Delhi District Court
State vs . Rekha Bal Pandey Khurana 2018.10.01 on 1 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 399/2007
Digitally signed
by MANISH
PS : Sarita Vihar (Crime Branch)
KHURANA
U/s : 309/341/506 IPC MANISH
Date:
State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey KHURANA 2018.10.01
15:53:07
Unique ID No. : 92112/16 +0530
Date of institution of case : 28.04.2010
Date of reserving the judgment : 28.09.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.10.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 57/5/11
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 27.05.2007
3. Name of the complainant : Smt. Sangeeta Sangal
W/o Sh. Amitabh Sangal
R/o H. No. 26A, Gurudwara
Lane, Turner Road, Clement
Town, Dehradun.
4. Name,parentage & address of accused : (i) Rekha Bal Paney
W/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Pandey
R/o B453, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.
(ii) Ravinder Nath Pandey
S/o Late Sh. Raghunandan
Pandey
R/o 291/609, Chauhan
Mohalla, Pinku Ka Makan,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi
(discharged vide order
FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 1 of 17
dated 01.06.2013).
5. Offence complained of : u/s 309/506/341 IPC
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
Case of the Prosecution
1. The prosecution case is that on 27.05.2007 between 6.10 pm to 9.15 pm at B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, accused wrongfully restrained complainant Smt. Sangeeta Sangal from entering into her house by bolting the door from inside and also threatened to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself and she attempted to commit suicide by doing so and accused also threatened the complainant with her life and property and thereby accused committed offence punishable u/s 309/506/341/34 IPC.
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned, copies of chargesheet were supplied and thereafter, arguments on charge were heard and the accused Ravinder Nath Pandey was discharged by Ld Predecessor vide order dated 01.06.2013. However, the charge u/s 341/506/309/34 IPC was ordered to be framed against accused Rekha Bal Pandey to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During admission/denial of the documents, accused Rekha Bal Pandey admitted factum of registration of FIR as Ex.A1 vide her statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses.
4. PW1 Lady Constable Sunita Yadav deposed that on 27.05.2007 on the directions of IO ASI Manju, she conducted personal search of accused Rekha Bal Pandey vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/A. This witness was not cross examined.
FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 2 of 175. PW2 HC Kailash Chand deposed that on 27.05.2007 he was posted as HC at PS Sarita Vihar and on that day he was deputed as beat officer and upon instructions he reached at B453, Sarita Vihar. He further stated that he saw that the room was locked and one lady was shouting that if someone would open the door, she would set herself and the house on fire. He further stated that there he met ASI Manju Bala, SHO and other police staff and with the help of police staff available at the spot, they opened the door and Rekha Bal Pandey was found there. He further stated that smell of kerosene oil was coming from the clothes of accused Rekha Bal Pandey and from the room. He further stated that complainant was also present there and she gave her statement to ASI Manju Bala. He further stated that IO recorded his statement. This witness was not cross examined.
6. PW3 Ct. Dalip deposed that on 25.01.2018 he was posted as constable at AATS, Crime Branch, Nehru Place, New Delhi and on that day on the instructions of IO, he took one sealed pullanda and two sealed plastic jars, all sealed with the seal of "RS" to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 21/R/ACP/AATS and he deposited the case property in FSL, Rohini and obtained the receipt thereof. He further stated that so long the case property remained with him, it was not tampered with. This witness was not cross examined.
