Delhi District Court
Judgment (State vs Jitender Etc) on 23 January, 2016
Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc)
PS :Aman Vihar
FIR no. 824/14
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA:ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 59/14
Unique Case ID: 02404R0317052014
State
Vs
1. Jitender S/o Desh Raj
2. Premwati W/o Desh Raj
Both R/o H. no. E308, Ashtha Vihar,
Prem NagarIII, Delhi. ......Accused persons
FIR No. : 824/14
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 307/326A/498A/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 07.10.2014
Date on which judgment reserved : 23.01.2016
Date on which judgment pronounced : 23.01.2016
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case under section 307/326A/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. In the present case, Laxmi is the complainant and the victim. Jitender (the accused no. 1) is the husband and Premwati Page no......1/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 (the accused no. 2) is the mother in law of Laxmi.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 21.05.2013, the complainant married the accused no. 1 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. One daughter was born out of the said wedlock. Accused no. 1 and 2 used to beat the complainant since last one year from the date of incident and demanded dowry from her parents. On 03.07.2014, the complainant made a call at phone no. 100 relating to the dispute raised by the accused. However, the accused no. 2 tendered her apology and matter got resolved. On 31.07.2014 at about 3.00 pm, once children of sister in law of the complainant were playing with her child, the accused no. 1 was scolding them. She came down and took her child in her lap. That time, both the accused started beating her. Daughter of her sister in law got rescued her. Thereafter, she came to her room to bring her mobile phone. However, the accused no. 1 snatched the mobile phone from her. That time, she came down and asked his father in law Desh Raj to ask the accused no. 1 to deliver the mobile phone. That time, the accused no. 2 took her on the staircase and caught hold of her hairs and the accused no. 1 administered the acid from a bottle in her mouth. Her brother in law Raj Pal took her to private nursing home but from there, she was referred to SGM Hospital. SDM recorded her statement. Consequently, FIR was lodged.
4. Charge under section 307/326A/498A/34 IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Page no......2/42
Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 EVIDENCE:
5. In order to discharge the onus, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
6. PW12 Kanchi Lal (father of the complainant/PW15) deposed that the complainant (PW15) married the accused no. 1. In the marriage, he gave the dowry articles to his daughter as mentioned in list of dowry article Ex. PW12/A. He proved the marriage card Ex.P1 and original bill of purchase of electronic items, furniture and motorcycle Ex. P2 to Ex.P4. He deposed that the said documents were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/B.
7. PW12 also deposed that after marriage, her daughter was kept well for about two months. Thereafter, both the accused started demanding a car and a gold chain. Since he was not in a position to fulfill their said demand, he refused to give the said articles. Thereafter, both the accused started beating and harassing PW15. PW15 used to tell him about the behavior of the accused persons towards her, whenever she used to come to his house. Accused persons never used to give expenses for treatment of PW15 when she fell ill. He used to take PW15 to the doctor and used to get medicine for her. PW15 delivered a baby girl but the behavior of accused persons did not change towards her. The accused asked Page no......3/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 him to take her back otherwise she would be treated in the same manner.
8. PW12 further deposed that he came to know about the incident from one lady who informed her that PW15 was seriously ill and was admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He immediately rushed to the said hospital and made enquiry from PW15 about the incident. That time, PW15 was talking less but told him that the accused no. 2 caught hold her by her hair and the accused no. 1 put acid in her mouth. Thereafter, he made a police call at phone no. 100. Next day, SDM (PW9) came in the hospital at about 10.00 am and recorded statement of PW15. The accused no. 1 was arrested at his instance vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/C. His personal search is Ex. PW12/D. Prior to that incident, both the accused had tortured PW15 to such an extent that she had to call the police at 100 number. Police had recorded his statement.
9. In his cross examination, PW12 deposed that he was doing the work of Kabari. His eldest son got married about 1011 years ago and has three children out of which two children are studying. His other sons are unmarried. His elder son Shyam is also doing the work of Kabari with him. His son Gopal is also working and he is also doing work of Kabari and is pursuing his study privately. His house and house of the accused are situated in the same locality. Name of the mediator of marriage is Rannu who is the Page no......4/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 neighbour of accused persons. Talks of marriage were going on years back, prior to the date of marriage. He admitted that till the date of marriage, neither Jitender nor his family members raised any demand of dowry from him or my family members. He delivered the list of dowry articles to the concerned police official at the time of recording of his statement.
10. PW12 denied the suggestion that bill Ex.P2 is a forged and fabricated document and therefore, it is undated and unsigned or that whatever articles he bought for usage for his own house for which bill Ex.P2 was issued and used that as a bill for the dowry articles and handed over the same to the concerned police official. The articles mentioned in bill Ex.P3 were purchased by him from a shop located in Prem Nagar Delhi but he cannot tell exact date and month of purchase. He denied the suggestion that the list of dowry articles Ex. PW12/A is a manipulated and manufactured list that is why the cost of articles, the place of purchase and their receipts are not mentioned therein. He deposed that he kept on purchasing the dowry articles for the marriage of PW15 from time to time and one or two days prior to the date of marriage at the time of roka ceremony he got loaded the entire purchased dowry articles and delivered at the house of the accused persons.He never took the police to the shops from where the dowry articles were purchased by him. The vehicle make TATA 407 in which he got loaded the dowry articles belong to him one my relative namely Ranvir, Page no......5/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 therefore, he did not note down the vehicle number nor paid any amount towards transportation. He did not produce Ranvir before the police at the time of enquiry that in his vehicle dowry articles were delivered at the house of accused persons. He admitted that the motorcycle was purchased in the name of his son namely Shyam but the same was on loan at 24 EMIs. He denied the suggestion EMIs of the said loan were being paid by the accused no.1 or that the accused no. 1 used to pay the money in cash to him towards payment of EMIs or that the motorcycle had been used by his son namely Shyam Sunder only and not by the accused no.1.
