Delhi District Court
Fir No. 280/2017 Ps Mundka State vs . Vikas Drall & Ors Page No. 1 Of 50 on 16 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-001434-2018
SC No. 114/2018
FIR No. 280/2017
PS : Mundka
U/s : 498A/304B/306/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Vikas Drall
S/o- Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o- House No. 293, Village Neelwal,
Post Office-Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-41
2. Ram Kumar
S/o- Sh. Prithvi Singh
R/o- House No. 293, Village Neelwal,
Post Office-Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-41
3. Raj Bala @ Bala
W/o- Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o- House No. 293, Village Neelwal,
Post Office-Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-41
FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 1 of 50
4. Aman Drall
S/o- Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o- House No. 293, Village Neelwal,
Post Office-Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-41
Date of Institution of case : 15.02.2018
Date of decision : 16.12.2022
Final order : All the accused persons
are acquitted for the
offences punishable u/s
304B/498A/34 IPC and
also for the offences
punishable u/s 306/34
IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2017, DD No. 5 A was marked to ASI Om Prakash who alongwith HC Narender went to Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar. In the said hospital, ASI Om Prakash collected MLC No. 7095 of one Kirti who was declared brought dead. ASI Om Prakash informed the concerned SHO about the aforesaid facts. In the meantime, Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia i.e. SHO, PS Mundka and other staff reached at the spot. Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia contacted Sh. Santosh Rai i.e. SDM, Punjabi Bagh. Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia also contacted the crime team. The Crime Team officials FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 2 of 50 reached at the hospital. The crime team photographer took photographs of the dead body from digital camera and crime team incharge inspected the said body. Upon the instructions of Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia, HC Narender took the body of Kirti to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi hospital. Thereafter, ASI Om Prakash alongwith Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia and other staff alongwith crime team went to house no. 293, village Neelwal, Tikri Kalan, Delhi. Crime Team Incharge inspected the place of occurrence and crime team photographer took the photographs of place of incident. At the place of occurrence i.e. on the first floor i.e. from the washbasin built in the gallery, one used injection syringe, one needle, two covers and one red colour cap was found lying. One glass bottle was also found lying in a cart box kept in the kitchen. Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia appointed HC Manjeet at the spot and thereafter, they went to SDM office, Punjabi Bagh. In the said office, they met Sh. Ajit Singh i.e. father of deceased, Sh. Harish i.e. brother of deceased and Smt. Raj Kaur i.e. mother of deceased. The concerned SDM Sh. Santosh Rai recorded their statements. Thereafter, ASI Om Prakash alongwith ASI Rajender, Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia and the relatives of Kirti went to Sanjay Gandhi mortuary, Mangolpuri. In the said mortuary, the concerned SDM inspected the body and recorded the statements of relatives of deceased and moved an application for postmortem on the body of deceased. Accordingly the concerned autopsy surgeon conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Kirti and FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 3 of 50 after postmortem the body of Kirti was handed over to her relatives. The concerned autopsy surgeon handed over the exhibits alongwith inquest papers to Inspector Suresh which he seized vide seizure memo. Thereafter, the aforesaid police officials accompanied concerned SDM to the place of occurrence i.e. house no. 293, Village Neelwal where the concerned SDM inspected the place of occurrence. Inspector Suresh Kumar seized the exhibits lying at the spot after sealing the same with the seal of SK through seizure memos. Inspector Suresh had also seized the exhibits of deceased after postmortem through seizure memo. On 18.10.2017 the concerned SDM had sent the statements of Harish and other relatives vide letter no. F.SDM(PB)/2017/5542. The concerned SDM had also ordered for necessary action. On the basis of statement made by Sh. Harish Kumar, Inspector Suresh Kumar made endorsement and handed over rukka to Duty officer. Accordingly, Duty officer got the FIR registered and investigation was marked to Inspector Suresh Kumar. Inspector Suresh Kumar collected the original rukka and copy of FIR from duty officer. During investigation, Inspector Suresh Kumar recorded the statements of witnesses as well as statements of police officials i.e. of Sh. Ajit Singh, Smt. Raj Kaur, Ms. Pink Kaur and of other police officials. On 20.10.2017 accused Vikas Drall was apprehended from his native village and was interrogated and arrested in the present case. Inspector Suresh Kumar also seized the mobile phone belonging to Kirti which was got recovered at the instance of accused Vikas Drall and FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 4 of 50 also seized the mobile phone belonging to accused Vikas Drall. Inspector Suresh Kumar also obtained one day PC remand of accused Vikas Drall. After PC remand accused Vikas was remanded to JC.
2. During investigation, the father of deceased had handed over marriage card, Air conditioner bill and other documents which Inspector Suresh Kumar had seized vide seizure memo. During investigation, Inspector Suresh Kumar had also collected the certified copies of the CDRs of mobile phone belonging to deceased bearing no. 9873816002 as well as the CDR of mobile phone bearing no. 7210596258 belonging to the parents of deceased. He also obtained the CDR of another mobile no. 8368475947 belonging to deceased. During investigation Inspector Suresh Kumar sent the exhibits to FSL, Rohini and Histopathology lab, Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. On 18.03.2018, further investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Sheelwant Singh. During investigation, on 19.03.2018, Inspector Sheelwant Singh sent a request to the concerned service provider for providing the CDRs of mobile number belonging to PW Pink Kaur bearing no. 9717693007. On the same day, he sent a request through one constable for providing final opinion regarding the cause of death of deceased Kirti from the concerned autopsy surgeon. On 26.03.2018 Inspector Sheelwant Singh obtained the CDR of aforesaid mobile number from the concerned service provider and also obtained the cause of death report from the concerned autopsy surgeon. During investigation, on 28.03.2018 FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 5 of 50 Inspector Sheelwant Singh formally arrested accused persons namely Raj Bala, Ram Kumar and Aman Drall. During investigation, Inspector Sheelwant Singh collected the FSL report, histopathology report and also obtained the subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death. Inspector Sheelwant Singh also moved an application for reviewing the cause of death and accordingly, the medical board was constituted and the concerned medical board opined the cause of death of Kirti to be unnatural one. Inspector Sheelwant Singh had also filed the said reports before the concerned court and also filed supplementary charge-sheet.
3. The charge-sheet was filed before concerned Ld. M.M. on 16.01.2018. The Ld. M.M. took cognizance of the offence and after making compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C Ld. M.M. ordered the matter to be put up before concerned Ld. District & Sessions Judge, West, Delhi for 15.02.2018 and on 15.02.2018 the present case was assigned to the Sessions Court for trial.
4. On 11.05.2018, order on charge was passed by this court and charge for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC as well as under Section 306/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons namely Vikas Drall, Ram Kumar, Raj Bala @ Bala and Aman Drall. The charge was read over and explained to all the accused persons in vernacular and they were asked as to whether they wanted to plead guilty or claim trial. After understanding the charge, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses in FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 6 of 50 total i.e. PW1 SI Ravinder, PW2 ASI Om Prakash, PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar, PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur, PW5 Sh. Ajeet Singh, PW6 Sh. Jal Singh, PW7 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, PW8 Sh. Raj, PW9 Sh. Mukesh, PW10 Sh. Ravi Kumar, PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur, PW12 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW13 HC Manjeet Singh, PW14 Inspector Suresh Kumar, PW15 ASI Devender Kumar, PW16 ASI Om Prakash, PW17 Sh. Santosh Tripathi, PW18 Retired Inspector Sheelwant Singh, PW19 Sh. Amrik Singh Dhillon, PW20 Dr. Munish Wadhawan, PW21 Dr. B.K Sinha and PW22 Sh. Santosh Kumar Rai.
