when he was busy in playing outside his house. He has also not specifically stated as to who was holding the above said bag containing the plastic can. Similarly, PW 10 Baby Jyoti had also claimed in her statement that there was some quarrel and her mother had left the house with a jute bag and her father had also left the house on a two wheeler scooter after about 10 minutes of leaving of her mother. The depositions made by these PWs are contradictory in nature on certain aspects because PW 8 Master Himanshu has claimed that they both (accused and the deceased) had left the house together, whereas PW 10 Baby Jyoti has claimed 28 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar that they both had left the house separately. Further, though PW 8 has claimed that his one uncle was also with them at the time of leaving the house, but PW 10 has not made any such claim. Again though PW 10 has claimed that her father had returned back to the house after about two and half hours of leaving the house, but PW 8 has stated that he had not returned back to the house. Even the timings of both the above witnesses of returning to their house after taking tuitions are different. Moreover, the prosecution has also examined one witness namely Smt. Indu Bala/PW 15 on record. PW 15 has claimed herself to be the tutor of both the above said children and she in her statement has specifically claimed that both PW 8 and PW 10 were taking tuitions from her till 7.30 PM on that day and thus the depositions of this witness are sufficient to make the claim of both the above PWs namely PW 8 Master Himanshu and PW 10 Baby Jyoti regarding their presence at their house at the above said time of leaving the house by their parents to be doubtful. Further PW 18 Sh. Ram Swaroop washerman of the locality of the accused has also claimed that no clothes were brought for ironing by PW 8 Master Himanshu on the date of incident to him, as claimed by PW 8 in his above depositions.
29
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 46 Though Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that PW 15 Smt. Indu Bala and PW 18 Sh. Ram Swaroop have been made witnesses by the IO for some ulterior motives as PW 15 is the sister of the accused and PW 18 is the washerman of the locality of the accused and they both have been examined on record by the prosecution only to spoil the case of the complainant, but even if the depositions of PW 15 and PW 18 as made in this court are ignored for a moment, even then the statements made PW 8 Master Himanshu and PW 10 Baby Jyoti cannot be considered to be trustworthy because of the above material discrepancies and contradictions in their above statements. Moreover, they both are child witnesses and were admittedly residing under the care and custody of the complainant/PW 5 who was their maternal grand father (nana) at the timeof making their statements in the court and could have been easily influenced by the complainant and hence their depositions cannot be believed and made the basis of convition of the accused. 47 Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard has rightly relied upon a judgment in a case titled as Orsu Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh, 2004 Crl. LJ 4656 wherein it was held that the statement of a child witness is to be appreciated carefully and conviction cannot 30 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar be based solely on the statement of the child witness. Hence, in view of the above discussion and the prepositions of the law as laid down in the above said case, the statements made by PW 8 Master Himanshu and PW 10 Baby Jyoti regarding the above said facts cannot be considered to be trustworthy.
48 The prosecution has also examined on record two other witnesses namely Sh Chanderjeet Singh /PW 11 and Sh. Sarwan Kumar/PW 13 and they both are claimed to be witnesses who had seen the accused at about 7/7.15 PM near the spot of occurrence shortly after the alleged incident of burning of deceased. They both are the neighbourers of the complainant PW 5 and PW 11 Sh. Chanderjeet Singh in his statement has claimed that on 18.03.99 at about 7/7.15 PM he was taking a walk in the evening in the nearby park when he had suddenly seen flames arising from one place and when he rushed towards the flames, he had seen one human body burning opposite house no. G-20, East of Kailash. He has also claimed that he had seen the accused present in the court running from the place of occurrence with kerosene oil can and match box. PW 13 Sh. Sarwan Kumar has also claimed that he was returning from his duty at about 7.15 PM when he saw a body burning in front 31 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar of house no. G-20 of Sh. P. S. Bhati and he had seen one person running from the spot after throwing something and afterwards he had seen that the thing thrown by that person was a plastic can and match box. But on appreciations of their statements it is found that they both are also not reliable witnesses and appear to be the witnesses planted by IO at the instance of the complainant. The incident is dated 18.03.99 and the statements of both the abvoe witnesses were recorded by IO on 13.06.99, i.e after the registration of this case on 03.06.99 on the written complainant dated 20.04.99 of PW5. Even the complainant PW 5 in his statement made in this court has not deposed regarding the presence of the above two persons at or around the spot at the relevant time of incident. Even on perusal of the site plan Ex. PW 20/J of the spot of