Delhi District Court
State vs . Bharat Singh Rawat on 9 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 41/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0143142009
State Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat
S/o Ummer Singh
R/o D15/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No. 581/2008
Under Section: 306 Indian Penal Code
Police Station: Sultan Puri
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 19.5.2009
Date of Remand by the Hon'ble High Court : 15.04.2014
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 15.12.2014
Date on which Judgment announced : 05.01.2015
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide order dated 12.03.2014 this case was remanded to this Court by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after setting aside the earlier judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by this court and granted liberty to the accused to lead defence evidence. Pursuant to the same the accused has examined as many as five witnesses after which I have heard the arguments afresh and considered the submissions made before me.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 1 of 133 (2) As per allegations, on or before 3.9.2008 at many times at House No. D5/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi the accused Bharat Singh Rawat being the fatherinlaw of the deceased Smt. Rashmi Rawat had abetted her suicide on 3.9.2008 by hanging after he had made sexual advances on her and outraged her modesty.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(3) The case of the prosecution is that on 3.9.2008 at about 7:50 PM an information was received at Police Station Sultan Puri that a lady had hanged herself at D5/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi on which DD No. 45A was recorded. Pursuant to the same ASI Prem Singh along with Ct. Biri Singh reached the spot where they found one young lady hanging with ceiling fan on the first floor of the house and her name was revealed as Ms. Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh. Inquiries revealed that Rashmi Rawat was married about two years back. The dead body was thereafter brought down by cutting the chunni after which the dead body was sent to SGM Hospital through Ct. Biri Singh. Information was sent to SDM on which on the next day SDM Sh. Sukhbir Singh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased wherein they did not make any complaint against the husband of the deceased or her inlaws. The SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the documents after which the postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased during which on search of the body one suicide note was found St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 2 of 133 inside the brassiere of deceased wherein the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat of molesting and making sexual advances on her and of compelling her to commit suicide. The said suicide note was shown to the parents of the deceased who identified the handwriting of the deceased in the suicide note. Thereafter the father of the deceased namely Harender Singh made another statement to the SDM on the basis of the which the present FIR was got registered and the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was arrested. After completion of the investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. CHARGE:
(4) Charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as defence and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the Details of the witness
No. Witness
1. PW1 Sandeep Rawat Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
2. PW2 Kavita Rawat Public Witness - Mother of the deceased
3. PW3 Harender Singh Public Witness - Father of the deceased
4. PW4 Mahesh Public Witness - Neighbour of the accused
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 3 of 133
Sr. PW No. Name of the Details of the witness
No. Witness
5. PW5 HC Ramesh Kumar Police Witness MHCM
6. PW6 Ct. Hans Raj Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
7. PW7 Insp. Joginder Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
8. PW8 ASI Joginder Singh Police Witness - Duty Officer
9. PW9 Sukhbir Singh Official Witness - Executive Magistrate
10. PW10 Ct. Biri Singh Police Witness who had reached the spot with
ASI Prem Singh
11. PW11 Insp. Mahesh Kumar Police Witness - Investigating Officer
12. PW12 Ms. Deepa Verma FSL Expert/ Handwriting Expert
13. PW13 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Official Witness - Autopsy Surgeon
14. PW14 SI Prem Singh Police Witness - Initial Investigating Officer
Defence Witnesses:
15. DW1 Chandrakanta Rawat Public Witness - Nanand of the deceased/
daughter of the accused
16. DW2 Jai Singh Rawat Public Witness - Husband of the deceased/
son of the accused allegedly working at
Noida
17. DW3 Sanjeet Kumar Public Witness - Neighbour of the accused
allegedly working at Noida
18. DW4 Ankur Aggarwal Manager (HR) at Thomson Digital
19. DW5 Pawan Singh Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd.
List of documents:
S. No. Exhibit No. Name of documents Proved by
1. PW1/A Suicide note Sandeep Rawat
2. PW1/B Handwriting (admitted)
3. PW1/C Handwriting (admitted)
4. PW1/D Diary containing admitted handwriting
of the deceased
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 4 of 133
S. No. Exhibit No. Name of documents Proved by
5. PW2/A Statement of Kavita Rawat Kavita Rawat
6. PW2/B Seizure memo of Suicide note
7. PW2/X1 to4 Photographs
8. PW2/C Seizure memo of Photographs
9. PW3/A Statement of Harender Singh Harender Singh
10. PW3/B Seizure memo of Diary
11. PW3/C Statement of Harender Singh Dated
04/09/08
12. PW5/A Copy of Register No. 19 HC Ramesh Kumar
13. PW5/B Copy of register No. 19 Sr. No. 11602
14. PW5/C Copy of Register No. 19
15. PW5/D Copy of Register No. 19
16. PW5/E Copy of RC
17. PW5/F Copy of FSL Receipt
18. PW6/A1 to 7 Negatives of photographs Ct. Hans Raj
19. PW6/B1 to 7 Photographs of scene of crime
20. PW7/A Crime Team Report Insp Joginder Singh
21. PW8/A Copy of DD No. 45A ASI Jogender Singh
22. PW8/B FIR
23. PW8/C Endorsement on Rukka
24. PW9/X Statement of Kavita Sh. Sukhbir Singh
25. PW9/A Request for Postmortem
26. PW9/B Brief facts
27. PW9/C Form 25:35
28. PW10/A Seizure memo of Mobile Phone Ct. Biri Singh
29. PW10/B Seizure memo of Pullanda
30. PW10/C Arrest memo
31. PW10/D Personal search memo
32. PW10/E Disclosure statement
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 5 of 133
S. No. Exhibit No. Name of documents Proved by
33. PW11/A Site plan Insp. Mahesh Kumar
34. PW11/B Copy of Email
35. PW11/C Seizure memo of EMail
36. PW12/A FSL(Handwriting) report Ms. Deepa Verma
37. PW13/A to G Opinion Dr. Manoj Dhingra
38. PW13/H Postmortem Report
39. PW14/A Rukka SI Prem Singh
Defence Witness
1. DW2/A Appointment Letter of Jai Singh Rawat Jai Singh Rawat
in Mumbai at M/s. Aquent Solution
Pvt. Ltd.
DW2/B Appointment Letter of Jai Singh Rawat
2. in Nodia at M/s. Thomson Digital
3. DW2/B1 Certificate regarding service
4. DW2/C to E Payment Receipts
5. DW4/A Copy of Attendance Register Ankur Aggarwal
6. DW5/A Copy of customer application form Pawan Singh
7. DW5/B Printed copy of EMail exchanges
between Jai Singh Rawat and
Customer Care
8. DW5/C Pre paid Invoice details of mobile
No. 9911885527
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Fourteen Witnesses as under:
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 6 of 133
Public witnesses:
(7) PW1 Sandeep Rawat is the brother of the deceased Rashmi
Singh who has deposed that Smt. Rashmi Singh was his elder sister and was married with Jai Singh Rawat, S/o Bharat Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter, she started residing in her in laws house. According to him on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his sister had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his sister Rashmi lying there. He has explained that first they reached at her in laws house, then they reached at mortuary of SGM hospital where they identified the dead body of his sister Rashmi. The witness has testified that the police officials present at the mortuary showed them a written paper and told them that the same was recovered from the brassiere of his sister Rashmi and he identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi on the said paper. According to him, police recorded their statements i.e. himself, his mother and his father. He has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court which is Ex.PW1/A which is the the handwriting of his sister Rashmi. He has also identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi in Ex.PW1/B; in the diary which handwriting is Ex.PW1/C and the Diary is Ex.PW1/D. The witness has also identified the accused Bharat Singh Rawat in the Court.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 7 of 133 (8) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witnes has admitted that SDM recorded the statement of his parents in his presence and his parents gave statement that they have no complaints against any of the inlaws. He has also admitted that no suicide note was recovered at that time. Witness has further deposed that accused Bharat Singh used to visit their house and did not inform his parents in his presence that his sister Rashmi used to send SMS to a boy and used to talk on mobile phone in the late night. He has denied the suggestion that Bharat Singh informed his parents regarding the aforesaid fact or that Jai Singh Rawat informed him a number of times regarding sending SMS by his sister to some boy and regarding telephone calls and made a request to him to make her understand not to send the SMS to any boy or to talk on telephone. Witness has further denied the suggestion that his sister was very short tempered or that she remained tense after the accused and his son Jai Singh informed his parents regarding the SMS and her talking on telephone. Witness has further deposed that Jai Singh used to reside at Bombay and Jai Singh came at Delhi only when his marriage was solemnized with his sister which marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2006. He is not aware whether the mother of Jai Singh saw some SMS's in the mobile of his sister and she also heard her talking on her mobile phone to some boy on which she informed Bharat Singh regarding this fact, who in turn informed his sister (deceased) not to indulge in these things and due to this reason his sister was annoyed.
He is also not aware that it was because this fact of his sister talking to some St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 8 of 133 boy and regarding sending some SMS to a boy came to the knowledge of Jai Singh and his parents who also informed his parents, hence it is for this reason his sister committed suicide. Witness has explained that Rinku is son of his maternal uncle. He has denied the suggestion that Jai Singh husband of his sister had objections with the relations of his sister with Rinku who used to reside in front of their house.
(9) PW2 Smt. Kavita Rawat is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that her daughter Rashmi was married with Jai Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she started residing at her matrimonial house. According to her, after the marriage, her daughter Rashmi had not made any complaint against any member of her in laws family about any harassment or about any demand of dowry. Witness has further deposed that on 03.09.2008 at about 7:30 PM her son in law Jai Singh Rawat made a phone call to her which was attended by her and he told her that the condition of Rashmi is serious and also requested her to come to his house. She has testified that thereafter she along with her son Sandeep and her husband reached the matrimonial house of her daughter Rashmi where she came to know that her daughter had been taken to SGM hospital. According to the witness, they reached at the SGM hospital where they found the dead body of her daughter in the mortuary. She has also deposed that since they were not having any suspicion nor they were aware of the reason behind the suicide of her daughter, therefore they had not given any statement to the Executive Magistrate against any of the in laws St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 9 of 133 of her daughter. Witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 when the Executive Magistrate was checking the clothes of her daughter Rashmi then he found one suicide note underneath the brassiere which her daughter was wearing and the same was taken out and read over by the Executive Magistrate. She has also deposed that in the said suicide note her daughter had made allegations against her father in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, regarding the suicide by her and she had identified the handwriting and signatures of her daughter Rashmi on that suicide note before the Executive Magistrate. She has proved her statement given to the Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/A. She has also proved that the Executive Magistrate prepared the recovery memo of the suicide note which is Ex.PW2/B. (10) She has correctly identified the suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A as the same which was recovered underneath the brassiere of the deceased at the mortuary in her presence and had identified the handwriting and signatures of deceased Rashmi being her mother. Witness has further deposed that during the course of investigations she handed over the admitted handwriting of deceased i.e. one letter which is Ex.PW1/B which is in the handwriting of her daughter Rashmi to the Investigating Officer and also handed over four photographs Ex.PW2/X1 to X4 and the photocopy of the marriage card Mark A to the Investigating Officer which St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 10 of 133 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. (11) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that she gave her statement to the SDM on 04.09.2008. Witness has admitted that her daughter namely Rashmi Rawat never made any complaint against her husband or any family member. She has also deposed that Jai Singh Rawat husband of the deceased had gone to Bombay one month prior to the marriage and had come to Delhi for solemnization of marriage and stayed for about 15 days in Delhi after solemnization of the marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that Jai Singh Rawat had come to their residence and told to her and her husband that her daughter Rashmi Rawat used to send SMS to a boy and also used to talk on mobile phone in the late night. She has further denied that Bharat Singh Rawat came to their residence and told them that they should make their daughter understand not to make telephone calls to any boy during night hours and she should also not send SMS. Witness has also denied the suggestion that Jai Singh Rawat again came to their house and he informed to them all the facts regarding the SMS's and telephones as stated above to her daughter in her presence but her daughter could not say any thing and she kept mum. She has also denied the suggestion that her daughter was very short tempered or that her daughter committed suicide only because the fact of sending the SMS to the boy and giving telephone calls to that boy during night hours was exposed. Witness has admitted that no suicide note was recovered when they went to see the dead body of their daughter in the hospital. According to her, first St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 11 of 133 her inquest statement was recorded and after that her second statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded.
(12) PW3 Harender Singh is the father of the deceased Rashmi Rawat who has deposed that his daughter was married to Jai Singh S/o Bharat Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and after the marriage his daughter started residing at the house of her in laws. According to the witness, his daughter Rashmi appeared perturbed after her marriage and when he made inquiries from her as to why she was so perturbed, she did not tell anything to him and always ignored this fact. He has deposed that on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his daughter Rashmi lying there and he identified the same. He has proved that his statement was recorded in this regard by the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/A. Witness has further deposed that after the postmortem, one suicide note was recovered from the brassiere of his deceased daughter Rashmi which fact was revealed to him by police officials and the Executive Magistrate. (13) The witness has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court and has deposed that during the course of investigations, police had obtained admitted handwriting of his daughter Rashmi which is Ex.PW1/B. He has also identified the diary of his deceased daughter which is St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 12 of 133 Ex.PW1/D and has deposed that the said diary was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Witness has further deposed that the suicide note was taken into possession in the presence of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/B and after the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to them. He has proved having given his statement to the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/C According to the witness, in the suicide note his daughter had made allegations in writing against her father in law that is accused Bharat Singh therefore he made request in his statement to take necessary action against accused Bharat Singh whom he has correctly identified in the Court.
(14) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that his daughter Rashmi Rawat never made any complaint against the accused during her life time. According to him, SDM recorded his statement on 04.09.2008 wherein he did not make any complaint to the SDM against the accused. According to him Jai Singh Rawat that is the husband of the deceased had gone to Bombay one month prior to the marriage and had come to Delhi for solemnization of the marriage but he is not aware when he (Jai Singh) went back to Bombay after solemnization of the marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that Jai Singh Rawat had come to their residence and told him and his wife that his daughter Rashmi used to send SMS to a boy and she used to talk with that boy on mobile in the late night or that in the evening on 03.09.2008 he was again informed by St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 13 of 133 the inlaws of his daughter and his son in law that his daughter Rashmi was still sending SMS to that boy and she was talking to that boy on her mobile in the late night. He has also denied the suggestion that his daughter Rashmi committed suicide due to the reason that the aforesaid fact was disclosed and came to the knowledge of both the families. He has also denied that no suicide note was ever recovered from the dead body as he deposed in his exaggeration in chief. He has further denied the suggestion that the suicide note was later on fabricated only to implicate the accused in the present case or that the suicide note was not in the handwriting of Rashmi Rawat.
(15) PW4 Mahesh is the neighbour of the accused who has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was present at his house and on that day at about 7:30 PM he heard the noise from outside on which he came outside from his house and found several public persons present in front of house No. D5/165, Sultanpuri which belongs to accused Bharat Singh and he came to know that one Rashmi had committed suicide by hanging. According to the witness thereafter with the help of public persons, a cooler was removed from the window of the said house and one small boy entered inside the house through said portion of the window after which the said boy opened the door from inside after which they found Rashmi Rawat hanging from ceiling fan. He has proved that he informed the PCR at 100 number and investigating officer recorded his statement in this regard. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being given an St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 14 of 133 opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. Medical witness:
(16) PW13 Dr. Manoj Dhingra is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 04.09.2008 he along with Dr. Deepak Sharma had conducted the postmortem on the body of Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh aged 24 years old and the body was brought by Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar namely Sukhbir Singh. The body was identified by Kavita Rawat and Hari Singh Rawat. According to him on examination, there was a ligature mark, hard brown parchmentized obliquely placed over front and side of neck merging with hair line posteriorly ligature mark varies in width from 1 to 2 cm is place 5 cm below tip of chin, 8 cm, below mastoid, 2 cm below left mastoid portion. He has also deposed that total length of ligature mark is 26 cm, neck circumference is 31 cm, note of ligature was left side of neck.
(17) He has also proved that on internal examination on Neck on fine dissection of skin under line ligature mark is white glistening no extravastion of blood present in under line tissue. On examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus is 600 gms.
(18) He has proved having opined that the death is due to asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours. According to the witness, total number of inquest papers were St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 15 of 133 eleven in number which are Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E, Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G. The witness has deposed that they sealed the ligature material and blood gauze and handed over to the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that after conducting the postmortem he prepared the detailed report which is Ex.PW13/H bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Dr. Deepak Sharma at point B and the clothes of the deceased were also sealed and handed over to the police. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Forensic witness:
(19) PW12 Ms. Deepa Verma Dy. Director, FSL Rohini has deposed that on 13.10.2008 the documents were received from SHO police station Sultanpuri in case FIR No. 581/08 police station Sultanpuri vide request letter dated 13.10.2008 for examination of documents and opinion.
According to her the questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q3 existing on the suicide note. Witness has further deposed that the standard writings of one Rashmi Rawat were supplied for comparison which were marked from A1 to A4 and after careful and thorough examination using various scientific instruments she furnished her report No. FSL/2008/T3942 dated 22.05.2009 according to which the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures mark A1 to A4 also St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 16 of 133 wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to A3. According to her the detailed reason for her opinion are mentioned therein which report is Ex.PW12/A, the questioned writings are Ex.PW1/A and admitted writings are Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity given and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. Police / official witnesses:
(20) PW5 HC Ramesh Kumar has deposed that on 03.09.2008, he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and was working as MHC(M).