7. PW4 Mrs. Sangeeta Sangal deposed that she was residing at H. No. 26 A, Gurudwara Lane, Turner Road, Clement Town, Dehradun and she also had one more house i.e. H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in which her father used to reside. She further stated that she was the only daughter of her father and that in the year 1989, after her marriage she shifted to her matrimonial house in Dehradun at her above mentioned address and in the year 199697, her mother expired and since then her FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 3 of 17 father was residing alone at H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. She further stated that her father had employed accused Rekha Bal Pandey as domestic help and she used to reside at the said H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi since year 1989. She further stated that after death of her father on 28.03.2007, the above said property i.e. H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi came in her name through registered will of her father and after death of her father when she told accused Rekha Bal Pandey to vacate her premises she requested her (complainant) to permit her to stay in her (complainant's) above said house H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi for two months and she (accused) stated that thereafter she would arrange other accommodation for her. She further stated that after around 20 days after the death of her father when she came from Dehradun to stay in her house at H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, accused Rekha Bal Pandey told her that she (accused) was owner of her (complainant's) above stated house and she had filed a Civil Case against her (complainant). She further stated that even after that she continued staying at H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and in the morning of 27.05.2007, accused Rekha called a person namely Ravinder Nath Pandey who told her (complainant) to compromise with Rekha and Ravinder Nath Pandey told the her (complainant) that if she would give Rs. 20 Lacs to accused Rekha, she (accused) would vacate her (complainant's) house and give up all her claims. She further stated that in the afternoon she alongwith her husband went outside and returned at around 06:00 PM and when she rang the door bell of her house i.e H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, accused Rekha shouted from inside that if she would try to come inside the house she (accused) would set herself and her children on fire. She further stated that she could see accused Rekha Bal Pandey through the window grills and she was having a plastic bottle in FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 4 of 17 her hand and was sprinkling its contents on the floor and on her clothes and was shouting that she had sprinkled kerosene oil and if she (complainant) or anyone would try to enter the house she (accused) would set her ablaze and also would cause fire in the house. She further stated that thereafter, she called police at 100 number and within a short span of time police reached there and anyhow police managed to get the door of her abovementioned house opened from inside and thereafter, she alongwith her husband and police entered in the house. She further stated that police seized one bottle of kerosene which accused was carrying in her hand and one bottle of kerosene which was also kept on the floor where accused was standing. She further stated that police recorded her complaint Ex. PW4/A and seized the abovementioned two bottles having kerosene oil vide seizure memos Ex. PW4/B and PW4/C and police also seized the clothes of accused Rekha Bal Pandey, on which she had also sprinkled kerosene oil in order to threaten the complainant and her husband not to enter in the house, vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D. She further stated that police also took photographs of her house which are Ex. P1 (colly). Witness identified the accused in the Court. She further stated that police inquired her and recorded her statement. During her cross examination she stated that she knew accused Rekha Bal Pandey for the last 2025 years since the year 1989. She did not remember the year of marriage of her father. She did not remember the year when her mother expired. She stated that even after her marriage and since birth of her first child in 1993, she used to visit her father once in every two months and that her father expired in March 2007. She further stated that she met her father lastly in January 2007 on her birthday. She further stated that sometimes she had altercations with her father on the issue of accused. She further stated that the accused FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 5 of 17 who was a maid servant used to make excuses in doing household works and that she used to object her (accused) regarding the same. She denied that her father never used to object accused Rekha Bal Pandey on the issue of doing any household work. She further denied that her father and accused Rekha Bal Pandey were living in livein relationship or that her father used to treat accused as his wife. She further denied that over this issue she used to fight with her father. She further denied that over abovesaid issue once her father lodged a DD entry in PS Sarita Vihar in the year 2004. She stated that she was informed about death of her father by Bajrangi Pandey. She denied that her father also executed a will in favour of accused Rekha Bal Pandey. She did not remember as to whether she had received a notice in CS No. 211/2007, Tis Hazari Courts (probate case) on 17.04.2007. She stated that she had contacted local police i.e. PS Sarita Vihar after receiving a call from her neighbour Mr. Gupta who was residing adjacent to her flat in Sarita Vihar. She admitted that she had also filed a case i.e. FIR No. 347/07 dated 07.05.2007, u/s 420/380/34 IPC, PS Sarita Vihar against accused. She denied that she filed false police complaints i.e. FIR No. 347/07 and FIR No. 399/07 in PS Sarita Vihar against accused after receiving summons of Civil Suits No. 211/07 Tis Hazari Courts filed by accused against her. She denied that she used her influence on SHO PS Sarita Vihar namely Sh. N.K. Chawla to get the flat vacated or that she falsely implicated accused in abovementioned FIRs. She denied that when accused refused to vacate the flat even after lodging of FIR No. 347/07, PS Sarita Vihar on pretext of filing a Civil Suit against her, she again filed present false complaint i.e. FIR No. 399/07, PS Sarita Vihar against the accused in connivance with Sh. N.K. Chawla. She stated that police took accused with them at around 09:00 PM 09:15 PM on day of incident i.e. 27.05.2007 and she FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 6 of 17 also reached police station after sometime. She did not know as to what inquiry was made by the police from the accused. She stated that at the time of incident, several persons gathered in front of her house. She denied that accused never threatened her or never tried to commit suicide as stated by her in her examination in chief. She stated that from her house police arrested only accused Rekha Bal Pandey. She admitted that her father had employed accused as a maid servant. She did not know as to how much salary was paid to the accused by her father. She denied that accused was never employed as a maid servant by her father or that no salary was paid to accused. She denied that by influencing the police officials, she kept all the articles and documents of accused Rekha Bal Pandey with her after arrest of accused. She stated that police had not prepared any document in her presence regarding the present case at her house. She denied that she falsely implicated accused in the present case as she wanted the accused to vacate the house. She denied that in connivance with police she falsely got the accused arrested. She denied that she was not real daughter of Late Sh. Surender Pal Verma. She denied that she in connivance with police destroyed the will executed by her father in favour of accused Rekha Bal Pandey. She denied that she was deposing falsely.