6. Vide order dated 03.11.2022, prosecution evidence was closed. On 17.11.2022, statements of accused persons namely Vikas Drall, Ram Kumar, Raj Bala @ Bala and Aman Drall were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C, all the accused persons have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and that they have no connection with commission of offence of the present case. They also submitted that Vikas never treated his wife with cruelty. In fact, on the day of occurrence, Vikas was sleeping and when he woke up, he saw his wife Kirti lying unconscious in the stair-cases and accused Vikas and Aman took her to hospital. All the accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
7. The brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial are as under:-
8. PW1 SI Ravinder has deposed that on the intervening night of 10/11.10.2017, he was posted as Duty officer from 8 FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 7 of 50 PM to 8 AM. On that day at about 5.10 am, he recorded DD No. 5A Ex.PW1/A to the effect that vide MLC No. 7095, Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar, Kirti w/o Vikas aged 25 years had been brought dead from H.no. 293, Tikri Kalan, Neelwal. He further stated that he handed over the copy of said DD to SI Om Prakash for inquiry who proceeded alongwith HC Narender from the said PS. He also brought DD register (A) for the period 23.09.2017 to 12.10.2017. He further deposed that on the same day at 6.56 am, he had recorded DD No.8A Ex.PW1/B whereby on the direction of SHO Inspector Suresh Kumar, ATO was telephonically informed about the contents of DD No.5A who departed to H.No. 293, Tikri Kalan, Neelwal alongwith ASI Rajender and HC Manjeet.
9. During cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that DD No. 5A and 8A were not recorded by him at the given time or that the contents of DD No. 5A and 8A were manipulated later on at the instance of IO and complainant.
10.PW-2 ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 27.11.2017 while he was posted as Assistant Draftsman in Mapping Section of West District, he was called by Inspector Suresh Kumar at PS Mundka and they went to H.No. 293, Tikri Kalan, Neelwal Village, Delhi. He took necessary measurements at the instance of IO Inspector Suresh Kumar at the ground and first floor and prepared rough notes. He further deposed that on 29.11.2017, he prepared scaled site plan of ground and first floor Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively and destroyed the rough notes and had given the scaled site plans to IO.
FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 8 of 50
11.During cross-examination, PW2 stated that he had not made any departure entry while leaving the office for PS Mundka. He also stated that he had not made any return entry at PS Mundka or at his office. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the said house during investigation of this case. He further denied the suggestion that he had prepared Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B on asking of IO or that the said site plans are false and fabricated.
12.PW-3 Sh. Harish Kumar deposed that his younger sister namely Kirti was married to Vikas Drall on 13.11.2016. On 11.10.2017 at about 3.40 - 3.41 am, he received a call of Vikas Drall who informed him that Kirti had expired and she had been taken to Action Balaji Hospital where she was working as staff nurse. He further deposed that he left his house for said hospital. Vikas Drall and his younger brother Aman met him at the chowk of Kamruddin Nagar. Both were sitting in a car and dead body of his sister was lying on the back seat of car in the lap of Aman. Thereafter, they all had taken Kirti to aforesaid hospital where doctor concerned declared her brought dead. He further deposed that on 12.10.2017, he received a call from SDM office and accordingly, he alongwith his neighbours and two police officials from PS Mundka reached at the office of SDM, Nangloi where his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the staff of SDM. He further deposed that the marriage of his sister was arrange marriage which took place at Shalimar Vatika, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. He further deposed that upon asking by staff of SDM, he told him that jewellery, TV, Fridge, washing machine, Hyundai FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 9 of 50 I-10 car, bed, almirah, sofa set, clothes of groom and his parents, crockery and other articles were given at the time of marriage. He further deposed that after two months of marriage, his sister told him that her husband Vikas Drall used to consume liquor and she had quarrel with Vikas Drall on issue of consuming liquor and that she had suspicion on the character of Vikas as he used to talk and SMS some girl. He further deposed that about 4 to 5 months after the marriage, he made inquiries about accused Vikas by telephonically asking the Manager of hotel where accused Vikas was employed. Upon inquiry, he came to know that accused Vikas was not present in the said hotel though Vikas had told Kirti that he was going to the hotel. He further deposed that accused Vikas also used to fight with his sister on the point as to why she made inquiries about him from the Manager of the hotel. He further deposed that in April 2017, his sister asked him to provide an AC, hence, he had purchased the AC from market in Paschim Vihar and gave to his sister. He further deposed that just one day before the death of his sister i.e. on 10.10.2017, his father had asked him to visit his sister, however, on that day, he could not go to meet his sister as he got late in his office. He further deposed that on 10.10.2017, his father had also tried to call his sister on her mobile, however, her phone was switched off. He further deposed that Ram Kumar (father), Rajbala (mother) and Aman (younger brother) of accused Vikas Drall used to reside in the matrimonial home of his sister. He further deposed that the only complaint that his sister had from the FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 10 of 50 abovesaid accused persons was that they did not take any action as and when she complained to them about the drinking of her husband Vikas Drall.
13.PW3 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as he was allegedly resiling from his earlier statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded in the presence of SDM Santosh Kumar Rai. He stated that he did not state to SDM that after some days of marriage of his sister, her father-in- law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law started abusing and harassing her. He also stated that he did not state to SDM that the said accused persons were harassing his sister for dowry demand and they stated that "hamai Baleno gadi chahiye thi par tumne I-20 gadi di thi, hamari demand Baleno ke thi". He also stated that he did not state to SDM that accused Vikas Drall used to give beatings to his sister or that accused persons used to taunt his sister that Rs.15 lac were to be given in dowry but the said demand was not met by her parents. He did not remember whether he had stated to SDM that his sister informed him that accused Vikas Drall was having an affair with one girl of Pitampura and due to that reason, she was mentally upset. He had stated to SDM that accused Vikas Drall had broken the mobile phone of his sister in drunken condition about 2-3 days prior to her death. He admitted that he had stated to SDM that Pinky, friend of his sister, had told his father that Kirti was being harassed by accused persons and that Kirti was crying because of said harassments and FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 11 of 50 hence, his father had asked him to meet Kirti. He admitted that he had received dead body of his sister on 11.10.2017 and failed to disclose the said fact due to lapse of time.
14.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW3 admitted that there was no demand of dowry with regard to any kind of articles or money nor there was any harassment to his sister Kirti for any reason whatsoever by any of the accused persons. He also admitted that accused Vikas Drall used to take liquor as he was employed as Supervisor with Crown Plaza hotel and for his marketing purpose, he used to interact with corporate sector also and for this reason some times he used to take liquor which was not liked by his sister. He also admitted that his sister was perturbed because of her night shifts continuously for 15 days at Action Balaji hospital where she was working as staff nurse and even she had requested her father to get her job at ESI hospital as she was not feeling comfortable and was not keeping well for which she was also taking medicines, on her own. He also admitted that the mobile phone of his sister fell from the hands of accused Vikas Drall when he was under the influence of liquor.
