Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Ashok Bajaj on 1 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF
Dr. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 :
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
S.C. No. : 247 of 2016
State Versus 1. Ashok Bajaj
S/o Sh. K.L. Bajaj
R/o H.No. A-203, Gopal Park,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. Mrs. Chand Bajaj
W/o Sh. Ashok Bajaj
R/o H.No. A-203, Gopal Park,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
3. Aditya Bajaj
S/o Sh. Ashok Bajaj
R/o H.No. A-203, Gopal Park,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
4. Abhishek Bajaj
S/o Sh. Ashok Bajaj
R/o H.No. A-203, Gopal Park,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No. : 285/2009
Under Section : 498-A/302/120-B IPC
Police Station : Krishna Nagar
Chargesheet Filed On : 16.10.2009
Chargesheet Allocated On : 07.12.2009
Chargesheet received by this Court on : 28.07.2017
Undersigned presided over on : 06.11.2017
Judgment Reserved On : 23.04.2019
Judgment Announced On : 01.05.2019
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 1 of 48
JUDGMENT
1. A girl falls in love with a guy with a dream to marry and live happy married life. With the grace of god, but this dream of someone fulfills but not of everyone and only God knows the reason.
2. In the present case also a girl married with one of the accused namely Aditya Bajaj after fall in love and a girl child was also born out said wedlock.
3. Destiny plays his own role and factual matrix of the present case, succinctly, are that on 19.07.2009 on receipt of PCR call vide DD No. 8-A to the effect that - H.No. A-203, Gopal Park Krishna Nagar, my in-laws has set me on fire and I have hide myself in a room, please send some one for help", the said DD entry was marked to HC Satbir Singh who along with Const. Premvir reached at the spot and vide DD No.9, more staff was called from the Police Station Krishna Nagar. SI Pankaj Kumar along with his staff reached at the spot where fire and smoke were seen coming out from the second floor of the said house. Fire brigade was also called at the spot to extinguish the fire. Dead body of deceased Deepika W/o Aditya Bajaj was found in the staircase of first floor. Crime Team was called and crime team officials inspected and photographed the spot and dead body SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 2 of 48 was sent to SDN Hospital. On 20.07.2009, the post-mortem of deceased was got conducted at Mortuary Subzi Mandi vide Postmortem Report No. 1277. Statement of Sh. C.S. Kakkar, father of deceased and one Sh. J.P. Sharma were recorded.
4. As per statement of Sh. J.P. Sharma, he is known to Dr. C.S. Kakkar whose daughter Deepika was got married with Aditya Bajaj in April 2002. He came to know that there is some matrimonial dispute between Deepika and her husband and her in-laws for the last 2-3 months. Deepika used to reside at second floor of said house. On 19.07.2009, when he was passing through the house of in-laws of Deepika, he saw smoke coming out from the said house and heard screams. He also stated that Deepika's father-in-law, husband - Aditya and brother-in-law - Abhishek were going out speedily from the said house. He called them but all of them ignored him and went away from there. He immediately reached to Dr. C.S. Kakkar and informed him about the said fire. Later on, he came to know that husband and in-laws of Deepika set her on fire and killed her.
5. On the basis of statement of complainant, the case under Sections 498-A/302/120-B read with 34 IPC was registered. Accused persons was interrogated and arrested. After conclusion of the SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 3 of 48 investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons before the court of ld. MM for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A/302/120-B/34 IPC.
6. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court of Ld. MM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by it.
7. Vide order dated 25.09.2010, passed by Ld. Predecessor, charge under Section 120-B; 302 r/w Se. 120-B IPC and Section 498-A/34 IPC was framed against all these accused persons. To the said charges, all these accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove the guilt against the accused persons, prosecution took help of twenty one witnesses in all, whose testimonies are as follows:
PW-1 Const. Jagbir, Photographer, proved the photographs Ex.PW1/A1 to PW1/A20 with their negatives as Ex.PW1/B1 to PW1/B20.