11. PW12 in his cross examination deposed that after two months of marriage, the accused persons raised the demand of a gold chain and a car, but he failed to disclose the exact date and month when the said demand were raised. He had not lodged any complaint to the police officials complaining about the said demand.
12. PW12 denied the suggestion that on 24.06.2014 at the night, PW12 along with six persons under the influence of liquor visited the house of accused persons and threatened the accused persons to kill them and also to implicate them in a false dowry case or that Vijaybrother of accused was threatened to kill by one of the person who had visited along with him on 24.06.2014. He did not know whether father of the accused namely Deshraj had lodged a complaint about the incident dated 24.06.2014 to PS Aman Vihar Page no......6/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 vide DD no. 63B dated 05.07.2014. He admitted that he purchased one mobile handset at the time of marriage for usage of PW15 and handed over the same to her. He denied the suggestion that PW 15 did not tell him anything about the said incident.
13. PW15 Laxmi (the complainant/victim) deposed that on 03.07.2014, a quarrel (chhota mota jhagda) had been taken place between her, her husband and mother in law due to fault of all of them. He made a call on 100 number. Police did not come. Her father came to her matrimonial home and made her understand. She also deposed that on 31.07.2014, a quarrel had been taken place between her, her mother in law and her sister in law (Jethani). That time, she was already having the pain due to the stitches on her stomach. She went up stair and took the acid bottle which was kept with the bottle of medicine and opened the acid bottle under the impression as if it was the bottle of medicine of pain reliever. Then, she consumed one cap of the liquid which was inside that bottle. When she had consumed the liquid the accused no. 1 was in front of her. She tried to search her phone but it could not be traced. After consuming the liquid, she became unconscious. When she regained her consciousness, she found herself in the SGM hospital. She also found that her father, brother, mother, both the accused and her mother in law in the hospital. Police came in the hospital. Her statement was recorded by IO in the hospital Ex.PW15/A. Her signature was obtained on the papers for issuing Page no......7/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 the medicine.
14. PW15 turned hostile and in her cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP, she deposed that she studied upto 9th class. She could read and write Hindi. She put her signature on Ex.PW15/A on the asking of the police officials as they required her signatures for treatment purpose. She admitted that Executive Magistrate came in the hospital. She avoided to identify the case property i.e. the bottle.
15. PW15 in her cross examination conducted by counsel for the accused, deposed that when she consumed the liquid under the impression of the medicine, the accused no. 1 was present at the ground floor and she was alone on the first floor. She cannot tell the name of the Executive Magistrate and other officers. When the officer came to her, she was not in a position to give the statement. She was in a position to talk to the persons only since one month prior to her testimony before this court. After discharge from the hospital, she gave the statement that she had taken the acid under the impression of medicine as and when she was asked. The quarrel dated 03.07.2014 as mentioned in her chief was trivial in nature. She had no grievance against the accused in past nor has any grievance in present.
16. PW16 Jamna (mother of PW15) deposed that she and Page no......8/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 her husband had given the dowry in the marriage as per the custom. One or two times, PW15 complained to her that her husband and mother in law used to say that articles of inferior quality were given in the dowry. She told PW15 that after gaining the money, they would give more articles as per satisfaction of her inlaws. She along with PW12 and her son reached the hospital. Police official came in the hospital and made inquiry from PW15.
17. PW20 Deepak (brother of PW15) deposed that he had not met with IO nor her recorded his statement. He turned hostile. POLICE/OFFICIAL WITNESSES
18. PW1 ASI Ram Kumar, InCharge Crime Team deposed that on 01.08.2014, on receipt of information, he along with his team reached at the spot and directed HC Shiv Mohan to take the photographs.
19. PW2 HC Shiv Mohan deposed that on the directions of PW1, he took the photographs Ex.PW2/X1X6 and negatives are Ex.PW2/Y1Y6.
20. PW9 Sh. Anil Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate deposed that 01.08.2014, he took verbal opinion of the doctor as to fitness of PW 15 to make the statement, who opined that she was fit to make statement. Thereafter, he got recorded the statement of the Page no......9/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 complainant on his dictation as the complainant was speaking very slowly in whispers and he had to make efforts to hear her and understand what she was saying. He proved the statement Ex. PW9/A. He also relied upon document Ex.PW7/A.
21. PW7 Retied Inspector Mahender Singh deposed that on 01.08.2014, PW9 recorded statement of PW15 and directed him to take the action. He proved the endorsement on the complaint of PW15 Ex.PW7/A.
22. PW4 HC Bharat Lal proved copy of DD no. 11A Ex.PW4/A, copy of FIR Ex.PW4/B, endorsement on rukka Ex.PW4/C and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW4/D.
