Delhi District Court
State vs Shivram @ Monu on 31 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No. 292/2018
FIR No.132/2017
U/S: 498-A/328/34 IPC
P.S: Welcome
State Vs. 1. Shivram @ Monu
S/o Sh. Chandu Lal
R/o H. No. G-269,
Gali No. 9, Janta Colony,
Welcome, Delhi.
2. Kaushalaya
W/o Sh. Chandu Lal
R/o H. No. G-269,
Gali No. 9, Janta Colony,
Welcome, Delhi.
3. Chandu Lal
S/o Lt. Sh. Sachdeva
R/o H. No. G-269,
Gali No. 9, Janta Colony,
Welcome, Delhi.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 06.06.2018
Date of Arguments : 31.10.2023
Date of judgment : 31.10.2023
Digitally signed by
VINEET VINEET KUMAR
Location: Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31
__________________________________________________________________
16:57:37 +0530
FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.1 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc.
All accused represented by : Counsel Sh. Harkesh Nishadraj
State represented by : Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Parmod Kumar
JUDGMENT
Case of Prosecution
1. Criminal law was set into motion on 26.03.2017, upon receipt of information regarding admission of complainant to RML Hospital on account of administering some poisonous substance in her drink vide MLC No. 6045/2017, which was recorded vide DD No.8A at the PS. The said DD was assigned to HC Manoj Bhati. HC Manoj Bhati reached RML Hospital where he found complainant admitted in Ward No.6, 2nd Floor. On the information given by HC Manoj Bhati, Sh. Rajveer Singh, SDM reached RML Hospital and statement of complainant was recorded by HC Manoj Bhati in the presence of SDM. The gist of the statement is that complainant got married with Shivram on 10.12.2016 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. On 20.03.2017 at about 10 am, her husband offered her one glass of Pepsi cold drink and after consuming the same, complainant started feeling burning sensation in her mouth and throat and she also had vomiting and anxiety. Complainant further stated that 2-3 days back, she had a quarrel with her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband regarding one gold ring which was gifted by her father in her marriage, but her husband did not tell anything to her about the said ring and when her condition worsened, her husband and in-laws took her to IBHAS Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR VINEET Location:
Karkardooma Courts,KUMAR __________________________________________________________________ Delhi Date: 2023.10.31 16:57:54 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.2 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. Hospital, Dilshad Garden for the treatment, where her mother also reached. Thereafter, on 21.03.2017, complainant's husband, in-laws and mother got her admitted in RML Hospital for treatment and her MLC was prepared on 26.03.2017. The complainant raised suspicion that she was given some poisonous substance by mixing it in her Pepsi as her husband had also said these words "le pepsi ke maje", while giving her Pepsi. On the basis of above statement, the present case FIR no. 132/2017 u/s 498A/328/34 IPC was registered. On 26.03.2017 during investigation, HC Manoj Bhati obtained MLC of complainant i.e. E-60457 and recorded supplementary statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.PC along with the statement of her mother in RML Hospital. Thereafter, HC Manoj Bhati reached the matrimonial house of complainant where premises was found locked and on enquiry, neighbours had informed him that residents of said house had gone to hospital as their daughter-in-law was not well. Upon further enquiry, no incident pertaining to any quarrel was disclosed by neighbours nor any eye-witness could be found by HC Manoj Bhati.
On 27.03.2017, statement of SDM Sh. Rajveer Singh u/s 161 Cr.PC. was got recorded and Shivram @ Monu was arrested from his house i.e. G-269, Gali No. 9, Janta Majdoor Colony, Delhi, however, no Pepsi bottle could be traced during investigation. Accused took HC Manoj Bhati and SI Rajiv Kumar to Shaitan Chowk Nale Ki Pulia, Welcome and he told them that he had thrown Pepsi bottle in the said Nala. On 09.04.2017, complainant provided photocopy of her marriage card and discharge summary and site plan was prepared by Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR VINEET Location:
Karkardooma KUMAR Courts, Delhi
Date: 2023.10.31
16:58:11 +0530
__________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.3 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. SI Rajiv Kumar at her instance. On 12.04.2017, final opinion on the MLC of complainant was obtained from RML Hospital wherein nature of injury was opined as Simple. During investigation, father- in-law and mother-in-law of complainant were interrogated after service of notice u/s 41A Cr.PC. Thereafter, both the parties had settled their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, KKD Courts, Delhi vide Settlement dated 24.04.2017. Further investigation was carried out and after completing other necessary formalities, charge- sheet was filed before the court of Ld. MM.
