Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Anil Mehto on 17 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 21/2014
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0057292014
State Vs. (1) Anil Mehto
S/o Rajender Mehto
R/o B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi,
Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Rajender Mehto
S/o Vakil Mehto
R/o B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi,
Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Kala Devi @ Kalawati
W/o Rajender Mehto
R/o B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi,
Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram,
Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 444/2013
Police Station: Keshav Puram
Under Sections: 498A/304B/302/406/34 IPC
Date of committal to sessions court: 17.4.2014
Date on which orders were reserved: 8.12.2014/ 12.1.2015
Date on which judgment pronounced:12.1.2015
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 1
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations, between 29.6.2011 to 20.12.2013 at B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi all the accused i.e. Anil Mehto being the husband of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula; Rajender Mehto being the father in law and the accused Kala Devi being the mother in law of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula in furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to cruelty by making illegal demand of dowry and harassing her and also gave beatings to her. It has also been alleged that on 20.12.2013 at B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi all the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Manju by hanging otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2013 at about 1:35 PM a call was received at Police Station Keshav Puram that a lady had committed suicide. On this DD No. 32B was lodged and ASI Shashi Kumar along with staff reached at the spot i.e. B46/38, Balmiki Camp, Lawrence Road where a married young lady was found hanging from a rope tied on the iron pole attached to the ceiling of the room. On local inquiry her name was revealed as Manju Devi who was married to Anil Mehto in the year 2011. Thereafter St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 2 information was sent to the SHO Police Station Keshav Puram and SDM Saraswati Vihar and the scene of crime was examined by Crime Team who took the photographs of the same and also videographed the scene of crime.
The relatives of the deceased were found to be residing at village Pam Pura, Police Station Singhwara, District Darbhanga, Bihar on which the parents of the deceased were telephonically informed. On the instructions of the SDM the body of the deceased was brought down after cutting the rope after which the dead body was got preserved in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. On 23.12.2013 Bindeshwar Mehto father of the deceased, Bechan Mehto brother of the deceased and other relatives reached and made their statements before the SDM Saraswati Vihar wherein they had made specific allegations against the accused Anil Mehto husband of the deceased, Rajender Mehto father in law of the deceased and Kala Devi @ Kalawati mother in law of the deceased of having caused harassment and torture upon the deceased on account of dowry demand. On the basis of the statement of Bindeshwar Mehto the present case was registered.
(3) During investigations all the three accused i.e. Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded wherein they admitted their guilty. On 30.12.2013 the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Anil Mehto was recorded on the basis of which the accused Anil Mehto got recovered the mobile phone being used by him i.e. make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 having two SIMs with IMEI numbers as 911331250302608 and 911331250302616 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 3 containing one SIM bearing number was 9582153218 from his house. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the three accused before the court.
CHARGES:
(4) Charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC, 304B/34 IPC, 302/34 IPC and 406/34 IPC were settled against the accused Anil Mehto, Rajinder Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (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:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
1. PW1 Ct. Pushpender Police Witness - DD Writer
2. PW2 Ct. Subhash Police Witness - PCR Van official
3. PW3 HC Suresh Chand Police Witness - Duty Officer
4. PW4 Ct. Subhash Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
5. PW5 ASI Rajbir Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
6. PW6 W/Ct. Neetu Police Witness who had reached the spot and conducted the body search of the deceased
7. PW7 Ct. Mukesh Police Witness who has proved the recovery of stridhan articles
8. PW8 Ct. Dharamraj Police Witness who has proved the recovery of stridhan articles
9. PW9 HC Raj Kumar Police Witness - MHCM St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 4 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
10. PW10 HC Rajender Police Witness who had deposited the exhibits with the FSL
11. PW11 Insp. Manohar Lal Police Witness Draftsman
12. PW12 Ct. Vikram Kumar Police Witness who had deposited the exhibits with the FSL
13. PW13 Ct. Dinesh Police Witness who had deposited the exhibits with the FSL
14. PW14 W Ct. Jaya yadav Police Witness - CPCR Official
15. PW15 Krishan Mehto Public Witness - Jija of the deceased
16. PW16 Dr. Bhim Singh Autopsy Surgeon
17. PW17 Chandeshwar Public Witness - Independent witness who had made the PCR call
18. PW18 Ajay Sehgal Public Witness - Private Photographer
19. PW19 Mamta Chaudhary Public Witness - Pradhan of Village Rampura, District Darbhanga, Bihar
20. PW20 Satish Pathak Public Witness - Resident of the same area/ Allottee of SIM No. 9582153218
21. PW21 Sudhir Kumar Public Witness - Ex. Pradhan of Village Chaudhary Rampura, District Darbhanga, Bihar
22. PW22 Uggar Sain Public Witness - Landlord of the accused
23. PW3 Rampari Pubic Witness - Mother of the deceased
24. PW24 Jagtaran Devi Pubic Witness - Bhabhi of the deceased
25. PW25 Shakuntala Devi Pubic Witness - Sister of the deceased
26. PW26 Bindeshwar Mehto Pubic Witness - Father of the deceased
27. PW27 Ct. Mahender Police Witness who had reached the spot
28. PW28 W/HC Rajeshwati Police Witness who has proved the arrest of accused Kala Devi
29. PW29 Ct. Sandeep Police Witness who had joined investigations with Inspector Anil Sharma
30. PW30 ASI Shashi Police Witness - Initial Investigating Officer St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 5 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
31. PW31 SI Mukesh Police Witness - Subsequent Investigating Officer
32. PW32 Baijanath Mehto Pubic Witness - Brother of the deceased
33. PW33 Israr Babu Alternative Nodal Officer from Vodafone
34. PW34 Mani Bhushan Official Witness SDM Malhotra
35. PW35 Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices
36. PW36 Shaishir Malhotra Nodal Officer from Aircel Ltd.
37. PW37 Bechan Mehto Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
38. PW38 Chander Shekhar Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd.
39. PW39 Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary FSL Expert who has proved the Chemical Analysis Report
40. PW40 Dr. N P Waghmare FSL Expert who has proved having retrieved the data from the mobile phone of accused Anil Mehto
41. PW41 Insp. Anil Sharma Police Witness - Investigating Officer of the present case List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No. 1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Pushpender Ct. Pushpender 2. PW1/A DD No. 32B 3. PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Subhash Ct. Subhash 4. PW2/A Copy of Call Log Book 5. PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Suresh Chand HC Suresh Chand 6. PW3/A DD No. 18A 7. PW3/B Copy of FIR 8. PW3/C Endorsement on rukka St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 6 Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No. 9. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Subhash Ct. Subhash 10. PW4/A1 to 17 Photographs of Scene of Crime 11. PW4/B Negatives of photographs 12. PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of ASI Rajbir Singh ASI Rajbir Singh 13. PW5/A Crime Team Report 14. PW6/1 Affidavit of W/Ct. Neetu W/Ct. Neetu 15. PW7/1 Affidavit of Ct. Mukesh Ct. Mukesh 16. PW7/A Seizure memo of stridhan articles 17. PW8/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Dharamraj Ct. Dharamraj 18. PW9/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Raj Kumar HC Raj Kumar 19. PW9/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3693/13 20. PW9/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3696/13 21. PW9/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3706/13 22. PW9/D RC No. 13/21/14 23. PW9/E FSL Receipt 24. PW10/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Rajender HC Rajender 25. PW10/A RC No. 07/21/14 26. PW10/B FSL Receipt 27. PW10/C RC No. 17/21/14 28. PW11/1 Affidavit of evidence of Insp. Manohar Lal Insp. Manohar Lal 29. PW11/A Scaled site plan 30. PW12/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Vikram Kumar 31. PW13/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Dinesh Ct. Dinesh 32. PW14/1 Affidavit of evidence of W/Ct. Jaya Yadav W Ct. Jaya Yadav 33. PW14/A PCR Form 34. PW16/A Postmortem Report Dr. Bhim Singh 35. PW16/B Subsequent Opinion St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 7 Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No. 36. PW18/A1 to Photographs Ajay Sehgal 37. PW18/B CD containing photographs 38. PW19/A Marriage Certificate Mamta Chaudhary 39. PW19/B Copy of Gram Panchayat register 40. PW19/C1 to Copy of Application Forms C2 41. PW26/A Statement of Bindeshwar Mehto Bindeshwar Mehto 42. PW26/B Dead body identification statement of Bindeshwar Mehto 43. PW26/C Dead body handed over memo 44. PW26/D Statement of Bindeshwar Mehto under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 45. PW27/A Seizure memo of articles collected from Ct. Mahender the spot 46. PW27/B Seizure memo of exhibits of deceased 47. PW27/C Arrest memo of accused Anil Mehto 48. PW27/D Personal search memo of accused Anil Mehto 49. PW27/E Disclosure statement of accused Anil Mehto 50. PW27/F Arrest memo of accused Kala Devi @ Kalawati 51. PW27/G Personal search memo of accused Kala Devi 52. PW27/H Disclosure statement of accused Kala Devi 53. PW29/A Arrest memo of accused Rajender Mehto Ct. Sandeep 54. PW29/B Personals search memo of accused Rajender Mehto 55. PW29/C Disclosure statement of accused Rajender Mehto St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 8 Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No. 56. PW29/D Supplementary Disclosure statement of accused Anil Mehto 57. PW29/E Seizure memo of mobile phone, memory card, and SIM 58. PW30/A Brief Facts ASI Shahi 59. PW30/B Death Report 60. PW30/C Request for Autopsy 61. PW30/D Rukka 62. PW33/A Customer Application Form in respect of Israr Babu Mobile No. 9582153218 63. PW33/B Copy of ID proof 64. PW33/C Call Detail Records 65. PW33/D Cell ID Chart 66. PW33/E Certificate U/s 65Bof Evidence Act 67. PW34/A Statement of Bechan Mehto Mani Bhushan 68. PW34/B Request for Postmortem Malhotra 69. PW35/A Customer Application Form in respect of Rajeev Ranjan Mobile No. 9034941934 70. PW35/B Copy of ID proof 71. PW35/C Call Detail Records of 9034941934 72. PW35/D Cell ID Chart 73. PW35/E Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act 74. PW36/A Customer Application Form in respect of Shishir Malhotra Mobile No. 9540324254 75. PW36/B Copy of ID proof 76. PW36/C Call Detail Records of 9540324254 77. PW36/D Cell ID Chart 78. PW36/E Certificate U/s 65Bof Evidence Act 79. PW36/F Covering Letter St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 9 Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by No. 80. PW37/DX1 Statement of Bechan Mehto Bechan Mehto 81. PW38/A Customer Application Form in respect of Chander Shekhar Mobile No. 9996594719 82. PW38/B Copy of ID proof 83. PW38/C Call Detail Records of 9996594719 84. PW38/D Cell ID Chart 85. PW38/E Customer Application Form in respect of Mobile No. 9931525323 86. PW38/F Copy of ID proof 87. PW38/G Call Detail Records of 9931525323 88. PW38/H Cell ID Chart 89. PW38/I Certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act 90. PW39/A Viscera Report Nishi Chaudhary 91. PW39/B Covering letter 92. PW40/A FSL report in respect of mobile phone Dr. N P Waghmare 93. PW41/A Site plan Insp. Anil Sharma 94. PW41/B Notice U/s 91 CrPC to Bechan Mehto 95. PW41/C Reply to the notice 96. PW41/D List of articles EVIDENCE: (6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Forty One Witnesses as under: Public Witnesses: (7) PW15 Sh. Krishan Mehto is the brother in law (Jija) of the
deceased Manjula. He has deposed that the sister of his wife i.e. deceased was St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 10 married with Anil Mehto resident of Ghanor, Police Station Katra, District Muzaffarpur according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 29.06.2011 and he along with his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi and other relatives attended the marriage and his father in law namely Bindeshwar Mehto had given sufficient dowry in the marriage of Manju Devi @ Manjula. According to the witness soon after the marriage the parents in law of Manju Devi @ Manjula started demanding more dowry and their attitude towards Manjula was not good and her husband Anil Mehto, her mother in law, her father in law Rajender Mehto started beating and abusing Manju Devi. Witness has further deposed that the accused were taunting Manju Devi by saying "Banjh" and "Mental" and his father in law and mother in law informed him that the parents in law of Manju Devi were planning to remarry of their son Anil Mehto. Witness has testified that the father in law of Manju Devi namely Rajender Mehto had left her at some unknown place and thereafter on the intervention of Gram Pradhan, a compromise had taken place between both the families wherein the father in law namely Rajender Mehto had given promise not to harassing Manju Devi again after which Manju Devi was sent back to her matrimonial house and Anil Mehto had stayed for sometime with her wife Manju Devi. According to the witness, on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, her husband Anil Mehto had brought Manju Devi at Sonepat and thereafter he brought Manju Devi at Delhi but his behaviour towards Manju Devi became same and he started taunting her and Manju Devi had narrated the entire incident to her parents. He has also deposed that thereafter a police official from Delhi informed the parents of St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 11 Manju that she has committed suicide on which he came to know about the incident in the village. According to the witness, police met him in the village as well as at Delhi and he was interrogated by the police and his statement was recorded when he was called by the police in Delhi.
(8) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that he is residing at Jahangirpuri on rent for the last fourfive months and was married with the sister of deceased about 25 years ago when the deceased was about seveneight years old. According to the witness, no dowry was given to him by his father in law in his marriage. He has testified that his wife is having three brothers and three sisters including the deceased and two brothers are younger than the deceased and his wife is the eldest. According to the witness, his father in law is not doing anything as he is unable to see and hear properly for the last twothree years due to his old age but prior to that he was working as a labour in farms and was earning hand to mouth i.e. on daily basis. Witness has further deposed that only his one brother in law namely Bechan Mehto who is a labour by profession is educated upto 10th class and none other. Witness has further deposed that his two other sisters in law are married in Bihar itself. He does not remember the dates and years of marriage of his two other sisters in law and he does not remember the date of his marriage. Witness has further deposed that he has five children and his elder daughter is aged 1820 years and is married but he does not remember her date and year of marriage of his daughter. He is not aware the date of birth of any of his children nor does he recollect the exact date of marriage of Manju and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 12 has voluntarily explained that it took place in June 2011. He has denied the suggestion that the marriage of accused Anil Mehto and Manju took place on 28.6.2009 instead of June 2011.
(9) According to the witness, he had come to the house of his inlaws to attend the marriage of Manju (deceased) one day prior to her marriage and no purchase of dowry/ stridhan articles was made in his presence. He is not aware about what dowry articles/ stridhan articles was given to Manju in her marriage. The witness has further deposed that he never visited the matrimonial house of Manju in Delhi nor Manju ever came to his house when she resided in Delhi. He is not aware of the address of Manju in Delhi. The witness has testified that the police did not record his statement and has voluntarily explained that police recorded the statement of his brother in law. He has explained that the inlaws and husband of the deceased never taunted her by saying Banjh or Mental in his presence. He is not aware whether Manju was left by her inlaws as in the year 2011 as he was living in Sonepat till coming to Delhi. He has explained that no compromise took place in his presence. He is not even aware about any dispute whatsoever between Manju and her inlaws or her husband at any point of time and as to when Manju went to her parents house and when she used to go to her matrimonial home. He has admitted that he is not aware of any disputes between the deceased and her inlaws or her husband prior to the incident. Witness has further deposed that he was deposing on the facts narrated to him by his brother in law namely Bechan Singh, otherwise he is not aware of any disputes etc. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 13 (10) PW17 Sh. Chandeshwar @ Rahul is an independent witness who has deposed that he is a Compounder by profession and running a clinic at Valmiki Camp, at B46/36, Lawrence Road, Delhi. According to the witness on 20.12.2013 he was returning to his house from his clinic to take lunch at about 1.15 to 1.30 PM and reached about 100 meters from his shop, when he saw a large crowd of persons. He has further deposed that he asked public persons as to what had happened and was told that perhaps some lady has committed suicide by hanging herself. Witness has further deposed that public persons were seeing inside from a window in the house from where a lady was seen hanging from the ceiling. He has testified that he asked the public persons if somebody had made a call to 100 number but none made any call to the police and hence he made a call to 100 number from his mobile phone bearing no. 9540324254. Witness has further deposed that police came to the spot and his statement was recorded by the police to this effect. (11) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that he is not known to the deceased or her family members prior to the incident and has voluntarily explained that he only knew that the house belongs to the same landlord in whose premises he is running clinic. Witness has further deposed that the door of the house was locked from inside and while he was still present, he came to know that the husband of the deceased had also reached but was outside the house. He is not aware of the reason of the suicide nor of any details and has voluntarily explained that he had only made a 100 number call.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 14 (12) PW18 Sh. Ajay Sehgal is a Photographer by profession who is running a shop in the name of Kamal Studio at C7/28, Lawrence Road. According to the witness on 20.12.2013 he was present at his shop and on that day he found that one lady was found hanging at Jhuggi no. B46/38, Lawrence Road, Balmiki Camp, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that police officials were also present there and on inquiry the name of that lady was came to be known as Manju Devi and her both feet were free and the main door of the jhuggi was closed. He has further stated that the lady was wearing saree and blouse and he conducted the photography of lady hanging from the ceiling. According to the witness he also took photograph of the dead body from his digital camera and handed over the same after developing the same to the police officials which photographs are Ex.PW18/A1 to Ex.PW18/A17 and the CD containing the photographs is Ex.PW18/B after which his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(13) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(14) PW19 Ms. Mamta Chaudhary has deposed that she is residing at Gram Panchayat Gram Rampura, Block Singhwara, Police Station Singhwara, District Darbhanga, Bihar. According to the witness since 2006 she is Pradhan of the Village Rampura. Witness has further deposed that Manjula Devi who was resident of their village was married to Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 and she had attended the said marriage which marriage was registered in the Gram Panchayat vide registration certificate Ex.PW19/A issued on 13.07.2011. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 15 According to the witness she handed over the copy of register and the copy of application forms to the Investigating Officer. She has proved the copy of register which is Ex.PW19/B and the copy of application forms which are Ex.PW19/C1 and Ex.PW19/C2. She has testified that she had received a complaint from the parents of Manjula Devi that she was being harassed by her husband and her parents in law. According to the witness, her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (15) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that the complaint which had been made to the panchayat by the parents of Manju was oral and not in writing. According to the witness, prior to the year 2013 Manju had never made any complaint regarding harassment and has voluntarily explained that it was only in the year 2013 that she came to her along with her mother and made oral complaint to her regarding harassment caused to her. Witness has further deposed that there is no written record regarding holding of Panchayat on the issue of harassment caused to Manju and has voluntarily explained that only respectables from the village, community and the families were called and the accused were persuaded not to harass Manju. Witness has further deposed that the complaint made by Manju was regarding dowry harassment. She has stated that she herself had seen Manju having any injury when she used to come to the house of her parents or to her. Witness has admitted that when the Panchayat was held in 2013 all the brothers and parents of Anil Mehto were St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 16 residing in the village. She has also admitted that when later Manju was brought to Delhi by Anil Mehto, his brothers and other family members also came to Delhi. She has denied the suggestion that there was no Panchayat as claimed by her or that no complaint of dowry harassment or otherwise received by the village panchayat and hence there is no documentation in this regard. Witness has further deposed that to her knowledge no complaint to the police or any other authority was made regarding dowry harassment at any point of time. She has explained that there is a provision in Bihar that the persons who are below poverty line receive a certain amount upto Rs. 10,000/ when they register the marriage in Panchayat register and the family of deceased came below the poverty line and they also received Rs. 5,000/. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of family of the deceased being from the same village. (16) PW20 Satish Pathak a Security Guard by profession has deposed that he is residing at B46/146, THuts, Lawrence Road Industrial Area along with his family. According to the witness, he possesses a mobile phone bearing SIM No. 9210224000 which is being used by his son Mangal Prashad Pathak. He has also deposed that he had got another SIM which is being used by his daughter Priyanka Pathak whose number he does not recollect. Witness was permitted to refresh his memory and inform the mobile number, on which the witness informed that his daughter is using the mobile No. 9818373407. He has further deposed that he had never given his ID to any person for use. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 17 According to the witness, he was called to the Police Station and inquiries were made from him regarding SIM No. 9582153218 on which he told the police that is not aware anything about this SIM. He has also deposed that at that time he was informed that some person by the name of Anil Mehto was using this number but he is not known to any Anil Mehto. (17) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that he had given his ID to Anil Mehto who was using the mobile No. 9582153218, and has voluntarily added that he is not known to Anil Mehto and he is unable to tell how his ID has been used for obtaining this mobile number. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(18) PW21 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary has deposed that he is residing at Village Rampura, Block Singhwara, Police Station Singhwara, District Darbhanga, Bihar and he is ExPradhan of Village Rampura, Police Station Singhwara, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar. According to the witness Smt. Manjula Devi @ Manju was married with Anil Mehto R/o Village and Post Dhanor, Police Station Katra, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar on 29.06.2011. Witness has further deposed that for some time after the marriage the behaviour of accused Anil Mehto was good but after some time the behaviour of Anil Mehto and his parents was not proper towards Manjula Devi which fact was narrated to him by the mother of Manjula Devi. Witness has further St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 18 deposed that a Panchayat was held in the village in the month of May 2013 in this regard and he had attended the same and after giving assurance by Anil Mehto and his parents for keeping Manjula Devi well, she (Manjula Devi) was sent back with Anil Mehto but after some time the behaviour of the husband and his parents changed and they started misbehaving, torturing Manjula Devi. According to the witness, later on they came to know that Manjula Devi had committed suicide and they met the Investigating Officer and he had given his statement to the police.