PW-2 W/HC Lalita, CPCR PHQ, stated that on 19.07.2009 a call was received from one Deepika Bajaj who informed that her in-laws wanted to kill her by setting her on fire and that she be saved and then dispatched it and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 4 of 48 PW-3 HC Sonu Kaushik, Draftsman, proved the scaled site plan vide Ex.PW3/A. PW-4 HC Rajendra Prasad, MHC(M), proved several entries effected in Register no. 19 about this case as Ex.PW4/A to PW4/E. PW-5 HC Braham Singh stated that 19.07.2009 while he was deputed with PCR (East), on receipt of a call from Head Quarter regarding burn injuries sustained by one lady, he reached at the spot where other police officials were already present there. He went upstairs on first floor and saw that one lady was lying on the floor and was covered with clothes. Ambulance of CAT also reached at he spot and officials of CAT declared her dead.
PW-6 Rajesh Sinha, Incharge Crime Team (East), reached at the spot on the date of incident and got the spot photographed. He also prepared SOC Reports vide Ex.PW6/A and PW6/B. PW-7 Dr. Manoj Kumar medically examined Deepika Bajaj and proved the MLC Ex.PW7/A. PW-8 Dr. Akash Jhanjee conducted post-mortem on the body of Deepika on 20.07.2009 and proved the said report as Ex.PW8/A. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 5 of 48 PW-9 ASI Tejpal Singh, Duty Officer, registered the FIR and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW9/A. PW-10 HC Bani Singh deposed that on 24.09.2009, Investigating Officer handed over him two CDs duly sealed and on his instructions, he deposited the same with FSL, Rohini in intact condition and handed over the acknowledgement of the same to the Investigating Officer.
PW-11 Ct.(W) Jyoti Tigga is a witness to the arrest of accused Chand Bajaj and proved memos Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B prepared for the same.
PW-12 SI Pankaj Kumar reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 9A where he noticed fire brigade already present there. He came to know that one lady namely Deepika had set herself on fire and that relations between her and her husband were not cordial and that she has been killed by burning by her husband for demand of dowry. He got sent the body to SDN Hospital and collected the MLC and then prepared ruqqa vide Ex.PW12/B and then deadbody was sent to mortuary. He is also a witness to the seizure of articles and proved memos vide Ex.PW12/C & PW12/D. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 6 of 48 PW-13 Sh. Subhash Chand and PW-14 J.P. Sharma are material witnesses of the case while PW-15 Dr. C.S. Kakkar is the father of the deceased.
It is pertinent to mention here that during trial, PW-15 Dr. C.S. Kakkar (father of deceased Deepika) who was partly examined-in-chief, had expired on 18.07.2009.
PW-16 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, FSL (Biology) Expert, proved the report Ex.PW16/A and serological report Ex.PW16/B. PW-17 Sh. Amar Pal Singh, FSL (Chemistry) Expert proved report the Ex.PW17/A. PW-18 Dr. C.P. Singh, FSL (Physics) Expert, proved his report Ex.PW18/A. PW-19 Const. Satender deposed that on 19.07.2009 on the directions of SI Sanjeev Kumar, he brought one CD of PCR and handed over the same to IO in intact condition and said CD was seized vide memo Ex.PW19/A. He is also a witness to the arrest memo of accused Aditya Bajaj; Ashok Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj and proved the memos prepared for the same as Ex.PW19/B to PW19/K prepared to that aspects. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 7 of 48 PW-20 Insp. Anand Singh partly investigated the matter and proved memos Ex.PW20/A to E vide which he seized various documents including the complaint filed by deceased before CAW Cell.
PW-21 Inspt. Sanjeev Kumar, Investigating Officer, conducted the proceedings of this case; seized the articles from spot. He also got conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased and also arrested all the accused persons. This witness proved the various memos prepared in this case.
9. All the incriminating evidence came on record, put to the accused persons during their statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC. All the accused persons admitted marriage between the parties concerned and their relations with the deceased. All the accused persons pleaded their innocence and their false implication in this case.
10. All the accused persons in one tone further pleaded that deceased Deepika was having extra marital affair with one Sachin Malhotra and even both of them visited Bangkok on the false plea of company tour and later on when they came to know about this, relations between the couple became sour and couple was separated from the family. Accused persons further pleaded that on it, thereafter a suit for SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 8 of 48 injunction to restrain Deepika to enter their house has been filed by them and said suit was resulted in their favour but despite that, Deepika entered their home. Accused persons further pleaded that Deepika used to demand second floor of the house should be transferred in her name but when they (accused persons) refused to do so, she created a drama and then they were implicated in this case falsely. Accused persons further pleaded that Deepika even got two FIRs against them falsely and those cases have been disposed of resulting into acquittal. All accused persons opted to lead defence evidence.