incident prepared by the IO, it is observed that the plastic can and match box were found to be lying just in the front of the house of complainant no. G-20 at Point A and B respectively and the same is sufficient to make the depositions of above witnesses to be untrustworthy because PW 11 Sh. Chanderjeet Singh has claimed that he had seen the accused running towards Block C Market while he was having a plastic can and match box, whereas PW 13 has claimed that he had seen the accused throwing the above said articles near the spot. As per the 32 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar depositions of these witnesses the plastic can and the match box should have been thrown by the accused at least at some distance from the house of the complainant and not immediately in front of his house, when the accused had started running from the scene of occurrence. Therefore these two witnesses examined by the prosecution on record, are also held to be planted witnesses and their statements cannot be given any weight. Moreover, their statements are also contradictory to the depositions made by another witness examined by the prosecution on record namely PW 21 Sh Ram Pal, who was posted as a Lineman in the Bijli Ghar of G- Block and was present in the Bijli Ghar located just near the house of the complainant. This witness has claimed that he had seen the deceased sitting alone on a stone near the shop of a presswala and he has nowhere deposed regarding the presence of the accused near or at the spot at that time or at the relevant time of burning of the deceased, i.e. after about 10/15 minutes of seeing the deceased, when this witness had reached out side the house of the complainant on hearing cries of the deceased. Ld. Defence Counsel has rightly relied upon the judgements in cases titled as Harjinder Singh alias Bhola Vs State of Punjab, 2004 Crl. L.J., 3854 (S.C.) and Shankarlal Vs State of Rajasthan, 2004 Crl. L.J. 2874 (S.C.), which relate to the 33 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar appreciation of the testimony of a chance witness and after going through the propositions of law as laid down in the above said cases and the depositions of the above witnesses, it is observed that statement of these witnesses are also liable to be discarded out rightly and cannot be made basis for conviction of the accused U/S 302 IPC.
49 Now coming to the other witnesses examined by the prosecution on record, it is observed that the incident has taken place on 18.03.99 in the evening at about 7 or 7.30PM. The injured/deceased was taken to Safdarjung hospital by PW5 Sh P S Bhati, PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati and PW7 Sh Manoj Kumar Bhati. The intimation with regard to this fact was duly conveyed to the local police station/Police Post Garhi on which initially PW17 HC Nasoo Ahmed had visited the hospital. The injured/deceased was medically examined by PW9 Dr. Savita and she has duly proved on record the MLC of the deceased as Ex. PW9/A. On perusal of her MLC it is found that injured/deceased was admitted in the above hospital with alleged history of sustaining burn injuries after she had poured kerosene oil on all over her body and had set herself on fire and had sustained the burn injuries. It is also found recorded in the above 34 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar MLC that the injured/deceased had refused to tell the other details of the incident saying that she wanted to die. During her cross examination this witness has also specifically stated that the patient herself had informed her at the time of her examination that she had poured kerosene oil on herself and had set herself on fire. There is no reason to disbelieve the above history recorded by her in the above MLC or her depositions made in this court because in her examination in chief itself she has also stated that though the patient was having 96% burns, but she was conscious and oriented and these facts are also found recorded in the above MLC Ex. PW9/A. 50 Morevover, PW17 HC Nasoo Ahmed, the intial IO of the case has also stated that when he reached at the hospital on receiving DD No. 29 Ex. PW. PA, he had found the complainant/PW5 Sh P S Bhati and PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati present there. However, by the time he had moved an application Ex. PW17/A for recording statement of the injured/Smt Lalita Bhati, she was declared unfit to make statement at about 11.10PM on 18.03.99 vide endorsement made at point B on the above application. However, he has specifically stated that that patient was declared fit to give statement on the next date vide endorsement at point C at about 10.10 AM on 35 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 19.03.99 and then he had recorded the statement/dying declaration of the patient/deceased Smt Lalita Bhati Ex. PW17/C in the question- answer form. In the above dying declaration also, injured/deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati had claimed that she had herself put her on fire as she was suffering from severe head ache and she had also taken to bad habit of taking liquor. She has also specifically stated that neither her husband Sh Satinder Kumar Bhati, i.e. the accused, nor her parents were responsible for the above incident and no quarrel had taken place between her and her inlaws and she was also not tortured or harassed by her inlaws. It is also found recorded in the above dying declaration that she was never beaten by her husband nor he had ever made any demand of dowry from her.
