Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Monu Jatt on 5 March, 2013

      IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
       JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Session Case No. 23/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0182762011

State                                 Vs.                 Monu Jatt
                                                          S/o Om Prakash
                                                          R/o Jhuggi No. 276, 
                                                          Suraj Park, Badli,
                                                          Delhi
                                                          (Convicted)


FIR No.:                                       323/2010
Police Station:                                Jahangir Puri
Under Sections:                                302/376/366/363 Indian Penal Code

Date of committal to Sessions Court:                      18.7.2011

Date on which orders were reserved:                       4.2.2003

Date on which judgment was announced:                     19.2.2013


JUDGMENT:

(1) As per allegations on 16.9.2010 at about 12:30 PM the accused Monu Jatt kidnapped / abducted the deceased / prosecutrix 'F', (name of the girl is withheld being a case under Section 376 IPC) aged 16 years, from the lawful guardianship of her father Nafi Ahmed from his house at B Block, Jahangirpuri, by alluring her and took her to Sonepat and thereafter to Jhajjar and married her forcibly without her St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 1 consent after which he kept her illegally with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It is further alleged that between 16.9.2010 and 18.3.2011 the accused Monu Jatt committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'F' without her consent. It is further alleged that during her stay with the accused he gave serious beatings to her by uttering the words "tere baap ne mere khilaf mukadma darj karwa diya, tu meri nahi hogi to kisi ki bhi nahi hone doonga" and on 18.3.2011 the accused mixed some substance in the food and gave to the prosecutrix due to which reason she fell ill and her condition became critical after which he left her outside her house and subsequently she was expired at BJRM Hospital on 20.3.2011 during treatment.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION / BRIEF FACTS:

(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 20.9.2010 one Nafi Ahmed had gone to Police Station Jahangir Puri and lodged a missing report in respect of his daughter 'F' aged about 16 years 5 months and had raised his suspicion on the accused Monu Jatt. Pursuant to the said information DD No. 26A was lodged and a case under Section 363 IPC was registered. Efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix 'F' but she could not be traced.

(3) On 20.3.2011 information was received regarding admission of the prosecutrix in BJRM Hospital pursuant to which SI St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 2 Sandeep Kumar reached BJRM Hospital and produced the prosecutrix before the doctor for her medical examination. During interrogation the prosecutrix 'F' and Nafi Ahmed informed SI Sandeep Kumar that the accused Monu Jatt had abducted the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and thereafter made physical relations with her. During the course of treatment the prosecutrix 'F' expired on 20.3.2011 itself.

Thereafter on 4.4.2011 the accused Monu Jatt was arrested and charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 Indian Penal Code.

(4) However, pursuant to the directions of this Court regarding further investigations on the aspect of death of the prosecutrix, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

CHARGES:

(5) Charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 302 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Monu Jatt to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty One witnesses which are as under:

St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 3

Public Witnesses:

(7) PW12 Nafi Ahmed has deposed that he is carpenter by profession and used to deal with the woods. According to him on 16.09.2010 at about 12.30 PM his daughter 'F' went to a doctor alone but she did not return back after which they tried to search her at their own for four days. The witness has deposed that on 20.09.2010 he went to Police Station and got registered a case. He also signed DD No. 26 A Ex.PW12/X in respect of missing of his daughter and expressed his suspicion on Monu Jatt who was also not available at his house. According to the witness on 19.03.2011 somebody informed him that his daughter was seen near the bus stop Jahangir Puri and when he reached there and found her daughter in an ailing condition on which he removed her to BJRM Hospital. The witness has deposed that he informed the police who came to the hospital and police went inside the ICU whereas he remained outside the ICU. According to him, his daughter was not in a position to tell anything and in the night hours she expired. The witness has deposed that he identified the dead body of his daughter 'F' and Police recorded his statement Ex.PW5/G. According to the witness after postmortem the dead body was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW12/A. The witness has deposed that on 04.04.2011 he was told by the police that they arrested accused Monu Kumar @ Monu Jatt on which he went to police station and identify him where his statement was recorded. He has further deposed that St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 4 after one and a half months when his daughter was missing she telephoned him that Monu Jatt had got married with her. According to the witness he asked his daughter as to how she was and she told that she was living happily with Monu Jatt. According to the witness his daughter asked him if she could come home (Hum aa jaye) on which he told her not to come home (yahan aane ki koi jaroorat nahin hai).

(8) The witness has deposed that once again after twelve days, his daughter telephoned him and she desired to visit the house but he refused by saying tumne hamari pehle se hi bari be­ijjati kara di ab yahan ane ki karrorat nahin hai and also told her not to call again as they had already ended their relations with her and thereafter she never called telephoned him.

(9) According to the witness when his daughter met him at bus stand at Jahangir Puri, he asked her as to what happened with her, she told that she was not well since last four­five days and she further told him that her husband had left her i.e. chhor kar chala gaya. Witness has deposed that police recorded his statement many times. According to him, his daughter did not tell as to how she became ill and when he insisted she started weeping and hence thereafter he did not asked her anything and got her admitted in the hospital. The witness states that he does not want to say anything else. He further deposed that the police did not record statement of his daughter 'F' in his presence. He has identified the accused Monu Jatt in the court. According to him St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 5 the date of birth of his daughter was 27.04.1994 and she was studying in the MC Primary Girls School, C Block Jahangir Puri, Delhi. The witness has deposed that his daughter also told him on phone that after marriage initially she was residing in Sonepat but the person residing in the neighbourhood told her that it was Jhajjar. According to the witness his daughter also told that Monu Jatt parde mein rakhta hai. He has deposed that his daughter also told on phone that Monu Jatt had taken her and got married with her at Sonepat.

(10) This witness has also been cross examined by Ld. APP for the state, wherein the witness has denied the suggestion that he told to the police in his statement that his daughter came to their house on 18.03.2011 at about 9.00­10.00 PM in an ailing condition. When confronted with statement Ex.PW12/PX­1 where it is so recorded. Witness has denied the suggestion that his daughter did not meet him on 19.03.2011. Witness has denied the suggestion that his daughter did not meet him at the bus stop 19.03.2011. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he told to the police in his statement that on 20.03.2011 when he telephoned to the police about 'F', they came to hospital and recorded her statement in his presence. Confronted with statement Ex.PW12/PX­1 where it is so recorded and has voluntarily explained that he remained outside therefore he cannot tell if any statement of his daughter was recorded by the police or not. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he told the police in his St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 6 statement that his daughter 'F' told the police that on 16.09.2010 Monu Jatt to whom she knew, induced her for marriage and took her to Sonepat and then Jhajjar and kept her in vail (Ba­parda) or that she cannot tell the places where she was kept or that Monu Jatt forcibly married her and used to reside with her or that he made physical relations with her or that after some time she became ill or that Monu Jatt used to gave beatings to her or that he used to extend threats by saying "tere baap ne mere khilaf mukaddama darj karva diya hai, tu meri nahin hogi to kisi ki bhi nahin hone doonga" or that on 18.03.2011 Monu Jatt had mixed something in the food and made her consumer the same that is why her condition became deteriorated or that on 18.03.2011 at about 9.00­10.00PM Monu Jatt left her in front of her parental house. When confronted with statement Ex.PW12/PX­1 where it is so recorded.

(11) Witness has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused that is why he is not disclosing the facts which were told by his daughter to the police in his presence. Witness has denied the suggestion that due to the fear of accused Monu Jatt he is not deposing correct facts as deposed before the police. (12) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has admitted that his daughter 'F' got married with Monu Jatt with her consent and free will against their wishes in other religion therefore they were not happy with her decision and severed all the relations St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 7 with her. Witness has admitted that whenever his daughter telephoned him that she alongwith Monu wanted to visit their house, he always told her that if she is happy with Monu, then she be happy with him and there is no need to visit their house by them as she had married against their wishes. Witness has denied the suggestion that finally even against his wishes, his daughter visited his house house in order to take his blessings or that thereafter he did not allow her to return to Monu Jatt by using emotional pressure upon her. Witness has denied the suggestion that his daughter was residing more than one month prior to her death at their house or that they were not allowing her to resume her relation with Monu. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to the effect that she met him on 19.03.2011 at bus stand Jahangir Puri in ailing condition.

(13) PW14 Azim has deposed that on 21.03.2011 he went to mortuary of BJRM Hospital where he identified the dead body of his sister 'F' and Police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW9/H bearing his signatures at point B. According to him after postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW12/A bearing his signatures at point B and Police recorded his statement. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 8 (14) PW15 Israfeel Pradhan has deposed that his neighbour is Naki Ahmed who is residing at C­570, Jahangir Puri and he came to know that his daughter namely 'F' was kidnapped. According to him on 18.03.2011 at about 9.00­10.00 he saw that she was going to her parental house and since it was a matter related to a girl, he therefore did not make inquiries from her as well as her parents. Witness has further deposed that on 21.03.2011 he came to know that girl 'F' was expired during treatment in BJRM Hospital and he went to the hospital where her postmortem was got conducted and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to its claimants vide memo Ex.PW12/A bearing his signatures at point C. (15) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he came to know about the kidnapping of 'F' through the local person of Jahangir Puri and he was never told by the parents of 'F' about the same. According to him, after 4­5 days of the death of 'F', he was called at the police station and his statement was recorded by the police and even after the death of 'F' he was not told anything about 'F' by her parents and has voluntarily explained that his house is adjoining to the house of Naki Ahmed and since the matter was relating to a girl, that is why he never made inquiries about the 'F' from her parents or anybody else. According to him, when he saw 'F', she was walking down towards her house on 18.03.2011. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiries from 'F' since there St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 9 was a lot of talks in the locality that she had eloped with someone. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely that he came to know that 'F' was kidnapped. Witness has denied the suggestion that 'F' was residing at her parental house for about month at the time of her death or that he is deposing falsely that on 18.03.2011 at about 9.00­10.00PM he saw her going to her parental house. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police officials.