11. Accused Aditya Bajaj appeared in the dock and examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited various documents from Ex.D1 to D9 and marked some documents as Mark DW1/A to DW1/C.
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that in the present matter, a young lady after leaving a female child has expired on account of burn injuries. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses who are also independent public witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case though testimony of PW-15 Dr. C.S. Kakkar, father of deceased, could not be completed but his testimony can be read in evidence as he could not be produced for cross-examination on account of his death.
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 9 of 48
13. Next contention of the ld. Addl. P.P. is that admittedly, relations between the parties were not cordial and hence, it is very presumable that accused persons might have taken this extreme step in order to get rid of the deceased. Ld. Addl. P.P. further submitted that admittedly deceased died in the matrimonial home on account of burn injuries and it is onus upon the accused persons to explain the matter for their innocence. Moreover, ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that even answers to questions no. 51 & 52 regarding loan record and files pertaining to CAW Cell - accused persons denied the same and this shows their conduct to hush up the matter.
14. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that even DW-1 proved the documents on record which further itself is an indicator that parties were on inimical terms and thus, this all raise presumption against the accused persons about commission of offence.
15. Apart from that Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons through oral and documentary evidence. PW-13 Sh. Subhash Chand has testified in his deposition that deceased Deepika has been burnt by the accused persons in collusion with each other by SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 10 of 48 hatching a criminal conspiracy as he has seen the accused persons while running away from the spot. The statement of PW-13 Sh. Subhash Chand was being corroborated by PW-14 Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate as well as the complainant/PW-15 Dr. C.S. Kakkar. It is further argued that the statement of public witness has also been corroborated with the statement of PW-1 W/HC Lalita who has received the call on PCR, Channel no. 114 from deceased Deepika while informing on telephone that her in-laws wanted to kill her by burning her. The statement of Deepika through message on PCR was being recorded in the electronic device and converted into the CD. The said CD has also been sent for expert opinion whereas PW-18 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL has given the expert opinion in this regard and analyze the speech sample of speaker marked Ex.Q1 and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech sample of using CSL revealed that the voice exhibits of Speaker marked Ex.Q1 are similar to the voice exhibits of speaker marked Ex.S1 in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features and voice exhibit of speakers marked Ex.Q1 and Ex.S1 are probably voice of person i.e. Smt. Deepika hence, prayed that statement of Deepika be recorded and converted into CD as well as have been directly heard by PW-1 W/HC Lalita has also great value for admission and same can be treated as dying declaration SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 11 of 48 and admissible in law and there is no rebuttal and thus the accused persons are liable to be held guilty for the offence.
16. It is further argued by ld. Addl. P.P. that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts with the testimony of other prosecution witness as there are 21 witnesses examined by the prosecution in order to bring down the guilt of the accused persons within the four corners of the charges including the police witnesses, public witnesses as well as expert/doctors concerned. Therefore, by all cumulative testimony of all prosecution witnesses, accused persons are to be convicted in accordance to the charges framed against them.
17. Ld. counsel for accused persons contended that th FIR has been registered against the accused persons on the behest of complaint of deceased Deepika and her father Dr. C.S. Kakkar and none of the prosecution witnesses as cited and examined are eye-witnesses of the incident nor any of the witness has stated that they had seen any of the accused persons while committing the offence. Deceased Deepika was restrained to visit her in-law house in terms of order dated 18.07.2009 in suit No. 119/09 titled as Smt. Chand Bajaj Vs. Aditya Bajaj & Ors. by the court of Sh. R.K. Singh, the then SCJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Even despite the said restraining order, deceased visited the said property with SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 12 of 48 ulterior motive and malafide intentions to grab the said house and falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. Deceased became frustrated and in order to take revenge, in criminal conspiracy with her parents i.e. father Dr. C.S. Kakkar, brother Sh. Harmit Kakkar, mother Smt. Varsha Kakkar and Sachin Malhotra, friend of Deepika (he and Deepika went to Bangkok for five days without informing him on a false pretext of official tours. They stayed in Bangkok in First Hotel. Firstly they booked joint Air tickets and after 5-10 minute, they got it separated). Deceased Deepika was being helped by high ranked officials to harass the accused persons. On one occasion, she trespassed into the house of accused persons by putting a ladder outside the house and by jumping, entered the first floor of the adjoining house and many neighbours got video recorded through their mobile phones. Even one media official also prepared video/CD of Deepika. Accused Aditya Bajaj and his family members were pressurized and threatened and falsely implicated in false criminal cases. There are hundred of circumstances which suggest that Deepika had tried to set on fire the entire house. There was a big conspiracy behind it. As such, accused Aditya Bajaj has taken a separate residential accommodation of H. No. 1A, Old Anarkali, Delhi-110051. Even at that place, hired goondas of father of Deepika harassed and threatened SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 13 of 48 accused Aditya Bajaj. The local police cannot investigate this deep rooted conspiracy. This deep rooted conspiracy can only be unearthed by CBI or Crime Branch of Delhi Police. Mobile details of Deepika, her father, mother, brother and Sachin Malhotra and his associates would also help in unearthing conspiracy behind the abovesaid incident.