According to him, on that day ASI Prem Singh of Police Station Sultanpuri deposited one mobile phone make Sony Ericson of black color in the malkhana pertaining to DD No. 45A on which he made entry at serial No. 11598 in register No. 19 in this regard copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. According to him on 04.08.2008 ASI Prem Singh deposited three pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH, mortuary, Mangolpuri Delhi and one sample seal of same specimen, pertaining to the present case in the malkhana and on the same day, he also deposited one diary in unsealed condition pursuant to which he made entry at serial No. 11602 in this regard in register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/B. According to the witness on 13.10.2008 three pullandas sealed with the seal of MK with one sample seal of MK were sent to FSL Rohini for opinion through Ct. Biri Singh, vide RC No. 171/21/08 and he made entry in register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/C. Witness St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 17 of 133 has also deposed that on 01.07.2009, Ct. Tej Singh of Police Station Sultanpuri, had deposited one sealed parcel in sealed condition in the malkhana after bringing the same from police station Rohini and on the same day, he handed over the said parcel to Insp. Yashpal, investigating officer of the case and he made entry Ex.PW5/D in register No. 19 in this regard. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Biri Singh handed over copy of road certificate and receiving issued by FSL to him, photocopy of which road certificate is Ex.PW5/E and copy of receiving is Ex.PW5/F. He has proved that so long as the case property remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with by him. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being given an opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(21) PW6 Ct. Hans Raj has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he along with SI Jogender, the then Incharge Mobile Crime Team reached the spot i.e. H.No. D5/165, Sultanpuri, Delhi where they inspected the spot and he took photographs of the dead body of deceased Rashmi Rawat who was hanging with the ceiling fan of the said house from different angles of the spot. The witness has proved the negatives of photographs which are Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7 and the photographs are Ex.PW6/B1 to Ex.PW6/B7. According to him the photographs were handed over by him to the investigating officer during the course of investigations. Witness has further deposed that the Incharge Crime Team prepared his report at the spot and handed over the same to the investigating officer who recorded his St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 18 of 133 statement in this regard on 05.09.2008 at the office. (22) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that when he along with SI Jogender reached the spot Inspector Mahesh Kumar along with other police officials were present there. According to him no suicide note or any other document was recovered from the dead body of Rashmi Rawat.
(23) PW7 Insp. Jogender Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008, he was posted as Incharge Crime Team, Outer District Delhi and on that day, he received a wireless message at about 8:20 PM to reach at D5/165, Sultanpuri on which he accordingly with team reached there and found ASI Prem Singh with staff present. According to the witness he inspected the spot i.e. First floor of the house where a lady by the name of Rashmi Rawat aged about 24 years was found hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of chunni and the photographs of the scene of occurrence was taken by Ct. Hansraj from different angles. Witness has further deposed that after inspection, he prepared his report which is ExPW7/A which he handed over to the investigating officer. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being given an opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(24) PW8 ASI Jogender Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1 AM and on that day at about 7:50 PM on receipt of intercom message from wireless operator that a lady had hanged herself at D5/165, Sultanpuri, he St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 19 of 133 recorded DD No. 45A copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. According to him, the the inquiry was handed over to ASI Prem Singh who had gone with Ct. Ramesh and Ct. Biri Singh at the spot.
(25) Witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and was working as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1 AM and on that day at about 6 PM he received a rukka sent by ASI Prem Singh through Ct. Biri Singh on the basis of which he got the formal FIR recorded on the computer kept in the ordinary course of business in the police station by computer operator which was according to the contents of the rukka and the same were not tampered with. He has proved the computer generated copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW8/B and also proved his endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW8/C. He has further deposed that the rukka was given in original back to Ct. Biri Singh to be taken at the spot along with the computerized printout of the FIR and investigations of the case was entrusted to Insp. Mahesh Chand. This witness has not been crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being given an opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (26) PW9 Sh. Sukhbir Singh is the Executive Magistrate who has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 89 PM he received a message from SGM hospital that one lady namely Rashmi Rawat had died on which he gave directions to the investigating officer to shift the body to the mortuary SGM hospital and he asked the investigating officer to call the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 20 of 133 parents and relatives of the deceased. Witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 he received a message from investigating officer that parents of the deceased had reached in SGM hospital on which he also reached there. According to him body of the deceased was got identified by the parents vide their joint statement which is Ex.PW3/A and he recorded the statement of Harinder Singh and Smt. Kavita Rawat, parents of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X wherein no allegations was leveled against anyone. According to the witness he inspected the body in the mortuary in the presence of one Safai Karamchari Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer. He has testified that the said Sheesh Ram was removing the clothes of the deceased in his presence and during inspection, one suicide note was recovered from under brassiere of the deceased which was shown to the parents of the deceased who had identified the handwriting of deceased Rashmi Rawat and the same was received by him vide receiving memo Ex.PW2/B in the presence of parents of deceased, Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer. The witness has also deposed that after receiving of the said suicide note, the statement of parents was recorded by him again as they expressed their desire to get their statements recorded which statements are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/A after which he made his endorsement on Ex.PW3/C at point X to X regarding direction to lodge the FIR against Bharat Singh under relevant section of IPC. He has also proved his endorsement from point X St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 21 of 133 to X on Ex.PW2/A regarding taking action against Bharat Singh. He has correctly identified the said suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A. The witness has proved the inquest papers i.e. Request for conducting postmortem which is Ex.PW9/A, Brief Facts which are Ex.PW9/B, Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW9/C, DD No. 45 which is Ex.PW8/A, statements of parents which is Ex.PW3/A and the statements of other relatives recorded by him. According to him thereafter the postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. (27) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that the parents of the deceased had no complaints when they met him initially. Witness has further deposed that he recorded their statements i.e. Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X and he is not aware if the parents of the deceased remained in contact and company of the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that police tutored them and thereafter, they got their statements recorded. Witness has admitted that the suicide note was not found at the initial stage of the inquiry. He has denied the suggestion that in connivance with the police, the said suicide note was got fabricated. (28) PW10 Ct. Biri Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and on that day he was on emergency duty with ASI Prem Singh and on receipt of DD No. 45A, he along with the said ASI reached the spot i.e. D5/165, Sultanpuri, where PCR officials were already present. According to him the said house was constructed upto two to two and half stories and on the first floor in a room one lady St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 22 of 133 was found hanging with a chunni with ceiling fan and her name was found as Rashmi W/o Jai Singh who was married two years back. Witness has further deposed that SDM was informed and crime team also reached the spot who inspected and photographed the scene of occurrence after which the dead body was taken down and was shifted to mortuary of SGM hospital in a private car in his custody. According to the witness SDM along with parents of the deceased also reached in the hospital and recorded their statements wherein they did not level any allegation against anyone. The witness has testified that one mobile phone make Sony Ericsson was found present on the bed of the deceased which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 when the SDM was inspecting the dead body for getting the postmortem conducted, one suicide note was recovered from the brassiere of the deceased which she was wearing at that time and in the said suicide note, the deceased had leveled allegations against her father in law which said suicide note was recovered in his presence. According to him the said suicide note was shown to the parents of the deceased who identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note and the statements of Harinder and his wife were recorded by the investigating officer of the case. The witness has further deposed that the Investigating officer prepared a rukka on the said statements and he (witness) took the same to the police station for getting the case registered and after registration of the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 23 of 133 FIR, he came back to the hospital and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that the investigations of the case was handed over to Inspector Mahesh Kumar after which he along with the Investigating Officer and parents of the deceased and ASI Prem Singh came back at the spot and in the said room where the dead body was found, a diary written by the deceased was found lying on a computer table wherein the deceased had also signed and the same was identified by the father of the deceased after which the said diary was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He has proved that the site plan was prepared by the Inspector on the identification of ASI Prem Singh. According to him, on 04.09.2008 after the postmortem the doctor handed over three pullandas and one sample seal with the seal of SGM mortuary which was taken into possession by ASI Prem Singh vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He has also testified that on the same day, accused Bharat Singh Rawat whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/C and personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D after which the accused made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/C. The witness has proved that on 13.10.2008 he took three pullandas and one sample seal of the hospital from MHC(M) and deposited the same to FSL vide RC No. 171/21/08 and after depositing the same, he handed over copy of the RC and receipt of FSL to the MHC(M). He has proved that till the exhibits remained in his custody, it were not tampered with.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 24 of 133 (29) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. diary of brown and black color as the same recovered from the computer table which diary is Ex.PW1/B; the handwriting & signatures of the deceased appearing on the page of 3rd January of the said diary which is Ex.PW1/C; suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A and mobile phone make Sony Ericsson which was recovered from the bed of the deceased which mobile phone is Ex.PX. (30) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that the parents of the deceased did not leave the hospital when they gave their first statements and the dead body was removed and deposited in the mortuary of SGM hospital on 03.09.2008. According to him nothing was recovered from the dead body when it was shifted to mortuary from the house and after depositing the dead body in the mortuary, he left the mortuary. Witness has further deposed that he reached at mortuary on the next day at about 1111:30 AM and the parents of the deceased came in the hospital on 04.09.2008. He states that he cannot tell whether the recovered suicide note was placed by the parents of the deceased in her clothes on 04.09.2008 after their arrival. He has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that he signed all the memos in the police station on asking of the investigating officer of this case or that nothing was recovered in his presence. (31) PW11 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri as ATO and on that day on receipt of the a wireless message regarding suicide of a lady at St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 25 of 133 D5/165, Sultanpuri and he reached the spot where ASI Prem Singh and Ct. Biri Singh were already present. According to him a lady was found hanging in a room of the said house at first floor and on inquiry, her name was revealed as Rashmi, W/o Jai Singh whose marriage was solemnized two years prior to the incident. Witness has further deposed that SDM was informed and crime team was called who inspected the spot and got the Scene of Occurrence photographed after which he left the spot. (32) According to the witness on 04.09.2008, the investigations of the present case was handed over to him after registration of the case by the Duty Officer through Ct. Biri Singh on which he along with Ct. Biri Singh, ASI Prem Singh, Harinder Singh father of the deceased reached at the spot and outside the said room on a computer table, an executive diary of the year 2007 was found lying which was checked and the same was found containing the handwriting of the deceased on the page of 03.01.2007. Witness has further deposed that it was a ten lines poem written in the handwriting of the deceased and her signatures were also appearing on the bottom which handwriting was identified by the father of the deceased as that of his daughter. He has proved that the diary Ex.PW1/D was taken into possession by him vide memo Ex.PW3/B. According to the witness accused Bharat Singh was identified by the father of the deceased who was thereafter interrogated by him vide his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/E and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D. The witness has St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 26 of 133 also deposed that he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW11/A at the instance of ASI Prem Singh. He has testified that after completion of the proceedings on that day, he along with staff and accused came back at the police station and deposited the case property with the MHC(M) and recorded the statements of ASI Prem Singh and Ct. Biri Singh and the mother of the deceased was also examined by him on that day and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
(33) Witness has further deposed that on 05.09.2008 accused was produced before the concerned court from where he was remanded to Judicial Custody after which he went to the office of crime team where he recorded the statements of members of crime team who inspected the spot. According to the witness after returning to the police station Sandeep Rawat brother of the deceased was found present there who handed over one copy of Email dated 03.09.2008 sent by the deceased to him which is Ex.PW11/B and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C and recorded his statement. The witness has further testified that on 22.09.2008 mother of the deceased Kavita Rawat produced the marriage photographs which are Ex.PW2/X1 to X4 and marriage card Mark A before him which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He has proved having taken into possession one letter produced by the mother of the deceased in the handwriting of deceased Rashmi which is Ex.PW1/B. He has testified that on 13.10.2008 he sent the exhibits diary, suicide note and the letter produced by the mother of the deceased through Ct. Biri Singh St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 27 of 133 to FSL Rohini. He has proved having recorded the statement of public witness Mahesh who called the police at 100 number regarding the incident and he collected the postmortem report and the photographs and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court through SHO.
(34) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that on 03.09.2008 no suicide note was recovered. According to him, Sandeep Rawat and Kavita Rawat informed the SDM that they were having no suspicion against any person. According to the witness on 03.09.2008 no copy of Email was given to him by Sandeep Rawat and on 03.09.2008 during the inspection of the spot by the crime team no diary was recovered from the spot. He has also deposed that he did not go to the mortuary as the postmortem was got conducted by the ASI. Witness has further deposed that he also did not visit mortuary on 04.09.2008. He has denied the suggestion that accused did not give any disclosure statement and he obtained his signatures on the forged and fabricated disclosure statement of the accused or that he falsely arrested the accused on the fabricated evidence. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he charge sheeted the accused on the false and fabricated evidence and statement of the witnesses. (35) PW14 SI Prem Singh is the initial Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 3.9.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri as ASI and on that day, after receiving DD no.45A at about 7.50 PM, he along with Ct. Biri Singh reached at H No. D5/165, S. Puri, Delhi where PCR St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 28 of 133 van was already present. According to the witness, he found one young lady hanging with ceiling fan on the first floor of the house and her name was revealed as Ms. Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh who was married about two years back on which he informed the senior officers. The witness has also deposed that Crime Team officials reached the spot and they inspected the scene of crime and took photographs. According to him, one mobile of Sony was found in the same room where the dead body was found and the same was kept in a polythene and seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He has also deposed that dead body was brought down after cutting the chunni and thereafter dead body was sent to the SGM Hospital through Ct. Biri Singh. He has proved having moved an application to CMO for preservation of the dead body vide his application Ex.PW13/A. The witness has further deposed that on the next day Sh. Sukhbir Singh, SDM came at the SGM Hospital and recorded the statement of parents of the deceased. He has testified that the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the documents and at his instance postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. He has also deposed that before the postmortem was conducted, on a search of the dead body one suicide note was found inside of brassiere of the Rashmi Rawat which suicide note was read over by the SDM and the same was also shown the parents of the deceased who identified the handwriting in the suicide note of the Rashmi Rawat. He has further deposed that St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 29 of 133 SDM again recorded statement of parents of the deceased and seized the suicide note Ex.PW2/B and after postmortem dead body was handed to the father of the deceased. According to the witness after the postmortem the doctor handed over one plastic jar containing the chunni of the deceased, one polythene containing the clothes of the deceased and one envelope containing the blood gauze of the deceased in sealed condition sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital with sample seal to him and he seized the same vide Ex.PW10/B. He has proved that the SDM handed over the statements of Harinder Singh Ex.PW3/C and that of Kavita Rawat vide Ex.PW2/A with endorsement and direction for registration of the FIR. The witness has also proved having made his endorsement on the statement of Harinder Singh and on the direction of the SDM vide Ex.PW14/A after which he handed over the same to the Ct. Biri Singh for registration of the FIR. He has testified that further investigations were handed over to Insp. Mahesh Kumar on the directions of the SHO and he also reached the spot. According to him, Insp. Mahesh Kumar interrogated accused Bharat Singh Rawat and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C; his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW10/D and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW10/E. The witness has proved that one diary was found on the computer table which was also lying outside of the room where the dead body was found, which diary was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. According to him, Insp. Mahesh also prepared the site plan of the incident St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 30 of 133 where the dead body was found at his instance. The witness has also deposed that he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana and on the next day i.e. on 5.9.2008 Sandeep Rawat, brother of deceased Rashmi Rawat produced photocopy of the one email Ex.PW11/B which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. (36) He has correctly identified the accused Bharat Singh in the Court and also identified the diary which is Ex.PW1/D and the suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A. (37) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused was not recorded by him and only his signatures were obtained in the disclosure statement. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not interrogated by the main investigating officer in his presence or that the main Investigating Officer obtained signatures of the accused forcibly. According to the witness, no public witness was called at the time of arrest and interrogation of the accused present in the court. He has admitted that the suicide note was not recovered when they reached at the place of incident. The witness has denied the suggestion that the suicide note was never recovered from the clothes of the deceased. He is not aware whether during the investigations till they remained with him it was revealed that the deceased used to talk his some boy on her telephone during or she used to send SMS to that boy. He is also not aware whether the motherinlaw and fatherinlaw of the deceased came to know that deceased used to talk to St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 31 of 133 some boy or that she also used to send some SMS and hence when they told her that she should not talk to that boy she committed a suicide. According to the witness, the parents of the deceased had informed that they had no complaint against the husband of their daughter or their fatherinlaw or any other inlaw of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that the parents of the deceased made a wrong statement at the instance of their relatives after postmortem or that the diary was not recovered in his presence. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer obtained signatures on the seizure memo of the alleged suicide note and the diary.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(38) After completion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein all incriminating material was put to him which he has denied. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated and arrested in the present case and his signatures were obtained on blank papers which were subsequently fabricated into his disclosure statement. According to him, the deceased was having extra marital affair with a boy and he caught her talking with that day in the late night hours which fact was complained by him to the mother of the deceased.