(16) PW16 Kesar Jahan is the mother of the prosecutrix who has deposed that she is residing with her family comprising of her husband and children and she had eleven children but after the death of her daughter 'F' only ten children are left. She has deposed that her daughter 'F' was her youngest child who was aged about 16 years and at the time of incident was studying in class 8th. Witness has further deposed that on 16.03.2010 her daughter 'F' had gone to the Dentist at around 10.00 AM as she was having pain in her tooth but did not return back. Thereafter, they tried to search for her in the neighbourhood area but could not locate her and therefore her husband made report to the police after about one week. Witness has further deposed that after about six months her husband received information from an outsider that her daughter was admitted in the BJRM Hospital. According to her, on hearing this news they rushed to the BJRM Hospital where they found her daughter 'F' admitted and her condition was very serious / St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 10 critical and she was not in a position to speak. Witness has further deposed that on seeing the condition of her daughter, she became perplex and on the same day she expired in the hospital during treatment. According to her, the police never met her and never recorded her statement. She has further stated that she did not want to say anything else and there was nothing which transpired in her presence.

(17) During leading questions put by Ld. APP for the state, witness has admitted that on 16.09.2010 at about 12.30PM her daughter went to the Dentist. According to her, she is illiterate and that is why she could not tell the exact month and time. She has stated that her daughter never came before her on 18.03.2011 at 9­10p.m. to her house in ailing condition. Witness has further deposed that she never told the IO that Monu Jatt had taken her to Sonepat and then to Jhajjar by inducing her for marriage and kept her in beparda condition and forcibly got married with her and also made physical relation or that she became ill and also gave beatings to her by saying that her father had got registered the case against him. According to her, she never told him that on 18.03.2011 he gave some stupifying substance in the food and her condition deteriorated or that he left her outside her house and left.

(18) In cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, witness has denied the suggestion that her daughter 'F' told her once that one boy St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 11 namely Monu Jatt who used to visit in their area was following her but due to the fear of the society they did not make complaint. Witness has denied the suggestion that she told to the police in her statement that her daughter 'F' returned on 18.03.2011 at about 9­10 p.m. in the ailing condition and she told her that on 16.09.2010 Monu Jatt whom she known previously had taken her by inducing her for marriage or that Monu first took her to Sonepat and then Jhajjar and kept her beparda or that she cannot identified those places. She has also denied that her daughter had told her that Monu Jatt forcibly got married to her and kept her with him and also made physical relation with or that after some days she became ill and Monu Jatt used to gave beatings to her by saying "Tere Bhap Ne Mere Khilaf Mukadma Darj Karva Diya Hai, Tue Meri Nahi Hogi To Kishi Ke Nahi Hone Dunga" or that thereafter on 18.03.2011 in the morning Monu Jatt had given some stupefying substance in the food and that is why she became deteriorated and then Monu Jatt left her outside their house and ran away. When confronted with her statement Ex.PW16/Y this fact is found so recorded. Witness has denied the suggestion that her daughter returned on 18.03.2011 at about 9­10p.m. and narrated the entire incident as told by her to the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that due to fear of the accused she was deposing falsely. Witness has identify accused Monu Jatt present in the court.

St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 12 (19) In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has admitted that they were annoyed because her daughter had got married with Monu Jatt outside their religion against their wishes and that is why they had severed all the relation with her and did not allow her to return back to their home. Witness has admitted that her daughter along with Monu requested many time to visit their home through the telephonic call made by her daughter but they refused her by saying that she should remained happy with her husband and they have nothing to do with her. Witness has admitted that they had warned her not to visit their house along with her husband Monu as she had already dishonoured them in the society by getting married without her consent in a Hindu family and that they were feeling insulted. Witness has denied the suggestion that her daughter had visited her house approximately one month prior to her death and since then she was residing with them. Witness has denied the suggestion that since they were feeling dishonoured / disgraced within persons of their own religion /society she made her consumed the poison in her food in order to save their honour in the society. Witness has denied the suggestion that it was on account of this reason that they wanted to get rid of that girl, they did not inform the local police about the return of their daughter to their house. Witness has denied the suggestion that after giving the poison during her ailment, they removed her to the hospital in order to save themselves from the penal consequences. St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 13 Witness has denied the suggestion that SI Sandeep acted in collusion with them in order to falsely implicated Monu Jatt in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that she alongwith her husband were responsible for the death of her daughter as they were against the marriage of her daughter with Monu Jat. According to her, as per their information received through telephonic call made by her daughter, she had got married to Monu Jatt with her free will and consent and was residing happily with him. Witness has admitted that she insisted two to three times to them for visiting to their house for taking blessings but they refused. Witness has denied the suggestion that they falsely implicated Monu Jatt in this case with the collusion of local police. Witness has denied the suggestion that they caused the death of their daughter by administering poison in her food.

Medical witnesses:

(20) PW2 Dr. Meenakshi has deposed that on 20.03.2011 he was working as SR Gynae, BJRM hospital and on that day the patient 'F', daughter of Nafe Ahmad, aged about 16 years, female was referred to gyane department for further examination. According to her, she examined her vide MLC Ex.PW2/A bearing her signatures at point A. Witness has further deposed that as per record the patient was being examined and BP was not recordable, she was on oxygen mask and Patient was very pale and Pulse rate was 130 per minute. According to St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 14 her, Gynae examination, history could not be taken and examination could not be done. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(21) Dr. Meenakshi (PW2) was recalled for re­examination after amendment of charge wherein she has adopted his earlier examination in chief dated 19.9.2011. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that on 20.3.2011 at 6:45 PM when she went to examine the patient namely 'F' for her examination, she was being examined by Sr. Resident (Medicine).

According to her patient was on Oxygen Mask, pallor was 3 plus (+++ ­ meaning that the patient was very pale), her pulse rate was 130 per minute, BP was not recordable and hence he could not take any history or conduct a Gynae examination for the patient. The witness has deposed at that time the condition of the patient was deteriorating to the extent that even her BP was not recordable and hence, she did not ask anybody in the the staff to contact her whenever the patient improved and has voluntarily explained that her condition was so bad that she did not expect any improvement but even otherwise as and when the condition of any patient improves the information is given to them by the staff. The witness has deposed that she did not meet the parents or any family member of the patient when she examined her and has voluntarily explained that she does not recollect if anybody St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 15 from her family was there because whenever they conduct the Gynae examination of the minor it is only for obtaining the consent that the family members are required.

(22) PW3 Dr. Rajesh Satija has deposed that on 20.03.2011 he was working as CMO at BJRM hospital and Dr. Ajit was working as JR and on that day Dr Ajit examined the patient 'F', D/O Nafe Ahmad, aged about 16 years, female vide MLC Ex.PW2/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Ajit at point B and bearing his name at point C. According to him he is well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ajit as he had seen him while writing and singing during official course of his duties. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(23) PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that on 21.03.2011 he was working as Autopsy surgeon at BJRM Hospital and on that day he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of 'F' daughter of Nafe Ahmad aged about 16 years female vide PM report Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to him as per report the cause of death could not be given as the FSL report regarding viscera was not available. Witness has further deposed that the time since death was about thirteen hours and he had signed the request of Investigating Officer for conducting the postmortem vide Ex.PW5/B, brief facts Ex.PW5/C, the death report Ex.PW5/D, Death Summary Ex.PW5/E, St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 16 request to preserve the dead body Ex.PW5/F, the statements of Nafe Ahmed and Azim regarding identification of dead body vide Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H respectively all bearing his signatures at point A. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(24) PW6 Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh has deposed that on 19.03.2011 he was working as SR Medicine at the aforesaid hospital and he has brought the record of patient 'F' daughter of Naki Ahmed, aged about 16 years, female from 19.03.2011. According to him on that day patient 'F' was admitted in the said hospital at about 4 PM and Dr. Rahul has admitted the patient and examined her and started her treatment. Witness has further deposed that on 19.03.2011 he joined his duty at about 8 PM and he had seen the patient and given his endorsement in the continuation sheet. According to him the admission and discharge record / death report is Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A, the casualty card is Ex.PW6/B continuation sheets are Ex.PW6/C­1 to Ex.PW6/C­3 bearing his signatures at point A, blood record is Ex.PW6/D, casualty card is Ex.PW6/E, death certificate is Ex.PW6/F. Witness has further deposed that as per record / death summary report patient 'F' was found sever anemia and breathless and at the time of her admission at hospital it was St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 17 reported that she was suffering from fever on and off from last 4­5 days and ulter sensorium (not able to follow the command and understand, semi unconscious) and thereafter her condition kept on deteriorating till her death.

(25) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on 19.03.2011 they were not informed by the parents who got the deceased admitted in their hospital that the deceased was missing and a FIR has been lodged by them in Police Station Jahangirpuri in this regard. According to him during treatment also no such information was given by the parents. Witness has further deposed that on 20/03/2011 Investigating Officer Sandeep came to the hospital and informed them about the history of the girl missing with a boy in respect of which the present FIR was registered and requested them to prepare the MLC. According to him when the patient was got admitted by the parents in hospital they did not alleged suspension of poison and during treatment there was no sign of poisoning to the patient. Witness has further deposed that the patient was got admitted by her parents and brother and they had informed the parents and brother of the patient that her condition is deteriorating and they are not properly equipped to give her further treatment and advised them to send the patient to some other better equipped hospital and also warned them about the risk involved but St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 18 they did not consent for the same and insisted that the patient should be kept in the same hospital for further treatment and brother of the deceased gave in writing in this regard.

(26) On court question, the witness has explained that Copper sulphate is normally used for industrial purposes and its symptoms surface after 24­48 hours but in case where the patient is severely anemic the symptoms do not surface as anemia takes over the poisoning symptoms most of which are similar as it causes Methaemoglobinemia making the hemoglobin not available to the lungs for carrying oxygen, thereby causing shortage of oxygen supply in the body and deterioration of the general condition. The witness further explained that in case of copper sulphate consumption the victim depending upon the physical status will survive for about 24­48 hours being a slow poison.