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 IPC, copies were supplied to all the accused persons, and as offence punishable u/s. 328 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, present case was committed to Sessions Court.
Charge against accused persons.
3. Charge against accused persons was framed, whereby all the accused persons were charged u/s 498-A/34 & 328/34 IPC, to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:
Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR VINEET Location:
Karkardooma
KUMAR Courts, Delhi
Date: 2023.10.31
16:58:20 +0530
__________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.4 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc.
5. PW-1 is the complainant namely Kavita, who deposed that on 10.12.2018 (the correct date is 10.12.2016), she got married with accused Shiv Ram @ Monu with Hindu rituals and after her marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at H. No. 269, Gali No. 9, Janta Majdoor Colony, Welcome where her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also residing. She further deposed that after about three days, she came back to her parental home to perform ritual and she again came back to matrimonial home on 14.01.2017. She further deposed that in the month of February, there was a quarrel between her husband and her mother-in-law and father-in-law over one ring, which was given by her father to her husband. She further deposed that there were misunderstandings between her and her husband which have been settled. She further deposed that she has never been harassed physically or mentally by her husband or any of his relatives. She further deposed that she has taken divorce from her husband and she has nothing to say in this case.
6. She was cross-examined on behalf of the State wherein she has deposed that she was inquired by police, however, her statement was not recorded and her signature was obtained on plain paper in PS and she had put the same at the instance of police. During her further cross-examination by the State, one complaint dated 26.03.2017 Ex. PW-1/A was shown to the witness, wherein she identified her signature at point A, but denied making such statement before the police. She has further denied that on 20.03.2017, she was Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 16:58:48 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.5 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. given Pepsi by her husband and when she drank the same, her mouth and throat got inflammation and she started vomiting. She has further denied that when her condition started deteriorating then only her in- laws took her to hospital. She has admitted that she had given marriage card to police and police had taken her signature on some papers, however, she cannot tell the nature of those papers.
The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
7. PW-2 Smt. Rajbala and PW-3 Sh. Subhash Chand are the mother and father of complainant, who have deposed that on 10.12.2016, they got married their daughter Kavita to Shiv Ram @ Monu according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and they had spent Rs.6-7 lacs in the said marriage. They have further deposed that matrimonial house of her daughter was situated in the area of Welcome, Delhi and on 20.03.2017, father-in-law of her daughter Kavita made a phone call to Sh. Subhash Chand i.e. PW-3 and he asked him to visit their house by saying that their daughter Kavita was not feeling well and she was admitted in Jag Parvesh Hospital. They have further deposed that PW-3 Subhash Chand had visited the matrimonial house of their daughter Kavita and he made a phone call to PW-2 Smt. Rajbala and asked her to visit Jag Parvesh Chand Hospital. PW-2 has further deposed that she visited the said hospital and found that their daughter was admitted there and she was not able to speak at that time, however, she does not know as to what happened to her daughter Kavita at that time. PW-3 Sh. Subhash VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, KUMAR Delhi Date: 2023.10.31 16:59:03 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.6 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. Chand has further deposed that after sometime, he came back to his house from Jag Parvesh Hospital and thereafter he did not go anywhere and remained at his house. They have further deposed that their daughter was living happily in their matrimonial house at that time, however, presently their daughter Kavita is residing with them as she has obtained divorce from her husband Shiv Ram. PW-3 has further deposed that police did not meet him at any point of time nor recorded his statement.
PW-2 Smt. Rajbala was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein she had admitted that she had taken her daughter Kavita from Jag Parvesh Hospital to IHBAS, Lady Hardening Hospital, Irwin, Hedgewar Hospital and in the hospital, she had shown to the concerned Doctor and thereafter she had been admitted in RML Hospital.
