Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Santosh on 21 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 10/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0368522012
State Vs. (1) Santosh
W/o Suresh Kumar
R/o House No. C1240,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Reena @ Meenu
D/o Suresh Kumar
R/o House No. C1240,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Ashwani
S/o Suresh Kumar
R/o House No. C1240,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 252/2012
Police Station: Jahangir Puri
Under Sections: 302/354/452/323/34 IPC
Date of committal to session court: 15.1.2013
Date on which orders were reserved: 13.9.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced:27.9.2013
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 1
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations on 28.9.2012 at about 3:30 PM at House No. C126162, Jahangir Puri, Delhi all the accused namely Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass after having made preparations for causing hurt to Smt. Sushma and her mother in law Smt. Premwati. It has been alleged that all the accused persons committed murder of Smt. Premwati by giving beatings to her and also voluntarily caused hurt on the person of Smt. Sushma. Further, it has been alleged that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted / used criminal force upon Smt. Sushma intending to outrage her modesty.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 28.9.2012 DD No. 91B regarding quarrel was received at Police Station Jahangir Puri pursuant to which ASI Tahir Hussain along with Ct. Deepak reached the spot where Smt. Sushma W/o Ravi Kumar met them who insisted upon her medical examination. Thereafter W/ Ct. Reena was called to the spot after which Smt. Sushma was sent for medical examination at BJRM Hospital. ASI Tahir Hussain went to BJRM Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Sushma and thereafter recorded her statement where she informed the police that she is residing at House No. C1261/62, Jahangir Puri, Delhi along with her family. On 28.09.2012 at about 3:30 PM she was at her St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 2 house when one fehriwala selling Singhara came to her gali and she stopped him for making purchases which was objected to by one Meenu and Ashwani who resided just opposite their house. She has further deposed that she made purchases of Singharas and came inside her house when her son told her that Ashwani was hurling abuses at her. Thereafter there was a verbal altercation between her and Ashwani and in the meantime her mother in law Premwati who was on the first floor came down and she (Sushma) informed her (mother in law) about the quarrel. Smt. Premwati then gave a telephone call to her son Ravi Kumar i.e. the husband of Sushma on which Ravi told her to made a PCR call. Thereafter she made a call at 100 number and after sometime the PCR officials came to her house and advised both the parties and went away but soon after the PCR officials went away Ashwani, Meenu and their mother Santosh entered their house and dragged her (Sushma) to the street where they all gave leg and fist blows and also tore her clothes and exposed her person. When her mother in law Smt. Premwati intervened, even she was thrown to the ground and given leg and fist blows on her chest and other parts of the body. According to Sushma, despite her repeated requests to the police they did not shift her mother in law Premwati who had become unconscious at that time to the hospital on the pretext that she was just dramatizing.
(3) Initially on the basis of above statement of Smt. Sushma a case under Section 452/354/323/34 IPC was registered. However, in the evening the condition of Smt. Premwati started deteriorating on which her son Rajan St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 3 shifted her to BJRM Hospital but she did not regain her consciousness. On 29.9.2012 at about 9:20 AM information was received from the Hospital vide DD No. 11A regarding death of Smt. Premwati. Thereafter, on the same day all the three accused i.e. Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ahswani were arrested. Postmortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased Premwati on which the Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death as Hemorrhagic Shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of liver and spleen as a result of blunt force.
Thereafter the provisions of Section 302 IPC were added in the charge sheet and investigations were handed over to Inspector Jai Prakash Meena. On 29.10.2012 the torn clothes of Smt. Sushma were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Since there were certain contradictions in death summary, MLC and the PM report, therefore on request of the Investigating Officer a Medical Board was constituted on the directions of the Medical Superintendent who gave its report according to which the cause of death of Smt. Premwati could not be ascertained. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the three accused namely Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani in the Court.
CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Sections 452/34, 302/34, 323/34 and 354/34 IPC were settled against all the accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 4 (5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
Prosecution witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details
No.
1. PW1 SI Manohar Lal Police witness - Draftsman
2. PW2 HC Subhash Police witness - Duty Officer
3. PW3 HC Jai Pal Police witness - MHCM
4. PW4 Ct. Bijender Police witness who had deposited the exhibits
in FSL
5. PW5 Ct. Pradeep Police witness - Duty Constable at BJRM
Hospital
6. PW6 W/Ct. Reena Police witness who had got the injured
Sushma medically examined
7. PW7 Ct. Deepak Police witness who had taken the rukka and
got the FIR registered
8. PW8 Ct. Inderjeet Police witness - PCR Official
9. PW9 Ct. Jaipal Police witness - Beat Constable of the are
10. PW10 Sh. Jaipal Official witness - Teacher from Boys Senior
Secondary School, Jahangirpuri who has
proved the school record of accused Ashwani
11. PW11 Dr. Ravinder Witness from BJRM Hospital who has
proved the MLC of deceased Premwati
12. PW12 Dr. Javed Member of the Medical Board/ Committee
13. PW13 Dr. Sameer Mehta Member of the Medical Board/ Committee
14. PW14 Dr. Bhim Singh Head of the Medical Board/ Committee
15. PW15 Dr. Sudesh Kumar Autopsy Surgeon
16. PW16 Sh. S.S. Badwal FSL Expert
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 5
17. PW17 Smt. Sushma Public witness - an injured in the incident
18. PW18 Dr. Seema Witness from BJRM Hospital who has
proved the MLC of injured Sushma
19. PW19 Dr. Rahul Witness from BJRM Hospital who has
proved the MLC of deceased Premwati
20. PW20 Rajender Gupta Public witness - PCO booth owner
21. PW21 Smt. Bishambri Public witness - neighbour/ relative of the
deceased
22. PW22 Rajan Public witness - son of the deceased
23. PW23 Ravi Kumar Public witness - son of the deceased
Premwati and husband of injured Sushma
24. PW24 Sahil Child witness - son of injured Sushma and
grandson of deceased Premwati
25. PW25 W/Ct. Sharmila Police witness who had joined investigations
with ASI Tahir Hussain
26. PW26 Ct. Ranjeet Singh Police witness who had joined investigations
with ASI Tahir Hussain
27. PW27 ASI Tahir Hussain Initial Investigating Officer
28. PW28 Inspector Jai Prakash Subsequent Investigating Officer
Meena
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of document Proved by
No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI Manohar Lal SI Manohar Lal
2. PW1/A Scaled Site Plan
3. PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Subhash HC Subhash
4. PW2/A Copy of FIR No. 252/12
5. PW2/B Endorsement on Rukka
6. PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Jai Pal HC Jai Pal
7. PW3/A Copy of entry No. 3453/12
8. PW3/B Copy of entry No. 3479/12
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 6
9. PW3/C Copy of RC No. 142/21/12
10. PW3/D Receipt issued by FSL
11. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Bijender Ct. Bijender
12. PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Pradeep Ct. Pradeep
13. PW5/A DD No. 11A
14. PW6/1 Affidavit of evidence of W/Ct. Reena W/ Ct. Reena
15. PW7/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Deepak Ct. Deepak
16. PW8/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Inderjeet Ct. Inderjeet
17. PW8/A PCR Form
18. PW9/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Jai Pal Ct. Jai Pal
19. PW10/A Copy of Admission Register of Ashwani Sh. Jai Pal
20. PW10/B Copy of Admission Form of Ashwani
21. PW10/C Copy of birth certificate of Ashwani
22. PW10/D Copy of undertaking by father
23. PW10/E Copy of Ration Card
24. PW11/A MLC of Premwati Dr. Ravinder
25. PW12/A Report by Medical Committee Dr. Javed
26. PW15/A Postmortem Report Dr. Sudesh
27. PW16/A FSL Report Sh. S.S. Badwal
28. PW17/A Statement of Sushma Smt. Sushma
29. PW17/B Seizure memo of clothes
30. PW18/A MLC of Sushma Dr. Seema
31. PW21/PX1 Statement of Bishambri u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Smt. Bishambri
32. PW22/DX1 Statement of Rajan u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Rajan
33. PW23/A Dead body identification statement Ravi Kumar
34. PW23/B Dead body handing over memo
35. PW23/DX1 Statement of Ravi u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
36. PW23/DX2 Statement of Bishambri u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. dated 9.10.2012 St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 7
37. PW25/A Arrest memo of accused Ashwani W/Ct. Sharmila
38. PW25/B Personal search memo of Ashwani
39. PW25/C Arrest memo of accused Santosh
40. PW25/D Personal search memo of accused Santosh
41. PW25/E Arrest memo of accused Reena
42. PW25/F Personal search memo of accused Reena
43. PW25/G Disclosure statement of Ashwani
44. PW25/H Disclosure statement of Santosh
45. PW25/I Disclosure statement of Reena
46. PW26/A Dead body identification statement of Dev Ct. Ranjit Singh Kumar
47. PW27/A DD No. 91B ASI Tahir Hussain
48. PW27/B Rukka
49. PW27/C Rough site plan
50. PW27/D Application for Postmortem EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Eight witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(7) PW17 Smt. Sushma is the complainant. She has deposed that she is residing at 1261/62, C Block, Jahangir Puri along with her family for the last almost 14 years. She further deposed that on 28.09.2012 at about 3:30 PM she was at her house when one fehriwala selling Singhara came to her gali and she stopped him for making purchases which was objected to by one Meenu and Ashwani who resided just opposite their house. She has St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 8 further deposed that she made purchases of Singharas and came inside her house and her son had also come at that time and she told him that if some rehriwala comes in front of their house he should tell her. The witness has testified that her son came to her after some time and informed her that Ashwani and Meenu were hurling filthy abuses on him on which she came out and found that not only were Ashwani and Meenu abusing her but their mother Santosh also joined them. She has further deposed that on seeing all this she came inside her house and made a call to the PCR. According to the witness, her mother in law Premwati who had her room on the first floor also came down and she informed her about what had happening and in the meanwhile PCR van came and she informed them that Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh were abusing her. The witness has also deposed that the PCR officials intervened and made them i.e. herself and the other family i.e. Meenu, Santosh and Ashwani understand and went away. However, as soon as PCR officials left the spot Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh entered their house and started giving her legs and fists blows, they dragged her to the main gali outside her house and broke the nara of her salwar and removed all her clothes. She has further deposed that her mother in law Premwati intervened in order to help her but she was also pushed to the ground and Santosh gave her fist blows on her abdomen while Meenu caught hold of her hands and Ashwani caught hold of her legs. According to the witness, she screamed and raised an alarm on which all the neighbors and residents gathered and saved her and her mother in law Premwati. She has further St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 9 deposed that in the meanwhile the police officials from Police Station Jahangirpuri also reached there. The witness has testified that her mother in law was lying unconscious on account of beating given to her and she had also received injuries. According to her, she was taken to the hospital by a lady police officer. She has also deposed that she pleaded with them to take her mother in law Premwati with them as she was also unconscious at that time but the police officials refused to do so stating that her mother in law was only dramatizing (dramae kar rahi hai). The witness has further deposed that she was taken to BJRM hospital while her mother in law was left at the spot. According to the witness, at BJMR hospital she was provided medical treatment and thereafter her statement was recorded which is Ex.PW17/A. She has testified that the police also asked her to hand over her clothes which she was wearing but since she did not have any alternative clothes to wear, she told them that she would hand over the said clothes later. She has further deposed that thereafter she came back home and came to know that her mother in law was very unwell and had been shifted to the hospital by her Jeth and was admitted at BJRM hospital at 9:00 PM where she expired later. The witness has also testified that her statement was again recorded by the officials of Police Station Jahangirpuri on the same day and in the meanwhile they were busy with the last rites of her mother in law.
According to the witness, she handed over the clothes to the police, which she was wearing on the day of the incident, on 29.10.2012 which clothes were converted into a pullanda and duly sealed in her presence and seized St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 10 vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. The witness has also deposed that her mother in law Premwati was aged about 65 years. She has testified that her statement was again recorded.
(8) The witness has correctly identified all the accused Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh in the Court and also the case property i.e. one ladies salwar with white color cord and one ladies kurta belonging to her and seized by the police, which ladies Salwar is Ex.P1 and ladies Kurta is Ex.P2.
(9) With the permission of the Court, Ld. Addl. PP put leading questions put to the witness about the manner of the incident during which the witness has admitted that accused Santosh pushed her mother in law Premwati with such a force that she fell down on the floor and received injuries and has voluntarily explained that accused persons gave fist and leg blows on the person of her mother in law Premwati while she was lying on the floor. She has also admitted that accused Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh gave beatings to her mother in law and they were responsible for the death of her mother in law Premwati.