8. PW5 Jitendra Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi since year 1999. He further stated that a letter bearing no. 21/R/ACP/AATS dated 22.01.2008 with three parcels mentioned in the same were received in connection with present case FIR in their office on 25.01.2008 through Ct. Govind Singh. He further stated that the seals were intact and tallied with specimen seals as per forwarding letter (FSL Form). He further stated that on chemical and gas FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 7 of 17 chromatography examination of the exhibits "1A, 1B, 2, 3", they were found to contain kerosene. He further stated that his detailed report and result of the chemical examination is Ex.PW5/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
9. PW6 ASI Baldhari Meena deposed that on 28.05.2007 he was posted as Constable at PS Sarita Vihar and on that day he joined investigation of the present case with IO ASI Manju during which one Ravinder Nath Pandey was arrested and his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
10. PW7 HC Vijay Singh brought the original DD Entry Register pertaining to DD No. 14A dated 27.05.2007, PS Sarita Vihar, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A (OSR). He stated that the said DD was recorded by Duty Officer ASI Gurcharan. During his cross examination he denied that the abovesaid DD Entry was falsely recorded on the asking of WSI Manju and SHO N K Chawla.
11. PW8 Inspector Virender Kumar deposed that on 02.01.2008 he was posted as SI at AATS/Crime Branch, Nehru Place, New Delhi and he was handed over further investigation of present case during which he received records and met complainant Sangeeta Sangal and recorded her supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He further stated that he got deposited case property of the case through Ct. Govind Singh no. 339/C in FSL Rohini, Delhi. He further stated that he obtained FSL report and prepared draft chargesheet and sent it for prosecution vetting. He further stated that thereafter he was transferred and relieved from the case. During his cross examination he stated that he met complainant in the Court premises where he inquired and recorded her supplementary statement. He admitted that the fact that accused and complainant were FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 8 of 17 already opposite parties in a civil suit and this fact was in his knowledge when he took up the investigation of the present case.
12. PW9 SI Manju is the IO of the present case and she deposed that on 27.05.2007, she was posted as ASI at PS Sarita Vihar and on that day she received DD entry no. 14A of even date PS Sarita Vihar Ex.PW7/A from duty officer and after receiving the same, she reached at the place of incident i.e. B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi alongwith Ct. Satish Kumar where she found that one lady namely Rekha Bal Pandey had locked herself inside a room and was shouting that she would set herself ablaze and she was having one bottle in her hand. She further stated that she tried to convince accused to come outside the house but she did not agree. She further stated that thereafter, she called the then SHO PS Sarita Vihar and explained him the situation and after sometime SHO Sh. Narender Chawla alongwith staff reached at the spot and after arriving, SHO Sh. N. Chawla tried to convince accused who after persuasion opened the door and after opening the door of the house, accused Rekha Bal Pandey was wielded and HC Shubhkaran who had reached alongwith then SHO took over the bottle of kerosene oil from the hands of accused. She further stated that thereafter, she came inside the room and found one more bottle of kerosene oil lying on the floor near a chair kept inside the room. She further stated that she interrogated accused and complainant Sangeeta Sangal W/o Sh. Amitabh Sangal was also present at the spot and she recorded her (complainant's) statement Ex.PW4/A. She further stated that she seized one bottle containing kerosene oil on production by HC Shubkaran after duly sealing it with the seal of "RS" and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/C and she also seized another plastic bottle containing kerosene oil found inside the room as abovestated vide memo Ex.PW4/B after duly sealing with the seal of FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 9 of 17 "RS". She further stated that seal after use was handed over to Ct. Satish and thereafter, she prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and got FIR registered through Ct. Satish Kumar and thereafter she prepared site plan Ex.PW9/B. She further stated that she also seized the clothes (salwar suit) of accused, which she was wearing at that time and which were having stains of kerosene oil, vide memo Ex.PW4/D. She further stated that she arrested the accused and conducted her personal search vide memos Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW1/A and recorded her disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW9/D. She further stated that some of her associates in police party photographed the spot and accused was committed to custody after medical examination and was later sent to JC. She further stated that thereafter, on 02.01.2008, investigation of present case was transferred from PS Sarita Vihar to AATS/Crime Branch and she was relieved from the present case. She also relied upon photographs of the spot as Ex.P1(colly). She identified the cloths of the accused i.e one