(27) PW13 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has deposed that he has been deputed by the Medical Superintendent of the hospital to deposed on behalf of Dr. Amit and Dr. Suheel as they have left the hospital and their whereabouts are not known. According to him he is acquainted with the writing and signatures of above said doctors as they have worked with him in the hospital. Witness has further deposed that he has seen the MLC of Monu Kumar @ Monu Jatt S/o Om Prakash age 22 years, male, who was brought to the hospital for medical St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 19 examination and Dr. Suheel examined the patient and on local examination he found that old burn scar marks over right leg and old cut mark on right forehead. According to him the MLC is Ex.PW13/A bearing signatures of Dr. Suheel at point A and he identify his writing and signatures. Witness has further deposed that he referred the patient to the SR Surgery and the patient was examined by Dr. Amit Kumar Singh and in his opinion there was nothing to suggest that the patient was incapable for sexual intercourse. According to him Dr. Amit had made his endorsement from point X to X and bears his signatures at point B. he identify handwriting and signatures of Dr. Amit Kumar Singh and Dr. Gopal was the CMO at that time and his name has been mentioned at point C on MLC Ex.PW13/A. The witness has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

Forensic Evidence:

(28) PW7 Dr. Dhruw Sharma has deposed that on 19.07.2011 four parcels in connection with this case were received in their office for examination duly sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital Delhi. According to him, he opened the parcels No. 1 and examined the contents and on examination he found that blood was detected on Ex.1b i.e. one shamiz, Ex 2 i.e. vaginal swab of deceased and EX 4 containing blood sample of accused. Witness has further deposed that St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 20 blood could not be detected on 1a i.e. ladies shirt and 1c i.e. one pyajami. His detailed report is Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A and the serological report is Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point A and the said report was forwarded to the SHO vide forwarding letter Ex.PW7/C. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(29) PW11 Jitender Kumar has deposed that on 09.06.2011 one sealed parcel was received for chemical analysis and it was assigned to him. According to him the sealed parcel was marked as '1'.

Seals were intact and as per tallied with specimen sealed as mentioned in forwarding letter. Witness has further deposed that Parcel no.1 opened by breaking of seals and it found contained as Ex.1A, i.e. stomach, and piece of small intestine with contents kept in a sealed jar. Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney kept in a sealed jar, Ex.1C i.e. blood sample volume approximate 5 ml kept in a sealed bottle. According to him he examined all the exhibits and found Ex.1A and Ex.1B to be contained copper acetate and he prepared his detailed report and the same is Ex.PW11/A bearing his signatures at point A. Witness has further deposed that after examination the Exhibits / remnants have been sealed with the seal of JK FSL DELHI. St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 21 (30) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he cannot comment if the copper acetate used for keeping the vegetable fresh for a long time. He has stated that and the quantity of copper acetate could not be detected in this case. According to him he cannot comment to the suggestion if the copper acetate is usually consumed by people as it is available in vegetables and other eatables and he cannot say as to what amount /quantity of copper acetate cause death of a person / fatal. Witness has further deposed that he cannot comment as to for how long time the person can survive after consuming copper acetate. He is also unable to tell as to what was the size of the part of the liver, spleen, kidney and stomach piece and has voluntarily explained that it is not possible to measure the size. According to him there is no prescribed guideline as to minimum size / quantity of the above said exhibits for proper examination. Police / official witnesses:

(31) PW1 ASI Jasvinder Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon document i.e. copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. (Original FIR seen and returned). In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 20.09.2010 he was working as duty officer from 9 AM to 5 PM at Police Station Jahangirpuri and on St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 22 that day the complainant namely Nafi Ahmed, S/o Md. Shafi, R/o C­570, Jahangirpuri reported at 2:30 PM at Police Station Jahangirpuri, he recorded his statement in Roznamcha vide DD No. 26A. According to him on the basis of the statement of the above said complaint, he lodged kaymi of the present case and got it registered at computer and after the registration of the present case a computerized copy of FIR and original rukka (kaymi) was handed over to investigating officer/SI Sandeep. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(32) PW4 HC Phool Kumar has deposed that on 21/03/2011 he was working as MHC (M) at Police Station Jahangirpuri and on that day SI Sandeep Kumar had deposited sealed parcels containing clothes and exhibits of the deceased 'F' and one wooden box containing her viscera. According to him he received the same vide Entry No. 3300 of register NO. 19. Witness has further deposed that on 05.04.2011 he again received the exhibits of accused Monu Jatt from SI Shalender Kumar vide entry No. 3319 of register NO. 19. According to him on 09.06.2011 he send the viscera box to FSL Rohini through Ct. Shri Pal vide RC NO. 67/21/11. Witness has further deposed that on 19.07.2011 he send sealed parcel containing clothes and exhibits of deceased and pertaining to accused to FSL Rohini through Ct. Latesh vide RC NO.

77/21/11 and he received the FSL report on 03.08.2011 through Ct. St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 23 Bijender. According to him no tampering was done while the aforesaid case property and FSL report remained in his possession and the entry to this effect is Ex.PW4/A (running into three pages). Witness has further deposed that the copy RC NO. 67/21/11 is Ex.PW4/B and the copy of RC No. 77/21/11 is Ex.PW4/C. both bearing his signatures at point A and the copy of acknowledgment of both the times are Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E respectively. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(33) PW8 Ct. Shri Pal has deposed that on 21.03.2011 he was posted at Police Station Jahangirpuri and on that day he collected one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital, Delhi, containing clothes of the deceased 'F' and her exhibits along with one sample seal with the same seal having the signatures of Dr. Bhim Singh from the hospital which he handed over to the Investigating Officer SI Sandeep Kumar which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to him on the same day he collected one wooden box containing viscera of the deceased and sample seal duly sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital, from the hospital which he handed over to the Investigating Officer SI Sandeep Kumar which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B bearing his signatures at point A. Witness has St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 24 further deposed that on 09.06.2011 he took one wooden box containing viscera and sample seal to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 67/21/11 and got the same deposited and he handed over the copy of the receipt to MHC (M). his statement was recorded to this effect. (34) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel witness has deposed that his statement was recorded on 09.06.2011. Witness has denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded on 09.06.2011 but when his attention was drawn to the statement U/S 161 Cr.PC dated 07.06.2011 which is Ex.PW8/DA to which witness has stated that dated 07.06.2011 might have been recorded by mistake. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not taken the samples and viscera to the FSL or that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not take the exhibits and wooden box from the concerned doctor and not handed over the same to the Investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that his signatures on Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B were taken by the Investigating Officer later on. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

(35) PW9 Ct. Kush Vidhwan has deposed that on 04.04.2011 he was posted at Police Station Jahangirpuri and on that day SI Shalender apprehended the accused Monu Jatt in his presence from St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 25 near MCD plant, Shah Alam Band road, Jahangirpuri. According to him he was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B bearing his signatures at point A. Witness has further deposed that he was interrogated in his presence and his disclosure statement was recorded and same is Ex.PW9/C bearing his signatures at point A. (36) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go with the Investigating Officer at the aforesaid place where the accused was apprehended. Witness has denied the suggestion that the aforesaid memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer while sitting in the police station later on. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the disclosure statement Ex.PW9/C has been recorded by the Investigating Officer of his own while sitting in the Police Station. Witness has denied the suggestion that his signatures on the arrest memo, memo of personal search and the disclosure statement have been taken by the Investigating Officer later.

(37) PW10 Ct. Khem Chand has deposed that on 05.04.2011 he was posted at Police Station Jahangirpuri and on that day he took the accused Monu Kumar @ Monu Jatt @ Ganja to BJRM Hospital where his medical examination was got done. According to him he St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 26 received the exhibits of accused and the sample seal with the seal of MS BJRMH J Puri, Delhi and he handed over the said exhibits to SI Shailender Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case, which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A. (38) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he left the police station at about 11:30­11:45 is along with the accused and Investigating Officer and reached at BJRM hospital within ten minutes and he received the exhibits at about 12:30 PM and they came back to the police station at about 1:00 PM. According to him he is not aware if the Investigating Officer made departure and arrival entry in the police station in this regard. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not accompanied the Investigating Officer or that he did not receive any exhibits from the doctor. Witness has denied the suggestion that Ex.PW10/A was prepared by the Investigating Officer later on any his signatures was taken by the Investigating Officer subsequently. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating officer.

(39) PW19 SI Vineeta Prasad has deposed that on 26.06.2011 she was posted at Police station Jahangir Puri and on that day investigation of this case was marked to her and she prepared the challan and filed before the court through SHO. According to the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 27 witness subsequently she collected postmortem report and the subsequent opinion was handed over to the SHO and the said opinion regarding the cause of death is Ex.PW19/A. Witness has further deposed that she also filed the FSL report before the court vide his application Ex.PW19/B bearing his signatures at point A. (40) In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that the day she was entrusted with the investigation of this case i.e. on 26.06.2011, on the very same day she filed the charge sheet. According to her she did not meet the family member of deceased, any neighbourer or any witness of this case and she cannot tell as to what time she was entrusted with the investigation of present case and at what time he was handed over the file. Witness has further deposed that SI Sandeep handed over the case file to her and as per his briefing she filed the charge sheet. According to her she cannot tell whether any case diaries / Jimnies dated 20.03.2011 was there in the file or not at the time when she received the file from SI Sandeep. Witness has denied the suggestion that she has filed a wrong charge sheet against the accused at the instance of her senior officer as well as of SI Sandeep. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.

(41) PW17 HC Vandana has deposed that on 20.3.2011 he was posted at North­West District Line Ashok Vihar as Head Constable and on that day he was on arrangement Duty at Police St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 28 Station Jahangir Puri on account of Holi Festival. He has deposed that SI Sandeep had come to her while he was on duty near Lokesh Cinema and asked him to accompany him as the medical examination of a young girl was required to be got conducted from BJRM Hospital. The witness has deposed that on his directed he went with him to BJRM Hospital where he found a young girl 'F' d/o Neki Ahmed, aged around 16­17 years was admitted. According to him in his presence SI Sandeep interrogated the girl whose condition was very critical and she was not able to give proper replies. The witness has deposed that on the queries made by SI Sandeep, the girl informed him that on 16.9.2010 one Monu Jatt S/o Om Prakash R/o Samaypur Badli whose exact address as told by the girl he does not recollect as of now, had allured and enticed her away (Behla fusla ke le gaya tha). According to the witness the girl also informed SI Sandeep that Monu Jatt had first taken her to Sonepat and thereafter to Jhajjar and during this period he married her and made physical relations with her and thereafter used to beat her and torture her (maara pita of bahut pareshan kiya). The witness has further deposed that the girl also informed SI Sandeep that the said Monu Jatt had told her that since her father had made a police complaint against her and therefore in case if he is not able to keep her he will not permit her to become somebody else (Agar tu meri nahin ho sakti to main tujhe kisi or ki nahin hone dunga). According to the witness the girl also told SI Sandeep that on St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 29 18.3.2011 Monu Jatt mixed something in her food after which her condition started deteriorating (usne khaane mein mila kar kuch de diya jiske karan uski tabiyat kharab ho gayi). The witness has deposed that the girl further told SI Sandeep that on the dame day at about 9­10 O'clock the accused Monu Jatt left her outside the house of her parents and ran away and that on 19.3.2011 her parents had brought her to BJRM Hospital and got her admitted there. According to the witness thereafter the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted.

