Delhi District Court
State vs Jawwad Tariq on 24 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DHEERAJ MOR : ASJ-02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-000064-2012
Sessions Case No. 27262/2016
State vs. Jawwad Tariq & others
FIR No. : 36/2012
Police Station : Lahori Gate
Under Sections : 498A/406/304B/302/34 IPC
1. Sessions Case No. 27262/2012
2. Date of commission of the 15.10.2010 to 19.04.2012
offence
3. Name and address of the 1. Jawwad Tariq S/o Late Sh.
accused Mohd. Tariq
2. Samar Seeman W/o Late
Mohd. Tariq
3. Talat Tariq S/o Mohd.
Tariq
4. Junaid S/o Late Mohd.
Tariq
5. Fawwad S/o Late Mohd.
Tariq
All R/o H. No. 130, Gali
Masjid Tewar Khan, Delhi-6.
4. Offence complained of 498A/406/304B/302/34 IPC
5. Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty & claimed
trial.
6. Final Order Acquitted
7. Date of institution 14.08.2012
8. Date of order 24.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Jawwad Tariq, Samar Seeman, Talat Tariq, Junaid Tariq and Fawwad Tariq have been sent to face trial in the FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 1/72 present case.
2. The criminal machinery in this case was set into motion on receipt of information at PS Lahori Gate at 11.15 am on 19.04.2012 regarding admission of Iffat Praveen at Lok Nayak Hospital by her husband Jawwad Tariq with the complaint of consuming some poisonous substance at their home. It was reduced in writing vide DD No. 15A and it was handed over to ASI Ranbir Singh for necessary action. He along with Ct. Anil reached said hospital and collected MLC of injured Iffat Parveen who was found admitted in the hospital with alleged history of unknown poisoning at home address at around 9.30 am on 19.04.2012. At about 4.45 pm, doctor declared her unfit for statement. On inquiry, it came to notice that Iffat Praveen was married about 1½ years back. Based on MLC and having regard to the suspicious circumstances, SHO PS Lahori Gate informed SDM Kotwali.
3. At about 11 pm, SDM Kotwali Sh. Rakesh Sharma recorded statement of the complainant Sh. Malik Sikander Hyat to the effect that he has four children. His daughter Iffat Hyat aged about 27 years was his second child and he got her married with Jawwad Tariq on 15.10.2010 at Delhi. He had asserted that at the time of marriage there was no demand from the groom side but with his own will, he gave some household articles including electrical goods refrigerator, washing machine, double bed, steel almirah etc. and some brass utensils. After marriage, his daughter was having cordial relations with her in-laws. After sometime of marriage, his daughter came to her parental home and told that her mother-in-law Smt. Samar Seeman told her that her parents had not given gas stove and cylinder. On this, her elders said that FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 2/72 gas stove was not given as they did not want to get their kitchen separated. After this, her in-laws started taunting her for not giving gas stove. Thereafter, this issue got lost in oblivion.
4. He had further alleged that after 1½ to 2 months his daughter again came to her parental home and told that her mother-in-law and husband said that her parents did not give LCD to her. Then his younger brother Sh. Malik Shokat Hyat gifted LCD to her daughter. He had further alleged that thereafter from time to time, husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter kept taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry in marriage. Thereafter, his daughter informed them that her in-laws were making demand of Microwave which they fulfilled. On 25.02.2012, his daughter gave birth to a female child. On her birth, husband and mother-in-law of her daughter started crying. He had asserted that then his wife pacified them. In-laws of her daughter did not take care of the child. Daily in the evening, his wife used to go to the matrimonial home of his daughter to take care of child and return to her home in the morning. He had further alleged that on the occasion of chuchak (sixth day of the birth of child) they gave articles worth Rs.15,000-20,000/- and took her to parental home but the groom side did not even open the goods and for about 20-22 days, no one from groom side came to their home to meet their daughter.
5. He had further alleged that on 17.04.2012, her daughter called him on phone stating that her husband was beating her and her sister-in-law was also with him and her two brothers-in-law namely Junaid and Fawwad were taunting to beat her for not doing household chores. On this, his wife, sister-in- law and three sisters went to the matrimonial house of his FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 3/72 daughter and made them understand to live peacefully. However, his son-in-law told them that they wanted a boy not a girl and misbehaved with them. On 18.04.2012 at about 1 am, they received a call that their son-in-law suffered heart attack and on hearing this, they all went to LNJP hospital where they found him admitted in causality of the hospital and doctors informed that everything was normal. Thereafter, they dropped him to his house. On 19.04.2012 at about 10 am, his son-in-law told his sister Shugufta that his daughter had consumed some poisonous substance. On hearing this, they started for the house of his daughter and on the way in the gali Samoshan, they saw that brother-in-law(devar) of his daughter namely Junaid was trying to board his daughter in a rickshaw. They took her to LNJP hospital where she was under the treatment of the doctors. He suspected that husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and two younger brothers-in law of her daughter had given some poisonous substance to her. Based on the said statement of the complainant, the present FIR u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was lodged at PS Lahori Gate.
6. Its investigation was entrusted to ASI Ranbir Singh. On 19.04.2012, IO seized Gastric lavage of Iffat Praveen. On 19.04.2012, crime team inspected place of incident i.e, house No. 130, Gali Masjid Tewar Khan, Delhi-110006. During search, from bedroom of the accused Jawwad Tariq on second floor, one open packet containing 38 Phenyl tablets and one sealed bottle of the paracetamol syrup were seized. On 20.04.2012, SDM Kotwali in presence of IO recorded statements of Ms. Nikhat Malik, mother of Iffat Praveen and Ms. Nasreen Malik, aunt (chachi) of Iffat Praveen. Their statements were materially on the FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 4/72 lines of the complaint with certain variations and additions. On 21.04.2012 at 10.45 am, an information regarding death of Iffat Praveen during her treatment at Lok Nayak Hospital was received at PS Lahori Gate and it was reduced in writing vide DD No. 12A. Her postmortem was got conducted by SDM Kotwali at Maulana Azad Medical College Mortuary. Her viscera were preserved and handed over to SI Pawan Yadav. On 22.04.12, accused Jawwad Tariq was arrested. He disclosed that on 19.04.2012, a quarrel took place between him and Iffat on the issue of birth of girl child and he along with his mother forced her to drink some insecticide which was kept in their house.
7. Further investigation was handed over to Inspector Amrit Raj. On 24.04.2012, complainant handed over the list of dowry articles. During investigation, accused Jawwad further disclosed that he on the asking of his mother, he bought insecticide bottle from the Gali and in the morning of 19.04.2012, he with the help of his mother mixed insecticide in the water and made Iffat drink it. On 24.04.2012, from his bedroom, he got recovered the plastic bottle containing left over poisonous liquid on which Dichlorvos 76% EC Nuvan and Nuvan in English and Hindi respectively were written. It was taken into police possession. On 25.04.2012, on the pointing out of the accused Jawwad, the dowry articles as per list were seized from the house of accused persons on the identification of the complainant. On 01.06.2012, postmortem report of the deceased was obtained. On 28.06.2012, viscera and other recovered exhibits were deposited in FSL, Rohini for opinion. On 16.07.2012, an application for obtaining opinion regarding external injuries on the body of deceased was sent to Department FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 5/72 of Forensic Medicine/MAMC. On 17.07.2012, cash memos of LCD and Micro Wave oven were seized. Call detail records of mobile phones of all the five accused persons were obtained. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s 498A/406/ 304B/302/34 IPC was filed in the court of Ld. MM against all the five accused persons on 20.07.2012 with the noting that supplementary charge-sheet containing the FSL result would be filed after its receipt.
8. After compliance of Section 207 CrPC, vide order dated 07.08.2012 of the Ld. MM, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and vide order dated 14.08.2012 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, the present case was assigned to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court for its trial.
9. Vide order dated 05.10.2012, all the five accused persons were discharged for the offence of 'dowry death' punishable u/s 304B IPC on the ground that there are no allegations of demand of dowry coupled with subjecting the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. It further noted that allegation of harassment relates to giving birth to girl child and not in connection to demand of dowry. However, in accordance with said order, all the five accused persons were charged for the offences punishable u/s 302/406/498A/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 40 witnesses.
11. PW1 Sh. Malik Sikander Hayat is complainant and he has deposed on the lines of his complaint dated 19.04.2012 which he proved as Ex.PW1/A. He has proved the list of dowry FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 6/72 articles given by him in marriage of his deceased daughter as Ex. PW1/A1 to A5. He has deposed that said list was seized by IO on 24.04.2012 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. In addition to his complaint, he has testified that during treatment his daughter expired on 21.04.2012 and later they came to know that all accused persons forcibly administered poisonous substance to her because of which she died. He has further deposed that on 25.04.2012, some of the articles, as per the list given by him, were recovered by the police from the matrimonial house of his daughter at the instance of the accused Jawwad Tariq and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. He handed over list of remaining articles and copy of Nikahnama along with Hindi translation to the IO which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G. List of remaining articles running into two pages is Ex.PW1/H. He has deposed that he also handed over the bill of LCD and oven to IO which he seized vide memo Ex. PW1/K. Bill of LCD is Ex. PW1/L and photocopy of microwave oven bill is Mark A. The recovered dowry articles were released to him on superdari. He has further deposed that accused persons ran away from the hospital after getting her admitted in the hospital. He has further deposed that the accused Jawwad got recovered a plastic bottle containing some chemical/pesticide from his house and it was seized by the police.
12. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused Jawwad and Samar Seeman, PW1 has denied the suggestion that Jawwad and his entire family were happy on account of arrival of deceased Iffat in their house and their relations were quite cordial. He has denied the suggestion that they throughout compelled Jawwad and deceased to have an independent house FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 7/72 and to live separately, though deceased never wanted to live separately. He has admitted that Jawwad along with 15-20 of his relatives including his sisters and their respective husbands namely Nadeem, Sualin and Samar Seeman visited their house on the chala ceremony. He denied the suggestion that chala ceremony was performed on 23.10.2010 and not in December, 2010. He has admitted that LCD was presented by them on chala ceremony. He has admitted that the dowry list if prepared at the time of marriage, same is signed by both the parties i.e., bride and bridegroom's families. He has admitted that the list Ex. PW1/A1 to A5 is not the same list which was prepared by them at the time of marriage and handed over to family of the accused Jawwad Tariq. He has admitted that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW1/A that there was no demand of dowry from the side of accused persons at the time of marriage. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where the period of demand of LCD is alleged as 1½ - 2 months after marriage and not 2-3 days as stated before the Court. He has further deposed that he also gave other articles with the said LCD i.e., water purifier, wall clock, crockery (lemon set) etc. His attention was drawn to his statement Ex. PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded. He saw Mark A from the judicial file and admitted that there was no mention of word bill/invoice written on it and moreover, it was a photocopy. He admitted that there was no name mentioned on it or on its back side pertaining to name of any member of his family or himself regarding purchase of any alleged articles.