printed salwar and one printed kurta as Ex.P1 and she also identified the plastic bottles allegedly recovered from the accused as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. During her cross examination by Ld defence counsel she stated that she alongwith Ct. Satish reached the spot on the day of incident for the first time within 10 minutes in pursuance of 100 number call. She stated that finally she left the spot at about 67 pm. She stated that after reaching at the spot and seeing the situation she informed concerned SHO who alongwith other staff also came there. She admitted that another FIR bearing No. 347/2007, PS Sarita Vihar, u/s 380/420 IPC was already lodged in her police station against present accused which was in her knowledge when she reached the spot on 27.05.2007. She admitted that at that time it was also in her knowledge that a civil suit bearing no. 211/07 in Tis Hazari Court was also pending between accused and FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 10 of 17 complainant. She denied that on the directions of the then SHO, she falsely implicated accused in the present case as the accused was not vacating the house i.e B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi. She stated that after she reached the spot, she alongwith many other persons/neighbours who had gathered there requested accused to open the gate and come out but initially the accused did not open the main gate of the house. She stated that the accused opened the door after persuasions of the then SHO and other persons who were present. She stated that she had examined few persons i.e Yassasvi Pandey and Utkarsh Pandey who had gathered at the spot at the time of incident and had recorded their statements. She stated that she had not seized the identity document of abovesaid witnesses. She denied that she had not examined any person by the name of Yassasvi Pandey or Utkarsh Pandey in the present case as they were not at the spot. She stated that she alongwith the staff sealed the case property and she put her stamp on the seal and after use she handed over her seal to Ct. Satish which was further handed over to HC Ram Singh. She stated that she had arrested the accused on 27.05.2007. She did not remember the exact time when she arrested the accused. She stated that she had complied with guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding arrest of accused. She stated that in the seizure memo she had cited witnesses. She stated that complainant Sangeeta Sangal had not given her any document to show that she was daughter of Surender Pal Verma and she believed oral claim of complainant Sangeeta Sangal that she was daughter of Surender Pal Verma. She denied that Sangeeta Sangal was not daughter of Surender Pal Verma or that she in connivance with complainant Sangeeta Sangal and then concerned SHO of PS Sarita Vihar falsely implicated accused in the present case without any fault of her in order to coerce her to vacate the house no. B453, FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 11 of 17 Sarita Vihar, Delhi. She denied that she prepared all the exhibited documents while sitting in the PS or that she never visited the spot or never seized any article from the possession of accused. She denied that the house in possession of accused was raided to search/seize a Will in favour of accused prepared by S P Verma. She denied that she was deposing falsely.
13. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, during which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused to which accused denied in its entirety and claimed innocence. Accused further stated that she was falsely implicated in the present case. No evidence was led by the accused in her defence.
14. I have heard Ld APP for the State and Ld counsel for the accused and also carefully gone through the record.
Finding of the Court
15. Allegation against the accused are that on 27.05.2007 between 6.10 pm to 9.15 pm at B453, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, accused wrongfully restrained complainant Smt. Sangeeta Sangal from entering into her house by bolting the door from inside and also threatened to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself and she attempted to commit suicide by doing so and accused also threatened the complainant with her life and property and thereby accused committed offence punishable u/s 309/506/341/34 IPC.
16. Ld APP for the State argued that the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant Sangeeta Sangal from letting her enter into her house and she also threatened the complainant with her life and property and also attempted to commit suicide. Ld APP for State submitted that all the PWs supported the case put forth by the prosecution, therefore, the accused may be convicted for the alleged offences.
FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 12 of 1717. Per contra, Ld defence counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and there is no evidence to prove that the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi belonged to the complainant or her father and Ld counsel also submitted that the accused was falsely implicated due to personal vendetta of the complainant. Ld counsel prayed that the accused may be acquitted for the alleged offences.
18. Section 341 IPC provides punishment for causing wrongful restraint. Section 339 IPC defines the term 'wrongful restraint' as whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said to restrain that person.