(42) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that for the first time he disclosed about the above incident and what was told to him by the prosecutrix 'F' to Inspector Yashpal on 2.1.2012. he further admits that he did not sign any of the documents relating to the MLC of the prosecutrix in BJRM Hospital when he accompanied SI Sandeep there. He has deposed that at the time when he went to the hospital with SI Sandeep the father and brother of the prosecutrix were also present there. According to the witness he did not sign any of the documents of the investigations carried out by SI Sandeep at BJRM Hospital. He has further deposed that he is not aware if SI Sandeep had taken the fitness from the Doctor regarding the prosecutrix before interrogating her. Witness has denied that he is a planted witness by the prosecution only to connect the accused with the unnatural death of the deceased or that it is for this St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 30 reason that his signatures were not present on any documents or that he was never interrogated earlier nor his statement was recorded by the IO. According to the witness whatever was told by the prosecutrix, was recorded by SI Sandeep on a piece of paper but he is unable to tell if the signatures/ thumb impressions of the prosecutrix were taken on the same. Witness has admitted that his signatures were never taken on any such document containing the statement of the victim/ prosecutrix. He has denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the senior police officers only to work out the present case and shift the blame of the death of the prosecutrix on the accused.

(43) PW18 SI Shailendra Kumar has deposed that on 4.4.2011 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Jahangir Puri and was on area patrolling. According to him on that day investigations of case FIR No. 108/11, PS Jahangir Puri under Section 25 Arms Act was marked to him by the Duty Officer who also handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. The witness has deposed that pursuant to the same he reached at Shah Alam Bandh Road near MCD Plant where HC Narender and Ct. Kush Vedwan met him. He has deposed that HC Narender handed over the accused Monu Jatt along with the sealed pullanda containing the knife and he thereafter interrogated the accused Monu Jatt and on having sufficient grounds for arrest, the accused was thereafter arrested in the said FIR No. 108/11. According to the witness during interrogation, the accused St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 31 Monu Jatt disclosed his involvement in the present case i.e. FIR No. 323/10. He has deposed that he gave the information about the same to the SHO who directed him (witness) to arrest the accused Monu Jatt separately in the present case also and thereafter, he arrested the accused Monu Jatt in the present case vide arrest Memo Ex.PW9/A and personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW9/B after which he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Monu Jatt vide Ex.PW9/C. The witness has further deposed that on 5.4.2011 the accused was got medically examined through Ct. Khem Chand at BJRM Hospital and the MLC of the accused and the samples/ exhibits duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRMH J PURI DELHI were seized vide Ex.PW10/A after which the accused was produced before the Ld. MM and was sent to JC. The witness has identified the accused Monu Jatt in the Court.

(44) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that the knife was not recovered in my presence. According to the witness the knife was handed over to him by HC Narender in sealed condition and the accused was not apprehended in him presence. He has denied that the accused was not arrested from the place or in the manner as deposed by him or that the accused had not made any disclosure statement. The witness has also denied that Monu was arrested at the direction of SHO and ACP from his house or that a knife was planted upon him in order to falsely connect him with St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 32 the present case. He has further denied that the signatures of Monu were obtained forcibly on certain blank papers during his police custody which were later on converted into certain incriminating documents i.e. arrest memo, seizure memo, disclosure statement etc. He has denied that all the documents were prepared on the direction of the SHO and ACP while sitting in the police station itself. (45) PW20 Inspector Yashpal Singh has deposed that on 2.1.2012 he was posted as SHO Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day WSI Vineeta Prashad handed over him the final opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon obtained by her on the Postmortem Report of the deceased 'F'. According to the witness the cause of death was opined as due to Copper Acetate and the death was under unnatural circumstances and the said subsequent opinion of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bhim Singh is Ex.PW19/A and therefore, provisions of Section 302 IPC were added and statement of witnesses Naki Ahmed, Azim, Kesar, Ishraf Ali, Ct. Shripal and WHC Vandana were recorded. Thereafter he prepared the supplementary charge sheet against the accused Monu Jatt and filed it before the Court.

(46) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that the statement of HC Vandana was recorded after almost one year. He has denied that he did not record the supplementary statements of witnesses Naki Ahmed, Azim, Kesar, Ishraf Ali, Ct. Shripal and WHC Vandana or that he recorded the same St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 33 of his own only to work out the case of unnatural death of the deceased and to fill up the lacunas in the main charge sheet.

(47) PW21 SI Sandeep Kumar has deposed that on 20.09.2010 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day duty officer got registered the case and handed over copy of FIR of this case and DD No.26A to him for investigation. He has deposed that he tried to search the prosecutrix 'F' and also got issued wireless message, hue and cry notice in respect of missing girl 'F'. He has further deposed that on 20.03.2011 father of the prosecutrix namely Nafi Ahmed informed him on phone that his daughter 'F' returned and admitted in BJRM Hospital and on this he along with WHC Vandana went to BJRM Hospital where the girl 'F' was found admitted in Emergency Ward at BJRM Hospital where the father of 'F' namely Naki Ahmed was also found present there. He has deposed that he made inquiries from the girl 'F' in the presence of Naki Ahmed and WHC Vandana and the girl was speaking very slowly. The witness has deposed that he recorded her statement wherein she stated that on 16.9.2010 Monu Jatt had enticed/ allured her for purposes of marriage. The witness has deposed that the girl further informed that he (accused) initially took her to Sonepat and then to Jhajjar and kept her under veil (Baaparda). The witness has deposed that the girl further informed him that during this period he (accused) forcibly married her and kept her with him and made physical relations with her. The St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 34 witness has deposed that the girl also stated that Monu Jatt used to beat her (maarta peet­ta tha) and that during this period she felt sick (uski tabiyat kharab ho gayi). According to the witness the girl also told him that Monu Jatt used to tell her that since her father had instituted a criminal case against him, therefore in case if he is unable to make his own he would not allow her to become somebody else (agar tu meri nahin ho saki to main tujhe kisi aur ki nahin hone doonga). The witness has deposed that the girl further told him that on 18.3.11 Monu Jatt offered some food mixed with stupefying substance which she had consumed after which her physical condition deteriorated and thereafter he left her in front of her parents house. According to the witness the girl told him that thereafter on the next date her parents got her admitted in the BJRM hospital. The said statement so recorded by him is Ex.PW21/A bearing his signatures at point A. (48) The witness has deposed that he also moved an application to the concerned doctor for medical examination of the prosecutrix 'F' after which the doctor referred to prosecutrix 'F' to SR Gyane. According to the witness during the treatment 'F' expired. He thereafter recorded the statement of Nafi Ahmed under Section 161 Cr.PC and moved an application before the doctor for preservation of the dead body which is Ex.PW5/F. The witness has deposed that on 21.3.2011 he prepared inquest papers for postmortem i.e. application for autopsy which is Ex.PW5/B, brief facts Ex.PW5/C, form 25.35 St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 35 Ex.PW5/D, all bears his signatures at point B, dead body identification statement Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW9/H and handed over to the concerned doctor. According to the witness after postmortem dead body was handed over to its claimant vide Ex.PW12/A. The witness has deposed that the doctor handed over the three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of hospital containing clothes, vaginal swab and wooden box containing viscera and sample seal which are seized by him vide Ex.PW8/A and PW8/B and the exhibits were deposited with the MHC (M). The witness has deposed that thereafter he received injury on his leg and he went to long medical leave. he deposited the file with the MHCR.

(49) According to the witness, after returning from the medical leave investigation of this case was again marked to him. He also got sent the sealed parcel of the viscera to the FSL through Ct. Sripal by obtaining from the MHC (M) and recorded the statement of witnesses. He has deposed that subsequently as per the direction of the SHO investigation file was handed over to SI Vineeta and when he received the investigation again the certified copies of the date of birth certificate of prosecutrix 'F' were on the file. He has deposed that the school certificate is Ex.PW21/B, attested copy of the school admission record is Ex.PW 21/C, attested copy of the MCD certificate regarding date of birth is Ex.PW21/D, as per record the date of birth of deceased St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 36 'F' was 27.4.1994.