PW-3 Sh. Subhash Chand was also cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein he had admitted that accused Shivram alongwith his parents had taken his daughter to Jag Parvesh Hospital and his wife Rajbala also reached in the said hospital and later on her daughter was admitted in RML Hospital.
Both the said witnesses were not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
8. PW-4 Dr. Shishir Kumar, Sr. Resident (Medicine), Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park, New Delhi -110053 has deposed that on 20.03.2017, he was posted at Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital at emergency. He has further deposed that one Kavita came Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR __________________________________________________________________ Date: 2023.10.31 16:59:19 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.7 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. at the hospital in the emergency with symptoms of epigastric pain and heart burn. He has further deposed that on examination, she was vitally stable and was managed conservatively. He has further deposed that in view of her vague symptoms, she was referred to Psychiatry Emergency IHBAS Hospital and he proved his notings regarding the patient referred to Psychiatry Emergency IHBAS Hospital made on emergency card at point A on Ex. PW-4/A which also bears his signatures at point B. No cross-examination of the said witness was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
9. PW-5 ASI Pritam Singh has deposed that on 26.03.2017, he was posted at PS welcome as Duty Officer and his duty hours were between 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. He has further deposed that at about 9 pm, HC Manoj Bhati came in DO Room and handed over one tehrir to him for registration of case. He has further deposed that on the basis of contents of rukka, he dictated the contents of rukka to CIPA operator who filled the details and after completing it, copy of FIR was taken. He has further deposed that he compared the contents of rukka with copy of FIR and found both of them similar. He has further deposed that computer generated copy of the same is Ex. PW- 5/A which bears his signature at point A and after registration of FIR, he made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW-5/B bearing his signature at point A. he has further deposed that he handed over the rukka and computerized copy of FIR to Ct. for handing it over to SI Rajiv. He has further deposed that this FIR was recorded/typed in VINEET KUMAR Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2023.10.31 16:59:33 +0530 Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR __________________________________________________________________ Date: 2023.10.31 16:59:46 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.8 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. computer under his instructions and supervision and there was no break down in the computer, while recording/typing the FIR and taking out print-out copy of the same. He has further deposed that he has also issued certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act bearing my signature/initial at point X and is exhibited as Ex. PW- 5/C. He has further deposed that after receiving rukka and at the time of registration of FIR, he had made relevant entry in DD register vide DD No. 17A. He has further deposed that he has brought the original register, copy of the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-5/D (OSR).
No cross-examination of the said witness was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
10. PW-6 Sh. Rajvir Singh, SDM Headquarter-IV, Shamnath Marg, Civil Line, Delhi has deposed that on 26.03.2017, he was posted at DC Office Complex as SDM Shahdara. He has further deposed that on that day, he telephonically received information from HC Manoj Bhati, PS Welcome that one lady namely Smt. Kavita has been admitted to RML Hospital and her MLC has been prepared. He has further deposed that it was apprised to him that the lady was married on 10.12.2016 and she is making allegations against her husband. He has further deposed that on receiving the information, he immediately rushed to RML Hospital and reached there at 7 PM. He has further deposed that at the hospital, he found Smt. Kavita admitted and he also met HC Manoj who telephonically gave information. He has further deposed that on his request, he recorded the statement of injured as per her narration and after recording Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR __________________________________________________________________ Date: 2023.10.31 16:59:59 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.9 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. statement of injured, he obtained her signature at point A on her statement already Ex. PW-1/A, which is also bearing his signature at point B. He has further deposed that after recording the statement, he handed over the statement to HC Manoj Bhati for necessary action and his statement was recorded at his office by IO on 27.03.2017.