(19) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that the complaint which had been made to the Panchayat by the parents of Manju was oral and not in writing. Witness has further deposed that prior to the year 2013 Manju had never made any complaint regarding harassment and has voluntarily explained that it was only in the year 2013 that she came to him along with her mother and made oral complaint to him regarding harassment caused to her. He has also deposed that there is no written record regarding holding of Panchayat on the issue of harassment caused to Manju and has voluntarily explained that only respectable from the village, community and the families were called and the accused were persuaded not to harass Manju. According to the witness, the complaint made by Manju was not only confined to dowry harassment but also because after his marriage Anil Metho had left Manju with his parents in the native village and she (deceased) did not want to live with parents of St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 19 Anil Mehto and wanted to accompany Anil Mehto to Delhi and stay with him in Delhi. He has admitted that when the Panchayat was held in 2013 all the brothers and parents of Anil Mehto were residing in the village. Witness has also admitted that later when Manju was brought to Delhi by Anil Mehto, his brothers and other family members also came to Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that there was no Panchayat as claimed by him or that no complaint of dowry harassment or otherwise was received by the village panchayat and hence there is no documentation in this regard. According to the witness he did not attend the marriage of Manju and to his knowledge no complaint to the police or any other authority was made regarding dowry harassment at any point of time. Witness has further deposed that there is a provision in Bihar that the persons who are below poverty line. receive a certain amount upto Rs. 10,000/ when they register the marriage in Panchayat register and the family of deceased comes below poverty line and they also received some amount. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of family of the deceased being from the same village.
(20) PW22 Sh. Uggar Sain is the landlord of the accused who has deposed that he is residing at B46/36, Balmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi along with his family members. According to the witness, he is the owner and landlord of premises No. 46/38, Balmiki Camp, Industrial Area, Lawrence Road, Delhi and about five to six months of the incident he had given the above premises on rent to one Rajender Mehto the father of Anil Mehto on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/ per month but no written agreement was prepared St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 20 in this regard. He has explained that Rajender Mehto, his wife Smt. Kalawati Devi, Anil Mehto, his wife Smt. Manju and two younger brothers of Anil Mehto used to reside in the said premises. Witness has further deposed that while visiting the premises he noticed that deceased Manju used to remain quite (Gumsum) but he had never heard of any differences or disputes within the family. Witness has also deposed that on 20.12.2013 in the morning he had gone to get his vehicle loaded and Anil Mehto and his family members had also left their house for their work and only Manju remained home at alone. According to him, when he returned home at about 12:301:00 PM, he noticed large number of public persons gathered outside the premises rented out by him to Anil Mehto and came to know that one lady had committed suicide. Witness has further deposed that on peeping inside the window he saw that it was Manju who was hanging from the ceiling and after sometime Anil Mehto also came to the spot but there was nobody else from the family. According to the witness the children i.e. the brother of Anil Mehto aged 6 and 12 years were playing some where and only Anil Mehto had returned and on seeing this he asked one public person to make a call at 100 number and after some time police came to the spot and brought the body down. He has also deposed that the deceased at that time was wearing a saree and was dressed up as a married women wearing bangles etc. and the status of the house was that there was no disturbance to the articles and everything appeared to be alright. According to the witness, he was interrogated by the police and his statement was recorded.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 21 (21) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that he had never heard of any disputes between the deceased and the other family members. According to the witness, whenever he visited the house of the deceased he found her well behaved and has voluntarily explained that the deceased used to Parda from him. Witness has further deposed that he is residing just eight to ten jhuggies away from the premises which he had given on rent to Anil Mehto and hence he can tell that he had never heard of any dispute and the deceased had never complained to him regarding any kind of harassment caused to her.
(22) PW23 Smt. Rampari Devi is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that she is a housewife and residing at Village and Post Rampura, Police Station Singhwara, District Darbhanga, Bihar and her daughter Manjula Devi @ Manju Devi was married with Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. According to the witness they had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage according to their capacity and soon after the marriage the accused Anil Mehto and his parents started harassing and beating Manjula Devi. Witness has further deposed that Mother in law of Manjula Devi was harassing her daughter and the accused Anil Mehto used to say to her daughter that he would remarry with some other lady and also used to show photograph of a lady to her daughter Manjula Devi. According to the witness Anil Mehto also used to say to her daughter that "tere se man bhar gaya hai mai doosri shaadi St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 22 karoonga". Witness has further deposed that her daughter was brutally beaten and harassed and was taunted that "too kangley ke ghar se ayee". She has further added that for two years she had been reporting the matter to the Panchayat after which the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home "... do saal tak maine larki ko Panchayat kar kar ke sasural bheja..." Witness has further deposed that on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, her son Bechan Mehto had come to their native village and finding her daughter helpless and alone in Delhi, the accused killed her. She has also deposed that during the time of marriage the accused had demanded 12 annas gold where they had already given 1½ bhar. (It has been observed by this Court that 12 annas gold is equal to 7.5 grams and one bhar is equivalent to ten gram gold).
(23) She has also deposed that they expressed their inability to give the demanded gold and told the accused that they have some land i.e. three katthas which they can give to them but they should not harass her daughter. According to the witness, the mother of accused Anil Mehto exhorted him (Anil Mehto) after which Anil Mehto used to beat her daughter. The witness has testified that her daughter used to tell her that Anil Mehto used to show the blue films to her and used to say that "she cannot satisfy him sexually". Witness has further deposed that the mother in law of her daughter used to beat her daughter by holding her hair and used to say her to bring money by doing work in the other houses or from their family. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 23 According to the witness after the marriage her daughter remained with Anil Mehto only for one month after which she was driven out from her matrimonial house and thereafter her daughter remained with them for about five to six months. Witness has also deposed that on the intervention of respectable persons, accused Anil Mehto took her daughter and kept her only for about one month and thereafter he brought her daughter at Delhi. According to the witness, her daughter Manjula Devi was beaten, tortured in Delhi also for demand of gold and whenever her daughter used to inform her on phone, they advised her not to be pained and everything would be normal due to passage of time. Witness has further deposed that once after keeping her daughter for abouttwo to three months accused Rajender took her daughter to Bihar and left her at some unknown place in Darbhanga and from there someone had brought her daughter to her house. According to the witness, her daughter had informed her that her father in law Rajender used to abuse her after taking liquor and did not take the food prepared by Manjula Devi and used to throw it. She has also deposed that her daughter remained with them for about one year and during this period neither her husband nor her parents in law came or asked about her wellbeing. Witness has further deposed that after about one year the Panchayat was held and with the intervention of Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary, the head of Panchayat, the accused persons were suitably advised and made to understand after which he undertook and gave an assurance and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 24 promised that he would not harass her daughter. According to the witness, the accused had brought her daughter at Delhi and from Delhi he took her to Sonepat and started living with her son Bechan Mehto at Sonepat. She has also deposed that thereafter on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, Anil brought her daughter to Delhi and started living with her parents and the accused Anil Mehto and his parents again started harassing her daughter as usual. Witness has further deposed that about ten days prior to this incident, the phone of Manjula had come and her daughter was weeping on phone and narrating that her husband and her parents in law were harassing her and thereafter the police informed them that her daughter Manjula had committed suicide. She has testified that they came to Delhi and met with police official and her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. According to the witness her daughter Manjula had committed suicide after being aggrieved from the torture, harassment from the side of her husband, her father in law and mother in law. She has correctly identified the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati in the court.
(24) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that she has four daughters including the deceased and three sons. She is not aware the date of marriage of her eldest daughter and is not aware the date and year of marriage of her other two daughters. According to the witness, her son was married about five years ago but she is not aware the date St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 25 and year of his marriage. She has also deposed that her daughter Manju got married in the month of June (Jeth Mahina) 2009. The witness has further deposed that she never lodged any report with the police or any other authority regarding the harassment or beating caused to her daughter and has voluntarily added that she only made a complaint in the panchayat. Witness has further deposed that the deceased was never got treated from any doctor for any injuries allegedly caused to her. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter was never beaten, harassed or taunted by her inlaws or her husband. She has also deposed that her husband was a labour by profession and for the last two to four years he is not doing anything. According to the witness there was no source of income except from doing labour work in farms and his income was negligible and was hand to mouth despite which they had given gold jewelery to their three other daughters.
(25) According to the witness the marriage was got mediated through their relative who is a resident of village Banoli but she is unable to tell the details and has voluntarily explained that he is the damaad of their village. Witness has further deposed that the demand for more gold was not made in the presence of the mediator nor they informed the mediator about the same. She has admitted that they did not make any complaint to the police or any authority regarding the demand but has denied the suggestion that there was no demand of more gold and that is why they did not make any complaint to the police regarding the same. Witness has further deposed that her daughter was a housewife and was not an earning hand. The witness has also admitted that St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 26 her daughter used to stay in the native village with her inlaws while her husband was in Delhi and has voluntarily explained that she stayed with her in laws for about one year. She has admitted that they had called a Panchayat and informed the panchayat member that Anil Mehto was not taking her daughter with him to Delhi and was compelling her to stay with her inlaws and has voluntarily explained that she had told Anil Mehto to take her daughter with him or else they would got her married again. Witness has admitted that thereafter when Anil Mehto took her daughter to Delhi, her inlaws also came to Delhi. She has also admitted that Manju was never stopped from making calls to her and she used to frequently speak to her on the phone of Anil Mehto. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter did not want to stay with her in laws or adjust with them or that she wanted to stay with Anil Mehto alone in Delhi or that her daughter was never harassed or tortured for dowry or that it for this reason that no written complaint was made to the police or any authority. She has also denied the suggestion that being aggrieved by the death of her daughter she has falsely implicated the accused by wrongly blaming them for dowry demand.
(26) PW24 Smt. Jagtaran Devi is the Bhabhi of the deceased who has deposed that she is residing at Village and Post Rampura, Police Station Singhwara, District Darbhanga, Bihar and her sister in law (Nanad) Manjula Devi @ Manju Devi was married with Anil Mehto in the month of June 2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Witness has further deposed that her parents in law had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage according to St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 27 their capacity and soon after the marriage the accused Anil Mehto and his parents started harassing and beating Manjula Devi. According to the witness it was mother in law of Manjula Devi namely Kala Devi who started harassing her Nanad Manjula Devi. She has also deposed that the accused Anil Mehto used to say to Manjula Devi that he would remarry with some other lady and he also used to show the photograph of a lady to Manjula Devi and Anil Mehto also used to say to Manjula that "too mujhe pasand nahin hai aur main kisi aur se shaadi karna chahta hoon". Witness has further deposed that her nanad Manjula Devi was brutally beaten and harassed and was taunted that "too kangley ke ghar se ayee hai". She has testified that on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, her husband Bechan Mehto had come to their native village and found nanad Manjula Devi helpless and alone in Delhi. According to her, the accused harassed Manju and during the time of marriage the accused had demanded 12 annas gold whereas her inlaws had already given 1½ bhar . She has testified that her inlaws expressed their inability to give the demanded gold and told the accused that they had some land i.e. three katthas which they could give to them but they should not harass Manjula Devi. According to the witness, it was Kala Devi, mother in law of Manjula Devi who used to exhort Anil Mehto and thereafter accused Anil Mehto used to beat and harass Manjula Devi. She has further deposed that her nanad Manjula Devi St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 28 used to tell her that Anil Mehto showed blue films to her and used to say that "she cannot satisfy him sexually". Witness has further deposed that the mother in law of her nanad Manjula used to beat her by holding her hair and used to say her to bring money by doing work in the other houses or from their family. She has testified that after the marriage her nanad Manjula remained with Anil Mehto only for one month thereafter she was driven out from her matrimonial house. Witness has further deposed that thereafter Manjula remained with her parents for about five to six months. According to the witness on the intervention of respectable persons accused Anil Mehto took her nanad Manjula and kept her only for about one month and thereafter he brought her at Delhi and Manjula Devi was beaten, tortured in Delhi also for demand of gold. Witness has further deposed that whenever her nanad Manjula used to inform her on phone, they advised her not to be pained and assured her that everything would be normal with passage of time. According to the witness once after keeping her nanad Manjula for about two to three months accused Rajender took Manjula to Bihar and left her at some unknown place in Darbhanga and from there someone had brought Manjula to their house. She has also deposed that her nanad used to tell her that her father in law Rajender used to abuse her after taking liquor and her father in law Rajender did not take the food prepared by Manjula Devi and used to throw it. Witness has St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 29 further deposed that her nanad Manjula remained with her parents for about one year and during this period neither her husband nor her parents in law came or asked about her wellbeing. According to her, after about one year Panchayat was held and with the intervention of Sh. Sudhir ji, the accused persons were suitably advised and made to understand after which Anil Mehto undertook and gave an assurance and promised that he would not harass her nanad Manjula after which he had brought Manjula to Delhi. She has also deposed that from Delhi he took Manjula to Sonepat and started living with Bechan Mehto at Sonepat. The witness has also deposed that thereafter on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, Anil brought Manjula to Delhi and started living with her parents and the accused Anil Mehto and his parents again started harassing her nanand as usual. Witness has further deposed that about ten days prior to this incident, Manjula made a telephonic call when she weepingly narrated that her husband and her parents in law were harassing her. She has testified that thereafter the police informed them that Manjula had committed suicide on which they came to Delhi and met with police official and her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. She has further deposed that Manjula Devi had committed suicide after being aggrieved from the torture, harassment from the side of her husband, her father in law and mother in law. She has correctly identified the accused persons namely Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati in the court.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 30 (27) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that she is not aware of the date and year of her marriage but it was near about Holi about five years back. Witness has admitted that her sister in law Manjula had been suffering from jaundice and was got treated by her in laws. She is not aware if her sister in law had donated blood to her during treatment and also does not aware about the fact that Manju used to pass the latrine and urine in her clothes itself. According to the witness when she was suffering from Jaundice nobody from their house had visited Manju or stayed there to look after her. She has denied the suggestion that Manju did not want to live or adjust with her inlaws as she want to stay along with her husband. Witness has further deposed that she never visited Manju in her matrimonial house in village or in Delhi. She has stated that no dowry was demanded ever in her presence by the husband or in laws of Manju. According to the witness prior to the death of Manju, she was not aware of any demand made by the accused persons and they received information from Police Station that Manju had committed suicide. She has testified that in her presence Manju never came to her parental home in injured condition and Manju used to talk to him on phone on every second or fourth days from the phone of Anil Mehto as Manju was not having her own phone. According to the witness she always used to say she is alright. She has also deposed that the Panchayat was not held in her presence. Witness has further deposed that Anil Mehto brought Manju to Delhi after asking her parents in laws. She has admitted that previously the parents in law of Manju were living in their native village and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 31 they shifted to Delhi when Manju came Delhi along with Anil Mehto. Witness has further deposed that Manju used to come to their house, she never used to cook food. According to the witness the police did not made any inquiries from her or record her statement. She has also deposed that lastly she had talked to her about 15 days before her death but before that she used to speak on telephone almost after two three days and Manju did not tell her about any demand or harassment on phone when she talked her last time. (28) PW25 Smt. Shakuntala Devi is the sister of the deceased who has deposed that she is a housewife, residing at Village Sisto Majhgava, Police Station Quti, District Darbhanga, Bihar. According to the witness the marriage of her sister Manjula Devi @ Manju Devi was solemnized with Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and after the marriage the husband and parents in law of Manjula started torturing her and on being aggrieved from the harassment and torture her sister Manjula had committed suicide. Witness has further deposed that on 18.12.2013 the police had come to their house at Bihar when the accused Anil Mehto handed over the entire streedhan including utensils, furnitures etc. and she had identified the streedhan given to the accused at the time of marriage which was taken into possession by the police. According to the witness the aforesaid streedhan was handed over to her father Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto by the police and her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (29) She has testified that her parents had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage according to their capacity but soon after the marriage the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 32 accused Anil Mehto and his parents started harassing and beating Manjula Devi. According to the witness, it was mother in law of her sister Manjula Devi namely Kala Devi who started harassing her and the accused Anil Mehto used to say to Manjula Devi that he would remarry with some other lady and also used to show the photograph of a lady to Manjula Devi. Witness has further deposed that Anil Mehto also used to say to Manjula that "too mujhe pasand nahin hai aur main kisi aur se shaadi karna chahta hoon". According to the witness, her sister Manjula Devi was brutally beaten and harassed and was taunted that "too kangley ke ghar se ayee hai". Witness has further deposed that on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, her brother Bechan Mehto had come to their native village and found her sister Manjula Devi helpless and alone in Delhi. According to her during the time of marriage the accused had demanded 12 annas gold whereas her parents had given 1½ bhar . She has testified that her parents expressed their inability to give the demanded gold and told the accused that they had some land i.e. three katthas which they could give to them or after selling the said land they would give the aforesaid 12 annas gold to them, but they should not harass Manjula Devi. According to the witness it was Kala Devi, mother in law of Manjula Devi who used to exhort Anil Mehto after which accused Anil Mehto used to beat and harass Manjula Devi and she used to tell her that Anil Mehto used to show the blue films St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 33 to her and used to say that "tum kharab ho, tum mujhe achchi nahi lagti ". Witness has also deposed that the mother in law of her sister Manjula used to beat her by holding her hair and used to tell her to bring money by doing work in the other houses or from their family. According to the witness after the marriage, her sister Manjula remained with Anil Mehto only for one month after which she was driven out from her matrimonial house and thereafter Manjula remained with her parents for about five to six months. Witness has further deposed that on the intervention of persons of the village, accused Anil Mehto took her sister Manjula and kept her only for about one month after which he brought her at Delhi and Manjula Devi was beaten, tortured in Delhi also for demand of gold. She has also deposed that her sister Manjula used to make call to her mother and narrate the entire incident happened with her and thereafter her mother used to tell her about the aforesaid incidents whenever happened with Manjula. According to the witness, after about two to three months accused Rajender took Manjula to Bihar and left her at some unknown place in Darbhanga and from there someone had brought Manjula to their house. The witness has further deposed that her sister Manjula used to tell her that her father in law Rajender used to abuse her after taking liquor and did not take the food prepared by Manjula Devi and used to throw it. She has also deposed that Manjula remained with her parents for about one year and during this period neither her husband nor her parents in law came or asked about St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 34 her wellbeing. According to the witness she came to know from her family that a Panchayat was held in the village and the accused persons were suitably advised and made to understand after which Anil Mehto undertook and gave an assurance and promised that he would not harass her sister Manjula after which the accused brought Manjula Delhi and from Delhi he took her to Sonepat where they started living with his brother Bechan Mehto. She has also deposed that thereafter on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, Anil brought Manjula to Delhi and started living with her parents but the accused Anil Mehto and his parents again started harassing Manjula as usual. According to the witness about ten days prior to this incident, Manjula made a telephonic call to her mother weepingly and informed that her husband and her parents in law were harassing her. She has testified that thereafter police informed them that Manjula had committed suicide on which they came to Delhi and met with police official and her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that Manjula Devi had committed suicide after being aggrieved from the torture, harassment from the side of her husband, her father in law and mother in law. She has correctly identified the accused persons Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati in the court. (30) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that she she is not aware the date and year of her marriage and states that her daughter's marriage took place in the month of Baisakh two years back St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 35 from the day of her deposition in the court. she is not aware the date and year of marriages of her other sisters. Witness has further deposed that she along with her brother Bechan went to the house of accused persons in their native village and identified the stridhan of her sister. She has denied the suggestion that during investigations in addition to stridhan articles of her deceased sister, they had also forcibly taken possession of the articles of the sister of the accused i.e. gold chain, paijeb and her wooden single bed, chair etc. Witness has admitted that they were not having any list of the stridhan articles of her sister Manju and were also not having the photographs of the articles given during the marriage. She has admitted that her parents did not give them any dowry. According to the witness only one nose pin (long) was given to her and her other sisters. Witness has admitted that no receipt of purchase of any article was given to the police. She has further deposed that she visited once to the matrimonial house of Manju to take her stridhan articles back prior to her death but her motherinlaw said that they are keeping Manju and did not want sent her back. According to the witness she went to the house of the accused i.e. in laws of her sister and told them to return the stridhan articles they had given in the marriage so that they can get Manju married again but they refused to return the stridhan and assured that they wanted to keep Manju. Witness has also deposed that she did not call her sister Manju in the marriage of her daughter. She has also deposed that Manju never visited her house after her marriage and she only met Manju when she went to her matrimonial house to take the stridhan back but she was not present during Panchayat St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 36 proceedings. Witness has denied the suggestion that no blue films were shown to Manju by accused Anil Mehto. She is not aware whether Manju was suffering from jaundice or not as she was at her house and was not aware about the matters of Manju. She also does not aware whether Manju was got treated by her parents in law or that her sister in law had donated blood to her when she was suffering from jaundice. She is also not aware about the disputes or other facts about Manjula as she was busy in her family. Witness has further deposed that she never had any talk to Manju or never met her after her marriage except once when she visited her matrimonial house to take her stridhan articles back. She is not aware whether Manju used to pass urine and stool in her clothes. Witness has further deposed that police recorded her statement only once at the house of Mukhiyaji. She has denied the suggestion that Manju was not ready adjust with her parentsinlaw and wanted to live with the accused Anil Mehto alone or that is why she was not happy. (31) PW26 Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto is the father of the deceased who has deposed that he is residing at Village and Post Rampura, Police Station Singhwara, District Darbhanga, Bihar. According to the witness, he has three sons and four daughters including the deceased Manjula who was married in the year 2011 with Anil Mehto. He has further deposed that after the marriage, they lived for some time in the village at Bihar and thereafter they shifted to Delhi and started living at Lawrence Road, Delhi alongwith parents of Anil Mehto. He has deposed that soon after the marriage there were quarrel between husband and wife on the issue that the mother of accused Anil St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 37 Mehto exhorted Anil Mehto by saying that "vah uski(Anil) doosri shaadi kar degi aur Manju usko pasand nahi thee". According to the witness the mother in law of Manjula used to beat her and thereafter Manjula had come to their house in village Rampura. Witness has further deposed that a Panchayat was held and after the intervention of the panchayat people, Anil Mehto alongwith his son Bechan Mehto were sent to Rai, Distt. Sonepat to live there. According to the witness on the occasion of Chhat Pooja the accused Anil Mehta had brought Manjula at Delhi and started living with her parents in law and thereafter he received information that Manjula has committed suicide. He has testified that he had strong suspicion that his daughter Manjula had committed suicide on being pained and aggrieved from the behaviour of accused Anil Mehta, his father and mother. He has proved having made his statement to the SDM in this regard which is Ex.PW26/A. He has further deposed that he had gone to mortuary of BJRM Hospital on 23.12.2013 where he identified the dead body of his daughter Manjula in the mortuary vide his statement Ex.PW26/B. According to the witness, after getting the postmortem conducted, the dead body of his deceased daughter Manjula was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW26/C. (32) The witness has further deposed that on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, his son in law Anil Mehto had brought his daughter Manjula to Delhi and started living with his parents and thereafter the accused Anil Mehto, his father and mother again started torturing her for the demand St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 38 of gold. According to the witness the accused continuously demanding the gold articles. He has also deposed that the father in law of Manjula did not take the food cooked by Manjula and he used to throw the same. He has further deposed that his daughter Manjula was married with Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 and soon after the marriage his daughter was beaten by Anil Mehto and his mother and father. According to him, it was mother of Anil Mehto who exhorted Anil Mehto and used to say "Isko (Manjula) chhor do, hum tumhara doori shadi kar denge". Witness has further deposed that the accused Anil Mehto used to beat Manjula and one day his daughter Manjula made a telephonic call to her mother and told that "Anil Mehto aur uske maatapita milkar peetatay (maarte) hai". He has testified that his wife advised Manjula to wait for sometime till arrival of her brother and he would make them (accused persons) to understand "Rakhega ya nahin rakhega, hum Bihar se ayenge to police ko khabar kar denge", Anil Mehto kehta thaa ki bahar jakar kothiyon mein kaam karo, uski saas bhi yahi kehti thee ki kama kar lao." Witness has further deposed that all the three accused persons had demanded 12 annas gold to which they had given 1½ bhar (weight) gold to them and for the remaining gold they had given assurance to them that after selling their land they would give them the gold i.e. 12 annas. He has also deposed that the mother in law of Manjula used to abuse and beat by holding her hairs and after the marriage, his St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 39 daughter remained in her matrimonial house for about one month only and thereafter she remained in their house for about five to six months and it was only after they put pressure on Anil Mehto, he took his daughter and kept for about one month in the village and thereafter he brought her in Delhi. He has further deposed that on arrival at Delhi his daughter Manjula was given beatings and her father in law Rajender Mehto used to beat her after consuming liquor and once he took his daughter somewhere in Darbhanga and left her at some unknown place from where, someone brought his daughter to his house. He has testified that thereafter his daughter remained at his house for about one year and then the Panchayat was held in the village and on the intervention of Sudhir Mukhiya the accused Anil Mehto was advised not to harass Manjula to which Anil Mehto had assured the Panchayat that he would not repeat such incident in future and they sent their daughter with Anil Mehto and he brought her to Delhi. According to him, about ten days prior to the incident Manjula made a telephone call to her mother and at that time she was weeping and informed her mother that she was brutally beaten and Anil Mehto had made preparation for remarriage. He has also deposed that his wife informed him about the aforesaid incident and also advised his daughter not to weep and they would come and everything would be normal. According to the witness, thereafter they came to know that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging and he had strong suspicion St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 40 against Anil Mehto, his father Rajender and mother Kalawati Devi that due to harassment and beating given by them to his daughter Manjula, she had committed suicide. He has also deposed that the dowry articles given to the accused persons at the time of marriage were recovered from the accused persons and the said articles were duly identified by his daughter Shakuntala after which the aforesaid articles were duly received by them and some of the articles still remained with the accused persons and his statement was again recorded by the police. He has correctly identified accused persons Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Smt. Kalawati in the Court.