(39) The accused was also granted an opportunity to file his detail written statement under Section 313 Clause 5 Cr.P.C. in addition to the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 32 of 133 statement already made by him which has not been done. (40) After the remand of the case, an opportunity was granted to the accused to lead evidence in defence. Pursuant to the same, the accused Bharat Singh Rawat has examined Five Witnesses in his defence. (41) DW1 Chandrakanta Rawat is the married daughter of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat and the sister of Jai Singh Rawat the husband of the deceased. According to the witness, her brother Jai Singh Rawat was married to Rashmi Rawat (deceased) on 10.12.2006. She has deposed that Jai Singh was working in Mumbai at the time of marriage and after two weeks of his marriage i.e. around Christmas he went back to Mumbai to join his services. She has further deposed that during the period when her brother was in Mumbai, Rashmi Rawat was staying at her parental house in Pushp Vihar which was near to her place of work. According to the witness, her brother returned back from Mumbai permanently in February 2007 and thereafter both Jai Singh Rawat and Rashmi started residing in their house at Sultan Puri. She has deposed that she had very close relationship with Rashmi and she was more like a friend to her. According to the witness she (Rashmi) was having Mobile number 9911885527 whereas her (witness's) mobile number was 9871856131 and they both used to be in conversation regularly on phone, almost every second day. The witness has deposed that Rashmi had told her that her father was the second husband of her mother who had two children from her previous marriage. The witness has further deposed that she (Rashmi) also told her that her (Rashmi's) father was a St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 33 of 133 drunkard and did not have much interest in her family whereas her mother was quarrelsome, short tempered and used to beat her and her brother and not provide them food on small mistakes. The witness has deposed that Rashmi also told her that her (Rashmi's) younger brother Sandeep Rawat was also used to drink and smoke and was not serious about his career and was also hypersensitive and short tempered. Witness has further deposed that Rashmi confided in her that her short temperament was because of her family circumstances and she had very little patience. (42) The witness has deposed that they both used to discuss all personal matters. According to the witness, she had told her some time in April 2007 that she (witness) had a liking for some person in her office prior to her marriage and also had a liking for a boy who was the next door neighbour but was not very well settled his family being tenants and as such her family would not have agreed for the reliance. According to the witness she asked her (Rashmi) if her parents knew about it to on which she replied that they would have killed her if they even came to know about it since her (witness's) brother used to treat that boy as a brother. (43) Witness has further deposed that her brother wanted a child after the marriage but since there was slight delay in pregnancy, they consulted one doctor namely Sadhna Kala of Mool Chand Hospital. According to the witness, Rashmi was however reluctant as she did not want to get pregnant for some time and used to say that she wanted to study and make a career before having a child. She has deposed that her brother St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 34 of 133 had got her admitted for MBA Course in Symbiosis College. Witness has further deposed that Rashmi however remained reluctant and used to say that Jai Singh was unnecessarily trying to hurry up and they should wait for the child for some time and that she should discuss with her brother. According to the witness, Rashmi got pregnant in NovemberDecember 2007 but she however was not happy with the pregnancy and went into slight depression as she did not want a child so early in marriage which puzzled her (witness). The witness has deposed that she (i.e. Rashmi) suffered an abortion in February 2008 and again got pregnant in May 2008 but this time also she was not happy with the pregnancy for the above said reason. According to the witness, she used to try to make Rashmi understand but to no avail.
(44) The witness has deposed that in the month of May 2008 she came to know from her brother that her mother had seen Rashmi talking to some boy on phone and sending SMS and that a complaint regarding this was made by her family to the parents of Rashmi. According to the witness she made inquiry from Rashmi personally on which she apologized and promised not to repeat such mistake again. Witness has deposed that Rashmi went to her parental house in the second week of July and remained there till the third week of August during Raksha Bandhan i.e. on 01.09.2008. She has deposed that she came to know from her brother on telephone that Rashmi was sending messages to somebody and after an hour when Rashmi called her and she discussed the matter with her, she i.e. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 35 of 133 Rashmi was very annoyed and stated that her parents had been informed by her husband and fatherinlaw who have poisoned their mind resulting her parents being annoyed with her and her image had been tarnished. According to the witness, she tried to reason with her but she continued with her aggressive behaviour. According to the witness, Rashmi again called her on 03.09.2008 saying that her inlaws had poisoned the mind of her parents and now she would teach her father in law a lesson and also see as to how her husband becomes a father and thereafter the phone was disconnected since her (witness's) phone was not working properly. Witness has deposed that they tried to connect each other but was unable to do so after which she (Rashmi) made an SMS to her saying that she will talk later and thereafter at around 7.30 PM she received an information that Rashmi had committed suicide. The witness has deposed that she immediately reached at the place of incident where police was present. According to the witness, she was asked by the police to take the search of body of Rashmi and when she took the search thoroughly including beneath her clothes and undergarments but no suicide note was found. Witness has deposed that on next day in the evening she learnt that her father was implicated in the present case. The witness has stated that Rashmi was never molested by her father, had it been so she being very close to her she would have disclosed it to her as she used to tell her everything.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 36 of 133 (45) In her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, the witness has stated that she is unable to tell the address where she her brother Jai Singh was working in Mumbai. According to the witness she is the younger sister of Jai Singh and was married before him on 27.11.2003 and after her marriage she is residing with her inlaws at Vaishali Ghaziabad.
(46) The witness has deposed that the Mami of her mother was the mediator in the marriage. According to the witness they did not know the family of deceased prior to marriage. Witness is unable to tell the name of the company in which her brother was working in Mumbai. She further is unable to give the exact date when her brother Jai Singh joined the services in Mumbai. Witness is also unable to give the address of Pushp Vihar of the parents of Rashmi where she was residing in the absence of her brother Jai Singh. Witness has deposed that during the period when her brother was residing at Mumbai, she did not go to the parental house of Rashmi at Pushp Vihar, Delhi. According to the witness, after some time of marriage they came to know that the father deceased Rashmi was the second husband of her mother. She is unable to give the name of that person by whom they came to know this fact but he was a person belonging to the village at Garhwal, Utterakhand. She has deposed that she did not see personally the father of deceased Rashmi in drunken condition except on one day prior to the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. According to the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 37 of 133 witness, she did not see father of deceased Rashmi while beating his wife i.e. mother of the deceased. She has deposed that Sandeep Rawat was a student in the year 2007 but she did not see Sandeep personally in the drunken condition. Witness has deposed that deceased Rashmi told her the name of the boy as Himanshu who was residing in the house in front of the house of Rashmi. She further deposed that she had seen Himanshu when once he had dropped Rashmi at her matrimonial house. According to the witness, Rashmi used to treat that boy as Dharam Bhai again said she told her that the said boys is her Dharam Bhai. Witness does not remember the date when they went to Mool Chand Hospital. She also does not know whether her brother Jai Singh or deceased Rashmi or they both went to Mool Chand Hospital for consultation. According to the witness, the deceased Rashmi got pregnant and prior to this miscarriage i.e. in the month of February 2008.
(47) Witness is unable to produce any documentary evidence showing the SMS's made in the month of May 2008 on the mobile phone allegedly send by some person or send by Rashmi. She has never seen personally any SMS on the mobile phone of Rashmi. According to the witness, she did not make any complaint personally to the parents of deceased Rashmi. She deposed that her father also did not make any complaint to the parents of deceased Rashmi regarding sending the SMS by deceased Rashmi, in her presence. Witness has admitted that St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 38 of 133 Rashmi did not make any allegation against her brother Jai Singh in the suicide note. Witness has denied that no complaint was made against her brother Jai Singh by Rashmi because she had no grievance against him and the only grievance she had was against her father because of his behaviour. (48) The witness has further deposed that she received the information regarding death of Rashmi at 7.30 PM and she reached at the spot at about 9.00 PM. According to the witness, the body was lying on the bed at that time in the house on first floor. She has deposed that her brother was standing on the ground floor at that time. Witness is unable to give the name of police official who asked her to conduct personal search of deceased. Witness has deposed that she was asked by the police official during 510 minutes to conduct the personal search of Rashmi. She has deposed that at that time her mother was also present there and there was no lady near the body at that time except her mother and has voluntarily explained that her mother was unconscious at that time. Witness has denied that she is deposing falsely specially regarding conduct of personal search of dead body. She also denied that she is deposing falsely in order to save the accused Bharat Singh Rawat being her father. According to the witness, she did not make any complaint to the higher authority of the police regarding false implication of her father and has voluntarily explained that she told the police officials that no suicide note was recovered in her presence from the body of the deceased to which the police officials told that they will investigate on this point later on. Witness has St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 39 of 133 deposed that she had made no complaint to the police or any authority in writing regarding the planting of suicide note. She has deposed that she had also not made any complaint to the higher authority regarding false implication of her family informing them about whatever had transpired and whatever she has deposed in the court. Witness has denied the suggestion whatever she has told in the court is totally false and based upon legal advice and only to save her father from legal consequences. She further denied that it is for this reason that she is unable to furnish any documentary records as regards the allegations which she has now made against the deceased. Witness admits that neither her brother nor any member of her family made a complaint regarding any kind of misbehavior which she is now attributing to the deceased. She denied that she is deliberately involving herself into character assassination of the deceased only to cause benefit to her father and save him from penal consequences. Witness has denied that she was not aware of any happenings at her father's house as she was residing at her matrimonial house at Ghaziabad or that whatever she has stated is under the pressure of her family to save her father. (49) DW2 Jai Singh Rawat is the husband of the deceased Rashmi and is the son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. According to the witness, he was married to Rashmi Rawat on 10.12.2006 and at the time of marriage he was working in Mumbai in M/s Aquent Solution Pvt. Ltd. My appointment letter is Ex. DW2/A. He has deposed that after his marriage he returned to Mumbai on 24.12.2006, he thereafter left his services in St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 40 of 133 February,2007 and returned back to Delhi since he used to feel lonely without his wife being newly married. He has deposed that his wife during the period of his stay in Mumbai was residing at her parental house in Pushp Vihar since the said place of near her office in Okhla. According to him after his return they both started residing at his parental house in Sultan Puri. Witness has deposed that in June 2007 he joined M/s Thomson Digital having office in Noida, his appointment letter is Ex.DW2/B, and the certificate with regard to his service is Ex.DW2/B1. According to him he was working at the said place in Noida and was residing in Sultan Puri, Delhi even at the time of death of Rashmi. He has deposed that his house is a triple storied building constructed on 25 Sq. yrd, on the ground floor they had a drawing room, kitchen and bathroom, on the first floor there was a room, a Varanda and a bathroom and a toilet in the varanda near the stairs going to the second floor. He has deposed that on the second floor there was a room without toilet and a store. According to him he was residing on the first floor whereas his father and mother residing were residing on the second floor. Witness has deposed that on the first floor the room is on the back having window and a door, which leads to covered varanda / Gallary and on the other side of the gallary there is a window. He has further deposed that he was working in shift duty in Noida, some time in morning and some time in night and during his night shift his mother used to sleep with his wife. According to the witness, his wife was very short tempered and was having a revengeful nature. Witness has deposed that she would St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 41 of 133 pick up quarrels for slightest reasons. Witness further deposed that the reason for this was that her father was alcoholic while her mother was very short tempered and there used to be frequent quarrels at home while her brother was also used to drinking and smoking and was not serious about his career. He has further deposed that she used to remain depressed and she had also told him her mother used to maltreat and beat her. According to the witness, because of her family circumstances she was very short tempered. Witness has deposed that after 8 to 10 days of marriage he had seen some obscene messages on her phone and on his asking her above the same she stated that they were sent by her friend prior to her marriage. Witness has further deposed that he told her not to entertain such messages and she fought with him over this issue.
(50) The witness has further deposed that he wanted a child as early as possible and since she was not getting pregnant, he took her to Dr. Sadhna Kala who was a consultant in Moolchand Hospital, having her clinic at Chitranjan Park. According to the witness, Rashmi was reluctant as she did not want child so early in the marriage and said that she wanted to make a career. She has deposed that he as such got her admitted in diploma course of management in June 2007 from Symbiosis Center for Distance Learning and the payment receipts issued by Symbiosis are Ex.DW2/C, Ex.DW2/D and Ex.DW2/E. Witness has deposed that Rashmi used to complain to him that he was pressurizing her for a child although she wanted to wait for some time, which puzzled him. According to the witness St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 42 of 133 after some time she got pregnant but she was not happy although he was providing her the best medical treatment. Witness has deposed that she (Rashmi) used to remain depressed and was being given Valium tablets for depression by Dr. Anita Bansal to whom he took her during the problem during first pregnancy, the prescription slips of Dr. Anita Bansal is Mark X1, the invoice for the medicine purchased from chemist is Mark X2. According to the witness, his wife suffered an abortion in February 08, she again got pregnant some time in May 2008 and because of depression she was advised Valium Tablets by Dr. Sadhna Kala as she was under
depression because of the circumstance at the parental house, as told by her to him.
(51) The witness has deposed that he used to try to keep her in good humour and also used to help her in her studies and as such have seen her writing and signing, he had seen note Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C&D specifically marked A1 to A4 and marked Q1 to Q3, they are not in the writing of his wife and do not bear her signatures.
According to the witness, on 1st may 2008 his mother saw Rashmi talking about love to somebody and also sending SMS and his mother informed his father and him about it. Witness has deposed that his father in his presence asked Rashmi about it and she admitted her mistake, his father thereafter asked her not to indulge in such activities and thereafter he and his father also went along with Rashmi to her parent house and informed them about her conduct. Witness has further deposed that Rashmi's mother scolded her St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 43 of 133 and asked her to behave herself and Rashmi admitted her mistake and promised not to repeat such mistakes again. According to the witness, he also informed his sister Chandrakanta about it.
(52) According to the witness, around 10 days prior to death on Sunday, Sanjeet Singh his friend informed him after he came to his house and told him that he had seen Rashmi with a boy on a Motor Cycle holding him intimately, near Chirag Delhi and they were taking a turn towards Greater Kailash at the Ring Road which is on the road between Nehru Place from Chirag Delhi. The witness has deposed that he was shocked and later asked his wife as to how she had gone to doctor as she was to go to doctor on that day stated that she had gone to Chitranjan Park to the clinic of the doctor by bus. He further deposed that he was shocked with her lie but kept quite, the Description slips dated 19.08.2008 is Mark X4. (53) The witness has deposed that on 30th August, 2008 he was on night duty and his mother was sleeping with his wife on the first floor. He further deposed that whenever he was in night duty his mother used to sleep with his wife. According to the witness, his father some time during midnight at around 2:00 AM came to the first floor to go to the toilet when he saw light of a mobile phone light blinking in the room. He has further deposed that his father called his mother by her name and asked her why there was a light of mobile phone. He further deposed that his mother asked his wife as to what she was doing with the mobile phone, his wife became terrified and thereafter his father scolded her in the morning he told him St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 44 of 133 about the incident in presence of Rashmi. According to the witness, he tried to check the phone of Rashmi, however, she resisted it and started shouting. He has deposed that he made a telephone call to his motherinlaw who advised them to come to her house and thereafter he along with his father and Rashmi went to her parental house and made a complaint against her to her parents but she kept mum when a parents made enquiry from her. The witness has deposed that his father told that in case it was so they should not have got the daughter married to his son. He has deposed that her parents scolded Rashmi and warned her that they would disown her in case she continues with such a conduct and on return Rashmi got annoyed as they had made a complaint against her and she stopped talking to him and taking part in any house hold activities and kept herself in a room. According to the witness, on 3rd September, 2008 at around 7:00 AM, he tried to cool her down and reason with her so that she could get out of her depressing mood, she on the contrary got aggressive and stated that she would teach her father a lesson and would also see how he become a father. The witness has deposed that she further told him that she was still sending SMS to that boy and was talking to him late in night and that he may do whatever he want. According to the witness, from his office he called his father and informed him and his father made a complaint to his fatherinlaw as his mother was not keeping good health and was confined to bed as she besides other medical problems has lapse of memory. The witness has deposed that on the same day in the evening while he was returning home to his office, he St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 45 of 133 was informed that his wife has committed suicide. Witness has further deposed that when he reached the house, the police made an enquiry from him and he was asked to stay out of the room. According to the witness his sister came around 9:00 PM, she was called upstairs by the police to take the search of the body of his wife. He has deposed that his sister on returned and told him that no suicide note was found despite thorough search. Thereafter, he was taken by police and when the police was taking him to the police station his father had a quarrel with them which annoyed the police officer and they threatened him that they would see him later. (54) According to the witness he was having very good relations with his wife. Witness has deposed that had there been any molestation or any other incident by his father, his wife would certainly have told him about the same. He has deposed that no incident of molestation took place at his house. According to him, his wife was having very good relations with his father and she used to touch his feet in his presence and she used to say that his father Sh. Bharat Singh Rawat has given so much affection which her own father has not given her. Witness has deposed that she had very good relationship with his father till 30th August, 2008. witness has further deposed that after the above incident dated 30.08.2008, however, she started having grudged against him since he had made a complaint to her parents. According to the witness, his wife was using mobile number 9911885527 which was issued in his name and he had given her this SIM card to use. He has deposed that he has seen mobile phone make Sony St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 46 of 133 Ericson produced today by the MHC (M). Witness has further deposed that this phone was gifted by his brother to his wife and she was using SIM card of above mentioned number in this phone. He has deposed that he can recognize the phone and the same is Ex.DX1, the SIM card having number 89910404030734426599 is Ex. DX2.