13. In his further cross examination, PW1 admitted that Iffat and Jawwad had visited Ajmer-E-Sharif Dargah in February, 2011 for taking blessing. He has admitted that thereafter, they FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 8/72 had gone to Agra in March, 2011. He has volunteered that they used to visit his house every Saturday for dinner and sometimes, sisters of Jawwad along with their respective husband also accompanied them. He has admitted that they always gave respect to them. He has admitted that his wife had attended first wedding anniversary of the accused Jawwad celebrated by him on 15.10.2011 in his house. He has admitted that his daughter was got admitted in private nursing home for delivery from her matrimonial home and she was accompanied by his wife, her husband and mother-in-law. He has admitted that Jawwad remained present in the hospital with Iffat from day of admission till she was discharged. He has admitted that he did not pay even a single penny towards the expenses regarding the aforesaid delivery in the said nursing home. He has further admitted that Iffat was taken to her matrimonial home along with female baby by Jawwad. He has admitted that there was no annoyance on the part of mother-in-law of Iffat or any other family members on the arrival of new born baby. He has admitted that his wife visited the matrimonial house of his daughter after the birth of baby of her own. He has admitted that he was admitted in B.L. Kapoor Hospital, Pusa Road for 2 days i.e., 26.07.2011 and 27.07.2011 and accused Jawwad remained with him during this period. He has admitted that he was not present at the house of Jawwad when Iffat had consumed poison at 10 am. He has further deposed that he had stated to the police that accused persons ran away from the hospital after getting his daughter admitted in it. He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/A wherein it was not so stated.
14. In his cross-examination, PW1 has further deposed FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 9/72 that he does not remember the exact date of Chhati ceremony, however, it was duly performed by Jawwad at his house. He has further deposed that since the said ceremony was attended by ladies only, he did not attend it. He has admitted that his wife and his sister-in-law Nasreen brought his deceased daughter Iffat with minor child to their house after Chhati ceremony. He has further deposed that he does not remember the date when Jawwad had visited their house to take back Iffat and the minor child. He has further deposed that on 19.04.2012 after hearing the news of consumption of poison by his daughter they reached hospital. He has further deposed that it might be correct that Jawwad had got Iffat admitted in the hospital. He did not remember if any consent regarding shifting of deceased from emergency to ICU was taken from him or not. He has further deposed that he could not even tell if Junaid gave consent in this regard. He did not know if the doctor attending on deceased in emergency ward on 19.04.2012 asked the family members of Jawwad to bring the poison consumed by the deceased. He also did not know if Imran (Jawwad Mama's son), Sualin (Jija of Jawwad) and Fawwad (brother of Jawwad) produced the said poison taken by the deceased before the doctor. He has admitted that the matrimonial house of deceased Iffat was quite congested. He has denied the suggestion that he and his family were responsible for the said unfortunate suicide of the deceased Iffat.
15. The remaining three accused persons adopted cross- examination of PW1 conducted on behalf of the accused persons namely Jawwad and Samar Seeman.
16. PW2 Ms. Nikhat Malik is mother of the deceased and she has deposed on the lines of the testimony of PW1. She FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 10/72 has deposed that in the marriage they gave dowry articles. She has testified that at the time of marriage, no demand was made by her in-laws but after marriage, her in laws including mother-in- law, sister-in-law, husband and both brothers-in-law demanded oven and LCD and they gave the same. She has further deposed that after giving these articles, her in laws taunted her daughter that she had not brought the complete dinner set. She has further testified that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to quarrel with her daughter and harassed and taunted her that she had not brought nothing. She has further deposed that after deceased gave birth to a female child, her mother-in-law immediately left the Nursing Home and only Jawwad remained there. She has deposed that thereafter, no one from her in-laws visited the nursing home. She has further deposed that her daughter was mistreated by her in-laws after she gave birth to a female child. She has testified that on 17.04.2012, her daughter informed her husband on telephone that her in-laws were beating her and that Talat was pulling her hair. She has further deposed that her husband asked her and other ladies of the house to visit the matrimonial house of his daughter and to inquire about the matter and when they visited their house, all accused persons fought with them and taunted them. But they pacified them and returned to their home.
17. PW2 has further deposed that on 18.04.2012 at about 7 pm her sister-in-law Rafat received a telephone call from Jawwad and he quarreled with her on telephone. She has further deposed that on the same day, in the night at about 1 am, her sister-in-law Rafat received a telephone call from Fawwad (devar of Iffat) who commented that khush ho jao tumhari bewa bhatiji FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 11/72 ko lakhpati bana diya sara kuchh iske naam kar diya hai. She has further deposed that they became terrified and immediately rushed to the matrimonial home of their daughter and took Jawwad to hospital as they were told that he had a heart attack. She has further deposed that after discharge, Jawwad returned from the hospital and abused them and said ab to ladki ho gayi apne nana se le kar aaye. She has further deposed that they further taunted that her father (father of Iffat) had so many shops and one of the shops should be given to her daughter. She has further deposed that when Jawwad started abusing them, they left for their house and reached there at about 4 pm. She has further deposed that at about 10 pm, when they were sleeping, a telephone call was received, they were informed that her daughter had consumed some poisonous material and they went running to her matrimonial home. She has further deposed that her daughter was being lifted into rickshaw by her devar and one more person. Her devrani and nanad sat in the rickshaw and accompanied to hospital. She has further deposed that after admitting her in the hospital, all the accused persons ran away from there. She has testified that her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by SDM on 20.04.2012 bearing her signatures at point A.
18. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused Jawwad and Samar Seeman, PW2 has admitted that the custody of girl child of the deceased is with the accused persons. She has admitted that Chala ceremony is that ceremony when the husband for the first time visits the house of his wife after marriage. She has admitted that Jawwad visited their house along with her daughter Iffat after marriage for the first time on the eve FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 12/72 of Chala ceremony and it must be after 15-20 days from the date of marriage. She could not admit or deny if Chala ceremony had taken place on 23.10.2010. She has volunteered that they gave LCD on that occasion. She has admitted that the said LCD was installed in the room of her daughter and the same was removed by the police from that very room after her daughter expired. She has admitted that they had given microwave (small) at the time of marriage, which was also mentioned in the dowry list given by them to the police. She has deposed that the first demand of LCD was raised on 23.12.2010 and the same was purchased from Darya Ganj but she could not tell the name of shop. She has deposed that she had stated to the SDM in her statement Ex.PW2/A as well as to the police that after the marriage, in-laws of her deceased daughter, including mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband and both the brothers-in-law demanded Oven and LCD and they gave the same. She was confronted with Ex. PW2/A and Mark A i.e. statement u/s 161 CrPC where it was not so recorded. She has further deposed that she had stated to the police u/s 161 CrPC and to the SDM in her statement Ex. PW2/A that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to quarrel with her daughter, harassed and taunted her that she had not brought anything or that she was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. She was confronted with her said previous statements where it was not so recorded. She has further deposed that she had also stated to the police that after giving these articles, her in-laws taunted her daughter that she had not brought the complete dinner set. She was confronted with her said previous statements where it was not so recorded.
19. In her further cross-examination, PW2 has admitted FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 13/72 that she had stated to the police that they had given the dinner set of their own at the time of marriage and there was no demand. She has further deposed that she had stated before the police and the SDM that they also taunted her that she had not been given share out of the property of her Nana. She was again confronted with her said previous statements where it was not so recorded. She has further deposed that Iffat remained in the hospital for delivery for three days along with her husband. She has admitted that they did not pay any expense on delivery of the baby born in the hospital and the entire expenses were borne by Jawwad. She has admitted that Chhati ceremony was celebrated in the house of his son-in-law on the eve of birth of a new baby and she along with her family members attended the same. She has further deposed that she had stated before the police and the SDM that on 17.04.2012, her daughter informed her husband on telephone that her in-laws were beating her and Talat was pulling her hair. She has further deposed that she also told to the police and SDM that her husband asked her and other ladies of the house to visit the matrimonial house of her daughter to inquire about the matter and when they visited their house, all the accused persons fought with them and taunted that "ek to beti paida ho gayi hame beta chahiye tha tumhare yahan aaisa hi hota hai kaya ki ladhki ko khali bhej diya". She was confronted with her said previous statements where it was not so recorded. She has further deposed that she had stated before the police and the SDM that on 18.04.2012 at about 7 pm her sister-in-law received a telephone call from Jawwad and he quarreled with her. She was confronted with her said previous statements where it was not so recorded. She has further deposed that on return from hospital after his FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 14/72 discharge on 18.04.2012, accused Jawwad abused them and said ab to ladhki ho gayi apne nana se le kar aaye and they further taunted that her father had so many shops and one of the shops should be given to her daughter. She was confronted with her previous statements where it was not so recorded.
20. In her further cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that the deceased was admitted in LNJP hospital on 19.04.2012 at about 10 am and she immediately reached in the said hospital. She has admitted that deceased Iffat was in the ICU. She has deposed that except devar of Iffat she did not find any other person. She could not admit or deny that accused Jawwad was admitted in the same hospital on 19.04.2012 at 10.51 am. She could not even admit or deny if accused Samar Seeman was also admitted in the same hospital on 20.04.2012 at 2.46 am. She has admitted that previously, they had not filed any police complaint, court complaint, any litigation or any legal notice on the accused persons except the present complaint. She has further deposed that achwani is given in breakfast to the ladies who deliver the baby and it comprises of dry fruits mixed up in the milk. She has admitted that the achwani was always served to deceased Iffat by her mother-in-law in morning in those days till her chhati was solemnized. She admitted that her mother-in-law served good and healthy food to Iffat and her minor child and further, a Dai was appointed by her in-laws for oil message of Iffat and her minor child.
21. In her further cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that on 11.03.2012 she along with her devrani Nasreen Malik visited the house of Jawwad in order to bring deceased Iffat and her minor child, since Chhati ceremony had already performed FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 15/72 on 09.03.2012. She admitted that she along with her devrani Nasreen Malik, accused Samar Seeman and Talat prepared gond makhane, achwani and satora halwa for Iffat and they brought gond makhene given by Samar Seeman for deceased and also brought deceased Iffat and her minor child to her parental home. She has admitted that on 08.04.2012, Samar Seeman gave a telephonic call to her and asked her to send Iffat and minor child. On the said call, she asked her to send Jawwad so that he may take Iffat and minor child to his house and on the same day i.e. on 08.04.2012, Jawwad came to their house and took them to his house. She has admitted that as and when her daughter along with her husband visited their house, they always were found in affectionate mood and couple was quite loving each other. She has denied the suggestion that her husband misbehaved with Jawwad on mobile phone on 17.04.2012 and used abusive, vulgar and indecent language against Jawwad and his mother resulting in the loss of his mental equilibrium and thereafter, his health deteriorating and he was admitted in LNJP hospital on 19.04.2012.
22. The remaining three accused persons adopted cross- examination of PW2 conducted on behalf of the accused persons namely Jawwad and Samar Seeman.
23. PW3 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, CMO, LNJP hospital has proved the MLC dated 19.04.2012 of Ifat Praveen W/o Jawwad Tariq prepared by Dr. Anupam whose present whereabouts were not known. He identified signatures and handwriting of Dr. Anupam on the said MLC as he had worked under his supervision. The said MLC is Ex.PW3/A.
24. In his cross-examination, PW3 has admitted that as FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 16/72 per record, patient was brought by her husband Jawwad Tariq to the hospital and there was no injury on her body.
25. PW4 Dr. Shishir Kumar, Student PG-III, LNJP Hospital has deposed that on 19.04.2012, he had prepared the death summary of Ifat Praveen aged about 29 years. He has further deposed that deceased was brought to the hospital with a history of taking some unknown poisonous substance at home and she was presented with complaint of persistent vomiting and was in altered sensorium. He has further deposed that the cause of her death was query of organo phosphorus poisoning with cardio respiratory arrest. He has proved the said death summary report as Ex. PW4/A.