23. PW3 Ct. Anoop proved the relevant entry in the register no. 21 Ex.PW3/A and FSL receipt Ex.PW3/B.
24. PW5 HC Raj Kumar relied upon Ex.PW3/A and FSL receipt Ex.PW3/B.
25. PW6 Ct. Amit proved DD no. 27PP dated 31.07.2014 Ex.PW6/A.
26. PW14 Ct. Ramesh Chander deposed that on 31.07.2014, on receipt of DD no. 27P, he along with HC Pyare Lal (PW18) Page no......10/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 reached at SGM Hospital who collected MLC of PW15 and came to know that PW15 married the accused no. 1 on 21.05.2013 and was tortured and harassed by both the accused on account of demand for dowry. From MLC, it was revealed that the accused persons had administered acid in the mouth of PW15. PW18 informed PW9 for recording the statement of PW15. During treatment, the concerned doctor had handed over one sealed pullanda which he seized. Thereafter, PW18 took him to the place of incident. IO inspected the spot and found one plastic bottle of campacola lying there with some liquid substance. IO seized the bottle vide memo Ext.PW14/A. Thereafter, he handed over copy of FIR and tehrir to SI Bhupesh to whom further investigation was entrusted. IO recorded his statement. He identified one bottle having its lid of "Campa Cola"
which was an empty bottle i.e. Ext.P5. In his cross examination, PW14 deposed that bottle was recovered from bathroom situated in the ground floor near the staircase.
27. PW18, HC Pyare Lal deposed on the lines of PW14. He also deposed that he obtained the MLC of PW15 Ex.PW10/A. At his request, the doctor took the blood sample of PW15 and handed over to him which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. He reached at the spot and lifted the bottle containing acid from the spot and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B. Thereafter, case property was deposited in malkhana. He again reached in SGM Hospital where PW9 met him. PW9 Page no......11/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 recorded the statement of PW9 Ex.PW9/A(Ex.PW15/A). PW9 made his endorsement and handed over to him. He came back to PS and handed over MLC and statement of PW15 to the SHO PS Aman Vihar who made his endorsement Ex.PW7/A. He identified the bottle as Ex.P1. In cross examination, PW18 deposed that the bottle was lying on the ground floor. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot so he did not obtain the signatures of persons who were present at the spot or that PW15 did not give any statement in his presence in the hospital.
28. PW21, SI Bhupesh deposed that on 01.08.2014, PW14 handed over a copy of FIR and original Tehrir of the present case and the case was marked to him for further investigation. He along with PW14 and PW18 reached at the spot and got inspected the spot through PW1 and photographs of the spot were taken.
29. PW19, SI Kamlesh Kumar deposed that on 02.08.2014, present case file was assigned to him for further investigation. He called PW12 who produced the marriage card Ex.P1, list of dowry articles Ex.PW12/A, invoice of Samsung TV and Fridge make Videocon and other articles Ex.P2 and cash memo Ex.P3, cash memo of vehicle Ex.P4 to him and same were taken into possession vide seizure memo PW12/B. He recorded statement of PW12. The accused no. 1 was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/C. His personal search is Ex.PW12/D and his disclosure statement is Page no......12/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 Ex.PW19/A. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW19/B. He deposed that on 04.08.2014, he deposited MLC in SGM Hospital for opinion regarding nature of injury. On 25.08.2014, he recorded statement of PW16. On 25.09.2014, he obtained the result on MLC and filed the charge sheet against the accused no. 1 and tried to trace the accused no. 2. On 18.10.2014, the accused no. 2 surrendered herself in the court and was formally arrested vide arrest memo PW13/A and made a disclosure statement Ex.PW13/B. After completing the investigation, he filed the supplementary charge sheet against the accused no. 2.
30. PW19 in his cross examination deposed that he did not verify the list of articles Ex.PW12/A, invoice of Samsung TV and Fridge make Videocon and other article Ex.P2. The accused no. 1 did not try to run away. Public people were present at the time of arrest of the accused no. 1. No notice was served to those persons who refused to join the investigation.
31. PW13 Lady Ct. Kanta deposed that on 18.10.2014, the accused no 2 was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A. Her disclosure statement is Ex.PW13/B. MEDICAL EVIDENCE
32. PW8 Dr. Linge Raj Sahu, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini, proved his report Ex.PW8/A and deposed Page no......13/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 that on chemical examination, yellowish coloured liquid contained in one bottle was hydrochloric acid and no hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid and nitric acid could be detected in the blood sample of the victim.
33. PW10 Dr. Navdeep, Sr. Medicine, SGM Hospital deposed that on 31.07.2014, PW15 informed the history of "ingestion of acid followed by vomiting and burning sensation in the throat with mild blood in the vomitu." She was not serious and discharged in 05.08.2014. He proved MLC Ex. PW10/A and relevant portion Ex. PW10/B. In his cross examination, it is stated that the patient herself disclosed that she had consumed the acid herself but did not disclose whether it was due to mistake or deliberately.
34. PW11 Dr. Brijesh Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital relied upon the MLC Ex. PW10/A and deposed that the nature of injury simple.
35. PW17 Dr. Gurdeep, CMO, SGM Hospital PW17, Dr. Gurdeep, CMO Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi deposed that on 01.08.2014, PW15 was admitted in the hospital. On the request of IO, SR Medicine made a request to take blood sample of PW15 under his supervision. Dr. Krishna had taken blood sample of PW15 and blood sample was sealed and handed over to the IO. Dr. Krishna had given notes in this regard from Page no......14/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 portion A to A on Ex.PW17/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
36. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused was recorded under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in which the incriminating evidence/material was put to them to which they have denied. The accused stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
37. The accused have not led any evidence in their defence despite given opportunity.
38. I have heard the ld. Addl. PP for the State and counsels for both the accused and have perused the material available on record.