(55) The witness has deposed that he had requested idea service provider through his mail address [email protected] for providing him a call detail record of the above said mobile number, he received the prepared invoice call detail from the customer and the copies of the call detail record which was received by him has been exhibited Ex.DW5/C, the copy received by him is Ex.DX3 and he had taken the same out of his computer and Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in this regard Ex. DX4 signed by him at point A. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has stated that he cannot give the name of the mediator of the marriage between himself and the deceased. He has stated that his wife was graduate from Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, Delhi University as commerce student. According to him, his it was an arranged marriage and they started living in Sultan Puri after look his services in Mumbai in February, 2007, along with his parents at the house of his parents. Witness has deposed that initially he did not make any complaint regarding short temper and revengeful nature of his wife to his inlaws, he had made complaint subsequently. Witness has further deposed that in Sultan Puri St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 47 of 133 there are the many families who originate / belong to Uttrakhand they visit each other occasionally and people from our Biradari had come in the marriage. He has deposed that he did not tell any of the person who originate from Utrakhand regarding the conduct of Rashmi volunteered, it was a very personal matter. Witness has denied that he is making allegation against his wife Ms. Rashmi regarding her conduct and her indulge in such activities of making SMS to the boy who was residing in the house just in front of the her parents. He admits that during the life time of his wife he did not obtain any call details of her Mobile phone. He is unable to produce any document regarding purchase of the Mobile set Ex. DX1 with IMEI number 352337010714525.
(57) Witness has deposed that the SIM inserted in the mobile was in his name. He admits that the mobile used to remain at his house and has voluntarily explained that his wife used to use it and he had his separate mobile. Witness has further admitted that he had an access to this mobile. He has stated that his brother also used to stay at his house and has voluntarily explained that his brother had now gone South Korea. He is unable to tell the month when he had left for South Korea and has voluntarily stated that he is still there. Witness has denied that the other family members had also access to the said mobile and used to use the same or that his deceased wife did not have any exclusive access to this phone. Witness has further denied that his wife was only an occasional user and this phone was being used by his other family members including his St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 48 of 133 brother, parents etc., and that is why even he had a free access to the same. Witness has admitted that he did not see Rashmi talking to anybody and has voluntarily explained that it was his mother who told him about it. He has denied that there was no incident regarding Rashmi talking to anybody or that there was no admission on the part of Rashmi of her mistake as claimed by him. He has also denied that after the death of Rashmi he has created and fabricated this incident only to create a defence for his father to save him from the penal consequences. (58) According to the witness, he cannot tell the day when Sanjeet claimed that he had seen Rashmi with somebody. He has stated that he told him about this incident on the next Sunday after he had seen Rashmi. Witness has deposed that he had extremely good relationship with his wife and whenever she went out anywhere, she used to inform him. He has further deposed that he did not share this information which was given to him by Sanjeet, to his family members. Witness has stated that he also did not inform the IO about this incident during his interrogation. He has further deposed that he also did not make any complaint or given this information to any senior officer of police or any court. According to the witness, he did not make any request in writing to the IO or to the court for getting retrieved the call detail record of the mobile phone number 9911885527. Witness has denied that he had not made any such request or complaint because there was no occasion of doing so and now it St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 49 of 133 is on legal advise that he is trying to give this twist to this case in view of his close relation with the accused.
(59) Witness has further denied that he used to harass his wife by unnecessarily making false allegations and insinuations on her character and it was as a result of this harassment that she became depressed and quite. According to him, his neighbour Mahesh Kumar informed him about the incident on his mobile phone when he was coming back from his office in the evening at about 7.307.45 PM. He has deposed that he reached his house at about 8.30 PM and when he reached at his house only his mother was present and there was nobody else from the family. Witness has denied that whatever he have told in the court was totally false and based upon legal advice and only to save his father from legal consequences. He has further denied that it is for this reason that he is unable to furnish any documentary records as regards the allegations which he has now made against the deceased. He admits that neither he nor any member of his family made a complaint regarding any kind of misbehavior which he is now attributing to the deceased. Witness has denied that he is deliberately involving himself into character assassination of the deceased only to cause benefit to his father and save him from penal consequences. He also denied that whatever he has stated is under the pressure of his family to save his father.
(60) DW3 Sanjeet Kumar has deposed that in the month of August 2008 he was going to Nehru Place to purchase computer parts. According St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 50 of 133 to him when he reached at red light near Chirag Delhi, he saw deceased Rashmi Rawat on the motorcycle with a boy. He has deposed later on realized that the boy may not be Jai Singh Rawat as he does not know driving. Thereafter he went to Nehru Place and did shopping. Witness has deposed that on next coming Sunday he went to the house of Jai Singh Rawat and informed the aforesaid facts to Jai Singh Rawat. (61) In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has deposed that he is presently working at Jobong.Com at Gurgaon in Admin Department. He has deposed that at the relevant time he was employed at A3, Emphasis, Sector 62, Noida, UP. According to him in so far as he recollect that the date was 19.08.2008 when he saw Rashmi on motorcycle. He is unable to tell the date on which Rakhsha Bandhan felt in the year 2008. He is also unable to tell the date of any other festival which he celebrate i.e. Holi, Dussehra, Diwali in the year 2008. According to him he has not brought the appointment letter of Emphasis. He has stated that he had a six day week and the holiday used to be on rotation and he was stationed at Noida. According to the witness at the relevant time he was doing morning shift from 6.00 to 2.00 PM. He has explained that he used to mark his attendance manually and further admits that he was not doing any field work. He is unable to tell the day of week when he allegedly seen the deceased. He has deposed that he was on his bike at that time and had gone to Nehru Place for his personal work but he is unable to tell the name of the shop from where he made purchase. According to him he also produce any St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 51 of 133 receipt regarding his purchase nor he is able to produce any receipt / slip regarding parking of his bike at Nehru Place. He has deposed that at that time it was 11.00 AM and he was going from his house to Nehru Place. He has deposed that it is was on his side that he had seen the deceased with a boy. He further deposed that the deceased was in an open face and she was wearing a suit and the boy was wearing a helmet with a wizor. According to him, he had seen the deceased from a distance of about 2 to 3 meter. He has deposed that he was on the left side of the road and they were taking a right turn towards Greater Kailash and thereafter he had taken the straight route towards Nehru Place however he did not note down the number of the motorcycle on which he saw the deceased.
(62) The witness has deposed that he is residing at a walking distance of 2 to 3 minutes from the house of accused. He has deposed that he was not a frequent visitor and used to go their house some times. According to him, he had hardly met the deceased on two or three occasions "sirf do ya teen baar". He has deposed that he had hardly spoken to her when he visited the house of Jai Singh Rawat for two to three minutes. The witness has further deposed that after three days of the death of deceased, he came to know that father of Jai Singh had been implicated. Witness states that he did not make any complaint to police or any authority informing that father of Jai Singh was innocent or that the deceased into some relationship with another person. He has denied that on account of his close relation with Jai Singh Rawat and his brother, he is deposing falsely on legal St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 52 of 133 tutoring and advise only to save the accused from penal consequences. (63) DW4 Ankur Aggarwal has deposed that he is working as Manager (HR) at Thomson Digital, a Unit of Thomson Press India Ltd. According to him he has brought the documents in support of employment of Jai Singh Rawat in Thomson Digital from 27.06.2007 to 15.07.2011, the certificate in this regard which is Ex.DW2/B1, appointment letter Ex.DW2/B2 and copy of attendance register Ex.DW4/A. (64) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has deposed that he is working in the aforesaid concern since August 2011. According to him Jai Singh Rawat working in the company prior to his appointment in the company. Witness has denied that the above said documents procured later on. He has deposed that Sh. K V S N Prasad, Sr. Manager, HR left the services from the aforesaid concern. The document Ex.DW4/A is a computer generated copy. He admits that he has no personal knowledge regarding this case.
(65) DW5 Pawan Singh has brought the summoned record i.e. customer application form in respect of the mobile No. 9911885527. The customer application form is Ex.DW5/A (running into two pages including the ID proof i.e. Copy of driving licence which is in the name of Jai Singh Rawat S/o Sh. B S Rawat, R/o D6/165, Sultanpuri, Delhi. (66) In leading question put to the witness by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that Jai Singh Rawat had requested through mail from his mail ID [email protected] for prepaid invoice details St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 53 of 133 of mobile number 9911885527 from customer care department. The printed copy of mail exchanged between Jai Singh Rawat and Customer Care running into six pages, is now Ex.DW5/B. The prepaid invoice which was sent to Jai Singh Rawat is Ex.DW5/C (running into 17 pages) and it only contains mobile calls outgoing (MO) and Messages outgoing(SO). Witness is unable to produce the complete call details record of the above said number since the same are not longer available or saved as per government guidelines.
(67) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has admitted that as per the guidelines of the government and the existing statutory laws no details of any number can be provided to any private person who is not the authorized owner of the SIM and has voluntarily explained that the details can only be provided to the investigating agency on the asking of the competent officer not less than the rank of DCP (presently) and not less than the rank of the ACP (at the time of incident). He further admits that the request in this case was received from a private person and not from the officer of the police not of the rank of ACP. According to the witness in the present case the details were provided to the private person by their customer care department. He has deposed that in the present case the details provided to Jai Singh Rawat of his phone on payment of chargeable amount and he is unable to tell whether it was done legally or not. He has admitted that the record do St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 54 of 133 not mention the details of the SMS.
FINDINGS:
(68) 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 under Section 314 Cr.P.C. and also perused the evidence on record.
I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under
and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public witnesses:
1. Sandeep Rawat He is the brother of the deceased Rashmi Singh who has
(PW1) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That Smt. Rashmi Singh was his elder sister and
was married with Jai Singh Rawat, S/o Bharat
Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies and thereafter, she started residing at her in laws house.
2. That on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his sister had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his sister Rashmi lying there.
3. That first they reached at her in laws house, then they reached at mortuary of SGM hospital where they identified the dead body of his sister Rashmi.
4. That the police officials present at the mortuary showed them a written paper and told them that the same was recovered from the brassiere of his St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 55 of 133 sister Rashmi and he identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi on the said paper.
5. That police recorded their statements i.e. himself, his mother and his father.
He has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court which is Ex.PW1/A which is the the handwriting of his sister Rashmi. He has also identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi in Ex.PW1/B; in the diary which handwriting is Ex.PW1/C and the Diary is Ex.PW1/D.
2. Smt. Kavita Rawat She is the mother of the deceased who has deposed on the (PW2) following aspects:
1. That her daughter Rashmi was married with Jai Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she started residing at her matrimonial house.
2. That after the marriage, her daughter Rashmi had not made any complaint against any member of her in laws family about any harassment or about any demand of dowry.
3. That on 03.09.2008 at about 7:30 PM her son in law Jai Singh Rawat made a phone call to her which was attended by her and he told her that the condition of Rashmi is serious and also requested her to come to his house.
4. That thereafter she along with her son Sandeep and her husband reached the matrimonial house of her daughter Rashmi where she came to know that her daughter had been taken to SGM hospital.
5. That they reached at the SGM hospital where they found the dead body of her daughter in the mortuary.
6. That since they were not having any suspicion nor were aware of the reason behind the suicide of her daughter, therefore they had not given any statement to the Executive Magistrate against any of the in laws of her daughter.
7. That on 04.09.2008 when the Executive Magistrate was checking the clothes of her St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 56 of 133 daughter Rashmi before the postmortem, he found one suicide note underneath the brassiere which her daughter was wearing and the same was taken out and read over by the Executive Magistrate.
8. That in the said suicide note her daughter had made allegations against her father in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, regarding the suicide by her and she had identified the handwriting and signatures of her daughter Rashmi on that suicide note before the Executive Magistrate.
9. That her statement was given to the Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/A.
10. That the Executive Magistrate prepared the recovery memo of the suicide note which is Ex.PW2/B.
11. That during the course of investigations she handed over the admitted handwriting of deceased i.e. one letter which is Ex.PW1/B which is in the handwriting of her daughter Rashmi to the Investigating Officer.
12. That she also handed over four photographs Ex.PW2/X1 to X4 and the photocopy of the marriage card Mark A to the Investigating Officer which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. She has correctly identified the suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A as the same which was recovered underneath the brassiere of the deceased at the mortuary in her presence and has identified the handwriting and signatures of deceased Rashmi being her mother.
3. Harender Singh He is the father of the deceased Rashmi Rawat who has (PW3) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That his daughter was married to Jai Singh S/o Bharat Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and after the marriage his daughter started residing at the house of her in St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 57 of 133 laws.
2. That his daughter Rashmi appeared perturbed after her marriage and when he made inquiries from her as to why she was so perturbed, she did not tell anything to him and always ignored this fact.
3. That on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his daughter Rashmi lying there and he identified the same.
4. That his statement was recorded in this regard by the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on
04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/A.
5. That before the postmortem, one suicide note was recovered from the brassiere of his deceased daughter Rashmi which fact was revealed to him by police officials and Executive Magistrate.
6. That the suicide note was taken into possession in the presence of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/B and after the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to them.
7. That his statement to the Executive Magistrate Sh.
Sukhbir Singh on 04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/C.
8. That in the suicide note his daughter had made allegations in writing against her father in law that is accused Bharat Singh therefore he made request in his statement to take necessary action against accused Bharat Singh.
The witness has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court and has deposed that during the course of investigations, police had obtained admitted handwriting of his daughter Rashmi which is Ex.PW1/B. He has also identified the diary of his deceased daughter which is Ex.PW1/D and has deposed that the said diary was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/B. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 58 of 133
4. Mahesh (PW4) He is the neighbour of the accused who has proved the following facts:
1. That on 03.09.2008 he was present at his house and on that day at about 7:30 PM he heard some noise from outside on which he came outside from his house.
2. That he found several public persons present in front of house No. D5/165, Sultanpuri which belonged to accused Bharat Singh and he came to know that one Rashmi had committed suicide by hanging.
3. That thereafter with the help of public persons, a cooler was removed from the window of the said house and one small boy entered inside the house through said portion of the window after which the said boy opened the door from inside after which they found Rashmi Rawat hanging from the ceiling fan.
4. That he informed the PCR at 100 number and investigating officer recorded his statement in this regard.
Medical witness:
5. Dr. Manoj He is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved the postmortem Dhingra (PW13) report in respect of deceased Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh aged 24 years old, which report is Ex.PW13/H. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That there was a ligature mark, hard brown parchmentized obliquely placed over front and side of neck merging with hair line posteriorly ligature mark varies in width from 1 to 2 cm is place 5 cm below tip of chin, 8 cm, below mastoid, 2 cm below left mastoid portion.
2. That total length of ligature mark is 26 cm, neck circumference is 31 cm, note of ligature was left side of neck.
3. That on internal examination on Neck on fine dissection of skin under line ligature mark was white glistening no extravastion of blood present in under line tissue.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 59 of 133
4. That on examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus is 600 gms.
5. That the death is due to asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours.
6. That total number of inquest papers were eleven in number which are Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW13/A, PW8/A, PW3/A, PW13/B, PW13/C, PW13/D, PW13/E, PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G. Forensic witness:
6. Ms. Deepa Verma This witness has proved having examined the questioned (PW12) Dy. documents marked as Q1 to Q3 and the standard writings Director, FSL of one Rashmi Rawat which were marked from A1 to A4 Rohini and after careful and thorough examination using various scientific instruments according to which the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures mark A1 to A4 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to A3. Her report in this regard is Ex.PW12/A, the questioned writings are Ex.PW1/A and admitted writings are Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively.
Police / Official witnesses:
7. HC Ramesh He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved Kumar (PW5) the entry at serial No. 11598 in register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/A; entry at serial No. 11602 in register No.19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/B; entries in register No. 19 which is Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D; road certificate which is Ex.PW5/E and copy of receiving which is Ex.PW5/F.
8. Ct. Hans Raj He is a formal witness being the crime Team Photographer (PW6) who has proved the negatives of photographs which are Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7 and the photographs are Ex.PW6/B1 to Ex.PW6/B7.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 60 of 133
9. Insp. Jogender He is the Crime Team Incharge who has proved having Singh (PW7) inspected the spot and having prepared his report which is Ex.PW7/A.
10. ASI Jogender He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Singh (PW8) proved the DD No.45A dated 3.9.2008 which is Ex.PW8/A; computer generated copy of the FIR of the present case which is Ex.PW8/B and his endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW8/C.
11. Sh. Sukhbir Singh He is the SDM who has proved the following aspects:
(PW9) 1. That on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 89 PM he received a message from SGM hospital that one lady namely Rashmi Rawat had died.
2. That he gave directions to the investigating officer to shift the body to the mortuary SGM hospital and then he told to the investigating officer to call the parents and relatives of the deceased.
3. That on 04.09.2008 he received a message from investigating officer that parents of the deceased had reached in SGM hospital on which he reached there.
4. That body of the deceased was got identified by the parents vide their joint statement which is Ex.PW3/A.
5. That he recorded the statement of Harinder Singh and Smt. Kavita Rawat, parents of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X wherein no allegations was leveled against anyone.
6. That he inspected the body in the mortuary in the presence of one Safai Karamchari Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer.
7. That while the said Sheesh Ram was removing the clothes of the deceased in his presence and during inspection, one suicide note was recovered from under brassiere of the deceased.
8. That the said note was shown to the parents of the deceased who had identified the handwriting of St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 61 of 133 deceased Rashmi Rawat and the same was received by him vide receiving memo Ex.PW2/B in the presence of parents of deceased, Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer.
9. That after receiving of the said suicide note, the statement of parents was recorded by him again as they showed their desire to get their statements recorded which statements are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/A.
10. That he made his endorsement on Ex.PW3/C at point X to X regarding direction to lodge the FIR against Bharat Singh under relevant section of IPC and his endorsement from point X to X on Ex.PW2/A regarding taking action against Bharat Singh.