15.PW-4 Smt. Raj Kaur deposed that she is housewife and her husband was working in DTC and retired from services around 10-11 years ago. She further deposed that her daughter Kirti (since deceased) was aged about 25 years at the time of her marriage and she had done Nursing course (GNM) from Jhajjar Haryana. She further deposed that her daughter was working as staff nurse at Sri Balaji hospital, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. She further deposed that her FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 12 of 50 daughter Kirti was married to accused Vikas Drall on 13.11.2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and in the said marriage, all the household articles including washing machine, almirah, sofa, double bed, utensils, clothes, I-20 car etc. were given. The said car was registered in the name of Vikas. She further deposed that after marriage, her daughter was taken to her matrimonial house where her father-in-law Ram Kumar, mother-in-law Raj Bala, husband Vikas Drall and brother-in-law Aman Drall were residing. She further deposed that prior to marriage, accused Vikas Drall was working as supervisor and it was informed that accused Vikas was not alcoholic but her daughter informed after marriage that he used to take liquor and due to said reason, they had some verbal duel at times. She further deposed that whenever accused Vikas used to come home late at night, her daughter used to suspect his character and she used to pacify her daughter that there was nothing like that. Her daughter told her to inform her husband (father) that she used to have night shift for 15 days at Action Balaji hospital and she requested for securing job at ESI hospital as there was vacancies at that time. She further deposed that on 11.10.2017 at about 3.41 am, her son received a call from accused Vikas that her daughter had expired and was taken to Action Balaji hospital where she was brought dead. She further deposed that she alongwith her husband was taken to the office of SDM where she had told only main incidents and her signatures were taken by the police outside the office of SDM and the said statement was FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 13 of 50 Ex.PW4/A. She further deposed that on 12.10.2017, she and her husband were again taken to the office of SDM and her signatures were taken on papers after asking some questions from them, which are Ex.PW4/B.
16.PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as she was allegedly resiling from her earlier statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that she had stated in her statement before SDM that marriage of her daughter was solemnized at Shalimar Vatika, Heeran Kudna with great pomp and show and that they had spent more than their capacity in giving dowry to her daughter. She stated that she had informed that on 11.10.2017, her son-in-law informed her son that Kirti was lying on the stairs and she had expired. She admitted that at about 4.06 am, when she alongwith her son and husband reached at hospital, they were informed by the doctors that she had expired. She denied the suggestion that her daughter had informed her that accused Vikas used to go on Sundays in the morning and used to return at night and whenever her daughter enquired him, he used to say that she had nothing to do and used to beat her, due to which her daughter died. She denied the suggestion that she had stated before the SDM that Kirti had informed her that on one night, her brother- in-law i.e. accused Aman had raped her. She also denied the suggestion that she had stated to IO that after starting of summer, accused persons asked Kirti to bring AC from her parental home or that in April 2017, her son Harish purchased one AC from Paschim Vihar and sent the same FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 14 of 50 to matrimonial house of Kirti. She further denied the suggestion that accused persons had snatched her ATM card and she was unable to fulfil her daily needs and that her daughter used to give her salary to the accused persons even then they were not happy. She further denied the suggestion that being fed up from the demands of accused persons, her husband had given Rs. 1 lac to the accused persons around two months prior to the incident, so that Kirti may live happily. She further denied the suggestion that on 10.10.2017 Pinki i.e. friend of Kirti came to their house and told that Kirti was disturbed and was crying, on hearing the same they decided to send their son Harish to the house of Kirti, the next morning for knowing the problem but on the same night at about 3.40 am, her son Harish received a call that Kirti has expired.
17.PW4 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
18.PW-5 Sh. Ajeet Singh deposed that he was working in DTC and retired from services in the year 2012. He had two daughters namely Renu and Kirti (since deceased) and one son namely Harish. He further deposed that when he was in service, accused Ram Kumar was also working in the same department of DTC and had talking terms. He further deposed that he came to know that son of Ram Kumar namely Vikas Drall was of marriageable age and his younger daughter Kirti was also of marriageable age, so they decided to marry their children. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, Kirti was at the age of 25 years and had done Nursing course from Jhajjar, Haryana FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 15 of 50 and was working as staff nurse at Sri Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar. He further deposed that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused Vikas Drall on 13.11.2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and they had given all the household articles including washing machine, almirah, sofa, double bed, utensils, clothes, I-20 car etc. He further deposed that after marriage, his daughter was taken to her matrimonial house where her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Devar) were also residing. He further deposed that prior to marriage, accused Vikas Drall was working as supervisor in Welcome hotel and it was informed that accused Vikas was not alcoholic but her daughter informed after marriage that he used to take liquor and due to said reason, they had some verbal duel at times. He further deposed that whenever accused Vikas used to come home late at night, his daughter used to suspect his character and his wife used to pacify her daughter that there was nothing like that. He further deposed that his daughter told her mother to inform him that she used to have night shift for 15 days at Action Balaji hospital and she requested for securing job at ESI hospital as there was vacancies at that time. He further deposed that on 11.10.2017 at about 3.41 am, his son received a call from accused Vikas that his daughter had expired and was taken to Action Balaji hospital where she was brought dead. He further deposed that he alongwith his husband was taken to the office of SDM by police where he had told only main incidents and his signatures were taken by the police outside the office of SDM and the FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 16 of 50 said statement Ex.PW5/A was not read over to him before signing. He further deposed that on 12.10.2017, he and his wife were again taken to the office of SDM and their signatures were taken on papers after asking some questions from them, which are Ex.PW5/B.
19.PW5 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as he was allegedly resiling from his earlier statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW5 admitted that he had stated in his statement before SDM that marriage of his daughter was solemnized at Shalimar Vatika, Heeran Kudna with great pomp and show and that they had spent more than their capacity in giving dowry to his daughter. He further admitted that on 09.10.2017 his daughter called him on his mobile phone at about 10 PM that in Action Balaji hospital she had night shift of 15 days and requested to get recruited in ESI hospital as there were vacancies at that time. He denied the suggestion that his son had made enquiries about accused Vikas Drall at his work place, accused Vikas threatened his son and elder daughter that he would kill them or that when PW5 used to call father of accused, he used to assure that the mistake would not be repeated in future. PW5 admitted that on 11.10.2017 at about 3.41 am, accused Vikas called his son and informed that dead body of Kirti was lying on the stairs or that accused was taking her to Balaji Action hospital or that at about 4.06 am accused Vikas and his brother brought his daughter to aforesaid hospital where the doctor declared her brought dead. He further admitted that he had stated FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 17 of 50 before SDM that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 13.11.2016 with accused Vikas as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and they had given dowry more than their capacity. He further admitted that on 21.12.2017, he handed over marriage card Ex.PW5/C, two photographs of marriage Ex.PW5/D (colly), list of istridhan Ex.PW5/E. He further admitted that the documents handed over by him to IO were seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW5/G.
20.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW5 admitted that her daughter was quite perturbed on account of her night duties in Action Balaji hospital even after the marriage. He also admitted that due to this reason, she also remained depressed and used to take medicines and injections for relaxing herself. He also admitted that both Vikas and Kirti were always happy, her daughter never complained about any kind of behaviour of accused Vikas and his family members. He further admitted that none of the accused persons had made any kind of dowry demand of any nature from him or his family members.
21.PW-6 Sh. Jal Singh deposed that he was LIC agent and agriculturist also. Sh. Ajeet Singh (father of deceased) is his cousin and he had participated in the marriage function of Kirti which was solemnized in the year 2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. He further deposed that he did not have any knowledge about the present case except that in February 2017, Ajeet Singh came at his place and requested him for lending Rs.3 lacs as he was in need. After 4-5 days, he had handed over the said amount to Ajeet Singh.
FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 18 of 50
22.PW6 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as she was allegedly resiling from her earlier statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, he admitted that marriage of Kirti was solemnized with accused Vikas Drall on 13.11.2016. He denied the suggestion that after few days of marriage, Ajit Singh met him in Jhajjar and told him that in-laws of Kirti i.e. accused Ram Kumar, Raj Bala, Vikas Drall and Aman Drall were harassing Kirti so often for extra dowry of Rs.15 lacs in cash, jewellery etc. He also denied the suggestion that Ajit Singh told him that in-laws of Kirti were greedy or that he assured him that things would be alright. He also denied the suggestion that in February 2017, Ajit Singh met him and told him that in-laws of Kirti were harassing her for extra dowry of Rs.15 lacs in cash or for that purpose he was in need of money so that he could fulfil the demands. He also denied that he suggested Ajit Singh not to give cash to the in-laws of Kirti as it would encourage such greedy persons but Ajit Singh replied that he would fulfil the demand of in-laws of Kirti for the sake of settling the matrimonial life of his daughter or that Ajit Singh demanded Rs. 3 lacs from him on interest. He also denied that after few days Ajit Singh met him in Nangloi and told him that he had handed over Rs. 3 lacs to the in- laws of Kirti as per their demand or that IO recorded his statement in this regard.
23.PW-7 Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposed that he had a factory of jeans at Mubarakpur. In April 2017, he started construction of his plot no. 86A, Veena Enclave, Nangloi, FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 19 of 50 Delhi. He further deposed that Ajeet Singh is his uncle (elder brother of his father) who was having his residence at H.No. 73A, Veena Enclave which is nearby his plot. He further deposed that he was purchasing bricks for the purpose of aforesaid construction from Phool Singh (elder brother of accused Ram Kumar) who was running a brick klin in the name of New Rajdhani Bhatta Company at Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. He further deposed that he used to be busy at that time, so he had requested his uncle Ajeet Singh to count the bricks at the time of deloading and sign the acknowledgment and he had purchased bricks of Rs. 1,07,000/- from Phool Singh and used to make payments time to time.
24.PW7 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as she was allegedly resiling from her earlier statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW7 stated that his statement was not recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO in his statement that in-laws of Kirti were trying to make use to acknowledgement signed by his uncle on his behalf in this case in their defence or that Kirti used to tell him when she used to come to the house of his uncle that her in-laws used to harass and beat her for bringing more dowry.
25.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW7 admitted that his uncle also used to make payments from his account to Sh. Phool Singh whenever he was busy in his work being outstation and later on he make cash payment to his uncle after his return.
FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 20 of 50
26.PW-8 Sh. Raj deposed that during the year 2017, he was working as store manager at Sargam Electronics at A- 3/183, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Around two years ago, some police officials visited their showroom and showed him the photocopy of invoice of a window AC and enquired about the genuineness of the same. He further deposed that upon checking the relevant record, he came to know that the said window AC was sold from their showroom to Sh. Harish Kumar, who asked for delivery of AC to his sister's place at Village Neelwal. He handed over the computerized copy of said bill Ex.PW8/B alongwith a covering letter Ex.PW8/A.
27.This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
28.PW-9 Sh. Mukesh deposed that he was running a photo studio at Mangol Puri, Delhi in the name and style of Varsha Digital Studio. On 11.10.2017, he was called by Inspector Suresh to Sanjay Gandhi hospital where he met Inspector Suresh and SDM, Punjabi Bagh. On the directions of SDM, he had conducted videography on the postmortem of deceased Kirti vide postmortem no. 898/17. He further deposed that on the next day, he went to PS Mundka and handed over two DVDs of postmortem examination to IO. He also gave certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/A regarding the said videography. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B. PW9 also identified the said DVDs from case file which are Ex.X1 & X2.
29.This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 21 of 50 persons.
30.PW-10 Sh. Ravi Kumar deposed that he had business of inverters and batteries and that accused Ram Kumar was brother-in-law (Saadu) of his brother and they had cordial relations with his family. He further deposed that in the month of October 2016, he had taken SIM card of Jio having number 8368475947 but he had not used the same and gave the said SIM card to accused Vikas Drall which was used by his wife Kirti.
31.This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
32.PW-11 Smt. Pink Kaur deposed that she had been working as staff nurse with ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur. Kirti (since deceased) was her friend and they had very good relations with each other. During her lifetime, Kirti was working as staff nurse with Balaji Action Cancer hospital. She stated that she used to meet occasionally with Kirti and they used to visit each other's house occasionally. She further deposed that whenever she used to meet Kirti, she never complained about her in-laws, rather she used to say that everything was normal in her matrimonial life.
33.PW11 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state as she was allegedly resiling from her earlier statement made before the police. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, she denied the suggestion that whenever Kirti used to meet her, she used to say that her husband Vikas was alcoholic and often used to come home under the influence of liquor or used to treat her badly or used to give beatings to her. She also denied the suggestion that FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 22 of 50 Kirti had also stated to her that her husband Vikas had not been treating her as his wife or that her in-laws i.e. mother- in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law (devar) used to ill treat her on account of demand of car or used to taunt her regarding the articles given in marriage and used to harass her for the demand of money. She further denied the suggestion that Kirti had stated to her that her brother had recently given AC to her in law or that her brother-in-law Aman had been keeping an evil eye over her or that her husband Vikas was having affair with one girl or that Kirti had also stated to her that the said girl was teacher in some private school or that she had also seen the SMSs exchanged between her husband Vikas and said girl or that when she agitated about the said relationship of Vikas with said girl, her husband Vikas had quarreled with her and also gave beatings to her or that Vikas had also broken her mobile phone. She further denied the suggestion that on 10.10.2017 she had received a phone call of Kirti or that over the said phone call, Kirti was weeping or that she requested for meeting her at Paschim Vihar Metro station or that accordingly they met at the said station or that Kirti had stated to her that her in laws had been harassing her on the pretext of dowry or that her husband Vikas had been threatening her to kill. She further denied the suggestion that she consoled Kirti or that thereafter, she returned to her house or that on the same day, after completing her duty, she went to the parental house of Kirti or stated the aforesaid facts to the parents of Kirti or that in her presence, the father of Kirti made a phone call to Kirti but FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 23 of 50 the said phone of Kirti was found Switched off or that the father of Kirti had stated that they would go to the matrimonial house of Kirti on next day and would talk to the in-laws of Kirti. She further stated that Kirti had stated many times to her that her husband used to beat her or that her in-laws i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law and devar had been treating her badly and given beatings to her.
34.During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW11 stated that whenever she used to meet Kirti and her husband Vikas, they were happy. She admitted that accused Vikas was working in some hotel and due to the nature of his duties, he used to return home during late night hours. She also stated that sometimes Kirti was also suffering from cold and cough. She further stated that she had no idea that Kirti used to take medicines or injection of her own without any medical supervision.
35.PW-12 Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed that he was working as conductor with DTC and Ajeet Singh S/o Ram Singh was his uncle (Tau) and Smt. Raj Kaur was his Aunt i.e. Tai and he was residing in their house with his Uncle and Aunt. He further deposed that on one day in the month of October 2017 while he was present at the house of his Uncle, his Uncle Sh. Ajeet Singh had requested him for bringing Kirti from Nangloi metro station. Accordingly, he went the said metro station on a motorcycle and brought Kirti from the said metro station to the house of his uncle. Kirti remained at the house of his uncle for about half an hour or so and thereafter on the request of his Aunt, he dropped Kirti to Nangloi metro station. He further deposed FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 24 of 50 that during investigating, IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
36.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW12 denied the suggestion that IO had not recorded his statement or that he had not brought Kirti from metro station or that he had not dropped Kirti back to metro station at any point of time.