(33) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel witness has deposed that there was no Mediator in this marriage. He does not remember the dates of marriages of his other daughters nor does he remember the day when accused Anil Mehto and his daughter Manjula shifted to Delhi as he is illiterate. Witness has admitted that he never visited the house of Anil Mehto and Manjula. He has also admitted that there was no direct talk between Manjula and himself on phone and has voluntarily explained that his wife had a talk with Manjula on each incident and his wife used to tell him about the same. He has further admitted that Mukhiya Sudhir had told the accused Anil Mehto either to take Manjula with him otherwise they would marry Manjula again to which Manjula told that she would not marry again and she would go with the accused. Witness has further deposed that thereafter the accused was asked whether he was interested to take Manjula with him or was interested in second marriage, to which accused Anil Mehto had given an assurance to the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 41 Panchayat that he would take Manjula with him and he would keep her and live with her happily. He is unable to tell the date when Manjula told about the incident to her mother and his wife informed him about the same. He does not remember the date of any incident happened with his daughter as he is illiterate. He also does not remember the date when police official informed about the incident and he does not remember the date of our arrival at Delhi on the receipt of information about the incident. Witness has further deposed that firstly they met the police officials in the Police Station and police official did the writing work and he was not aware about the documents prepared by the police as he is totally illiterate. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has not made any statement to the police or to the SDM or that his statement was recorded by the official of their own or that his thumb impression was taken later.
(34) He has further deposed that he had told this fact to the police that Panchayat persons had asked Anil Mehto whether he would keep Manjula with him or not by saying "Rakhega ya nahin rakhega, hum Bihar se ayenge to police ko khabar kar denge....", Anil Mehto kehta thaa ki bahar jakar kothiyon mein kaam karo, uski saas bhi yahi kehti thee ki kama kar lao." Witness has further deposed that all the three accused persons had demanded 12 annas gold to which they had given 1½ bhar (weight) gold to them and for the remaining gold they had given assurance to them that after selling their land they would give them the gold i.e. 12 annas. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 42 However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW26/D the said statement is not mentioned in such manner. He has admitted that the inlaws of Manjula got her treated when she was suffering from Jaundice but he was not aware if her sister in law had also given her blood during her ailment. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately concealing this fact or that his daughter did not want to stay with her in laws and adjust with them or that she wanted to stay with Anil Mehto alone in Delhi. Witness has further denied the suggestion that his daughter was never harassed or tortured for dowry or that it is for this reason that no written complaint was made to the police or any authority. Witness has also denied the suggestion that they had lifted the streedhan of sister of Anil Mehto alongwith her jewellery i.e. a golden chain and silver paijeb etc. and wooden furniture i.e. single bed, two chairs, one table etc. He has also denied the suggestion that being aggrieved by the death of his daughter he has falsely implicated the accused persons by wrongly blaming them for dowry demand.
(35) PW32 Sh. Baijnath Mehto is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that he is residing at Village Rai, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana where he is doing the work of making bags. According to the witness, his sister Manju Devi @ Manjula Devi was married with accused Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and they had given the sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage. He has also deposed that his sister used to inform them that soon after the marriage, she was being harassed, abused and beaten by the accused Anil Mehto, his father Rajender Mehto St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 43 and his mother Smt. Kala Devi. He has further deposed that Smt. Kala Devi used to exhort and pressurize accused Anil Mehto for a second marriage by saying that ".... ye to kangle ke ghar se ayee hai....." Witness has further deposed that his father had given the sufficient dowry in the marriage but the aforesaid accused persons were not happy with the articles given in the marriage. He has testified that the aforesaid accused persons used to address his sister as "baanjh" and also harass her by saying that ".... too achchi nahi hai....". According to the witness, Anil Mehto used to show dirty pictures to his sister and used to say that "..... yeh larki achchi hai, too kharab hai.....". The witness has further deposed that accused Kala Devi used to beat his sister by holding her hairs. He has deposed that his sister stayed in her matrimonial house only for about one month and thereafter she came back to their house and remained with them for about five to six months. Witness has further deposed that when the marriage of sister of accused Anil Mehto was to happen he took his sister to his house and kept her there for about one year and thereafter he brought his sister to Delhi and started living with them at Rai, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. He has also deposed that they stayed with them for about five to six months at Rai, Sonepat, Haryana but during this period the accused gave beatings to his sister. Witness has further deposed that thereafter the accused Anil Mehto took his sister to jhuggi Lawrence Raod and started living with his parents and after the marriage about one year later accused Rajender took his sister to some St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 44 unknown place and left her there and some person known to his sister Manjula met her there and she took his help after which she could reach their house and started living with them. Witness has further deposed that a Panchayat was held at their village in which with the intervention of the respectable persons of the village accused Anil Mehto had promised that he would keep his sister properly only after which they sent their sister Manju with them. He has further deposed that thereafter his sister was brought by accused Anil Mehto at Delhi and then they started living with them at Rai, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. According to the witness on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, the accused Anil Mehto took his sister and started living with her at his residence at Lawrence Road Jhuggi with his parents and again started beating his sister. He has further deposed that the accused Anil Mehto and his parents had demanded 1.5 bhar sona on which which they gave assurance that they would give the said gold after selling their land in the village. Witness has further deposed that his mother also used to tell him about the harassment and beating being given to his sister by the accused persons and his brother Bechan Mehto had informed him that the accused persons had killed his sister. According to the witness after two days his father and brother Bechan Mehto came to Delhi and went to the hospital where he identified the dead body of his sister Manju @ Manjula Devi and his statement was recorded by the police regarding identification of dead body vide Ex.PW26/B. He has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 45 (36) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that he does not recollect the date they came to Delhi and states that he straightway went to the hospital where police met him and his statement was recorded by the SDM on on 24.12.2013. Witness has further deposed that his brother and father were also present with him. He has testified that he did not go to Police Station and after cremating his sister he returned home. He has denied the suggestion that he had met the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2013 and also made a statement to him. Witness has further deposed that he had made a statement to the SDM on the second day of his reaching Delhi and he had made statement to the police on 24.12.2013. He has denied the suggestion that he was tutored by the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2013, on the basis of which he had given his statement to the SDM on 23.12.2013. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer had already written his statement on 22.12.2013 on the tutoring of his family and he merely signed the same in the presence of the SDM. He has further deposed that they reached at SDM office at about 7:00 AM and gave his statement at about 9:00 AM and remained there till about 11:00 AM to 12:00 Noon. Witness has denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer did not record his statement and has voluntarily explained that he had recorded his statement in his presence. According to the witness he is residing at Sonipat Haryana ever since they had left Bihar about five to six years back and Anil Mehto and Manju came to them at Sonipat and stayed there for four five months. He has further deposed that Anil Mehto had started working in a St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 46 factory at Sonipat and Anil Mehto and Manju were living in a separate room happily. Witness has further deposed that on Chhatpooja they came to Delhi where the family of Anil Mehto was living and after celebrating Chhatpooja, she again came back to Sonipat. Witness has further deposed that thereafter again she along with her husband went to Delhi prior to 2025 days of the day of incident and when after Chhatpooja his sister came along with her husband, she was living happily with him and there was no dispute between them. According to the witness, when his sister lived in Sonipat for four five months prior to Chhatpooja and after Chhatpooja for two to three months she never made any complaint to them about her parentsinlaw or her husband. Witness has further deposed that he and his brother Bechan had reached in the marriage of his sister three four days prior to her marriage in Bihar and the dowry articles were not purchased in his presence. He has admitted that he does not know anything about the receipt of dowry articles purchased at the time of marriage. According to the witness he did not arrange anything for the marriage of his sister.
(37) Witness has further deposed that he had informed the SDM and the Investigating Officer that after the marriage his sister remained with the accused Anil Mehto for one month in his village and thereafter his sister came to their house and remained there for about three to four months after which the accused Anil Mehto took his sister with him and initially they stayed for some time together in the village and thereafter accused Anil Mehto brought his sister at Delhi and started living at Lawrence Road Jhuggies. However, St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 47 when confronted with the statements Ex.PW34/A and Ex.PW37/DX1 the above facts were not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had also told the SDM that his sister was taken by father and mother of accused Anil Mehto at Village and the mother in law of his sister Manju had gone to her native village to meet her maternal family (Maika). When confronted with the statement Ex.PW34/A the above fact was not found so recorded. He has also deposed that he had told the SDM that the father in law of his sister namely Sh. Rajender Mehto took his sister to some unknown place and left her at Bithori Chowk which place falls on the way while going to Rampura form Darbhanga and that place was not known to his sister and some person known to his sister met her and she took his help and reached at their residence and at that time she was weeping and she was having marks of beating on her back. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A the above facts were not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had also told to the SDM that his sister had also informed him that her mother in law and father in law used to abuse and beat her. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A the above facts were not found so recorded. He does not recollect if he had told the SDM that the accused kept his sister for about 1012 days and thereafter he brought his sister at their residence at Rampura, Village. However, the said fact was not found so recorded in his statement Ex.PW34/A. Witness has further deposed that he had told the SDM that the accused Anil Mehto informed them that he would keep his sister separately from his family members and thereafter he shifted at St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 48 his residence at Rai, Sonepat and he managed the accommodation and all the necessary facilities so that they may live peacefully. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A the above facts was not found so recorded. According to him, he had told the SDM and the Investigating Officer that in his absence the accused started making contact and visit to his parents at Lawrence Road jhuggies and the mother of accused Anil Mehto then pressurizing and exhorted Anil Mehto to marry some other girl. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A and Ex.PW37/DX1 the above facts was not found so recorded.
(38) PW37 Sh. Bechan Mehto is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that the deceased Manju Devi was his sister who was married with Sh. Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 in village Rampura, Bihar and after the marriage his sister remained with the accused Anil Mehto for one month in his village. According to the witness thereafter his sister came to their house and remained there for about three to four months after which accused Anil Mehto took his sister with him. Witness has further deposed that they stayed for some time together in the village and thereafter accused Anil Mehto brought his sister at Delhi and started living at Lawrence Road Jhuggies and his sister remained with him at Lawrence Road. According to the witness during this period his sister was beaten by accused Anil Mehto mercilessly after which she was taken by father and mother of accused Anil Mehto at Village. Witness has further deposed that the mother in law of his sister Manju had gone to her St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 49 native village to meet her maternal family(Maika) and the father in law of his sister namely Sh. Rajender Mehto took his sister to some unknown place and left her at Bithori Chowk which place falls while going to Rampura form Darbhanga and that place was not known to his sister. Witness has further deposed that some person known to his sister met Manjula and she took his help and reached at their residence and at that time she was weeping and was having marks of beating on her back. According to the witness, his sister had also informed him that her mother in law and father in law used to abuse and beat her. Witness has further deposed that a Panchayat was held in the village in which Anil Mehto had promised that he would not beat his sister and thereafter Anil Mehto took his sister to his village and the accused kept his sister for about 1012 days and thereafter he brought his sister at their residence at Rampura, Village. Witness has further testified that the accused Anil Mehto informed them that he would keep his sister separately from his family members and thereafter he shifted at his residence at Rai, Sonepat where he managed the accommodation and all the necessary facilities so that they may live peacefully and thereafter he went to his village on the occasion of Deepawali. According to the witness in his absence the accused started making contact and visit to his parents at Lawrence Road jhuggies and the mother of accused Anil Mehto then pressurized and exhorted Anil Mehto to marry some other girl. Witness has also deposed that thereafter accused Anil Mehto again shifted back to St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 50 Lawrence Road despite opposition from his sister as she was apprehending harassment in the hands of the accused (woh kehti thee ki Anil Mehto bahut pareshan karega) and they stayed for about five to ten days at Jhuggies at Lawrence Road. According to him, about ten days prior to the incident his sister made a telephone call to him while he was in his village Rampura and informed him that accused Anil Mehto, his father and mother were harassing her and taunting her as she could not bear a child and also stated that she did not know how to work (woh kehti thee ki ye sab log mujhe pareshan karte hain aur tane marte hein ki tumhe bachcha nahin hua, aur kahte then ki mujhe ghar chalana hai, mujhe ek achchi larki ki zaroorat hai). Witness has further deposed that he told his sister that he was coming to Delhi and when he was about to come to Delhi, his other younger sister felt seriously ill on account of stomach problem and he could not come to Delhi as he was attending to her in the hospital in village at District Darbhanga. He has also deposed that the accused Anil Mehto also used to show the obscene films to his sister and used to taunt her by saying that "too kharab hai"and she also told him that Anil Mehto used to talk dirty with her "aur who gandi gandi batein karta tha". Witness has further deposed that the mother in law of his sister used to demand 12 Anna gold (7.5gms. Gold) from his sister to which he had told Anil Mehto and his mother that he would give the gold after selling his land which is situated in the village itself. According to the witness, on 20.12.2013 he was informed St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 51 by the police that his sister has been killed on which he alongwith his father Bindeshwar Mehto came to Delhi and they went to the Police Station and met the police official and his statement was recorded by the SDM which is Ex.PW34/A. (39) Witness has further deposed that at the time of marriage of his sister they had given various gifts and articles as per their capacity which included a cash amount of Rs.25,000/, 1.5 tola gold, one locket of gold of one tola, one pair of ear tops of half tola, one nose pin of one gram gold, one Hansli (put around the neck) and one pair of Paijeb (anklets) of silver both of forty tolas (400grams), one bicycle, wooden bed, chairs, chowki and utensils. He has testified that the Investigating Officer had issued him a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW32/B pursuant to which he had given the reply of the said notice which is Ex.PW32/C and thereafter he gave the list of articles to the Investigating Officer which Ex.PW32/D. Witness has further deposed that he had also handed over the photograph of his sister and Anil Mehto showing as married couple vide Ex.PW32/E. He has proved that the said list of articles and photograph were taken by the police into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F. Witness has further deposed that he also handed over the marriage certificate of his sister which is Ex.PW19/A which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/G. According to the witness, he had identified the dead body of his sister in the hospital and his statement to this effect was recorded by the Investigating St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 52 Officer vide Ex.PW34/B and after the postmortem, the dead body of his sister was received by his and his father vide receipt Ex.PW26/C. He has also deposed that the stridhan/ dowry articles were recovered form the house of accused Anil Mehto which was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He has correctly identified the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi in the court.
(40) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that they came to Delhi on 22.12.2013 and they directly went to the Police Station where they reached at about 9:30 AM. According to the witness when he met the police officials in the Police Station he did not give the entire facts to them. He has deposed that his father was also present with him in the Police Station and they stayed in the Police Station till evening. Witness has further deposed that only the Investigating Officer made inquiries from him and his father and none else and the Investigating Officer did not ask the detail of the incident till his examination by the SDM. He has denied the suggestion that he had given his statement in detail to the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2013 or that he was tutored by the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2013 and on the basis of which he had given his statement to the SDM on 23.12.2013. He has also denied the suggestion that Investigating Officer had already written his statement on 22.12.2013 on the tutoring of his family and he merely signed the same in the presence of the SDM. Witness has further deposed that they reached at SDM office at about 11 AM along with one police official and they remained there for about 1 to 1.25 hours. He has also St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 53 deposed that he had informed the SDM and the Investigating Officer that after the marriage his sister remained with the accused Anil Mehto for one month in his village and thereafter his sister came to their house and remained there for about three to four months after which the accused Anil Mehto took his sister with him. Initially they stayed for some time together in the village and thereafter accused Anil Mehto brought his sister at Delhi and started living at Lawrence Road Jhuggies. However, when confronted with the statements Ex.PW34/A and Ex.PW37/DX1 the above facts were not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had also told the SDM that his sister was taken by father and mother of accused Anil Mehto at Village and the mother in law of his sister Manju had gone to her native village to meet her maternal family (Maika). However, when confronted with the statements Ex.PW34/A the above fact was not found so recorded. He has also deposed that he had told the SDM that the father in law of his sister namely Sh. Rajender Mehto took his sister to some unknown place and left her at Bithori Chowk which place falls while going to Rampura form Darbhanga and that place was not known to his sister and some person known to his sister met her and she took his help and reached at their residence and at that time she was weeping and she was having marks of beating on her back. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A the above fact was not found so recorded. According to the witness, he had also told to the SDM that his sister had also informed him that her mother in law and father in law used to abuse and beat her. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A the above fact was not found St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 54 so recorded. He does not recollect if he had told the SDM that the accused kept his sister for about 1012 days and thereafter he brought his sister at their residence at village Rampura. Witness has further deposed that he had told the SDM that the accused Anil Mehto informed them that he will keep his sister separately from his family members and thereafter he shifted at his residence at Rai, Sonepat and he managed the accommodation and all the necessary facilities so that they may live peacefully. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW34/A, the above fact was not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had told the SDM and the Investigating Officer that in his absence the accused started making contact and started visiting his parents at Lawrence Road jhuggies and the mother of accused Anil Mehto then started pressurizing and exhorting Anil Mehto to marry some other girl. However, when confronted with his statements Ex.PW34/A and Ex.PW37/DX1 where the above facts were not found so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told the SDM that thereafter accused Anil Mehto again shifted back to Lawrence Road despite opposition from his sister as she was apprehending harassment in the hands of the accused (woh kehti thee ki Anil Mehto bahut pareshan karega) and they stayed for about five to ten days at Jhuggies at Lawrence Road and about ten days prior to the incident his sister made a telephone call to him and at that time he was in his village Rampura and she informed him that accused Anil Mehto, his father and mother were harassing her and taunting her as she could not bear a child and also stated that she did not know how to work. (woh kehti thee ki ye sab log mujhe pareshan St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 55 karte hain aur tane marte hein ki tumhe bachcha nahin hua, aur kahte then ki mujhe ghar chalana hai, mujhe ek achchi larki ki zaroorat hai). However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW34/A the above facts were not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had told to the SDM and to the Investigating Officer that when he was about to come to Delhi, his other younger sister felt seriously ill on account of stomach problem and he could not come to Delhi as he was attending to her in the hospital in village at District Darbhanga. When confronted with his statements Ex.PW34/A and Ex.PW37/DX1 the above facts were not found so recorded. According to him, he had not told the SDM that the accused Anil Mehto also used to show the obscene films to his sister and used to taunt her by saying that "too kharab hai" and she also told him that Anil Mehto used to talk dirty with her "aur who gandi gandi batein karta tha". Witness has further deposed that he had told to the SDM that the mother in law of his sister used to demand 12 Anna gold (7.5gms. Gold) from his sister to which he had told Anil Mehto and his mother that he would give the gold after selling his land which is situated in the village itself. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW34/A where the above facts were not found so recorded.