He has correctly identified the said suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A. The witness has proved the inquest papers i.e. Request for conducting postmortem which is Ex.PW9/A, Brief Facts which are Ex.PW9/B, Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW9/C, DD No. 45 which is Ex.PW8/A, statements of parents which is Ex.PW3/A and the statements of other relatives recorded by him.
12. Ct. Biri Singh This witness had gone to the spot along with ASI Prem (PW10) Singh on receiving the call. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW10/A Seizure memo of Sony Ericson mobile
phone
Ex.PW10/B Seizure memo of the exhibits handed over
by the doctor
Ex.PW10/C Arrest memo of the accused
Ex.PW10/D Personal search memo of the accused
Ex.PW10/E Disclosure statement of the accused
13. Insp. Mahesh This was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri as ATO on
Kumar (PW11) 3.9.2008 and has proved the following documents:
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 62 of 133
Ex.PW11/A Site plan
Ex.PW11/B Email dated 03.09.2008 sent by the
deceased to her brother
Ex.PW11/C Seizure memo of Email
14. SI Prem Singh He is the Investigating Officer of the present case and
(PW14) apart from the proceedings proved by the various official
witnesses, he has proved having made his endorsement on the statement of Harinder Singh and on the direction of the SDM vide Ex.PW14/A. (69) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
Identity of the accused:
(70) In so far as the identity of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat is concerned the same is not disputed. He is the father in law of the deceased Rashmi Rawat a fact which the accused has not disputed. I, therefore, hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Death within seven year of marriage:
(71) It is an admitted case of the parties that the marriage of the deceased Rashmi Singh was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006 and she committed suicide on 3.9.2008 i.e. less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage).
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 63 of 133 Medical Evidence:
(72) Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW13) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased Rashmi W/o Jai Singh which is Ex.PW13/H according to which the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours (from the conduct of postmortem examination), thereby establishing that the death of the deceased was suicidal and had taken place in the evening of 3.9.2008. (73) Further, on the postmortem examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus was 600 gms. This fact is compatible to the contents of the suicide note wherein the deceased had mentioned about this fact and establishes that the deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident.
(74) In view of the above I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi by hanging and the fact that the total weight of the fetus was 600 grams with a size of 19 cms. and there was a development of sexual organs shows that it was around five months old fetus. Forensic Evidence:
(75) Ms. Deepa Verma (PW12) Dy. Director, FSL Rohini proved the handwriting report which is Ex.PW12/A according to which the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures mark A1 to A4 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 64 of 133 and marked Q1 to A3.
(76) The defence of the accused is two fold First that writing from diary Ex.A1 to A4 in Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/C is not in the hand writing of the deceased and in this regard has placed reliance on the testimony of Jai Singh Rawat the husband of the deceased who has orally deposed that the documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/C are not in the hand writing of his wife.
It is argued that no reliance can be placed on these handwritings in view of the conflicting depositions. Second he has challenged the correctness of the said report and has argued that the same is not authentic and credible and has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer and hence cannot be relied upon. Before coming to the merits of the report of the expert placed before me, I may observe that that in so far as the first objection with regard to the oral dispute now raised by Jai Singh Rawat regarding the documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/C not being in the hand writing of the deceased is concerned, I find no merit in the same. Jai Singh Rawat is the son of the accused and is an interested witnesses whose sole object is to save his father from penal consequences. In case if these documents do not bear the admitted handwriting of the deceased Rashmi it was open to him to produce any other document bearing her admitted handwriting for purposes of comparison in order to rebut and controvert the same which he has not done. This objection has now been orally raised only as an after thought for the first time after remand of the case and is a desperate attempt to save his father. Had there been any truth in the same, I am sure the accused and his St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 65 of 133 family would have placed before this court the handwriting of the deceased which they were admitting, which has not been done.
(77) Consequent to the credibility to be given to this report, I may observe that it would depend upon the appreciation of report/ opinion of handwriting expert and other attending circumstances as to whether the said report can be relied upon or not and to what extent.
(78) Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two hand writings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence act. To say it differently, the matching of two hand writings is itself a substantial evidence under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of hand writing and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a hand writing expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the hand writing of the accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand writings match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 66 of 133 from the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal in the case of Jaipal Vs State Criminal appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs. State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under :
"......It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The Court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."
(79) It is pertinent to note that High Court of Delhi had relied upon Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under:
"....... An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinionevidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 67 of 133 conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnessthe quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witness, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.
(para4) Expert testimony is made relevant by S.45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to S. 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells that 'A St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 68 of 133 fact is said to be provided when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further, under S. 144 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that S. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(Para 6) There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution.
Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed).
Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 69 of 133 the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
(Para 12) (80) It is borne out from the above that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.
(81) Now applying these principles to the facts of the present case it is writ large that the expert Ms. Deepa Verma has proved having carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents with the scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Video Spectral Comparitor IV, Docucenter and VSC - 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and has also correctly identified the suicide note which has been examined by him. I may observe that the expert Ms. Deepa Verma has prepared his reports in a very scientific manner. She has given detail reasons and I appreciate the manner in which the entire work has been done in a thoroughly professional and scientific manner.
(82) I have also personally examined the handwriting present on the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased. I may observe that on comparison by me the said handwriting present on the questioned St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 70 of 133 document i.e. suicide note has been found to be matching with the handwriting / signatures of the deceased present on the documents containing her admitted handwriting, though written at a different point of time, in broad features like spacing, size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing and termination of strokes. In this background there is no reason to disbelieve the report of the handwriting expert and I hold that the forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case that before her death the deceased had written and left a suicide note Ex.PW1/A which has been proved to be in her handwriting.
Defence of the accused/ Electronic Record - Not Reliable and Credible:
(83) After the remand of this case vide order dated 12.3.2014 and pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court the accused was granted an opportunity to lead his evidence. The accused has now examination his daughter Chandrakanta Rawat who was married prior to the marriage of deceased Rashmi with Jai Singh, as DW1; his son Jai Singh Rawat the husband of deceased Rashmi, as DW2; one Sanjeet Kumar a friend of Jai Singh who is working at the same place i.e. Noida where Jai Singh was working as DW3; Ankur Aggarwal the Manager of Thomson Digital where Jai Singh was working from 27.6.2011 to 15.7.2011 as DW4 and Sh. Pawan Singh Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. as DW5 who has proved that Jai Singh by claiming himself to be the original allottee of mobile No. 9911885527 had obtained the details of the said mobile number. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 71 of 133 (84) The accused has relied upon the statement of the husband of the deceased namely Jai Singh Rawat in order to prove that at the time of the incident Jai Singh Rawat (DW2) was working in Thomson Digital, a Unit of Thomson Press India Ltd. since 27.6.2007 and was residing with his parents in Delhi as also evident from the testimony of Chandrakala Rawat (DW1) and Jai Singh Rawat (DW2) and it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that in case of any act of molestation by the accused Bharat Singh Rawat, the deceased Rashmi would have certainly informed her husband or parents, which she never did. In this regard reliance is also placed on the testimony of Chandakala Rawat (DW1) who is the sisterinlaw/ nanad of the deceased who claims that she was very friendly with the deceased and at no point of time the deceased ever told her about any incident of molestation despite the fact that Rashmi used to even discuss her personal love affairs which she was having before her marriage with her and also confided to her about her likings for another boy residing in her neighbourhood. It is argued that before her death the deceased had even sent an Email to her brother which is Ex.PW11/B and even there she did not allege any molestation or the accused being responsible for her death as she had incorporated in the suicide note which she could have easily done but did not do.
(85) It is alleged by the accused that the deceased was short tempered as her brother and father were alcoholic and her brother was not serious about his career due to which the deceased remained in depression.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 72 of 133 As per the husband of the deceased she was reluctant for having a child as she did not want to get pregnant for some time and wanted to focus on her career. Reliance is placed on the testimony of Chandrakala Rawat (DW1) wherein she has alleged that on 1.5.2008 her mother saw the deceased sending SMS's which is confirmed vide Ex.PW5/A reflecting outgoing messages and calls from the mobile number of the deceased i.e. 9911885527 to 98912811408. Reliance is also placed on the testimony of Sanjeet Kumar (DW3) who is a friend of Jai Singh the husband of the deceased who had allegedly seen the deceased Rashmi intimately sitting on the motorcycle with a person who was not her husband. Chandrakanta Rawat (DW1) has deposed that on 31.8.2008 at about 2:00 AM at night when the deceased was caught sending SMS's after light in the mobile phone which was using was seen blinking, she became terrified and when in the morning the deceased was taken to her parental home, she was scolded by her parents. It is argued that the call detail record of the number 9911885527 would show that on intervening night of 30/31.8.2008 there are 12 to 29 calls respectively between the said numbers which call detail record has been obtained by Jai Singh Rawat (DW2) on his own request from the service provider Idea Cellular.
(86) Coming first to the testimony of Chandrakanta Rawat (DW1) she is the married daughter of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat and the real sister of Jai Singh Rawat - the husband of the deceased Rashmi Rawat. In her testimony before the Court she has made certain claims which have St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 73 of 133 been duly rebutted by the prosecution which I elaborate as under:
➢ That she was using a mobile No. 9871856131 while her sister in law Rashmi was using mobile No. 9911885527.
(Rebuttal - Allottee of the mobile number is Jai Singh Rawat - Exclusive user by Rashmi is neither proved nor borne out from the record).
➢ That she was very friendly to the deceased Rashmi after her marriage and spoke to her almost every day and Rashmi trusted and confided in her.
(Rebuttal - This plea has been raised for the first time after remand of the case and not established from electronic record relied upon by the accused).
➢ That the deceased Rashmi had told her that her father was the second husband of her mother who had two children from previous marriage. (Rebuttal - As per the witness herself this fact was already known to them at the time of marriage and some person from the village had told them) ➢ That Rashmi used to discuss her personal matters with her and had told her some time in April 2007 that she had a liking for some person in her office prior to her marriage and also had a liking for a boy residing next door but the said boy was not very well settled his family being tenants and as such her family would not have agreed St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 74 of 133 for the alliance.
(Rebuttal - This aspect does not appear to be probable nor stands established).
➢ That the father of Rashmi was a diehard drinker, her mother was a shorttampered quarrelsome woman who used to beat her and her brother and not provided them food on small mistakes and her own brother Sandeep Rawat was also a smoker and drinker and was not serious about his career and was also hypersensitive and short tempered.
(Rebuttal - This aspect does not appear to be probable nor stands established).
➢ That after the marriage Jai Singh Rawat wanted a child but Rashmi was reluctant as she wanted to make her career and was even pursuing the MBA Course from Symbiosis College. (Rebuttal - Aspect of further education is not disputed and is proved but not that Rashmi was not wanting a child because even earlier she had conceived and when she ended her life she was miserable that the life of the unborn child was being ended). ➢ That Rashmi got pregnant in NovemberDecember 2007 but she was not happy with the pregnancy and went into depression and suffered an abortion in the year 2008.
(Rebuttal - The aspect of Abortion is established but not because St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 75 of 133 she was not happy or that she went into depression). ➢ That Rashmi again got pregnant in May 2008 but was not happy with the pregnancy.
(Rebuttal - Factum of pregnancy is proved but it is not established that she was not happy. Rather, the suicide note show that she was extremely unhappy and was compelled to take this extreme step of killing her unborn child with her). ➢ That in the month of May 2008 she again came to know from her brother that her mother had seen Rashmi talking to some boy on phone and sending SMS on which a complaint was made by the parents of Rashmi and when she personally made inquiries from Rashmi she apologized and promised not to repeat such mistake again.
(Rebuttal - These are mere allegations which do not stand established).
➢ That Rashmi went to her parental house in the second week of July and remained there till Raksha Bandhan i.e. till 1.9.2008. (Rebuttal - These are mere allegations which do not stand established).
➢ That she came to know through her brother Jai Singh that Rashmi was sending messages to somebody and and after an hour when Rashmi called her and she discussed the matter with her, when St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 76 of 133 Rashmi got very annoyed and stated that her parents had been informed by her husband and fatherinlaw who have poisoned their mind resulting her parents being annoyed with her and her image had been tarnished, and she became highly aggressive. (Rebuttal - These are mere allegations which do not stand established).
➢ That on 03.09.2008 Rashmi gave a call to her stating that her inlaws had poisoned the mind of her parents and now she would teach her father in law a lesson and also see as to how her husband becomes a father and thereafter the phone was disconnected since her (witness's) phone was not working properly and she was unable to connect to her but Rashmi sent an SMS to her saying that she would talk later. (Rebuttal - These are mere allegations which do not stand established).
➢ That thereafter at around 7.30 PM she received an information that Rashmi had committed suicide on which she immediately reached the place of incident where police was present.
(Not Proved - Rather the presence of Chandrakanta is neither shown during investigations nor proved).
➢ That she was asked by the police to take the search of body of Rashmi and when she took the search thoroughly including beneath her clothes and undergarments, no suicide note was found. (Not proved/ established - This aspect has now been introduced St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 77 of 133 for the first time after remand of the case and had there been a body search of the deceased it would have been reflected in the investigation record or the case diaries which is not the case.) ➢ That on next day in the evening she learnt that her father was implicated in the present case. (Matter of record). (87) At the very Outset I may observe that Chandrakanta is the married sister in law of the deceased who was married much prior to the marriage of the deceased in the year 2003 and was residing in her matrimonial home at Vaishali Ghaziabad which is around 35 to 40 kilometers away from Sultan Puri i.e. at a distance not less than two hours between two places and there are little chances of frequent interaction between Chandrakanta and deceased Rashmi.
(88) Secondly Chandrakanta Rawat was not known to Rashmi Rawat prior to her married and hence again there are little chances that during this short span of two years after the marriage of Rashmi with Jai Singh, that Rashmi would have become so close to Chandrakanta Rawat who is her Nanand/ Sister in law that she would have even confided and boasted about her private affairs with large number of boys which she had prior to her marriage and also after the marriage. The family of the accused and so also of the deceased, are Middle Class Conservative families where the women are slow to interact with their own inlaws soon after marriage and therefore, under the given circumstances it appears to be impossible that the deceased Rashmi would have so blatantly exposed her alleged intimate St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 78 of 133 relations which she had before her marriage with other men. Even otherwise, had that been so, I am sure Chandrakanta Rawat would have immediately told this fact to the police, which is not the case. Also, Chandrakanta Rawat claims that Rashmi was very close to her and had even informed her about her affairs before the marriage and the fact that she was liking a boy. This clearly does not match the character of deceased and had the deceased been so outgoing and extrovert she would not have embraced death in this manner. A person who is daring enough to voluntary expose her intimate relationships which existed before her marriage and even thereafter with other men, would also be daring enough to stand by the consequences of the same, rather than committing suicide or being depressed.
(89) Thirdly Chandrakanta states that she was using a mobile No. 9871856131 while Rashmi was using mobile No. 9911885527. However, in her crossexamination she has admitted that this mobile No. i.e. 9911885527 was kept in the house and was used by all family members including Rashmi Rawat and it is difficult to believe that the deceased Rashmi, who belonged to a conservative family, would be using this mobile set of common use for sending love messages and making love calls and receiving such calls to some other person. Rather, on the contrary the user of this mobile number 9911885527 by the deceased Rashmi does not stand established. I am observe that the case diary dated 22.2.2009 confirms that during investigations it was confirmed that a call St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 79 of 133 had been made by Chandrakanta Rawat from mobile No. 9871856131 on mobile No. 9911724596 (not on mobile No. 9911885527) and when Chandrakanta Rawat was interrogated on 22.2.2009 with regard to the said call she had informed the Investigating Officer that she had made a call to her mother on this number and her sister in law (deceased Rashmi) picked up the phone and informed her that her mother had gone to purchase vegetables and she was working on the computer (Mummy ji subzi lene gayi hain or main computer pe kaam kar rahi hoon) and thereafter she had not conversed with her. Apparently this entire story of Rashmi talking to some other boy and sending SMS's when he was caught and exposed after which her family was told about it, has been created as a Defence at much later stage because had this been so, the family of the deceased on the very first day of investigations in their statement have implicated the entire family of the accused and not given a clean chit to them. Even later, they had only confined themselves to the facts which came to light when the suicide note was discovered and only named the accused Bharat Singh Rawat and not his son Jai Singh or his mother. If it was a false implication then Bharat Singh, his wife and son Jai Singh, all stood on the same footing and there was no reason for the family of the deceased to leave others.
(90) Fourthly Chandrakanta Rawat also claimed that she on getting the information of death of Rashmi, she immediately reached the spot and conducted the body search of the deceased. Chandrakanta has claimed that after receiving the information she reached the spot at 9:00 PM but I may St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 80 of 133 observe that the Crime Team who was inspecting the spot and remained their till 9:15 PM after which various exhibits were seized, the presence of Chandrakanta is not mentioned anywhere. Even otherwise it is not possible that Chandrakanta could have managed to reach the spot of incident at Sultan Puri from her matrimonial house at Vaishali Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by 9:00 PM keeping in view the distance involved between the two places. I may further note that the investigations conducted are totally silent on the presence of Chandrakanta Rawat at the spot. I am sure in case if she would have been present at the spot, not only her signatures would have been taken on the various documents but also the dead body search memo of the deceased would have been prepared by the Investigating Officer, which again is not the case. This fact has been clearly incorporated now an after thought and an attempt by her to save her father. (91) Fifthly Chandrakanta Rawat has in his crossexamination specifically stated that she could not give the address of Pushp Vihar of the parents of Rashmi where she was residing when Jai Singh was away to Mumbai. She has also admitted that she has not seen the father of the deceased Rashmi in a drunken condition except on one occasion or the father of the deceased beating his wife i.e. the mother of the deceased or the brother of Rashmi in drunken condition. She is also unaware whether it was her brother who had taken the deceased Rashmi to Mool Chand Hospital for consultation. She has also admitted that she did not make any complaint to the parents of the deceased Rashmi and also did not tell her father regarding St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 81 of 133 the SMSs sent by Rashmi. Therefore, it is writ large that Chandrakanata has deposed on these aspects as per her own version on the basis of hearsay which is inadmissible perse.