(50) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he had taken up this case for investigations on 20.09.2010 and the file remained with him during this period till he returned the same to the MHC (R) when he went on medical leave. He has deposed that in so far as he remember he was on medical leave from 31.03.2011 to 30.4.2011. He has further deposed that he had again taken up the investigation of the case on either 9 or 10.4.2011 but the exact date he does not recollect and handed over the file to SI Vineeta approximately in June 2011. The witness has deposed that the FIR had been registered on the basis of the father which was recorded in the police station and has voluntarily explained that the father of the prosecutrix had himself came to the police station to get the case registered. According to him Ct. Bijender had remained with him during the initial investigations. He has deposed that he did not record the statement of Ct. Bijender at any point of time. He has deposed that he inquired from the father of 'F' as to how he had suspected Monu upon which her father informed him that Monu was residing in the same area and was acquainted with his daughter previousely and both of them were missing (Dono Ke Batcheet Thi Aur dono He Nahi Mil Rahe Hai). According to the witness he did not make any investigation regarding the whereabouts of Monu because he did not have any definate address and has voluntarily explained that he was told that he St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 37 used to sit in a tea stall opposite the house of the prosecutrix. The witness has deposed that he had made investigation from the tea stall owner namely Saleem but he did not give him any information with regard to the residence or whereabouts of Monu. According to the witness the father of the prosecutrix had disclosed this fact regarding the previous acquaintance during the interrogation but he did not record his statement in this regard. He has deposed that he did not record the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix regarding the previous acquaintance of the prosecutrix and the accused nor he recorded any statement of the neighbours in this regard and has voluntarily explained that during inquiries the neighbours had pleaded ignorance and told him that they are not aware of any such affair. (51) The witness has deposed that he did not record any DD regarding the telephone call / information received from the father of the prosecutrix regarding her return on 20.03.2011 and has voluntarily explained that he was on emergency duty at that time and was already in the field/ outside the police station. The witness has deposed that when he had left the police station in the morning on 20.03.11 he had made a departure entry but he does not recollect its details and also as to who was accompanying him at that time while attending to the calls. The witness has deposed that he had reached the hospital between 2­3 p.m. and he had asked the constable on duty in the hospital if any information had been given to the police staiton regarding the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 38 admission of the prosecutrix on which the constable told him that he was not aware that it was a police case. According to the witness he did not make any inquiries from the hospital with regard to the details of the doctor who were treating the prosecutrix. He has deposed that he did not meet any doctor and straightaway went to the patient / prosecutrix who was admitted in the emergency. According to him he only found the father of the prosecutrix inside and he am not aware if her other family members were also present there. He has further deposed that he did not record the statement of the father regarding the return of his daughter before proceeding to the prosecutrix. According to him he does not recollect the exact time when he started to record the statement of the prosecutrix and has voluntarily explained that it was 3:00­3:30 p.m. He has deposed that he did not obtain the fitness from any doctor before proceeding to record the statement of the prosecutrix nor he asked / requested any doctor / nurse to remain present while he was recording the statement of the prosecutrix and has voluntarily explained that it was Holi festival and on account of large number of incidents of quarrels etc. which had taken place in the area the doctors / nurses were extremely busy. The witness has deposed that he did not ask any public person to join the proceedings in the hospital when he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and has voluntarily explained that father of the prosecutrix was already present there. The witness has deposed that he did not informed the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 39 SDM of the area regarding the critical condition of the prosecutrix after recording her statement. According to the witness it took him (witness) around half and hour to record the statement of the prosecutrix / victim. He has deposed that he did not obtain the signatures of the father of the prosecutrix / victim on the statement. He has deposed that he also did not obtain the signatures/ thumb impressions of the victim / prosecutrix on her statement. According to him he also did not obtain the signatures of the doctors / nurses on duty or any other person including the duty constable at the hospital or other public persons present there on the said statement. he also did not obtain the signatures of WHC Vandana on the said statement. He has deposed that he had collected the MLC and other documents including the death summery relating to the prosecutrix from the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix / deceased had not made any statement or that he recorded the same of his own at a later stage and it is for this reason that her statement Ex.PW21/A does not bear the signatures/ endorsement of any person including the prosecutrix/deceased, doctors, nurses, family members of the prosecutrix or of the other public persons present at the spot. The witness has deposed that he did not record the statement of WHC Vandana during the investigation. Witness has denied the suggestion that her statement was not recorded as she was not present with him during the investigation when he allegedly recorded the statement of St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 40 the deceased / prosecutrix. He has deposed that he did not make any investigation on the aspect if even prior to 19.03.2011 the prosecutrix had been brought to the hospital for treatment by anybody and has voluntarily explained that he was not told about this fact that she was brought there previously and therefore he did not make any inquiry in this regard. The witness has deposed that he is not aware if the prosecutrix had brought to the hospital even on 17.3.2011 vide Ex.PW6/C1 for treatment. According to him he did not go to Sonepat or Jhajjar to find out where the prosecutrix had been kept during the period of her alleged confinement by the accused and has voluntarily explained that she had not disclosed any particular place to him and therefore he could not go to any such place. The witness has deposed that after the arrest of the accused when he again taken up the file he did not go to the house of the accused to make any inquiries if the prosecutrix was staying with him or not and in what condition. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation of this case fairly or that he manufactured false statement of 'F' antidated at the instance of her parents and in connivance with the local SHO and ACP in order to falsely implicated the accused Monu in this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that 'F' was not in position to make any statement during her treatment in the hospital or particularly the time alleged by him of recording of her statement or that due to this reason no SDM, doctor or any other person was not St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 41 informed about any such statement. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was aware during the investigation that 'F' was residing with her parents during the month of Feb./March 2011 or that her parents caused her death or due to this reason he did not record the statement of her neighbourers. Witness has denied the suggestion that it came to his knowledge during investigation that 'F' got married with Monu with her free will and started residing with him happily but the same was strongly opposed by her parents. Witness has denied the suggestion that he prepared a false case against accused Monu at the instance of parents of 'F' in order to save them from consequences of their act. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(52) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. He has stated that he and the prosecutrix 'F' were having an love affair and decided to get married but her parents opposed the same being different religion hence, they decided to get married themselves after which she came to him on 16.9.2010 and asked him to take her along with him at his home after getting married. According to the accused, thereafter, they both got married and started residing at Jhajjar at the house of his Nana - Nani since his mother and father had expired and he was residing with his Nana - Nani. He has further stated that after St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 42 the marriage he stayed for a week at Sonepat for a week at the house of his married sister namely Jyoti at her request and thereafter they remained at Jhajjar. According to the accused, his wife 'F' tried to convince her parents on telephone but they remained adamant but his wife went to her parental house by convincing him that she would win the trust of her parents again and they would be ready to bless their matrimonial life hence she went to her parental house in the first week of February 2011 but thereafter she did not return. He has further stated that the prosecutrix 'F' got married with him with her free will and consent and even after the marriage they enjoyed a happy married life at Jhajjar and his wife wanted to take blessings of her parents for further life but her parents remained annoyed and all her efforts went in vain. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the parents of his wife 'F' with the active connivance of SI Sandeep and HC Vandana and other police officials in order to save themselves from the penal consequences of their own wrongs and acts. He has alleged that it appears that his wife had been killed by her parents in order to take the revenge of the marriage of their daughter with him in different religion against their wishes and went to the extent of eliminating his wife 'F' on the pretext of saving their honour in society. In his defence the accused Monu Jatt has examined his maternal grandfather / Nana Jage Ram as DW1. St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 43 (53) DW1 Jage Ram has deposed that the accused Monu is the son of his daughter Shakuntala and his parents have expired.

According to him, in the year 2010, one and a half month prior to the Diwali festival, Monu made a telephone call to him and informed that he got married on which he told Monu to come to his house. He has deposed that thereafter, Monu came to his house along with his wife and stayed at his house for three months. The witness has testified that the prosecutrix 'F' wife of Monu told him that she had got married with Monu with her free will and consent and against the wishes of her parents as they were strongly against the inter­religion marriage. He has further deposed that he made her understand the customs of their community and she behaved as a good daughter­in­law and also used to do ghoonghat / parda as prevailing customs in their community. The witness has also deposed that he advised her that she should talk to her parents but she informed him that she had called them two­three times in order to take their blessings for happy married life but her parents told her that their honour and respect had been lowered down by her conduct and she was not allowed to visit her parents. According to DW1, he also came to know that after the marriage Monu and the prosecutrix remained at the house of the cousin sister of Monu at Sonipat for a week and thereafter they came to their house. He has deposed that one day, the sister of the prosecutrix telephonically informed that her Mausi had expired and she (wife of Monu) should St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 44 come Delhi on which Monu and his wife went Delhi. The witness has testified that at the time of leaving their house, the prosecutrix 'F' told him that this time she would persuade her parents and take their blessings for her marriage with Monu and assured that after persuading her parents she would call Monu also at her home. He has testified that after some time, they came to know that Monu had been lifted by the police as he used to work in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar with a transporter and they also came to know that the wife of Monu had expired.

(54) In his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that Monu has studied till class 5th and has been staying with them ever since the death of his mother when he was 4 to 5 years old. He has further deposed that at the time when Monu got married, he was doing some business of transport, but he is not sure. He is not aware if Monu is involved in other criminal cases and has voluntarily explained that police had never come to their house except in the present case. He has also deposed that after Monu came to their house with his wife, they did not even know that she was a Muslim and came to know about the same when she herself disclosed the same to him and his wife. According to the witness, they did not get any formal marriage of Monu performed with the deceased as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and has voluntarily explained that they were already married so there was no need. He has denied the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 45 suggestion that the sister of the deceased had never called the deceased to her house on the pretext that her mausi had expired or that they were not happy with the inter­religion marriage of Monu and 'F' could not adopt to their traditions and customs on account of which reason they were annoyed with her. He has also denied that prosecutrix 'F' used to be harassed by Monu which affected her physical health or that on account of the family pressure since they were not accepting 'F' in their family and hence it was Monu who after poisoning the prosecutrix 'F' abandoned her at her father's house.

FINDINGS:

(55) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:

Identity of the accused:

(56) In so far as the identity of the accused Monu Jatt is concerned, in the missing report lodged by the father of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW12/X on the basis of which the present FIR was got registered, he has been specifically named. Further, he has been identified in the Court by the parents of the prosecutrix as the boy who had taken away their minor daughter and got married to her. Even the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 46 accused does not dispute his identity. Therefore, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused Monu Jatt stands established.

Age of the prosecutrix:

(57) The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix was a minor aged around 16 years at the time of the incident i.e. 20.9.2010.

In this regard the prosecution has placed his reliance on the Date of Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix showing her date of birth to be 24.4.1994. Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the prosecutrix 'F' was not a minor at the time of the incident and a wrong date has been mentioned in the said Date of Birth Certificate Ex.PW21/D and school record which are Ex.PW21/B and Ex.PW21/C. In this regard the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimony of SI Sandeep who had got the certificate verified and also on the testimony of the father of the prosecutrix namely Nafi Ahmed. I have gone through the Date of Birth Certificate Ex.PW21/D (presumed to be correct and also not controverted by the accused) which has been verified by SI Sandeep, copy of school record which is Ex.PW21/B and Ex.PW21/C which have gone uncontroverted. The father of the prosecutrix has also in his testimony confirms the above date of birth and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the date of birth of St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 47 the prosecutrix 'F' as 24.4.1994 stands established showing that on the date of incident i.e. 20.9.2010 when she is reported to have eloped along with the accused, she was aged around 16 years and 5 months. Forensic Evidence:

(58) The case of the prosecution is that after the death of the prosecutrix, her postmortem examination was got conducted and the Autopsy Surgeon preserved the samples for viscera analysis which samples were thereafter sent to FSL for examination. Sh. Jitender Kumar (PW11) Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini has proved having examined the samples Ex.1A i.e. stomach, and piece of small intestine; Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney; Ex.1C i.e. blood sample volume approximate 5 ml and after examination he found Ex.1A and Ex.1B to be contained copper acetate. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW11/A. PW19 SI Vineeta Prashad has proved that after receiving the FSL report she obtained the opinion regarding cause of death from Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bhim Singh vide Ex.PW19/A according to which since the viscera analysis report show positive test for presence of Copper Acetate hence the cause of death was due to Copper Acetate Poisoning. Therefore, I hold that the forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case that the death of the prosecutrix was unnatural and caused on account St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 48 of poisoning.