26. In his cross-examination, PW4 has deposed that he conducted physical examination of the patient at the initial stage and he did not find any obvious injury on her body. The Court observed that MLC of deceased Ex.PW3/A does not bear signature of PW4. On this, he stated that though he had examined the patient initially but summary was prepared by some Junior Resident. He has deposed that in case the doctor attending on the patient finds any injury on the person of the patient, the same is mentioned on the MLC prepared by the said doctor. He has further deposed that when the blood pressure of a patient brought in the casualty is not recordable and the pulse is feeble, the patient is said to be in state of shock. He admitted that the veins of the said patient get constricted. He has further deposed that in case the poisonous substance consumed by a patient is corrosive in nature, the mucous membrane of the lips gets swollen. He has further deposed that they can predict from the swelling of the lips that it was due to the chemical injury caused to the patient by FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 17/72 ingestion of a poisonous substance. He has admitted that when the BP of a patient is not recordable, the doctor attending on him tries multiple I.V. (Intra venous) punctures to gain intra venous access to administer medicine. He has deposed that the most common I.V. sites are the inside of the arms and the dorsum of the hand. He has further deposed that triple lumen catheter (Central line) is installed on the right-hand side of the neck to gain I.V. access when the other I.V. sites are inaccessible. The question put to him that when the doctor tries the I.V. puncture, the blood sometimes gets collected in the sub cutaneous tissues and it may also give an impression of an abrasion was disallowed by the Court. He has admitted that organo phosphorus is a commonly available insect killer at home.
27. PW5 Dr. Anju Rani, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College has deposed that on 19.04.2012 she conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Iffat Parveen W/o Jawwad Tariq. She has further deposed that the deceased was allegedly admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 19.04.2012 at about 10 am with history of unknown poisoning at home address. She has further deposed that she remained unconscious and died during treatment on 21.04.2012. She has further deposed that (as per the death summary) the deceased was diagnosed in LNJP hospital as a case of organo phosphorus poisoning and the cause of death was given as organo phosphorus poisoning with cardio respiratory arrest. She has testified that on external examination, the built of body was average, moderately nourished, eyes were closed, cornea hazy and right conjunctiva was congested, sub conjunctival hemorrhage present in the left eye and blood-stained discharge FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 18/72 was coming from both nostrils. Healed surgical mark 18 cm long was present over outer front of right arm. Healed surgical mark, 14 cm long present over right inguinal region. Another healed surgical mask, 18 cm long present over outer front of right leg.
28. PW5 has further deposed that she found following twelve injuries on her external examination: -
1. Both lips swollen and reddened towards right angle of mouth, contusion present over mucosal surface of both lips.
2. Multiple crescentic abrasions with contusion of surrounding area were present over right side of neck in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm, 3.5 cm away from midline. Each abrasion was measuring .8 cm in size and reddish in colour.
3. Contusion, reddish blue 2 cm x 1.5 cm, present over outer front of right elbow.
4. Contusion, reddish blue 1.5 cm x 1 cm was present over inner front of right elbow.
5. Contusion, reddish blue 4 cm x 3 cm was present over front of right middle forearm, 14 cm below right elbow joint.
6. Contusion, reddish blue 4 cm x 3 cm was present over front of lower part of right forearm involving wrist joint, 7 cm below injury No. 5.
7. Contusion, reddish blue 2 cm x 2 cm present over front of left elbow.
8. Contusion, reddish blue 14 cm x 4 cm present obliquely over upper part of left forearm, 1 cm below elbow joint and 12 cm above left wrist join.
9. Contusion, reddish blue 2.5 cm x 2 cm, present over front of upper part of left forearm 3.5 cm away from injury No. 8.
10. Contusion, reddish blue 1 cm x 1 cm present over front of right upper part of leg 1.5 cm below knee joint.
11. Reddish brown scabbed abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm present over dorsum of left foot at base of great toe.
12. Multiple brownish red scabbed abrasions were FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 19/72 present over first and second toes of left foot .5 x .5 cm each.
29. PW5 has further deposed that on internal examination of the body, neck showed effusion of blood in the sub cutaneous tissue and sternocleidomastoid on right side. Rest structures of neck were intact. She has further deposed that she prepared postmortem report dated 21.04.2012 and the same is Ex.PW5/A. She has further deposed that opinion regarding cause of death was kept pending for want of viscera report. On 16.07.2012, she replied the queries made by the IO regarding nature of injuries Nos. 1 to 12 mentioned in her postmortem report and she replied to the query. She replied that injuries Nos. 1 to 12 except No. 2 were caused by blunt object /weapon and injury No. 2 appeared to her to be inflicted by finger nails. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Her report in this regard is Ex. PW5/B. She has further deposed that on 26.03.2014, final opinion regarding cause of death was given by her after receipt of viscera report. She has testified that as per her opinion, death in this case occurred because of DICHLOROVOS poisoning which was an ORGANO PHOSPHORUS COMPOUND. She has further deposed that all the injuries were ante mortem that were 2-3 days old in duration. She has further deposed that injury Nos. 1 to 12 except No. 2 were caused by blunt object and injury No. 2 appeared to be inflicted by finger nail. She has further deposed that the injuries were consistent with being caused in an assault. Her said opinion running into three pages is Ex. PW5/C.
30. In her cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that she had prepared five papers of postmortem report and one diagram sheet. She has further deposed that to prepare postmortem report FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 20/72 Ex.PW5/A she was only provided with the inquest papers including MLC and case history (death summary) along with the dead body of the deceased Iffat Parveen. She has admitted that she had not seen the case history of the deceased Iffat Parveen while conducting the postmortem and subsequently at the time of preparing the report. She has admitted that at the time of conducting postmortem examination, she had not taken photograph of injuries or have done videography. When a question was put to her that if it is correct that when the blood pressure of the patient cannot be recorded and pulse is feeble the patient can go into the state of shock, she replied that the question was not related to the postmortem. Similar was her reply to the questions that if it is correct that when B.P. and heart beat goes low, the veins of a patient get constricted and that if it is correct that when a patient is brought in emergency with low blood pressure and feeble pulse, the attending doctors attempt multiple I.V. punctures to find a vein.
31. In her further cross-examination, PW5 has deposed that she has been practicing for last six years and during internships, she had worked in the OPD but she had not prepared any MLC during the said tenure. She has admitted that when multiple punctures are tried on a patient by the attending doctors, the blood from the veins leak into the subcutaneous tissues. She has volunteered that but there are fixed sites for I.V. access. She has admitted that lips have mucus membrane. She had volunteered that Mucus membrane covers the lips over inner aspect. She has admitted that mucosal membrane of the lips gets swelled due to the chemical injury caused by organo phosphorus and like poisons. She has admitted that CVP line or triple lumen FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 21/72 is inserted in the right sub-clavian vein. On a question put to her if it is correct that when other I.V. sites are inaccessible the doctors insert triple lumen or CVP line, she replied that it is to be commented by a physician. The same was her response to the question if it is correct that through this CVP line, B.P. of a patient is recorded and the drugs are administered through I.V. She has admitted that CVP line when inserted did leave a mark on a patient.
32. In her further cross-examination, PW5 on being shown injury No. 1 in column titled "external examination" in postmortem report, admitted that the injury could be due to chemical injury. On being shown injury No. 2 in the said column, she has deposed that it is not possible by CVP line because the produce needle like puncture mark not crescentic one which is commonly seen in finger nail marks. She has admitted that it is not only the finger nails which cause the crescentic abrasion. She has denied the suggestion that the injury mentioned at Sr. No. 2 was due to CVP line insertion and not due to finger nails. She has volunteered that CVP line mark are basically produced over veins and do not produce multiple puncture mark in such a big area. She has denied the suggestion that she was giving false explanation only to support the report which she has given. She has denied the suggestion that the injury Nos.3 to 9 have been caused due to multiple I.V. punctures by the doctors attending the deceased. She has volunteered that if a patient would be in a state of shock, then the attending physician would not have tried multiple vein puncture and would have opted for CVP line on urgent basis. She has admitted that she had not treated deceased Iffat Parveen and she was also not present when the MLC was FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 22/72 prepared. She has admitted that the multiple I.V. punctures were not tried on the deceased Iffat Parveen by the attending doctors in her presence. She has admitted that when the postmortem was assigned to her and she had gone through the inquest papers, she knew the case pertains to the death by unknown poison. She has admitted that in the entire postmortem report Ex.PW5/A, she had not mentioned anywhere the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. She has denied the suggestion that the injuries at Sr. Nos. 2 to 12 were treatment injuries. She has denied the suggestion that points 2 to 9 in the diagram are I.V. sites. She has volunteered that only few could be I.V. sites such as injuries at 4, 6 and 7 are I.V. sites. On a question put to this witness that would it be correct to say that point 4, 6 and 7 in the diagram annexed with the postmortem report are I.V. sites and the alleged injuries were ecchymosis in subcutaneous tissues, she replied that possibilities could not be ruled out. She has volunteered that in case ecchymosis due to I.V. access, there would be presence of puncture marks over venous sites which are not seen in case of contusion. She has denied the suggestion that Injuries 3 to 9 in the diagram were due to ecchymosis due to I.V. puncture in subcutaneous tissue and not due to assault injuries.
33. In her further cross-examination, PW5 has deposed that they could have given the nature of injuries at the first instance of preparation of postmortem report Ex.PW5/A, though it was not given in the said report. She denied the suggestion that since the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. PW5/A were treatment injuries and not assault injuries, the same had been deliberately excluded from the postmortem report. She has admitted that the doctor attending the patient in OPD must FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 23/72 mention the injuries, scars or any other mark etc. in the MLC. She has volunteered that there are some injuries which do not surface on very first day. She has further testified that the blood leak into the subcutaneous tissues only after the veins are ruptured or are punctured. She could not say whether the drugs were administered to the deceased through I.V. drips throughout her treatment or she remained unconscious during that period. She has admitted that there was no rupture wound on the lips of deceased. She has admitted that there would have been a rupture of mucosal membrane and frenulum had there been assault on the lips. She has admitted that she could not say whether the deceased had consumed poison herself or was made to consume the poison. She has volunteered that there were findings on the body of deceased as mentioned in the post mortem report which were suggestive of being assaulted. She has admitted that she had not given this explanation in her report Ex. PW5/A dated 21.04.2012.
34. In her further cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that the history of the deceased did not mention anywhere about the foul play and only in those cases, postmortem is conducted by a medical board consisting of three or more doctors. She has admitted that exact age of the wound could not be ascertained as to whether it was one day, two days or three days old. She has admitted that she had not mentioned as to whether the alleged injuries/contusion/abrasion were arterial or venous in nature. She has volunteered that most of the contusions were due to venous trauma and abrasions were due to breach in the superficial layers of skin as defined in standard text books. She has denied the suggestion that the breach of skin as mentioned in Ex. PW5/A FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 24/72 under column IX was due to the insertion of I.V. Drips. She has admitted that the breach of skin in a patient can also be due to I.V. drips. She has admitted that in the entire postmortem report Ex. PW5/A, subsequent opinion Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C, she had not mentioned even a single puncture mark due to I.V. drips over the body of deceased. She has admitted that they must mention the cause and nature of injuries in the postmortem report. She has admitted that the same have not been mentioned by her in the postmortem report Ex. PW5/A.