No cross-examination of the said witness was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
11. PW-7 Dr. Yogesh, PG Resident, Dr. RML Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 26.03.2017, he was posted at Dr. RML Hospital as PG Resident and on that day, one Kavita aged about 22 years female was brought to RML Hospital with an alleged history of corrosive poisoning on 20.03.2017. He has further deposed that he examined the patient and prepared the MLC No. E/60457 which is Ex. PW-7/A bearing his signature at point A. No cross-examination of the said witness was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
12. PW-8 Dr. R.C. Vashishth, CMO (HAG), Dr. RML Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 26.04.2017, he was posted at Dr. RML Hospital, Deptt. of ENT. He has further deposed that on that day, he was attending OPD and patient Kavita had come for follow up treatment with alleged history of corrosive poisoning. He has further deposed that he gave follow-up treatment and patient left. He has further deposed that on 31.05.2017, she again came up for follow-up treatment and was advised Esophagosocopy and investigation were VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 17:00:10 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.10 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. advised accordingly. He has further deposed that on 12.06.2017, the patient again visited the hospital and was advised Esophagial dilatation on 14.07.2017. He has further deposed that his detailed report on the OPD card is Ex. PW-8/A bearing his signature at point X, Y and Z. No cross-examination of the said witness was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity.
13. PW-9 HC Manoj Bhati has deposed that on 26.03.2017, he was posted at PS Welcome as Head Constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm. He has further deposed that at about 11:15 am, he received DD No. 8-A Ex. PW9/A pertaining to the admission of injured Kavita at RML Hospital and on this, at about 4 pm, he went to RML Hospital where injured Kavita was undergoing medical treatment at second floor, ward no. 6. he has further deposed that he collected the MLC of injured Kavita and injured Kavita pointed out towards a man stated to be her husband namely Shivram, who was also present in the hospital and she also told that she was beaten by her husband Shivram, her mother-in-law Kaushlya and they gave the poison in the cold drink of her. He has further deposed that her MLC also mentions the fact of administration of poison, accordingly, he informed the then SHO on phone and on his direction, he called SDM Rajbir Singh, who reached at RML Hospital at about 7 pm and interrogated/enquired injured and complainant. He has further deposed that SDM Rajbir Singh directed him to note down the statement of complainant / injured in his Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 17:00:30 __________________________________________________________________ +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.11 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. presence and as per his direction, he recorded statement of injured / complainant in his presence which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point C and the said statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A was also attested by SDM at point B. He has further deposed that in the meantime, husband of complainant Shivram slipped away from there secretly and he prepared rukka on the above said complainant which is Ex. PW9/B bearing his signature at point A. He has further deposed that he alongwith rukka came to PS on the basis of which, present FIR was registered and further investigation was marked to SI Rajiv Kumar and he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to 2nd IO SI Rajiv Kumar. He has further deposed that on the same day, he along with IO again went to RML Hospital where mother of complainant was also found there. He has further deposed that IO enquired complainant and also recorded statement of mother of complainant. He has further deposed that he alongwith IO came to H. No. G-269, Gali No. 9, Janta Mazdoor Colony, Delhi in search of accused persons where the house was found locked. He has further deposed that on local enquiry, he came to know that wife of Shivram is admitted in the hospital and all of them are in the hospital. He has further deposed that on the next date i.e. 27.03.2017, he alongwith IO again went to the H. No. G-269 of accused Shivram where he was present. He has further deposed that on his identification, accused Shivram was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW9/C and Ex. PW9/D bearing my signatures at point A. He has further deposed that IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR VINEET Location:
Karkardooma Courts, KUMAR Delhi
Date: 2023.10.31
17:00:43 +0530
__________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.12 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. Ex. PW9/E bearing his signature at point A, pointing out memo of place of incident was also prepared by IO at the instance of accused which is Ex. PW9/F bearing my signature at point A. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused led them to the Ganda Nala, Shaitan Chowk where he dumped the bottle of cold drink i.e. Pepsi with poison where they tried to find out the same, but their efforts went in vain. He has further deposed that IO prepared "Adam Baramdagi"
for the same which is Ex. PW9/G bearing his signature at point A and thereafter they alongwith accused Shivram came to police station. He has further deposed that accused was locked up in the lockup and IO recorded his statement. PW9 has correctly identified the accused Shivram.
The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, wherein he has deposed that on enquiry from the local persons, none of them told HC Manoj Bhati that they had ever seen any quarrel or beatings from that house.