51 IO/PW17 had also recorded statements of the complainant PW5 Sh P S Bhati, his wife Smt. Krishna Bhati/PW6 and their son Sh Manoj Kumar Bhati/PW7 in the hospital as Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PC and Ex. PB respectively regarding the above incident of burning of Smt Lalita Bhati and in their above statements they have also not suspected any foul play in the said incident and had not implicated or pointed out any finger of suspicion towards the accused. Though the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the above dying 36 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar declaration Ex. PW17/C recorded by PW17 cannot be considered on record in view of the propositions of law as laid down in the case titled as Indian Federation of Women Lawyers & Others Vs Smt. Shakuntla and others 1985 (4) SCC 476: 1986 AIR 250 (S.C.) and Arvind Singh Vs State of Bihar, 2001 AIR (SCW) 1913 because the above dying declaration was not recorded by a Magistrate nor any explanation for not recording of the same by a Magistrate was furnished on record and further the injured/deceased was not declared mentally fit for giving statement before recording of her alleged dying declaration, but I am of the considered opinion that though the propositions of law as laid down in the above said judgments cannot be disputed but the above judgements are not of any help to the case of the complainant because the material part of the above dying declaration has also been corroborated by the history of incident recorded by the doctor/PW9 at the time of examination of the injured/deceased vide MLC Ex. PW9/A proved on record and further in the statements Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PC and Ex. PW PB respectively of the above relations of the injured/deceased, they had also not suspected the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence of murder of the deceased. 37
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 52 Besides the above, it is also a matter of record that the post mortem on the body of deceased was conducted by PW3 Dr B. Swain and post mortem report has been duly proved on record by him as Ex. PW3/A. During his cross examination he has also stated that the injuries suffered by a person will be almost same if the kerosene oil is self thrown by the person or is thrown by some other person on the victim, except in homicidal burns there may be marks of struggle. He has further specifically stated that no struggle marks were seen on the person of the deceased in this case and his above depositions are sufficient to establish that there was no struggle on the part of the deceased before sustaining the above injuries and this fact also corroborates the history of the incident recorded in the above MLC Ex. PW9/A and the contents of the dying declaration Ex. PW17/C of the deceased that it was a case of suicide. Even otherwise, no struggle marks of any kind were found at the spot by the initial IO/PW17 and even no such initial investigation of the spot of incident on the date of incident conducted by PW17 is made a part of the record and this is simply because of the reasons that no foul play was suspected by PW5 Sh P S Bhati/complainant, PW6 Smt Krishna Bhati and PW7 Sh Manoj Kumar Bhati, who are the parents and brother of the deceased, at the initial stage.
38
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 53 Further, it is observed on perusal of the record that there is a huge and inordinate delay in making the allegations regarding the murder of the deceased by the accused and in getting the case registered. Admittedly the incident of burning of the deceased has taken place on 18.03.99 and she had expired on 21.03.99, but the report/ complaint Ex. PW5/C, which is the basis of the FIR, made by the complainant is dated 20.04.99 and the FIR on its basis was registered only on 03.06.99 and thus there is found to be a delay of more than one month in making the aforesaid complaint and delay of about 1 ½ months in registration of the FIR from the date of incident. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished on record either by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant or by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State for such a huge and inordinate delay. Though the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State have vaguely argued that the FIR could not be registered due to the biasED attitude of the police officials and despite the best efforts made by the complainant, but their above argument is not substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence on record. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses on record that after post mortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the accused and was also 39 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar cremated by the accused. Her last rites (teharveen) was also performed at the house of the accused and the family members of the complainant had attended the same and till that time there was no allegations leveled against the accused. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that the statements Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PB and Ex. PC were also made by PW 5 Sh. P S Bhatti, PW6 Smt. Krishna Bhati and PW 7 Manoj Bhati respectively to the initial IO/PW 17 HC Nasoo Ahmad immediately after the alleged incident of burning and by that time there was no finger of suspicion towards the accused for commission of the alleged offence of murder. It can thus be safely concluded that the raising of the subsequent allegations of the commission of murder against the accused in the written complaint Ex. PW 5/C by the complainant is only an afterthought. Though Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon a judgment titled as Ravinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2001 AIR SCW 3366 wherein it was held that the delayed FIR is not illegal and law has not fixed any time limit for lodging an FIR , but it is observed that in the said case there was a delay of only two days in lodging the FIR and even the above said case it was held by their Lordships that the instances causing delay are to be looked into by the court before arriving at any decision in the matter. It is observed that in the instant 40 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar case there is no satisfactory explanation furnished by the prosecution on record to explain the above said long delay in making these allegations for the first time in written complaint Ex.PW5/C for getting the case registered. The same coupled with the other circumstances like making of the above statement by the above witnesses before PW 17 HC Nasoo Ahmed initial IO, dying declaration of the deceased Ex. PW 17/C recorded by PW 17 and the history of incident recorded in the MLC Ex. PW9/A by the doctor examining the patient/injured/PW9 compel this court to conclude that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused for the offence U/ S 302 IPC are only an after thought. This conclusion also gets support from the inquiry report Ex. DW 1/A proved on record by DW 1 Insp. Puran Singh, who had conducted an inquiry on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Sh. P S Bhati/PW 5 regarding the above said allegations.