18. It is further argued that deceased Deepika was having extra marital affair with one Sachin Malhotra and when accused Aditya Bajaj later on came to know about the same, relations between the couple become sour and then accused Chand Bajaj filed a suit for injunction against deceased Deepika but despite the order of court, Deepika entered into the house of accused persons on the same day. Deceased Deepika harassed the accused persons as she was demanding the possession of second floor in her name therefore, she has implicated the accused persons in a false case. Deceased got registered two FIRs against the accused persons.
19. Ld. defence counsel further contended that there is no specific reason against any of these accused persons regarding any specific demand of dowry till March 2009 and when deceased was confronted about her foreign tour with Sachin Malhotra, the relations between the husband and wife got strained and they levelled counter allegations SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 14 of 48 against each other which naturally spoiled the atmosphere of the family. The only piece of evidence against accused Aditya Bajaj was the dying declaration. On bare perusal of the chargesheet reveal that "yahan mere sasural walon ne aag laga di hai mujhe unhone (in-laws) aur mujhe jalane ki koshish ki hai". In call to police at 100 number, it is alleged that "Uske ghar walo ne usey jala diya aur usne apne aap ko kamre me band kar liya hai' whereas there is no such sign of forcible entry in the room where she got fire. No inflammable material was found on the clothes and hairs of deceased. Even otherwise, the deceased was not having any lawful right to enter in the premises as she was restrained by civil court to enter in the said premises. Deceased herself admitted that she was not residing in said house.
20. It is further argued by ld. defence counsel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt since complainant Dr. C.S. Kakkar during the course of examination-in-chief, he was reported to be expired. As such, his partly examination-in-chief will not be read against the accused persons in any manner. So far as, PW-14 Sh. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case despite being cross-examined by ld. Addl. P.P. who also confronted him for his previous statement recorded SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 15 of 48 during investigation. PW-13 Subhash Chand also stated in his chief- examination that he had seen 3-4 persons who were running towards back side of the house of accused and they were looked alike accused Ashok Bajaj, Aditya Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj. As such, in view of his statement, he has also not sure whether said persons who were running from back side, were the accused or else one as he has seen back side of accused persons. The alleged CD as stated by investigating officer is not an authentic and corroborative piece of evidence, as such cannot be treated as dying declaration of the deceased. Ld. counsel for accused persons have relied upon the judgments reported as Nilesh Dinakar Paradkar Vs. State of Mahashtra (SC) Law Finder Doc. Id 251087; Kanwar Singh & Anr. Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. 2018 (1) Criminal Court Cases 359 (Rajasthan); Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K Basheer & Ors. (204) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473; State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal, 2009 Rajdhani Law Reporter 512 (SC); Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3798; State Vs. Akhil Ahuja & Ors. 2017 (4) JCC 2772; P.S. Sharma Vs. State & Anr. 2015 (3) JCC 1828; and S.K. Saini & Anr. Vs. CBI 2015 (3) JCC 2169 in support of his contentions.
21. So far as, the charges for the offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC, ld. Counsel for accused persons submits that there is no iota of SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 16 of 48 evidence alleged against any of the accused persons that they ever made any demand of dowry articles or cash from the deceased or her parents at ever, therefore, contended that accused persons are entitled for acquittal for the said charges.