(41) He has admitted that he does not possess any receipt for the jewelery and other dowry articles which they had given to their sister nor they had given any receipt to the police. Witness has further deposed that they had taken the photographs of the dowry articles which they had given to the accused before marriage but they had not given the photographs of the articles St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 56 to the police. He has admitted that the list of articles which were given by him to the police which is Ex.PW32/F does not bear the signatures of the accused. The witness has denied the suggestion that he has not given any statement to the Investigating Officer as deposed by him or that all the proceedings/ memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer while sitting in the Police Station. He has also denied the suggestion that his sister was never harassed or torture by accused persons or that his sister was never beaten by any of the accused persons.
Witness of Medical Record:
(42) PW16 Dr. Bhim Singh is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 23.12.2013 he was working as Junior Specialist, Forensic Medicine, BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and on that day he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Smt. Manju Devi Mehto W/o Anil Mehto, aged about 23 years, female, sent by SDM Saraswati Vihar vide report Ex.PW16/A. According to the witness, as per the postmortem report there was an incomplete reddish brown parchment like ligature mark obliquely placed around the neck, width varied from 2cm to 3cm, situated 5cm below chin in front, 3.5 cm below right ear lobule, 3.6 cm below left ear lobule, on back side merges with hairs, total length was 22cm, total circumference of neck was 30cm. He has proved that death was due to asphyxia as a result of Antemortem hanging possible via ligature (rope) tied around the neck and time since death around 76 hours and the total inquest papers were ten in St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 57 number. Witness has further deposed that after postmortem examination he handed over one pullanda sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital containing clothes of deceased, viscera in salt solution and ligature rope with sample seal to the police official. He has also deposed that on the request of Investigating Officer he had given the subsequent report regarding cause of death which report is Ex.PW16/B. According to him, after examining the ligature material i.e. rope, and the video CD he had given his opinion that the death was due to suicidal hanging due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging as already described by him in his postmortem report Ex.PW16/A. The witness has identified the ligature material i.e. rope as the same which was produced before him by the Investigating Officer in sealed parcel which rope is Ex.P1.
(43) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that there were no other injuries on the body except the ligature mark.
According to the witness in his opinion the position of ligature mark shows that death was suicidal in nature.
Forensic Experts:
(44) PW39 Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary has deposed that on 17.01.2014 he was working as Scientific Assistant and Sh. Jitneder Kumar was working as Sr. Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) at FSL Delhi. According to the witness on that day one sealed wooden box was received in the office for examination St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 58 which was sealed with the seal of FMT, BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI and the said parcel was opened and Sh. Jitender Kumar had examined the exhibits/ viscera of Manju Devi Mehto. Witness has further deposed that after examination Sh. Jitender Kumar has prepared his report which is Ex.PW39/A bearing the signatures of Sh. Jitender Kumar at point A and the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of JK FSL DELHI. Witness has further deposed that the report as well as the sealed parcel were forwarded to the SHO Keshavpuram vide letter Ex.PW39/B. She has also deposed that as per the observation made by Sh. Jitender Kumar, on chemical microscopic, TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1A, Ex.1B and Ex.1C. She has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels, despite being granted an opportunity int his regard. (45) PW40 Dr. N.P. Waghmare Assistant Director, FSL has deposed that on 11.02.2014 one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of AS was received in the office of FSL and same was marked to him for examination and he tallied the seal with the sample seal and same was found intact. Witness has further deposed that on opening the said parcel he found one Sansui make mobile phone Model No. SA32 bearing IMEI No. 911331250302608 and 911331250302616 which were marked as Ex "MP1" with two SIM cards among which one is Vodafone SIM card bearing No. 89911100180126208629 H2 marked as Ex."SC1" and another is TATA DoCoMo SIM card bearing St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 59 No. 89910318410061915684, marked as Ex."SC2" and one 4 GB Micro SD Memory card marked as Ex."MC1" in the laboratory. Witness has further deposed that on examination the exhibit SIM cards marked as "SC1" and "SC2" were analyzed on Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) of Cell Brite's and the report of SIM cards marked as "SC1" and "SC2" are given in DVD marked as Annexure "DVD1". He has also deposed that the exhibit memory card marked "MC1" was forensically imaged using validated Encase software and on analysis of imaged storage data by authorized software and hardware tools, the retrieved data (images and videos) from Ex. "MC1" are also given in DVD marked as annexure "DVD1". According to him, the facility to examine the exhibit Mobile phone marked as "MP1" ws not available in the laboratory, hence, the data could not be retrieved. He has proved having prepared his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW40/A. (46) He has correctly identified the mobile phone of make Sansui of black colour bearing number 9582153218 having IMEI No. 911331250302608 and another SIM having IMEI No. 911331250302616, 4 GB memory card, two SIMs as the same as examined by him, which mobile phone, memory card and SIMs are collectively Ex.P5.
(47) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has denied the suggestion that he has not adopted the standard practices and procedures while examining the exhibits. He has also denied the suggestion St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 60 that the report has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
Nodal Officers:
(48) PW33 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternative Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9582153218 has been issued in the name of Satish Kumar Pathak S/o Sh. Dutt Pathak, R/o B46/146, T huts, B46, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi35 vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW33/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW33/B. He has also proved the call details from the period 01.03.2013 to 02.03.2014 which are Ex.PW33/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW33/D (running into 134 pages) and his certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW33/E. (49) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Pune and he has retrieved the call details from his official computer alloted to him from which he have a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss or that the certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act has been given by him in a routine manner. Witness has denied the suggestion that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 61 (50) PW35 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9034941934 has been issued in the name of Sh. Baidnath Mehto S/o Sh. Vindeshwar Mehto, R/o Rampura Tole Chaubey, Town/ Village Ramapura, Anchal Sinhavada, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar, vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW35/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW35/B. He has proved the call details from the period 23.10.2013 to 03.03.2014 which are Ex.PW35/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart is Ex.PW35/D (running into one page) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW35/E. (51) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Hyderabad and he has retrieved the call details from his official computer alloted to him from which he has a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss. Witness has denied the suggestion that the certificate U/s 65B has been given by him in a routine manner or that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (52) PW36 Sh. Shishir Malhotra Nodal Officer from Aircel Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 9540324254 has been issued in the name of Sh.
Chandeshwar S/o Sh. Subh Karan, R/o Jh. No. 86/138, near Railway Line, Lawrence Road, Delhi34 vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 62 which is Ex.PW36/A; copy of Driving Licence in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW36/B. He has proved the call details for 20.12.2013 which are Ex.PW36/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW36/D (running into one page) and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW36/E. He has further deposed that all the above said documents/ details has been produced through a coverage letter which is Ex.PW36/F. (53) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Gurgaon and he has retrieved the call details from his official computer alloted to him from which he have a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss. He has also denied the suggestion that the certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act has been given by him in a routine manner or that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(54) PW38 Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 9996594719 which has been issued in the name of Sh. Laxman S/o Sh. Khuh Lal Mehto, R/o 20 Mile Stone, Rai, Village Dadnalik, District Sonepat Haryana, vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW38/A and copy of ESIC Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW38/B. He has also proved the call details from the period 01.03.2013 to 03.03.2014 which are Ex.PW38/C (running into 45 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 63 pages) and cell ID chart which is Ex.PW38/D (running into one page). (55) He has further proved that mobile No. 9931525323 has been issued in the name of Sh. Vindeshvar Mehto S/o Sh. Raghunandan Mehto, R/o 49, Rampura, Post Office Singhvara, Rampura, Darbhanga, Bihar vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW38/E and copy of Voter Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW38/F. He has proved the call details from the period 01.03.2013 to 03.03.2014 which are Ex.PW38/G (running into 80 pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW38/H (running into one page); certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW38/I. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Noida and he has retrieved the call details from his official computer alloted to him from which he have a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss. He has also denied the suggestion that the certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act has been given by him in a routine manner or that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Police/ Official Witnesses:
(57) PW1 Ct. Pushpendra is a formal witness being the DD Writer 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 lodged the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 64 DDNo. 32B copy of which is Ex.PW1/A. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsels but he has stood by his version. (58) PW2 Ct. Subhash is a formal witness being the PCR van official 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 call book copy of PCR Van which is Ex.PW2/A (running into six pages). He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite being given an opportunity in this regard.
(59) PW3 HC Suresh Chand is a formal witness being the Duty Officer 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 DDNo. 18A copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, copy of FIR No. 444/13 which is Ex.PW3/B and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW3/C. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsels but the witness has stood by his version. (60) PW4 Ct. Subhash is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident and taken the photographs which are Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A17 vide negatives Ex.PW4/B. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (61) PW5 ASI Rajbir Singh is also a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 65 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident and having prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW5/A. (62) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that nobody from the parental family of the deceased was present at the spot when they reached there and they remained at the spot from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. According to the witness no finger prints/ chance prints were lifted from the spot and has voluntarily added that no finger prints were found at the spot.
(63) PW6 W/Ct. Neetu is a formal witness being 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 that on 20.12.2013 on receipt of DD No. 32B she alongwith ASI Shashi Kumar reached the spot at Jhuggi No. B46/38, Balmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi. She has further stated that on reaching the spot a married young lady was found hanging whose name came to be known as Manju Devi. According to her, the SDM and the SHO of Police Station Keshav Puram also reached the spot after which ASI Shashi Kumar brought down the dead body after cutting the rope from the upper edge.
She has proved that she had conducted the physical search of the dead body after which she handed over all the wearing apparels to the Investigating Officer who prepared a pullanda of the same.
(64) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that she reached the spot at about 1:55 PM and remained there till St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 66 evening but she is unable to tell the exact time of her leaving the spot. He has denied the suggestion that she does not remember the exact time of her leaving the spot since she did not visit the spot of the incident or that her signatures were obtained at Police Station on several documents by the Investigating Officer. She does not remember at what time she reached the BJRM Hospital and at what time she left the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that she never went to BJRM Hospital.
(65) PW7 Ct. Mukesh is 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 that on 27.12.2013 he along with Ct. Dharamraj, SI Mukesh Kumar and the accused Anil Mehto (in Police Custody Remand) departed for village Dhannaur, Police Station Katra, District Muzaffarupur, Bihar. He has stated that they reached the said village where the accused Anil Mehto handed over the dowry articles including furniture items etc. and the Investigating Officer prepared a seizure memo to this effect which is Ex.PW7/A after which the said articles were handed over to the father of the deceased.
(66) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has admitted that no independent pubic witness was joined at the time of securing of the articles. According to the witness there was no receipt showing the ownership of the said articles which were seized. He has denied the suggestion that apart from the stridhan the personal articles of the accused were also taken forcibly without the consent of the accused who were in custody. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 67 (67) PW8 Ct. Dharamraj is a formal witness 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 corroborated the testimony of PW7 Ct. Mukesh and has proved the seizure memo of stridhan articles which is Ex.PW7/A. (68) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has admitted that no independent pubic witness was joined at the time of securing of the articles. Witness has further deposed that there was no receipt showing the ownership of the said articles which were seized. Witness has denied the suggestion that apart from the stridhan the personal articles of the accused were also taken forcibly without the consent of the accused who were in custody.
(69) PW9 HC Raj Kumar is a formal witness being the MHCM 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 the entry in register no.19 at S. No. 3693/13 copy of which is Ex.PW9/A; entry at S.No. 3696/13 copy of which is Ex.PW9/B; entry at S. No. 3706/13 copy of which is Ex.PW9/C; entry in register no.21 vide RC No. 13/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW9/D and receipt issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW9/E. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(70) PW10 HC Rajender is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 68 Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the exhibits from the MHCM and deposited the same with the FSL. He has proved the RC No. 07/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW10/A, receipt issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW10/B and also RC No.17/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW10/C. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(71) PW11 Inspector Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident and having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW11/A. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels but nothing much has come out of the same and the witness has stood by his version.
(72) PW12 Ct. Vikram Kumar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW12/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the exhibits from the MHCM and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. He has proved the RC No. 07/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW10/A and receipt issued by FSL copy of which is Ex.PW10/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (73) PW13 Ct. Dinesh is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW13/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 69 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the exhibits from the MHCM and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. He has proved the RC No. 13/21/14 copy of which is Ex.PW9/D and receipt issued by FSL copy of which is Ex.PW9/E. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(74) PW14 W/Ct. Jaya Yadav is a formal witness being the CPCR Official who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW14/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW14/A. She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (75) PW27 Ct. Mahender has deposed that on 20.12.2013 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day on receipt of DD No. 32 B he along with L/Ct. Neetu and ASI Shashi Kumar reached at B46/38, Balmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi where they found a young married lady hanging with rope and on inquiry her name was known as Smt. Manju Devi Mehto whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2011. According to the witness, ASI Shashi Kumar gave information to the SHO and to the SDM Saraswati Vihar. He has further deposed that the Crime Team was also called to the spot who inspected the spot and took the photographs and the spot was also videographed after which the body was got down by cutting the rope and the body was formally searched by L/Ct. Neetu. Witness has further deposed that the articles collected from the spot were duly sealed by ASI Shashi Kumar with the seal of SKS and taken into possession vide seizure memo St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 70 Ex.PW27/A after which he along with L/Ct. Neetu took the body to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital and was got preserved till 23.12.2013 and no tampering was done while the dead body remained under his watch.
(76) He has further testified that on 23.12.2013 the postmortem on the body of deceased Smt. Manju Devi was got done after which the same was handed over to her father Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto vide receipt Ex.PW26/C and the doctor concerned handed over the exhibits to ASI Shashi Kumar who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him on which he took the same to the Police Station and handed over the same to the Duty Officer and got the case registered after which the copy of the FIR and original rukka were handed over to the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he along with Inspector Anil Sharma reached at the spot where ASI Shashi Kumar also came and at the instance of ASI Shashi Kumar Inspector Anil Sharma prepared the site plan at about 7:00 PM. He has also deposed that at about 8:30 PM accused Anil Kumar Mehto and his father Rajender Mehto were apprehended and the accused Anil Kumar Mehto was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW27/C, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/D and the disclosure statement of accused Anil Kumar Mehto was recorded vide Ex.PW27/E. Witness has proved that the accused Rajender Mehto was also arrested in this case, his personal search was also conducted and the disclosure statement of accused Rajender Mehto was also recorded and his statement was recorded by St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 71 the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that on 24.12.2013 he joined the investigations with Investigating Officer and W/HC Rajeshwari when they reached at the house of Bechan Mehto where at the instance of complainant Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati Devi was arrested in the present case vide memo Ex.PW27/F, her personal search was conducted by W/HC Rajeshwati vide memo Ex.PW27/G and her disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW27/H and the personal belonging of accused Smt. Kala Devi were also sealed by the Investigating Officer with the seal of AS and taken into possession.
(77) The witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court and also the case property i.e. one pair of Paijeb, four chutki of golden colour and one pair of ear tops of golden colour as the same which were recovered from the body of deceased, which pair of Paijeb is collectively Ex.P2, four chutki of golden colour are collectively Ex.P3 and one pair of ear tops of golden colour are collectively Ex.P4.
(78) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Inspector Anil Sharma near the Fire Station at about 6:15 PM. Witness has admitted that the deceased was wearing her jewelery i.e. pajeb, ear tops and bangles etc. at that time. According to the witness there was nobody in the jhuggi except the dead body when they reached there and the jhuggi was not locked from inside nor from outside and was opened. Witness has further deposed that there were five to seven public persons gathered outside the jhuggi and Crime St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 72 Team came at about 2:45 PM and inspected the spot till 4:00 PM and the rope was not measured by the Investigating Officer in his presence. Witness has also deposed that the deceased was wearing a saree of red colour. According to the witness, he left the spot at about 4:30 PM for BJRM Hospital and reached there at about 4:45 PM and remained there till 23.12.2013 and has voluntarily explained that he was deputed to guard the dead body in the Mortuary. Witness has further deposed that he left the hospital on 23.12.2013 at about 4:30 PM and came to Police Station along with the rukka and got the FIR registered and he then went to the spot at about 6:30 PM. Witness has admitted that his signatures are not present on the various documents pertaining to arrest and disclosure of the accused persons and other documents prepared by the Investigating Officer Inspector Anil Sharma on 23.12.2013. He has denied the suggestion that he never visited to the spot on 23.12.2013 or no above proceedings were conducted in his presence by the Investigating Officer and that is why his signatures are not present on the various documents. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot on 24.12.2013 and that is why his signatures were not present on various documents/ memos prepared by the Investigating Officer on 24.12.2013. The witness has denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness to prove the above proceedings.
(79) PW28 W/HC Rajeshwari has deposed that on 24.12.2013 she was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day she was present during the investigation of this case with Inspector Anil Sharma and Ct. Mahender. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 73 According to the witness on that day she alongwith Ct. Mahender and Inspector Anil Sharma alongwith the driver of government Gypsy reached at Jhuggi Block, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi where Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati Devi met at at jhuggi No. B46/38. Witness has further deposed that Kala Devi was identified by the complainant Bechan Mehto after which she was apprehended at about 9.00AM and she was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW27/F, her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/G and her disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW27/H. Witness has further deposed that the articles belonging of accused Smt. Kala Devi were also sealed by the Investigating Officer with the seal of AS and taken into possession and the accused Kala Devi was medically examined at BJRM Hospital and thereafter she was handed over to Lady Ct. Neetu and her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and she was relieved. Witness has correctly identified accused Kalawati Devi in the court. (80) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that she reached at the spot at about 9.00AM. She does not remember the exact time of leaving the spot and she remained at the spot for about 4045 minutes. She has denied the suggestion that she never went to the spot and that is why she do not remember the exact time of leaving the spot. She is also not aware if any separate DD regarding their departure was made by the Investigating Officer or not. Witness has further deposed that they came to the spot in a government Gypsy. She is unable to tell the registration number of the said Gypsy nor does she remember whether any entry in the logbook was St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 74 made in this regard or not. Witness has further deposed that there were other houses and shops in the area and Investigating Officer made inquiries from the local persons regarding the incident. She is not aware if Investigating Officer recorded statements of any public witness or not. Witness has denied the suggestion that she never joined the investigation and that is why she was unable to tell the fact of joining the public person and regarding making the entry in log book, DD entry etc. According to the witness her statement was recorded in the Police Station. Witness has denied the suggestion that her signatures were taken by the Investigating Officer on the memos while sitting in the Police Station or that she never visited the spot of arrest. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Kalawati Devi did not make any disclosure statement.
(81) PW29 Ct. Sandeep has deposed that on 23.12.2013 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day he had participated in the investigation of this case with Inspector Anil Sharma and with the driver of the government vehicle. According to the witness Ct. Mahender Kumar had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Anil Kumar at about 6.15PM after which Ct. Mahender was also joined with them and they all reached at Valmiki Camp Jhuggi, behind Fire Station, Lawrence Road, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer Inspector Anil Sharma made inquiries and at about 6.50 PM ASI Shashi Kumar also came there after which Inspector Anil Sharma prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Shashi Kumar and at about 8.30PM the accused Rajender St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 75 Mehto and Anil Mehto were seen coming towards Jhuggi side. According to the witness on the identification of resident of the jhuggies, both the persons were apprehended by him and by Ct. Mahender and they were interrogated and the accused Anil Mehto was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW27/C at about 9.30PM whereas the accused Rajender Mehto was arrested at about 10.00PM vide memo Ex.PW29/A. Witness has proved that the accused Rajender was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW29/B and the disclosure statement of accused Rajender Mehto was recorded vide Ex.PW29/C after which both the accused persons were taken to BJRM Hospital where they were got medically examined and thereafter both the accused persons were brought to the Police Station and kept in the lock up.
(82) The witness has also deposed that on 30.12.2013 he again joined the investigation of this case with Inspector Anil Sharma and on that day the accused Anil Mehto who was on police remand for that day, was interrogated in the Police Station and his supplementary disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW29/D, wherein he had disclosed that he had concealed the mobile phone in his house and can get recovered the same. According to the witness pursuant to his supplementary disclosure statement accused Anil Mehto took them to his jhuggi, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi where he had pointed out at an iron box lying in the room and got recovered one mobile phone make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 and disclosed that he was using the said phone which was having two SIMs. According to the witness, its number was 9582153218 and the IMEI number of the said phone was St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 76 911331250302608 whereas the IMEI number of other SIM was 911331250302616 (TATA DOCOMO). He has also deposed that the said mobile phone was having a memory card of 4GB capacity and the aforesaid phone, memory card and SIM were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of AS which parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW29/E. According to the witness, his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer.
(83) He has further testified that on 28.02.2014 he again joined the investigations with Investigating Officer and on that day he was sent by the Investigating Officer to BJRM Hospital alongwith the request letter and video CD and one rope in sealed condition with the seal of BJRM HOSPITAL FMT, for taking the opinion from Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bhim Singh vide RC No. 17/21/14. He has also deposed that accordingly he handed over the same to Dr. Bhim Singh who had seen the CD and examined the rope and gave his opinion on the postmortem report. Witness has further deposed that the aforesaid exhibits were again sealed by the doctor and handed over the same to him with the sample seal and he handed over the said report, video CD and the exhibits to the Investigating Officer alongwith the sample seal who got the same deposited in the malkhana. According to the witness during the period, the aforesaid articles/ report remained in his possession the same were not tampered with.