14. PW-10 Dr. Tsewang Thinles, ESI Hospital, Sector 15 Rohini has deposed that on 20.04.2017, he was posted at Department of ENT, RML Hospital, Delhi. He has further deposed that on that day, he had given his opinion with respect to the nature of injuries sustained by patient Kavita w/o Monu aged about 22 female on her MLC no. E-60457 on the basis of medical record already Ex. PW7/A as 'simple in nature' bearing his signature at point B. No cross-examination of the said witness was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite opportunity. Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 __________________________________________________________________ 17:00:55 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.13 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc.
15. PW-11 Sh. Ashok Kumar has deposed that Kavita is his niece and his marriage was solemnized with Shivram @ Monu on 10.12.2016. He has further deposed that he does not know anything about this case.
The witness was cross-examined by the State wherein he has admitted that police had recorded his statement, however, he does not remember if it was recorded on 12.04.2017. He has denied the suggestion that on 20.03.2017, husband of his niece Kavita i.e. accused called his brother Subhash Chand and informed him that Kavita was not well on which he went to her matrimonial house and he informed him that Kavita was unable to speak and complaining of pain in her throat. He has further admitted that on 22.03.2017, he along with his wife went to RML Hospital for her check up regarding stones in her abdomen and then his bhabhi asked him to take Kavita to the hospital as she was not well and he along with his wife and bhabhi Raj Bala took Kavita to the RML Hospital in his auto, where Doctor admitted Kavita. He has denied the suggestion that on 26.03.2017, Kavita told his bhabhi that accused Shivram @ Monu had given her Pepsi in a glass to drink and after drinking the same, she felt burning in her mouth and throat and also felt sensation of vomiting and before 2-3 days, her husband, mother-in-law and father- in-law were harassing her over a ring and his bhabhi told him about the said facts. He has admitted that on 12.04.2017, he along with his bhabhi went to the PS and his bhabhi Raj Bala handed over photocopy of treatment paper pertaining to Kavita i.e. two photocopy Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 __________________________________________________________________ 17:01:11 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.14 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. of emergency card and photocopy of OPD Card and police took them into possession. He has also admitted that he signed on the seizure memo of the same and he identified his signature at point B on the seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/B. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, wherein he has admitted that he has no knowledge about this case.
16. PW-12 Inspector Rajiv Kumar has deposed that on 26.03.2017, he was posted as SI at PS Welcome and on that day, at about 09:15 PM, Ist IO HC Manoj Bhati handed over him original statement/complaint of Smt. Kavita along with original Tehrir, copy of FIR No. 132/2017 certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act dated 26.03.2017, DD No.8A dated 26.03.2017 and MLC of complainant Kavita. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Manoj Bhati reached at ENT Ward, RML Hospital and there he made inquiry from the complainant regarding the incident and recorded the statement of complainant Kavita u/s 161 Cr.PC. He has further deposed that at the hospital, he also made inquiry from the mother of complainant Smt Rajbala regarding the incident and her statement was also recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.PC. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Manoj Bhati reached in search of accused namely Shivram @ Monu at H. No. G 269, Gali No. 9, Janta Mazdor Colony, Welcome, Delhi but the said house was found locked and on inquiry from neighbours, he came to know that Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 17:01:25 __________________________________________________________________ +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.15 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. accused Shivram has gone to the hospital. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Manoj Bhati returned to the PS and he had recorded the statement of HC Manoj Bhati u/s 161 Cr.PC. He has further deposed that on the next day, i.e. 27.03.2017, he went to Office of SDM, Shahdara and recorded the statement of Rajvir Singh, the then SDM, Shahdara u/s 161 Cr.PC and thereafter he returned to the PS. He has further deposed that at about 05:00 PM, he along with HC Manoj Bhati left the PS and reached at the house of accused Shivram @ Monu, where accused was found present. He has further deposed that the accused Shivram @ Monu was interrogated by him and his disclosure statement already Ex. PW9/E was recorded by him bearing his signature at Point B and same also bearing signature of accused at Point C. He has further deposed that the