(10) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the local police took her to the hospital. She has denied the suggestion that when the local police arrived at the place of the incident, her mother in law was not there. She has further denied the suggestion that first her mother in law went to police station and she quarreled with the police officials in the police station as she wanted to get a St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 11 false case registered and after quarreling with the police officials her mother in law came to their house after which she was removed to hospital by her Jeth. She has also denied the suggestion that she entered in her house after exchange of filthy language between her and the accused persons or that she came out of her house when the local police arrived at the spot. (11) According to the witness, about 50 neighbors gents and ladies from their neighborhood gathered at the spot and police did not record statement of any of those persons in her presence. She has denied the suggestion that her mother in law was suffering from heart disease for the last about eight to nine years or that her mother in law was suffering from diabetes upto 604. She has also denied the suggestion that her mother in law expired due to her heart disease and diabetic problem or that none of the accused persons gave beatings to her or to her mother in law. The witness has further denied the suggestion that she gave the clothes after one month of the incident because the clothes were not torn by any of the accused persons at the time of the incident. She has also denied the suggestion that being aggrieved by the death of her mother in law she had falsely implicated the accused by aggravating the incident. The witness has testified that there was no previous dispute on the stopping of the rehri at any point of time and has voluntarily explained that there was one dispute previously with Santosh on the tying of strings/ ropes for hanging the clothes in the gali. She has denied the suggestion that the death of her mother in law was natural or that they had falsely implicated the accused persons for the same. St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 12 (12) PW20 Rajender Gupta has deposed that he is residing at C1503, Jahangir Puri, Delhi along with his family and is running an STD/PCO shop from the same address. According to him, on 28.09.2012 at around 4:15 PM, two ladies came to his PCO booth and informed him that they were residing in Baraso wali gali and that they had a dispute with the neighbors on some rehri wala who was selling singharas. The witness has further deposed that on their request he allowed them to make a PCR call from number 9899756201. He has also deposed that police recorded his statement on 23.12.2012.
(13) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the ladies who had come to his shop were not known to him previously. He has further deposed that he maintained no register for PCO in respect of STD calls and therefore no entires had been made. He has denied the suggestion that no call was made.
(14) PW21 Smt. Bishambri has deposed that he is residing at C1263, Jahangir Puri, Delhi along with her family. According to the witness Premwati W/o Ranjeet Singh was her real sister and on 28.09.2012 her sister Premwati and her daughter in law Sushma had a quarrel with their neighbor Santosh and her daughter Reena @ Meenu and son Ashwani. She has further deposed that Santosh was residing opposite the house of Premwati whereas she was residing adjoining the house of her sister Premwati. The witness has also deposed that she was inside her house and after hearing loud voices she came out of her house and saw that Sushma St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 13 had been thrown on the ground and held down by Santosh, Reena and Ashwani and all her clothes were torn and when she tried to intervene to save her, she (witness) was pushed. She has also deposed that her sister Premwati had received injuries on her chest because she had been given fist blows on her chest. She has further deposed that on the same day at night her sister Premwati expired at BJRM Hospital on account of the injuries. The witness has testified that her sister Premwati had expired on account of jhagra/ quarrel and accused persons were responsible for her death. She has also deposed that she was inside when the dispute took place and therefore she did not know the cause of the quarrel but when she came out, she saw Santosh had dragged Sushma outside the house, Reena had caught hold of her hair and all three of them had torn her clothes. The witness has also further testified that she had given clothes to Sushma and wrapped her as she had become naked. She has further deposed that in the month of October, date she does not recollect, the torn clothes had been taken by the police in her presence. According to the witness, it was a Mehendi color suit and she could identify the same. She has identified her thumb impressions on the seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court and also the case property i.e. ladies salwar which is Ex.P1 and ladies kurta which is Ex.P2. (15) With the permission of the Court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to the witness wherein she has admitted that her statement was recorded on 29.10.2012 i.e. on the same day when the clothes were St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 14 seized which is Ex.PW21/PX1. She has further deposed that she had told the police that Santosh, her daughter and son had all entered into the house of Premwati and dragged her daughter in law Sushma outside where they give leg and fist blows to her. The witness has admitted that she had stated to the police in her statement Ex.PW21/PX1 that Ashwani had publicly cut and broken the nara of Sushma's salwar and thereafter Santosh caught hold of hair of Sushma whereas Ashwani and Reena torn of her suit and has voluntarily explained that she had become confused and nervous in the Court due to which he could not inform the same to the Court. (16) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the incident took place at around 3:30 PM. She has admitted that she was inside her house at the time of quarrel but has denied the suggestion that she did not see who had hit Premwati where since she was inside her house and has voluntarily explained that Santosh, Ashwani and Reena had given her fist blows on her chest. She is unable to tell who shifted Premwati and Sushma to the hospital. She has further deposed that she had also gone to the hospital but it was after two to two and a half hours. The witness has testified that she did not meet any police officers on the date of the incident. She has admitted that no inquiry was made from her either on the day of the incident or on the next day. The witness has also admitted that her statement was recorded after one month. She has denied the suggestion that she was not present at the time of the incident nor she had witnessed the same. The witness has also admitted that St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 15 she was never interrogated on the day of the incident or on the next day. She has denied the suggestion that she was planted witness being closely related to the deceased being her sister only to corroborate and confirm the prosecution version. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the accused are innocent and had no role to play in the death of Premwati or that Premwati was suffering from multiple ailments and at the time of the incident had fallen down on the ground of her own. She has further denied the suggestion that Premwati had died a natural death or that the accused are innocent.
(17) PW22 Rajan is the son of the deceased and has deposed that he is residing at C12611262, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on the third floor along with his family and was doing the work of house painting. He has further deposed that on 28.09.2012 he was sleeping in his room on the third floor when at around 33:15 PM he heard loud voices of ladai jhagra from in front of his house and on hearing the same he came down. According to the witness, he saw that his neighbors Santosh, Meenu @ Reena and Ashwani were beating (mar pitai) his mother Premwati and his sister in law Sushma had been taken inside his house because all her clothes had torn. He has further deposed that his mother Premwati was lying on the ground and Santosh was giving fist blows to his mother Premwati on her chest, Ashwani had caught hold of her legs and Meenu @ Reena had caught hold of hair of his mother. The witness has also deposed that his sister in law Sushma made a call at 100 number while he was doing the beech bachao/ chutao and St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 16 trying to free his mother. He has further deposed that police came to the spot and took all three of them to the police station. He has also deposed that his mother started feeling pain in her chest at around 88:15 PM on which he along with his brother Ravi shifted her to BJRM hospital where she expired on the next day morning. The witness has correctly identified all the accused in the Court.
(18) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he normally left for his work at around 8 AM and there was no fix time to return. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police after about one month which statement is Ex.PW22/DX1. He has denied the suggestion that he told the police that he did not see who all had beaten his mother but when he came down all the three accused i.e. Santosh, Reena and Ashwani were assaulting his sister in law Sushma (Sushma se lepat rahe thai). However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW22/DX1 the above fact was found recorded from point A to A1. He is unable to tell at what time the police had come and states that he was sleeping at that time.
(19) On a specific Court Question the witness has deposed that on the same day, the police was called twice and two times they had come because the quarrel took place on two occasion. According to him, first time the police had come, he was sleeping but after this quarrel when the police had come he was very much there but he did not tell anything to the police and has voluntarily explained that they never made inquiries from St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 17 him.
(20) The witness has also deposed that he did not tell the police that his mother had also been beaten and given fist blows on her chest when they came to the spot and has voluntarily explained that they only took Sushma to the hospital for her treatment. According to the witness, he did not accompany Sushma to the hospital nor he took his mother to the hospital himself. He has further deposed that he also did not call the police or made any statement to the police when his mother had expired on the next day and has voluntarily explained that he was in a state of bereavement at that time. He has denied the suggestion that his mother did not go to the police station in his presence when Sushma was shifted to the hospital. He has admitted that the months of September, October and November are heavy seasons for painting of houses on account of festivals. He has also denied the suggestion that he was not present in the house and had gone for his work and it was for this reason that his statement was never recorded by the police at first instance and has voluntarily explained that he was at home because at the place where he was working at that time, he was not required as rubbing (Ghesai) work was going on at the place of his work. He is unable to tell the address of the premises where he was working at that time and has voluntarily explained that it was at Adarsh Nagar. He has further deposed that police did not record statement any of the neighbors who had gathered at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the incident nor he had witnessed the same. He has admitted St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 18 that he was never interrogated on the day of the incident or on the next day. He has denied the suggestion that he was planted witness being the son of the deceased only to corroborate and confirm the prosecution version. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the accused are innocent and had no role to play in the death of Premwati. He has also denied the suggestion that Premwati was suffering from multiple ailments and heart disease for the last 89 years and had expired due to heart attack. The witness has further denied the suggestion that Premwati had died a natural death or that the accused are innocent. He has also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the tutoring of the investigating officer (21) PW23 Sh. Ravi Kumar is the son of the deceased who has deposed that he is residing at C12611262, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on the ground floor along with his family and is a driver by profession. He has further deposed that his mother Premwati used to go for her rest on the first floor and had her room there. He has also deposed that second and third floor were with his elder brother Rajan. According to him, on 28.09.2012 he had gone for his duty and at about 3:304:00 PM he had received a call from his mother who told him that Ashwani and Meenu were giving abuses to her on which he advised his mother that she should not respond and make call at 100 number. He has further deposed that his mother thereafter made a call at 100 number and in the meanwhile he felt that he should also reach his house. The witness has also deposed that when he came to his house after about three hours, he came to know that Ashwani, Meenu @ Reena St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 19 and Santosh, whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, who were his neighbors had beaten his mother and they had also torn the clothes of his wife Sushma who had also been beaten and thereafter the police had come and shifted Sushma to the hospital. According to the witness, he came to know that the condition of his mother had deteriorated and his elder brother Rajan had shifted her to BJRM Hospital where she was admitted. The witness has testified that he then went to the BJRM hospital and remained there with his mother whose condition had become deteriorated and was put on ventilator. He has also deposed that on the next day morning, his mother had expired and police had come to his house and made inquiries from him. The witness has testified that the clothes of his wife Sushma which she was wearing on the day of the incident and had been torn by the accused, were taken by the police and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. He has also deposed that on 29.09.2012 he had identified the dead body of his mother in the hospital vide Ex.PW23/A and his statement was recorded by the police on the same day i.e. 29.10.2012. According to the witness after the conduct of postmortem he was handed over the dead body of his mother vide memo Ex.PW23/B. (22) The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court and also the case property i.e. ladies salwar which is Ex.P1 and ladies kurta which is Ex.P2.
(23) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 20 had admitted that he was not an eye witness to the incident and even when he returned home, he could not speak to his mother. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police only once which statement is Ex.PW23/DX1. He has also admitted that he had told the police in his statement Ex.PW23/DX1 that after reaching his house at 8:30 PM, he along with his brother had shifted his mother to the BJRM hospital. He has also deposed that he received a phone call of his mother at about 4:00 PM. According to the witness, he did not make any statement to the police on 09.10.2012 which is Ex.PW23/DX2. He has denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded on 29.10.2012 and only seizure memo of the clothes was prepared. The witness has also suggestion that only his signatures were obtained on the seizure memo of the clothes by the police in the police station. According to him, his mother had made a call to him from the STD booth. He has denied the suggestion that his mother had never given him any information regarding the quarrel or that his mother was a chronic heart patient and had expired due to heart attack. He has admitted that he was never interrogated on the day of the incident or on the next day. He has denied the suggestion that he was planted witness being son of the deceased only to corroborate and confirm the prosecution version or that the accused are innocent and had no role to play in the death of Premwati. The witness has further denied the suggestion that Premwati was suffering from multiple ailments and heart disease for the last eight to nine years and had expired due to heart attack. He has denied the suggestion that St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 21 Premwati had died a natural death or that the accused are innocent. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the tutoring of the Investigating Officer.