39. Admittedly, PW15 and the accused no.1 married on 21.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wed lock, one daughter was born to them. Accused no.2 is the mother in law of PW15. As such, there is no dispute as to the identity of both the accused.
40. According to the prosecution, the incident took place in Page no......15/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 the matrimonial home of PW15 i.e. house no. E197, Prem NagarIII, Delhi on 31.07.2014 at about 3.00 pm. Both the accused, though pleaded innocence, have not disputed the place, date and time of incident. As such, the place, date and time of incident stand proved.
41. PW15 in his examination in chief specifically deposed that on 03.07.2014, a quarrel took place between her and the accused and she made the complaint to the police on phone no.
100. On 31.07.2014 also, the dispute arose between them. In her crossexamination, no suggestions in the contrary were given. PW15 in her testimony before this court deposed that she consumed the acid kept in the bottle in front of her husband i.e. the accused no.1. But in her crossexamination by counsel for the accused no.1, she changed her statement and deposed that that time the accused no.1 was on the ground floor and she was alone on the first floor. No justification was given by PW15 to change her stand. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against her. Further, both the accused in their statements u/s 313 CrPC had not stated that they were not present at the scene of crime when PW15 consumed the acid. In view of the foregoing discussions, presence of both the accused at the scene of crime at the relevant time stands proved.
42. Ld. Addl. PP pleaded that parents of PW15 gave sufficient dowry to both the accused in the marriage. Despite that both the accused demanded more dowry from time to time and Page no......16/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 treated PW15 with cruelty on several occasions due to non fulfillment of their said demands. On 03.07.2014, both the accused treated PW15 with cruelty. Consequently, PW15 made a police call at phone no. 100. That time, the accused no. 2 tendered her apology and matter got resolved. Lastly, on 31.07.2014 at about 3.00 pm, when the children of her sister in law (Jethani) were playing with daughter of PW15, the accused no.1 scolded the children. PW15 came and took the girl child in her lap. That time, both the accused started beating PW15 and her sister in law intervened in the matter and rescued her. Thereafter, PW15 went upstairs in her room to pick her mobile phone. However, the accused no.1 snatched the mobile from her. She came down and asked her father in law Desh Raj to ask the accused no.1 to give the phone. That time, the accused no.2 took PW15 at staircase and caught hold of her hairs and the accused no.1 administered acid from a bottle in her mouth. To prove the incident, the prosecution examined PW12 and PW15.
43. Per contra, counsels for both the accused pleaded the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case. PW15 in her testimony deposed that she consumed the acid under misconception. Further, according to PW15, due to intake of acid, she was in a position to talk to the persons only one month prior to her deposition before the court on 09.07.2015. As such, there was no occasion for her to make her statement Ex.PW15/A (Ex. PW9). Therefore, the said statement of PW15 Ex. PW15/A is not reliable. Page no......17/42
Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 Testimony of PW12 regarding the incident cannot be relied upon because it is hearsay in nature. Hence, there is no evidence against both the accused to hold them guilty for the offences they are charged with.
44. It is evident from the testimony of PW15 that on 03.07.2014, a quarrel took place between her and the accused and she made the complaint to the police on phone no. 100.
45. Regarding the incident dated 31.07.2014, PW15 supported the case of the prosecution as to the quarrel taken place that day; that time, she went up stair and looked for her mobile phone; and she consumed the acid from a bottle. As held above, presence of both the accused stand proved at the scene of crime at the relevant time. In her examination, she avoided to answer about identification of the bottle which contained the acid. Medical Evidence
46. PW10 proved MLC of PW15 Ex. PW10/A and its portion Ex. PW10/B and deposed that on 31.07.2014, PW15 informed the history of "ingestion of acid followed by vomiting and burning sensation in the throat with mild blood in the vomitu." In the MLC, it is specifically mentioned "ingestion of Tejab told by patient". PW11 deposed that the nature of injury simple.
Page no......18/42
Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14
47. From the testimony of PW10 and PW15, it stands proved that on 31.07.2014 at about 3.00 pm, a quarrel took place between PW15 and the accused persons; PW15 consumed the acid and sustained injuries; and consequently, she was hospitalized. Both the accused have not disputed correctness of MLC Ex. PW 10/A, the injuries sustained by PW15 as mentioned in the said MLC, nature of the said injuries and their cause. However, the accused have given a different version as to how PW15 sustained those injuries. Therefore, the injuries sustained by PW15 as mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW10/A, nature of the said injuries and their cause stand proved.
Recovery of Acid Bottle and nature of acid therein
48. As discussed above, PW15 avoided to identify the bottle containing the acid.
49. To this effect, PW14 deposed that IO found one plastic bottle of CampaCola Ex. P5 (also Ex. P1) lying there with some liquid substance and seized the bottle. In his cross examination, PW14 deposed that bottle was recovered from bathroom situated in the ground floor near the staircase. No specific suggestion to contrary was given to him.
50. To this effect, PW18 specifically deposed that he lifted the bottle containing the acid from the spot which was taken into Page no......19/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 18/B and identified the said bottle as Ex.P1 (Ex. P5). In his cross examination, no suggestion to the contrary was given to him. Further, no suggestion was to PW18 that the said bottle was planted upon the accused. As such, recovery of bottle Ex.P1 (Ex.P5) from the scene of crime stands proved.