35. In her further cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that the bed history Ex.PW7/A mentions that the deceased was administered with CVP line on the right side of neck. She has admitted that she had not mentioned in her entire postmortem report Ex.PW5/A and subsequent opinions Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C about the puncture marks caused by CVP line on the right side of neck of deceased. She has admitted that her opinion in postmortem report Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C about the puncture marks caused by CVP line on the right side of neck of deceased. She has admitted that the injury at Sr. No. 2 in column No. IX could also be due to reasons other than finger nails. She has further deposed that the possibility of injury No.2 due to CVP line could not be ruled out. She has further deposed that she was not provided with the treatment sheets / bed history Ex.PW7/A of the deceased at the time of postmortem. She has admitted that the injury No.2 mentioned in her postmortem report Ex.PW5/A could be due to the insertion of CVP line as mentioned in the bed history. She has admitted that she had not examined the injuries microscopically and had seen the same through bare eyes. She has admitted that the contusions mentioned in the postmortem FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 25/72 report were venous in origin and were not arterial in nature. She has admitted that there was no spouting of blood in the injuries. She has further deposed that the edges of the injuries could not be distincted out since they were diffused. She could not comment as to whether there was inflammation in any of the injuries mentioned in the report or not. She has deposed that it is possible that in case, a microscopic examination of the injuries was conducted, it could have been stated as to whether the injuries were punctured wounds or not. She has volunteered that the puncture wounds can be ascertained by bare eye look grossly. She admitted that she is not aware as to on which portion of the body, the I.V. drips were administered to the deceased at the time of her treatment. She has admitted that contusions were effusion of blood. Her further cross-examination was deferred on 04.11.2015 and thereafter, it was never concluded.
36. PW6 Ms. Safhia Rehman is neighbor of the accused persons. She has deposed that Iffat was wife of the accused Jawwad Tariq and she was residing with accused persons in her neighbor. She has deposed that she knows nothing about the present case and had not seen any incident pertaining to the present case. She has further testified that nothing was visible from her house if anything happens inside the house of accused persons as there was no window in the wall of her house towards the side of their house. She has further deposed that she had not seen any accused persons giving any beating to Ifat on any date.
37. She was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she denied that accused Jawwad along with his mother Samar used to quarrel FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 26/72 with Iffat or that she used to hear the noise of said quarrel inside her house. She further denied that accused persons Talat, Fawwad and Junaid used to quarrel with Iffat. She further denied that after birth of female child to Iffat in February, 2012, accused persons started quarreling excessively or they used to quarrel with Ifat up to late night. She further denied that on 19.04.2012 in the morning at about 9/9.30 am she heard the loud noise of quarrel going on between Iffat and accused persons namely Jawwad and Samar. She has further denied that she on peeping through window of her house, she saw that accused Jawwad, Samar, Talat, Junaid and Fawwad were feeding water to Iffat jointly or that they were crying in loud voice.
38. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW6 has deposed that she did not know accused persons personally but they were here neighbors. She has further deposed that she being the immediate neighbor, had never seen any kind of quarrel taking place or going on in the house of the accused persons between them and deceased Iffat. She has further deposed that she never came to know through any other neighbor regarding any quarrel took place between the accused persons and the deceased Iffat. She never saw or came to know directly or indirectly about any kind of cruelty being committed by the accused persons on the deceased Iffat.
39. PW7 Sh. Mukesh Anand, Record Clerk, LNJP hospital brought the original bed history of patient/deceased Iffat (running into 25 pages including application regarding verification of documents moved by Inspector Amrit Raj to Medical Superintendent, LNJP hospital) and its copy is Ex. PW7/A(OSR).
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 27/7240. PW8 Ms. Nasreen is real aunt (chachi) of the deceased. She has deposed that after 3-4 days of her marriage when Iffat came to her parental home, she told them that her husband i.e. accused Jawwad was complaining about her by stating Katti Fatti Ladki De Di. She has further deposed that she was kept well for few days. However, after about two months of the marriage, Iffat told them that her sister-in-law and her mother-in-law were demanding Microwave oven and LCD. She has further deposed that then those articles were given to her in- laws when they were called by them to attend a dawat and even thereafter, Iffat told her that quarrel took place in her matrimonial home on petty issues. She has further deposed that when Iffat was blessed with a daughter, she told her that her in-laws were not happy due to birth of a girl as they were expecting a boy. She has deposed that after delivery, Iffat returned to her matrimonial home. As per customs, on the sixth day after delivery she along with mother of Iffat visited her house and brought her to her parental home where she remained with them for about 1 ¾ months. Then she returned to her matrimonial home and since then the relations between Iffat and her in-laws became strained. She has further testified that on one day she came to know through younger son of her Jeth namely Mukarram that Usko Kuch Khila Diya Hai Aur Uski Halat Kharab Hai. She has further deposed that she immediately rushed to her matrimonial home along with her Jethani and other family members and on reaching there, they saw that she was being made to sit in a cycle rickshaw by her Nanad and Devar for taking her to the hospital. She has further deposed that she was taken to the Irvin hospital in cycle rickshaw where she was kept in the ICU by the doctors for FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 28/72 treatment for about 2-3 days, during this period she remained unconscious and then she died. She has further deposed that she told to the police that Iffat was a strong woman, she could not take any drastic step and something wrong must have happened with her. She had not stated to the police about her suspicion on anyone in her death.
41. PW8 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement. In her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that she told to the police in her statement that husband, mother- in-law, and sister-in-law of the deceased initially demanded dinner set; after two months, they demanded microwave and two months thereafter, they demanded LCD TV which were fulfilled by them. She has volunteered that they started making such demands after few days of the marriage of Iffat. She has admitted that she told the police in her statement that she had suspicion that in-laws of Iffat had given poisonous substance to her.
42. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW8 has admitted that the Chala ceremony was celebrated by Iffat and her family. She has admitted that all accused persons and their family members attended the said ceremony at the house of deceased. She has admitted that in the said ceremony, one LCD TV was given to Iffat by her uncle Sh. Shaukat Ali. She has volunteered that it was presented against demand. She has admitted that her statements were recorded by the SDM and police on 20.04.2012 in which this fact of demand was not told by her. She has admitted that Chala ceremony was performed on 23.10.2010 and it was a Saturday. She has further deposed that she had seen her statement dated 20.04.2012 Ex.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 29/72PW8/DX recorded by SDM Kotwali. She was confronted with her said statement where the fact that the accused Jawwad was complaining her about Iffat stating her to be"kati-fati larki dey di" or that after about two months of the marriage, Iffat told them that her sister-in-law and mother-in-law were demanding microwave oven and LCD TV or that Iffat told her that quarrel took place in her matrimonial home on petty issues, were not recorded.
43. In her further cross-examination, PW8 has admitted that Chhati ceremony had taken place at the in-law's house of Iffat organized by her husband Jawwad on 09.03.2012. She has further deposed that she, grandmother of Iffat namely Tahira Begum and Mst. Nikhat Malik had attended the said function. She admitted that they were given all respect by Jawwad and his family when they visited their house on Chhati ceremony. She has admitted that she and her Jethani Nikhat Malik had visited the house of Jawwad on 11.03.2012 to bring Iffat and her minor baby to their house i.e., parental house of Iffat. She has admitted that she, her jethani, Talat and Sammar Simmi prepared Gond- makhaney, acchawani and satora-halwa for Iffat in the in-law's house of Iffat and the entire goods mentioned hereinabove were given to them by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and husband so that the same be consumed by Iffat. She has further deposed that the name of her Nanad was Shagufta with whom she had gone to the hospital at about 11 am on 19.04.2012.
44. In her further cross-examination, PW8 has deposed that she made statement Ex. PW8/DX merely on suspicion against the accused persons. She was confronted with her said statement before SDM where it is not mentioned that on reaching FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 30/72 matrimonial house of Iffat, they saw that she was being made to sit in a cycle rickshaw by her nanad and dever for taking her to the hospital. She could not tell whether accused persons were in the hospital or not. She has deposed that her entire family got Iffat admitted in the Irvin hospital at around 12 noon on 19.04.2012. She has further deposed that she had not seen Jawwad or his family members in the hospital. She has admitted that no quarrel took place between them and the accused persons between 19.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. She has admitted that she had stated to the SDM that during the marriage none of the family members of Jawwad Tariq had put forth any demand of any nature and the articles and other things were given by her jeth on his own.
45. PW9 SI Surender Kumar was posted as duty officer at PS Lahori Gate in the intervening night of 19/20.04.2012 who had registered present FIR and he has proved its copy as PW9/A.
46. PW10 Inspector Devender Purang and PW11 Ct. Irshad Ahmad were Incharge and member respectively of the Mobile Crime Team, North District that visited the place of occurrence on 19.04.2012. PW10 has deposed that he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report Ex.PW10/A. PW11 was photographer who took six photographs of the scene of crime. He has proved the said photographs as Ex. PA to Ex. PF and their negatives as Ex.PG (colly).
47. In his cross-examination, PW10 has deposed that he inspected the room on second floor only. He has further deposed that he had already mentioned the articles to be taken into possession by the IO in his report. He has admitted that the spot in question was situated in a thickly populated area.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 31/7248. PW12 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 04.07.2012 he was posted as SI, Draftsman, Crime Branch, PHQ, Delhi. He has deposed that on that day, he along with IO Inspector Amrit Raj went to the scene of crime i.e. house No. 130, gali Masjid Tevar Khan, Lahori Gate, Delhi where ASI Ranbir Singh, first IO of the case was also called. He has further deposed that upon instruction of ASI Ranbir Singh, he took rough note and measurement of scene of crime. He has further deposed that he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW12/A of the scene of crime in his office.
49. PW13 HC Narender Rana has deposed that he was posted as duty HC at LNJP hospital and one lady namely Iffat Parveen was admitted in the hospital by her husband Jawwad Tariq on 19.04.2012 with alleged history of consuming poisonous substance by her at home. She had expired on 21.04.2012. He gave this information to PS Lahori Gate through telephone.
50. PW14 Shagufta Parveen is real aunt (Bua) of the deceased Iffat Parveen. She has deposed that adequate dowry articles were given in marriage of Iffat. She has further deposed that after marriage of Iffat, Iffat used to visit her matrimonial house but she did not use to tell anything about her married life to her. On 19.04.2012 in the morning hours, she received a telephonic call on her mobile phone from accused Jawwad, who told her that Iffat Parveen has consumed poison and asked her to come there. She informed regarding this to the mother of Iffat and thereafter, she reached at the matrimonial house of Iffat where she saw that she was being brought down from her matrimonial house by accused Jawwad and her in-laws. She has further deposed that she accompanied her to the LNJP hospital FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 32/72 where she was admitted and during her treatment she expired.
51. PW14 was resiling from her previous statement and so, she was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In her cross-examination on behalf of State, she denied that she had stated to the police that whenever Iffat Parveen used to visit her house, she used to tell her that her husband Jawwad, mother-in- law and sister-in-law (nanad) always used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry or that her brothers-in-law (devar) namely Fawwad and Junaid also used to support them and used to taunt her or that all of them also used to ask her to bring more dowry. She denied that she had told to the police that Iffat had told her that after birth of the girl child, her mother-in-law Samar Seeman, her sister-in-law Talat and brothers-in-law namely Fawwad and Junaid started harassing her more than before, stopped caring her, stopped giving her food and accused her of giving birth to a girl child.
52. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW14 admitted that on 19.04.2012 and 20.04.2012, parents of the deceased along with accused persons namely Jawwad, Junaid and Fawwad were present in the hospital. She did not see accused Samar Seeman and Talat in the hospital.
53. PW15 Ct. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 19.04.2012 he was posted as duty constable at LNJP hospital. He has deposed that on that day ASI Ranbir Singh took into possession a sealed pullanda handed over by the doctors stated to contain the gastric lavage of the patient Iffat vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A.
54. PW16 Anwaruddin and PW18 Mohd. Yaseen are neighbors of the accused persons and PW17 Mohd. Nadeem is FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 33/72 cousin of the accused Jawwad Tariq. They have deposed that on 25.04.2012, Mohd. Nadim (PW17) and Jawwad Tariq handed over the dowry articles to the police which were identified by Malik Sikandar Hayat, father of Iffat. They were seized by the police vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F.