22. Having heard the submission of ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, ld. counsels for the accused persons and also gone through the material on record as well as the judgments as cited and relevant provisions of law.
23. No doubt, ld. counsels Sh. K.C. Maini and Sh. R.K. Santoshi for the accused persons and Sh. A.K. Mishra, ld. Addl. P.P. for the State have argued the case with depth of their knowledge and have put all sincere efforts which are necessary for a fair trial and I do appreciate their hard work and input.
24. From the perusal of the record, the following facts are undipsuted-
(i) marriage between the deceased and accused Aditya Bajaj;
(ii) deceased died in her matrimonial home on the above date, time and place;
(iii) Deepika died with unnatural death with burn injuries; and
(iv) relations between the parties were not cordial.
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 17 of 48
25. First of all, court will deal with the contention of the parties to the effect that PW-15 Dr. C.S. Kakkar, father of the deceased, who has been partly examined-in-chief, can be read in evidence or not?
26. It is admitted and crystal clear that on account of death of said witness, who was complainant and star witness of the case, could not appear before the court after 23.08.2014 when his examination-in-chief was partly recorded and deferred thereafter. This is agony that witnesses have to be wait a long time for recording of their statement. Case pertains to the year 2009 and it is very unfortunate that material witnesses could not be examined till 2014. However, leaving apart all these issues, court has to see that now no question can be arose for his conclusion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination when the said witness was even under examination-in-chief and expired. It is crystal clear that whenever witness could not be examined completely, his statement cannot be read in evidence. So, it is clear that testimony of this witness cannot be read in evidence, particularly when examination-in-chief of this witness could not be completed.
27. However there are other prosecution witnesses also in the present matter and court has to see their evidentiary value in the present SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 18 of 48 matter for the charges framed against the accused persons.
28. Now, court has to see whether any offence as alleged against the accused persons was committed by them or by any one of them. Accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 120-B and 302 read with Sec. 120-B IPC and 498-A/34 IPC.
29. Court shall deal with the charges framed against accused persons one by one.
30. Firstly, court will deal with the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC, the prosecution has examined only PW-15 Sh. C.S. Kakkar who has partly examined-in-chief which was not completed and as such, his statement cannot be read in any manner against the accused persons, as mentioned above. Though, the complainant in his complaint alleged that the accused persons demanded money in order to construct separate floor for his daughter Deepika. Accused persons also used to demand ornaments in order to fulfil their demand, PW-15 gave accounted money to the accused persons when he was unable to pay any more money, he took a loan of Rs. Ten lac in his name as well as in the name of his wife Varsha Kakkar against his house. Accused persons had demanded Rs. Five lac for construction of their house and Rs. 2.50 lakh for purchasing a car and also threatened him in case he will not pay the amount, they would get kill SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 19 of 48 him and his son. After withdrawing money from the account of his wife, he used to give money to the accused persons time to time in installments. Though, accused persons again started putting aforesaid demands and he told them that he had given lot of money to them and asked them to return the said money. On this, accused Aditya Bajaj brought a stamp paper of Rs.100/- after purchasing it and on 30.03.2009 he gave in writing on the stamp paper to return the money upto 30.06.2009 and he also assured that he would not harass and beat his daughter. Despite assurance, accused did not return the money to him and again started quarrels with the deceased - Deepika.