(24) PW24 Sahil is a child aged 12 years who is the son of Sushma and grandson of deceased Premwati. Before recording the statement of the child witness this Court had interacted with the child and found him intelligent and competent of understanding of nature of queries being put to him. It has been observed by this Court that the child has been studying in class 8th and understood the sanctity of oath and therefore he was administered oath after which this Court proceeded to record his statement in vernacular in question answer form (25) The witness has stated that he is studying in class 8th in Government boys senior secondary school. According to him, he is residing along with his mother, father, younger sister, tau, tai, their four children and her deceased grandmother. The witness has further stated that a Singhare wala had come in front of his house on which he told to his mother who started marking purchases when Ashwani and Meenu @ Reena whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court and who are residing opposite to their house came and asked the Singhare wala to move ahead on which his mother told the Singhare wala to move ahead and started purchasing singhare despite which Meenu and Ashwani started abusing his mother. In the meantime his grandmother came from the first floor and inquired as to what had happened on which his mother informed her that there was a St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 22 quarrel with the neighbours. According to him, his mother and grandmother then made a call at 100 number from an STD booth and after some time one police man came and told them police from Police Station would come shortly and went away. He has further stated that after the police man left, Santosh, Meenu and Ashwani came inside their house and started giving beatings to his mother and dragged her to the street. He has explained that Ashwani broke the nara of salwar of his mother and tore her clothes and they all three gave legs and fist blows to his mother. According to him, when his grandmother Premwati came to save him, Ashwani caught hold of her, Meenu caught hold of her hands and Santosh gave fist blows while sitting on her chest. He has also stated that when he tried to intervene Santosh pushed him and he raised an alarm on which his tau came from the upper floor and neighbouring grandmother (paros wali dadi) came and saved them. In the meanwhile police had also come and made inquires from his mother on which his mother told them that she and his grandmother had received injures and she should be medically examined on which police man Tahir Hussain stated that she was dramatizing (buriya drame kar rahi hai). According to him, the condition of his grandmother started deteriorating and she experienced pain in her chest and thereafter his father came home when his father and tau took her to hospital at 8:30 PM. He has stated that he and his Tau were rubbing the body of his grandmother since her condition was deteriorating St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 23 (26) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had come to the Court along with his mother and parents. According to him, his grandmother did not go to the Police Station after making the phone call. He has also deposed that when the quarrel stopped police came after five minutes but he does not recollect the time. He has further deposed that he was not interrogated by the police on the date of incident and he was interrogated only after his grandmother had expired and has voluntarily explained that it was after one month. According to the witness, when the police did not take his grandmother to the hospital, he and his Tau rubbed the body of his grandmother but his Tau did not take his grandmother to the doctor and has voluntarily explained that his grandmother was taken to the Hospital in the evening. He has also deposed that when the condition of his grandmother was deteriorating and police was not taking her to Hospital, then his Tai i.e. the daughter in law of his neighbouring grandmother (dadi ki bahu jo ki mere tai hai), had come. He has denied that his grandmother was ailing for the last nine to ten years or that on the date of incident she had suffered a heart problem. According to the witness, on 28.09.2012 he had taken a leave from the school since he was not in a mood to go to school on that day. He has also deposed that usually he went to school at 12:30 noon and left the school at 6:00 PM. He has denied that her grandmother was not taken to the hospital because she was not assaulted. He has also denied that he had gone to the school on that day and has voluntarily explained that on that day he was present at his St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 24 house.
Witnesses of medical record:
(27) PW11 Dr. Ravinder, SR, BJRM Hospital has deposed that on 28.09.2012 at 9:00 PM one Premwati W/o Ranbir, aged 65 years, was brought to the hospital by son Rajan with alleged history of physical assault.
According to the witness, the patient was unconscious, sluggish response to deep painful stimuli with labored breeding, pulse was not palpable, BP not recordable, Chest - bilateral Crepts, CVS (Cardio Vascular System) - Tachycardia. He has further deposed that No fresh external injury was seen at the time of examination and the patient was admitted in the hospital and was immediately put on Ventilator. He has proved the MLC in this regard which is Ex.PW11/A. (28) On a specific Court Question the witness has admitted that the patient was unconscious through out and the history was given by her son. (29) He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(30) PW12 Dr. Javed, PW13 Dr. Sameer Mehta and PW14 Dr. Bhim Singh are all members of the Medical Board. They have deposed that a committee was constituted by the BJRM Hospital to give the actual cause of death of Smt. Premwati W/o Ranjeet whose postmortem had been conducted on 29.09.2012 vide PM report No. 988/12 which Committee was headed by Dr. Bhim Singh. They have proved that after going through the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 25 records including the copies of the MLC sheet, Autopsy Report and medical records of the deceased the committee submitted the report which is Ex.PW12/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Javed at point A, signatures of Dr. Sameer Mehta at point B and signatures of Dr. Bhim Singh at point C. They have further deposed that after thorough screening of the records the committee could not comment upon whether the injuries were anti or postmortem and also could not ascertain whether the actual cause of death was due to cardiac arrest on account of internal bleeding due to rapture of liver and spleen.
(31) In their crossexaminations by the Ld. Defence Counsel, Dr. Javed has explained that the reason why the committee could not ascertain the actual cause of death was on account of the fact that the committee could not corelate the clinical findings in the MLC and the autopsy surgeon report with the opinion given by the autopsy surgeon. He has further deposed that when the patient was brought to the hospital, she was having a very high blood sugar level and other metabolic derangements which was due to internsic systemic reasons and death could be on account of any these factors.
(32) Further, in his crossexamination Dr. Sameer Mehta has deposed that the reason why the committee could not ascertain the actual cause of death was on account of the fact that the committee could not corelate the clinical findings in the MLC and the autopsy surgeon report with St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 26 the opinion given by the autopsy surgeon whether the cardiac arrest was due to any external stimuli or on account of the findings so reflected in the report of the autopsy surgeon.
(33) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that the reason why he could not give any definite finding with regard to the cause of death was on account of extreme departmental pressure from his seniors.
(34) A specific Court Question the witness has informed that it was the Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr. Suresh Seth who exerted pressure on him. According to the witness he did not make any complaint against him since he (Dr. Suresh Seth) was the same authority to whom the complaint was to be made. However, when asked by the Court, to inform about the cause of death, after seeing the MLC, autopsy surgeon's report and death summary/ findings and medical reports of treatment of the patient, the witness Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that he is of the primafacia view that the death was Natural, the patient having the history of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac problem for last 89 years.
(35) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that the departmental pressure was exerted upon the committee by the seniors fearing defamation of the hospital on account of the nature of the report St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 27 given by the Autopsy Surgeon.
(36) PW15 Dr. Sudesh Kumar is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 29.09.2012 he was posted at BJRM Hospital and on that day he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Premwati, W/o Ranjit, aged 65 years with alleged history of deceased and as per brief fact that female had expired in the BJRM hospital and was sent to BJRM hospital for autopsy vide case FIR No. 252/12 dated 28.09.2012. The witness has proved that the deceased was wearing Saree, Peticoat, Blouse; built of the body was Moderate; rigor mortis present all over the body; postmortem staining present at back; eyes closed; conjunctivae congested; cornea Hazy; Mouth closed; tongue inside and nails NAD. He has testified that there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Bruise present at dorsal aspect base of left hand of size 2 x 1 cm.
2. Bruise present at ventral aspect of upper part of left forearm of size 3 x 1 cm.
3. Bruise present at dorsal aspect of upper part of left elbow of size 2 x 1 cm.
4. Abrasion present at dorsal aspect of right elbow joint of size 2 x 1 cm.
(37) The witness has also deposed that on internal examination, Head was intact; Neck soft tissue were intact; Chest Blood and blood clot was present in between 2,3,4 and right side and 2, 3, 4 and 5 left side intercostal space; Abdomen & Pelvis were intact; Liver and gall bladder St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 28 right lobe of liver was lacerated and rupture, blood and blood present in peritoneal cavity ½ liter; Spleen was lacerated; kidney, Pancreas, stomach was intact. He has further deposed that he had opined the Cause of Death as Hemorrhagic shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of liver and spleen as a result of blunt force consequent upon abdomen as a result of assault. He has further deposed that all injuries were antemortem in nature, time since death as per hospital record 2 hours 35 minutes. He has proved the detail postmortem report which is Ex.PW15/A. According to him, total number of inquest papers were 11 and blood gauze piece was preserved.
(38) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that deceased was suffering from heart disease for the last eightnine years but no record was available however, it was mentioned in the MLC by SR medicine. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to Cardiac Arrest or that he had wrongly mentioned the external injuries in Ex.PW15/A. He has also denied the suggestion that he had prepared a wrong postmortem report.
(39) PW18 Dr. Seema has deposed that on 28.9.2012 at 6:00 PM Sushma W/o Ravi Kumar, aged 25 years was brought to BJRM Hospital with alleged history of physical assault and was medically examined by Dr. Roshan. According to her as per the MLC on local examination the following injuries were found present:
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 29
1. Abrasion on left side of forehead.
2. Abrasion on right hand and right elbow.
3. Abrasion on right elbow.
(40) She has further deposed that the patient was referred for Gynecological examination where she was examined by Dr. Minakshi and as per the MLC on local examination the following injuries were present on the body of the patient:
1. Abrasion on exterior aspect of right hand.
2. Scratch marks of 3 cm below right elbow (exterior surface).
3. Two abrasions on left elbow.
4. Two bruises on flexor surface of left forearm 1 cm x 1 cm each.
5. Two scratch marks on forehead on left side 2 cm x 2 cm.
6. Scratch mark just above left eye 2 cm.
(41) She has testified that the patient had refused her internal examination and as per the local examination findings the nature of injury was opined to be Simple by Dr. Deepak, CMO. She has proved the MLC of patient Sushma which is Ex.PW18/A. She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted. (42) PW19 Dr. Rahul has deposed that on 28.09.2012 at about 9:00 PM, he medically examined Premwati W/o Ranbir, female, 65 years old at the casualty of the hospital who was brought by her son Rajan with alleged history of physical assault. According to the witness, after her medical examination he prepared the MLC No. 48045 which is Ex.PW11/A St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 30 according to which the patient was unconscious and sluggish response to deep painful stimuli with labored breathing. He has further deposed that on examination the pulse was not palpable and BP was not recordable. The witness has proved that he had not found any fresh external injury on the person of Premwati at the time of her examination, after which the patient was referred to surgery and medicine department for further management. He has further proved the MLC No. 47951 which is Ex.PW18/A in respect of Sushma who was examined by Dr. Roshan on 28.09.2012 who also gave his opinion as nature of injuries was Simple. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
FSL Expert:
(43) PW16 Sh. S.S. Badwal, Senior Scientific Officer (Physics), FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 9.11.2012 one parcel duly sealed with the seals of 'JP' was received in the Physics Division. According to him, the seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per the forwarding letter. He has further deposed that the parcel was opened and found to contain Ex.1a i.e. one ladies salwar with white colour Cord (Nada) and Ex.
1b i.e. one ladies Kurta. The witness has proved that the broken ends of the cord of the ladies salwar was physically examined under the microscope and on thorough examination the use of any sharp edged weapon to break St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 31 the cord (Nada) was ruled out. He has also deposed that after the examination the parcel containing the exhibits had been sealed with the seal of 'FSL SSB DELHI'. He has proved his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW16/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Police / official witnesses:
(44) PW1 SI Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW1/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(45) PW2 HC Subhash is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the copy of FIR No. 252/12 which is Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (46) PW3 HC Jai Pal is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 32 register no. 19 vide S.No. 3453/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A; entry at S. No. 3479/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/B; entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 142/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/C and receipt issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW3/D. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (47) PW4 Ct. Bijender is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/A (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 9.11.2012 he took the exhibits of this case vide RC No. 142/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/C and deposited the same with the FSL Rohini and obtained a receipt which is Ex.PW3/D. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(48) PW5 Ct. Pradeep is also a formal witness being the Duty Constable at BJRM Hospital who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 28.9.2012 at 9:00 PM a patient Premwati was brought to BJRM Hospital by one Rajan. He has further deposed that on 29.9.2012 Premwati expired during treatment in BJRM Hospital on which he informed in the Police Station Jahangir Puri vide DD No. 11A copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 33 (49) PW6 WCt. Reena is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved having got conducted the medical examination of injured Sushma. She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(50) PW7 Ct. Deepak is again a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having gone to the spot of incident along with ASI Tahir Hussain and having taken the rukka to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted.
(51) PW8 Ct. Inderjeet is a formal witness being the PCR Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the PCR form which is Ex.PW8/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted. (52) PW9 Ct. Jaipal is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having got verified the addreses of the accused persons. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 34 Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted. (53) PW10 Sh. Jaipal TGT, Government Boys Senior Secondary School has brought the summoned record i.e. admission record pertaining to Ashwani Kumar. He has placed on record the copy of admission and withdrawal register which is Ex.PW10/A showing the relevant entry at serial No. 9087; copy of admission form which is Ex.PW10/B; copy of Birth certificate of Ashwani which is Ex.PW10/C; copy of undertaking given by Suresh Kumar, father of Ashwani at the time of admission which is Ex.PW10/D; copy of ration card in support of undertaking at the time of admission which is Ex.PW10/E (running into two pages). He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted.