55. In cross-examination, PW16, PW17 and PW18 have deposed that they had not received any complaint from anybody against the accused persons in connection with any demand of dowry and harassment, torture or cruelty to the deceased by them. They have admitted that they and their family including lady members used to visit the house of accused Jawwad Tariq and the ladies of their family never received or informed them regarding any complaint from deceased Iffat against the accused persons. They have admitted that they had received sweets from the family of Jawwad when deceased Iffat delivered a female child. They have further admitted that the accused Jawwad and his wife were living happily and accused Jawwad and his family members were very happy after the birth of girl child in their family.
56. In further cross-examination and in addition to above cross-examination of PW17, he has admitted that deceased Iffat was admitted in the LNJP hospital on 19.04.2012 and he was very much present in the said hospital. He has further admitted that all the five accused persons with other relatives were very much present at the time of her admission and they all remained in the hospital till 21.04.2012 when Iffat expired. He has admitted that Iffat was admitted in ICU hospital and he, Jawwad and his family members and family members of deceased Iffat used to see her in the ICU turn by turn. He has FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 34/72 further admitted that doctor asked for the bottle of the poison which the deceased had consumed and the same was made available on 19.04.2012 by Fawwad and others immediately to the doctor.
57. PW19 Zubair has deposed that in the year 2012, he he had given his SIM No. 9968786602 to his aunt (mausi/chachi) Shagufta Parveen for its use and she was using the said number on 19.04.2012.
58. PW20 Israr Babu, PW24 Vinod Kumar, PW26 Amit Kumar Sharma, PW27 Jyotish Chander Mohrua and PW37 Pawan Singh are the Nodal Officers of Vodafone, MTNL, Reliance, TATA and Vodafone respectively. PW20 has proved customer application form of mobile No. 9999852271, in the name of the accused Junaid Tariq, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. He has also proved customer application form of mobile No. 9953819706, in the name of the Chandrika Prasad, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. PW24 has proved customer application form of mobile No. 9968786602, in the name of the accused Zubair, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. PW26 has proved customer application form of mobile No. 9015396725, in the name of the accused Fawaad, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. PW27 has proved customer application form of mobile No. 9136499911, in the name of the accused Fawaad, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. He has also proved customer application form of mobile No. 9136326784, in the name of the Iffat Parveen, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012. PW37 has proved customer FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 35/72 application form of mobile No. 9891097906, in the name of the accused Fawaad Tariq, along with its call detail records from 18.04.2012 to 21.04.2012.
59. PW21 Qazi Shafiq Mohd is Qazi by profession and on 15.10.2010, he performed Nikah between Iffat Hayat D/o Malik Sikandar Hayat and Jawwad Tariq S/o Late Mohd. Tariq. He has proved the copy of their Nikahnama and it is Ex. PW1/J.
60. PW22 Sh. Malik Shaukat Hayat is uncle (Chacha) of the deceased Iffat. He has deposed that he came to know that there was a demand of LCD TV from the groom side for the marriage. Therefore, he purchased one LCD TV from Darya Ganj and gifted the same to Iffat after her marriage with accused Jawwad Tariq. He handed over its duplicate bill to his brother Malik Sikandar Hayat, father of Iffat.
61. PW23 Mukesh Malhotra is a photographer who had taken 19 photographs of dowry articles lying at PS Lahori Gate on 04.05.2012. The said photographs are Ex. PW1/N and their negatives are Ex. PW1/O.
62. PW25 W/HC Kamlesh had joined investigation with IO on 21.06.2012 at the time of arrest of the accused Samar Seeman and again joined investigation with IO Inspector Amrit Raj on 02.07.2012 at the time of arrest of the accused Talat.
63. PW28 Retired ASI Neelam had joined investigation of this case on 20.04.2012 with IO ASI Ranvir Singh who went to the office of SDM and collected statements of Nikkat Malik and Nasrin Malik recorded by SDM.
64. PW29 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini had chemically examined viscera of the deceased on 10.10.2012, which was received in the FSL in FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 36/72 sealed condition on 27.06.2012. Thereafter, he gave his report and he has proved it as Ex.PW29/A. He has deposed that on chemical, TLC, IR and GC-MS Examinations, Ex.1, 3A, 3B, 3C and 4 were found to contain dichlorovos i.e. pesticides, Ex. 2A was found to contain Naphthalene, Ex. 2B was found to contain Erythromycin, Ex.2C was found to contain Acetaminophen.
65. PW30 Ct. Suresh Kumar had collected sealed exhibits from MHC(M) PS Lahori Gate vide RC No. 45/21/11 on 28.06.2012 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. He has deposed that so far as the said exhibits remained with him, the same were not tampered in any manner.
66. PW31 HC Vikram Singh collected negatives from the office of Mobile Crime Team, North District, Delhi on 28.06.2012 and developed six photographs which were handed over by him to the IO.
67. PW32 HC Rajbir had joined investigation of the present case with IO SI Pawan Yadav on 22.04.2012 at the time of arrest of the accused Jawwad Tariq. He again joined investigation of this case with IO Inspector Amrit Rajon 25.04.2012 when accused Jawwad Tariq led them to his house. There brother-in-law of the accused Jawwad namely Naddim produced the dowry articles which were identified by Sh. Sikandar Hayat i.e. father of the deceased. He has deposed that IO seized the said articles vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/F.
68. PW33 W/SI Anita was duty officer at PS Lahori Gate on 19.04.2012 and 21.04.2012. She has proved DD No. 15 A dated 19.04.2012 regarding admission of Iffat Parveen in LNJP Hospital as Ex. PW33/A and DD No. 12A dated 21.04.2012 regarding death of Iffat during treatment in LNJP Hospital as Ex.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 37/72PW33/B.
69. PW34 SI Ranbir Singh has deposed that on 19.04.2012 he was posted at PS Lahori Gate as ASI and on that day DD No. 15 A Ex. PW33A was marked to him. He along with Ct. Anil Kumar went to LNJP hospital where they found Iffat admitted in the said hospital and he collected her MLC. He has deposed that the concerned doctor had opined that she was not fit for statement. He has further deposed that he had informed the facts to the concerned SHO as well as to concerned SDM. He remained associated with this case and conducted investigation of this case after registration of the FIR on 19.04.2012 till death of Iffat on 21.04.2012. He has deposed on the lines of case of the prosecution. He has deposed that in the bedroom of Iffat, one packet of Phenyl tablets containing 38 tablets, one bottle containing some white powder in sealed condition and one bottle in open condition were found lying. He seized them vide seizure memo dated 19.04.2012 and the same is Ex.PW34/A. 70 PW35 ASI Vijay Singh joined investigation of this case with IO SI Pawan Yadav on 23.04.2012 at the time of interrogation of the accused Jawwad Tariq.
71. PW36 SI Pawan Yadav was IO of this case on 21.04.2012 to 23.04.2012. He has deposed on the lines of case of the prosecution regarding the proceedings conducted between the said dates. He had seized the viscera of the deceased. He arrested the accused Jawwad on 22.04.2012 and obtained his three days PC remand. On 23.04.2012, its further investigation was marked to Inspector Amrit Raj.
72. PW38 Sh. Rakesh Sharma was SDM Kotwali on 19.04.2012 and he had recorded statement of the complainant on FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 38/72 the said date. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR was lodged. On 20.04.2012, he recorded statements of mother and aunt (Chachi) of the deceased. After death of Iffat on 21.04.2012, he prepared inquest documents and moved an application to the autopsy surgeon at MAMC hospital for conducting postmortem on body of deceased.
73. PW39 HC Sanjay was MHC(M) PS Lahori Gate on 19.04.2012, 21.04.2012, 24.04.2012 and 28.06.2012. He has deposed that on 19.04.2012, ASI Ranbir Singh deposited two parcels in malkhana. On 21.04.2012, SI Pawan deposited one sealed parcel in malkhana and on 24.04.2012, Inspector Amrit Raj deposited one sealed parcel in the malkhana. He has deposed that on 28.06.2012, all the aforesaid exhibits were sent to the FSL through Ct. Suresh vide RC no. 45/21/12. He has proved the relevant entries of the said exhibits in Register nos.19 & 21 as Ex.PW39/A to Ex.PW39/E.
74. PW40 Inspector Amrit Raj is the IO of the case. Investigation of this case was marked to him on 23.04.2012. He has deposed that on 24.04.2012 accused Jawwad Tariq, while in police custody, led him to second floor of his house and got recovered a plastic bottle from garbage kept under the shed in front of his room on second floor. The said bottle was found half filled with liquid and on it 'Nuvan' and 'Poison' was written in English. He seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/B. He has deposed that on 28.06.2012 he had sent the exhibits to the FSL through Ct. Suresh. After conclusion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. He has testified that he had filed subsequent opinion in respect of the external injury, FSL report and final opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 39/7275. In his cross-examination, PW40 has deposed that it is not in his knowledge if the treating doctor of victim Iffat Parveen had made any inquiries from her in-laws. He has denied the suggestion that accused Fawaad Tariq had handed over the bottle containing the liquid substance to the treating doctor. The ICU recovery note dated 19.04.2012 Ex.PW40/DX was put to him where at portion encircled X 'sample brought by relative' has been mentioned.
76. Thereafter, PE was closed on 03.12.2019 and the matter proceeded for recording of statements of accused persons u/s. 313 CrPC.
77. In the said separate statements u/s. 313 CrPC, all the incriminating evidence were put to all the accused persons for seeking their respective explanations. In response, accused persons submit that they are innocent. Accused Jawwad Tariq stated that he got married to Iffat on 15.10.2010. She was affectionate and caring towards him and all his family members. Similarly, they loved his wife and she was very much happy with them in their house. He has stated that his in-laws suggested him to have a separate house on account of the inadequate accommodation available with them. They further suggested him to take his share in property from his mother and purchase a separate new house. However, Iffat flatly refused to go for a separate house. He also refused to accept their demand. Apart from this issue, there was no issue with them. Both families before and after his marriage celebrated festivals and functions together. When Iffat got pregnant, he and his mother did their best to make her comfortable and treated her very well. After birth of baby child Aamna, his in-laws and their family members FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 40/72 once again started pressurizing him to go for a separate house. He has further stated that after Chhati, when Iffat went to her house, his mother-in-law retorted that she will not send Iffat and her child to her matrimonial home because he was not agreeing to their demand of owning a separate house. On convincing of his mother that they will settle the issue to satisfaction of all, his mother in law sent his wife and baby child to their home. On 17.04.2012, his father-in-law made a telephone call to Iffat and asked her to give phone to him. He has further stated that she gave him the mobile and his father-in-law started abusing him on phone. After hearing those filthy words and abusive language, his health deteriorated and in the early hours of 19.04.2012, at about 01:30 AM, his family took him to LNJP Hospital for medical check up. At about 05:30 AM on 19.04.2012, he was discharged from the hospital. He has further stated that on 19.04.2012, Iffat got disturbed due to unnecessary interference and demand by her parents and on seeing his condition, she became perturb and consumed poison. He and his family immediately admitted her to LNJP Hospital where she died.
78. In response to the questions put to the remaining accused persons in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. all the four stated that they are innocent and they materially corroborated the version of the accused Jawwad in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They preferred to lead evidence and they examined two witnesses in their defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for DE.