(84) The witness has correctly identified the accused Anil Mehto and Rajender Mehto in the court and also the case property i.e. one mobile phone St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 77 of make Sansui of black colour bearing number 9582153218 having IMEI No. 911331250302608 and another SIM having IMEI No. 911331250302616, 4 GB memory card, two SIMs as the same which were recovered by the accused Anil Mehto, which are collectively Ex.P5.
(85) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that about 50 public persons had gathered at the spot when they reached there and the jhuggi of accused Anil Mehto was not locked at that time. According to the witness, accused Rajender Mehto and Anil Mehto reached at their house after about two or two and a half hours of their reaching there. He has further deposed that mother of Anil Mehto was not present in the house when they reached there nor she came there in his presence. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation or never reached at the spot of arrest or that accused Rajender Mehto and Anil Mehto were not arrested in his presence or that no personal search was conducted in his presence. He is unable to tell about the number of pages of the disclosure statement of accused Rajender Mehto and Anil Mehto. He has also denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement in his presence and that is why he was unable to tell about the number of pages of the disclosure statements. The witness has also denied the suggestion that on 30.12.2013 he never joined the investigation or that no supplementary disclosure statement was recorded in his presence. He has further denied the suggestion that no mobile phone was recovered in his presence or that the same has been planted to falsely implicate him in this St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 78 case or that exhibits, CD and rope etc., were tampered by him while the same were in his custody. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation of this case on 28.02.2014. According to the witness he made a departure entry while leaving the Police Station for reaching BJRM Hospital on 28.02.2014 but he is unable to tell the number of DD entry in this regard. He has denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness to fulfill the lacunas of this case or that his signatures were taken by the Investigating Officer on several memos and disclosure statement etc. while sitting in the Police Station. He is not aware if any public witness was joined at the time of arrest of the accused persons and of their personal search, disclosure etc. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation and that is why he was unable to tell whether Investigating Officer join the public witness in the above proceedings or not. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (86) PW30 ASI Shashi has deposed that on 20.12.2013 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day on the receipt of DD No. 32B, regarding suicide by a lady at Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road he alongwith Ct. Mahender and Lady Ct. Neetu reached at B46/38, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road Delhi where they found one married lady hanging with a rope. Witness has also deposed that on inquiry her name was known as Smt. Manju and her marriage was solemnized in the year 2011 and he conveyed these facts to the SHO and the SDM. He has also deposed that the Crime Team was also called at the spot and the photographer took the photographs of the spot which was St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 79 also got videographed from a private photographer. He has testified that the relatives of the deceased were not available there but the victim was known to be the resident of Village Rampara, Police Station Singhwara, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar. Witness has further deposed that the SDM also came at the spot and on the directions of the SDM the body was got down by cutting the rope after which the body was formally searched and the belongings of deceased found on the body were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SKS which were then taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. According to the witness the said parcel was got deposited in the Malkhana and the dead body was got preserved in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital after which the dead body was kept under the custody of Ct. Mahender. Witness has further deposed that the information regarding the incident was given to the family members of the deceased by phone and the family members of the deceased came later on. He has testified that the SDM Saraswati Vihar had recorded the statement of Bindeshwar Mehto and his brother Bechan Mehto. He has proved having prepared the brief facts vide Ex.PW30/A, the death report which is Ex.PW30/B and request to the Autopsy Surgeon which is Ex.PW30/C. According to him, the postmortem on the body of the deceased was got conducted and the dead body was duly identified by Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto and Bechan Mehto and after the postmortem, the body was handed over to Sh. Bechan Mehto and Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto vide receipt Ex.PW26/D. Witness has further deposed that the doctor concerned handed over the sealed parcel containing the exhibits of the deceased to him St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 80 which were duly sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL alongwith the sample seal which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B. According to the witness, the said exhibit/ parcel were deposited in Malkhana and on the basis of statement of Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto, he prepared rukka vide Ex.PW30/D which he handed over to Ct. Mahender who got the case registered and came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Anil Sharma. Witness has further deposed that thereafter the further investigation of this case was handed over to Inspector Anil Sharma who prepared the site plan at his instance at about 7.00PM and made inquires from the local public persons.
(87) The witness has further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 23.12.2013 at about 8.30PM the accused Anil Kumar Mehto and his father accused Rajender Mehto were apprehended and were interrogated. He has proved that the accused Anil Mehto was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW27/C, the accused Rajender Mehto was arrested at about 10.00 PM vide Ex.PW29/A and both the accused persons were personally searched vide memo Ex.PW27/D and Ex.PW29/B. According to the witness both the accused persons persons made their disclosure statements, the disclosure statement of Anil Mehto is Ex.PW27/E while the disclosure statement of Rajender Mehto is Ex.PW29/C. (88) He has correctly identified the accused Anil Mehto and Rajender Mehto in the court and has also identified the case property i.e. one pair of St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 81 Paijeb, four chutki of golden colour and one pair of ear tops of golden colour as the same which was recovered from the body of deceased, which pair of Paijeb is collectively Ex.P2, four chutki of golden colour which are collectively Ex.P3 and one pair of ear tops of golden colour are collectively Ex.P4.
(89) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, the witness has deposed that he had read the contents of the DD before reaching to the spot. According to the witness, he had left the Police Station at 1:45 PM on his bike and reached at the spot at about 2:00 PM. He has also deposed that a large number of public persons were present at the spot but he is unable to tell the exact number of persons. Witness has further deposed that there was nobody from the family of the deceased and the house was open at that time and there were no family members. He has also deposed that some residents of the area had made a call and he had made inquiries about the caller but as on date he is unable to tell the details of the caller. Witness has further deposed that the neighbors had given him the name of the deceased and the year of marriage was also given to him by the said neighbor but he did not make this neighbour a witness. He is unable to tell the name or the address of the neighbors who had given him these details and he did not find any suicide note at the spot nor can he tell whether it was a suicidal or homicidal hanging and has voluntarily explained that it must have been investigated by the main Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that the SHO reached the spot after five to seven minutes of his reaching there and it is the SHO who informed the SDM but the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 82 SDM did not reach the spot and has voluntarily explained that SDM had given the instructions to them on telephone to call the crime team and get the videography of the spot to be done and to get information regarding the family members of the deceased. He has testified that the body was brought down after the inspection of the crime team and on instructions of the SDM on phone after they informed him about the inspection. The witness has also deposed that he had taken Bechan Mehto and Bindeshwar Mehto to the office of the SDM where their statements were recorded but he was not present there when their statements were recorded. He is unable to tell whether the SDM himself recorded the statements or it was got recorded by someone else. He has stated that he did not interrogate Bechan Mehto and Bindeshwar Mehto. He has also deposed that apart from Bechan Mehto and Bindeshar Mehto two other family members/ relatives had accompanied them in the office of the SDM and has voluntarily explained that they remained outside. According to him, they reached at SDM Office at about 10:30 AM and remained there till 12:30 Noon. He has denied the suggestion that the SDM did not record any statement or that the said statements of Bechan Mehto and Bindeshwar Mehto were recorded by him while the SDM only signed the same. He has testified that he prepared the rukka at the BJRM Hospital. He is not aware as to who pointed out or identified Anil Mehto and Rajender Mehto. Witness has further deposed that nobody from the family of the deceased were present with them at that time to confirm their identity. He has stated that when they arrested the accused Anil and Rajender there were large number of persons who were St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 83 present. Witness has further deposed that no public person was made a witness when the accused were arrested. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was recorded or that the signatures of the accused persons were taken on blank papers in the Police Station which were converted into various incriminating documents. According to the witness they left the spot at about 11 PM. He is unable to tell whether similar ornaments i.e. one pair of payjeb, four chutki of golden color and one ear tops of golden color are easily available in the market. He has admitted that the Investigating Officer had not made any specific mark on these items and that if the similar type of articles are mixed with the above said articles he cannot identify the above said articles. He has also denied the suggestion that he has not joined the investigations or that he was made as a witness to fill up the lacuna of the case or that he has not visited the spot. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the Police Station. (90) PW31 SI Mukesh has deposed that on 27.12.2013 he was working as InCharge Police Post Shanti Nagar of Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day Addl. SHO handed over the investigation of this case to him. According to the witness on that day the accused Anil Mehto was on police remand and in pursuance to his disclosure statement, the accused Anil Mehto took them including himself, Ct. Mukesh and Ct. Dharamraj to Village Dhannaur, Police Station Katra, District Muzaffarpur, Bihar for the purpose of recovery of Dowry articles from his house. Witness has further deposed that the father of the deceased namely Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto, brother Sh. Bechan St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 84 Mehto and sister Ms. Shakuntala Devi met them there. According to the witness on 28.12.2013 the household dowry articles were recovered at the instance of accused Anil Mehto and on the identification of Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto, Sh. Bechan Mehto and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, which articles were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Witness has also deposed that he recorded the statement of the aforesaid witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he also recorded the statement of Pradhan of the village namely Sh. Sudhir Chowdhary U/s 161 Cr.P.C. According to him, the aforesaid articles were handed over to the complainant party against proper receipt which is mentioned in the seizure memo itself. He has testified that on 29.12.2013 they came back to Delhi and recorded the statement of Ct. Mukesh and Ct. Dharamraj U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and further investigation of this case was handed over to Inspector Anil Sharma again after which he handed over the case file to Inspector Sharma.
(91) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, witness has deposed that they left the Police Station on 27.12.2013 in afternoon to reach Muzaffarpur, Bihar but he does not remember the exact time. Witness has further deposed that they all reached Railway Station in one auto rickshaw and they went to Muzaffarpur by Rajdhani Express through Railway Warrant. According to the witness they reached at the house of accused Anil Mehto on 28.12.2013 at about 11.00AM. Witness has further deposed that he met Ms. Shakuntala Devi, Bindeshwar Mehto and Bechan Mehto at the house of the accused and no family member of the accused was present at that time. He has St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 85 testified that at about 1520 public persons were gathered at the spot but none of those public persons were made witness to the recovery/ seizure of the articles. He has denied the suggestion that he in connivance with Bindeshar Mehto, Bechan Mehto and Ms. Shakuntala Devi had lifted the furniture items and other dowry articles belonging to the sister of the accused Anil Mehto besides the item seized by him which were taken by Bindeshwar Mehto, Bechan Mehto and Smt. Shakuntala to their house. Witness has further deposed that there was no lock on the house of the accused, which was just bolted with a latch. The witness has also admitted that he did not seal the house of the accused Anil Mehto after recovery of dowry articles and has voluntarily explained that the Pradhan of the Village and the neighbours were informed about the same. Witness has admitted that no lock was put on the house of Anil Mehto by the Pradhan of the Village or by any neighbour. He has also admitted that no photographs of the recovered articles were place on record. He is unable to tell about the articles present in the house of Anil Mehto other than the recovered articles. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being the Investigating Officer of the case. (92) PW34 Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra has deposed that on 20.12.2013 he was working as SDM, Saraswati Vihar and on that day he received information from Police Station Keshavpuram that a lady had committed suicide at B46/38, Balmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that he directed the Investigating Officer to call Crime Team and get the spot inspected and videographed and the dead body was sent St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 86 to BJRM Hospital. According to the witness since the parents of the deceased were residents of Bihar and were not present in Delhi on that day, therefore he directed the Investigating Officer to give the information to the parents of deceased. Witness has further deposed that on 23.12.2013 Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto, father of the deceased and Sh. Bechan Mehto, brother of the deceased came to his office and their statements were recorded by him. He has proved the statement of Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto which is Ex.PW26/A and the statement of Sh. Bechan Mehto which is Ex.PW34/A. Witness has further deposed that the statements were forwarded to the SHO, Police Station Keshavpuram for necessary action and his endorsement to this effect is at point C and his endorsement on the statement of Sh. Bechan Mehto is at point B. Witness has proved the brief facts prepared by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW30/A and the death report which is Ex.PW30/B. According to the witness Investigating Officer also prepared the request for getting the postmortem conducted vide Ex.PW34/B. According to him, the statement of Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto regarding identification of the dead body is Ex.PW26/B and the statement of Sh. Bechan Mehto regarding identification of dead body was also recorded. Witness has further deposed that after getting the postmortem on the dead body of decease conducted, the same was handed over to Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto vide receipt Ex.PW26/C. (93) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he received information from the SHO of Police Station Keshav Puram and the father and brother of the deceased namely Bindeshwar Mehto St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 87 and Bechan Mehto came to his office in between 10.30 and 11.00AM on 23.12.2013. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Bechan Mehto Ex.PW34/A in his handwriting. Witness has denied the suggestion that Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of Bechan Mehto of his own and he had simply forwarded the same. He has also deposed that statement of Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto was recorded by his P.A. in front of him and Investigating Officer was not present in his room when he recorded the statement of said witnesses. According to the witness both the witnesses were relieved by him at about 1.30PM. He has further deposed that the statement regarding identification of the dead body was recorded in the hospital at about 2.30PM. He has denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of Bechan Mehto or that he did not participate in the investigation or that he had formally signed the documents on the asking of the Investigating Officer. (94) PW41 Inspector Anil Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 23.12.2013 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day he alongwith his staff including Ct. Sandeep, driver Ct. Ram Kumar were on patrolling duty in the area of Police Station Keshavpuram. According to the witness after registration of the present case, the further investigation was entrusted to him and he received the copy of FIR and original rukka from Ct. Mahender after which they reached at Jhuggi no. B46/38, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Rood, Keshavpuram, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that he conducted the inquiries from the public persons and at the same time ASI Shashi Kumar also reached the spot and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 88 handed over to him the photocopy of inquest papers, seizure memos of exhibits and remained associated with him during the investigation. Witness has further deposed that he inspected the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Shashi vide Ex.PW41/A. According to the witness the accused Anil Mehto, the husband of the deceased and Rajender Mehto the father in law of the deceased were arrested after interrogation and the accused Anil Mehto was arrested in this case vide at about 9.30PM vide memo Ex.PW27/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/D. He has proved that the accused Rajender Mehto was arrested in this case at about 10.00PM vide memo Ex.PW29/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW29/B and the disclosure statement of accused Anil Mehto was recorded vide memo Ex.PW27/E. Witness has further proved that the disclosure statement of accused Rajender Mehto was recorded vide memo Ex.PW29/C and both the accused persons were taken to the BJRM Hospital and their medical examination was got done and he recorded the statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
(95) The witness has further testified that on 24.12.2013 complainant Sh. Bindeshwar Mehto and Sh. Bechan Mehto came to the Police Station and he issued notice U/s 91Cr.P.C. to Bechan Mehto vide Ex.PW41/B on which Bechan Mehto gave his reply on the back of the said notice which is Ex.PW41/C. Witness has further deposed that in compliance to the said notice, Bechan Mehto handed over to him the list of articles/ dowry running St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 89 into two pages and one photograph showing the deceased and Anil Mehto together and married couple which list of articles is Ex.PW41/D and the photograph is Ex.PW32/E which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F. He has also deposed that he recorded the statement of Bindeshwar Mehto and Bechan Mehto under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after which the accused Kaladevi @ Kalawati Devi was arrested at the instance of Bechan Mehto from Jhuggi No.B46/38, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Keshavpuram, Delhi. He has also deposed that the accused Kala Devi was interrogated and on being satisfied she was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW27/F at about 9.30AM, her personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/G and her disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW27/H. Witness has further deposed that all the three accused persons were produced before Ld. MM and Seven days Police Remand of the accused Anil Mehto was taken for the purpose of recovery of dowry articles whereas the coaccused Rajender Mehto and accused Kalawati Devi were sent to Judicial Custody by Ld. MM. He has also deposed that thereafter the son of the complainant Sh. Bindeshwar namely Sh. Baijnath Mehto and Krishan Mehto came to the Police Station and they were examined U/s 161 Cr. P. C. and the medical examination of accused Anil Mehto was got conducted and he recorded the statement of police officials U/s 161 Cr. P. C. (96) The witness has also deposed that on 25.12.2013 he examined Sh. Uggarsain the owner of the jhuggi where the incident had taken place and Sh. Chandeshwar @ Rahul and Sh. Ajay Sehgal, private photographer U/s 161 Cr. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 90 P. C. According to the witness, on 26.12.2013 he examined ASI Rajbir Singh, Incharge Crime Team and Ct. Subhash the photographer of Crime Team U/s 161 Cr. P. C. He has also deposed that SI Mukesh Kumar was sent to Village Dhanaur, Police Station Katra, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar for the purpose of recovery of dowry articles and he recovered the same at the instance of the complainant from the house of accused Anil Mehto. He has testified that on 30.12.2013 he examined the accused Anil Mehto again in which he has disclosed that the mobile number 9582153218 was being used by him and the same was recovered from his house at his instance which mobile was converted into parcel and was sealed with the seal of AS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/E. According to the witness the said phone was deposited in the Malkhana and on 31.12.2013 the accused Anil Mehto was produced before Ld. MM and was also got sent to Judicial Custody. He has also deposed that on 17.01.2014 he sent the wooden box containing the viscera of the deceased Manju duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital FMT DELHI to FSL Rohini through Ct. Vikram vide RC No. 7/21/14 and handed over the receipt of the FSL and handed over the same to the MHC(M). Witness has further deposed that Inspector Manohar Lal inspected the spot and prepared the rough notes and thereafter he prepared the scaled site plan. Again on 18.01.2014 he handed over the scale site plan to him and the same is Ex.PW11/A. According to him, on 01.02.2014 he collected the PCR Form dated 20.12.2013 pertaining to the incident which is Ex.PW14/A. He has further deposed that on 11.02.2014 he sent the mobile phone of accused Anil St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 91 Mehto in a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of AS to FSL Rohini for obtaining the expert opinion through Ct. Dinesh vide RC No. 13/21/14 and he thereafter handed over the copy of the receipt to MHC(M). The witness has also deposed that on 26.02.2014 he collected the certified copy of call book, register of PCR Van C27 alongwith the relevant entries pertaining to the incident which were taken into possession which documents are Ex.PW2/A (running into six pages). Witness has further deposed that thereafter Bechan Mehto the son of the complainant had handed over the original marriage certificate showing the marriage of Anil Mehto and deceased Manjula Devi on 29.06.2011 at Village Rampura, Bihar and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/G which marriage certificate is Ex.PW19/A. (97) The witness has further deposed that on 28.02.2014 Ct. Sandeep was sent to BJRM Hospital for seeking subsequent opinion for cause of death from Autopsy Surgeon alongwith his request Ex.PW32/H and thereafter Ct. Sandeep had brought the subsequent opinion regarding cause of death which is Ex.PW16/B. According to him, on 05.03.2014 the aforesaid marriage certificate was got verified from the issuing authority through ASI Shashi Kumar and the same was found genuine and his request in this regard is Ex.PW32/I. He has also deposed that he collected the customer application form and CDRs of the relevant period of mobile bearing numbers 9034941934, 9582153218, 9931525323, 9996594719 and 9540324254 which are already on record. Witness has further deposed that he filed the charge sheet against all the three accused persons and thereafter he collected the FSL St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 92 report on 30.06.2014 and thereafter he had filed the FSL result before the Ld. MM by way of Supplementary charge sheet.
(98) He has correctly identified the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kaladevi @ Kalawati Devi in the court and also identified the case property i.e. mobile phone of make Sansui of black colour bearing number 9582153218 having IMEI No. 911331250302608 and another SIM having IMEI No. 911331250302616, 4 GB memory card, two SIMs as the same which was got recovered by the accused Anil Mehto, which mobile phone, memory car and SIMs are collectively Ex.P5.