(54) PW25 W/Ct. Sharmila has deposed that on 29.09.2012 he was posted at Police Station Jahangirpuri and on that day she joined the investigations in the present case along with ASI Tahir Hussain when she along with ASI Tahir Husaain and Ct. Ranjeet went to premises No. C1240, Jahangirpuri which was found locked. According to her, thereafter they returned to the Police Station and while they were returning, outside the Police Station, a secret informer met the Investigating Officer and informed that two ladies and one boy were standing outside of the gate of the Police Station who were wanted accused in the said case. She has testified that on receipt of that information and on the pointing out of secret informer, three St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 35 persons were apprehended and on interrogation they disclosed their names as Santosh, Reena and Ashwani, whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. The witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer then requested fourfive public persons standing outside the police station to join the proceedings but they refused after which all the three persons were brought to the Police Station and interrogated them wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present case. She has deposed that the accused were then arrested and their personal search was conducted after which their disclosure statements were recorded. She has proved the arrest memo of accused Ashwani which is Ex.PW25/A; personal search memo which is Ex.PW25/B; the arrest memo of accused Santosh which is Ex.PW25/C; her personal search which is Ex.PW25/D; the arrest memo of accused Reena which is Ex.PW25/E, her personal search which is Ex.PW25/F; disclosure statement of accused Ashwani which is Ex.PW25G; disclosure statement of accused Santosh which is Ex.PW25/H and disclosure statement of accused Reena which is Ex.PW25/I. The witness has also deposed that the accused were then taken to BJRM hospital where their medical examination were got conducted and then were brought back to the police station and put them in the lock up.
(55) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had themselves gone to the Police Station to lodge a complaint against the family of Premwati in St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 36 respect of the quarrel but instead of recording the same, they were falsely implicated. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not make any disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the said case or that the Investigating Officer recorded the same of his own. The witness has further denied the suggestion that she merely signed all the documents while sitting in the Police Station at the instance of the senior officers or that the accused were compelled to sign on blank papers which were later on converted into various documents.
(56) PW26 Ct. Ranjeet Singh has deposed that on 29.09.2012 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day he was on duty from 8AM to 8PM and joined the investigations in the present case along with ASI Tahir Hussain. He has further deposed that he went to BJRM Hospital along with ASI Tahir Hussain and got the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted. According to him, before postmortem the dead body was identified by Ravi, son of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW23/A and by her son in law Dev Kumar vide memo Ex.PW26/A. He has also deposed that after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to her son vide Ex.PW23/B. The witness has testified that thereafter he along with ASI Tahir Husaain and L/Ct. Sharmila went to premises No. C1240, Jahangirpuri which was found locked. According to the witness, thereafter they returned to the Police Station and while they were returning, outside the police station, a secret informer met the Investigating Officer and informed that two ladies and one boy were standing outside of the gate of St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 37 the police station who were wanted accused in the present case. He has further deposed that on receipt of the said information and on the pointing out of secret informer, three persons i.e. two ladies and one man were apprehended and on interrogation they disclosed their names as Santosh, Reena and Ashwani whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court. The witness has testified that all the three persons were brought to the Police Station and interrogated them wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present case after which they were arrested and their personal search was conducted and their disclosure statements were recorded. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Ashwani which is Ex.PW25/A; personal search memo which is Ex.PW25/B; the arrest memo of accused Santosh which is Ex.PW25/C; her personal search which is Ex.PW25/D; the arrest memo of accused Reena which is Ex.PW25/E, her personal search which is Ex.PW25/F; disclosure statement of accused Ashwani which is Ex.PW25G; disclosure statement of accused Santosh which is Ex.PW25/H and disclosure statement of accused Reena which is Ex.PW25/I. The witness has also deposed that the accused were then taken to BJRM hospital where their medical examination were got conducted and then were brought back to the police station and put them in the lock up. (57) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had themselves gone to the Police Station to lodge a complaint against the family of Premwati in respect of the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 38 quarrel but instead of recording the same, they were falsely implicated. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not make any disclosure statements regarding their involvement in the present case or that the Investigating Officer recorded the same of his own. He has further denied the suggestion that he merely signed all the documents while sitting in the Police Station at the instance of the senior officers or that the accused were compelled to sign on blank papers which were later on converted into various documents.
(58) PW27 ASI Tahir Hussain has deposed that on 28.09.2012 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day he had received a call with regard to the quarrel vide DD No. 91 B which is Ex.PW27/A. He has further deposed that when he reached the spot, he met Sushma and her husband Ravi Kumar and her mother in law Premwati and when he asked them as to who had injuries and wanted to medical examination done, Sushma told that she wanted her medical examination. The witness has also deposed that he called W/Ct. Reena from the Police Station, through whom the medical examination of Sushma was got conducted from BJRM Hospital. He has also deposed that he reached the BJRM Hospital along with Ct. Deepak and obtained the MLC of Sushma and recorded the statement of Sushma which is Ex.PW17/A which he converted into a rukka vide his endorsement Ex.PW27/B and sent the same to the PS through Ct. Deepak for registration of the case. According to the witness, he thereafter came to the spot along with complainant and prepared the site plan St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 39 Ex.PW27/C. He has further deposed that he then tried to search the accused persons namely Santosh her daughter Reena @ Meenu and son Ashwani but could not find them and therefore returned to the Police Station. The witness has testified that while he was on the way he was informed by the Duty Officer that the Premwati who was involved in the quarrel was admitted at BJRM Hospital on which he reached BJRM hospital and obtained the MLC of Premwati but she was not fit for statement and therefore he could not record her statement as she was unconscious and was on ventilator. According to the witness, he immediately informed the SHO of the position and then returned to the Police Station. He has further deposed that on 29.09.2012 at about 9:20 AM he received information from BJRM Hospital regarding the death of Premwati vide DD No. 11A which is Ex.PW5/A on which he along with Ct. Ranjeet reached at BJRM hospital in the Emergency where the dead body of Premwati was lying. He has proved having got shifted the dead body to the mortuary and moved an application to the CMO to conduct the postmortem on the dead body which application is Ex.PW27/D. He has further deposed that the dead body of Premwati was identified by her son Ravi vide Ex.PW23/A and by her son in law Dev Kumar vide Ex.PW26/A. The witness has proved having filled up the necessary forms and after the postmortem was conducted the dead body was handed over to his son vide handing over memo Ex.PW23/B. He has also deposed that he thereafter returned to the Police Station and went in search St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 40 of the accused persons at house of accused persons i.e. C1240 along with Ct. Ranjeet and W/Ct. Sharmila but the house was found locked. He has testified that while they returned to the Police Station he met a secret informer near the Fire Station who informed that the accused wanted in the present case were standing outside the police station amongst many persons. He has further deposed that on pointing out of secret informer he apprehended two ladies and one man with the help of Ct. Ranjeet and W/Ct. Sharmila and confirmed their names as Santosh, Reena and Ashwani. The witness has also deposed that he requested fourfive public persons to join the proceedings but none agreed after which all the three persons were brought to the Police Station and interrogated them wherein they disclosed their involvement in the present case. He has further deposed that they were then arrested and their personal search was conducted after which their disclosure statements were recorded. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Ashwani which is Ex.PW25/A; personal search memo which is Ex.PW25/B; the arrest memo of accused Santosh which is Ex.PW25/C; her personal search which is Ex.PW25/D; the arrest memo of accused Reena which is Ex.PW25/E, her personal search which is Ex.PW25/F; disclosure statement of accused Ashwani which is Ex.PW25G; disclosure statement of accused Santosh which is Ex.PW25/H and disclosure statement of accused Reena which is Ex.PW25/I. The witness has also deposed that the accused were then taken to BJRM hospital where their medical examination were got St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 41 conducted and then were brought back to the police station and put them in the lock up. He has proved having recorded the statements of the witnesses. The witness has correctly identified all the three accused i.e. Santosh, Reena and Ashwani in the Court.
(59) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had themselves came to surrender in the police station but he wrongly showed them and arrested at the instance of secret informer. He has also denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statements or that he had written the same of his own. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the deceased had expired on account of natural reasons or that the postmortem was conducted under the pressure of the family of the deceased. (60) PW28 Inspector Jai Parkash Meena has deposed that on 05.10.2012 he was handed over the investigations of the present case. According to him, on 09.10.2012 he handed over the photocopies of the death report/ PM report etc. of the deceased to the husband of the complainant. According to him, on 29.10.2012 he went to the house of the complainant Sushma where she handed over to him her torn salwar kameez which she was wearing on the day of the incident. He has also deposed that he converted the same into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of JP and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. He has testified that he then recorded the statements of Bishambri, Rajan, Sahil, Ravi and supplementary statement of Sushma. According to the witness, he St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 42 thereafter returned to the Police Station and deposited the sealed pullanda in the malkhana and recorded the statement of Ct. Devender. He has proved that on 09.11.2012 he sent the exhibits to the FSL Rohini. He has further deposed that he made a request to the MS BJRM hospital for purposes of giving subsequent opinion with regard to the cause of death in view of certain contradictions in death summary, MLC and the PM report. The witness has also deposed that a Medical Board was constituted on the directions of the Medical Superintendent who gave its report which was received by him on 10.12.2012. He has testified that on the same day he collected the report from the FSL Rohini and on the same day he got prepared the scaled site plan from SI Manohar Lal. He has proved having recorded the statements of other witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.
(61) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he had recorded two statements of Ravi first on 09.10.2012 which is Ex.PW23/DX2 and then on 29.10.2012 which is Ex.PW23/DX1. He has admitted that both the statements bear his signatures at point A. He has denied the suggestion that Rajan, Bishambari, Sahil, Ravi and Sushma did not make any statement to him or he fabricated the same. He has deposed that doctors gave the final report that the cause of death was not clear. He has denied the suggestion that in fact the doctors told him that the cause of death was the heart attack or that he filed the charge sheet on the basis of fabricated statements.
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 43 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(62) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which they have denied. The accused Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. According to the accused, they have nothing to do with the alleged incident nor did they make any disclosure statement. They have further stated that all the memos have been manipulated and fabricated by the Investigating Officer in connivance with the complainant.
(63) Similarly the accused Santosh has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, on the date of the alleged incident she was on duty from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and in this regard she has placed on record the copy of the attendance register which is Ex.DX1. She has also stated that she nothing to do with the alleged incident nor did she make any disclosure statement. She has further stated that all the memos have been manipulated and fabricated by the Investigating Officer in connivance with the complainant.
FINDINGS:
(64) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 44 evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
(65) In so far as the identity of the accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani is concerned, the same has not been disputed since the accused and the complainant are known to each other being neighbours. All the three accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani have been named in the FIR and have also been duly identified by the complainant and other public witnesses. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Copy of the first Information Report not placed before the Ld. MM on time:
(66) The statement of Smt. Sushma which is Ex.PW17/A was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 28.9.2012 and the rukka was prepared which was sent to Police Station for registration of FIR at 7:30 PM. The FIR Ex.PW2/A reveals that it was registered at 19:45 hours (i.e. 7:45 PM). The copy of the FIR which was placed before the Ld. MM for the first time after its registration, has been called from the concerned court and it is evident that it was received by the Ld. MM at 10:00 AM on 1.10.2012 despite the fact that according to the prosecution initially the FIR was registered under Sections 452/354/323/34 IPC and later an information regarding the death of the deceased Premwati was received from BJRM St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 45 Hospital vide DD No. 11A which is Ex.PW5/A after which ASI Tahir Hussain got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.
Why this information regarding the incident and subsequent death of Premwati not placed before the Ld. MM at the earliest and it took the SHO concerned three days to place the copy of FIR before the Ld. MM. No explanation / justification is forthcoming for the same. The possibility of a padding as alleged by the Ld. Defence Counsel cannot be ruled out under the given circumstances.
Medical Evidence:
(67) Coming first to the complainant Sushma, Dr. Seema (PW18) has proved the MLC of the injured / complainant Sushma which is Ex.PW18/A according to which on 28.9.2012 at 6:00 PM Sushma W/o Ravi Kumar, aged 25 years was brought to BJRM Hospital with alleged history of physical assault and on local examination the following injuries were found present:
1. Abrasion on left side of forehead.
2. Abrasion on right hand and right elbow.
3. Abrasion on right elbow.
(68) As per the MLC, Sushma was referred for Gynecological examination where she was examined by Dr. Minakshi and as per the MLC on local examination the following injuries were present on the body of the patient:
1. Abrasion on exterior aspect of right hand.
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 46
2. Scratch marks of 3 cm below right elbow (exterior surface).
3. Two abrasions on left elbow.
4. Two bruises on flexor surface of left forearm 1 cm x 1 cm each.
5. Two scratch marks on forehead on left side 2 cm x 2 cm.
6. Scratch mark just above left eye 2 cm.
(69) She has proved that the nature of injury was opined to be Simple by Dr. Deepak, CMO.
(70) In so far as Premwati is concerned, Dr. Ravinder (PW11) has proved the MLC of Premwati which is Ex.PW11/A according to which on 28.09.2012 at 9:00 PM Premwati W/o Ranbir, aged 65 years was brought to the hospital by her son Rajan with alleged history of physical assault and he found the patient unconscious, sluggish response to deep painful stimuli with labored breeding, pulse was not palpable, BP not recordable, Chest - bilateral Crepts, CVS (Cardio Vascular System) - Tachycardia. According to him, no fresh external injury was seen at the time of examination and the patient was admitted in the hospital and was immediately put on Ventilator.