79. DW1 Mohd. Imran is cousin of the accused Jawwad and accused Samar Seeman is his real aunt (bua). He has deposed that on 19.04.2012 in between 10:00 am -10:30 am, he FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 41/72 received a call of accused Fawwad Tariq who informed him that condition of his bhabhi Iffat was serious and she was admitted in LNJP hospital. He along with his father reached LNJP hospital at about 10.50 am where he saw his relatives and entire family of Samar Seeman. He also saw Jawwad Tariq admitted in emergency of LNJP hospital. When they were standing outside the emergency, one doctor came to them and asked them to bring the poison from the house which was consumed by Iffat as it would help them in her treatment. On hearing this, he along with Fawwad and Swalin went to the matrimonial home of Iffat. They reached at second floor where her room was situated and on her bed, they found a bottle of poison. They took it to the hospital and handed it over to the doctor. The doctor affixed a chit on the poison bottle and also wrote name of the poison on the medical history of Iffat. On 19.04.2012 and 20.04.2012 he visited the hospital continuously and saw members of both the families were sitting together. He has deposed that Jawwad Tariq, his family members and other relatives were very much present in the hospital and they were taking care of Iffat on both days. He has deposed that the relations between Iffat and the family members of Jawwad Tariq were loving and caring and there was no dispute of any nature whatsoever between them. He has deposed that on the birth of the child of Iffat, the whole family of his aunt was very happy and sweets (Habshi Halwa) were distributed amongst the members. The girl child namely Amna is living happily with her father and his family members.
80. In his cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that he did not inform to the police officers present in the LNJP hospital that they had brought the poison bottle from the house of Jawwad FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 42/72 Tariq.
81. DW2 is the wife of the accused Fawwad Tariq who got married on 27.03.2015. She was examined on 06.09.2022 and she has deposed that since her marriage, she is residing in her matrimonial house with the accused persons. She has deposed that her in-laws and their other family members treat her well and she is very happy in her matrimonial house. She has deposed that she was never taunted for dowry in matrimonial house by the accused persons or their other family members. She has testified that her first child was a female child and at the time of her birth, her mother-in-law Samar Seeman remained with her in the hospital and took care of her till her discharge. She has deposed that her in-laws never taunted her for birth of her three daughters and they took proper care of her and her daughters.
82. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter proceeded for final arguments.
83. Final arguments are heard. The case file including the written arguments filed by the accused persons are carefully perused.
84. Learned Additional PP for the state has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent, consistent and convincing evidence. He has contended that the complainant (PW1) and his family members including his wife (PW2) and his sister-in-law (bhabhi) (PW8) have consistently testified that husband and in-laws of the deceased (i.e. accused persons) were not happy with the dowry articles brought by the deceased in her marriage and they demanded gas stove, LCD and oven from her. He has contended that the said witnesses have consistently testified that all the FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 43/72 accused persons harassed her for the demand of dowry. The said witnesses have consistently deposed that they were unhappy with the birth of female child to the deceased and therefore, they subjected her with mental and physical cruelty. He has further contended that the prosecution witnesses have duly established that the dowry articles were entrusted to the accused persons and they had misappropriated them.
85. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that even though there is no direct witness to the offence of murder of the deceased, there are sufficient and conclusive circumstantial evidence on record to establish that the accused persons forcibly administered poison to her and murdered her. He has contended that 12 injury marks on the body of the deceased, which were observed in postmortem report Ex.PW5/A, indicates that the deceased was assaulted for forcibly administering poison to her. He has contended that PW1, PW2 and PW8 have conclusively established that the accused persons were not happy with the deceased due to birth of a female child and therefore, they had well defined motive to murder her. He has contended that the accused Jawwad got recovered bottle of poison on 24.04.2012 from the garbage lying under the shed of the bedroom of the deceased on the second floor and as per FSL report, the poison in the said bottle matched with the poison detected in the viscera of the deceased. He has contended that the subsequent conduct of the accused persons as established by the said three prosecution witnesses that they fled away after admitting deceased in the hospital on 19.04.2012 further manifests the complicity of the accused persons in commission of the present offence of murder. He has contended that there is no reason to discredit the clinching FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 44/72 depositions of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant and his other family members as defence has failed to impeach their credibility. Therefore, all the five accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences under which they have been charged.
86. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He has contended that the deceased was happily married with the accused Jawwad for nearly one and a half years and they were blessed with a female child. He has contended that the husband of deceased and her in-laws (i.e. accused persons) were happy with the birth of female child to the deceased and they celebrated the said occasion by distributing sweets to the relatives and neighbors and by performing her chatti. He has contended that they had cordial relations with the deceased and her parental family. The deceased or her paternal family members did not lodge even a single complaint against either of the accused persons prior to her death. He has contended that there is neither any suicide note nor dying declaration of the deceased that may prove the complicity of either of the accused persons in her death. He has contended that father of the deceased i.e. complainant was constantly interfering in their married life by pressurizing the accused Jawwad and deceased to purchase a separate house away from their joint family and by pressurizing accused Jawwad to demand his share in the property of his mother i.e. accused Samar Seeman. However, when accused Jawwad and the deceased refused to accept his demand, the complainant felt insulted and started humiliating the accused Jawwad. The deceased could not tolerate the unnecessary FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 45/72 demand and pressures of the complainant that was incessantly disturbing her married life which finally led her to take an extreme step of ending her life by consuming poison.
87. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish as to whom, when and what was entrusted by the parental family of the deceased and how the alleged entrustee has misappropriated the same. He has further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the deceased was ever harassed or subjected to cruelty by any of the accused persons in relation to demand of dowry or for any other purpose including birth of female child to her. He has argued that on the contrary, the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW6, PW16 & PW18 (neighbors of the accused persons) and PW17 cousin of the accused Jawwad have negated the case of the prosecution and testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW8 by deposing that deceased was happily residing in her matrimonial house and the accused persons joyfully celebrated the birth of female child of the deceased. He has pointed out towards several material contradictions and improvements in the inter se testimonies of the complainant PW1, PW2 and PW8 as well as material deviations in their previous statements. He has further contended that the only alleged eye witness of the alleged murder i.e. PW6 has turned hostile and has failed to support the case of the prosecution regarding forcible administration of poison by the accused persons to the deceased.
88. In respect of circumstantial evidence, ld. Counsel for the accused persons has contended that there was no motive for the accused persons to commit murder of the deceased as they FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 46/72 were having very cordial relations with her and were happy with the birth of her female child. In respect of the 12 injury marks on the body of the deceased, he has contended that the said injury marks were either the symptoms of the poisoning or the said superficial injury marks are attributable to the treatment of the deceased. He has argued that the injury mark on the right side of the neck of body of the deceased is related to insertion of CVP line as reflected in the bed history of the deceased Ex.PW7/A. He has contended that even PW5 has admitted that the said injury can be due to the said insertion during her treatment. He has argued that the injury noticed on the lips of the body of the deceased is symptom of the poisoning and the same has been corroborated by PW5. He has argued that the remaining 10 injuries are on the dorsal of the forearm of the deceased which are I.V. insertion points and therefore, the said injuries were apparently caused during her treatment. He has argued that the doctors who prepared MLC of the deceased i.e. PW3 and the doctor who prepared her death summary i.e., PW4 have conceded that no external bodily injury was observed on her when she was admitted in the hospital. He has argued that the poison bottle has been falsely planted upon the accused Jawwad on 24.04.2012 though as per ICU recovery note dated 19.04.2012 Ex.PW40/DX, the said bottle had already been provided by relatives of the deceased to the doctors on 19.04.2012 for helping them in her treatment.
89. He has further contended that the allegations of the complainant and prosecution witnesses are vague, inconsistent and contradictory. He has contended that the complainant and his family members have leveled false allegations as they were FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 47/72 disgruntled due to unfortunate and untimely death of their young daughter and exploited the hapless situation of the accused persons. He has contended that there are glaring and material contradictions in testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including the allegation qua the reason that eventually led the deceased to commit suicide. He has contended that all the five accused persons deserve to be acquitted for the present offence.
90. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent and conclusive evidence. Burden of proving its case exclusively lies upon the prosecution and in order to succeed, it has to discharge the said burden. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution case appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
91. In the present case, all the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable u/s. 498A/34 IPC with the allegations that since the day of marriage of the deceased Iffat with the accused Jawwad on 15.10.2010 till her death on 21.04.2012, they all in furtherance of their common intention subjected her to cruelty and harassment. They have also been charged for the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s. 406/34 IPC with the allegations that they all in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly misappropriated dowry and Istridhan articles of the deceased Iffat Parveen. Further, they have been charged for the offence of murder punishable u/s.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 48/72302/34 IPC with the allegations that on 19.04.2012 at about 9:30 am at their house No. 130, Gali Masjid Tewar Khan, Delhi- 110006, in furtherance of their common intention they forcibly administered poison to Iffat and caused her death.
92. Before adverting to the allegations against the accused persons, in order to properly appreciate the facts of this case and to place the matter in its correct perspective, the relevant substantive provisions are required to be reproduced and the same are as follows :-
Section 405 IPC is as follows:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust"."
Section 498-A IPC is as under :-
"Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
Section 300 IPC reads as under :-
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 49/72"300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or (Secondly) --If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (Thirdly) --If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (Fourthly) --If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
93. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the contentious issues, it is handy to jot down the admitted facts of this case in this paragraph. The complainant/father of the deceased (PW1), mother of the deceased (PW2) and aunt (chachi) of the deceased (PW8) have consistently deposed that the accused Jawwad was married to the deceased Iffat on 15.10.2010 and at the time of marriage, the accused persons (i.e., husband and in-laws of the deceased) did not demand any dowry from the deceased or her parental family. There is no dispute to the said fact. Further, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was blessed with a female child on 25.02.2012 out of the wedlock between her and the accused Jawwad. Post her delivery, the deceased along with her new born daughter was taken to her matrimonial house by her husband/accused Jawwad after her discharge from the hospital. Chatti of the new born female child of the deceased was celebrated by her in-laws in her matrimonial house and it was attended by other guests including her mother FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 50/72 (PW2) and her aunt (PW8). Thereafter, PW2 and PW8 took the deceased along with her new born baby to their house where they stayed till 08.04.2012. On 08.04.2012, accused Jawwad brought them back to her matrimonial house. On 19.04.2012 at about 9:30 - 10:00 am, the incident of consumption of poison (whether forcible or voluntary/suicidal to be ascertained in subsequent paragraphs) by the deceased Iffat at her matrimonial house took place. Thereafter, she was taken to LNJP Hospital by the accused Jawwad and his family members for her treatment. She was admitted in unconscious condition in the hospital and during her treatment, she expired on 21.04.2012 at 8:00 am in the said hospital. Pertinently, she remained unconscious throughout her treatment. Neither she left behind any suicide note nor she gave any dying declaration. There are no allegations of subjecting the deceased to cruelty by the accused persons for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. There is no supporting prosecution witness who has directly or tacitly perceived any of the act of the accused persons in causing death of the deceased including allegedly forcibly administering poison to her.
94. Firstly, it is proposed to discuss applicability of the offence of criminal breach of trust defined u/s 405 IPC and punishable u/s. 406 IPC against the accused persons. The basic requirements to bring home the accusations under section 405 of the Code are the requirements to prove conjointly (i) entrustment of property and (ii) the accused persons being actuated by dishonest intention, misappropriated it or converted it to their own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. The complainant (PW1) has deposed that the list of dowry articles FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 51/72 given in the marriage of the deceased is Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A5. However, the complainant PW1 and PW2 have conceded that it is not the same list that was prepared at the time of marriage of the deceased, though they have admitted that a list in that regard was prepared at that time. Further, the prosecution has failed to place and prove on record any invoice or bill of the articles contained in the said list. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the articles contained in the said list were given as dowry in marriage of the deceased.