37.PW-13 HC Manjeet Singh deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was posted at PS Mundka as Head Constable. On that day, he alongwith ASI Rajender Singh and Inspector Suresh Kumar went to Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar where they met ASI Om Prakash, HC Narender Singh and SHO. He further deposed that in his presence, ASI Om Prakash produced MLC No. 7095 of deceased Kirti wife of Vikas Drall to Insp. Suresh Kumar. Insp. Suresh Kumar called crime team and crime team photographer took the photographs of the body of Kirti. Thereafter, on the instruction of ASI Om Prakash and Insp. Suresh Kumar, body of Kirti was sent to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital through HC Narender. He further deposed that he alongwith ASI Om Prakash, ASI Rajender, SHO and Insp. Suresh Kumar went to the place of occurrence i.e. H. No. 293,Village Neelwal i.e. house of accused Vikas Drall, where crime team In-charge inspected the place of occurrence and crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of occurrence. He further deposed that from the washbasin at in front of kitchen portion area at the first floor of house no. 293, one injection, one injection needle, two injection needle cover FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 25 of 50 and one red colour glass bottle on the cover of which "Neon" was written was found. He further deposed that from one card box kept at the first floor, one empty vial was found on which 'NEVOC-10' for I.V use was written. The Crime Team In-charge handed over the crime team report to Inspector Suresh Kumar. He further deposed that Inspector Suresh Kumar left him at the spot and alongwith staff went to SGM hospital Punjabi Bagh. After some time, Inspector Suresh Kumar alongwith staff and SDM, Punjabi Bagh returned to the spot. He further deposed that the concerned SDM inspected the place of occurrence. Inspector Suresh Kumar prepared rough site plan and also seized the aforesaid exhibits after sealing the same with the seal of 'SK' vide seizure memo Ex.13/A. IO had deposited the case property in Malkhana and during investigation also recorded his statement in that regard.
38.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW13 denied the suggestion that he had not joined any such investigation or that no such articles were seized in his presence.
39.PW-14 Inspector Suresh Kumar deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was posted at PS Mundka as ATO. On that day DD No. 5A was marked to ASI Om Prakash, who alongwith HC Narender went to Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar Delhi upon receipt of DD No. 5A. On that day, DD No. 8A was marked to him and accordingly, he alongwith ASI Rajender and HC Manjeet went to Balaji Action Medical Hospital, Paschim Vihar and met ASI Om Prakash and HC Narender. He further deposed that ASI FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 26 of 50 Om Prakash handed over him MLC No. 7095 of Kirti W/o Vikas Drall wherein the said Kirti was declared as brought dead. He further deposed that in the hospital, he had also met SHO, PS Mundka alongwith staff, Sh. Santosh Rai, the concerned SDM and also the crime team officials. He further deposed that upon his instructions, crime team photographer took the photos of deceased Kirti and the body of Kirti was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital mortuary by HC Narender. Thereafter, he alongwith staff, crime team went to house no. 293, village Neelwal i.e. the house of accused Vikas Drall. He further deposed that upon his instructions, Crime team Incharge inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his report. Crime team photographer took the photographs of the place of incident. He further deposed that from the washbasin in front of kitchen portion area at the first floor of house no. 293, one injection, one injection needle, two injection needle cover and one red colour glass bottle on the cover of which "Neon" was written was found. He further deposed that from one card box kept at the first floor, one empty vial was found on which 'NEVOC-10' for I.V use was written. He further deposed that the crime team incharge handed over the crime team report to him. He further deposed that he left the spot while directing HC Manjeet for remaining at the spot and went to SGM hospital Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, they went to the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh, where the concerned SDM Sh. Santosh Rai recorded the statement of Sh. Ajit Singh and Smt. Raj Kaur. He further deposed that he alongwith staff FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 27 of 50 and concerned SDM went to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi hospital where the concerned SDM conducted proceedings u/s 176 Cr.P.C and recorded the statements of relatives of deceased. He further deposed that the concerned SDM had also got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased vide application Ex.PW14/A and also filled form no. 25.35 (1) (B) Ex.PW14/B and recorded the statement of Harish Kumar Ex.PW14/C and statement of Sh. Ajit Singh Ex.PW14/D thereby identifying the dead body. The concerned doctor conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Kirti and after postmortem the body of deceased was handed over to the relatives vide receipt Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that after postmortem the concerned doctor handed over the exhibits which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E. He further deposed that he alongwith staff and SDM went to the place of occurrence ie. house no. 293 where concerned SDM inspected the place of occurrence. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PW14/F and seized the aforesaid exhibits after sealing the same with the seal of 'SK' vide seizure memo Ex.13/A. He further deposed that he had also seized the other exhibits lifted from the spot after sealing the same with the seal of SK vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G. He further deposed that on 18.10.2017, concerned SDM had sent the statements of Harish and other relatives vide letter no. F.SDM(PB)/2017/5542. He further deposed that on the basis of statement made by Sh. Harish Kumar, he had made endorsement Ex.PW14/H and handed over rukka to Duty officer, who got the FIR registered and investigation FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 28 of 50 was marked to him. He further deposed that he had collected the original rukka and copy of FIR from duty officer. During investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses i.e. of Sh. Ajit Singh, Smt. Raj Kaur, Ms. Pink Kaur and of other police officials.
40.He further deposed that on 20.10.2017, accused Vikas Drall was apprehended from his native village and was interrogated and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/I. He further deposed that his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/J and disclosure statement Ex.PW14/K was recorded. He further deposed that accused had also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex.PW14/L. He further deposed that he had also seized the mobile phone belonging to Kirti which was got recovered at the instance of accused Vikas Drall after sealing the same with the seal of 'SK' vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M. He further deposed that he had also seized the mobile phone belonging to accused after sealing the same with the seal of 'SK' vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N. He had also prepared the site plan Ex.PW14/O of the place of occurrence at the instance of accused Vikas Drall. He further deposed that he had also obtained one day PC remand of accused Vikas Drall and was remanded to JC. He further deposed that during investigation, father of deceased had handed over him the marriage card, Air conditioner bill and other documents which he had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. He had also recorded the supplementary statement of Ajit Singh and his wife Smt. Raj Kaur and also collected the FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 29 of 50 certified copies of the CDRs of mobile phone belonging to deceased bearing no. 9873816002 as well as the CDR of mobile phone bearing no. 7210596258 belonging to the parents of deceased. He further deposed that he had also obtained the CDR of another mobile no. 8368475947 belonging to deceased. He further deposed that during investigation he had sent the exhibits to FSL, Rohini and Histopathology lab, Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. On 27.11.2017, he had accompanied drafts man SI Om Prakash to the place of occurrence who took rough measurements and prepared notes and after preparing the site plans Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B, he handed over the said site plans to him. He further deposed that during investigation, he had also collected the PCR form and the bank statement account of Sh. Ajit Singh from Syndicate Bank. He had also got verified the air conditioner bill from Sargam Electronics. He made efforts for the search of accused Aman, Ram Kumar and Raj Bala and obtained their NBWs. He further deposed that accused Aman applied for anticipatory bail before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court ordered for no coercive steps. He further deposed that during investigation, he had also deposited the mobile phone belonging to accused Vikas Drall at FSL, Rohini and also recorded the statements of relatives of deceased, public witnesses and police officials. He further deposed that in the month of February 2018 since he was transferred, file was handed over to MHC(R).