54 Apart from the above, there is also one other circumstance which cannotbe ignored. The deceased had been burnt out side the house of the complainant/PW5 and there is no explanation on record to show as to why the accused will take the pain of travelling with the deceased to the house of the complainant, 41 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar alongwith the plastic can containing keresine oil, to kill or burn her when he can easily do that task in his house or any other place, witout taking the apparent risk of his implication in this case. Further there is no exlanation as to why the deceased will also accompany him to be burnt outside her father's house. Rather this suggest that the deceased herself was annoyed or frustrated with her father /complainant over some matter and wanted to demonstrate it and this is the reason why she had choosen the house of her father and had committed suicide just in front of the same.
55 Again one other material circumstance to be established by the prosecution for proving the offence U/S 302 IPC is the motive behind commission of the above said offence on the part of the accused. The motive in the instant case is being alleged to be the consistent dowry demand on the part of the accused from the deceased and her family members and also the consistent harassment and beatings caused and given by the accused for non-fulfillment of the above said demands. But here also, when the prosecution evidence led on record is examined, it is observed that the same is no sufficient to establish the above said motive. PW 2 Sh. Sher Singh, who has claimed himself to be the distant relative of the complainant/PW 5, 42 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar has clearly stated that he has no knowledge regarding the personal relations between the accused and the deceased and his depositions also do not suggest that he had ever visited the matrimonial house of the deceased during her life time or has witnessed any such demand of cruelty. PW 7 Sh. Manoj Bhati is the real brother of the deceased. Though he had made some vague depositions during his chief examination that there used to be some quarrel between the accused and the deceased before her death on account of dowry and deceased was also beaten by the accused, but these allegations are found to be vague in nature as no such specific instance has been told by this witness. Even otherwise in his cross-examination he has admitted that there was never any demand of dowry from the side of the accused directly from him. PW 6 Smt. Krishna Bhati, the mother of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile, as stated above. Though PW 8 Master Himanshu and PW 10 Baby Jyoti have made some vague depositions regarding the demand of some articles by the accused from the deceased and giving of some beatings by the accused to the deceased and also regarding some quarrels between them, but even these depositions made by them are found to be vague. Moreover, it has already been observed that these witnesses are child witnesses and were under 43 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar the influence of the complainant/PW 5 at the relevant timeof making their depositions and hence the cannot be given any weight. 56 Though complainant/PW 5 himself has made detailed depositions with regard to some demands of dowry and other articles by the accused and his family members and the causing of physical harassment to the deceased by the accused, but even his depositions are held to be quite vague. It cannot be ignored that the deceased was married with the accused in the year 1984 and the said incident has taken place in the year 1999 , i.e after a long period of about 15 years. There is no previous complaint in writing either from the deceased or from any of the above PWs on record to suggest that the above allegations of demand of dowry were ever made by the accused from the deceased or from the above PWs. The depositions of PW 5/complainant suggest that some articles and cash amount etc. given by him to the family of the accused were occasional gifts and there is no satisfactory evidence on record to suggest that the same were given on demand. There are also some contradictions in his statement on this account because at one place he has stated that the accused was demanding a new scooter in place of old scooter, but at other place he had stated that there was demand of cash and 44 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar motor cycle at the time of sagai. Even this demand was attributed to the father of the accused and not to the accused facing trial in this case. Therefore, it can also be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the alleged commission of the murder of the deceased by the accused and the Ld. Defence Counsel has rightly relied upon a judgment in case Ramgopal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1972 Crl L.J. 473(V 78 C 117)= AIR 1972 S.C. 656 to the effect that if the motive as a circumstance is put forward it must be fully established like any other incriminating circumstance.
57 In view of the above discussion I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/ S 302 IPC and deceased Smt. Lalita Bhati had committed suicide.
58 Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that if the offence U/ S 302 IPC is held to be not proved against the accused then the accused can be convicted U/ S 306 IPC. in view of the judgment in case of Virender Kumar Vs. State of U. P. JT 2007(2) S. C. 452, as the circumstances relating to section 306 IPC have been duly put to the accused during his examination U/ S 313 CrPC 45 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar and there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was being illtreated by the accused for insufficient dowry. Thouth the Ld. Defence Counsel has not controverted him on this legal aspect, but it is argued by him that even no case U/ S 306 IPC is made out against the accused from the record of the case. However, when the prosecution evidence is appreciated on this count, it is found that same is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty even for this offence as the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to prove that the accused has abetted or instigated the commission of the suicide by the deceased.