(71) Dr. Sudesh Kumar (PW15) is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 29.09.2012 he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Premwati, W/o Ranjit, aged 65 years vide postmortem report which is Ex.PW15/A according to which there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 47
1. Bruise present at dorsal aspect base of left hand of size 2 x 1 cm.
2. Bruise present at ventral aspect of upper part of left forearm of size 3 x 1 cm.
3. Bruise present at dorsal aspect of upper part of left elbow of size 2 x 1 cm.
4. Abrasion present at dorsal aspect of right elbow joint of size 2 x 1 cm.
(72) He has proved his opinion that Cause of Death was Hemorrhagic shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of Liver and Spleen as a result of blunt force consequent upon abdomen as a result of assault, which injuries were antimortem in nature, time since death as per hospital record 2 hours 35 minutes. (73) On the application of Inspector Jai Prakash Meena (PW28) a Committee was constituted comprising of Dr. Javed (PW12), Dr. Sameer Mehta (PW13) and Dr. Bhim Singh (PW14) who gave their report vide Ex.PW12/A. In his crossexamination Dr. Javed has deposed that the reason why the committee could not ascertain the actual cause of death was on account of the fact that the committee could not corelate the clinical findings in the MLC and the opinion given by the autopsy surgeon. He has further deposed that when the patient was brought to the hospital, she was having a very high blood sugar level and other metabolic St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 48 derangement which was due to intrinsic systemic reasons and death could be on account of any these factors. In his crossexamination Dr. Sameer Mehta has deposed that the reason why the committee could not ascertain the actual cause of death was on account of the fact that the committee could not corelate the clinical findings in the MLC and the autopsy surgeon report with the opinion given by the autopsy surgeon whether the cardiac arrest was due to any external stimuli or on account of the findings so reflected in the report of the autopsy surgeon.
(74) Dr. Bhim Singh who was the Head of the committee when asked by the Court to explain as to why no definite opinion could be given, has explained that there was a huge departmental pressure upon the committee members as exerted by the senior officers of the hospital who feared defamation of the hospital on account of the nature of report given by the Autopsy Surgeon. This Court then put a pointed question to Dr. Bhim Singh as to who was the departmental officer who exerted pressure on him on which he specifically named the Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr. Suresh Seth as the one who was exerting pressure on the members of the Committee. Further, when asked as to why no complaint was made to the authorities regarding the said pressure he explained that Dr. Suresh Seth is the same authority to whom the complaint was to be made.
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 49 (75) Thereafter, Dr. Bhim Singh was told by the Court to see the MLC, Report of the Autopsy Surgeon and Death Summary/ findings, medical records of treatment of the patient Premwati and give his opinion on Cause of Death, Dr. Bhim Singh opined that the death was natural, the patient having the history of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac problem for last 89 years. I reproduce the relevant portion of the cross examination of Dr. Bhim Singh, the questions put by me (Court) to the witness Dr. Bhim Singh the Head of the Medical Board / Committee and the answers given by him as under:
"....... The reason why I could not give any definite finding with regard to the cause of death was on account of extreme departmental pressure from my seniors. Court Question : Who was the departmental officer who exerted pressure on you ?
Ans. :DMS Dr. Suresh Seth.
On court question : I did not make any complaint against him. Vol. He is the same authority to whom the complaint was to be made.
Court Question : Now can you tell after seeing the documents what is the cause of death?
Ans. :After seeing the MLC, autopsy surgeon's report and death summary/findings and medical reports of treatment of the patient, I am of the primafacie view that the death was natural, the patient having the history of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac problem for last 89 years....."
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 50
(76) I have considered the medical evidence which has come on record, statements of the member of the Medical Board and Dr. Bhim Singh and also the report given by the Autopsy Surgeon.
(77) It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that on 29.09.2012 at 11.00 AM postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Sudesh Kumar wherein he had mentioned four external injuries on the body of the deceased which are simple in nature and according to Postmortem Report there were no blood stains on the clothes of the deceased whereas on internal examination, Dr. Sudesh Kumar had mentioned rupture of liver and spleen of the deceased with no corresponding injuries in the skin, subcutaneous tissues, peritoneum and ribs of the deceased; he had also mentioned half liters of blood in peritoneal cavity. The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh Kumar gave the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of liver and spleen as a result of blunt force consequent upon abdomen as a result of assault. After postmortem examination Dr. Sudesh Kumar he had handed over the blood in gauze piece with sample seal. But he did not preserve the clothes of the deceased to match the blood stains, which could have been present on the clothes of the deceased due to assault.
(78) I have considered the material/ evidence which has come on record. As per MLC the deceased Premwati was admitted in the hospital at 9:00 PM with history of assault vide MLC No.48045/12 dated 28.09.2012 which history according to Dr. Ravinder had been given by her son. The St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 51 doctor on duty examined the deceased and found no external injuries and signs of assault and referred the deceased to the medical emergency to rule out preexisting medical illness. Dr. Ravinder SR (Medicine) examined Premwati who was alive at that time and found no signs and symptoms of physical assault. The concerned doctor advised XRay chest, ECG, Blood Sugar and other routine emergency tests and after receipt of medical reports concerned doctor diagnosed that the patient Premwati was suffering from uncontrolled DM2 with CAD with A/C. Inferior Wall Myocardial infarction with hyperosmolar diabetic coma H/O CVA with cardiogenic shock with CHF. The Death Summary and death certificate CR. No. 10528/12 proves that the deceased had expired at 08.25 AM on 29.09.2012. Smt. Premwati was also referred to the Surgeon on duty to rule out any signs of blunt trauma abdomen, chest and for signs and symptoms of hemorrhagic shock but the Surgeon observed no signs and symptoms of blunt trauma abdomen and hemorrhagic shock. It stands established that during the course of treatment deceased expired with diagnosis of natural illness and the deceased Premwati was known case of diabetes, coronary artery disease with hypertension on irregular treatment. This confirms the findings of the Medical Board and the cause of death given by Dr. Bhim Singh (PW14) and impels me to reject the report given by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Suresh which does not corelate to the clinical findings. (79) I have considered the medical literature placed before me and St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 52 after having gone through the medical evidence on record it is evident Firstly as evident from the MLC of Premwati Ex.PW11/A duly proved by Dr. Ravinder (PW11) that there were no symptoms of blunt trauma over chest and abdomen of Smt. Premwati at the time incident. As per medical literature in case of blunt trauma there is severe bodily pain followed by nausea, vomiting, rapid pulse leading to shock which was not the case with Premwati. It is evident that the most common cause of blunt trauma to chest and abdomen is road traffic accident or fall from height which is not the case. Assuming the version given by Sushma (eye witness) as correct, that she was pushed and thrown on the ground and given fist and leg blows, even then it is impossible to believe that the blunt trauma to chest and abdomen could have been caused without any observable symptoms or visible injury. (Ref page no. 301,360,1090,35960,10724 from Bailey & Love's short practice of surgery 26th edition, early assessment of trauma). (80) Secondly it is apparent that Smt. Premwati was admitted in the hospital at 9:00 PM and according to the MLC there were no injuries on body of the deceased. No blood stains were present on the clothes the deceased and the concerned doctor referred the deceased to the medical emergency. In the medical emergency the concerned doctor examine the disease on the diagnosis after investigations (as mentioned in the death certificate and death summary) as a case of uncontrolled diabetes ,acute inferior wall MI and pulmonary edema (CHF), signs and symptoms of cardiac arrest due to myocardial infarction and diabetes mellitus (Ref. page St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 53 no.535, 539, 541, 588, 591, 598, 804, 806, 812, 813, 816, 818, 824. Davidson principles and practice of medicine 19th Edition, Page no. 25 to 30, and 114. Manual of Medical Emergencies 2nd Edition, jaypee brothers, MEDICAL PUBLISHERS (P) LTD, NEW DELHI). The line of diagnosis and treatment adopted by the doctor on duty was standard and cannot be faulted.
(81) Thirdly coming now to the report prepared by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh Kumar and I am fully convinced by the case put forward by the defence and also by the findings given by the Medical Board and the same is required to be rejected for the following reasons:
➢ As per the postmortem report deceased was wearing saree, petticoat, and blouse and there was no tearing of clothes and stains of blood, suggestive of fighting between two parties. Dr. Sudesh Kumar did not preserve the clothes of the deceased. In case if he was convinced that the death was on account of use of criminal force by the other party by rupture of spleen / liver, it was necessary for him to have immediately seized the clothes worn by the deceased and to have handed them over to the Investigating Officer which he did not do.
➢ Dr. Sudesh Kumar had mentioned four superficial injuries on the body of deceased which according to him are simple in nature whereas on the other hand Dr. Ravinder who had first examined Premwati when she was still alive has proved that when he examined St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 54 the patient Premwati there were no fresh injuries on her body. The MLC of Premwati Ex.PW11/A is not corelate and is not compatible to the injuries suggested by the autopsy surgeon (i.e. Rupture of Spleen and Liver) which injuries according to him were insufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
➢ On Internal examination the external injuries are not corresponding with internal injuries mentioned in Postmortem report there was no extravasation of blood in abdominal wall, peritoneum and fracture of ribs which is most common in blunt trauma abdomen to rupture spleen and liver.
➢ Spleen and liver are largest and highly vascular organs in the body, when either one of them or both of them rupture together, it causes extensive bleeding leading to immediate shock and other organs becomes pale and lungs collapse and do not become edematous as mentioned in Xray of the deceased. In case if there would have been rupture of both Spleen and Liver to the extent as suggested by Dr. Sudesh it is impossible that Premwati would have even survived for an hour. She, however, survived for almost 1617 hours. Hence, the above findings of Dr. Suresh regarding Rupture of both Liver and Spleen is highly erroneous.
➢ To develop shock at least rapid loss of one third of the blood of the body causes death due to irreversible hypovolemic shock, that is about 1.5 liters of blood. (Reference page no. 251, 252, 253and 254 St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 55 chapter medicolegal aspects of wounds from essentials of forensic medicine and toxicology by K.S. Narayan Reddy, 21st edition, and page no's 318, from principles of forensic medicine by Apurba Nandy, publisher new central book agency (P) LTD.). ➢ Postmortem findings in death from are pallor of skin and mucous membranes, and of all viscera (especially renal cortex), and a small amount of blood in the blood vessels. In the typical case, the heart is contracted and shows streaky minute subendocardial hemorrhages on the left side of ventricular septum, and papillary muscle. (Ref. Describe in page no. 251, essentials of forensic medicine from K.S. Narayan Reddy, 21st edition.) This confirms the findings of the Committee and conclusions of Dr. Bhim Singh that death was natural i.e. on account of Cardiac Arrest due to myocardial infarction.
(82) Lastly Dr. Bhim Singh has confirmed in the Court that the report submitted by them to the extent that they were unable to give the exact opinion regarding the cause of death was on account of departmental pressure upon them. Dr. Bhim Singh has confirmed that the death in this case was natural due to preexisting uncontrolled diabetes (random blood sugar was 604mg%), CAD with Hypertension on Irregular treatment leading to death by Acute inferior Wall myocardial infarction which fact is confirmed from the Death Summary. This is a case of sudden death due to St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 56 natural disease of cardiovascular system most common cause of sudden death that is 45 to 50%. (Reference is this regard is made to literature page no. 125 essential of forensic medicine, by Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy, 21st edition and investigations conducted by doctors in course of treatment of the deceased).
(83) According to the Medical Jurisprudence and the literature relating to Cardiac Arrest and all circumstances as highlighted from the medical papers, it stands confirmed that the death of the deceased was on account of old age of the deceased coupled with the metabolic derangement which was due to intrinsic systemic reasons and very high blood sugar level. I may note, rise in blood pressure and sugar level can also be attributed to high anxiety levels which the deceased must have suffered on account of incident which took place with her daughter in law.
No doubt, the behaviour and conduct of the accused has been most least or most reprehensive yet it does not connect them or legally make them responsible for causing the death of the deceased Premwati which was due to natural cause.
(84) This being the background I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case in so far as the injured / complainant Sushma is concerned but in so far as the deceased Premwati is concerned, her death was natural and the charges against accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani of having caused Culpable St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 57 Homicide amounting to murder or even Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder do not stand established and proved.