41.During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that the relatives of deceased had not FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 30 of 50 made any statements before SDM or before him or that he had manipulated their statements in order to create false evidences against the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that accused Vikas had not made any disclosure statement or was not arrested in the manner as deposed by him. He also denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not demanded any dowry from deceased or that had not harassed her on the pretext of dowry.
42.He admitted that the deceased was working as a nurse with Action Balaji Hospital and during investigation it was revealed to him that deceased was also doing night duties in the said hospital. He stated that it is not within his knowledge that deceased had asked her father for getting her job in ESI hospital as while working with Balaji hospital, her matrimonial life was disturbed on account of her continuous night duties. He also stated that it is not within his knowledge if prior to death, deceased was suffering from lung disease. He also stated that he could not deny the contents of subsequent opinion where it is mentioned that the cause of death is on account of lung disease. He also stated that it has not come to his knowledge that deceased used to take I.V injections of Vovilan when she was feeling fatigue on account of her long duty hours.
43.PW-15 ASI Devender Kumar deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was posted as Crime Team In-charge with Mobile Crime Team, Outer District. On that day, at about 8 am, a call was received from control room and accordingly, he FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 31 of 50 alongwith crime team, went to emergency ward, Action Balaji Hospital where he met ASI Om Prakash and other police officials of PS Mundka. He had inspected the body of deceased Kirti and on his instructions, crime team photographer took photographs of the dead body from digital camera. He further deposed that they went to house no. 293, village Neelwal, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, where on the first floor i.e. from the washbasin built in the gallery, one used injection syringe, one needle, two covers and one red colour cap was found lying. He further deposed that one glass bottle was also found lying in a cartbox kept in the kitchen. Crime team photographer took photographs of the said articles and he had instructed the IO to seize the articles. He had prepared crime team report Ex.PW15/A and handed over the same to IO.
44.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, witness denied the suggestion that he had not carried out any inspection or that no such articles were found lying at the place of occurrence or that he had prepared a false crime report.
45.PW-16 ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 11.10.2017, DD No. 5 A was marked to him and accordingly, he alongwith HC Narender went to Action Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar. In the said hospital, he had collected MLC No. 7095 of Kirti, who was declared brought dead. He further deposed that he had informed the concerned SHO about the aforesaid facts. In the meantime, Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia i.e. SHO, PS Mundka and other staff reached at the spot. Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 32 of 50 contacted Sh. Santosh Rai i.e. SDM, Punjabi Bagh. Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia also contacted the crime team. The Crime Team officials reached at the hospital and the crime team photographer took photographs of the dead body from digital camera and Crime Team In-charge inspected the said body. He further deposed that upon the instructions of Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia, HC Narender took the body of Kirti to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia and other staff and crime team went to house no. 293, village Neelwal, Tikri Kalan, Delhi. He further deposed that Crime Team In-charge inspected the place of occurrence and crime team photographer took the photographs of place of incident. He further deposed that on the first floor i.e. from the washbasin built in the gallery, one used injection syringe, one needle, two covers and one red colour cap was found lying. One glass bottle was also found lying in a cart box kept in the kitchen. He further deposed that Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia appointed HC Manjeet at the spot and thereafter, they went to SDM office, Punjabi Bagh. In the said office, they met Sh. Ajit Singh, Sh. Harish and Smt. Raj Kaur. The concerned SDM Sh. Santosh Rai recorded their statements. He further deposed that he alongwith ASI Rajender, Inspector Satya Prakash Gulia and the relatives of Kirti went to Sanjay Gandhi mortuary, Mangolpuri where the concerned SDM inspected the body and recorded the statements of relatives of deceased and moved an application for postmortem on the body of deceased. He FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 33 of 50 further deposed that the concerned autopsy surgeon conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Kirti and after postmortem the body of Kirti was handed over to her relatives. He further deposed that the concerned autopsy surgeon handed over the exhibits alongwith inquest papers to Inspector Suresh which he seized through seizure memo. Thereafter, they accompanied concerned SDM to the place of occurrence where the concerned SDM inspected the place of occurrence. He further deposed that Inspector Suresh Kumar seized the exhibits lying at the spot after sealing the same with the seal of SK vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW14/G respectively. He further deposed that Inspector Suresh had also seized the exhibits of deceased after postmortem vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E. Inspector Suresh had also seized the mobile phone produced by accused Vikas Drall which after sealing was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M. He further deposed that Inspector Suresh had also seized the mobile phone produced by accused Vikas Drall belonging to him which after sealing was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N.
46.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that the relatives of deceased had not made any such statements before the concerned SDM or that their statements were manipulated in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that no such inspection was carried out in his presence or that no such articles were found lying at the place of occurrence.
FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 34 of 50
47.PW-17 Sh. Santosh Tripathi deposed that on 27.10.2017 their office received one sealed wooden box, four sealed plastic boxes and one sealed polythene pouch for examination purposes and the said exhibits were marked to him. He further deposed that he had checked the said exhibits/pullandas and found the seals over the said pullandas to be intact and tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seals. He had opened the said parcels/exhibits and the material contained therein were marked as Parcel 1 to Parcel 7/Exhibits 1 to Exhibit 7. He further deposed that on chemical, TLC and GC-MS examination, no poisonous/ethyl or methyl alcohol etc. could be detected in exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Upon examination, he had prepared FSL report dated 21.02.2018 Ex.PW17/A. He further deposed that after examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of STY FSL Delhi and handed over to IO.
48.This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
49.PW-18 Retired Inspector Sheelwant Singh deposed that on 18.03.2018, he was posted at PS Mundka as Inspector ATO. On that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that on 19.03.2018 he had sent a request to the concerned service provider for providing the CDRs of mobile number belonging to PW Pink Kaur bearing no. 9717693007. He further deposed that on the same day, he had sent a request through one constable for providing final opinion regarding the cause of death of deceased Kirti from the concerned autopsy FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 35 of 50 surgeon. He further deposed that on 26.03.2018 he had obtained the CDR of aforesaid mobile number from the concerned service provider and he had also obtained the cause of death from the concerned autopsy surgeon. He further deposed that during investigation, on 28.03.2018 he had formally arrested accused persons namely Raj Bala, Ram Kumar and Aman Drall, as they were admitted to anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court. He further deposed that the arrest of accused Raj Bala was effected vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/A and her personal search was conducted through W/Ct. Shyama vide memo Ex.PW18/B. He further deposed that the arrest of accused Ram Kumar was effected vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/D. Arrest of accused Aman Drall was effected vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW18/F. He further deposed that during investigation, he had collected the FSL report, histopathology report and also obtained the subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of witnesses. He also moved an application for reviewing the cause of death and accordingly, the medical board was constituted and the concerned medical board opined the cause of death of Kirti to be unnatural one. He further deposed that he had filed the said reports before the concerned court and also filed supplementary charge-sheet.
50.During cross examination, PW18 admitted that in the postmortem report, the findings of the autopsy surgeon FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 36 of 50 was that the cause of death was due to lung disease. He stated that he could not comment upon the findings of postmortem report as well as the findings of the opinion of medical board. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained a false and fabricated subsequent opinion from the medical board in connivance with the complainant of the present case.