51. According to report Ex.PW8/A, PW8 received one parcel no. 1 with seal of PL which contained one sealed plastic bottle containing yellowish colour liquid volume 900 ml approximately and on examination, the liquid was found hydrochloric acid. No suggestion to the contrary were given to him. Regarding nature of the acid, PW8 proved his report Ex.PW8/A and deposed that on chemical examination, yellowish coloured liquid contained in one bottle was hydrochloric acid. He also deposed that no hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid and nitric acid could be detected in the blood sample of PW15. However, in response to the court question, he explained that might be due to the fact that the blood sample was collected next day of the incident as taking of blood sample is also evident from the testimony of PW17. No suggestion to the contrary was given by counsels for the accused.
52. In view of the testimony of PW8, PW14 and PW18, it stands proved that the bottle containing the acid Ex.P1 (Ex. P5) was seized from the spot vide seizure memo EX. PW 18/B and sent the Page no......20/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 same for examination to FSL. As per report Ex.PW8/A, the said bottle contained 900 ml of hydrochloric acid. Hence, despite the fact that PW15 ignored to identify the bottle Ex.P1 (Ex. P5), it stands proved that the bottle Ex.P1 (Ex. P5) contained 900 ml. of hydrochloric acid and same was recovered from the spot. Therefore, merely because when the bottle was produced in the court, it was empty does not affect the case of the prosecution because (i) both the accused admitted that PW15 consumed acid and (ii) the accused themselves have not questioned the correctness of the report Ex. PW8/A. Therefore, it stands proved that on 31.07.2014, PW15 consumed the hydrochloric acid from the bottle Ex.P1 (Ex. P5) at her matrimonial home.
53. PW15 in her testimony before the court turned hostile as to how she consumed the acid from that bottle and deposed that that time she was having the pain due to stitches on her stomach. That time, she took the acid bottle which was kept with bottles of medicine and opened the same under the impression that it was the bottle of medicine of pain reliever and consumed one cap of liquid which was inside the bottle. As such, regarding role of both the accused in administration of acid, PW15 turned hostile before this court.
54. Counsels for the accused strenuously pleaded that PW15 had been able to speak only one month prior to 09.07.2015 Page no......21/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 when her testimony was recorded in the court. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that she would have made her statement on 01.08.2014. Hence, statement of PW15 Ex. PW15/A is not reliable in nature.
55. Now it is to be ascertained whether statement of PW15 recorded by PW9 i.e. Ex. PW15/A (Ex. PW9/A) was her voluntarily statement or not.
56. Admittedly, FIR was lodged on the statement of PW15 Ex. PW15/A (Ex. PW9/A).
57. PW15 in his testimony tried to build up a case that though her statement Ex. PW15/A (Ex. PW9/A) was recorded in the hospital but her signatures were obtained on the papers on the pretext that those were required for issuing the medicines. As such, she tried to retract from her statement recorded by PW9 on the pretext that her statement was got signed from her under misconception.
58. PW15 in his examination in chief deposed that after intake of the acid, she became unconscious. When she regained Page no......22/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 consciousness in the SGM hospital, her father, brother, mother, the accused no.1 &2 and her mother in law were present there. IO recorded her statement Ex PW15/A which borne her signatures at point'C'. Regarding her signature, she explained that the same was taken on the pretext of issuing the medicine. In her cross examination conducted by Ld Addl. PP, she admitted that Executive Magistrate came in the hospital but could not tell his name. As such, PW15 admitted that she made the statement Ex.PW15/A to the Executive Magistrate and signed the same. She simply disputed the purpose for which she signed the same. Statement Ex PW15/A is in Hindi Language. In her crossexamination conducted by Addl. PP, she deposed that she was 9th pass and can read and write Hindi Language. She also deposed that generally, she did not sign any document without going through the same. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that PW15 signed a written document drawn on her statement and before signing the said statement, she had understood the contents of the same. So far as explanation given by her is concerned, she has not stated it was the doctor who got her signature on the statement on the pretext of treatment. Therefore, it is highly improbable that she would have signed the said statement on the pretext of treatment purpose that too at the instance of police official. It is also highly improbable that in the hospital, either the doctor or the police officials would obtain the signature of a patient (PW15 in the present case) on a document for medicine purpose once her parents, brother and in laws were Page no......23/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 already there. Therefore, the explanation given by PW15 to sign the document is not sustainable in law.
59. Regarding her mental fitness, PW15 deposed that after consuming the acid, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in SGM hospital where her parents, brother, brother in law and both the accused were present.
60. PW10 who attended PW15 deposed that on 31.07.2014, PW15 informed the history of "ingestion of acid followed by vomiting and burning sensation in the throat with mild blood in the vomitu." In the MLC, it is specifically mentioned "ingestion of Tejab told by patient". PW10 admitted a suggestion given by counsels for the accused that PW15 told him that she had consumed the acid. Therefore, submission made by counsels for the accused that PW15 was not able to speak a word to make the statement is not sustainable in law. Hence, it stands proved that PW15 was able to speak and mentally fit to make a statement.