59 In terms of section 107 IPC a person can be said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing or 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 intentionally aids, by any act or illegal commission, the doing of that thing. It was held in the case of Sanju Vs State (2002)5 SCC 371 that words 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common 46 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is already held that the prosecution has not led on record any satisfactory evidence on record to establish that the deceased was being physically or mentally harassed by the accused consistently and to such an extent that she was forced to take the drastic step of commission of suicide. Further even if the depositions made by the above prosecution witnesses are taken to be true for a moment and it is presumed that there used to be some quarrels between the accused and the deceased before the above incident, but in view of the above propositions of the law laid down in the above said case the same cannot be said to be sufficient to establish any abetement or instigation on the part of the accused in driving the deceased to commit suicide. In this regard the Ld. Defence Counsel has also rightly relied upon a judgement in the case of Mehar Dass & Ors Vs State of Haryana, 2003, Crl. L.J. 2203 wherein there was no convincing evidence to conclude any mal-treatement of the deceased by the accused nor there was any complaint of ill-treatment given by the deceased to the police and there were only vague allegations made by the family members of the deceased regarding some demands of dowry, it was held that there was nothing to suggest that 47 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar the accused had created such circumstances for the deceased that she had been forced to end her life and the accused is entitled to be acquitted. He has also relied upon one other recent judgment in case Shahjada & Anr Vs State of West Bengal & Ors, 2009 Crl. L.J. (NOC) 169 (Cal.) where the victim was conscious when she was brought in the hospital but she did not complaint against any accused persons either with regard to torture or any unlawful demand which might have prompted her to commit suicide. It was held by their Lordships in the said case that the motive behind commission of suicide was not clear and the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the offence U/S 306 IPC also giving benefit of doubt. In the present case also no demand of any dowry and giving of any beatings has been alleged by the deceased in her dying declaration Ex. PW17/C or in the history of examination as told by her to PW9 and recorded in her MLC Ex. PW9/A. 60 Apart from the above, the depositions made by the complainant/PW5 Sh P S Bhati during his cross examination clearly suggest that the relations between the complainant's family and the deceased and the accused were not cordial due to some monetary disputes regasrding the purchase of a flat and the very fact that the deceased had choosen the house of her father/complainant and not 48 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar of the accused to commit suicide shows that she was having some grievances against the complainant and was annoyed or frustrated with her father.
61 Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has also not been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubts and the evidence led by the prosecution on record on this account lacks corroboration and reliability and the accused is entitled to be acquitted for this offence giving him the benefit of doubt.
62 Now coming to the charges U/S 406/498A IPC framed against the accused, it is already held by this court that the allegations of demand of dowry and the causing of any physical and mental harassment to the deceased by the accused on account of non- fulfillment of the same have not been established by the prosecution on record by any satisfactory evidence and the evidence led by the prosecution on record in this regard has been found to be vague and lacking corroboration and reliability. It has further been held by this court that the commission of the above suicide by the deceased was without any instigation or abetement by the accused and hence it 49 State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar cannot be said that there was any willful conduct on the part of the accused which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S 498A IPC is also held to be not established by the prosecution by any satisfactory evidence.
63 As far as the offence U/S 406 IPC is concerned, though some vague allegations of demand and giving of some articles have been made by the complainant/PW5 on record and though a list of alleged dowry articles given at the time of marriage of the deceased and accused has also been proved on record as Ex. PW5/D, but there is no satisfactory evidence on record to conclude that these dowry articles were ever handed over by the complainant or any other family member of the complainant to the accused and further there is also no evidence to prove that they were ever demanded back. It can also not be ignored that the marriage between the deceased and the accused was performed about 15 years before the death of the deceased and by the time of incident most of the articles given as gifts or istridhan to the deceased might have already perished or consumed. Hence, there is also no, evidence on record to hold the accused guilty for the offence U/S 406 IPC.
50
State Vs Satinder Kumar Bhati U/Ss 302/406/498-A IPC PS Lajpat Nagar 64 In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges U/S 302/406/498A IPC framed against the accused or to prove the guilt of the accused for offence punishable U/s 306 IPC. Accused is, therefore, acquitted of all the charges. Since the accused is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and his surety is discharged.
File be consigned to RR.
Announced in the open (M.K.NAGPAL) court on 16.04.2009 ASJ(FTC)/NEW DELHI