(99) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he received the original rukka at about 6.15 PM from Ct. Mahender and there were about five to ten public persons gathered in the jhuggi i.e. the spot of incident. Witness has further deposed that he made inquiries from public persons gathered there but the name and addresses of the said public persons are not mentioned in the judicial record and has voluntarily explained that their names and address are mentioned in the case diaries. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not make any inquiry from any public persons and that is why their names and address are not mentioned in the judicial record. He has admitted that he has not mentioned about any case diary in the judicial record. Witness has also deposed that he reached the spot of incident at about 6.30PM and remained there till about 11.00PM. Witness has admitted that he has not made any person from the neighbhourhood as witness to the arrest of accused Anil Mehto and Rajender Mehto from St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 93 neighbourhood. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Anil Mehto and Rajender Mehto were not arrested in the manner as mentioned by him or that no disclosure statements were made any any of the accused persons. According to the witness, on 24.12.2013 Bindeshwar Mehto and Bechan Mehto came to the Police Station in the early morning at about 6.00AM and they were telephonically called by him. He has admitted that he had not mentioned this fact in the record of the present case that he had called them telephonically. Witness has also deposed that Bechan Mehto wrote down the list of dowry articles in his presence and signed the same in his presence. According to him, Bechan Mehto had brought the written list of dowry articles and he only signed in his presence and Anil Mehto had told him that after discussion with his family members he had prepared the said list. The witness has testified that Bechan Mehto is a labour in factory at Sonipat Haryana whereas his father Bindeshwar Mehto was living in his native village and being an old person was not doing anything and he did not enter inside the jhuggi of accused persons on 23.12.2013 and has voluntarily explained that it was locked. Witness has further deposed that the lock was opened at about 8:45 PM when accused persons came at the jhuggi but the brothers and sisters of Anil Mehto were not present at the house when lock was opened. He has admitted that he did not make any public witness at the time of arrest of accused Kalawati. Witness has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by Kalawati Devi or that signatures/ thumb impressions of accused persons were obtained by him on several blank papers which were St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 94 later on converted into several incriminating documents by him. He has testified that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of Bechan Mehto and Bindeswar Mehto were recorded by him on 24.12.2013 at about 8:30 AM and statements of Baijnath Mehto and Krishan Mehto were recorded at about 8:00 PM after which he recorded statements of police witnesses. Witness has further deposed that the accused were paying Rs.1,000/ per month as rent to Uggarsen the owner of the jhuggi. He has admitted that he had not asked about how many photographs were taken by Ajay Sehgal the private photographer and has voluntarily explained that the photographs were taken on the day of incident. Witness has further deposed that on that day it might have asked by ASI Shashi as he was Investigating Officer on that day but the same is not in his knowledge. He has also deposed that he visited the spot on the day of incident at about 2:15 PM and remained there for about an hour and the private Photographer did not come to the spot in his presence and crime team came at about 3:00 PM when he was to left the spot and crime team started their inspection of the spot in his presence. Witness has further deposed that the SHO came at about 2:20 PM on the spot and remained at the spot when he left and he sent SI Mukesh Kumar to village Dhannaur on 27.12.2013. He is not aware the time of leaving of SI Mukesh from Police Station for village Dhannaur. Witness has further deposed that accused Anil Mehto and two constables also accompanied SI Mukesh to village Dhannaur. He is unable to tell the names of the above said two constables who accompanied SI Mukesh to village Dhannaur. The witness has testified that SI Mukesh Kumar himself St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 95 made departure entry but he is not aware the details of said entry. He has admitted that no public persons were made witness to the recovery of mobile etc. Witness has admitted that no public person in neighborhood had said anything about any quarrel between deceased and the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statements of witnesses Bindeshwhar Mehto, Baijnath, Krishan and Bechan Mehto of his own and no statement was given by them. Witness has admitted that the deceased was wearing all her ornaments in ears, hands and neck etc. He has also admitted that the accused persons had not made any efforts to run away after they saw them and apprehend them. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the accused persons has been falsely implicated in the present case or that he did not conduct a fair and proper investigation.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(100) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating material was put to them which they have denied. The accused Anil Mehto has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in connivance with the police. According to the accused, he was was married to the deceased in June, 2009 and after living for few days after marriage, she was taken back to her parental home and after one year gauna was conducted. The accused has further stated that she never used to do any household work and always used to insist that she should leave at her parental house. According to the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 96 accused, she fell ill at her home when she went to stay for 1015 days and they got her treated after bringing her to their home and his sister gave her blood and nobody from her family came to visit her inspite of the information. The accused has further stated that the deceased did not want to live with his parents i.e. her inlaws on which he took her to Sonipat where her brother, sister and sister's were living and there he lived in a separate rented room. He has also stated that he used to make food prior to going to work and after coming from work. According to the accused, they came to Delhi on the occasion of the Chhatpooja being first Chhatpooja which was celebrated by his family and she was welcomed in the family with gifts but she was not satisfied there. He has further stated that she did not want to live in her matrimonial home and he assured her that he would take her back to Sonipat separately but she kept on saying that she wanted to go to her parents. The accused has also stated that the allegations regarding any demand of dowry are totally false and incorrect and he and his family have been falsely implicated in this case.
According to the accused, the stridhan of his sister has also been taken away by them in their absence and they never harassed the deceased and the allegations against them are incorrect. He has stated that the deceased was having some mental problem also and sometimes used to urinate and excrete even in her clothes and he used to wash those clothes. The accused has also stated that he always tried to give her love and affection but she always felt homesick and wanted to live with her parents and none else. He has also stated that his father Rajender is a rickshaw puller by profession who St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 97 used to leave the house by 8:00 AM in the morning and return in late evening hours whereas his mother Smt. Kala Devi used to work as maid in the Kothies and also used to leave the house at 7:00 AM while he used to work in a chappal factory at Rampura and used to leave the house by 9:00 AM and return by late evening hours. He has further stated that at the time of the incident the deceased was alone at the house and none of his family member was present there. The accused has also stated that the ExPradhan Sh. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary is the close friend of the family of the deceased and has deposed falsely. According to the accused, the utensils, jewellery and furniture belonging to his family and his sister have also been taken away in addition to the articles belonging to the deceased by claiming the same to be stridhan of the deceased.
(101) The accused Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati have similarly stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
(102) However, no witness has been examined by the accused in their defence despite an opportunity being granted in this regard. FINDINGS:
(103) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 98
Identity of the accused:
(104) In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the same is not disputed. The accused Anil Mehto is the husband of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manju; the accused Rajender Mehto is the father in law of the deceased and the accused Kala Devi @ Kalawati is the mother in law of the deceased Manju Devi. The accused have not disputed their identity and even otherwise, they have been duly identified in the Court by the parental family of the deceased. This being the background, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Death within seven years of marriage:
(105) It is an admitted case of both the accused and the prosecution that the marriage of Manju Devi @ Manjula was solemnized with the accused Anil Mehto on 29.6.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is also an admitted case of the accused that the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula had died an unnatural death by hanging on 20.12.2013 at her matrimonial house i.e. House No. B46/38, Balmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi. Therefore, it stands established that Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula had expired within seven years of marriage precisely within Two Years, Five Months and Twenty days.
Medical Evidence:
(106) The case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2013 the deceased Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula Devi was found hanging with the ceiling fan in St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 99 her matrimonial home and had expired. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimony of Dr. Bhim Singh (PW16) and the postmortem report prepared by him.
(107) I have gone through the testimony of Dr. Bhim Singh (PW16) who has proved that on 23.12.2013 he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Smt. Manju Devi Mehto W/o Anil Mehto, aged about 23 years, female, sent by SDM Saraswati Vihar vide report Ex.PW16/A. He has proved that there was an incomplete reddish brown parchment like ligature mark obliquely placed around the neck, width varied from 2cm to 3cm, situated 5cm below chin in front, 3.5 cm below right ear lobule, 3.6 cm below left ear lobule, on back side merges with hairs, total length was 22cm, total circumference of neck was 30cm. Dr. Bhim Singh (PW16) has also proved that the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of Antemortem hanging possible via ligature (rope) tied around the neck and time since death around 76 hours.
(108) Dr. Bhim Singh has also proved the subsequent opinion regarding cause of death which is Ex.PW16/B. He has proved that after examining the ligature material i.e. rope and the video CD he had given his opinion that the death was due to suicidal hanging due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging. In his cross examination Dr. Bhim Singh (PW16) has explained that there were no other injuries on the body except the ligature mark and in his opinion the position of ligature mark shows that death was St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 100 suicidal in nature.
(109) This being the background, it stands established that the death of the deceased Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula was due to to asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging which was suicidal in nature.
Forensic Evidence:
(110) The case of the prosecution is that after the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula, the viscera of the deceased was preserved which was sent to FSL for expert opinion.
(111) Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary (PW39) has proved the Viscera Report prepared by Sh. Jitender Kumar which is Ex.PW39/A according to which on chemical microscopic, TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1A, Ex.1B and Ex.1C. (112) Further, as per the allegations the accused Anil Mehto used to show pornographic material to the deceased Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula and used to say that she cannot satisfy him sexually. After the arrest of the accused Anil Mehto and during investigations, the accused Anil Mehto took the police team to his jhuggi at Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi where he had pointed out at iron box lying in the room and got recovered one mobile phone make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 and disclosed that he was using the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 101 said phone which was having two SIMs i.e. one having no. 9582153218 with IMEI No. 911331250302608 whereas the IMEI number of other SIM was 911331250302616 (TATA DOCOMO). The said mobile phone was having a memory card of 4GB capacity and thereafter the aforesaid phone, memory card and SIM were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of AS which parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW29/E. The above said mobile set along with the memory card was then sent to the FSL for expert opinion.
(113) Dr. N.P. Waghmare (PW40) Assistant Director, FSL has proved that on 11.02.2014 one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of AS was received in the office of FSL and same was marked to him for examination and he tallied the seal with the sample seal and same was found intact. He has also proved that on opening the said parcel he found one mobile phone make Sansui Model No. SA32 bearing IMEI No. 911331250302608 and 911331250302616 which were marked as Ex."MP1" with two SIM cards among which one is Vodafone SIM card bearing No. 89911100180126208629 H2 marked as Ex."SC1" and another is TATA DoCoMo SIM card bearing No. 89910318410061915684, marked as Ex."SC2" and one 4 GB Micro SD Memory card marked as Ex."MC1" in the laboratory. He has proved that on examination the exhibit SIM cards marked as "SC1" and "SC2" were analyzed on Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) of Cell Brite's and the report of SIM cards marked as "SC1" and "SC2" are given in DVD marked as St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 102 Annexure "DVD1". The witness has also proved that the exhibit memory card marked "MC1" was forensically imaged using Validated Encase Software and on analysis of imaged storage data by authorized software and hardware tools, the retrieved data (images and videos) from Ex."MC1" are also given in DVD marked as annexure "DVD1". However, the facility to examine the exhibit Mobile phone marked as "MP1" is not available in the laboratory, hence, the data could not be retrieved. He has proved having prepared his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW40/A. (114) I have perused the report of the Forensic Expert and the DVD of the data prepared by the expert. The perusal of the DVD confirms that two pornographic video files were recovered from the memory card Ex.MC1 obtained from the mobile set got recovered by the accused Anil Mehto, details of which are as under:
1. chosi mall.mp4 with duration of 5:16 Minutes and created on 25.2.2012 at 10:00 AM.
2. 200_XVID.MP4 with duration of 9:45 Minutes and created on 22.10.2011 at 1:12 AM.
(115) The above forensic evidence in the form of FSL Report (Computer Forensic Unit) confirms the version of the oral version of the witnesses that the accused Anil Mehto used to show pornographic material to the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula and hence is confirmatory to the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses particularly the family members of the deceased and incriminates the accused particularly Anil Mehto. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 103 Electronic Evidence:
(116) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Anil Mehto was using mobile numbers 9582153218 and 9034941934 from which the deceased Manjula used to make calls to her family members and narrated them all the incidents of cruelty, harassment and dowry demands to them. Further, as per the allegations the accused Anil Mehto showed pornographic material to the deceased Manjula. During investigations, the accused Anil Mehto got recovered his mobile phone make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 which mobile phone was having a memory card of 4GB capacity, which mobile phone was then seized. In order to prove its case the prosecution is placing its reliance on the electronic record placed before this Court by the Nodal Officers.
(117) Sh. Israr Babu (PW33) Alternative Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9582153218 has been issued in the name of Satish Kumar Pathak S/o Sh. Dutt Pathak, R/o B46/146, T huts, B46, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi35 vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW33/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW33/B. He has also proved the call details from the period 8.11.2013 to 30.12.2013 which are Ex.PW33/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW33/D (running into 134 pages) and his certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW33/E. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 104 (118) Sh. Rajeev Ranjan (PW35) Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9034941934 has been issued in the name of Sh. Baidnath Mehto (brother of the deceased) S/o Sh. Vindeshwar Mehto, R/o Rampura Tole Chaubey, Town/ Village Ramapura, Anchal Sinhavada, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar, vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW35/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW35/B. He has proved the call details from the period 23.10.2013 to 03.03.2014 which are Ex.PW35/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart is Ex.PW35/D (running into one page) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW35/E. (119) Sh. Shishir Malhotra (PW36) Nodal Officer from Aircel Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 9540324254 has been issued in the name of Sh.
Chandeshwar S/o Sh. Subh Karan, R/o Jh. No. 86/138, near Railway Line, Lawrence Road, Delhi34 vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW36/A; copy of Driving Licence in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW36/B. He has proved the call details for 20.12.2013 which are Ex.PW36/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW36/D (running into one page) and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW36/E. He has further deposed that all the above said documents/ details has been produced through a coverage letter which is Ex.PW36/F. (120) Sh. Chander Shekhar (PW38) Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 9996594719 has been issued in the name of St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 105 Sh. Laxman S/o Sh. Khuh Lal Mehto, R/o 20 Mile Stone, Rai, Village Dadnalik, District Sonepat Haryana, vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW38/A and copy of ESIC Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW38/B. He has also proved the call details from the period 01.03.2013 to 03.03.2014 which are Ex.PW38/C (running into 45 pages) and cell ID chart which is Ex.PW38/D (running into one page). He has further proved that mobile No. 9931525323 has been issued in the name of Sh. Vindeshvar Mehto (father of the deceased) S/o Sh. Raghunandan Mehto, R/o 49, Rampura, Post Office Singhvara, Rampura, Darbhanga, Bihar vide Customer Application Form (CAF) copy of which is Ex.PW38/E and copy of Voter Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW38/F. He has proved the call details from the period 01.03.2013 to 03.03.2014 which are Ex.PW38/G (running into 80 pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW38/H (running into one page); certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW38/I. (121) I have gone through the call detail records of the above mobile phone numbers. In so far as the mobile phone used by Chandeshwar @ Rahul (PW17) is concerned, he has proved having made a call at 100 number from his mobile No. 9540324254 which calls are reflected in the Call Detail Records of his mobile phone. Even otherwise, the same is not disputed by the accused.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 106 (122) In so far as Satish Pathak (PW20) is concerned, though he has not supported the prosecution version to the effect that he had given his ID to the accused Anil Mehto to obtained the SIM No. 9582153218, yet the call detail records of the said mobile number for the period 8.11.2013 to 3012.2013 which are Ex.PW33/C confirm the user by Anil Mehto in as much as there are calls from this mobile No. to mobile No. 9931525323 issued in the name of Bindeshwar Mehto the father of the deceased. The deceased Manjula used to make calls to her parents from the mobile of her husband Anil Mehto and was not known to Satish Pathak. The accused Anil Mehto himself having got recovered the mobile set containing the SIM No. 9582153218 and an analysis of the call details of the above mobile number show that the various entries of mobile phone number of the father of the deceased i.e. mobile No. 9931525323 with the IMEI of the same set so recovered by the accused Anil Mehto, demolishes his defence that he was not the user of the mobile. This establishes the user of above mobile number by Anil Mehto. It stands established from the Call Detail Records Ex.PW33/C and Ex.PW35/C that two calls were made on 10.12.2013 (i.e. ten days before the incident) on the mobile No. 9931525323 (father of the deceased) details of which calls are as under:
Sr. Calling No. Called No. Date Time Duration
No.
1. 9931525323 9582153218 10.12.2014 06:04:04 PM 154 Seconds
2. 9931525323 9582153218 10.12.2014 06:32:34 PM 1667 Seconds
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 107
(123) The above electronic evidence conclusively establishes the calls
made by the deceased Manju to her parents about ten days before her death and confirms the oral testimonies of her family members to the extent that she had complained to them about the harassment and torture by her inlaws which she was unable to bear.
(124) Further, the Forensic Evidence in the form of data retrieved from the Memory Card recovered from the mobile set got recovered by the accused Anil Mehto was confirmed to be containing pornographic material. This lends independent credence to the testimonies of the family members of the deceased that the accused Anil Mehto used to show pornographic material to the deceased Manju and caused her mental psychological and physical distress. (125) This being the background, I hereby hold that the Electronic Evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case and lends authenticity to the version put forth by the family members of the deceased, which the defence has not been able to successfully demolish. Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(126) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula was solemnized with the accused Anil Mehto29.6.2011 as per the Hindu rites and customs after which she started residing at her matrimonial house in Bihar. Soon after her marriage she was harassed by her husband i.e. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 108 Anil Mehto, her father in law Rajender Mehto and mother in law Kala Devi @ Kalawati for demand of dowry. It is alleged that the accused Anil Mehto used to say that he would remarry with some other lady. Further, as per the allegations after the marriage the accused had demanded 12 Annas of gold and the accused Anil Mehto used to show her blue films and used to say that she cannot satisfy him sexually. After the marriage Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula remained with the accused Anil Mehto only for one months and thereafter she was driven out from her matrimonial house and she remained at her parental house and it was only with the intervention of the Panchayat that the accused Anil Mehto took Manjula with him to Delhi. There are allegations that the deceased was tortured, harassed and beaten for demand for dowry in the form of gold and on 20.12.2013 being aggrieved from the torture and harassment by the accused persons, Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula committed suicide by hanging herself with a rope. The SDM recorded the statement of Bindeshwar Mehto the father of the deceased on the basis of which the present case was registered.
(127) Before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 109 Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 110 (128) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(129) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
(130) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 111 circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
(131) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"....... Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies....."
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 112
(132) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. If the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him, demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them were expected to be given or ought to have been given in marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 113 marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
(133) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 114 (134) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
".... Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage....."
(135) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 115 correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure....."
(136) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 116 death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(137) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman.
(138) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 117 four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be. (139) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
(140) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 118 indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
(141) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(142) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 119 sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that doubt........
It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(143) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 120 (144) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul coldblooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....." (145) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 121 (146) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that in order to prove its case the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Krishan Mehto (PW15) Jija of the deceased;
Rampari (PW23) mother of the deceased; Jagtaran Devi (PW24) Bhabhi of the deceased; Shakuntala Devi (PW25) sister of the deceased; Bindeshwar Mehto (PW26) father of the deceased; Baijnath Mehto (PW32) and Bechan Mehto (PW37) brothers of the deceased.
(147) I have gone through the testimonies of the above witnesses. At the very Outset I may observe that the marriage of the deceased Manju Devi with the accused Anil Mehto is not disputed. The evidence on record confirms that after the marriage the same was got registered with the Village Panchayat as per the local laws of Bihar and since both the parties belong to below poverty line, therefore, after the registration the newly married couple was given Rs.5,000/ by the Panchayat to help them start their married life which aspect has been duly proved by Panchayat Heads i.e. Ms. Mamta Chaudhary (PW19) and Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary (PW21) and is not disputed by the accused. (148) Secondly it stands established from the testimonies of the family members of the deceased that soon after her marriage the deceased hardly stayed with the accused for one month where she started suffering harassment and was soon sent back to her parents house where she remained there for about five to six months.
(149) Thirdly it is apparent that at the time of the marriage, the accused had demanded 12 annas gold but the family of the deceased could arrange only St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 122 1½ Bhar, as a result of which after her marriage Manju Devi was subjected to harassment and torture and was also left at her parents house for about five to six months and the parents of the deceased were compelled to tell the accused to take her back to their house and not to harass and torture her since they had three katthas of land which would give to them.
(150) Fourthly it is also borne out from the evidence on record that various kinds of harassment and torture were inflicted upon the deceased. Not only was she verbally abused by her mother in law and father in law but on one occasion she was taken by her father in law i.e. accused Rajender to some unknown place in Bihar, and abandoned there. She was also taunted and called a 'Banjh' and it was publicly declared to her by her in laws that they would get Anil Mehto married to some other girl and in this regard photographs of various girls were also shown to her in order to put her to a psychological and mental distress.
(151) Fifthly it is further apparent from the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the accused Kala Devi mother in law at time, even pulled her hairs and dragged her while thrashing her publicly. It is further apparent from the crossexamination of the accused that as per their own suggestion the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula had become a physical wreck and on many occasions she used to urinate and excrete in her clothes itself (as per the defence version and suggested by them in the crossexamination) and it is this which confirms the extent of psychological trauma which the deceased was facing at the hands of the accused.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 123 (152) Sixthly it is also borne out from the evidence on record that the mother in law of the deceased i.e. accused Kala Devi and husband of the deceased i.e. Anil Mehto used to tell her either to get money from her parents or to work in the Kothies and earn for them. It has been established that ten days before her death Manju Devi made telephonic calls to her parents informing them about this harassment she was facing at the hands of her in laws which call has been confirmed from the Electronic Evidence on record (being discussed separately).
(153) Seventhly the evidence on record is also suggestive of the fact that Anil Mehto used to show her pornographic material, which material has been found from his mobile phone (an aspect which stands confirmed from the forensic evidence on record) after which he used to taunt her saying she was dirty ".....too kharab hai ...." and that she could not satisfy his demands and urges thereby causing her extreme emotional and psychological distress. (154) Lastly it also stands established that Manju Devi had been left at her matrimonial house where she stayed for one year during which period the accused never bothered to take her back nor inquired about her wellbeing and it was then that a complaint regarding dowry harassment and also physical harassment, was made by the family of the deceased to the Local Panchayat where the marriage of the deceased with accused Anil Mehto had been earlier registered as per the local laws at Bihar. The Panchayat Heads namely Ms. Mamta Chaudhary (PW19) and Sudhir Chaudhary (PW21) have appeared before this Court and duly proved that they had received the oral complaints St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 124 from the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula and her parents regarding harassment and torture by the accused due to demand for dowry and also because she was being abandoned, that they had to call the accused and it was with their intervention and on the promise/ assurance given by the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati that they would not cause further harassment to the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula that they sent Manju Devi with the accused but soon thereafter they came to know that Manju Devi had committed suicide.
(155) Specific instances of harassment, cruelty, torture and dowry demand have been elaborated by the family members of the deceased which for the sake of convenience, I am putting in a tabulated form. Coming first to the testimonies of Smt. Rampari Devi (PW23) mother of the deceased, Smt. Shakuntala Devi (PW25) sister of the deceased and Bindeshwar Mehto (PW26) father of the deceased, the specific allegations against the accused on which they have corroborated each other are being put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Rampari Devi Shakuntala Devi Bindeshwar Mehto No. (PW23)Mother of the (PW25) - Sister of the (PW26)Father of the deceased deceased deceased
1. ➢ That Manjula Devi ➢ That the marriage of ➢ That his daughter @ Manju Devi was her sister Manjula Manjula was married married with Anil Devi @ Manju Devi with Anil Mehto on Mehto on was solemnized with 29.06.2011.
29.06.2011 Anil Mehto on
according to Hindu 29.06.2011 and her
rites and ceremonies parents had given
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 125
and they had given sufficient dowry at the
sufficient dowry at time of marriage
the time of marriage according to their
according to their capacity.
capacity.
2. ➢ That soon after the ➢ That soon after the ➢ That soon after the marriage the marriage the accused marriage his daughter accused Anil Mehto Anil Mehto and his was beaten by Anil and his parents parents started Mehto and his mother started harassing harassing and beating and father.
and beating Manjula Manjula Devi
Devi.