Allegations against the accused Monu Jatt regarding kidnapping of the prosecutrix for purpose of marriage:

(59) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Monu Jatt who is a Hindu had kidnapped the minor prosecutrix who was hardly aged 16 years 6 months at the time of the incident and took her with him after which he made physical relations with her after which he got married to her. The case of the accused on the other hand is that the prosecutrix 'F' herself was a consenting party and had voluntarily eloped with the accused after which she herself of her own married him and was happily residing with the accused at her matrimonial house.

(60) In this regard I may observe that no statement of the prosecutrix had been recorded whatsoever and hence it is only the version of the parents of the prosecutrix vis­a­vis the version of the accused which is there on record and in the Court the parents of the prosecutrix have conceded that she had gone voluntarily with the accused and got married to him without their consent. The age of the prosecutrix has been duly proved to be hardly aged 16 years and 5 months at the time of the incident. In so far as the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is concerned the question of consent would arise only when the prosecutrix is less than 16 years. The parents of the prosecutrix have specifically deposed in the Court that St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 49 after eloping with the accused Monu Jatt their daughter 'F' had informed them that she had eloped with the accused Monu voluntarily and had married him and was happily residing with him and wanted to come to them but they told her not to come since she had given a bad name to them. This conclusively establishes that the prosecutrix 'F' had voluntarily gone with the accused and married him for which reason the accused Monu Jatt is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC in view of the specific admission of the parents of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix had informed them about her marriage with the accused.

(61) In so far as the allegations against the accused under Section 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code are concerned, I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 363 IPC, it is the consent of the parents and not of the minor prosecutrix which is material. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted having taken the prosecutrix with him for purposes of marriage since the parents of the prosecutrix were not agreeable to the alliance. This being the background, I hold that legally and technically the accused having taken the minor prosecutrix with him (even if she had eloped voluntarily of her own) is guilty of having taken her out of the lawful guardianship of her parents for the purpose of marriage (which marriage has been admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.). Therefore, I hold the accused Monu Jatt guilty of St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 50 offence under Section 363 r/w 366 Indian Penal Code. Medical Evidence and Allegations against the accused Monu Jatt under Section 302 IPC:

(62) Dr. Rajesh Satija (PW3) has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix 'F' which is Ex.PW2/A according to which the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital on 20.3.2011 at 4:30 PM with a request to conduct her O.B.G. Examination. On examination she was found to be suffering from severe Anemia and was admitted in BJRM Hospital. Dr. Meenakshi (PW2) has proved that on 20.3.2011 she examined the prosecutrix in the Gyne Department. However, during treatment she expired on 20.30.2011 at 8:50 PM. Thereafter the postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased prosecutrix which has been duly proved by Dr. Bhim Singh (PW5).

The postmortem examination report Ex.PW5/A reveals that the cause of death was kept pending to be given only after receipt of Viscera Analysis Report especially for copper compounds.

(63) The case of the prosecution is that initially on the basis of the missing report dated 20.9.2010 lodged by Nafi Ahmed the present case was got registered under Section 363,366,376 IPC. However, on 20.3.2011 an information was received that the prosecutrix 'F' was admitted in the BJRM Hospital with a history of running fever for four­ five days and on 21.3.2011 she expired and despite the fact that the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 51 viscera examination report revealed death by poisoning no investigations were conducted and it is ultimately this Court which was compelled to intervene and direct further investigations on the aspect of unnatural death of the deceased.

(64) I am pained to observe that despite the specific directions of this Court and apparently as a cover­up subsequently a supplementary charge sheet was filed where the charges Section 302 IPC were added against the accused Monu Jatt alleging that it was the accused Monu Jatt who had left the prosecutrix 'F' at the house of her parents after which her condition deteriorated and she was hospitalized where she subsequently expired.

(65) In the further investigation report it is alleged that at the time when the prosecutrix 'F' was hospitalized she had spoken to HC Vandana (PW17) who was on duty and had accompanied the prosecutrix for her medical examination to BJRM Hospital where she was admitted and in her presence SI Sandeep had interrogated the prosecutrix whose condition was very critical and she was not able to give proper replies but she informed SI Sandeep that on 16.9.2010 the accused Monu Jatt had allured and enticed her away and thereafter got married to her after which her father made a complaint to the police against him and being annoyed the accused Monu Jatt told her that since her father had made a police complaint against him therefore in case if he is not able to keep her, he would not permit her to be become St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 52 somebody else and thereafter on 18.3.2011 Monu Jatt mixed something in her food after which her condition started deteriorating after which he left her outside the house of her parents and ran away. The prosecutrix also informed SI Sandeep Kumar that thereafter on 19.3.2011 her parents had brought her to the BJRM Hospital and got her admitted there.

(66) I have gone through the statements of both HC Vandana and SI Sandeep Kumar. It is writ large from the cross­examination of this HC Vandana (PW17) that she for the first time has been examined and made a witness in the present case on 2.1.2012. If a statement had been made by the prosecutrix 'F' to SI Sandeep Kumar in the presence of HC Vandana she should have been made a witness at the first instance. It is only after this Court directed further investigations that she has for the first time been cited as a witness on 2.1.2012 i.e. after almost ten months of the incident. Further, her signatures are not present on any of the documents which SI Sandeep had prepared in the hospital nor there is anything on record to show that any fitness from the doctor had been obtained by SI Sandeep Kumar before interrogating the prosecutrix. On the one hand it is evident from the medical record of the deceased and also from the testimonies of the family of the deceased that throughout the time the deceased remained admitted in the hospital she was not in a position to speak whereas on the other hand for the first time after the further investigations were St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 53 directed by this Court HC Vandana was introduced as a witness who claims that the deceased had in fact made a statement to SI Sandeep. (67) Further, in so far as SI Sandeep Kumar is concerned, he has also similarly confirmed what is stated by HC Vandana (PW17). However, I may mention that whatever has now been brought on record by virtue of oral deposition of HC Vandana and SI Sandeep does not find a mention in the first information. If the prosecutrix had already given this information to SI Sandeep Kumar about how she was administered some poisonous substance by the accused who then left her at the house of her parents, I am sure being in nature of a Dying Declaration SI Sandeep would have surely reproduced it into writing or made some endorsement over it or informed his senior officers which is not the case. On the contrary it is evident from the Death Summary that when the prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital in the Casualty by her own family they themselves gave a history of fever since 4­5 days with altered behaviour since one hour. The prosecutrix (deceased) was drowsy at that time and even the doctors had observed that she was not giving proper responses even to the verbal commands of the doctors, how then in this background she could have disclosed some thing either to the Investigating Officer SI Sandeep or to HC Vandana which they themselves never brought on record. Hence the claims now made by SI Sandeep and HC Vandana appears to be in the nature of a cover­up and I do not find their testimonies credible and St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 54 trustworthy. Rather, it is writ large that HC Vandana had been introduced at a much later only to diver the investigations towards the accused and to fill up the lacunas in the prosecution case. (68) This case is a classic example of how police has tried to manipulate their own witnesses only to work out the case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and that too after the Court took notice of the same. I may note that the offence of kidnapping of the prosecutrix for purposes of marriage and subsequent rape and thereafter the later offence of her unnatural death were altogether two distinct incidents for which separate FIRs should have been registered. The investigations in the same should also have been conducted separately which has not been done. Blatant attempts were made to underplay the later incident connected with the death of the prosecutrix and it is for this reason perhaps that the fact regarding the unnatural death of the prosecutrix was not even mentioned in the initial charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. If the Investigating Agency was of the view that the subsequent death of the prosecutrix was incidental to and followed the earlier incident of her kidnapping then how is it that hurriedly a charge sheet was filed against the accused only for the offence under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and no investigations qua her unnatural death were conducted till such time they were so directed by the Court. Further, it also stands established from the testimonies of her parents that what they have deposed in the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 55 Court is totally inconsistent with their earlier statements given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In fact they are contradicting each other on material particulars and even strangely do not even admit the factum of the prosecutrix having come to their house before her death. It is this behaviour of the parents of the deceased is highly suspicious, for as per the hospital record it is her parents and brother who had brought her to the hospital and gave the history of fever for 4­5 days. If the prosecutrix would have been left at her parental house by the accused I am sure that the parents and family of the deceased would have certainly disclosed this fact to the doctors which is not the case. (69) Further, their testimonies also show that they appear to be having least remorse for what even has happened to their daughter. In fact both of them have categorically deposed that they were totally upset with their daughter / prosecutrix eloping with the accused and her subsequent marriage with him. They have also stated that the prosecutrix 'F' had given them a bad name by getting married to a Hindu boy. They have also conceded that the prosecutrix 'F' had called them up on telephone and informed that she was happily married and residing with Monu and wanted to come and take their blessings on which they asked her not to come as she had already disgraced them in the society by getting married in a Hindu family.

(70) It also cannot be ignored that one of the most important witness is the neighbour of the prosecutrix namely Israfeel Pradhan St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 56 (PW15) who is residing near the house of the parents of the prosecutrix. He has not supported the version given by the parents of the prosecutrix. He has specifically testified that on 18.3.2011 at about 9:00 - 10:00 PM he had seen the prosecutrix going to her parents house and at that time she was walking down to their house. According to him, he further came to know on 21.3.2011 that the prosecutrix expired during the treatment at the BJRM Hospital. In his cross­examination he has explained that he came to know about the kidnapping of the prosecutrix through the local persons of the area and not through the parents of the prosecutrix. He has further stated that he was called at the Police Station after four­five days of the death of the prosecutrix and even after the death of the prosecutrix he was not told anything about the prosecutrix by her parents despite the fact that his house is adjoining to the house of Nafi Ahmed. He has explained that since the matter was relating to a young girl hence he never made inquiries about the prosecutrix from her parents of anybody else. He is very categorical while stating that on 18.3.2011 when he saw the prosecutrix she was walking down towards her house. This Israfeel Pradhan is an independent witness who is the next door neighbour of the father of the deceased and belongs to the same religious community. There is no reason for him to lie and his testimony is most credible and truthful.