51.PW-19 Sh. Amrik Singh Dhillon deposed that on 11.10.2017, he was working with Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On that day, he was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer. He further deposed that on that day, one Kirti wife of Vikas Drall was brought to Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute by her husband Vikas Drall with the alleged history of "found unconscious at home" i.e. village Neelwal, Delhi. He had examined the said patient and after examination declared the said Kirti to be brought dead at 4.06 AM on 11.10.2017. He had also prepared MLC No. 7095 Ex.PW19/A in that regard.
52.This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
53.PW-20 Dr. Munish Wadhawan deposed that he could identify the signatures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (since expired) as he had worked with Dr. Manoj Dhingra. He identified the signatures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra on each page at point A on postmortem report Ex.PW20/A bearing no. 898/17 dated 11.10.2017 of deceased Kirti W/o Vikas. He further deposed that the approximate time of death was mentioned to be 12 hours and cause of death was kept FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 37 of 50 pending till the receipt of chemical analysis report of viscera and blood. He further deposed that after postmortem, Dr. Manoj Dhingra had handed over 13 inquest papers, sealed viscera, sealed heart and sealed skin sample from left wrist and control from right wrist and after sealing, handed over the said exhibits to the investigating agency alongwith sample seal of department. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra on subsequent opinion dated 25.03.2018 Ex.PW20/B. He further deposed that as per the said report, Dr. Manoj Dhingra had opined the cause of death of Kirti to be lung disease.
54.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW20 admitted that as per the subsequent opinion, cause of death was opined to be lung disease which is a natural death.
55.PW-21 Dr. B.K Sinha deposed that in the year 2017 he was working at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital as HOD Pathology. On 27.10.2017, a sample was received in the department of Pathology of deceased Kirti aged about 25 years for the purpose of examination. The report was prepared on 20.12.2017 as Ex.PW21/A. He further deposed that the description of the sample was "that on opening container specimen of whole heart with cut mark over it measuring (10x8x6) cm. grossly unremarkable". On micro section examinations of section taken from specimen of heart, coronaries and myocardium were unremarkable.
56.This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 38 of 50 persons despite opportunity given.
57.PW-22 Sh. Santosh Kumar Rai deposed that on 11.10.2017 he was posted as SDM Punjabi Bagh. On that day, he received a message from PS Mundka regarding the death of Ms. Kirti D/o Ajit Singh within seven years of her marriage. Accordingly, on the same day, he had recorded the statement of Smt. Raj Kaur Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that on the same day, he had also recorded the statement of Sh. Ajit Singh Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that on 12.10.2017, he had again recorded the statement of Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh Ex.PW5/B. On the same day, he had also recorded the statement of Smt. Raj Kaur Ex.PW4/B. He further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Pink Kaur Ex.PW22/A. He further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of Vikas Drall Ex.PW22/B, statement of Smt. Rajbala Ex.PW22/C and also prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW22/D. He further deposed that after recording the aforesaid statements, he had prepared report dated 18.10.2017 Ex.PW22/E. He further deposed that vide his report Ex.PW22/E he had directed SHO, PS Mundka to take appropriate action. During investigation, he had also got conducted inquest proceedings and requested the concerned autopsy surgeon to perform postmortem on the body of deceased Kirti vide request letter Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that he had also handed over the request letter Ex.PW22/F to the mortuary incharge. He had also signed the relevant form no. 25.35(1)(b) Ex.PW14/B and also recorded the statements FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 39 of 50 of relatives of deceased Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D in respect of identification of body of Kirti. He further deposed that after postmortem, the body of deceased Kirti was handed over to her relatives vide receipt Ex.PW3/B.
58.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that witnesses had not made any such statements to him or that he had recorded their statements falsely at the instance of IO.
59.During the course of trial, the accused persons made a joint statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C wherein they admitted the bank statement dated 01.08.2017 to 05.08.2017 in respect of account no. 91192010010884 and they also admitted that the factum of recording of DD No. 5A and 8A dated 11.10.2017. They also admitted the factum of recording of FIR No. 280/2017 by DO ASI Narender, the factum of information being received by SI Umed Singh in the PCR form, the contents of CDR of mobile no.8368475947 of Jio Cellular Services Delhi, contents of CDRs of mobile nos. 9711897953, 9873816002, 9999384995 & 9213705591 of Vodafone Cellular Services Ltd., the contents of CDR of mobile no. 8527414649 & 9560696194 of Airtel Cellular Services Ltd. and the contents of CDR of mobile no. 7210596258 of Aircel Cellular Services.
60.Ld. Additional PP has tendered the said documents in evidence and exhibited the photographs as collectively Ex.PX1 (23 photographs), the bank statement dated 01.08.2017 to 05.08.2017 in respect of account no. 91192010010884 as Ex.PX2, DD No. 5A and 8A dated 11.10.2017 as Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, FIR No. FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 40 of 50 280/2017 as Ex.PX3, endorsement as Ex.PX4 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PX5, PCR form as Ex.PX6 and certificate u/s 65B as Ex.PX7, CDR of mobile no.8368475947 of Jio Cellular Services Delhi as Ex.PX8, the customer application form as Ex.PX9 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PX10, CDRs of mobile nos. 9711897953, 9873816002, 9999384995 & 9213705591 of Vodafone Cellular Services Ltd. as collectively Ex.PX11, CDR of mobile no. 8527414649 & 9560696194 of Airtel Cellular Services Ltd. as Ex.PX12 (colly) and CDR of mobile no. 7210596258 of Aircel Cellular Services as Ex.PX13 including relevant documents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
61.I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. My findings are as under:
Ocular Evidence:
62.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.
63.The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimonies of PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar i.e. brother of deceased Kirti, PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur i.e. mother of deceased Kirti, PW5 Sh. Ajit Singh i.e. father of deceased Kirti PW6 Sh. Jal Singh, PW7 Sh. Ravinder Kumar and PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur.
64.In order to prove the case for the offence punishable under FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 41 of 50 Section 304B/34 IPC, as charged in the present case, the prosecution was under obligation to prove the following three essential ingredients:-
(a) whether the death of victim Kirti took place within seven years of her marriage.
(b) whether the death of victim Kirti took place otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(c) whether the victim was subjected to cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death.
65.It is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the three essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 304B/34 IPC.
(a) Whether the death of victim Kirti took place within seven years of her marriage:-
66.In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW3 Harish, PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur and PW5 Ajeet Singh who are brother, mother and father of the deceased respectively who stated that deceased was married to accused Vikas Drall on 13.11.2016 and they were not cross examined by Ld defence counsel on that aspect so as to dispute the factum of marriage of deceased with accused Vikas Drall. The victim died on 11.10.2017 and her postmortem was conducted on the same day vide P.M. Report Ex.PW20/A. Hence, prosecution during trial has established that the marriage of victim Kirti took place with accused Vikas Drall on 13.11.2016 and she had expired at her matrimonial home on 11.10.2017. So the prosecution has FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 42 of 50 been able to prove that the death of victim Kirti took place within seven years of her marriage.
(b) Whether the death of victim Kirti took
place otherwise than under normal
circumstances:-
67.In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW20 i.e. Dr. Munish Wadhawan who has deposed on behalf of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (since expired) and has deposed that Dr. Manoj Dhingra conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Kirti and exhibited the said postmortem report as Ex.PW20/A. PW20 has also deposed that as per the subsequent opinion dated 25.03.2018 prepared by Dr. Manoj Dhingra, the cause of death of Kirti has been opined to be the lung disease. PW20 has also exhibited the said subsequent opinion as Ex.PW20/B.