61. Regarding the statement, PW9 deposed that once he reached the hospital, he verbally took the opinion of the doctor who opined that the patient i.e. PW15 was fit to make the statement. Thereafter, she got recorded the statement of PW15 through one Page no......24/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 Constable on his dictation. He took help of the Constable because PW15 was speaking very slowly in whispers and he had to made efforts to hear her and to understand what she was saying. Whatever she stated, he recorded the same in Ex. PW9/A. On court question, he deposed that some family members of PW15 were present and he asked them to stay away from her bed so that he could talk to her in comfortable manner. In his crossexamination, he deposed that since he found PW15 mentally fit to speak and was informed so, he did not obtain her fitness certificate in writing from the doctor. No suggestions to the contrary were given. One suggestion was given to him that statement of PW15 was already recorded by the police and he merely put his signature on the same which he denied. Firstly, no such suggestion was given to PW18. Secondly, vide the said suggestion, the accused merely disputed as to who record the statement but not the fact that it was PW15 who made the said statement.
62. PW18 deposed that he met PW9 in the hospital who recorded the statement of PW15 i.e. Ex. PW9/A (Ex. PW15/A) and made his endorsement on the same. On the basis of the same, FIR was lodged. In his crossexamination, one suggestion was given that PW15 did not make any statement in his presence in the hospital which he denied. But no suggestion was given that PW9 had not visited the hospital nor recorded the statement of PW15. Page no......25/42
Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14
63. To this effect, PW12 deposed that SDM came in the hospital at about 10.00 am on the first day of the month i.e. 01.08.2014 and recorded the statement of PW15. In cross examination of PW12, no suggestion to the contrary was given. Further, PW12 in his examination in chief specifically deposed that when he reached at the hospital and made enquiries from PW15 about the incident, that time she was talking less but told him about the entire incident. In his crossexamination, no suggestion to the contrary was given by counsel for the accused. Further, the said statement of PW12 corroborates the statement of PW9 wherein he also deposed that PW15 was speaking very slowly in whispers and that she was mentally fit. MLC of PW15 also reveals that she was conscious that time and told about ingestion of Tejab.
64. No suggestion was given to PW9 or PW15 that statement of PW15 Ex. PW15/A (Ex. PW9/A) was not the voluntarily statement and was a tutored one.
65. In view of the foregoing discussions, it stands proved that PW9 visited SGM hospital and then recorded the statement of PW15. That time, PW15 was mentally fit to make the statement. On 01.08.2014, PW15 was able to speak less and slowly and in the said condition, she made the statement. After making the statement, PW15 understood the same and then signed the same. Further, the Page no......26/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 reason given by PW15 to retract from the same is not sustainable in law. More so, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW9 who was a government official and was competent to record the said statement. Therefore, it stands proved that statement Ex. PW9/A (Ex. PW15/A) is the voluntarily statement of PW15.
66. Now it is to be ascertained whether PW15 herself consumed the acid under misconception that it was medicine or the accused no. 1 administered the acid in her mouth and the accused no. 2 facilitated him by holding hairs of PW15.
67. A man can lie but not the circumstances and the documents.
68. PW15 in her first statement i.e. Ex. PW15/A specifically described as to how the dispute arose on 31.07.2014 and specifically stated that the accused no.2 caught hold of her hairs and the accused no.1 poured the acid in her mouth. Testimony of PW12 supported and corroborates the statement of PW15 as he deposed that once he reached the hospital and made enquiries from PW15 about the incident and though she was talking less but told that the accused no.2 caught hold her by her hair and the accused no.1 put acid in her mouth. No suggestion to the contrary was given to him in his cross examination by counsels for the accused. The testimony Page no......27/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 of PW12 remained consistent and the accused have failed to shake his credibility.
69. As held above, recovery of the bottle containing acid Ex. P1 (Ex.P5), FSL report EX. PW8/A and MLC Ex. PW10/A proved the fact of consuming the hydrochloric acid by PW15 from the said bottle.
70. So far as the explanation given by PW15 is concerned, perusal of record reveals that bottle Ex.P1 is a plastic bottle of Campacola having volume of two liters and transparent in nature. According to FSL report Ex. PW8/A, the liquid therein was of yellowish colour. Therefore, it is highly improbable that PW15 could not have made a distinction between the medicine bottle and the bottle containing the acid either by its size and colour of the liquid which it contained.The yellowish liquid was detected as hydrochloric acid which has highly pungent smell and sour in taste as its one of the features. Therefore, if PW15 had taken out the liquid herself, nature of the liquid could easily be detected by its smell only. Further, once the acid would have in contact of or touched the lip or tip of the tongue then at the very first instance, it could be detected that it was a acid. However, despite all that she consumed the same. The same could not be possible except when one person would have caught hold of her and another person would have Page no......28/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 forcibly administered the said acid in her mouth. Further, in cross examination PW15 admitted a suggestion that she was in a position to talk to the persons only one month prior to her deposition before the court on 09.07.2015 and explained so once she was discharged from the hospital as and when asked for. It implies that from the date of her discharge i.e. 05.8.2014 till 09.07.2015, she herself had not made any explanation that she consumed the acid under misconception to anyone at her own. Further, she failed to prove that during the said considerable period, she ever stated to any authority that she herself consumed acid under misconception. Further, as held above, the presence of both the accused at the scene of crime at relevant time stands proved. Hence, if PW15 had picked up the acid bottle under mistake and the accused no.1 and 2 had no role in the same, then, they would have immediately stopped her from consuming the same but they did nothing. The said conduct of both the accused is highly unnatural. Therefore, the explanation given by PW15 is not sustainable in law.