Ocular Evidence Not trustworthy in respect of death of deceased Premwati/ Allegations regarding outraging the modesty and causing simple injuries to Sushma after dragging her out of the house Proved:
(85) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.9.2012 at about 3:30 PM while the complainant Smt. Sushma had come out of her house to purchase Singharas (fruit) from a pheriwala it was objected to by their neighbours i.e. accused Ashwani and Reena @ Meenu on which first there was a verbal altercation when she made a 100 number call to the police and thereafter a physical altercation in which she was beaten by the accused Santosh, Ashwani and Reena @ Meenu and dragged to the street and her clothes were torn. The mother in law of Sushma namely Premwati was also beaten mercilessly by the accused and as per allegations Premwati expired later as a result of the injuries which she had received on account of the beatings given to her by the accused.
(86) The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of Smt. Sushma (PW17). The prosecution also seeks to place its reliance on the testimony of the child witness Sahil (PW24) son of the complainant, Ravi Kumar (PW23) husband of the complainant, Rajan (PW22) son of the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 58 deceased and Bishambri (PW21) the real sister of the deceased who is residing in the adjoining property. Coming first to the testimony of Sushma (PW17) who has in her testimony supported her earlier version given to the police. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
"......... I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family for the last almost 14 years. On 28.09.2012 at about 3:30 PM I was at my house. One fehriwala selling singhara came to our gali and I stopped him for making purchases. This was objected by one Meenu and Ashwani who reside just opposite our house. I made purchases of Singharas and came inside my house. My son had also come at that time and I told my son that now if some rehriwala comes in front of our house you tell me. My son came to me after some time and informed me that Ashwani and Meenu were hurling filthy abuses on me. On hearing this I came out and not only were Ashwani and Meenu abusing me but their mother Santosh also joined them. On seeing all this I came inside my house and made a call to the PCR. My mother in law Premwati who had her room on the first floor also came down and I informed her about what had happening. Meanwhile PCR van came and I informed them that Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh were abusing me. The PCR officials intervened and made us i.e. Myself and the other family i.e. Meenu, Santosh and Ashwani understand and went away. As soon as PCR officials left the spot Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh entered our house and started giving me legs and fists blows, they dragged me to the main gali outside my house and broke the nara of my salwar and removed all my clothes. My mother in law Premwati intervened in order to help St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 59 me, she was also pushed to the ground and Santosh gave her fist blows on her abdomen while Meenu caught hold of her hands and Ashwani caught hold of her legs. I screamed and raised an alarm on which all the neighbors and residents gathered and saved me and my mother in law Premwati. In the meanwhile the police officials from police station Jahangirpuri also reached there. My mother in law was lying unconscious on account of the beatings given to her and I had also received injuries. I was taken to the hospital by a lady police officer. I pleaded with them to take my mother in law Premwati with us as she was also unconscious at that time but the police officials refused to do so stating that my mother in law was only dramatizing (drame kar rahi hai). I was taken to BJRM hospital while my mother in law was left at the spot. There at BJMR hospital I was provided medical and thereafter my statement was recorded which statement is EX PW 17/A bearing my signatures at point A. The police also asked me to hand over my clothes which I was wearing but since I did not have any alternative clothes to wear, I told them that I would hand over the said clothes later. Thereafter I came back home and came to know that my mother in law was very unwell and had been shifted to the hospital by my jeth and I came to know that she was admitted at BJRM hospital at 9 PM and later she expired. My statement was again recorded by the officials of PS Jahangirpuri on the same day. In the meanwhile we were busy with the last rites of my mother in law. I handed over the clothes to the police, which I was wearing on the day of the incident, on 29.10.2012. The said clothes were converted into a pullanda and duly sealed in my presence and seized vide seizure memo EX PW 17/B bearing my St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 60 signatures at point A. My mother in law Premwati was aged about 65 years. My statement was again recorded.
Accused Meenu, Ashwani and Santosh are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). I can identify my clothes which were given to the police....." (87) In her examination in chief initially Sushma (PW17) did not give the details with regard to the manner in which the injuries were caused to the deceased but later in the leading questions put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State she has admitted that it was accused Santosh who pushed her mother in law (deceased Premwati) with force after which her mother in law fell down and received injuries. According to her, the accused persons first gave fist and leg blows on her mother in law while she was lying on the floor and thereafter all the three accused gave beatings to the deceased Premwati. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel she has denied the suggestion that when the local police arrived at the spot her mother in law was not present there. She has also denied that her mother in law had gone to the Police Station and had quarreled with the police officers because she wanted to get a false case registered against the accused and after she came back to their house she was removed to the Hospital by her Jeth/ brother in law. Further, in her crossexamination she has clarified that about fifty neighbours i.e. both man and women had gathered at the spot at the time of the incident and has stated that police did not record the statement of any person in her presence. She has also denied that her mother in law was suffering from heart diseases for the last about eightnine St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 61 years and was highly diabetic having a sugar level upto 604 or that she had expired due to her heart disease and diabetic problem. She has further denied that her clothes were handed over to the police after one month because they were never torn by the accused as claimed by her. (88) Coming next to the statement of child witness Sahil (PW24) who is the son of the victim Sushma and grandson of deceased Premwati, I may observe that he is aged 12 years and understood the sanctity of Oath and was hence examined in vernacular after being administered Oath. The relevant portion of his statement is as under:
"........ Q: Kya hua tha?
Ans. : Singhare wala aya tha hamare ghar ke samne, maine mummy ko kaha Singhare ley lo, mummy Singhare lene lagi to Ashwani aur Meenu @ Reena (correclty identified by the witness) jo hamare ghar ke samne rehtai hai, aye aur Singhare wale ko kehne lage ki age kar lo, toh meri mummy ne Singhare wale ko kaha, bhaiya age kar lo aur woh singhare lene lagi, ispe bhi Meenu aur Ashwani meri mummy ko gandi gandi galiya dene lage, upar se Dadi aa gai, to Dadi ne poocha kya ho gaya to mummy ne unko bataya ki samne wale paroshi se jhagra ho gaya hai. Mere mummy aur dadi ne STD booth se 100 number par phone kiya. Thodi der bad ek police wala aya aur kehne laga thodi der theahar jao, thane se police bhejte hai aur woh chala gaya. Jab woh chala gaya, toh Santosh, Meenu aur Ashwani hamare ghar ke andar aa gaye aur mummy ko marne lage aur gali mein ghaseetae huai ley gaye. Ashwani nei mere mummy ke salwar ka nara tor diya aur kapre phar diye aur teeno ne mummy ko laat guse mare, meri Dadi Premwati churwane aye, St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 62 toh Ashwani nein per pakar liye, Meenu ne hath pakar leya aur Santosh ne chati par char ke ghusey mare, jaise main churvane gaya to Santosh ne mujhe kass kar dhaka diya aur mein jorjor se chilane laga sabko bulane ke liye. Upar se mere tau aye, paros wali dadi aye aur beech mein par kar churya. Itne mein police aa gaye, unhone meri mummy se poocha ki doctori karwani hai, mummy ne bataya ki unhe chot aye hai aur dad ko bhi chot aye hai aur unka bhi medical karna hai. Uspar Tahir Hussain joki police wala hai, unhone kaha ki boriya drame kar rahi hai. Us time mere dadi ki tabiyat kharab hone lagi aur unke chati mein dard tha. Uske bad mere dadi ki tabiyat bigarne lagi. Rat mein 8:30 par mere papa ghar aye aur mere tau aur mere papa dadi ko hospital le kar gaye....."
(89) The child has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he has denied that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. He has explained that he had taken a leave from the school since he was not in a mood to go to school. According to the child, after the incident only his mother was taken to the hospital by the police whereas his uncle / Tau had remained home along with his grandmother and was trying to give her home treatment and it was only in the late evening hours that she was taken to the hospital.
(90) Coming next to the testimony of Rajan (PW22) who claims that he was present at the house at the time of the incident when at about 3:003:15 PM he heard loud voices of quarrel in front of his house on which he came down and saw that his neighbours Santosh, Meenu @ Reena and St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 63 Ashwani were giving beatings to his mother and sister in law. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"........ I am residing at the aforementioned address on the third floor along with my family and I am doing the work of house painting. On 28.09.2012 I was sleeping in my room on the third floor. At around 33:15 PM I heard loud voices of ladai jhagra from infront of my house and on hearing the same I came down and I saw that my neighbors Santosh, Meenu @ Reena and Ashwani were beating (mar pitai) my mother Premwati and my sister in law Sushma had been taken inside my house because all her clothes had torn. My Premwati was lying on the ground. Santosh was giving fist blows to my mother Premwati on her chest, Ashwani had caught hold of her legs and Meenu @ Reena had caught hold of hairs of my mother. My sister in law Sushma made a call at 100 number while I was doing the beech bachao/ chutau/ trying to free my mother. Police came to the spot and took all three of them to the police station. My mother started feeling the pain in her chest at around 88:15 PM and I along with my brother Ravi shifted her to BJRM hospital. She expired on the next day morning. I can identify all the three accused persons and they are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness)......."
(91) In his crossexamination the witness has admitted that his statement was recorded after about a month. He has clarified that he normally left for work at about 8:00 AM and there is no fixed time of his return and has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the house at the time of incident. On a Court Question the witness has clarified that the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 64 police had come to their house on two occasions and has further stated that first time when the police came he was sleeping but second time when the police came he was very much present. He has admitted that he did not tell anything to the police since according to him police did not ask him anything. He has further deposed that he did not tell the police that his mother was also beaten and given fist blows on her chest nor he accompanied Sushma to the hospital nor himself took his mother to the hospital. According to him, he also did not call the police or make any statement to the police when his mother had expired on the next day and has explained that he was in a state of grief. Though the witness has clarified that he is into the work of painting of houses and was having work at the time of the incident but has further explained that on that day he was present in the house since he was not required at the place where he was working as Ghesai work was going on. He has, however, not been able to provide the address of the place where he was working.
(92) In so far as Ravi Kumar (PW23) a driver by profession is concerned he has admitted that he had not seen the incident and he had received a call from his mother at about 3:304:00 PM who told him that Ashwani and Meenu were giving abuses to her on which he advised her to make a call at 100 number but he himself felt that he should also reach his house and hence he reached his house after three hours when he came to know that his mother had been beaten by the accused, who had also torn the clothes of his wife and beaten her. According to Ravi, he also came to know St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 65 that the condition of his mother deteriorated and his elder brother Rajan had shifted her to BJRM Hospital where she was admitted on which he went to BJRM Hospital and remained there with his mother who was put on ventilator and she expired on the next day morning. The said witness has proved that the torn clothes of his wife were seized after about a month i.e. on 29.10.2012.
(93) One Rajender Gupta a shopkeeper in the area who has been examined as PW20 has proved that on 28.9.202 two ladies had come to his STD/ PCO Booth and informed him that they were residing in Baraso wali gali and had a disputed with the niebhours on some rehri wala who was selling singharas and on their request he allowed them to make a PCR call from his mobile No. 9899756201. The oral testimony of Rajender Gupta does not find any support since according to the witness he did not maintain any register in his PCO and no entry has been made. I may observe that the Investigating Officer has not obtained any Call Detail Record in respect of the above number to confirm that a call had been made from PCO of Rajender Gupta.
(94) Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Smt. Sushma, Sahil, Rajan, Ravi Kumar and Smt. Bishambri hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 66 The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. 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 witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
(95) It is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 67 have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to withstand the test of cross examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of crossexamination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965).
(96) Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the present, it is evident that in so far as Ravi Kumar (PW23) is concerned he is not an eye witness to the incident. He has explained that his mother had made a call to him and informed him about the incident after which he advised her to make a call at 100 number. In this regard the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Rajender Gupta (PW20). No electronic record of telephone No. 9899756201 has been collected to confirm and corroborate the oral testimony of Rajender Gupta. Further, the case of the prosecution is that initially after the first incident the deceased Premwati had made a call to his son Ravi Kumar who advised her to make a 100 number call after which the PCR officials came to the spot and settled the dispute between the parties and there was a second incident in which the deceased Premwati and St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 68 Sushma were beaten and the information regarding quarrel was made at about 4:15 PM. According to the PCR Form Ex.PW8/A the call with regard to quarrel was received at 16:12:21 (4:12 PM) which was given by Rajender Kumar from mobile No. 9899756201 with the place of incident as House No. C1240, Block C, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. As per the above PCR Form the PCR van reached the spot at 16:13:50 and it was reported by HC Roop Narain that there was a dispute between two ladies who are neighbours and there was no injured in the incident (2 padosi aaurton ka jhagra, no injured). Therefore, it is evident that the second incident must have taken place later.