St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 57 (71) The mother of the prosecutrix namely Kesar Jahan (PW16) has denied that her daughter had come to their house on 18.3.2011 at about 9­10 PM in an ailing condition or had informed her anything. Similarly the father of the prosecutrix Nafi Ahmed (PW12) has come up with a new story. According to him, on 19.3.2011 somebody had informed him that his daughter was seen near the bus stop Jahangir Puri on which he reached there and found that his daughter was in ailing condition and thereafter he lifted her and removed her to BJRM Hospital. He has stated that his daughter was not in a position to tell anything and in the night she expired. It is writ large that both Kesar Jahan and Nafi Ahmed are not giving the correct versions. The Hospital record show that the prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital by her father Nafi Ahmed and history given was of fever for four­five days. Israfeel Pradhan (PW15) the next door neighboyr says that he saw the prosecutrix going to her father's house on 18.3.2011 at 9:00­10:00 PM. Why will Israfeel Pradhan tell a lie? He has no interest. Further, assuming what Kesar Jahan and Nafi Ahmed have stated is correct and the prosecutrix did not go to her house, then the next question which arises is how did her father get her admitted in the hospital in a state of ulter sensorium (not able to follow the command and understand, semi unconscious) and even gave a history of fever for four­five days. No explanation is forthcoming on this aspect that if the girl was not in a position to speak properly then how St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 58 could the father give the above history and most importantly why he did not disclose to the doctors that he had already lodged a police complaint in respect of the deceased when she had gone missing. (72) It is evident that the evidence which has been brought on record by the prosecution is self contradictory there being material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the family of the deceased. Further, the manner in which the aspect relating to the unnatural death of the prosecutrix has been investigated and put before the Court apparently goes to show that there have been attempts to divert the investigations and this being a cover up operation only to complete the formality of working out the case cannot be ruled out. While analyzing the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses and the material placed on record, this Court has noticed certain inconsistencies in the prosecution version which I now proceed to briefly cull out as under:

➢ Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh (PW6) in his testimony before the Court has been most categorical. He states that it was the parents of the deceased prosecutrix who had brought her to the hospital and at no point of time they disclosed to him that the girl had eloped with somebody or that there was missing report lodged with the police. Why is it that the father of the prosecutrix concealed this fact from the Doctors? St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 59 ➢ The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix 'F' had been left at her house by the accused on 18.3.2011 and thereafter her health started deteriorating and on 19.3.2011 her parents got her admitted in BJRM Hospital where during treatment she had expired on 20.3.2011. Both the parents of the prosecutrix i.e. father Nafi Ahmed (PW12) and mother Kesar Jahan (PW16) have turned hostile on the above aspect. In the Court they have denied that the prosecutrix had ever come to their house. According to Kesar Jahan (PW16) the prosecutrix had never come to their house and they had received information from BJRM Hospital that she was admitted in the hospital. The father of the prosecutrix Nafi Ahmed (PW12) however taken a totally different stand. According to him on 19.3.2011 somebody informed him that his daughter was present at Jahangir Puri Bus Stand and did not appear in good health on which he rushed to Jahangir Puri Bus Stand and on seeing her condition he took her to BJRM Hospital where she was got admitted. Who is this person who informed him of his daughter present at the bus stand Jahangir Puri on 19.3.2011? Assuming this aspect to be correct then how is it that the deceased prosecutrix 'F' was seen by Israfeel Pradhan (the next door neighbour of Nafi Ahmed) entering his house on 18.3.2011 at 9:00­10:00 St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 60 PM?

➢ The medical record of the prosecutrix which is authentic and independent piece of evidence shows that the history given by the parents of the prosecutrix was of suffering from fever for 4­5 days (if the prosecutrix was not with them then this history cannot be given). The continuation sheets Ex.PW6/C­1 to Ex.PW6/C­3 which have been duly proved by Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh show that the prosecutrix 'F' was detected sever anemia and breathless and at the time of her admission at hospital (symptomatic of copper acetate poisoning) but it was reported by her family that she was suffering from fever on and off from last 4­5 days and ulter sensorium (not able to follow the command and understand, semi unconscious) and thereafter her condition kept on deteriorating till her death. If the prosecutrix was not with her parents and at the time of the admission was in a state of ulter­sensorium (not able to follow the command and understand, semi unconscious) for one hour prior to her admission then how is it that this history of fever for last four­five days could have been given to the doctors? ➢ It stands established from the medical record of the prosecutrix that as per the version of the parents of the prosecutrix and as also observed by the doctors the patient was ulter sensorium (not St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 61 able to follow the command and understand, semi unconscious) and thereafter her condition kept on deteriorating till her death, showing that she was not in a proper physical and mental state to make any statement to anybody and hence under the given circumstances it is impossible that on 20.3.2011 she could have made any statement to SI Sandeep Kumar in the presence of HC Vandana. On the one hand while the father of the prosecutrix and the doctors treating her are most categorical and state that she had not disclosed anything to them yet on the other hand HC Vandana and SI Sandeep Kumar now for the first time after the Investigating Agency was directed to further investigate the offence under Section 302 IPC came up with a new story of the prosecutrix having made a statement to them which SI Sandeep Kumar had noted under Section 161 Cr.P.C. How is it possible that under the given medical condition of the prosecutrix when her condition was deteriorating that she was able to understand what was asked from her and also respond to the queries made by SI Sandeep and HC Vandana?

➢ Assuming what HC Vandana and SI Sandeep Kumar have stated is correct and the prosecutrix did make a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as claimed by them, then under the given circumstances the said statement was to be treated as Dying Declaration of the deceased calling for invocation of provisions St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 62 of Section 302 IPC. Why then the said provisions were not invoked against the accused at the very inception and why no charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 IPC was filed against the accused Monu Jatt at the first instance? It is this which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court and the possibility of this statement being manipulated only to work out the case against the accused under Section 302 IPC (only after this Court took notice of the same) and divert the investigations cannot be ruled out.

➢ HC Vandana who according to the prosecution was present in the hospital on 20.3.2011 at the time when the prosecutrix made a statement to SI Sandeep Kumar, was never cited as witness by the prosecution at the initial stages and it was after 10 months when the Court directed further investigations on the aspect of unnatural death of the prosecutrix that for the first time her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she was cited as witness before this Court whose testimony on the face of it is non credible and untrustworthy and appears to be an after thought. Assuming that she was present in the hospital and some statement was made in her presence, why then was HC Vandana never cited as a prosecution witness at the first instance?

St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 63 ➢ Further, assuming that the prosecutrix did make a statement regarding the accused having administered poison to her, why then immediately no SDM (being a case of harassment by husband and unnatural death) was informed nor any Illaka Magistrate called to the hospital for recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.? Also, why no information was given to the Doctor and no fitness was obtained from the doctors to certify that the prosecutrix was in a position to make a statement and why no investigations of her unnatural death were immediately conducted? I am sure that if the prosecutrix had made this statement some persons from the hospital staff or visitors would have been available in the room with her, then why nobody was cited as a witness thereof as aforesaid?

➢ Israfeel Pradhan (PW15) who is the next door neighbour of the prosecutrix and is an independent witness has very categorically stated that he had seen the prosecutrix at her house on 18.3.2011 at about 9:00­10:00 PM while she was walking down at her father's house. He did not notice any abnormality with her. Had he noticed that she was sick or ailing he would have disclose the same which is not the case. Rather, on the contrary he states that he had seen her walking to her father's house. Why would St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 64 Israfeel Pradhan tell a lie? If the case of the prosecution itself is that the prosecutrix was dropped at her fathers house on 18.3.2011 and even the neighbour say so and the hospital record corroborates the same, then Why the parents of the prosecutrix have taken a stand before the Court that the prosecutrix never came to their house on 18.3.2011? Is it that they are trying to conceal something?

➢ The testimony of the parents of the prosecutrix reveal that they were extremely bitter on account of the marriage between the prosecutrix and the possibility of their having called the prosecutrix at their house on the pretext of death of her Mausi (as claimed by the grandfather of the accused DW1) cannot be ruled out. Why has the Investigating Officer having come to know from the chemical examination report that death was on account of Copper Acetate poisoning conducted no investigations on the role of the family of the deceased in her unnatural death?

(73) I may observe that the accused Monu Jatt in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specifically alleged that he and the prosecutrix had married but her parents were averse to the inter­ religion marriage and it is her parents who had killed his wife / prosecutrix only to take revenge and to save their honour in the society. St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 65 In support of his case the accused has examined his maternal grandfather (Nana) Jage Ram (DW1) with whom he had been staying. Jage Ram has confirmed that the accused Monu and the prosecutrix had got married and had come to his house on account of the strong opposition in their family but she was a well­behaved girl and since the accused Monu and prosecutrix 'F' had already married, their family had accepted the prosecutrix. According to Jage Ram (DW1), one day he received a call from the sister of prosecutrix informing him that her Mausi had expired and they should came to Delhi on which the accused left the prosecutrix at her house. He has deposed that before leaving the prosecutrix also told them she would persuade her parents and would take their blessings for her marriage with Monu and thereafter would call the accused Monu to their house. The statement of Jage Ram appears to be natural and probable and there is no reason to suspect or doubt the same. Strangely no investigations have been conducted on the role of the parents and the family of the prosecutrix in her death. The prosecutrix 'F' had died in Delhi when she was in the house of her parents as admitted by their next door neighbour and was even admitted to the hospital by them and the possibility that they deliberately gave a wrong history (of fever for four­five days, malaria etc.) only to mislead and divert the investigations cannot be ruled out. (74) It is this behaviour of the parents of the prosecutrix of giving incorrect history, delaying her treatment, not shifting her to a St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 66 specialty hospital despite the advise of the Doctors at BJRM Hospital and then taking a different stand in the Court to the extent that she had never came to their house which is highly suspicious and the possibility of the girl / prosecutrix having been poisoned by her own family and her unnatural death being on account of Honour Killing cannot be ruled out.