95. Be that may, there are no allegations of any demand by the accused persons from the parental family of the deceased at the time of her marriage, though PW1 (complainant/ father of the deceased), PW2 (mother of the deceased) and PW8 (chachi of the deceased) have deposed that they gave dowry articles in her marriage. Thus, the alleged dowry articles were voluntarily given by the parental family of the deceased to her in-laws at the time of her marriage. Besides, there are no allegations that the said articles were entrusted to her in-laws for any specific purpose other than gift to them. Hence, it is not clear if the said articles were gifted to the in-laws of the deceased or they were merely entrusted to them for any specific purpose. In the former case, immediately on gifting of the said articles, their ownership got transferred to the donee and in that eventuality, the parental family of the deceased could not claim any subsisting right in them. Therefore, in the event of gift of dowry articles with no associated condition attached, the donor ceased to have any right to demand them back or to dictate the manner in which the same is to be appropriated. Thus, in the said situation, the offence of criminal breach of trust cannot be attracted.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 52/7296. In the eventuality other than gift, i.e. when the dowry articles are entrusted to the accused persons for any specific purpose viz. Istridhan of the bride, only then the offence of criminal breach of trust can be invoked against the accused persons if it is established that they dishonestly misappropriated it or converted it to their own use or disposed it off in violation of the conditions attached to the trust. In the instant case, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the said dowry articles were entrusted for any specific purpose or any of them was Istridhan of the deceased. Besides, they have failed to specify as to whom, out of the accused persons, they were entrusted. Thus, one of the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust defined under Section 405 IPC i.e. 'entrustment' has remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if it is assumed that any of the dowry articles were Istridhan of the deceased and they were entrusted to the accused persons, there is not even a whisper of allegation that the deceased or her parental family asked for their return or directed them to appropriate them in any specific manner and accused persons refused to return them or appropriate them in that manner. Accordingly, the accused persons cannot be indicted for the offence of criminal breach of trust for the alleged dowry articles.
97. In addition to the dowry articles which were admittedly not demanded by the accused persons, the complainant (PW1), mother of the deceased (PW2) and chachi of the deceased (PW8) have deposed that the accused persons demanded LCD and a microwave oven after marriage of Iffat. They have deposed that their said demands were fulfilled. Chacha of the deceased (PW22) has deposed that after marriage FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 53/72 of Iffat, he came to know about demand of LCD TV from the groom side and so he gifted the same to her. The accused persons have raised a defence that there are contradictions in the dates of the said gifts. However, the said defence is very trivial and immaterial as it is not reasonably expected of the said prosecution witnesses to remember the exact date of gift. All the more, when their gifting has not been firmly denied with conviction. In addition to the said two articles, PW1, PW2 and PW8 have deposed that other articles were gifted by them to the accused persons on different occasions i.e. birthdays, anniversary and at the time of birth of child of the deceased, even though there are no allegations of their demand. The allegations are vague as they have failed to specify as to whom exactly, out of the accused persons, said articles were gifted. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and based upon the same analogy, the prosecution has failed to establish that the said articles fall within the ambit of 'entrusted articles' or the accused persons misappropriated or disposed them off in violation of terms of entrustment, if any. In view thereof, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust against either of the accused persons. Accordingly, all of them deserves to be acquitted for the said offence punishable u/s. 406/34 IPC.
98. In respect of the offence of subjecting the deceased to cruelty punishable u/s. 498A IPC, the prosecution has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty on two counts i.e. i) for the demand of dowry and ii) for giving birth to a female child. The allegations of cruelty for the demand of dowry are confined to her initial period of marriage and not soon before her death. PW1 FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 54/72 has deposed that his daughter/deceased was taunted by accused Jawwad, accused mother-in-law Samar Seeman and accused sister-in-law Talat Tariq for not bringing gas chulha and LCD in marriage. He has deposed that after he gave LCD to his daughter, accused persons started taunting her for not bringing oven. He has testified that when he gifted the same, accused persons taunted her for bringing less dowry and continuously demanded dowry from her. Whereas, PW2 has deposed that after marriage all the accused persons demanded oven and LCD from her daughter and after the said articles were given, they taunted her for not bringing complete dinner set. She has deposed that accused persons used to quarrel with her daughter and taunted her for bringing less dowry and for not bringing share out of the property of her nana. Her said version regarding demanding share from the property of nana is a material improvement to her statement dated 20.04.2012 Ex.PW2/A. PW8 has testified that after marriage of Iffat, accused Tariq and Sameer demanded oven and LCD. Even after giving of the said articles, quarrel used to take place in her matrimonial house on petty issues. Pertinently, she did not allege that the accused persons subjected Iffat to cruelty or harassed her for the said demand. The said material omission has created doubt in the version of PW1 and PW2 regarding taunting of the Iffat by the accused persons for demand of the said articles.
99. Moreover, no previous complaint was made by the complainant and his family members in respect of the alleged ill treatment of their daughter by the accused persons for demand of articles. All the said three prosecution witnesses have admitted that the deceased and her husband used to visit their house on FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 55/72 Saturdays for dinner, they celebrated their birthdays and anniversary which were attended by both the families. They have also admitted that the couple used to make outstation visits together. They have admitted that the accused and his family members were very respectful towards them and the accused Jawwad took care of the complainant i.e. his father-in-law for two days when he was admitted in hospital in July 2011. In these circumstances, it appears that the two families were enjoying cordial and joyous relations after marriage and there was no tiff between the two families for the demand of dowry. In its absence, there was no occasion for the accused persons to have subjected her to cruelty for that non-issue. Further, when there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons prior to the marriage and the complainant voluntarily gave gifts, it is less likely that the accused persons would have demanded it after marriage. Consequently, it appears that the said vague allegations are exaggerations and embellishments by a dejected family on finding their young hapless daughter in a life threatening situation. Thus, the allegations of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry within few months of her marriage does not inspire sufficient confidence and in that regard, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
100. The second reason cited by the prosecution for subjecting the deceased to cruelty by the accused persons is birth of a female child to her on 25.02.2012. PW1, PW2 and PW8 have deposed that the accused persons were not happy on the birth of a female child to the deceased and therefore, they mistreated and harassed her. They admitted that the entire bill of FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 56/72 the hospital where the deceased delivered the female child was borne by the accused Jawwad. PW1 has admitted that accused Samar Seeman was not annoyed with Iffat at the time of her delivery. Admittedly, the accused Jawwad got discharged the deceased from the hospital after delivery and took her along with her new born child to his house. Accused persons celebrated chatti of the female child of the deceased on 09.03.2012 and it was attended by the parental family of the deceased including PW2 and PW8. PW2 and PW8 have admitted that the accused Samar Seeman and Talat prepared several healthy dishes including achwani, gondmakhane and satora halwa in the said ceremony. PW2 and PW8 also participated in their preparation. Further, the said healthy food for the immunity and strength of new born child and new mother were packed for their consumption, when PW2 and PW8 took them to her parental house on 11.03.2012. PW16 and PW18 (neighbors of the accused persons) and PW17 cousin of the accused Jawwad have deposed that the accused persons were very happy with the birth of female child and they distributed sweets amongst the relatives and to the neighbors. DW1 Mohd. Imran cousin of the accused Jawwad has also corroborated the said fact. In these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the accused persons were unhappy with the birth of the female child to the deceased.
101. DW2 is wife of the accused Fawwad and she is blessed with three daughters. She has testified that her in-laws (i.e. accused persons) have been taking proper care of her and she has never been taunted by them for giving birth to female child. DW2 is other daughter-in-law of the family of the accused persons. Admittedly, the treatment of one daughter-in-law with FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 57/72 other daughter-in-law is not comparable. However, it at least gives an insight to the psychic of the family of the accused persons that they are not averse to birth of a female child. The said fact has further weakened the allegations of the prosecution that accused persons were unhappy with the birth of female child to the deceased. Furthermore, DW1 has testified that the daughter of the deceased has grown up and she is happily residing with her father and his family members i.e. accused persons. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the accused persons were unhappy with the birth of a female child to the deceased or that they subjected her to cruelty for the said reason.
102. The prosecution has cited two specific dates on which the accused persons subjected the deceased with cruelty i.e. 17.04.2012 and 18.04.2012. PW1 has testified that on 17.04.2012, his daughter (deceased) telephonically informed him that her in-laws gave beatings to her and her devars (accused Fawwad and Junaid) were taunting her. PW2 has also corroborated the said fact and has deposed that her daughter was beaten on the said date as accused persons claimed that she was not doing household chores. She has deposed that thereafter, she along with PW8 and other ladies of her house went to the house of the accused persons and pacified the matter. However, PW8 is conspicuously silent about the said incident. Besides, had it been a serious incident, mother of the deceased (PW2) would not have left her daughter at her matrimonial house with the alleged cruel accused persons and would have brought her to her house. Further, there is no MLC of the deceased of the alleged incident dated 17.04.2012 on record to corroborate the said allegations.
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 58/72The neighbors of the accused persons who have been examined as PW6, PW16 and PW18 have testified that they have never seen any accused persons giving beatings to Iffat on any date. They have testified that they never received any complaint from anybody including Iffat against the accused persons in connection with any harassment, torture or cruelty to the deceased. Thus, the prosecution witnesses themselves have created doubt in the said allegations of the prosecution. Therefore, the allegations qua 17.04.2012 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said incident, if any, appears to be a minor and usual discord that is prevalent and expected in every household.
103. In respect of incident dated 18.04.2012, PW2 has testified that her sister-in-law (nanad) Rafat (PW14) received a telephonic call from Jawwad at 7 pm and he quarreled with her complaining about the conduct of the deceased. However, PW14 has conspicuously remained silent about the said incident. Therefore, the said incident has also remained unsubstantiated. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to establish that accused persons subjected the deceased with cruelty for the demand of dowry or for the birth of female child or for any other reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 498A IPC have remained unproved. Therefore, all the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for the said offence.
104. Now, it is turn to delve upon, evaluate and appreciate the evidence of the prosecution for the offence of murder punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC. As per allegations, the accused persons forcibly administered poison to the deceased on FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 59/72 19.04.2012 at about 9:30-10:00 am at her matrimonial house and caused her death. The prosecution has cited one direct witness of the said allegation i.e. PW6 Ms. Shafia Rehman, who is neighbor of the accused persons. However, she has turned hostile and she has categorically denied that on the alleged date, time and place she saw accused persons quarreling with the deceased, beating her and thereafter, forcibly feeding water to her that led to her vomiting eventually resulting in her death. On the contrary, she has deposed that accused persons were her immediate neighbors and she never saw any quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons. She has further deposed that she never came across any other neighbor directly or indirectly telling that the accused persons treated deceased with cruelty or quarreled with her. Therefore, the said witness has demolished the case of the prosecution allegedly supported by direct witness.
105. Consequently, the facts of this case are now required to be evaluated and tested with the prism of circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and its relevant portion is reproduced as under :-
"A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 60/72
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
106. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Shanker vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 268 relying upon Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 SCC Online SC 1454, held that in the cases based upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. In the instant case, the prosecution has alleged that the motive of the accused persons for murdering the deceased was that she delivered a female child and prior to that she was subjected to cruelty for the said reason. However, the same has fallen flat as in the preceding paragraphs it has been established that there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the accused persons were unhappy with the birth of a female child to the deceased and she was being treated with cruelty. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish motive for the accused persons to cause death of the deceased Iffat.
107. The prosecution is heavily relying upon the testimony of autopsy surgeon PW5 Dr. Anju Rani and her postmortem report dated 21.04.2012 Ex.PW5/A of the deceased to show that she was assaulted before her death to forcibly administer poison. She has deposed that she observed 12 injuries on the body of the deceased and as per her report Ex.PW5/B, all FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 61/72 the said injuries except no.2 were caused by blunt object/weapon and injury no.2 appeared to be inflicted by finger nails. She has deposed that she opined that the cause of her death was organo phosphorus compound poisoning. She has depicted the location of the said injuries on the body of the deceased on a human figure diagram sheet annexed with the postmortem report Ex.PW5/A.