3. ➢ That mother in law ➢ That it was mother in ➢ That soon after the of Manjula Devi was law of Manjula Devi marriage there were harassing her namely Kala Devi quarrel between daughter and the who started harassing husband and wife on accused Anil Mehto her and the accused the issue that the used to say to her Anil Mehto used to mother of accused daughter that he say to Manjula Devi Anil Mehto exhorted would remarry with that he would re Anil Mehto by saying some other lady and marry with some other that "vah uski (Anil) also used to show lady and also used to doosri shaadi kar photograph of a lady show the photograph degi aur Manju usko to her daughter of a lady to Manjula pasand nahi thee"
Manjula Devi Devi.
4. ➢ That Anil Mehto ➢ That Anil Mehto also Witness is silent on this used to say to her used to say to aspect.
daughter that "tere Manjula that "......
se man bhar gaya too mujhe pasand
hai mai doosri nahin hai aur main
shaadi karoonga" kisi aur se shaadi
karna chahta
hoon..."
5. ➢ That Manju Devi ➢ That Manjula Devi ➢ That the mother in law was brutally beaten was brutally beaten of Manjula used to St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 126 and harassed and and harassed and was beat her.
was taunted that taunted that "..... too
"too kangley ke kangley ke ghar se
ghar se ayee" ayee hai....."
6. ➢ That for two years Witness is silent on this ➢ That a Panchayat was she had been aspect. held and after the reporting the matter intervention of the to the Panchayat panchayat people, after which the Anil Mehto alongwith deceased was sent his son Bechan Mehto back to her were sent to Rai, Distt.
matrimonial home Sonepat to live there
"... do saal tak
maine larki ko
Panchayat kar kar
ke sasural bheja..."
7. ➢ That on the occasion ➢ That on the occasion Witness is silent on this of Chhat Pooja, her of Chhat Pooja, her aspect.
son Bechan Mehto brother Bechan Mehto
had come to their had come to their
native village and native village and
found her daughter found her sister
helpless and alone Manjula Devi helpless
in Delhi. and alone in Delhi.
8. ➢ That during the time ➢ That during the time ➢ That all the three of marriage the of marriage the accused persons had accused had accused had demanded 12 annas demanded 12 annas demanded 12 annas gold to which they had gold where they had gold whereas her given 1½ bhar already given 1½ parents had given 1½ (weight) gold to them bhar. bhar . and for the remaining gold they had given assurance to them that after selling their land they would give St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 127 them the gold i.e. 12 annas.
9. ➢ That they expressed ➢ That her parents Witness is silent on this their inability to give expressed their aspect.
the demanded gold inability to give the
and told the accused demanded gold and
that they have some told the accused that
land i.e. three they had some land
katthas which they i.e. three katthas
can give to them but which they could give
they should not to them or after
harass her selling the said land
daughter. they would give the
aforesaid 12 annas
gold to them, but they
should not harass
Manjula Devi
10. ➢ That the mother of ➢ That it was Kala Devi, ➢ That it was mother of accused Anil Mehto mother in law of Anil Mehto who exhorted him (Anil Manjula Devi who exhorted Anil Mehto Mehto) after which used to exhort Anil and used to say "Isko Anil Mehto used to Mehto after which (Manjula) ko chhor beat her daughter. accused Anil Mehto do, hum tumhara used to beat and doori shadi kar harass Manjula Devi. denge"
11. ➢ That her daughter ➢ That Anil Mehto used Witness is silent on this used to tell her that to show blue films aspect.
Anil Mehto used to (pornographic
show the blue films material) to Manjula
(pornographic and used to say that
material) to her and "tum kharab ho, tum
used to say that "she mujhe achchi nahi
cannot satisfy him lagti "
sexually"
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 128
12. ➢ That the mother in ➢ That the mother in law ➢ That mother in law of law of Manju used of her sister Manjula Manjula used to to beat her by used to beat her by abuse and beat by holding her hair and holding her hair and holding her hairs.
used to say her to used to tell her to ➢ That his wife advised
bring money by bring money by doing Manjula to wait for
doing work in the work in the other sometime and they
other houses or houses or from their would make the
from their family. family. accused to understand
"Rakhega ya nahin
rakhega, hum Bihar
se ayenge to police ko
khabar kar denge",
Anil Mehto kehta
thaa ki bahar jakar
kothiyon mein kaam
karo, uski saas bhi
yahi kehti thee ki
kama kar lao.
13. ➢ That after the ➢ That after the ➢ That after the
marriage her marriage, her sister marriage, his
daughter remained Manjula remained daughter remained in
with Anil Mehto only with Anil Mehto only her matrimonial house
for one month after for one month after for about one month
which she was which she was driven only and thereafter
driven out from her out from her she remained in their
matrimonial house matrimonial house house for about five to
and thereafter she and thereafter six months.
remained with them Manjula remained
for about five to six with her parents for
months. about five to six
months.
14. ➢ That on the ➢ That on the ➢ That it was only after
intervention of intervention of they put pressure on
respectable persons, persons of the village, Anil Mehto that he
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 129
accused Anil Mehto accused Anil Mehto took his daughter and
took her daughter took her sister kept for about one
and kept her only for Manjula and kept her month in the village
about one month only for about one and thereafter he
and thereafter he month after which he brought her in Delhi.
brought her brought her at Delhi.
daughter at Delhi.
15. ➢ That Manjula Devi ➢ That Manjula Devi ➢ That on arrival at was beaten, tortured was beaten, tortured Delhi his daughter in Delhi also for in Delhi also for Manjula was given demand of gold and demand of gold. beatings.
whenever her ➢ That the accused Anil
daughter used to Mehto used to beat
inform her on Manjula and one day
phone, they advised his daughter Manjula
her not to be pained made a telephonic call
and everything to her mother and told
would be normal her that "Anil Mehto
due to passage of aur uske maatapita
time. milkar peetatay
(maarte) hai
16. ➢ That once after ➢ That after about two ➢ That once Rajender keeping Manjula for to three months Mehto took his about two to three accused Rajender took daughter somewhere months accused Manjula to Bihar and in Darbhanga and left Rajender took her left her at some her at some unknown daughter to Bihar unknown place in place from where, and left her at some Darbhanga and from someone brought his unknown place in there someone had daughter to his house.
Darbhanga and brought Manjula to
from there someone their house.
had brought her
daughter to her
house.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 130
17. ➢ That Manjula had ➢ That her sister ➢ That Rajender Mehto informed her that Manjula used to tell used to beat Manjula her father in law her that her father in after consuming Rajender used to law Rajender used to liquor and did not abuse her after abuse her after take the food cooked taking liquor and taking liquor and did by Manjula and used did not take the not take the food to throw the same.
food prepared by prepared by Manjula
Manjula Devi and Devi and used to
used to throw it. throw it.
18. ➢ That her daughter ➢ That Manjula ➢ That thereafter his
remained with them remained with her daughter remained at
for about one year parents for about one his house for about
and during this year and during this one year
period neither her period neither her
husband nor her husband nor her
parents in law came parents in law came
or asked about her or asked about her
wellbeing wellbeing.
19. ➢ That after about one ➢ That a Panchayat was ➢ That thereafter the year the Panchayat held in the village and Panchayat was held in was held and with the accused persons the village and on the the intervention of were suitably advised intervention of Sudhir Sudhir Chaudhary, and made to Mukhiya the accused the head of understand after Anil Mehto was Panchayat, the which Anil Mehto advised not to harass accused were undertook and gave Manjula to which Anil suitably advised and an assurance and Mehto had assured the made to understand promised that he Panchayat that he after which the would not harass her would not repeat such accused undertook sister Manjula. incident in future and and gave an they sent their assurance/ promised daughter with Anil that he would not Mehto and he brought harass her daughter. her to Delhi.
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 131
20. ➢ That the accused ➢ That thereafter Witness is silent on this had brought her accused brought aspect.
daughter at Delhi Manjula Delhi and
and from Delhi he from Delhi he took her
took her to Sonepat to Sonepat where they
and started living started living with his
with her son Bechan brother Bechan
Mehto at Sonepat. Mehto.
21. ➢ That thereafter on ➢ That on the occasion ➢ That on the occasion the occasion of of Chhat Pooja, Anil of Chhat Pooja, his Chhat Pooja, Anil brought Manjula to son in law Anil Mehto brought her Delhi and started had brought his daughter to Delhi living with her parents daughter Manjula to and started living but the accused Anil Delhi and started with her parents and Mehto and his parents living with his parents the accused Anil again started and thereafter the Mehto and his harassing Manjula as accused Anil Mehto, parents again usual. his father and mother started harassing again started torturing her daughter as her for the demand of usual. gold.
22. ➢ That about ten days ➢ That about ten days ➢ That about ten days prior to the prior to the incident, prior to the incident incident, Manjula Manjula made a Manjula made a made a call to her telephonic call to her telephone call to her and weepingly mother weepingly and mother and weepingly narrated that her informed that her and informed her husband and her husband and her mother that she was parents in law were parents in law were brutally beaten and harassing her (call harassing her. Anil Mehto had made is confirmed by the preparation for re electronic record). marriage.
23. ➢ That Manjula had ➢ That Manjula had ➢ That Manjula has committed suicide committed suicide committed suicide on being aggrieved by being aggrieved from account of harassment St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 132 the torture, the torture, and beating given to harassment from the harassment from the her by the accused side of her husband, side of her husband, Anil Mehto, Rajender her father in law her father in law and and Kalawati Devi.
and mother in law. mother in law. (156) Now coming to the testimonies and the specific allegations of
harassment, demand and torture made by Baijnath Mehto (PW32) and Bechan Mehto (PW37) the brothers of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula, which are similarly being put in a tabulated form, for the sake of convenience and appreciation as under:
Sr. Bainath Mehto (PW32) - Brother Bechan Mehto (PW37)Brother of the No. of the deceased deceased
1. ➢ That his sister Manju Devi @ ➢ That his sister Manju Devi who was Manjula Devi was married with married with Sh. Anil Mehto on accused Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 in village Rampura, 29.06.2011 according to Hindu Bihar and after the marriage his rites and ceremonies and they sister remained with the accused had given the sufficient dowry Anil Mehto for one month in his articles at the time of marriage. village.
2. ➢ That his sister used to inform ➢ That during this period his sister them that soon after the was beaten by accused Anil Mehto marriage, she was being mercilessly after which she was harassed, abused and beaten by taken by father and mother of the accused Anil Mehto, his accused Anil Mehto at Village. father Rajender Mehto and his mother Smt. Kala Devi.
3. ➢ That Smt. Kala Devi used to Witness is silent on this aspect.
exhort and pressurize accused Anil Mehto for a second St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 133 marriage by saying that ".... ye to kangle ke ghar se ayee hai....."
4. ➢ That the accused used to address Witness is silent on this aspect.
his sister as "baanjh" and also harass her by saying that ".... too achchi nahi hai....".
5. ➢ That Anil Mehto used to show ➢ That the accused Anil Mehto used to dirty pictures to his sister and show the obscene films to Manju used to say that "..... yeh larki Devi and used to taunt her by saying achchi hai, too kharab hai....." that "too kharab hai" and Anil Mehto used to talk dirty with her "aur who gandi gandi batein karta tha"
6. ➢ That accused Kala Devi used to Witness is silent on this aspect.
beat his sister by holding her hairs.
7. ➢ That his sister stayed in her Witness is silent on this aspect.
matrimonial house only for about one month and thereafter she came back to their house and remained with them for about five to six months.
8. ➢ That the accused Anil Mehto took ➢ That his sister had informed him that Manjula to Rai, Sonepat, her mother in law and father in law Haryana where they stayed for used to abuse and beat her. about five to six months but during this period the accused gave beatings to his sister and thereafter Anil Mehto took his sister to jhuggi Lawrence Road and started living with his parents.
9. ➢ That one one occasion accused ➢ That the father in law of his sister Rajender took Manjula to some namely Sh. Rajender Mehto took his St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 134 unknown place and left her there sister to some unknown place and and some person known to his left her at Bithori Chowk which sister Manjula met her there and place falls while going to Rampura she took his help after which she form Darbhanga and that place was could reach their house and not known to his sister and some started living with them. person known to his sister met Manjula and she took his help and reached at their residence and at that time she was weeping and was having marks of beating on her back.
10. ➢ That a Panchayat was held at ➢ That a Panchayat was held in the their village in which with the village in which Anil Mehto had intervention of the respectable promised that he would not beat his persons of the village the accused sister and thereafter Anil Mehto took Anil Mehto had promised that he his sister to his village and the would keep his sister properly accused kept his sister for about only after which they sent their 1012 days and thereafter he brought sister Manju with them. his sister at their residence at Rampura, Village.
➢ That the accused Anil Mehto informed them that he would keep his sister separately from his family members and thereafter he shifted at his residence at Rai, Sonepat where he (witness) managed the accommodation and all the necessary facilities so that they may live peacefully and thereafter he went to his village on the occasion of Deepawali.
➢ That in his absence the accused started making contact and visit to his parents at Lawrence Road jhuggies and the mother of accused Anil Mehto then pressurized and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 135 exhorted Anil Mehto to marry some other girl.
11. ➢ That on the occasion of Chhat ➢ That thereafter accused Anil Mehto Pooja, the accused Anil Mehto again shifted back to Lawrence Road took his sister and started living despite opposition from his sister as with her at his residence at she was apprehending harassment in Lawrence Road Jhuggi with his the hands of the accused (woh kehti parents and again started thee ki Anil Mehto bahut pareshan beating his sister karega) and they stayed for about five to ten days at Jhuggies at Lawrence Road.
12. ➢ That the accused Anil Mehto and ➢ That the mother in law of his sister his parents had demanded 1.5 used to demand 12 Anna gold bhar sona on which which they (7.5gms. Gold) from his sister to gave assurance that they would which he had told Anil Mehto and give the said gold after selling his mother that he would give the their land in the village. gold after selling his land which is situated in the village itself.
13. ➢ That his mother used to tell him ➢ That about ten days prior to the about the harassment and incident his sister made a telephone beating being given to his sister call to him while he was in his by the accused persons and his village Rampura and she informed brother Bechan Mehto had him that accused Anil Mehto, his informed him that the accused father and mother were harassing persons had killed his sister. her and taunting her as she could not bear a child and also stated that she did not know how to work (woh kehti thee ki ye sab log mujhe pareshan karte hain aur tane marte hein ki tumhe bachcha nahin hua, aur kahte then ki mujhe ghar chalana hai, mujhe ek achchi larki ki zaroorat hai).
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 136 (157) Coming now to the testimonies of Krishan Mehto (PW15) the Jija of the deceased and Jagtaran Devi (PW24) Bhabhi of the deceased, the specific allegations made by them against the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender and Kala Devi are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Jagtaran Devi (PW24) Bhabhi of Krishan Mehto (PW15) - Jija of the No. the deceased deceased
1. ➢ That Manjula Devi @ Manju ➢ That deceased was married with Devi was married with Anil Anil Mehto according to Hindu rites Mehto in the month of June 2011 and ceremonies on 29.06.2011 and according to Hindu rites and his father in law namely Bindeshwar ceremonies and her parents in Mehto had given sufficient dowry in law had given sufficient dowry at the marriage of Manju Devi @ the time of marriage according to Manjula.
their capacity
2. ➢ That soon after the marriage the ➢ That soon after the marriage the accused Anil Mehto and his parents in law of Manju Devi @ parents started harassing and Manjula started demanding more beating Manjula Devi dowry and their attitude towards Manjula was not good and her husband Anil Mehto, her mother in law, her father in law Rajender Mehto started beating and abusing Manju Devi.
3. ➢ That the accused Kala Devi ➢ That that the accused were taunting started harassing her Nanad Manju Devi by saying "Banjh" and Manjula Devi and the accused "Mental" and his father in law and Anil Mehto used to say to mother in law informed him that the Manjula Devi that he would re parents in law of Manju Devi were marry with some other lady. planning to remarry their son Anil ➢ That Anil Mehto also used to Mehto.
show the photograph of a lady to (Note: I may observe that witness St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 137 Manjula Devi and Anil Mehto has not said anything on the aspect also used to say to Manjula that of accused Anil showing "too mujhe pasand nahin hai pornographic material to the aur main kisi aur se shaadi karna deceased and taunting her and chahta hoon". naturally so because he is the ➢ That her nanad Manjula Devi brother in law/ Jija of the deceased was brutally beaten and harassed and the deceased was not expected and was taunted that "too to be as communicative with him.) kangley ke ghar se ayee hai".
4. ➢ That during the time of marriage ➢ Witness has not deposed on this the accused had demanded 12 aspect.
annas gold whereas her inlaws had already given 1½ bhar.
➢ That her inlaws expressed their inability to give the demanded gold and told the accused that they had some land i.e. three katthas which they could give to them but they should not harass Manjula Devi.
5. ➢ That it was Kala Devi, mother in ➢ Witness has not deposed on this law of Manjula Devi who used to aspect.
exhort Anil Mehto and thereafter accused Anil Mehto used to beat and harass Manjula Devi.
6. ➢ That the mother in law of her ➢ Witness has not deposed on this nanad Manjula used to beat her aspect.
by holding her hair and used to tell her to bring money by doing work in the other houses or from their family.
7. ➢ That after the marriage her ➢ Witness has not deposed on this nanad Manjula remained with aspect.
Anil Mehto only for one month thereafter she was driven out St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 138 from her matrimonial house and thereafter Manjula remained with her parents for about five to six months.
8. ➢ That on the intervention of ➢ Witness has not deposed on this respectable persons accused Anil aspect.
Mehto took her nanad Manjula and kept her only for about one month and thereafter he brought her at Delhi and Manjula Devi was beaten, tortured in Delhi also for the demand of gold.
9. ➢ That once after keeping her ➢ That the father in law of Manju Devi nanad Manjula for about two to namely Rajender Mehto had left her three months accused Rajender at some unknown place.
took Manjula to Bihar and left her at some unknown place in Darbhanga and from there someone had brought Manjula to their house.
10. ➢ That her father in law Rajender ➢ Witness has not deposed on this used to abuse her after taking aspect.
liquor and her father in law Rajender did not take the food prepared by Manjula Devi and used to throw it.
11. ➢ That her nanad Manjula ➢ Witness has not deposed on this remained with her parents for aspect.
about one year and during this period neither her husband nor her parents in law came or asked about her wellbeing.
12. ➢ That after about one year ➢ That thereafter on the intervention Panchayat was held and with the of Gram Pradhan, a compromise intervention of Sh. Sudhir ji, the had taken place between both the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 139 accused persons were suitably families wherein the father in law advised and made to understand namely Rajender Mehto had given after which Anil Mehto undertook promise not to harassing Manju and gave an assurance and Devi again after which Manju Devi promised that he would not was sent back to her matrimonial harass her nanad Manjula after house and Anil Mehto had stayed for which he had brought Manjula to sometime with her wife Manju Devi. Delhi.
13. ➢ Taht on the occasion of Chhat ➢ That on the occasion of Chhat Pooja Pooja, Anil brought Manjula to Anil Mehto brought Manju Devi at Delhi and started living with her Sonepat and thereafter he brought parents and the accused Anil Manju Devi at Delhi but his Mehto and his parents again behaviour towards Manju Devi started harassing her nanand as became same and he started usual. taunting her and Manju Devi had narrated the entire incident to her parents.
14. ➢ That about ten days prior to this ➢ Witness has not deposed on this incident, Manjula made a aspect.
telephonic call when she weepingly narrated that her husband and her parents in law were harassing her.
15. ➢ That Manjula Devi had ➢ Witness has not deposed on this committed suicide after being aspect.
aggrieved from the torture, harassment from the side of her husband, her father in law and mother in law (158) It is evident from the aforesaid that all the family members of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula have corroborated each other on all material particulars. They are specific in so far as the aspects of harassment and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 140 demand of dowry are concerned and there are no material contradictions in their testimonies.
(159) I may observe that after the arrest of the accused Anil Mehto, pursuant to his disclosure statement had got recovered one mobile phone make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 which was having two SIMs, one of was 9582153218 and the IMEI number of the said phone was 911331250302608 whereas the IMEI number of other SIM was 911331250302616 (TATA DOCOMO). The said mobile phone was having a memory card of 4GB capacity and the aforesaid phone and the memory card and SIM were then seized vide memo Ex.PW29/E. As per the forensic evidence in the form of FSL Report (Computer Forensic Unit) the said memory card was containing pornographic material. It is this which confirms the version of the prosecution witnesses that the accused Anil Mehto used to show Porn Movies/ material to the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula and caused her mental and psychological distress while taunting her for her failure to satisfy him. (160) Further, as per the Electronic Evidence on record conclusively establishes that the deceased Manju used to converse with her parents for long durations and lends credence to the testimonies of the family members of the deceased to the effect that ten days before the incident, the deceased Manju made telephonic calls to her parents and informed them about the harassment and torture being inflicted to her by the accused.