71. Now the question arises as to why PW15 retracted from her statement. Perusal of record reveals that she being the wife of accused no.1 was won over by both the accused because as per order sheet dated 19.08.2015 counsel for the complainant did not oppose the bail application moved by both the accused on the ground that PW15 was poor one. Therefore, it can be held that PW15 was won over by the accused to retract from her earlier Page no......29/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 statement.
72. Counsel for the accused pleaded that statement of PW12 is hearsay in nature as he had not witnessed the incident and deposed a fact which was told her by PW15 as alleged. There is no substance in the said plea of counsels for the accused because according to PW15 after consuming the liquid she became unconscious. Once she regained consciousness she found herself in SGM hospital where her father, mother, brother and both the accused and brother in law were present. It implies that from consuming the acid till she regained consciousness, no one had talked to her about the incident. According to PW12, once he asked about the incident from PW15, she narrated the same. In his cross examination, no suggestion was given by counsel for the accused that PW15 had not stated to him that the accused no. 2 caught hold of her hairs and the accused no. 1 administered acid in her mouth. Hence, it can be held that the said narration by PW15 to PW12 formed part of the same transaction and therefore, is relevant fact under section 6 of Evidence Act, 1872 which is an exception to the hearsay evidence and is admissible in evidence. Hence, plea of the accused that the same is hearsay in nature is not sustainable in law.
73. Counsel for accused also pleaded that in blood sample of PW15, no acid was detected. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that PW15 had consumed the acid. According to PW17, blood sample of PW15 was taken on 01.08.2014. PW10 gave an Page no......30/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 explanation that since blood sample of PW15 was taken next day of incident, that may be the reason that the acid was not detect in her blood. Secondly, in response to a suggestion given by counsel for the accused, PW15 admitted that she consumed the acid. Thirdly, PW15 in her crossexamination admitted one suggestion that due to her injury, she was not able to speak till one month prior to the date of her deposition in the court. As such, the accused admitted that PW15 had consumed the acid. Therefore, nature of the acid becomes of less relevance in the present case.
74. Counsel for the accused also pleaded that PW10 had stated that in his crossexamination that PW15 consumed the acid at her own. Testimony of PW10 to that effect is not reliable in nature because firstly, if that was so, he should have mentioned the same in the alleged history; secondly, if that was so, he could have informed the police officials or PW9; and thirdly, it was not the case of PW15 herself till her deposition in the court.
75. It is evident from the record that on the time of incident, sister in law of PW15 was present but it is not the case of any party that she administered acid in the mouth of PW15. It is also evident from record that at the time of incident, PW15 and both the accused were present. As held above, PW15 had not consumed the acid at her own. Therefore, in view of section 11 illustration (b), the said Page no......31/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 facts become relevant. In view thereof, it can be held that it were only both the accused who were involved in the said incident.
76. In view of the foregoing discussions, it stands proved that on 31.07.2014, a quarrel took place between PW15 and the accused persons. In pursuance thereto, the accused no. 2 caught hold of hairs of PW15 while the accused no. 1 administered the acid in the mouth of PW15. Resultantly, she sustained the injuries and was hospitalized. It is also proved that the accused no. 2 facilitated the accused no. 1 to administer the acid in the mouth of PW15 and is said to have shared common intention of committing the crime. As such, the injuries caused to PW15 were attributable to both the accused. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble supreme court in case titled as "Virendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", in reported in (2010) 8 SCC 407.
77. Now the question arises whether the accused did the acts with such intentional or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder.
78. In law, for the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 307 IPC, there are two ingredients required, first an evil intent or knowledge, and secondly, an act done. It is sufficient to Page no......32/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 justify a conviction under section 307 IPC if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under section 307 IPC. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. The nature of the weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive for commission of the offence, the nature and the size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing the injuries and the severity of the blow or blows are important factors that may be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a particular case the accused can be convicted of an attempt of murder.
79. In the case titled as " Umesh vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 360, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"22. In so far as the medical evidence of the Doctor PW8 read with the post mortem report upon which Page no......33/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 strong reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that death must have taken place prior to 30 to 36 hours as opined by the doctor that means it relates back to the early hours of 16.07.1996 but not at 3.30 p.m. as mentioned in the FIR. Once the time of death is drastically different from the one claimed by the prosecution its case is vitiated in law. In support of the abovesaid contention strong reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court on aforesaid cases are all misplaced as the same are contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Abdul Sayeed v State of Madhya Pradesh12. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"33. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath it was held as follows: (SCC p. 101, para 15) "15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject."
34. Drawing on Bhagirath case, this Court has held that where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, "it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord Page no......34/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant' ".
35. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.
"21. ... The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation, etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
36. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat this Court observed: (SCC p. 180, para
13) "13. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitnesses. Unless, however the medical Page no......35/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence."
39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value visàvis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved."
23. The learned State counsel has rightly urged that if the medical and ocular evidence is contrary then the ocular evidence must prevail."