68.Thus, as per the subsequent opinion Ex.PW20/B the cause of death of Kirti has been opined as lung disease i.e. a natural death.
69.Further, during the course of investigation, IO Inspector Sheelwant Singh had also got constituted a Medical Board regarding the cause of death of deceased Kirti. The said report dated 28.11.2018 has been exhibited as Ex.PX14. As per the said report, the medical board consisting of Dr. Sreenivas M., Dr. Amandeep Kaur and Dr. Monisha Pradhan has opined that "the manner of death based on the circumstantial evidence appears likely to be suicidal rather than homicidal".
70.It is thus observed that two separate cause of death have FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 43 of 50 been placed on record, one cause of death has been opined to be lung disease and the second one has been opined to be suicidal. In report given by the medical board, with regard to the manner of death, the medical board has observed as under " Given the circumstances of the case it stands to reason and seems likely that the deceased self- injected the drug intravenously. There is a history of marital discord and demands for dowry which might have formed the back drop and given the motive to the deceased to commit suicide. The injury to the scalp is consistent with the deceased falling and hitting the back of the head against a hard object. It can be construed/seems likely that the deceased lost muscle tone after injection of the drug and fell as a result, impacting the back of the head to the floor or any other hard object.".
71.Thus, in view of the evidence on record it is proved that the victim died as she self-injected the drug intravenously and her death was suicidal. Hence, the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of victim Kirti took place otherwise than under normal circumstances.
(c) Whether the victim was subjected to cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death and whether victim was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry so as to prove charges for offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC:-
72.In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar i.e. brother of deceased Kirti, PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur i.e. mother of deceased Kirti, PW5 Sh. Ajit Singh i.e. FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 44 of 50 father of deceased Kirti and PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur i.e. the friend of deceased Kirti. The aforesaid witnesses are the most material witnesses for the prosecution. Their respective testimonies reveal that they have not supported the case of prosecution in this regard.
73.The testimony of PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar does not reveal that his sister Kirti was treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. Despite detailed cross-examination by Ld Addl. PP for the State, PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar i.e. brother of deceased, has not supported his respective statements which he allegedly made before concerned SDM/IO. During cross-examination, Ld. Additional PP for state has confronted him with his previous statement which he allegedly made before concerned SDM but he denied to have made any such statement.
74.The overall impact of the testimony of PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar i.e. brother of deceased, reveals that he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and has not alleged any cruelty being committed by any of the accused persons upon deceased, on the pretext of demand of dowry. He has also not alleged that victim Kirti was subjected to any cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death. So, the testimony of PW3 Harish Kumar is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
75.The testimony of PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur does not reveal that her daughter Kirti was treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. Despite detailed cross-examination by Ld Addl. PP for the State, PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur i.e. mother of deceased, has not supported her respective FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 45 of 50 statements which she allegedly made before concerned SDM/IO. During cross-examination, Ld. Addl. PP for State has confronted her with her previous statements which she allegedly made before concerned SDM but she denied to have made any such statements.
76.The overall impact of the testimony of PW4 smt. Raj Kaur i.e. mother of deceased, reveals that she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and has not alleged any cruelty being committed by any of the accused persons upon deceased, on the pretext of demand of dowry. She has also not alleged that victim Kirti was subjected to any cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death. So, the testimony of PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
77.The testimony of PW5 Sh. Ajeet Singh also does not reveal that his daughter Kirti was treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. Despite detailed cross- examination by Ld Addl. PP for the State, PW5 Sh. Ajeet Singh i.e. father of deceased, has not supported his respective statements which he allegedly made before concerned SDM/IO. During cross-examination, Ld. Addl. PP for State has confronted him with his previous statements which he allegedly made before concerned SDM but he denied to have made any such statements.
78.The overall impact of the testimony of PW5 Sh. Ajeet Singh i.e. father of deceased, reveals that he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and has not alleged any cruelty being committed by any of the accused persons upon deceased, on the pretext of demand FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 46 of 50 of dowry. He has also not alleged that victim Kirti was subjected to any cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death. So, the testimony of PW5 Sh. Ajeet Singh is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
79.Now coming to the testimony of PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur i.e. friend of deceased, PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur has deposed that she used to meet occasionally with Kirti and whenever she used to meet Kirti, she never complained her about her in- laws, rather she used to say that everything was normal in her matrimonial life.
80.The testimony of PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur does not reveal that her friend Kirti was treated with cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. Despite detailed cross-examination, PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur i.e. friend of deceased, has not supported her respective statements which she allegedly made before concerned SDM/IO. During cross- examination, Ld. Addl. PP for State has confronted her with her previous statements which she allegedly made before concerned SDM but she denied to have made any such statements.
81.The overall impact of the testimony of PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur i.e. friend of deceased, reveals that she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and has not alleged any cruelty being committed by any of the accused persons upon deceased, on the pretext of demand of dowry. She has also not alleged that victim Kirti was subjected to any cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death. So, the testimony of PW11 Smt. Pink Kaur is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 47 of 50
82.The remaining witnesses examined during trial are formal witnesses i.e. witnesses of investigation and official witnesses and their testimonies have no bearing so far as commission of offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC are concerned.
83. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to establish that the victim Kirti was subjected to cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry soon before her death or that victim was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, so as to prove charges for offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges for offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC against the accused persons.
Charge for offence punishable u/s 306 IPC against accused persons.
84.An alternative charge in respect of offence punishable u/s 306 IPC was also framed against the accused persons.
85.Now, it has to be seen whether there is any evidence on record to establish that the accused persons abetted Ms. Kirti to commit suicide pursuant to which she committed suicide.
86.In this regard, it is already observed that the aforesaid public witnesses i.e. PW3 Sh. Harish Kumar, PW4 Smt. Raj Kaur, PW5 Sh. Ajeet Singh and PW11 Pink Kaur have not supported the case of prosecution in any manner.
87.To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 48 of 50 suicide is necessary. The law is well settled to the effect that in order to attract offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and this act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
88.The perusal of the testimony, aforesaid witnesses reveals that they have only deposed that Kirti used to suspect her husband i.e. accused Vikas Drall that he might have affair with some girl. But no direct or active act of the accused persons have been deposed by any of the witnesses to come to a conclusion that the accused persons in any manner abetted the commission of suicide by Kirti.
89.In view of the aforesaid testimonies, there is no iota of evidence on record to connect any of the accused persons with commission of offence punishable under Section 306, 34 IPC and accordingly the accused persons are also acquitted in respect of the charge for offence punishable u/s 306, 34 IPC.
90.Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Vikas Drall, Ram Kumar, Raj Bala and Aman Drall are acquitted in respect of charges for offences punishable under Section 304B, 498A, 34 IPC and also for offence punishable under Section 306, 34 IPC.
91.Their previous bail bonds furnished during trial are hereby cancelled. Their sureties stand discharged. However, the bail bonds furnished by accused persons namely Vikas Drall, Ram Kumar, Raj Bala and Aman Drall under FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 49 of 50 Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain effective for a period of six months from the date of this order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Passed & announced in open Court today) (MANISH KHURANA) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 West District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/16.12.2022 FIR No. 280/2017 PS Mundka State Vs. Vikas Drall & Ors Page no. 50 of 50