accused Shivram has confessed his involvement in his disclosure statement and he was arrested vide arrest memo already PW9/C and the information regarding his arrest was given telephonically to his father Sh. Chandu Lal. He has further deposed that the personal search of accused Shivram @ Monu was conducted vide memo already Ex. PW9/D and he has correctly pointed the incident spot i.e. Rooms situated on Second floor and point out memo was prepared by him vide memo already Ex. PW9/F. He has further deposed that he made search of Pepsi Bottle but same was not found in the said room. He has further deposed that accused Shivram led them to Ganda Nala situated at Saitan Chowk, Welcome and told him that he had thrown Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR VINEET Location:
Karkardooma Courts, KUMAR Delhi
Date: 2023.10.31
17:01:37 +0530
__________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.16 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. Pepsi bottle containing intoxicating substance in the said Nala. Due to flow of water, the bottle could not be recovered, however, he had prepared point out memo and non recovery spot memo vide memo already Ex. PW9/G. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with arrested accused Shivram @ Monu and HC Manoj Bhati returned to the PS and he had recorded statement of HC Manoj Bhati. He has further deposed that accused Shivram was put in the lock up and he was produced on the day before the Court of concerned Ld. MM of Karkardooma Court and he was sent in JC. He has further deposed that on 09.04.2017, complainant Kavita along with her mother namely Rajbala and father Subhash Chand Sharma came to PS and thereafter, they had visited the incident spot and he had prepared site plan (without scale) of incident spot i.e. Ex. PW12/A at the instance of complainant. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with complainant, her mother and father returned to the PS and at the PS, complainant Kavita handed over to him photocopies of her marriage card, discharge summary issued by RML hospital and same were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 2/A. He has further deposed that the photocopy marriage card is already Mark A and he has also collected bond u/s 170 Cr.PC from complainant Kavita, her father Subhash Chand and her mother Rajbala. He has further deposed that thereafter, he had recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of complainant Kavita and her father Subhash and her mother Rajbala. He has further deposed that on __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.17 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. 12.04.2017, mother of complainant Rajbala along with her brotherin law namely Ashok came to PS and she handed over to him treatment papers of complainant Kavita and medical treatment were seized by him vide memo already Ex. PW2/B and he had recorded statement of witnesses namely Rajbala and Ashok Kumar in this respect.
He has further deposed that on 22.08.2017, he had served notice upon MS RML hospital u/s 91 Cr.PC i.e. Ex. PW-12/B and he had received reply u/s 91 Cr.PC from Medical Record Officer and received certified copy of discharged summary including treatment / operation notes, advise on discharge and follow up. He has further deposed that on 24.09.2017, complainant Kavita along with her mother Rajbala came to PS and she handed over OPD Registration Card issued by RML Hospital which was seized by him vide memo i.e. Ex. PW-2/C and he had recorded statement both witnesses in this regard. He has further deposed that during investigation, accused person namely Kausaliya and Chandu lal had joined the investigation but they were not arrested. He has further deposed that during investigation, he had served notices u/s 41 Cr.PC on accused persons namely Chandu Lal and Kausaliya i.e. Ex. PW-12/C. Ex. PW-12/D and PW- I2/E and after conclusion of investigation, he had prepared charge sheet against the accused person and submitted the same in the concerned Ld. MM Court. Witness has correctly identified accused persons namely Shivram @ Monu , Smt. Kausaliya and Sh. Chandu Lal. Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR VINEET Location:
Karkardooma Courts, KUMAR Delhi Date: 2023.10.31 17:01:50 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.18 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. During cross-examination, he has admitted that complainant did not hand over to him any previous complaint given by her against accused persons. He has further admitted that during investigation no public person has joined the investigation and when he made inquiry from neighbours they told him that they had never heard any quarrel between the accused and his wife, but the neighbours did not give their statements. He has further admitted that the dispute arose between complainant and accused on issue of visiting the beauty parlour, however, the accused persons were blaming the complainant for lost of ring and some money. He has further admitted that witnesses did not disclose about dowry demand from them by the accused persons and he had not received any gastric lavage taken from the hospital.