(97) Coming next to the testimony of Rajan (PW22) who is the son of the deceased. He has claimed that he was present at the house and was sleeping at the time when the first incident took place but according to him when the second incident had taken place and his mother was beaten he was very much awake. This does not appear to be natural and probable. I may observe that had Rajan been present at the house, I am sure that not only would he have made a call to the police himself but would have also accompanied his sister in law (Sushma) to the hospital when she had been allegedly beaten by the accused and whose clothes had been allegedly torn, and further would have immediately ensured timely medical treatment to his mother by shifting her to the hospital when he noticed her condition deteriorating which is not the case. In his testimony Rajan has stated that he did not made a call to the police nor did he tell anything to the police when St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 69 they came to the spot. If he would have been present in the house, I am sure that he would have made a call to police officers himself and met them which is not the case. His entire behaviour and conduct is not natural and probable and even his presence at the spot appears doubtful. Hence, under the given circumstances his oral testimony is liable to be read with caution. (98) Coming next to the testimony of the child witness Sahil (PW24), he claims that his school hours are from 12:30 Noon till 6:00 PM but on the date of incident he did not go to school because he did not feel like going to school. The statement of this child was recorded much later i.e. after about a month. The Investigating Officer has not collected the school record of the child to confirm if he was on leave on the date of incident or not.
However, assuming that the child was present at his house and his statement was recorded much later, the presence of this child Sahil is established from the first statement made by the complainant Sushma which is Ex.PW17/A. Both Sushma (PW17) and Sahil (PW24) have corroborated each other on material particulars and the dispute in question arose after the child had stopped the Singhare Wala.
(99) I may observe that the entire sequence of evidence does not comprise of one incident but of two incidents. The first incident relates to a verbal altercation between the complainant Sushma on one side and the accused Ashwani and Reena @ Meenu on the other side when there was a dispute between the neighbours with regard to the place where the fruit seller (Singhare Wala) was standing. According to the complainant, on St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 70 account of this both the accused Ashwani and Reena @ Meenu hurled abuses on which Premwati made a call to his son Ravi Kumar who advised them to made a call at 100 number after which a PCR call was made and the PCR officials reached the spot and sorted out the matter between the parties went away. It is then that the second incident had taken place. According to Sushma being aggrieved by her act of calling the PCR, the accused persons i.e. Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani entered her house and dragged her to the street and gave her leg and fist blows because she had dared to call the police. Premwati on hearing the voices came out of the house who was also thrown to the ground and given legs and fist blows on her chest and stomach which according to the prosecution proved fatal to Premwati. In so far as the incident relating to the beating of Sushma is concerned, the same finds due corroboration from her medical record i.e. her MLC Ex.PW18/A showing presence of abrasions and bruises on her body and confirms that she was dragged to the road and was given beatings (i.e. abrasions on elbows). Here, I may observe that Sushma has alleged that her clothes were torn and removed by the accused persons. Her neighbour Bishambri (PW23) who is the sister of deceased Premwati, has confirmed that the clothes of Sushma were torn and she was the one who had given clothes to Sushma and wrapped the same on her to hide her shame. It is an admitted fact that the alleged torn clothes of Sushma were taken into possession by the police after one month i.e. on 29.10.2012 and the nala of her salwar is also shown to be severed but not cut with an instrument (as per (FSL St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 71 Report). But what creates a doubt in my mind is the fact that in case if the nala of her Salwar was broken and severed by Ashwani after he pulled the same (as alleged by Sushma) after which Sushma was given another set of clothes to wear (as claimed by Bishambri), then under these circumstances she would not be wearing the same set of clothes when taken to the Hospital (which Sushma claims she was wearing). Assuming that she was disrobed in the manner as claimed by her (i.e. by Ashwani who broke the Nala of her Salwar), then I am sure before being taken to the Hospital ASI Tahir Hussain would have made her change into another set of clothes at her house which according to Sushma he did not do. In her crossexamination when she was asked by the Ld. Defence Counsel as to why she did not hand over her clothes to the police in the hospital itself on which she explained by saying that she did not have another set of clothes and that is why these clothes were handed over to the police much later. This is a material contradiction to what has been stated by Bishambri who claims that she gave another set of clothes to Sushma to wrap around her as her clothes had been torn (which clothes Sushma handed over to the Investigating Officer after one month i.e. 29.10.2012). Further, the FSL Report Ex.PW16/A rules out the possibility of breaking the cord (Nara) by using any sharp edged weapon, thereby confirming that it was broken by use of physical force i.e. by pulling. It is alleged by the accused that the clothes have been deliberately torn in order to create evidence against them and the cord (Nara) has been broken only to fabricate the case against them and this St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 72 possibility cannot be ruled out because on the one hand Sushma has alleged that she went to the hospital wearing the same torn clothes and handed over the same to the police whereas on the other hand she alleged that even the cord / Nala of her Salwar was broken and all her clothes were removed she had become naked. It is impossible that she would have been taken to the hospital in this condition (with the nala of Salwar broken and torn shirt) by a male officer of the police without even permitted her to change her clothes. The possibility that during the scuffle and verbal altercation which took place between her on the one side and the accused on the other side her clothes having become disarrayed and torn particularly the shirt (as evident from the tear present in the same), cannot be ruled out but to say that Ashwani pulled the Nala of the Salwar and broke the same does not appear probable. However, assuming for a moment that the nala of the salwar had been broken on account of use of force by the accused Ashwani, I am sure there would have been corresponding injury marks on the waist of Sushma (on account of force used to pull the nala which according to FSL was not cut with a sharp edged weapon) which corresponding injury marks are not present on her waist as per her MLC, compelling me to conclude that the Nala of the Salwar was broken later perhaps to aggravate the nature of offence against the accused Ashwani.
(100) Coming next to the allegations against the accused in so far as the deceased Premwati is concerned, the medical evidence on record does not confirm the use of force by the accused upon the deceased Premwati as St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 73 alleged by them. It is the case of the prosecution that Premwati was thrown on the ground i.e. on the road while Santosh was giving fist blows to Premwati on her chest, Ashwani had caught hold of her legs and Meenu @ Reena had caught hold of her hair. Had that been so she would have received corresponding injuries in the form of injury marks on her arms, back, legs head etc. which are not there. On the one hand the MLC of Premwati Ex.PW11/A and the death summary placed on record shows that there was no injury marks on her body. It is only the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A which is a suspect before this Court wherein certain injureis have been shown on the body of the deceased i.e. Bruise at dorsal aspect base of left hand of size 2 x 1 cm; Bruise at ventral aspect of upper part of left forearm of size 3 x 1 cm; Bruise at dorsal aspect of upper part of left elbow of size 2 x 1 cm and Abrasion at dorsal aspect of right elbow joint of size 2 x 1 cm which appears to be doubtful. Further, as already observed herein above had Premwati been given beatings to the extent that her Spleen and Liver had been ruptured, she would not have been survived even for an hour whereas initially she was fully conscious and it was only at about 8:00 PM that she started experiencing pain in chest and her condition deteriorated when she was shifted to the Hospital where she expired in the next day morning i.e. after 1617 hours of the incident. It is also evident from the medical record that Premwati was an old patient of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac problem for last eightnine years and at the time of her admission she was having a very high level of blood sugar i.e. 604 and St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 74 other metabolic derangement which was due to intrinsic systemic reasons and death could be on account of any these factors. The Death Summary also confirms that she had expired on account of Myocardial Infarction. As discussed herein above the medical evidence on record confirms the death of the deceased Premwati on account of natural reason and the findings of the Autopsy Surgeon showing death on account of rupture of Liver and Spleen is rejected.
(101) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani in so far as the offence under Section 302 IPC or even 304 IPC are concerned. However, in so far as the allegations with regard to the accused having entered the house of the complainant Sushma, having pulled/ dragged her out and having given her beatings causing simple injuries to her and of having outraged her modesty by tearing her clothes and in the said process and exposed her, stand established and proved for which all the three accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani are hereby held guilty of the offence under Sections 323/34, 452/34 and 354/34 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONSLUSIONS:
(102) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 75 which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(103) Applying the above principles of law to the present case, on the basis of the evidence on record the the following aspects stand established:
➢ That both the families of the accused and so also of the complainant are close neighbours in the area (complainant Sushma is residing at 1261/62, C Block, Jahangir Puri along with her family whereas the accused are residing at House No. C1240, Jahangir Puri, Delhi) with their houses situated opposite to each other.
➢ That there used to be frequent verbal altercations between the complainant and the accused on tying of rope across the street/ gali for purposes of drying the clothes and the relations between both the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 76 families were strained on this count.
➢ That on 28.09.2012 at about 3:30 PM Sushma was at her house when one fehriwala selling Singhara came to her gali and she stopped him for making purchases which was objected to by the accused Meenu and Ashwani who are her neighbours.
➢ Sushma made purchases of Singharas and came inside her house and her son Sahil had also come at that time.
➢ That her son namely Sahil came to her after some time and informed her that Ashwani and Meenu were hurling filthy abuses on him on which she came out and found that Ashwani and Meenu abusing her. ➢ That in the meanwhile Premwati the mother in law of Sushma who was residing on the first floor also came down and on coming to know of the incident and thereafter Premwati made a call to her son Ravi Kumar and informed him of the incident.
➢ That Ravi Kumar asked her mother to made a PCR call on which Smt. Premwati and Sushma went to the PCO booth of Rajender Gupta and made a 100 number call.
➢ That PCR officials came and intervened and made them i.e. Sushma and the accused Meenu and Ashwani understand and went away. ➢ That as soon as PCR officials left the spot Meenu and Ashwani duly accompanied by their mother Santosh entered the house of Sushma and started giving her legs and fists blows, they dragged her to the main gali outside her house in which process not only did she St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 77 received injuries but even her clothes were torn thereby exposing her person.
➢ That the police officials from Police Station Jahangirpuri reached the spot and took the injured Sushma to BJRM Hospital since she had received injuries and at that time Sushma was wearing the same torn clothes which she was wearing at the time of the incident. ➢ That after treatment was given to Sushma she returned home. ➢ That on the same day at about 8:30 PM the mother in law of Sushma namely Smt. Premwati complained of severe uneasiness and chest pain and her condition started deteriorating on which her son Rajan rushed her to BJRM Hospital where her other son Ravi also came. ➢ That at BJRM Hospital the sons of Premwati gave the history as that of assault but on close examination of Premwati at about 9:00 PM the doctor on duty did not find any external injuries on her body. ➢ That the condition of Smt. Premwati kept on deteriorating. The doctors put her on Ventilator and conducted her thorough examination and tests which revealed that her BP was not recordable, pulse non palpable, she had a history of Hypertension, DM, CAD and was on irregular medication, her DTR was depressed and her RBS was 604 mg% (showing that her Random Blood Sugar was extremely high and she was slipping into Coma).
➢ That thereafter Smt. Premwati did not regain her consciousness and on next day i.e. on 29.9.2012 at about 8:25 AM Smt. Premwati had St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 78 expired and information was sent to the local police. ➢ That the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.9.2012 by Dr. Sudesh Kumar who opined the cause of death as Hemorrhagic Shock due to internal abdomen huge bleeding due to rupture of lived and spleen as a result of blunt force consequent upon abdomen as a result of assault.
➢ That the Investigating Officer Inspector Jai Prakash Meena made a request to the MS BJRM hospital for purposes of giving subsequent opinion with regard to the cause of death in view of certain contradictions in death summary, MLC and the PM report. ➢ That a Medical Board was constituted on the directions of the Medical Superintendent which comprises of Dr. Javed, Dr. Sameer Mehta and Dr. Bhim Singh who gave its report in which they stated that they could not ascertain the cause of death since the findings of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh could not be corelated to the clinical findings as the patient was brought to the hospital with a very high blood sugar levels, other metabolic derangement which were due to intrinsic systemic reasons and death could be on account of the same.
➢ That the Head of the Committee/ Board Dr. Bhim Singh has confirmed that the death of deceased Premwati was natural i.e. on account of Myocardial Infarction with hyperasmolar diabetic coma since she was having the history of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 79 problem for last 89 years.
➢ That on 29.10.2012 Sushma handed over her torn clothes to the police which were taken into possession.
(104) The medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case in so far as the injured / complainant Sushma is concerned but in so far as the deceased Premwati is concerned, her death was natural and the charges against accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani of having caused Culpable Homicide amounting to murder or even Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder do not stand established and proved. (105) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(106) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 80 infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link in so far as the accused having committed house trespass, causing injuries to Sushma and having outraged her modesty.
(107) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani in so far as the offence under Section 302 IPC or even 304 IPC are concerned. However, in so far as the allegations with regard to the accused having entered the house of the complainant Sushma, having pulled her out and having given her beatings causing simple injuries to her and of having outraged her modesty by tearing her clothes in the said process and exposed her person, stand established and proved for which all the three accused Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani are hereby held guilty of the offence under Sections 323/34, 452/34 and 354/34 Indian Penal Code.