19. Therefore, for securing conviction for the offence of wrongful restraint, the prosecution is obliged to prove that the complainant had a right to enter the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi and that she was wrongfully restrained by the accused. The complainant Sangeeta Sangal has been examined by the prosecution as PW4 who was residing at H. No. 26A, Gurudwara Lane, Turner Road, Clement Town, Dehradun and she stated that she had one more house i.e H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi in which her father used to reside. However, there is no document on record that the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi belonged to the complainant or her father. During her cross examination complainant denied the suggestions that she in connivance with police destroyed the Will executed by her father in favour of accused Rekha Bal Pandey and she also denied that she was not the real daughter of Late Sh. Surender Pal Verma. Even the IO/PW9 SI Manju deposed during her cross examination that complainant Sangeeta Sangal had not given her any document to show that the complainant was the daughter of Surender Pal Verma and IO further stated that she believed the oral claim of the complainant FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 13 of 17 Sangeeta Sangal that she was the daughter of Surender Pal Verma.
20. Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution are official witnesses and no documentary proof of ownership/entitlement of the complainant in H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi has been placed on record. The essential ingredient for convicting the accused for the offence u/s 341 IPC is that there must be voluntary obstruction of the complainant to prevent her from entering in H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi and that the complainant had the right to enter the aforesaid house. As discussed above, the complainant was not residing in the abovesaid house and no document is produced on record to show the right of the complainant to enter the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 341 IPC.
21. The accused Rekha Bal Pandey has also been charged for the offence u/s 506 IPC for criminal intimidation which is defined u/s 503 IPC.
22. Section 503 IPC defines the term 'criminal intimidation' as whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person for reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat commits criminal intimidation.
23. Therefore, as per section 503 IPC the threat must be to cause injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant. As per the case put forth by the prosecution the complainant was allegedly threatened by the accused to commit suicide and to cause fire in the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi. Therefore, as per the allegations the accused threatened the complainant to commit suicide and the said threat is not covered within the definition of criminal intimidation as defined u/s 503 IPC to FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 14 of 17 constitute the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC, however, the threat allegedly caused to the complainant to cause fire in her house may be covered under the definition of criminal intimidation but for securing the conviction of the accused for the offence of criminal intimidation the prosecution is obliged to prove that the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi belonged to the complainant herein and that the accused threatened to cause fire in the said house with intent to cause alarm to the complainant. As discussed above, there is no document to prove on record that the abovesaid H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi belonged to the complainant and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused threatened the complainant to cause injury to her property which is a prerequisite for securing conviction of the accused u/s 506 IPC. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC as well.
24. The accused has also been charged for the offence u/s 309 IPC for attempt to commit suicide. Section 309 IPC provides that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
25. In the case in hand, as per the allegations the accused Rekha Bal Pandey poured kerosene over her body and she allegedly threatened to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil over her body and the cloths of the accused which she was wearing at that time were also recovered during the investigation and the FSL result confirmed that the aforesaid cloths were containing kerosene oil. As per the testimony of the complainant/PW4 Sangeeta Sangal, she saw the accused while the accused was pouring kerosene oil on her cloths and on the floor from the plastic bottle which she was holding in her hand. The complainant also stated that the accused was threatening her to commit suicide and FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 15 of 17 complainant made the PCR call and the police arrived at the spot and the police managed to get the door of the house opened and apprehended the accused.
26. Merely by the act of pouring kerosene oil on her cloths by the accused, it cannot be said to have been proved that the accused attempted to commit suicide punishable u/s 309 IPC. Even as per the case of the prosecution the accused allegedly poured kerosene oil on her cloths and on the floor in order to threaten the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that no match stick or match box was seized by the police from the spot and there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was carrying the match box or match stick at the time of alleged offence or that she tried to ablaze herself by using match stick or by any other mode. Therefore, merely pouring kerosene oil on the body with an intent to deter the complainant cannot be said to be an attempt to commit suicide. Further, the H. No. B453, Sarita Vihar, Delhi was allegedly locked from inside and the accused was inside the said house and the IO/PW9 SI Manju deposed that SHO Sh. Narender Chawla alongwith staff reached at the spot and he convinced the accused to open the door from inside and accused after persuasion opened the door and was arrested. Factum of opening the door by the accused herself clearly shows that there was no intention of the accused to commit the offence of attempt to commit suicide punishable u/s 309 IPC. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 309 IPC.
27. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid discussion and the evidence on record, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and accused Rekha Bal Pandey is entitled to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 16 of 1728. Hence, accused Rekha Bal Pandey is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 309/341/506 IPC.
Announced in the open court Today on 01.10.2018 (Manish Khurana) CMM/SE/District Court, Saket New Delhi/01.10.2018 FIR No. 399/07 State Vs. Rekha Bal Pandey Page 17 of 17