80. In the MLC Ex. PW10/A, the nature of injury was mentioned as simple. As held above, MLC Ex.PW10/A and report Ex.PW8/A prove that the acid administered to PW15 was hydrochloric acid due to which she was hospitalized. In cross examination of PW15, one suggestion was given by counsel for the accused no. 2 that due to intake of acid, she was not in a position to talk to a person till one month prior to her testimony before the Page no......36/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 court on 09.07.2015. It implies that according to the accused themselves, PW15 could not even speak to the person due to intake of the acid from 31.07.2014 to 09.07.2015. Hence, according to ocular evidence, the hurt caused to PW15 due to acid unabled her to follow his ordinary pursuits i.e. she was not able to speak properly and conveniently for more than 21 days. As held in the judgment Umesh (supra), once the ocular evidence is reliable and trust worth it should be preferred over the medical evidence. Therefore, it can be held that the nature of hurt caused to PW15 was grievous though it was mentioned as simple in MLC. According to PW15 herself, even on 03.07.2014 a quarrel took place between her and both the accused and she made a police complaint. Hence, it can be held that the accused had the intention to commit the said act and were well aware that the bottle Ex.P5 contained 900 ml of the acid of dangerous nature and despite that they administered the same in the mouth of PW15. Therefore, it can be held that while committing the said act, both the accused knew that the act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injuries as was likely to cause death and committed that act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such bodily injuries. In the said process, they had caused hurt to PW9. Therefore, both the accused are held guilty u/s 307/34 IPC.
81. As held above, the accused voluntarily administered Page no......37/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 acid in the mouth of PW15. It is also proved that they had intention of causing and also had the knowledge that they were likely to cause hurt to PW15 which is grievous in nature. Therefore, both the accused are held guilty u/s 326A/34 IPC.
82. Counsel for the accused pleaded that the disputes between the parties were trivial in nature. In fact, PW15 told the accused no. 1 that she was forced to marry him. Parents of PW15 used to interfere in day to day affairs in the family of the accused persons. PW15 used to visit her parental home according to her wishes and without the consent of the accused persons. PW15 used to take the medicine before the marriage and even thereafter without disclosing about it to the accused persons. However, the accused failed to prove the same.
83. PW16 deposed that she and her husband gave the dowry in the marriage as per customs and PW15 one or two time complained to her that both the accused used to say that the articles given in dowry of in inferior quality. So far as the complaint is concerned, she made the contradictory statement as on the one hand, she stated that the accused complained of inferior quality of dowry articles and on the other hand, stated that no complaint was made.
84. According to PW12, no demand of dowry was made by Page no......38/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 the accused persons at the time of marriage. Therefore, the articles given by PW12 to the accused side at the time of marriage were given according to his wish. Hence, the same cannot be termed as dowry articles given on the demand of the accused. Further, PW12 and PW16 have failed to mention the specific date, month and time when the accused demanded the dowry from them.
85. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused raised the demand for dowry. But it stands proved that the accused had been treating PW15 with cruelty and in continuance thereof, on 31.07.2014, they willfully administered the acid in the mouth of PW15 which was likely to cause grave injury or danger to life of PW15. Therefore, the said act of the accused amounts to cruelty as defined in the explanation (a) attached to section 498A IPC and to hold both the accused guilty section 498 A IPC. Therefore, both the accused are held guilty u/s 498A/34 IPC.
86. Accordingly, both the accused are convicted for the offences under section 307/326A/498A/34 IPC. Announced in the open court on this 23rd day of January, 2016.
(Pankaj Gupta) ASJII, NorthWest Rohini: Delhi Page no......39/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ GUPTA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 59/14 Unique Case ID: 02404R0317052014 State Vs
1. Jitender S/o Desh Raj
2. Premwati W/o Desh Raj Both R/o H. no. E308, Ashtha Vihar, Prem NagarIII, Delhi.
......Convicts
FIR No. : 824/14
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 307/326A/498A/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 07.10.2014
Date on which judgment reserved : 23.01.2016
Date on which judgment pronounced : 23.01.2016
ORDER ON SENTENCE
28.01.2016
Present: Sh. A.B. Asthana, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Both Convicts produced from JC.
Sh. Shivender Vishwas, Amicus Curiae for convict Jitender. Sh. Jitender Sharma, Advocate for Convict Premwati.
1. The Convicts are held guilty under sections 307/326A/498 A/34 IPC.
Page no......40/42
Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14
2. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for both the convict.
3. Ld. Addl. PP pleaded that the offence committed by the convicts are grave in nature as they administered the acid in the mouth of the victim. Therefore, maximum punishment may be awarded.
4. Ld. Counsel for the convict no.1 pleaded that he is aged about 24 years and has one female child. He has clean track record with no previous involvement in any other case. In view thereof, it is prayed that he may be treated with leniency and may be sentenced for the period already undergone.
5. Ld counsel for the convict no.2 pleaded that she is aged about 54 years and has clean track record with no previous involvement in any other case. In view thereof, it is prayed that she may be treated with leniency and may be sentenced for the period already undergone.
6. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances including the mitigating factors, the convicts are sentenced to: undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years (each) alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/ (each) for the offence U/s 307/34 IPC; in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 02 months.
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs. 20,000/ (each) for the offence u/s 326A/34 IPC; in default of payment of Page no......41/42 Judgment (State Vs JItender Etc) PS :Aman Vihar FIR no. 824/14 fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months. The fine once deposited be paid to Victim Ms. Laxmi.
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/ (each) for the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC; in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 01 month.
7. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
8. Benefit of section 428 CrPC be given to the convicts.
9. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convicts free of cost.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
th
on 28 January, 2016.
(Pankaj Gupta)
ASJII, NorthWest
Rohini: Delhi
Page no......42/42