(92) Lastly the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the testimony of Chandrakanta Rawat (DW1) that she was asked to conduct the body search of the deceased including her clothes and undergarments but no suicide note was found, which fact finds due corroboration from the testimony of Ct. Hans Raj (PW6) who has stated that no suicide note was recovered from the body of the deceased. He has further argued that the Sweeper Sheesh Ram has not been cited as prosecution witness nor examined in the Court and hence under the given circumstances, the testimony of Chandrakanta Rawat (DW1) cannot be discarded. I have considered the submissions made before me and I do not find any merit in this argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the fact that Ct. Hans Raj (PW6) was only a Crime Team Photographer who was concerned only with taking the photographs of the scene of crime and was not involved in substantive investigations. He has nowhere claimed nor it is mentioned in the Crime Team Report that the body search of the deceased was got conducted by the Investigating Officer through Chandrakanta as is being now claimed by her. It is only when a suggestion was made to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel if any suicide note was recovered in his presence from the dead body of the deceased, that he simply denied the same. There is no confirmation to this fact that any body search had been conducted by the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 82 of 133 police themselves or got conducted through somebody else. Even otherwise, non citing and non examination of Sheesh Ram as witness is not fatal to the prosecution case since Sheesh Ram had only carried out the directions of SDM Sh. Sukhbir Singh (PW9) and it is the SDM Sukhbir Singh (PW9) who had conducted the inspection of the dead body. The witness Sukhbir Singh (SDM) has proved that it was he who had directed the Sweeper Sheesh Ram to remove the clothes to enable him to inspect and examine the dead body and while Sheesh Ram was removing the clothes of the deceased in his presence and also in the presence of the Investigating Officer SI Prem Singh (PW14) and the parents of the deceased who all were present with him, that while removing the clothes the suicide note was recovered from her brassiere and it is this which gave a twist to the earlier version and turned the face of the investigations. In this background, the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the discovery of the suicide note by Sheesh Ram falls flat. It is writ large that the suicide note was found when in the presence of SDM Sh. Sukhbir Singh (PW9), SI Prem Singh (PW14) and parents of the deceased, Sheesh Ram was removing the clothes of the deceased to fascilitate body inspection. I find this argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel devoid of merits.
(93) In view of my above discussion, I hereby concluded that Chandrakanta (DW1) the married daughter of the accused is an interested witness and her testimony is not worthy of credit.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 83 of 133 (94) Coming now to the testimony of Jai Singh Rawat who is the husband of the deceased and son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat and after remand of the case has been examined as DW2. In his testimony he has made certain claims which have been duly rebutted by the prosecution which I elaborate as under:
➢ That at the time of marriage he was working in Mumbai and thereafter he joined M/s. Thomson Digital in June 2007 in Noida where he was doing shift duty.
(Rebuttal Employment at M/s. Thomson Digital between 27.6.2007 to 15.7.2011 established but not the posting at Noida and the shifts done him).
➢ That the deceased Rashmi was very short tempered and used to pick up quarrels for slightest reasons.
(Rebuttal - These are mere allegations and not proved). ➢ That after eight to ten days of marriage he had seen some obscene messages on her phone and on his asking she informed him that they were sent by her friend prior to her marriage on which he told her not to entertain such messages.
(Rebuttal - These are mere allegations and not proved). ➢ That he had taken Rashmi for Gynecological Consultation to Dr. Sadhna Kala who was a consultant in Moolchand Hospital having her clinic at Chitranjan Park.
(Rebuttal - These are mere allegations and not proved). St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 84 of 133 ➢ That wanted a child but Rashmi was reluctant as she wanted to make her career and hence he got her admitted in Diploma Course of Management in June 2007 from Symbiosis Center for Distance Learning.
(Rebuttal Admission in the Course is proved but not that she was reluctant for a child).
➢ That Rashmi used to remain depressed and was being given Valium tables for depression by Dr. Anita Bansal to whom he took her during the problem during first pregnancy.
(Rebuttal - These allegations have not been proved and the best evidence in the form of the testimony of Dr. Anita Bansal who could have proved the same has been withheld).
➢ That on 1.5.2008 his mother saw Rashmi talking to somebody on phone and also sending SMS's on which his mother informed him and his father about the same and in his presence Rashmi admitted her mistake and thereafter he and his father also went with Rashmi to her parents house where Rashmi was scolded and she promised not to repeat such mistakes again.
(Rebuttal - These are mere allegations and not proved). ➢ That about ten days prior to death, his friend Sanjeet Singh informed him that he had seen Rashmi with a boy on a motorcycle holding him intimately near Chirag Delhi and were taking a turn towards Greater Kailash and when he asked Rashmi she told him that she had gone to St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 85 of 133 Chitranjan Park to the doctor in a bus.
(Rebuttal - This witness is the neighbour of the accused and working in the same place where Jai Singh is working. The allegations made by him do not appear to be probable nor they have been proved).
➢ That on 30.8.2008 during night at 2:00 AM his father noticed the light of mobile phone of Rashmi blinking in their room and when his mother asked Rashmi she became terrified.
(Rebuttal - These are mere allegations and not proved). ➢ That in the morning his father scolded Rashmi and tried to check the phone of Rashmi she resisted and started shouting after which he came a call to his mother in law asking her to take Rashmi to their house and thereafter Rashmi was scolded and warned about her conducted after which Rashmi stopped talking to him. (Rebuttal - These are mere allegations and not proved). ➢ That his wife Rashmi was using the mobile No. 9911885527 having SIM Card No. 89910404030734426599 and he had obtained the Call Detail Record of the same by writing to the Service Provider to mail the relevant Call Details Record to him.
(Rebuttal - The exclusive user of the mobile phone by deceased Rashmi has not been proved and the evidence on record suggests that this number was being used by all the family members as claimed by Chandrakanta - DW1. The above electronic record is incomplete and St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 86 of 133 selective and the relevant columns/ details relating to date, time, duration, IMEI No., Cell ID/ location have been cleverly deleted and withheld for which adverse inference is drawn. Even otherwise, the data has not been proved in accordance with law).
(95) In view of the above I may observe that Jai Singh Rawat is an interested witness being the son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat and has for the first time made such a statement before the Court. He has admitted that no complaint regarding the conduct of Rashmi Rawat was made by him to any one including the members of their community and the Mediator who had mediated the marriage. He has admitted that he has personally never seen the deceased Rashmi taking to anybody on mobile phone and has explained that it was his mother (not examined) who had told him about the same after she saw it. He has not been able to produce the receipt regarding the purchase of the mobile phone and has stated that it was his brother who was in South Korea who had purchased the same. He has admitted that during the life time of Rashmi he did not obtain any Call Detail Records of the said mobile phone and also admits that the SIM inserted in the mobile set was in his name. He has stated that his family was having an access to the said mobile and was using the same.
(96) Further, Jai Singh claimed that Rashmi was using the mobile No. 9911885527. However, on the contrary he himself is the registered allottee and user of this mobile number 9911885527 and its exclusive user by the deceased Rashmi does not stand established. Further, his own sister St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 87 of 133 Chandrakanta (DW1) has admitted this mobile phone used to remain at home and was used by everybody. No witness has been called to prove the electronic record and number reflected therein to prove the exclusive user by the deceased Rashmi.
(97) In so far as Sanjeet Kumar (DW3) is concerned, he is the friend of Jai Singh Rawat and was working in the same area where Jai Singh was working i.e. Noida, UP. It is for the first time that Sanjeet Kumar has come up with a story that he had seen Rashmi sitting with a boy on a motorcycle, in the Court and that too after the remand of the case. He himself stated that he had seen the deceased Rashmi on two - three occasions and that too for a few seconds. How is it possible then that under these circumstances he could have identified the deceased from quite distance from hundreds of persons on a busy road with heavy vehicular traffic while he himself was on the other side of the road and as per his own version the deceased who was almost five months pregnant at that time was sitting on a motorcycle which had taken a turn towards Greater Kailash. Also, if this would have been so and Jai Singh Rawat was already ware of this fact, I am sure he would have mentioned this fact to the police which is not the case. (98) In so far as Ankur Aggarwal (DW4) is concerned he is only a formal witness who has proved the documents in support of employment of Jai Singh Rawat in Thomson Digitals from 27.6.2007 to 15.7.2011 but it does not confirm the place of his working and time timings and even the attendance sheet placed on record do not confirm the place where he was St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 88 of 133 marking his attendance.
(99) Further, in so far as Sh. Pawan Singh (DW5) is concerned he has proved that the mobile No. 9911885527 which is in the name of Jai Singh Rawat the husband of the deceased who had requested for the same through his Email. This witness, I may observe is unable to tell whether the said details can be given to a private person in the manner in which he has been done.
(100) The entire defence evidence as discussed herein above shows that both the children of the accused i.e. Chandrakant Rawat (married daughter) and Jai Singh Rawat (son - husband of the deceased) who are interested witnesses, are totally non reliable and untrustworthy. They are interested witnesses who in order to save their father Bharat Singh Rawat have indulged into full character assassination of the deceased Rashmi and have come up with a new version in a desperate attempt to plug the loopholes and lacunas as noticed by this Court earlier. The exclusive use of Mobile Phone No. 9911885527 by the deceased Rashmi has not been proved and the electronic record so placed before this court is incomplete and selective and has also not been proved in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4226/2012. Further, in so far as the Medical Records of Rashmi which are Mark 3 are concerned, the same do not bear the signatures or details of any of the doctors nor these documents have been prepared in terms of the guidelines issued by the Medical Council St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 89 of 133 of India nor proved by the said doctors as per law.
(101) In this background, I hereby hold that the defence raised by the accused as well as the electronic record produced by him is not reliable and does not assist him in any manner.
Allegations against the accused/ Suicide note left by the deceased:
(102) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was the father in law of Rashmi Singh who was married to his son Jai Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and on 3.9.2008 Smt. Rashmi Singh committed suicide. It appeared to be a normal and happy marriage. There were no complaints whatsoever and hence when she expired her parents could not suspect any foul play and did not make any allegation to the SDM against the inlaws of their deceased daughter.
However, when her postmortem was about to be conducted and the clothes of the deceased were removed by the sweeper Sheesh Ram to enable to body inspection by the Executive Magistrate which was in the presence of the IO SI Prem Singh and the parents of the deceased and while the sweeper removed the clothes in the presence of the SDM a note was recovered from her brassiere/ undergarment which on perusal was found to be containing reasons why she had committed suicide. In the said note the deceased had made specific allegations against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat of having an evil eye on her despite her close relationship with him being his daughter in law and despite the fact that she treated him as his father. She had St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 90 of 133 alleged that whenever the accused got an opportunity he seized the same. Initially he only used to kiss her but later he started touching her inappropriately. She also alleged that she had noticed that Bhart Singh was a mischievous man who exhibited one behaviour to her and another before the others and being fed up with the behaviour of Bharat Singh Rawat and not being able to confide in anybody about his ways and behaviour fearing that nobody would believe her and would instead blame her, she decided to end her life being fully aware that at that time she was pregnant and carrying a fetus.
(103) It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that this note had been planted on the body of the deceased Rashmi much later, only to implicate the accused and in this regard reliance is placed by him on the testimony of Chandrakanta the daughter of the accused whom he has now examined in his defence as DW1 who states that when she reached her matrimonial home upon hearing of the incident, she saw the body of the deceased lying in the room and upon asking of the Investigating Officer had conducted full body search of the body of deceased including that of her brassiere and undergarments but did not find any note. Ld. Defence Counsel has also argued that the prosecution has neither cited nor examined Sheesh Ram the Sweeper as a witness to prove the recovery of the note and hence it only proves that the same was planted on the body later.
(104) I have considered the submissions made and I may observe that this theory of the suicide note being planted at a later stage is required St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 91 of 133 to be straight away rejected being a figment of imagination. Chandrakanta the daughter of the accused has now come to the court to orally depose this aspect for the first time. This is a defence which has now been introduced by accused for the first time after the remand of the case and had this been so I am sure that the various witnesses of the police particularly the Investigating Officer of the case would have been cross examined on this count which is not the case. No suggestion has been made to the Investigating Officer and the police officials who first reached the spot Firstly as regards the presence of Chandrakanta at the spot and Secondly as as regards the body search / inspection being done by her on their directions. I am sure that in case if a detailed body search / inspection of deceased would have been done, the investigations would have reflected the same and a body search memo would have been prepared. Even otherwise Chandrakanta does not appear to be telling the truth. She is married and residing at her matrimonial house at Vaishali, Ghaziabad which is about 3540 kilometer away from Sultanpuri and considering that the incident was of late evening hours it would take her good two hours to reach the spot. In her cross examination she herself states that she had reached the spot of incident at 9:00 PM. The investigations reveal that ar around 9:15 PM the body had already been shifted to the hospital mortuary and hence her claims are contrary to the evidence on record. even otherwise she is an interested witness being the daughter of the accused and as discussed separately is not is not credible and not reliable.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 92 of 133 (105) In so far as the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that non examination of Sheesh Ram would be fatal to the prosecution version is concerned, I find no merit in the same. The testimony of Sh. Sukhbir Singh the SDM / Executive Magistrate is very specific and clear. It is not a case that the suicide note had been got recovered by Sheesh Ram but a case where Sheesh Ram was only complying with the directions of the SDM and facilitating the body inspection by the Executive Magistrate/ SDM and removing the clothes in the presence of the SDM Sh. Sukhbir Singh and the Investigating Officer SI Prem Singh and it was only then that the suicide note Ex.PW/1A was discovered from under the brassier of the deceased Rashmi. Both the SDM Sh. Sukhbir Singh, the Investigating Officer SI Prem Singh as also the mother of the deceased who was present at the time of body inspection, have proved the same. In case if the family of the deceased were wanting to falsely implicate the accused or his family they would have easily made allegations of harassment, torture, etc. against all of them at the first instance itself to the SDM which they did not do and the SDM has proved this aspect that no allegations were made by family of deceased initially and later when they did make another statement on discovery of this note they only confirmed the allegations to the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. The SDM has further explained that the need to record the statement of the parents of the deceased again arose due to the subsequent development i.e. discovery of this suicide note. In case if this note would have been fabricated or planted in connivance with the family of St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 93 of 133 the deceased, it would have been much easier to make allegations against the husband JaiSingh who as per the version of the defence had also allegedly made complaints to the family of the deceased against her which is not the case. Rather, the husband and all other family members including his mother who as per the defence version stood on the same level, have been given a clean chit.
(106) Coming now to the merits of allegations made in the suicide note by the deceased, it is necessary for me to first briefly discuss the law relating to Suicide. I may observe that the word 'Suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and required no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. (107) Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal Law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types.
1. Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.
2. Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.
(108) This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 94 of 133 mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide had been abrogated. (109) In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offence is beyond to the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC. (110) 'Abetment' has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that:
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
(111) Explanation 2 which has been inserted alongwith Section 107 reads as under :
"Explanation 2 - whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to be and the doing of that act."
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 95 of 133 (112) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in VII (2001)SLT 356 has in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation" as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forwards, provoke, incite of encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred......"
(113) In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another, reported in IV(1993)CCR392(SC)=(1994)DMC138 (SC)=(1994)SCC 73 the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 96 of 133 similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (114) The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is also required an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
(115) It is a settled law that the act of abetment has to be put in consonance with the entire evidence of the case. The act of abetment attributed to the accused cannot be views or tested in isolation and hence what would constitute instigation is the entirety of evidence depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.
(116) Now, applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case I may observe that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the suicide note left by the deceased. The Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh has proved the said note Ex.PW1/A and the proceedings which were conducted thereafter. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"......... On 03.09.08 I was posted as Ex. Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar. On that day, at about 8/9 pm I received a message from SGM Hospital that one lady namely Rashmi Rawat had died. I gave directions to the IO to shift the body to the mortuary SGM Hospital. Then, I told to the IO to call the parents and relatives of the deceased. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 97 of 133 On 04.09.08, I received a message from Io that parents of the deceased have reached in SGM Hospital. I also reached there. Body of the deceased was got identified by the parents vide their statements recorded jointly on Ex.PW3/A. I recorded the statement of Harinder Singh and Smt. Kavita Rawat, parents of the deceased with are Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X wherein no allegation was levelled against anyone.