(108) Before ending, I may observe the Courts of Law place great reliance on the reports given by the Experts which include the Postmortem Report given by an Autopsy Surgeon. If the Autopsy Surgeon gives the cause of death which is incorrect, then it is a serious issue for the fate of the citizens cannot be left in the hands of such persons. In the present case the manner in which the report has been given by Dr. Sudesh which does not St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 81 corelate to the findings given in the MLC by the first doctor i.e. Dr. Ravinder who treated the patient Premwati wherein he has cited an incorrect cause of death leading to the accused / convicts pending a substantive period in jail, is highly criminal. The cause and manner of death and evaluation of the deceased is totally inaccurate. For someone whose cause of death was natural, Dr. Sudesh the Autopsy Surgeon instead showed the same as unnatural and homicidal (result of assault). This is highly criminal and cannot be taken as an innocent mistake. There is a world difference in citing a precise cause of death for a person already admitted in the hospital and having undergone multiple tests and for someone unknown who suddenly collapses. In this case the possibility of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh having deliberately changed the cause and manner of death and the nature of injuries/ ailment cannot be ruled out. The matter does not rest here. After the Medical Board/ Committee was constituted and the misdeeds of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh became exposed to the Committee, the Management of BJRM Hospital through the Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr. Suresh Seth went out of the way to ensure that the Committee does not give a precise report or else it would have exposed Dr. Sudesh outrightly. The Committee was pressurized into giving a vague report on the pretext of saving the so called reputation of the Hospital. I ask myself a question. Was the reputation of the hospital more important than life and liberty of a person? In so far as Dr. Suresh Seth is concerned, this appears to be the case. When questioned by the Court, Dr. Bhim Singh St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 82 (PW14) the Head of the Committee/ Medical Board explained that this pressure was exercised on the Members of the Committee/ Board by Dr. Suresh Seth on the pretext of saving the reputation of the Hospital. He along with his other team members (Dr. Javed and Dr. Sameer) have in as many words indicated that the Report given by Dr. Sudesh was incorrect and could not corelate to the clinical findings. On the asking of the Court, it was Dr. Bhim Singh who clarified that the death of the deceased Premwati which was shown as unnatural/ homicidal was on account of natural reasons. The Members of the Board particularly Dr. Bhim Singh are required to be appreciated and lauded for their moral convictions and forthrightness while deposing/ testifying before the Court on Oath where all of them unanimously exposed the misdoings of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh.
The conduct of the Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr. Suresh Seth who is the Controlling Authority and the officer who allegedly exerted pressure on the Committee Members to save Dr. Sudesh and so also the conduct of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh is directed to be placed before the Principal Secretary (Health & family Welfare), Government of NCT of Delhi and Director, Directorate of Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi for information and appropriate action against them in accordance with the procedure established by law under intimation to this Court. It is also the obligation of this Court to ensure that those who fearlessly stand by Truth are Protected by Law and St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 83 unless this is done no person would dare to stand up against those who are dishonest and corrupt and this is something which this Court will not permit to happen. In this background I hereby direct the Principal Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) and Director, Directorate of Health Services to ensure that Dr. Bhim Singh and his team including Dr. Javed and Dr. Sameer who have exposed the misdoings of their Department are not put to any kind of harassment by the hospital authorities/ department for the said reason.
(109) I may also add that having noticed all that has transpired in the present case, it is necessary that steps are taken by the GNCT of Delhi to plug this mischief. I may observe that Videography and Photography of the entire postmortem examination proceedings would go a long way in bringing about transparency and ruling out any possibility of foul play which may be suspected or alleged. This latest technology (videography of the postmortem proceedings) has been successfully used in many of the cases and is extremely helpful, particularly in those cases where the cause of death is disputed for one reason or the other and where at some later stage either the Committee of Experts or the Court is required to have a relook into the same. I therefore direct that a copy of this order be also placed before the Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi so as to explore the possibility of having the proceedings of postmortem examination video graphed in all cases relating to Homicidal Deaths which is the standard St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 84 procedure adopted world over and for taking necessary steps in this regard under intimation to this Court.
(110) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 4.10.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 27.9.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 85
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 10/2013 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0368522012 State Vs. (1) Santosh W/o Suresh Kumar R/o House No. C1240, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Reena @ Meenu D/o Suresh Kumar R/o House No. C1240, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Ashwani S/o Suresh Kumar R/o House No. C1240, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 252/2012 Police Station: Jahangir Puri Under Sections: 302/354/452/323/34 IPC Date of Conviction: 27.9.2013 Arguments concluded on: 19.10.2013 Date of Sentence: 21.10.2013 St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 86 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
All the three convicts namely Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwini are in JC with Sh. Tarun Gehlot Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations on 28.9.2012 at about 3:30 PM at House No. C126162, Jahangir Puri, Delhi all the accused namely Santosh, Reena @ Meenu and Ashwani in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass after having made preparations for causing hurt to Smt. Sushma and her mother in law Smt. Premwati. It has been alleged that all the accused persons committed murder of Smt. Premwati by giving beatings to her and also voluntarily caused hurt on the person of Smt. Sushma. Further, it has been alleged that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted / used criminal force upon Smt. Sushma intending to outrage her modesty.
However, on the basis of testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses including injured Smt. Sushma, her son Sahil, her husband Ravi Kumar, Rajan - son of the deceased and Bishambri neighbour of the deceased and also on the basis of the medical evidence on record this Court has acquitted all the accused namely Santosh, Reena @ Meeu and Ashwini of the charge under Section 302 IPC but hold them guilty of the offence under Section 354/34, 323/34, 452/34 Indian Penal Code and convicted St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 87 accordingly.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Santosh is stated to be aged about 40 years having a family comprising of husband, four daughters including coconvict Reena @ Meenu and one son Ashwini (coconvict). The convict Reena @ Meenu is stated to be a young girl of 20 years and studied upto 11th class. The convict Ashwani is stated to be a young boy aged about 19 years years and studied upto 10th class.
Ld. Counsel for the convicts has vehemently argued that all the convicts are first time offenders and are not involved in any other case. He submits that the convict Ashwini and Reena @ Meenu were still studying at the time of the incident and the convict Santosh is a Government servant in MCD. He has prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convicts and benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be given to them.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that in so far as the convicts Santosh and Reena @ Meenu are concerned he is not opposing the grant of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to these convicts being females as their case can be distinguished but in so far as the convict Ashwani is concerned he has opposed the same on the ground that he is a male and it cannot be granted to him being an offence against public morals involving moral turpitude.
I have considered the submissions made before me. Keeping in view the fact that the convicts are first time offenders, the Social Investigation Reports have been called in respect of the convicts which St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 88 reports are received according to which the convict Ashwini was involved in another case of Police Station Adarsh Nagar under Section 356 IPC but he has been acquitted of the same. It is reported that there are bright chances of reformation of the convicts. In so far as the convicts Santosh and Reena @ Meenu are concerned, they have no history of any previous involvement and are first time offenders Hence, any harsh view taken by this court at this stage will take away the chances of their reformation and I hold that the interest of justice require that the convicts Santosh and Reena @ Meenu be given an opportunity to reform themselves.
I accordingly direct that the convicts Santosh and Reena @ Meenu be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of One Year with supervision, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ (each) with one local surety of the like amount and compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/ each (Total Rs.50,000/) under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to be given to the complainant/ injured Smt. Sushma to which the convicts have duly agreed. The convicts are directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of offence, the convicts shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Year.
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 89
In so far as the convict Ashwani is concerned, he was previously involved in another case under Section 356 IPC and as per information he has been acquitted of the same. He helps his mother in work as Safaikaramchari in MCD. He has already remained in Judicial Custody for more than one year and has no other case against him. He is a young boy of 21 years and the Social Investigation Report shows that chances of his reformation are bright. Therefore, in view of the above I hereby award the following sentence to convict Ashwani:
1. For the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year.
2. For the offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/ In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One week.
3. For the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/ In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One week.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict Ashwani for the period already undergone by him during the trial.
St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 90
Before ending, I may observe that vide the detail judgment dated 27.9.2013 the report of the Autopsy Surgeon has been rejected being unreliable and incorrect. I may further observe that Courts of Law place great reliance on the reports given by the Experts which include the Postmortem Report given by an Autopsy Surgeon. If the Autopsy Surgeon gives the cause of death which is incorrect, then it is a serious issue for the fate of the citizens cannot be left in the hands of such persons. In the present case the manner in which the report has been given by Dr. Sudesh which does not corelate to the findings given in the MLC by the first doctor i.e. Dr. Ravinder who treated the patient Premwati wherein he has cited an incorrect cause of death leading to the accused / convicts pending a substantive period in jail, is highly criminal. The cause and manner of death and evaluation of the deceased is totally inaccurate. For someone whose cause of death was natural, Dr. Sudesh the Autopsy Surgeon instead showed the same as unnatural and homicidal (result of assault). This is highly criminal and cannot be taken as an innocent mistake. There is a world difference in citing a precise cause of death for a person already admitted in the hospital and having undergone multiple tests and for someone unknown who suddenly collapses. In this case the possibility of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh having deliberately changed the cause and manner of death and the nature of injuries/ ailment cannot be ruled out. The matter does not rest here. After the Medical Board/ Committee was constituted and the misdeeds of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh became exposed to the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 91 Committee, the Management of BJRM Hospital through the Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr. Suresh Seth went out of the way to ensure that the Committee does not give a precise report or else it would have exposed Dr. Sudesh outrightly. The Committee was pressurized into giving a vague report on the pretext of saving the so called reputation of the Hospital. I ask myself a question. Was the reputation of the hospital more important than life and liberty of a person? In so far as Dr. Suresh Seth is concerned, this appears to be the case. When questioned by the Court, Dr. Bhim Singh (PW14) the Head of the Committee/ Medical Board explained that this pressure was exercised on the Members of the Committee/ Board by Dr. Suresh Seth on the pretext of saving the reputation of the Hospital. He along with his other team members (Dr. Javed and Dr. Sameer) have in as many words indicated that the Report given by Dr. Sudesh was incorrect and could not corelate to the clinical findings. On the asking of the Court, it was Dr. Bhim Singh who clarified that the death of the deceased Premwati which was shown as unnatural/ homicidal was on account of natural reasons. The Members of the Board particularly Dr. Bhim Singh are required to be appreciated and lauded for their moral convictions and forthrightness while deposing/ testifying before the Court on Oath where all of them unanimously exposed the misdoings of the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh. The conduct of the Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr. Suresh Seth who is the Controlling Authority and the officer who allegedly exerted pressure on the Committee Members to save Dr. Sudesh and so also the conduct of the St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 92 Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Sudesh (who I am informed is in Judicial Custody in some other case registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act i.e. FIR No.16/13, under Section 8,12,13 of POC Act and 417,418,120B IPC, Police Station - Anti Corruption Bureau, Delhi) is directed to be placed before the Principal Secretary (Health & family Welfare), GNCT of Delhi and Director, Directorate of Health Services, GNCT of Delhi for information and appropriate action against them in accordance with the procedure established by law under intimation to this Court. It is the obligation of this Court to ensure that those who fearlessly stand by Truth are Protected by Law. Unless this is done no person would dare to stand up against those who are dishonest and corrupt and this is something which this Court will not permit to happen. In this background I hereby direct the Principal Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) and Director, Directorate of Health Services to ensure that Dr. Bhim Singh and his team including Dr. Javed and Dr. Sameer who have exposed the misdoings of their Department are not put to any kind of harassment by the hospital authorities/ department for the said reason.
I may also add that having noticed all that has transpired in the present case, it is necessary that steps are taken by the GNCT of Delhi to plug this mischief. I may observe that Videography and Photography of the entire postmortem examination proceedings would go a long way in bringing about transparency and ruling out any possibility of foul play which may be suspected or alleged. This latest technology (videography of St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 93 the postmortem proceedings) has been successfully used in many of the cases and is extremely helpful, particularly in those cases where the cause of death is disputed for one reason or the other and where at some later stage either the Committee of Experts or the Court is required to have a relook into the same. I therefore direct that a copy of this order be also placed before the Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi so as to explore the possibility of having the proceedings of postmortem examination video graphed in all cases relating to Homicidal Deaths which is the standard procedure adopted world over and for taking necessary steps in this regard under intimation to this Court.
The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 21.10.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 94 State Vs. Santosh Etc. FIR No. 252/2012 PS Jahangir Puri 24.10.2013
File is taken up today on the application filed on behalf of the convict Ashwani for grant of bail and suspension of sentence till filing of the appeal.
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Tarun Gehlot, Advocate for the applicant/ convict. I have heard arguments on the application. Keeping in view the grounds raised in the application and in the interest of Justice, the applicant / convict Ashwani S/o Suresh is admitted to bail for a period of one month on his furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/ with one local surety of the like amount to enable him to file the appeal. It is clarified that in case if the convict does not file any appeal, he shall surrender before this Court within one week thereafter. The application stands disposed off.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJII(NW)/ 24.10.2013 St. Vs. Santosh Etc., FIR No. 252/12, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 95