17. All the accused persons had admitted the detailed report given by Dr. R.C. Vashishtha, MS (ENT) on the OPD Card of injured Kavita as Ex. PW8/A and comments of Dr. R.C. Vashishtha, ENT upon issuance of Notice u/s 91 Cr.PC. as Ex. P-1.
Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the present case was fixed for statement of accused persons.
Statement and Defence of accused
18. Statements of the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and submitted that they have been falsely Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 17:01:59 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.19 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. implicated in the present case. Further, they had also stated that they do not wish to lead any DE.
Arguments
19. Arguments have been addressed by the State as also by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that there is sufficient material on record against the accused persons and prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for accused persons have argued that the complainant has not supported the prosecution evidence and even if the contentions of the charge sheet are taken on their face value, still Section 498A IPC is not made out. It is further argued that even Section 328 IPC is not made out as no gastric lavage was ever taken and there is no analysis report on record.
22. I have duly considered the rival submissions on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused persons as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the entire material available on record.
23. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, it is worth mentioning here the law w.r.t. appreciating evidence of the witnesses, which was laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR __________________________________________________________________ Date: 2023.10.31 17:02:13 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.20 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, wherein the Hon'ble Court had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
24. Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
Appreciation Of Testimonies Of Public Witnesses Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 17:02:27 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.21 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc.
25. PW1- Kavita, was the complainant and victim in this case. She was also the sole eye witness to the alleged occurrence. She has not supported the prosecution case at all. Therefore, her testimony did not prove the allegations levelled by prosecution against accused persons by any stretch of imagination. Even otherwise, the allegations levelled upon accused persons, if taken on the face of it, do not prove the ingredients of S.498A as well as S.328 IPC, more so, due to lack of any analysis report, as no gastric lavage was ever preserved or taken in the present case.
26. Further, although PW2, PW3 & PW-11 i.e. Rajbala, Subhash Chand and Ashok Kumar are not the eye witnesses, but they are material witnesses of facts for the prosecution. However, they have also not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, their testimonies also do not implicate the accused persons in the alleged crime.
27. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10 are all formal witnesses and have only proved the documents placed on record.
28. PW-9 HC Manoj Bhati is the First IO and PW-11 Insp. Rajiv Kumar is the Second IO, who had conducted investigation in the present case. They did not join public persons at any stage of the investigation, which has made investigation doubtful. It is clear that Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR __________________________________________________________________ Date: 2023.10.31 17:02:46 +0530 FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.22 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc. all the investigation was mechanically done in the present case. Moreover, the testimony of PW-9 & PW-11 do not prove any factual matrix of this case and is otherwise not enough to convict the accused persons only on the basis of same in the absence of proof of material facts.
29. Testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, were neither trustworthy nor reliable for the purpose of convicting accused persons. Therefore, the same are not worth considering in the light of above discussion and are of no assistance to this court.
30. Admissions of accused persons u/s 294 Cr.PC. with regard to detailed report given by Dr. R.C. Vashishtha, MS (ENT) onteh OPD Card of injured Kavita i.e. Ex. PW8/A and comments of Dr. R.C. Vashishtha, ENT upon issuance of notice u/s 91 Cr.PC i.e. Ex. P-1 as such did not remove the doubts which crept in the prosecution story as highlighted above. The said documents, as such, do not prove that accused persons were involved in the alleged incident. Therefore, the same have been accordingly discarded.
Conclusion
31. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Digitally signed by VINEET VINEET KUMAR Location: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi KUMAR Date: 2023.10.31 17:02:57 +0530 __________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.23 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc.
32. Accordingly, accused persons namely (1) Shivram @ Monu (2) Kaushalaya and (3) Chandulal are acquitted from the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A/328/34 IPC.
33. However, accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond under Section 437-A Cr. P.C. for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one local surety each in the like amount within ten working days.
34. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR Announced in the open court VINEET Location: Karkardooma On 31st Day of October 2023 KUMAR Courts, Delhi Date: 2023.10.31 17:03:07 +0530 (Vineet Kumar) ASJ-02/E-Court (Shahdara) KKD/Delhi/31.10.2023
__________________________________________________________________ FIR No.132/17 PS.Welcome Page No.24 of 24 State Vs. Shivram @ Monu Etc.