During inspection of the body by me in the mortuary in the presence of one safai karamchari Sheesh Ram and IO. The said Sheesh Ram was putting off the clothes of the deceased in my presence and during inspection, one suicide note was recovered under bra of the deceased which was shown to the parents of the deceased who had identified the handwriting of deceased Rashmi Rawat and the same was received by me vide receiving memo Ex.PW2/B in the presence of parents of deceased, Sheesh Ram and IO which bears my signatures at point X and the signatures of the said persons at different points. After receiving of the said suicide note, the statement of parents was recorded by me again as they showed their desire to get their statements recorded which are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/A and I made my endorsement on Ex.PW3/C at point X to X regarding direction to lodge the FIR against Bharat Singh under relevant section of IPC and which bears my signatures at point B. My endorsement from point X to X was also made by me on Ex.PW2/A regarding taking action taking action against Bharat Singh which bears my signatures at point B...."
(117) It is writ large that the proceedings regarding the seizure of the said suicide note has been validly conducted. It is an admitted fact that St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 98 of 133 during the initial investigations the suicide note had not been recovered and nobody was aware of the reasons for the suicide of the deceased. However, it was only at the later stage when the postmortem was to be conducted and the clothes of the deceased were being removed that from the same the said note was recovered.
(118) Inquiries were then initiated against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on the basis of the contents of the said suicide note (Ex.PW1/A) which contents I reproduce as under:
"......Mein bahaut pareshan thi aur mere pareshani ka kaaran mere sasur hai. Kuch dino se woh mujhe kiss karte hai aur koi aas pass na ho toh hath bhi lagate hai. Pehle toh mein achanak kuch samajh nahi pai, kyonki mein unhe papa sirf kehti hi nahi thi, balki unhe papa ki tehre hi pyar karte thi. Isley achanak yeh sab mein samaj nahi pai, phir mujhe unki yeh harkate gandi lagne lagi, ek din unhone mujhe kaha ki mein yeh baat kisi ko na batau. Mein bahaut dar gayi thi, kuch bhi samaj mein nahi aa raha tha ki kaya karu, upar se yeh insan sabke samne bilkul hi dusre roop mein dhikai deta tha, jaise kuch hua he na ho. Tabhi mujhe ehsas hua yeh insan kuch bhi kar sakta hai, jiske sandar itne himmat hai, jo apne beti jaise bahu ke sath gandhi harkete kar ke bare aram se apne apko sabke samne Normal rakh leta hai. Meinandar hi andar bahut ghut rahi thi, apne pati aur mummy papa se nahi keh pa rahi thi, kyonki mein janti thi, aise admi pehle hangama karega aur phir sara iljam mere sar par laga kar mujhe hi badnam kar dega, kyonki meine dekha hai yeh kuch bhi utpatang bolne mein jara bhi der nahi lagata. Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 99 of 133 bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti. Yese insan ka jo sath dega woh usse bhi bara gunhgar hoga, konki do hatyaon ka pap lagega useh do jindgiya ko khatam hone par majboor hone ka paap, ek ne to abhi tak janam bhi nahi liya. Bhagwan unhe kabhi bhi chain nahi dega....."
(119) It is evident from the above suicide note that it is in the nature of a Dying Declaration and before proceeding to end her life the deceased Rashmi Singh had given the reasons why she chose to do so. The entire prosecution case rests upon this suicide note which is the last document left by the deceased. The entire law of the Dying Declaration rests on the premise that the dying person tells no lie for he would not face his maker with a lie on his lips. However, the Law as it has emerged in India is that the said note has to be read in the light of the other evidence and surrounding circumstances and due caution needs to be exercised since the accused does not stand a chance to crossexamine the maker of the same. Hence in this background in order to ascertain the psyche / state of mind of the deceased before her death and to determine the reasons why a young girl of hardly 24 years of age in less than two years of marriage would choose to end not only her life but also that of her unborn child, I now proceed to again read the entire suicide note once again and from a bare reading of the same the following stands reflected:
➢ That the deceased Rashmi was very disturbed and the cause for the same was her father in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat (Mein St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 100 of 133 bahaut pareshan thi aur mere pareshani ka kaaran mere sasur hai). ➢ That for some days Bharat Singh Rawat the father in law of deceased Rashmi used to kiss her and when there was nobody around he also used to touch her inappropriately (Kuch dino se woh mujhe kiss karte hai aur koi aas pass na ho toh hath bhi lagate hai). ➢ That initially since all this happened all of a sudden the deceased Rashmi did not understand the same because not only did she call the accused Bharat Singh Rawat her father (Papa) but also used to love him like her own father and therefore could not perceive and understand his intentions (Pehle toh mein achanak kuch samajh nahi pai, kyonki mein unhe papa sirf kehti hi nahi thi, balki unhe papa ki tehre hi pyar karte thi. Isley achanak yeh sab mein samaj nahi pai). ➢ That it was sometime later when the deceased Rashmi Singh realized the intent of the accused she started disliking the above acts of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat (phir mujhe unki yeh harkate gandi lagne lagi).
➢ That one day the accused Bharat Singh Rawat told the deceased Rashmi Singh that she should not tell about these things to anybody else (ek din unhone mujhe kaha ki mein yeh baat kisi ko na batau). ➢ That the deceased Rashmi Singh became extremely scared and did not know what to do because outwardly the accused Bharat Singh Rawat used to behave differently as if nothing had happened (Mein bahaut dar gayi thi, kuch bhi samaj mein nahi aa raha tha ki kaya St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 101 of 133 karu, upar se yeh insan sabke samne bilkul hi dusre roop mein dhikai deta tha, jaise kuch hua he na ho).
➢ That it is then that the deceased Rashmi Singh realized that the accused Bharat Singh Rawat could do anything as he had the guts to do these dirty acts with his daughter in law who was like a daughter to him after which he would appear and behave perfectly normal before everybody else (Tabhi mujhe ehsas hua yeh insan kuch bhi kar sakta hai, jiske andar itne himmat hai, jo apne beti jaise bahu ke sath gandhi harkete kar ke bare aram se apne apko sabke samne Normal rakh leta hai).
➢ That it was this which suffocated the deceased Rashmi Singh from inside as she felt that she could not even disclose these facts to her own husband, mother and father knowing that in case if he did so Bharat Singh Rawat would then create a scene / hangama after which he would shift the entire blame on her i.e. deceased and defame her because she had herself seen and knew that Bharat Singh Rawat could speak any nonsense (utpatang) within no time (Mein andar hi andar bahut ghut rahi thi, apne pati aur mummy papa se nahi keh pa rahi thi, kyonki mein janti thi, aise admi pehle hangama karega aur phie sara iljam mere sar par laga kar mujhe hi badnam kar dega, kyonki meine dekha hai yeh kuch bhi utpatang bolne mein jara bhi der nahi lagata).
➢ That it is because of this persistent suffocation that the deceased St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 102 of 133 Rashmi Singh was compelled to commit suicide because she knew that very soon i.e. either today or tomorrow the accused Bharat Singh Rawat would do something to her which she will not be able to tolerate (Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti). (120) It is writ large from the aforesaid that this young girl of hardly 24 years of age with less than two years of marriage who was staying in a joint family with her inlaws in Delhi has chosen the embrace of death despite the fact that she was pregnant (5 months) and this was on account of the constant and persistent intrafamilial sexual abuse / molestation by none less than her own father in law. This harassment and molestation was not a casual feature but was persistent. The husband of the deceased Rashmi Singh was in a different city i.e. Mumbai. She was totally at the mercy of the overbearing father in law i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. Her relationship with the accused is of fiduciary nature and Bharat Singh Rawat was in a position to dominate her will on account of his relationship with her. The deceased realized that with her husband not being around and her predatory father in law always looking for an opportunity to molest her when nobody is around and thereafter cleverly coveringup his illegal acts by appearing perfectly normal she stood little chance in case if she disclosed about these happenings either to her husband or to her parents, for in case if St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 103 of 133 she did so her fatherinlaw i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was capable of shifting the entire blame on her and of creating a scene in the house. It is this constant presence of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat (father in law) around the deceased and his acts of molestation and sexual abuse of the deceased whenever he found an opportunity (which opportunity he frequently got since Jai Singh Rawat the husband of the deceased as per his version used to work at Noida and had erratic duty hours including night shifts) and the further threat of an aggravated sexual assault looming large on the head of the deceased that was the proximate cause why the deceased chose death to disgrace. The extent of threat, frustration and suffocation felt by the deceased on account of the repeated acts and threats of the accused are reflected in the suicide note left by the deceased and so also the extent of harassment and torture which the deceased faced from the accused find reflected in her suicide note when she states that ".....anybody who sides with the accused would be a bigger offender than him for he would be guilty of finishing two lives one of whom has not even seen the light of the day (Yese insan ka jo sath dega woh usse bhi bara gunhgar hoga, konki do hatyaon ka pap lagega useh do jindgiya ko khatam hone par majboor hone ka paap, ek ne to abhi tak janam bhi nahi liya)..." and further when she goes on to say ".....God will not let him rest in peace (Bhagwan unhe kabhi bhi chain nahi dega)...".
(121) It is pertinent to note that intra familial sexual abuse is a deep seated malady in our social order and a crime which most of the family St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 104 of 133 members tend to conceal. This case is a glaring example of how a young girl hardly married for two years was compelled not only to end her own life but also of her unborn child only because the lustful eyes of her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) had fallen on her and he lost no opportunity to molest and sexually abuse her by taking advantage of his dominating relationship and her vulnerable position. The circumstances of the case speak for themselves. For a young housewife aged 24 years hardly married for less than two years with her husband staying away from her in a different city and her father in law having an evil eye on her and seizing every opportunity to prey upon her, is an instigating situation compelling the victim to take the extreme step of ending her life. Initially the deceased had been a victim of sexual abuse of a lesser degree and there was an impending threat looming large on her head that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to prey upon her and this fact is evident from the suicide note Ex.PW1/A wherein the deceased has mentioned that "....Kuch dino se woh mujhe kiss karte hai aur koi aas pass na ho toh hath bhi lagate hai..." and further when she adds "....Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti....." (122) It is in this background that with a persistent impending threat of sexual abuse looming large on her head and fearing social stigmatization and disgrace she rather chose to embrace death and this she did, despite knowing that she was carrying a fetus at the relevant time. The fear that the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 105 of 133 accused Bharat Singh Rawat could do anything to her anytime was so great that she immediately chose death and this is reflected from her words "....Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti. Yese insan ka jo sath dega woh usse bhi bara gunhgar hoga, konki do hatyaon ka pap lagega useh do jindgiya ko khatam hone par majboor hone ka paap, ek ne to abhi tak janam bhi nahi liya......" which clearly reflect her psyche and state of mind and the reason why she chose to commit suicide.
(123) The defence offered by the accused is that he had caught the deceased sending SMS's and talking to one boy over mobile phone. I note that at one place in the crossexamination the defence offered by the accused is that it is his son i.e. husband of the deceased who caught her telephoning and SMSing to some boy namely Rinku to which he objected as she was having relations with him which fact his son Jai Singh also conveyed to her parents whereas in his own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has stated that he had caught her talking to a boy in the late night hours which fact he had informed to the parents of the deceased. I have considered the defence offered by the accused which on the face of it is vague, unconvincing, not probable and apparently an after thought. Firstly it has come in the testimony of the parents and brother of the deceased that there was no such incident nor any such fact was communicated to them. There is no reason to disbelieve the family of the deceased for they were St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 106 of 133 already in a legally advantageous position their daughter having expired (unnatural death) within seven years of marriage and that too in the house of her inlaws. Therefore, in this background if what has been pleaded by the accused (that she was having an affair with some other person) was correct then the family of the deceased were in a position to legally preempt these allegations being leveled on their deceased daughter by invoking special provisions (Section 498A & 304B IPC) which they did not do. Secondly it has also come in the testimony of the parents that the husband of the deceased namely Jai Singh was staying at Mumbai and had only come to them once after the marriage and thereafter had never visited them so there could have been no occasion for him to have made any such complaint. In this regard the husband Jai Singh Rawat who now after the remand of the case has been examined as DW2 has stated that he had joined a Noida based firm and was working there from 27.6.2007 to 15.7.2011 (Ex.DW2/B1) which document only confirm employment but not the place of posting as Noida). There is nothing to show that the parents of the deceased were aware that he had shifted back to Delhi. Thirdly it has also come in the testimony of the family of the deceased that this boy on whom the allegations are now being made namely Rinku is the cousin brother of the deceased being the son of maternal uncle who is residing in the same area where the deceased was married. Lastly assuming what the accused is saying is correct then if it was anybody who could have caught her speaking to any man during late night hours it would have been her husband and not St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 107 of 133 the father in law i.e. the accused. Even otherwise according to the husband he used to be on night duty. I am sure that in case if the accused was such an extrovert to open up about her affairs and relationships which she was even discussing openly with her Nanad / sisterinlaw Chandrakanta as per version of Chandrakanta then under such circumstances the deceased having any relations with any other person there was sufficient opportunity for her to have walked out of the marriage rather than ending her life which is not the case. These are inherent contradictions. I may observe that the deceased was a young girl belonging to a conventional family with certain values and perhaps it is for this reason that she could not tolerate and withstand the objectionable acts and behaviour of her fatherinlaw whom she treated as her own father. I may further note that the husband of the deceased namely Jai Singh has now appeared as a witness before this Court after remand of the case and has orally gone out of his way to do full character assassination of his deceased wife apparently to save his father (Bharat Singh Rawat). As discussed separately, he is a nonreliable interested witness and cannot be believed.
(124) This Court cannot ignore the harsh realities of sexual abuse of woman not only within the family and blood relations but also within the family of the inlaws particularly when the husband is not residing with her on account of work exigencies and this I may observe is one such case and in a similar case of intrafamilial sexual abuse where the victim daughter chose to end her life the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 108 of 133 State Vs. Anthony Nikolas reported in 2006 CriLJ 1582 while deprecating the conduct and attitude of the accused who instead of protecting his daughter had cast his lustful eyes on her and was trying to force her to have sexual relationship with him when she ended her life not only held him guilty of the offence under Section 306 and 354 Indian Penal Code but also awarded him the maximum punishment provided for the same. (125) I may observe that the cases relating to incest and intra familial sexual abuse have to be treated differently for they are offence which are committed in secrecy within the four walls of the house and where the family is anxious to protect the perpetrator of the crime for saving the Family Honour and hence there being Collective Conspiracy of Silence within the family. It is only the victim who knows what she has undergone and can tell about the same. Intrafamilial sexual relationship is never consensual and rooted in the physical as well as familial and other powers which the abuser uses to pressurize his victim. Often in such an act when exposed there is a Disbelief, Denial and CoverUp to save Family Reputation. A young girl of self respect and dignity, conscious of her chastity and family honour would not falsely accuse her own father in law and to expose the entire family to shame at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. There is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the deceased in her suicide note. The deceased at the time of her death was carrying a male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus was 600 gms (5 months). It is impossible to believe that she St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 109 of 133 would have embraced death under the given circumstances. Assuming what the accused states is correct that he caught her sending SMSs and making calls to some boy, what was it that the deceased embraced death so easily when it was equally convenient for her to walked out of the marriage. The deceased was an educated and intelligent girl and her suicide note which the forensic report proves has been written in her handwriting, establishes that she was feeling extremely suffocated and harassed by the illegal acts of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat that she had chosen to welcome the embrace of death.
(126) From the evidence and the material which has come on record the sequence of events which now emerge are as under:
➢ That the marriage of Ms. Rashmi Singh (deceased) was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006. ➢ That husband of Rashmi Singh namely Jai Singh initially used to reside at Mumbai at the time of marriage but later in June 2007 shifted to Noida where he was on night duties and the deceased Rashmi Singh was residing at her matrimonial house in a joint family along with her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) and mother in law.
➢ That on 3.9.2008 in the evening hours Rashmi Singh committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself with the ceiling fan within less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage).
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 110 of 133 ➢ That since the unnatural death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home hence the information was sent to the Executive Magistrate / SDM on which an inquiry was conducted and the family of the deceased including her parents and brother made no allegations against the husband and inlaws of deceased in respect of demand of dowry or harassment. ➢ That initially nobody was aware of the cause / reason of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi Singh nor any suicide note was found at the spot and the dead body of Rashmi Singh was shifted to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital.
➢ That on 4.9.2008 before the postmortem examination of the deceased was being conducted when the clothes of the deceased were being removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh a note was recovered from her brassiere / under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide).
➢ That in the said suicide note the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat (accused) of intra familial sexual abuse thereby compelling her to take this extreme step.
➢ That the family members of the deceased i.e. brother and parents identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note which also stands duly confirmed from the forensic examination St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 111 of 133 report.
➢ That before her death on 3.9.2008 the deceased Rashmi Singh had sent a mail to her brother Sandeep Rawat at 6:57 PM of which Sandeep was not aware and came to know of it much later and he then handed over the copy of the same to the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2008 wherein the deceased Rashmi had asked her brother to take care of her parents particularly the mother who was short tempered and also that he should study hard for clearing the CAT examination and do well in life.
➢ That the above Email sent by the deceased Rashmi to her brother indicates her psyche / state of mind before her death wherein she makes no allegations whatsoever against either her husband or any of her inlaws and only wants that her brother should do well in life and take care of the parents. It is indicative of the fact that she was making preparation for taking an extreme step.