108. In order to properly appreciate the said 12 injuries, it is necessary to mention their location, gravity and nature. Injury no.1 is swelling of both the lips of the deceased. Injury no.2 is a multiple cresentric contusion (bruise) over right side of neck of the deceased. Injury nos. 3 to 9 are contusions (bruises) on the ventral/inner side (on the side of palm) of the forearm of the deceased. Injury no.10 is a contusion (bruise) on the right leg below knee joint and injury nos.11 & 12 are scabbed abrasions on the dorsum of left foot near toe.
109. In respect of the said injuries, PW5 has admitted that they were venous in origin due to leak of blood from ruptured or punctured veins in the subcutaneous layer of the skin and not arterial in nature. She has admitted that breach of skin in a patient can also be due to I.V. drips. She has admitted that she has not mentioned even a single puncture mark on the body of deceased due to I.V. drip. She has further admitted that there was no spouting of blood in the said injuries. She has deposed that she was provided with MLC and case history (death summary) of the deceased at the time of postmortem. She neither took photographs nor did videography of the said injuries. She admitted that when multiple punctures are tried on a patient by the attending doctors, the blood from the veins leak into FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 62/72 subcutaneous tissues. She further admitted that she could not say if deceased was made to consume poison.
110. In respect of injury no.1 i.e. swelling of lips of the deceased, PW5 has conceded that they were not ruptured and in case of assault, they would have been ruptured. She further admitted that the said injury could be due to chemical injury of poison. In the instant case, the deceased died due to organo phosphorus poisoning. PW4 Dr. Shishir Kumar has deposed that in case poisonous substance is consumed, the mucus membrane of the lips gets swelled. In these circumstances, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the said injury was the after- effect of chemical poisoning and not due to assault.
111. Injury no.2 is on the right side of neck of the deceased. Initially, PW5 had deposed that it appears that it was inflicted by finger nails. She denied that the said injury was possible by Central Line. PW4 Dr. Shishir Kumar has explained that Triple Luman Catheter (Central Line) is installed on the right hand side of the neck to gain I.V. access when the other I.V. sites are inaccessible. He has further deposed that when blood pressure of the patient brought in the casualty is not recordable, his pulse is feeble and he is in state of shock, his veins gets constricted. In that case, multiple I.V. punctures are tried by the attending doctors to gain intravenous access to administer medicine. In the instant case, the deceased remained unconscious throughout after consuming poison till she died. Therefore, it is evident that her condition was very serious as she was in state of shock and her veins were constricted. In the backdrop of the said testimony of PW4, when PW5 was confronted with the treatment sheet/bed history of the deceased Ex.PW7/A, she admitted that FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 63/72 the said injury could be due to insertion of Central Line (CVP) as mentioned in the bed history. She admitted that she had not mentioned in her postmortem report about the puncture mark in the neck of the deceased due to CVP line. She finally admitted that the said injury can be due to Central Line or the reason other than finger nails. Thus, even the said injury has not been established to have been caused by assault or finger nails.
112. The injuries mentioned at Sr. nos.3 to 9 are all contusions on the inner side of the forearm of the deceased. PW4 has clarified that in the case of constriction of veins due to poisoning, the attending doctor tries multiple I.V. punctures to gain intravenous access to administer medicine on the inside of the arms and the dorsum of the hands. All the said injuries are admitted by PW5 to be venous in origin and only in the subcutaneous area. PW5 had not treated the deceased and therefore, she did not have opportunity to observe how many times the attending doctor unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to her veins for administering medicine through I.V. As discussed above, the condition of the deceased was very precarious at the time when she was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, the said injuries appear to be superficial injury marks which can be attributed to the treatment procedure. Therefore, even the said injuries have not been established to have been caused by the assault. Injury nos.10 to 12 are minor scabbed abrasions on the right knee and left feet of the deceased. Dark brown scabs on the said injuries reflect that they had already healed and cannot be conclusively connected to the incident in hand.
113. It is a settled law that the expert opinion is not FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 64/72 binding as it is given in vacuum without appreciating the attending circumstances. Further, it is dependent upon various factors ranging from the knowledge, experience and understanding of the expert to the advancement of expertise field and exactitude of its science.
114. In view of discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the opinion of autopsy surgeon PW5 that the said injuries were result of assault seems to have been given either with an over zeal for it being a sensitive matter or she got swayed due to immaturity without properly appreciating the complete facts of the case and perusing the relevant medical records of the deceased including her bed history Ex.PW7/A. Therefore, the said opinion deserves to be discarded.
115. Moreover, PW3 Dr. Ravinder Kumar who has proved the MLC of deceased prepared by Dr. Anupam has categorically stated that there were no injury marks on the body of the patient. PW4 Dr. Shishir Kumar has deposed that in case an attending doctor finds any injury on the person of the patient, he mentions the same in the MLC. Thus, it is evident no external injury marks were observed on the body of the deceased at the time of her admission in LNJP Hospital by her husband accused Jawwad. Further, PW1 (father of the deceased), PW2 (mother of the deceased) and PW8 (chachi of the deceased) have deposed that they saw the deceased being shifted to the hospital by the accused persons in a cycle rickshaw. However, none of them have deposed that they saw any injury marks on her body. In case she had suffered any external injury marks, they would have certainly mentioned about it in their statements. Consequently, it can be conclusively held that the deceased did not suffer any FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 65/72 external injury marks at the time of the incident.
116. The possibility of forcibly administering poison by the accused persons while avoiding causing injuries to the deceased are distant. However, the conduct of accused persons negates the said faint possibility. The accused Jawwad along with other accused persons immediately shifted the deceased to LNJP hospital. The MLC of the deceased Ex.PW3/A reflects that she was brought to the hospital by the accused Jawwad. PW1 and PW2 have deposed that the accused persons ran away after admitting their daughter Iffat in the hospital. However, PW14 (Bua of the deceased) has negated the said version of PW1 and PW2 by stating that accused persons namely Jawwad, Junaid and Fawwad were present in the hospital on 19.04.2012 and 20.04.2012. PW17 has also corroborated the said version of PW14. Further, statement of PW1 Ex.PW1/A was recorded on 19.04.2012 and statements of PW2 Ex.PW2/A and of PW8 Ex.PW8/DX was recorded on 20.04.2012. In the said statements, they remained conspicuously silent about the allegations of accused persons running away from the hospital after admitting Iffat in it. In these circumstances, it is amply evident that the accused Jawwad and his family members admitted Iffat in the hospital on 19.04.2012 after the incident for her treatment and they remained present throughout in the hospital till her death on 21.04.2012. If the accused persons were complicit in commission of the alleged offence of murder, they would not have informed about the consumption of poison by the deceased to her family members till she had actually died to avoid possibility of her recovery or recording of her any dying declaration. Further, they would not have immediately shifted her to the hospital or they FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 66/72 would not have remained in the hospital for her treatment till her death. The said innocuous conduct of the accused persons falsifies the theory of murder of the deceased.
117. An extremely disturbing fact that has surfaced during the trial of this case is that the investigating agency planted recovery of poison bottle on the accused Jawwad claiming that he got it recovered during his police custody on 24.04.2022. However, as per ICU recovery note dated 19.04.2012 Ex.PW40/DX, the sample of the poison consumed by the deceased was found to have been handed over by her relatives to her treating doctors. PW17 and DW1 have consistently deposed that they and accused Fawwad handed over the bottle of poison consumed by the deceased to the treating doctor on 19.04.2012 for enabling them in rendering proper medical treatment to her. Ex.PW40/DX corroborates their version and demolishes the said version of the prosecution.
118. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the facts that have been conclusively established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons or it excludes every other possible hypothesis. On the contrary, the circumstantial evidence available on record leads to the conclusion that it is not a case of murder and in all reasonable probabilities, this is a case of suicide where the deceased ended her life by consuming poison.
119. This court is conscious of the fact that the accused persons have not been charged for the offence of abetment of suicide punishable u/s. 306 IPC. However, since it has been established that the deceased died due to suicide and as the offence u/s. 306 IPC is a cognate but lesser offence than Section FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 67/72 302 IPC, I deem it appropriate that the facts established by the prosecution be also evaluated on the scales of the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 306 IPC.
120. In order to prove the offence for abetment of suicide u/s. 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the deceased took the fateful step of hanging due to abetment committed by the accused persons.
121. Section 306 IPC stipulates that if a person commits suicide 'whoever abets the commission of such suicide' shall be liable for the said offence. The offence of abetment is provided u/s.107 IPC and it is reproduced as under :
'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 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.'
122. Thus, abetment is instigation, engaging in a criminal conspiracy to an act or intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission in doing of that act. The definition of abetment has to be construed in the context of Section 306 IPC for assessing whether the act or omission of either of the accused persons in this case can fall within the purview of 'abetment' to commit suicide of the deceased.
123. In Amlendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 68/72 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the case of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitements to the commission of the suicide. It has further clarified that merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction u/s.306 IPC is not sustainable.
124. In S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in order to convict a person u/s.306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and an active or direct act on the part of the accused which intentionally pushed the deceased to commit suicide being left with no other option.
125. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana, in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2010 decided on 25.07.2019 has exhaustively explained the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and factors governing its application. Its relevant portion is reproduced as under :-
"38. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there by such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of sucide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 69/72 circumstancses of each case.
39. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
126. In the backdrop of the law on the offence u/s. 306 IPC expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the facts of this case are required to be evaluated to ascertain whether this case falls within the mischief of the said offence.
127. The allegations of abetment to suicide against the accused persons is to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case that has been established through admissible evidence. The deceased did not leave behind any suicide note though she was a literate female. Further, there is no FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 70/72 dying declaration of the deceased to implicate either of the accused persons in the present case. The deceased or her parental family members did not lodge any complaint against any of the accused persons of any offence including harassment or cruelty before her death. In the preceding paragraphs, it has been held that there is no conclusive evidence on record to suggest that the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty during her lifetime. Thus, there is no substance on record to manifest that any act or omission on the part of either of the accused persons proximately or even remotely instigated or provoked the deceased to take the extreme step of ending her life by suicide.
128. In view of absence of conclusive establishment of any direct or tacit culpable act of the accused persons, possibility of the deceased committing suicide because of her incapability and hypersensitivity in coping with the pulls and pressures of day to day life, being confronted by every reasonable person on daily basis, cannot be ruled out. The human beings are not machines running on computer programmes and therefore, they cannot be expected to objectively behave in a similar manner when confronted with a similar situation. They are complex beings and their reaction, conduct and behaviour are very subjective depending upon several factors including their social, emotional and psychological growth and understanding. This court does not have the advantage of examining the last words of the deceased and benefit of evaluating her emotional and psychological report. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively determined as to what circumstances led and compelled the deceased to end her life. However, there is no convincing evidence on record to attribute or connect any act or omission on the part of either of the FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 71/72 accused persons to her suicide. The allegations of her parental family members seems to be an afterthought and a knee jerk reaction to the untimely and unnatural demise of their beloved daughter. The said allegations are nothing more than the over reaction of the disgruntled and hapless parents who lost their daughter to the cruel fate. Thus, there is no evidence on record to indict the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s.306/34 IPC.
129. In view of the above discussion, all the five accused persons namely Jawwad Tariq, Samar Seeman, Talat Tariq, Junaid and Fawwad are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s. 302/406/498-A/34 IPC i.e. the offences for which they were charged. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 24.08.2023 Digitally signed
DHEERAJ by DHEERAJ MOR
MOR Date: 2023.08.24
15:21:46 +0530
(DHEERAJ MOR)
ASJ-02, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 36/2012 State vs. Jawwad Tariq & Others PS : Lahori Gate Page No. 72/72