(75) This being the background, it was not only necessary for the Investigating Agency to have thoroughly investigated the unnatural death of the deceased prosecutrix but also the role of her parents and family in the same. This I say because even during the trial of the case I observed that the parents of the deceased prosecutrix appeared to be least bothered or remorseful of what had happened and openly claimed that they were averse to the alliance of the prosecutrix with the accused and also that the prosecutrix had given them a bad name on account of inter­religion marriage with the accused by eloping with him. I am pained to observe that all these aforesaid aspects though were fully in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, SHO and the ACP concerned yet they have conveniently chosen to look the other way. Having come to know of the unnatural death of the prosecutrix the investigations should have been transferred and conducted by some senior officer of the rank of Inspector which was never done. The manner in which the police has tried to underplay the unnatural death of the prosecutrix by not even making a vague reference to the same in St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 67 the charge sheet filed by them at the first instance are reflective of systemic apathy & indifference and leaves much to be answered. (76) Research shows that every year in India about 1000 persons mostly women are brutally killed by their own Kins / family members on the assumption of her having brought a dishonour and disgrace to them and their family in which they take pride. The worst is the backing such killings have from their own families, communities, religious groups and caste councils with the authorities choosing to either look the other way or to underplay the entire incident, as has happened in the present case. It is a matter of common knowledge that in most of the cases in order to avoid detection of this horror crime and consequential punishment, attempts are made either to pass off such deaths as natural or suicide. In the present case what has shocked me the most is the fact that the Investigating Agency at the initial stages concealed the fact of unnatural death of the prosecutrix by not invoking the provisions of Section 302 IPC and thereafter not even once explored this angle of Honour Killing and rule out the possibility of the same. The Investigating Agency perhaps found an easy escape by shifting the entire blame upon the accused. The accused however cannot be made liable for something which he has not done. No doubt, the accused had eloped with the minor prosecutrix without the consent of her parents / guardian and got married to her but given the circumstances he apparently has no role in the unnatural death of the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 68 deceased prosecutrix and the killing appears to be the job of some other person. Why will the accused who was in love with the prosecutrix and had married her after eloping despite all opposition, leave her at the house of her parents only because the father of the prosecutrix had at some earlier point of time made a complaint against him? After all pursuant to their marriage they were both residing happily with the family of the accused who had accepted the prosecutrix 'F' and she had informed her family about the same (as claimed by the parents of the deceased prosecutrix). It does not appear probable that he could have under the given circumstances killed her there being no reason for the same and hence the accused Monu Jatt can only be held liable for the offence under Section 363 r/w 366 Indian Penal Code but not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for which he is acquitted.

(77) A young girl from a poor family has died under mysterious circumstances apparently because she had dared to go by the dictates of her heart and had eloped with a man whom she loved who incidentally belonged to a different religion. Sadly nobody appears to be concerned with her tragic death. I refuse to remain a mute spectator. Nor law permit this case to rest here by shutting my eyes to these horrendous social ills and Honour crimes which are unfortunately increasing by the day. Further investigations would be required to be conducted on the issue of unnatural death of the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 69 prosecutrix particularly on the aspect of Honour Killing of the deceased prosecutrix 'F' and on the role of her parental family in the same. However, since the local police appears to have already made­ up their mind and given a clean chit to the family of the deceased despite voluminous material pointing a finger towards them, it would be desirable that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi personally intervenes in this regard and in order to ensure that Justice is done to the young girl get the further investigations conducted through its specialized wings i.e. Homicidal Wing (Crime Branch) or any other wing duly sensitized into handling such investigations. The report of the same should be filed before the Ld. ACMM (North­West) preferably within a period of three months of receipt of the directions. (78) In this regard I hereby direct that a copy of this Judgment be placed before the Ld. ACMM (North­West) for passing appropriate directions in this regard in accordance with law.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

(79) 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 St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 70 '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.

(80) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the identity of the accused Monu Jatt stands established. It also stands established that the accused Monu Jatt was a Hindu and the prosecutrix 'F' aged about 16 years and 5 months at the time of the incident was a Muslim; that both the accused and the prosecutrix were in love with each other and due to difference in religion their alliance was not acceptable to their families; that on 20.9.2010 the prosecutrix had eloped with the accused Monu Jatt and thereafter they married each other; that the accused Monu Jatt took the prosecutrix 'F' to the house of his maternal grandfather Nana at Jhajjar where they stayed as husband and wife; that during this period the prosecutrix had informed her parents over telephone that she had married the accused Monu Jatt and was happily residing with him; that on 18.3.2011 the accused left St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 71 the prosecutrix outside her house (while she was seen going by Israfeel Pradhan­PW15); that on 20.3.2011 the prosecutrix was got admitted in BJRM Hospital with the alleged history of fever and thereafter her medical condition started deteriorating; that at 8:50 PM the prosecutrix expired an unnatural death on account of consumption of Copper Acetate Poison.

(81) This being the background, I hold that legally and technically the accused having taken the minor prosecutrix with him (even if she had eloped voluntarily of her own) is guilty of having taken her out of the lawful guardianship of her parents for the purpose of marriage and hence I hold the accused Monu Jatt guilty of offence under Section 363 r/w 366 Indian Penal Code and convict him accordingly.

(82) In so far as the provisions of Section 376 Indian Penal Code are concerned, it writ large that the prosecutrix 'F' who was more than 16 years of age at the time of the incident, had voluntarily gone with the accused and married him for which reason the accused Monu Jatt is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC in view of the specific admission of the parents of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix had informed them about her marriage with the accused. (83) Further, in so far as the aspect of unnatural death of the prosecutrix and the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned, keeping in view the various inconsistencies in the St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 72 prosecution version and suspicious conduct of the parents of the prosecutrix (as highlighted herein above) I hereby acquit the accused Monu Jatt of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Also in terms of the observations made herein above further investigations are required to be conducted on the issue of unnatural death of the prosecutrix particularly on the aspect of Honour Killing of the deceased prosecutrix 'F' and on the role of her parental family in the same and in this regard it would be desirable that the Commissioner of Police, Delhi should personally intervene in order to ensure that Justice is done to the young girl get the further investigations conducted through its specialized wings i.e. Homicidal Wing (Crime Branch) or any other wing duly sensitized into handling such investigations and to ensure that report of the same be filed before the Ld. ACMM (North­ West) preferably within a period of three months.

(84) In this regard I hereby direct that a copy of this Judgment be placed before the Ld. ACMM (North­West) for passing appropriate directions in this regard in accordance with law. One copy be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for necessary compliance in accordance with law.

(85) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 25.2.2013.

Announced in the open Court                                  (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 19.02.2013                                            ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI


St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri                         Page No. 73
      IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
      JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Session Case No. 23/2011

State                                 Vs.                  Monu Jatt
                                                           S/o Om Prakash
                                                           R/o Jhuggi No. 276, 
                                                           Suraj Park, Badli,
                                                           Delhi
                                                           (Convicted)


FIR No.:                                       323/2010
Police Station:                                Jahangir Puri
Under Sections:                                302/376/366/363 Indian Penal Code

Date of Conviction:                            19.2.2013

Arguments concluded on:                        1.3.2013

Date of sentence:                              5.3.2013


APPEARANCE:

Present:           Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Convict Monu Jatt in Judicial Custody with Sh. Pradeep Rana Advocate.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

As per allegations on 16.9.2010 at about 12:30 PM the accused Monu Jatt kidnapped / abducted the deceased / prosecutrix 'F' aged 16 years, from the lawful guardianship of her father Nafi Ahmed St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 74 from his house at B Block, Jahangirpuri, by alluring her and took her to Sonepat and thereafter to Jhajjar and married her forcibly without her consent after which he kept her illegally with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It has also been alleged that between 16.9.2010 and 18.3.2011 the accused Monu Jatt committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'F' without her consent and further that during her stay with the accused on 18.3.2011 the accused mixed some substance in the food and gave to the prosecutrix due to which reason she fell ill and her condition became critical after which he left her outside her house and subsequently she was expired at BJRM Hospital on 20.3.2011 during treatment.

On the basis of the evidence on record it has been observed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.2.2013 that it stood established that the accused Monu Jat was a Hindu and the prosecutrix 'F' aged about 16 years and 5 months at the time of the incident was a Muslim; that both the accused and the prosecutrix were in love with each other; that due to difference in religion their alliance was not acceptable to their families; that on 20.9.2010 the prosecutrix had eloped with the accused Monu Jat and thereafter they married each other; that the accused Monu Jat took the prosecutrix 'F' to the house of his maternal grandfather Nana at Jhajjar where they stayed as husband and wife.

St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 75

On the basis of the testimonies of the parents of the deceased prosecutrix this Court observed that the prosecutrix 'F' was a minor below 18 years and the accused had taken her away from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent for the purposes of marriage. Hence, under the given circumstances the accused Monu Jatt has been convicted of the charges under Section 363 read with 366 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, the prosecutrix having already arrived at the age of consent (more than 16 years of age) and having voluntarily made relations with the accused, he has been acquitted of the charges under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. Further, in so far as the aspect of unnatural death of the prosecutrix and charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned this Court has acquitted the accused Monu Jatt for the same and directed further investigations on the same aspect.

Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Monu Jatt is stated to be a young boy of 23 years who is 8 th class pass and was working in the Transport Union at the time of his arrest. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the mother and grand parents of the convict have already expired and his father is mentally disturbed and at the time of his arrest the convict was residing with his maternal grandparents i.e. Nana and Nani. He has argued that the convict has no previous criminal involvements and is a first time offender. He requests that a lenient view be taken against the convict. St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 76

The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a stern view against the convict keeping in view the allegations involved.

I have considered the rival contentions. The convict is a young boy of 23 years and was in his early twenties at the time of the incident. He belongs to a very poor family and is not involved in any other case. He has already remained in Judicial Custody for one year and eleven months. In view of the above, a lenient view is taken against the convict Monu Jatt and he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period Two years (out of which he has already undergone one year and eleven months) and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/­ for the offence under Section 363 r/w 366 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week.

Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.

The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 77 High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost and another copy of the sentence be attached with their jail warrants.

Announced in the open court                                 (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 5.3.2013                                             ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Monu Jatt, FIR No. 323/10, PS Jahangir Puri                    Page No. 78