(161) I may observe that the parental family of the deceased belong to extremely poor strata of the society and are virtually hand to mouth and both St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 141 the families are living below the poverty line (as proved by the Panchayat Heads and admitted by both parties). Specific allegations of torture, harassment, cruelty and dowry demands have been made against the accused persons. It has been alleged that the accused Anil Mehto had beaten Smt. Manju Devi, showed her pornographic material and used to tell her that she cannot satisfy him sexually and told that he would remarry with some other lady. In so far as the mother in law Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati is concerned, it is alleged that she used to thrash the deceased by pulling her hairs, raised a demand of gold from the parents of the deceased, instigated Anil Mehto to physically torture Manju and used to frequently tell her that she would remarry Anil Mehto. Specific allegations have been made against the father in law Rajender Mehto of having abandoned Manju at some unknown place, never used to take food from her hand, raised a demand of gold and of having abused the deceased after taking liquor. All the family members of the deceased i.e. Krishan Mehto (PW15) Jija of the deceased; Rampari (PW23) mother of the deceased; Jagtaran Devi (PW24) Bhabhi of the deceased; Shakuntala Devi (PW25) sister of the deceased; Bindeshwar Mehto (PW26) father of the deceased; Baijnath Mehto (PW32) and Bechan Mehto (PW37) brothers of the deceased have corroborated each other on material particulars. (162) I may observe that the testimonies of the family members of the deceased finds an independent confirmation from the testimonies of the Panchayat Heads i.e. Ms. Mamta Chaudhary (PW19) and Sudhir Chaudhary (PW21) who have both confirms that they have received an oral information St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 142 regarding harassment being caused to Manju Devi. In fact, Ms. Mamta Chaudhary (PW19) has specifically stated that it was the deceased Manju Devi who herself had come to her and told her about the Dowry Demand and physical harassment being caused to her by her in laws. On the basis of this oral information given by the deceased to the Panchayat Head that a Panchayat was called and the accused were also called in the Panchayat. This independently confirms the allegations of the dowry demand. Sudhir Chaudhary (PW21) has also confirmed the calling of the Panchayat and the fact that it was on account of Dowry Demand as well as other harassment being caused to her as the accused were not ready and willing to take her to Delhi with them. Both these witnesses i.e. Ms. Mamta Chaudhary (PW19) and Sudhir Chaudhary (PW21) who have no interest with either of the parties and are respective members of the Panchayat, confirm the testimonies of the family members of the deceased to the extent that the deceased Manju was being harassed and tortured by her inlaws on account of Dowry Demand. (163) I may further observe that the marriage between the deceased Manju Devi and Anil Mehto lasted for Two Years, Five Months and Twenty days out of which most of the time the deceased was abandoned by the accused and she remained with her matrimonial family. There were times that the family of the deceased had even asked the accused to leave her so that they could marry her somewhere else but repeatedly assurances were given by the accused that they would not repeat their behaviour and it was on their assurances that with the intervention of Panchayat that the deceased was sent St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 143 back to Delhi.
(164) Further, the information to the PCR is not disputed by the accused. Chandeshwar @ Rahul (PW17) has duly proved having made a Call to PCR from his mobile No. 9540324254, which aspect has been duly proved by W/Ct. Jaya Yadav (PW14) the CPCR Official who has proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW14/A. Further, the inquest proceedings have been duly proved by the SDM Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra (PW34) which proceedings the accused have not been able to controvert. The manner of the arrest of the accused is not disputed and the accused only dispute their disclosure statements which are even otherwise not admissible in evidence except to the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Anil Mehto to the extent of recovery of mobile phone which recovery stands established. (165) In view of my above discussion, I observe that all the family members of the deceased have proved the various incidents and there are little contradictions except on few points i.e. time of the incident and there is a slight difference in the words attributed, which I may hold are immaterial and are not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
(166) In so far as the provisions of Section 498A Indian Penal Code is concerned, I may observe that the aspect of verbal and physical abuse and torture to the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula at the hands of the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati on account of Dowry Demand stands established. It also stands established that the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula orally reported the matter regarding the torture, harassment St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 144 and dowry demands by the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati to the Local Panchayat where the marriage of the deceased Manju with the accused Anil Mehto was registered. It further stands established that pursuant to the same the Panchayat Heads i.e. Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary and Ms. Mamta Chaudhary summoned the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati where the accused had undertaken not to beat or harass the deceased. The attitude and conduct of the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati in causing mental and physical cruelty/ harassment to the deceased is squarely covered under Explanation (a) of Section 498A Indian Penal Code which provides that for the purposes of Section 498A IPC 'Cruelty' means ".....any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman....". Hence in this background I hereby hold the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati are liable for the offence Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
(167) Further, I hereby hold that there is a proximity and live link between the effect of harassment and cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula, which was sufficient to destroy the mental equilibrium of the deceased. The harassment caused to the deceased was not only on account of Demand for Dowry but also the mental and physical torture caused to her. Therefore, I hold the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati are liable for the offence St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 145 under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(168) 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, 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.
(169) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. The identity of the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 146 accused stands established the accused Anil Mehto is the husband of the deceased Manju Devi; the accused Rajender Mehto is the father in law and the accused Kala Devi @ Kalawati is the mother in law of the deceased. From the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the family members of the deceased and the members of the panchayat the following aspects stand established:
➢ That Manjula Devi @ Manju Devi was married with Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and the parents had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage according to their capacity (proved by Krishan Mehto PW15, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto - PW37).
➢ That soon after the marriage the accused Anil Mehto and his parents i.e. accused Rajender and Kala Devi started harassing and beating Manjula Devi (proved by Krishan Mehto PW15, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37) ➢ That mother in law of Manjula Devi was harassing Manju Devi and the accused Anil Mehto used to tell her that he would remarry with some other lady by saying "...."tere se man bhar gaya hai mai doosri shaadi karoonga...." and also used to show photographs of some lady to her (proved by Krishan Mehto PW15, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 147 Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That Manju Devi was brutally beaten and harassed and was taunted that "too kangley ke ghar se ayee" (proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That during the time of marriage the accused had demanded 12 annas gold whereas the parents of the deceased had already given 1½ bhar (proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37) ➢ That the family of the deceased expressed their inability to give the demanded gold and told the accused that they have some land i.e. three katthas which they promised to give them but they should not harass the deceased (proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That the mother of accused Anil Mehto used to exhort Anil Mehto after which Anil Mehto used to beat Manju (proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That Anil Mehto used to show pornographic material to Manju Devi @ Manjula and used to taunt her, saying that "she cannot satisfy him sexually" (proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24 and St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 148 Shakuntala Devi - PW25).
➢ That the mother in law of Manju used to beat her by holding her hair and dragging her and asked her to bring money by doing work in the other houses or from their family (proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That after the marriage Manju Devi @ Manjula remained with Anil Mehto only for one month after which she was driven out from her matrimonial house and thereafter she remained with her parents for about five to six months (Proved by Krishan Mehto PW15, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37). ➢ That on the intervention of respectable persons, accused Anil Mehto took Manjula and kept her only for about one month and thereafter he brought her to Delhi (Proved by Krishan Mehto PW15, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37). ➢ That Manjula Devi was beaten, tortured in Delhi also for demand of gold and whenever Manju Devi used to inform her parents on phone, they assured that everything would be normal due to passage of time (Proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi
- PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 149 ➢ That once after keeping Manjula for about two to three months accused Rajender took Manjula to Bihar and left her at some unknown place in Darbhanga and from there someone who incidentally knew Manju brought her to her parents house and left her there (Proved by Krishan MehtoPW15, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That Rajender used to abuse Manjula after taking liquor and did not take the food prepared by Manjula Devi and used to throw it (Proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That Manjula remained with her parents for about one year and during this period neither her husband nor her parents in law came or asked about her wellbeing (Proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That after about one year of the marriage, Manju Devi @ Manjula and her parents made a complaint to the local Panchayat regarding Torture, Harassment, Dowry Demands and other aspects on which the Panchayat Heads i.e. Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary and Ms. Mamta Chaudhary summoned the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati and heard them and thereafter on the assurance and promise of the accused St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 150 that they would not harass the deceased Manju Devi, she was sent back with them (Proved by Krishan Mehto PW15, Ms. Mamta Chaudhary - PW19, Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary - PW21, Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi
- PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalwati had brought Manju Devi at Delhi and from Delhi the accused Anil Mehto took her to Sonepat and started living with Bechan Mehto (brother of the deceased) at Sonepat where they stayed hardly for about less than one month (Proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto PW37).
➢ That thereafter on the occasion of Chhat Pooja, Anil brought Manjula to Delhi and started living with his parents i.e. accused Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalwati and thereafter the accused Anil Mehto and his parents again started harassing and taunting Manjula (Proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto
- PW37).
➢ That about ten days prior to the incident Manjula made a call to her mother and weepingly narrated that her husband and her parents in law were harassing and harassing her and it had become unbearable (Proved by Rampari - PW23, Jagtaran Devi - PW24, Shakuntala Devi - PW25, St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 151 Bindeshwar Mehto - PW26, Baijnath Mehto PW32 and Bechan Mehto
- PW37 and as confirmed by Electronic Record i.e. Call Detail Records Ex.PW33/C and Ex.PW35/C).
➢ That on 20.12.2013 Smt. Manju @ Manjula committed suicide at her matrimonial home i.e. B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi by hanging herself (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That Chandeshwar @ Rahul a resident of the area made a call to the PCR on 100 number from his mobile phone bearing no. 9540324254 pursuant to which the local police reached the spot (proved by Chandeshwar @ Rahul - PW17 and not disputed by the accused) . ➢ That information was also sent to the SDM Mani Bhushan Malhotra and the Crime Team was called to the spot who inspected the spot of incident and took photographs of the same (proved by ASI Shashi - PW30, ASI Rajbir Singh - PW5, Ct. Subhash - PW5 and SDM Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra PW34).
➢ That on 23.12.2013 the parents of the deceased reached Delhi and the statement of Bindeshwar Mehto was recorded by the SDM on the basis of which the present case was registered (proved by ASI Shashi - PW30 and SDM Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra PW34).
➢ That during investigations the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi were arrested (not disputed by the accused). ➢ That pursuant to his supplementary disclosure statement accused Anil Mehto took the police team to his jhuggi, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 152 Road, Delhi where he had pointed out at an iron box lying in the room and got recovered one mobile phone make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 and IMEI Nos. 911331250302608 and 911331250302616 and disclosed that he was using the said phone which was having two SIMs one of which was bearing No.9582153218 (SIM recovered from the mobile set itself and proceedings proved by Ct. Sandeep - PW29 and Inspector Anil Sharma PW41).
➢ That the said mobile phone was having a memory card of 4GB capacity and thereafter the mobile phone set, memory card and SIM were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of AS which parcel was taken into possession which mobile phone on forensic examination has been found to be containing pornographic material (proved by Ct. Sandeep - PW29 and Inspector Anil Sharma PW41).
(170) The Medical Evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula was due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging which was suicidal in nature. Further, the Forensic Evidence on record in the form of FSL Report (Computer Forensic Unit) confirms the oral versions of the witnesses that the accused Anil Mehto used to show pornographic material to the deceased Manju @ Manjula and is confirmatory to the prosecution case and incriminates the accused particularly Anil Mehto. The electronic evidence on record is also compatible to the prosecution version and confirms the call made by Manju Devi @ Manjula to her parents ten days before her death from the same mobile phone which the accused Anil Mehto St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 153 had got recovered whose SIM is the name of Satish Pathak, thereby establishing its user by Anil Mehto.
(171) 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.
(172) 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 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.
(173) This being the background, in so far as the provisions of Section 498A Indian Penal Code is concerned, I may observe that the aspect of verbal and physical abuse and torture to the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 154 at the hands of the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati on account of Dowry Demand stands established. It also stands established that the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula orally reported the matter regarding the torture, harassment and dowry demands by the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati to the Local Panchayat where the marriage of the deceased Manju with the accused Anil Mehto was registered. It further stands established that pursuant to the same the Panchayat Heads i.e. Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary and Ms. Mamta Chaudhary summoned the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati where the accused had undertaken not to beat or harass the deceased. The attitude and conduct of the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati in causing mental and physical cruelty/ harassment to the deceased is squarely covered under Explanation (a) of Section 498A Indian Penal Code which provides that for the purposes of Section 498A IPC 'Cruelty' means ".....any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman....". Hence in this background I hereby hold the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati guilty of the offence Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
(174) Further, I hereby hold that there is a proximity and live link between the effect of harassment and cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula, which was sufficient to destroy the St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 155 mental equilibrium of the deceased. The harassment caused to the deceased was not only on account of Demand for Dowry but also the mental and physical torture caused to her. Therefore, I hold the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Smt. Kala Devi @ Kalawati are held guilty for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. All the accused are accused are accordingly convicted.
(175) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 14.01.2015.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 12.1.2015 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 156
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 21/2014 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0057292014 State Vs. (1) Anil Mehto S/o Rajender Mehto R/o B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Rajender Mehto S/o Vakil Mehto R/o B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Kala Devi @ Kalawati W/o Rajender Mehto R/o B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 444/2013 Police Station: Keshav Puram Under Sections: 498A/304B/302/406/34 IPC Date of conviction: 12.1.2015 Arguments heard on: 16.1.2015 Date of sentence: 17.1.2015 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 157 APPEARANCE:
Present: Ms. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
All the three convicts in Judicial Custody with Sh. Yashvir Singh and Sh. Rajeev Kaul Advocates/ Amicus Curie. ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per the allegations, between 29.6.2011 to 20.12.2013 at B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi all the accused i.e. Anil Mehto being the husband of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula; Rajender Mehto being the father in law and the accused Kala Devi being the mother in law of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manujla in furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to cruelty by making illegal demand of dowry and harassing her and also gave beatings to her. It has also been alleged that on 20.12.2013 at B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi all the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Manju by hanging otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the parents, brothers, sister and sister in law of the deceased and also on the basis of the medical, forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record, vide a detail judgment dated 12.1.2015 this St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 158 Court has held the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati guilty of the offence under Section 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code for which they have been accordingly convicted.
Vide the detail judgment dated 12.1.2015 this court has observed that the torture caused to the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula on account of cruelty, harassment and taunting on account of Dowry Demand has been established. The identity of the accused i.e. Anil Mehto as husband of the deceased Manju Devi; Rajender Mehto as the father in law and the accused Kala Devi @ Kalawati as the mother in law of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula is not disputed. It has also been established that Manjula Devi @ Manju Devi was married with Anil Mehto on 29.06.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and the parents had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage according to their capacity which marriage was registered with the village Panchayat (as per the local laws in State of Bihar) as both the families were below the poverty line and pursuant to the said registration the couple was given Rs.5,000/ by the village Panchayat to start their matrimonial life.
It stands established that soon after the marriage the accused Anil Mehto and his parents i.e. accused Rajender and accused Kala Devi @ Kalawati started harassing and torturing Manjula Devi who was brutally beaten, her hairs pulled, thrashed publicly and taunted that she had come from a family of paupers. The accused Kala Devi as well as Anil Mehto frequently declared to her that she would be left and Anil Mehto would marry some other lady and Anil Mehto frequently showed her pornographic material in order to St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 159 compel her to meet his demands. The accused Rajender Mehto used to abuse and taunt the deceased and never took food cooked by her and abandoned her at the house of some known person at Darbhanga. It has been established that at the time of marriage the accused had demanded 12 annas gold whereas the parents of the deceased had already given 1½ bhar; that the family of the deceased expressed their inability to give the demanded gold and later on seeing the torture of their daughter they promised the accused that they had some land i.e. three katthas which would give to them but they should not harass the deceased. It has also been established that the deceased was frequently beaten and told either to bring money from her family or to do the work in Kothies and earn for them.
This court in its judgment has observed that the prosecution has been able to prove that after about one year a Panchayat was held after Manjula made a complaint to them of the dowry harassment and torture and with the intervention of the Panchayat Heads the accused were suitably advised and the deceased Manjula was sent back to Delhi on the assurance that they would not illtreat her despite which they continued to torture and harass her. It also stands established that about ten days prior to the incident the deceased Manjula made a call to her mother and weepingly narrated that her husband and her parents in law were torturing and harassing her and it had become unbearable for her which call has been confirmed by the Electronic Records placed before this Court.
Further, the prosecution has been able to prove that on 20.12.2013 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 160 Smt. Manju @ Manjula committed suicide at her matrimonial home i.e. B46/38, Balmiki Camp Jhuggi, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi by hanging herself; that Chandeshwar @ Rahul a resident of the area made a call to the PCR on 100 number from his mobile phone bearing no. 9540324254 pursuant to which the local police reached the spot; that information was also sent to the SDM Mani Bhushan Malhotra and the Crime Team was called to the spot who inspected the spot of incident and took photographs of the same; that on 23.12.2013 the parents of the deceased reached Delhi and the statement of Bindeshwar Mehto was recorded by the SDM on the basis of which the present case was registered; that during investigations the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi were arrested; that pursuant to his supplementary disclosure statement accused Anil Mehto took the police team to his jhuggi, Valmiki Camp, Lawrence Road, Delhi where he had pointed out at an iron box lying in the room and got recovered one mobile phone make Sansui of black colour, model SA 32 and disclosed that he was using the said phone which was having two SIMs; that the said mobile phone was having a memory card of 4GB capacity and thereafter the mobile phone set, memory card and SIM were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of AS which parcel was taken into possession which mobile phone on forensic examination has been found to contain pornographic material.
This Court has observed that the Medical Evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased Manju Devi @ Manjula was due to asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging which was suicidal in nature. St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 161 Further, the Forensic Evidence on record in the form of FSL Report (Computer Forensic Unit) confirms the oral versions of the witnesses that the accused Anil Mehto used to show pornographic material to the deceased Manju @ Manjula and is confirmatory to the prosecution case and incriminates the accused particularly Anil Mehto. The electronic evidence on record is also compatible to the prosecution version and confirms the call made by deceased Manju @ Manjula to her parents ten days before her death from the same mobile phone which the accused Anil Mehto got recovered whose SIM is the name of Satish Pathak, thereby establishing its user by Anil Mehto.
Therefore, the accused Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi @ Kalawati have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code for which they have been convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Anil Mehto is stated to be a young boy of 24 years having a family comprising of aged parents i.e. coconvict Rajender Mehto aged 50 years and Kala Devi aged 50 years; three brothers and two sisters. All the convicts are illiterate and the convict Anil Mehto is a labour by profession while Rajender Mehto is a Rickshaw Puller and the convict Kala Devi is a maid.
Ld. Counsels/ Amicus Curie appearing for the convicts have vehemently argued that the convicts belong to extreme poor strata of the society and have no criminal background. It is submitted that the convicts St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 162 have already remained in judicial incarceration for a considerable period and it is hence prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convicts. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has prayed for a strict punishment keeping in view the allegations involved. She submits that the convicts used to harass the deceased and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty thereby compelling the deceased Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula to commit suicide due to which reason they are not entitled to any indulgence.
I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that Crimes Against Women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric and hence, call for harsh punishments. What is happening in our society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialization of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife or compel her to suicide and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court the time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand and echo the words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra .....Indian society has become a sick society...... What is the level of civilization of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society become.... [Ref.: Satya Narayan Tiwari Alias Jolly and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 163 (13) SCC 689].
The existing Legal System in India exhibits zero tolerance for dowry related harassment. In cases where the specific allegations against the husband and the in laws are of dowry related harassment, sending the victim back to the matrimonial home in the name of adjustment or settlement with her greedy inlaws only exposes her to further harassment and torture which can be a serious risk to her life as has happened in the present case.
The facts of the present case made me ponder, Why is it, that in India, despite the fact that the Shastras provide the "option of marriage" to a woman that she is first compelled/ forced into an uncomfortable marriage/ relationship and is thereafter compelled/ forced to continue with such a marriage. Why in our society the desirability of continuing in torturous relationship considered more important than the life and happiness of a woman? I also ponder why after a woman is married, the family in which she is born and brought up often disowns her and refuses to stand by her when she is living and alive but cries foul when she is no more? What does a young woman do and where does she go when her own family does not stand by her? Is this not the hypocrisy of our social system?
Numerous legislation have been brought in to tackle evils such as dowry, harassment to woman and domestic violence, yet the reality on the ground does not appear to change. It is necessary for the victims and their families to understand that unless such instances of dowry demands and harassment are reported well within time and the families of young women St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 164 stand by them, there is little that the Court of Law and other agencies can do. We must realize that by not reporting of such incidents most vital evidence is often lost and the guilty frequently get away due to lack of sufficient evidence. In the present case the marginalized family of the deceased did approach their village Panchayat where the marriage between Anil Mehto and Manjula had been registered (as per local law in Darbhanga, Bihar) and there was due intervention by the respective Sarpanchas as proved. The depravity of the convicts Anil Mehto, Rajender Mehto and Kala Devi who were under a moral and legal obligation to provide emotional, psychological and financial security to Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula (wife of Anil Mehto), was not only confined to the mental cruelty which they had been inflicting upon Manju Devi during the period of subsistence of the marriage (between Anil Mehto and Manjula), but also got compounded by the fact that they were throughout pressurizing her parental family to fulfill their demand of gold and were repeatedly saying that they would remarry Anil Mehto to some other lady. The torture inflicted by all these convicts was immense, the mother in law would beat her by pulling her hair and thrash her; the father in law would abuse and taunt her and not take food from her hand and had on one occasion abandoned her with some unknown relative and the husband would not only abuse, harass and make financial and sexual demands from her but also showed her pornographic material and then taunt her stating that she was dirty "... Tu kharab hai..." and that she is unable to satisfy him which became unbearable for her. This daughter in law i.e. deceased Manjula became a commodity. For a mother in St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 165 law and father in law she was an unpaid servant who was to serve them and had to bear their rebukes without complaints and for the husband someone who should be available to all kinds of his demands at all times and satisfy him. It is this which led her to take the extreme step. The harassment caused by the convicts to the deceased Smt. Manju Devi @ Manjula, compelling her to meet the illegitimate demands raised by them is unpardonable and they deserve no mercy. In view of the above, I hereby award the following sentence to the convicts:
Anil Mehto
1. For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two Months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Rajender Mehto:
1. For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 166 shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two Months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Kala Devi @ Kalawati:
1. For the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and fine for a sum of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. For the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten) Years and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two Months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convicts for the period undergone by them during the trial.
The convicts are 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 St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 167 Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 17.1.2015 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Anil Mehto Etc., FIR No. 444/13, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 168