(127) It is writ large from the above that it was the conduct of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat which instigated and enticed the victim to not only end her life but also the life of her fetus which no mother would obviously do. Hence in view of the above discussion I hereby hold the accused Bharat Singh Rawat guilty of repeatedly outraging the modesty of the deceased Rashmi Singh his own daughter in law and intrafamilial sexual abuse thereby abetting the deceased Rashmi Rawat to commit St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 112 of 133 suicide (Section 306 r/w Section 354 Indian Penal Code). It was argued by Sh. Anupam Sharma the Ld Defence Counsel that no charge under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused and under the given circumstances the provisions of Section 221 of Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply particularly when the main ingredients of Section 306 and 354 of Indian Penal Code are not common and are not cognate offences and hence even the provisions of Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure also would not apply since even after the remand of the case additional charge under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code has not been framed. He has submitted that in order to attract the provisions of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the offence of abetment to commit suicide needs to fall within the ambit of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, which is not the case. I have considered his submissions and I may clarify that though no separate charge for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code had been initially framed yet from the evidence which has come on record in the form of the suicide note written by the deceased and duly proved by the prosecution that it is this molestation which has emerged that the proximate cause of the suicidal death of deceased was the act of the accused of repeatedly molesting the victim (i.e. outraging the modesty and committing intrafamilial sexual abuse upon the deceased Rashmi Singh) and hence under the given circumstances, I hereby read the provisions of Section 354 IPC together with the provisions of Section 306 IPC and not separately being the cause of abetment to commit suicide of the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 113 of 133 deceased Rashmi.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(128) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(129) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 114 of 133 testimonies of the various witnesses, the following facts stand established:
➢ That the marriage of Ms. Rashmi Singh (deceased) was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006. ➢ That husband of Rashmi Singh namely Jai Singh initially used to reside at Mumbai at the time of marriage but later in June 2007 shifted to Noida where he was on night duties and the deceased Rashmi Singh was residing at her matrimonial house in a joint family along with her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) and mother in law ➢ That on 3.9.2008 in the evening hours Rashmi Singh committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself with the ceiling fan within less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage).
➢ That since the unnatural death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home hence the information was sent to the Executive Magistrate / SDM on which an inquiry was conducted and the family of the deceased including her parents and brother made no allegations against the husband and inlaws of deceased in respect of demand of dowry or harassment. ➢ That initially nobody was aware of the cause / reason of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi Singh nor any suicide note was found at the spot and the dead body of Rashmi Singh was shifted to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 115 of 133 ➢ That on 4.9.2008 before the postmortem examination of the deceased was being conducted when the clothes of the deceased were being removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh a note was recovered from her brassiere / under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide).
➢ That in the said suicide note the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat (accused) of intra familial sexual abuse thereby compelling her to take this extreme step.
➢ That the family members of the deceased i.e. brother and parents identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note which also stands duly confirmed from the forensic examination report.
➢ That before her death on 3.9.2008 the deceased Rashmi Singh had sent a mail to her brother Sandeep Rawat at 6:57 PM of which Sandeep was not aware and came to know of it later and he then handed over the copy of the same to the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2008 wherein the deceased Rashmi had asked her brother to take care of her parents particularly the mother who was short tempered and also that he should study hard for clearing the CAT examination and do well in life.
➢ That the above Email sent by the deceased Rashmi to her brother St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 116 of 133 indicates her psyche / state of mind before her death wherein she makes no allegations whatsoever against either her husband or any of her inlaws and only wants that her brother should do well in life and take care of the parents. It is indicative of the fact that she was making preparation for taking an extreme step.
(130) The medical evidence on record proves that the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours thereby establishing that the death of the deceased was suicidal and had taken place in the evening of 3.9.2008. Further, it stands established that on the postmortem examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus was 600 gms, which is compatible to the contents of the suicide note wherein the deceased had mentioned about this fact and establishes that the deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident. The forensic evidence on record is also compatible to the prosecution case that before her death the deceased had written and left a suicide note which has been proved to be in her handwriting.
(131) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 117 of 133 The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(132) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (133) The defence so led by the accused now after remand of the case is noncredible, unbelievable and does not withstand the test of truthfulness and is in the nature of an after thought and is rejected. (134) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate that it was the conduct of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat which instigated and enticed the victim to not only end her life but also the life of her fetus which no mother would obviously do. Hence in view of the above discussion I hereby hold the accused Bharat Singh Rawat guilty of repeatedly outraging the modesty of the deceased Rashmi Singh his own daughter in law and intrafamilial sexual abuse St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 118 of 133 thereby abetting the deceased Rashmi Rawat to commit suicide and hence, I hereby hold him guilty of the offence under Section 306 r/w Section 354 Indian Penal Code.
(135) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 7.1.2015.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 5.1.2015 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 119 of 133
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 41/2013 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0143142009 State Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat S/o Ummer Singh R/o D15/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No. 581/08 Under Section: 306 IPC Police Station: Sultan Puri Date of conviction: 5.1.2015 Arguments heard on: 7.1.2015 Date of sentence: 9.1.2015 APPEARANCE:
Present: Ms. Raj Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Bharat Singh Rawat has been produced from Judicial Custody with Sh. Anupam Sharma Advocate. ORDER ON SENTENCE:
This unfortunate case relates to molestation and IntraFamilial Sexual Abuse of the victim Smt. Rashmi Singh Rawat a young girl of 24 years with marriage of less than two years by none else than her own father St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 120 of 133 in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat as a result of which being fed up she decided to end not only her life but also her unborn child. The offence was exposed only when the suicide note was recovered from the body of the deceased before the postmortem.
Ms. Rashmi Singh was married to Jai Singh Rawat son of accused Bharat Singh Rawat (accused before this court) on 10.12.2006 after which she started residing at her matrimonial house i.e. house No. D5/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi along with her inlaws. As per the allegations accused Bharat Singh Rawat the father in law of Smt. Rashmi Rawat frequently molested and outraged her and she found herself helpless and suffocated with no one who would have believed her as Bharat Singh Rawat was a shrewd man who, she felt, could conveniently turn the allegations around on her, in view of his relationship and on account of his overbearing nature and control over his family. She was compelled by these illegal and immoral acts of the accused to commit suicide on 3.9.2008.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution including the brother & parents of the deceased and also on the basis of medical and forensic evidence on record, this Court vide a detail judgment dated 5.1.2015 held the accused Bharat Singh Rawat guilty of the offence under Section 306 read with 354 Indian Penal Code (not to be read separately - being cause of abetment of suicide of the deceased). In the said judgment it has been observed by this Court that it stands established that the marriage of Ms. Rashmi Singh (deceased) St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 121 of 133 was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006; that husband of Rashmi Singh namely Jai Singh initially used to reside at Mumbai at the time of marriage but later in June 2007 shifted to Noida where he was on night duties and the deceased Rashmi Singh was residing at her matrimonial house in a joint family along with her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) and mother in law. It also stands established that on 3.9.2008 in the evening hours Rashmi Singh committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself with the ceiling fan within less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage);
that since the unnatural death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home hence the information was sent to the Executive Magistrate / SDM on which an inquiry was conducted and the family of the deceased including her parents and brother made no allegations against the husband and inlaws of deceased in respect of demand of dowry or harassment and nobody was aware of the cause / reason of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi Singh nor any suicide note was found at the spot; that the dead body of Rashmi Singh was shifted to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital; that on 4.9.2008 before the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted when the clothes of the deceased were being removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh a note was recovered from her brassiere/ under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide); that in the said suicide note the deceased St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 122 of 133 had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat (accused) of intrafamilial sexual abuse thereby compelling her to take this extreme step; that the family members of the deceased i.e. brother and parents identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note which also stands duly confirmed from the forensic examination report. Further, it stands established that before her death on 3.9.2008 the deceased Rashmi Singh had sent a mail to her brother Sandeep Rawat at 6:57 PM of which Sandeep was not aware and came to know of it much later and he then handed over the copy of the same to the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2008 wherein the deceased Rashmi had asked her brother to take care of her parents particularly the mother who was short tempered and also that he should study hard for clearing the CAT examination and do well in life; that the above Email sent by the deceased Rashmi to her brother indicated her psyche / state of mind before her death wherein she makes no allegations whatsoever against either her husband or any of her inlaws and only wanted that her brother should do well in life and take care of the parents and was indicative of the fact that she was making preparation for taking an extreme step.
Vide the judgment dated 5.1.2015 this Court observed that the deceased a young girl of hardly 24 years of age with less than two years of marriage whose husband had been staying in a different city (Mumbai) while she herself was staying with her inlaws in Delhi has chosen the embrace of death despite the fact that she was pregnant and this was on St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 123 of 133 account of the constant and persistent intrafamilial sexual abuse/ molestation by none less than her own father in law. This harassment and molestation was not a casual feature but was frequent and persistent. The husband of the deceased was frequently into changing of his jobs. Initially he was in Mumbai and later as per his own version (as per defence version and claimed by the husband of the deceased) when he joined a firm in Noida in June 2007, he was mostly into night duties. The evidence confirms that the deceased was totally at the mercy of the overbearing father in law i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. Her relationship with the accused was of fiduciary nature and Bharat Singh Rawat was in a position to dominate her will on account of his relationship with her. The deceased realized that with her husband not being around and her predatory father in law always looking for an opportunity to molest her when nobody was around and thereafter cleverly coveringup his illegal acts by appearing perfectly normal she stood little chance in case if she disclosed about these happenings either to her husband or to her parents, for in case if she did so her fatherinlaw i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was capable of shifting the entire blame on her and of creating a scene in the house. It was this constant presence of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat (father in law) around the deceased and his acts of molestation and sexual abuse of the deceased whenever he found an opportunity (the husband of the deceased living in a separate city) and the further threat of an aggravated sexual assault looming large on the head of the deceased that was the proximate St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 124 of 133 cause why the deceased chose death to disgrace. It has also emerged from the defence evidence that Harender Singh the father of the deceased was in fact the second husband of her mother and perhaps the reason why she felt she had nowhere else to go.
Vide this judgment it stands established that as per the medical evidence the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours thereby establishing that the death of the deceased was suicidal and had taken place in the evening of 3.9.2008. Further, the postmortem report has confirmed the presence of male fetus of 600 gms and establishes that the deceased was fourfive months pregnant at the time of the incident (admitted by accused as his own daughter Chanderkanta - DW1 has confirmed that the deceased had conceived in May 2008). Further, the forensic evidence in the form of report of the Handwriting Expert confirms the prosecution version that before her death the deceased Rashmi had written and left a suicide note which has been established to be in her handwriting.
It, therefore, stands conclusively established that it was the accused Bharat Singh Rawat who by his conduct instigated and enticed the victim to not only end her life but also the life of her fetus which no mother would obviously do and hence the accused Bharat Singh Rawat has been held guilty of repeatedly outraging the modesty of the deceased Rashmi Singh his own daughter in law and intrafamilial sexual abuse and of thereby abetting the suicide of the deceased Rashmi Rawat. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 125 of 133 I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. It is argued by Sh. Anupam Sharma, the Ld. Counsel for the convict that Bharat Singh Rawat is an old man of 63 years with a family comprising of his aged wife, two sons and one married daughter who is expecting a child very soon. He has submitted that Bharat Singh Rawat has studied only upto class seven and at the time of the incident was working privately in a printing press. He has submitted that the convict Bharat Singh Rawat is a senior citizen who is suffering from severe diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, memory loss and other old age problems with very low immunity and frequently falls sick with no criminal antecedents and has pointed out that even his wife is confined to bed as she is suffering from blood pressure, arthritis, memory loss and other old age problems and it is only the convict who is taking care of her. He has further submitted that the convict has already undergone judicial incarceration for about 1415 months and has suffered substantially, in view of which he prays for a lenient view.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for the maximum sentence to be imposed upon the convict submitting that the convict Bharat Singh Rawat who is the father in law of deceased Rashmi Rawat has committed "intra familial sexual abuse" upon her compelling her to not only end her life but that of he unborn child and hence, deserves no leniency.
I have considered the rival contentions. The Delhi High Court in the case of Khem Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2008 (IV) JCC St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 126 of 133 2497 enumerated the principle factors to be taken into account by the courts while assessing as to what could be the appropriate sentence in a given case. Some of the factors enumerated are (i) Criminal and Crime, (ii) Manner of Commission of offence, (iii) Violence involved, (iv) Whether the offender or accused was in a position of fiduciary, trust or exploited a social or family relationship, (v) State of victim, impact of crime on the victim.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of quantum of sentence in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gajender Singh reported in 2008 (III) JCC 2061 observed as under:
"... The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property for the people is an essential functions of the state. It could be achieved through the instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins...."
In a similar case of intrafamilial sexual abuse where the victim daughter chose to end her life the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of State Vs. Anthony Nikolas reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 1582 while dealing with the aspect of sentence to be imposed relied upon the authority in the case of Ravaji Vs. State reported in 2004 Crl. L.J. 658 wherein it was observed that St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 127 of 133 "....It is the nature of and gravity of the crime but not the criminal which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime, which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against the society....."
The Hon'ble Court also relied upon the observations made by Lord Denning appearing before the Royal Commission on 'Capital Punishment' wherein he expressed following views:
".... Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing and in order to maintain the respect for law, it is essential that punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of the citizen. For them it is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being deterrent or in affirmative or preventive and nothing else. The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists adequate punishment because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is deterrent or not...."
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2004 Crl. L.J. 658 wherein it has been observed observed that:
"....... The principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just deserts that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable."
As a principle of Criminal Justice, it is hardly less familiar or less important than the principle that only the guilty shall be punished. Indeed the requirement that punishment shall not be disproportionately great, which is called as the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 128 of 133 principle of just deserts is dictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment of the innocent, for any punishment in excess of what the criminal's conduct deserves is a punishment without guilt. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion in arriving at correct decision on the sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more supple consideration of culpability that are raised by the special facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts in essence affirm that punishment which always ought to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined also by other considerations, like correctional need of the perpetrator. One of the considerations is the desirability of keeping the accused out of circulation and sometimes even the tragic results of his case. The proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and in spite of different views, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentence. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought to be a measure of tolerance that is unwarranted and unwise."
And hence in said case i.e. State Vs. Anthony Nikolas (Supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court while directing the awarding of maximum punishment to the convict observed that:
"....... a father, who is required to protect his daughter, has cast his lustful eyes on her and was trying to force her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a modest young girl, though the deceased Sunita tried to resist, ultimately, she could not do so and thought to end her life itself prematurely by setting on fire after pouring kerosene on St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 129 of 133 herself. The conduct and attitude of the accused, ultimately resulting in nipping a young life in bud, deserves the maximum punishment. ...."
In the above case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while deprecating the conduct and attitude of the convict who instead of protecting his daughter had cast his lustful eyes on her and compelled her to have sexual relationship with him on which she ended her life not only held him guilty of the offence under Section 306 read with 354 Indian Penal Code but also awarded him the maximum punishment provided for the same.
This Court cannot ignore the harsh realities of sexual abuse of woman not only within the family amongst blood relations but also within the family of the inlaws. Intra Familial Sexual Abuse is a deep seated malady in our social order and a crime which most of the family members tend to conceal. This is one such case wherein a young girl hardly married for two years was compelled not only to end her own life but also of her unborn child only because the lustful eyes of her father in law (convict Bharat Singh Rawat) fell on her and he lost no opportunity to molest and sexually abuse her by taking advantage of his dominating relationship and her vulnerable position. The circumstances of the case speak for themselves.
I may observe that cases relating to incest and intrafamilial sexual abuse have to be treated differently and are treated with more severity, for they are offence which are committed in secrecy within the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 130 of 133 four walls of the house and where the family is anxious to protect the perpetrator of the crime for saving the Family Honour and hence there being Collective Conspiracy of Silence within the family. It is only the victim who knows what she has undergone and can tell about the trauma which she has faced in the hands of the perpetrator. Intrafamilial sexual relationship is never consensual and rooted in the physical as well as familial and other powers which the abuser uses to pressurize his victim. Often in such an act when exposed there is a Disbelief, Denial and Cover Up to save Family Reputation. A young girl of self respect and dignity, conscious of her chastity and family honour would not falsely accuse her own father in law and to expose the entire family to shame at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. The victim at the time of her death was pregnant and was aware of this fact that by her act she was taking away the life of an unborn child and it is difficult to believe that she would have embraced death under the given circumstances. The convict Bharat Singh Rawat the father in law of the deceased by taking advantage of his dominating relationship with the deceased daughter in law by his willful conduct created a situation for her which virtually pushed her into a desperate situation of no return and compelled her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide.
There is something seriously wrong with our social setup. If a woman is not safe in her own house, she is safe nowhere. Instead of being a shield to his young pregnant daughter in law in the absence of his son who St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 131 of 133 frequently remained away in a different city or on night duties on account of work exigencies, he rather took advantage of the situation. The trick was very simple. Either the deceased submits to his evil designs or else face social disgrace and defamation. It is this realization which impelled the deceased to end her life finding herself alone and helpless in wardingoff and resisting the advances of her father in law (as reflected from the Suicide Note). Many a women in our society have silently suffered this kind of sexual exploitation by the husband's family as a matter of right and it is revolting to witness this commoditization of women as an object of sexual gratification. The sufferings which the deceased must have undergone must be immense and unimaginable that she chose death rather than to submitting to evil designs of her father in law. What the convict has done with his own daughter in law is sickening and unpardonable. Let alone leniency the convict Bharat Singh Rawat deserves exemplary punishment and the court shall be unsparing in this regard. I hence award the following sentences to the convict Bharat Singh Rawat:
For the offence under Section 306 read with 354 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 132 of 133 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, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached along with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 9.1.2015 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 133 of 133