31. The original interest statement/provisional dated 11.12.2007 vide Ex. PW20/B of loan account no. HDLH00006333 is in the name of Chhatar Singh Kakkar for taking loan of Rs. 10.00 lakh from GE Money. PW-20 Insp. Anand Singh stated in his deposition that during the investigation, he collected documents pertaining to loan of Rs.10.00 lakh taken by father of deceased to fulfil the demands of accused persons or for construction of their house. He also got verified document Ex.PW20/B from the company through mail and their reply dated 29.09.2009 alongwith photocopy of annexed relevant documents mentioning the details of loan vide Ex.PW20/C. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 20 of 48
32. In cross-examination on behalf of ld. defence counsel, PW-20 testified that he has not conducted any detailed inquiry as regarding to the alleged loan of Rs. Ten lac taken by father of deceased for giving to the accused persons. He did not collect any other evidence as regarding the division of rupees ten lac and to which of the accused, said part payment of the loan amount was given on their demands except statement of father of deceased. He did not make any inquiry from father of deceased whether said amount was paid in cheque or cash. He further stated that only statement of father of deceased was regarding payment of said amount to accused persons. He has denied that father of deceased had not given any amount either in cash or cheque or by other modes to either of the accused persons. He has denied that father of deceased had taken the said loan of Rs.10.00 lakh for construction of his own house and has spent the said amount for said construction. He has the knowledge of the facts of the complaints regarding demands of dowry as alleged by the complaints of deceased but he cannot make any comment regarding personal knowledge. He did not conduct any inquiry with regard to complaint made by deceased in Women Cell (East) as the said inquiry was conducted by Women Cell. He was not aware whether accused persons SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 21 of 48 were acquitted in case FIR No. 163/09 and FIR No. 181/09, both of PS Krishna Nagar. He has not conducted the inquiry on the point that the jewellary of deceased was lying in her locker and she was having the keys of the same. It is also matter of record that document Ex.PW20/E is the complaint of deceased Deepika filed in the Women Cell. There is no seizure memo prepared regarding this document. He had recorded the statement of official Nand Kishore of fire brigade. It is also matter of record that there are litigations pending in CAW Cell against the accused persons whereas deceased Deepika levelled allegations of dowry demand and misuse of istridhan. Deceased Deepika in her letter dated 19.07.2009 addressed to ACP CAW Cell, Krishna Nagar denied regarding her illicit relations with Sachin Malhotra R/o A-131, New Govindpur, Delhi-110051.
33. The deceased has also lodged an FIR no. 163/09 dated 19.07.2009 u/s 323/341/354/34 IPC in PS Krishna Nagar and another FIR No. 172/09 u/s 506(II) IPC and one case under Domestic Violence Act against the accused persons. The record also reveal that deceased Deepika was restrained in respect of entering in her matrimonial house. The Status report was filed in CAW Cell as well as in the present case wherein it has been reflected in the case diary that statements of public witnesses Jai Prakash and Subhash Chand were recorded. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 22 of 48
34. In State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, MANU/SC/0535/2000:AIR 2000 SC 2988, Hon'ble Apex Court observed for which relevant portion contained therein is being quoted herein as under :
"The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty".
35. In case reported as State of Punjab Vs. Phola Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 58 (Para 14) - it is clearly observed that - the prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothetical question raised by the defence. If the prosecution is required to meet every fanciful plea, it would be a clear case of deflecting the course of justice. If the crime is to be punished in a glossemic way, niceties SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 23 of 48 must yield to realistic appraisal. Law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice.
36. From perusal of the statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC, it is clear to the aspect that to the answer qua question no. 52 regarding record of CAW Cell, all these accused persons answered as - "It is incorrect." It is very strange on the one hand, it is admitted by accused persons that reports and even FIRs were against them at the hands of the deceased and on the other hand, they denied the fact and CAW Cell complaint filed by deceased. This shows unwarranted conduct of the accused persons. Man may lie but the circumstances and documents do not tell lie.
37. In a case reported as State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh (2000) SCC 484, it was observed:
"That a false answer offered by the accused to explain away the incriminating circumstances which are supposed to be within his knowledge provides a missing link for completing the chain."
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 24 of 48
38. While in another case reported as Laxman Yadav V State, 2013 AD (Crl) DHC) 112 Hon'ble court observed as :
false explanation by accused - effect of - false explanation by accused to built up defence which is otherwise contrary to established version of prosecution leads to drawing of adverse inference against such accused.
39. Though not necessary to mention but it is also to see that none of the public witnesses were put any suggestion that no demand of dowry was ever made by any of these accused persons at any point of time. From the record, it is clear that parties were not having cordial relations and even FIRs were got lodged by deceased against accused persons including under Section 354 IPC, irrespective of their fate.
40. Apart from that a civil suit with prayer to restrain the deceased to enter her matrimonial home, on whatever count, has also been filed by one of the accused. All this shows that parties were not having cordial terms.
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 25 of 48
41. The accused persons took plea that relations between husband and wife became sour on coming to know about the extra marital relations of deceased. It is admitted fact that deceased was working with an MNC and it is the routine of the most of the MNCs that workers/employees used to visit outside the station and even outside the country as per the status of the company and the designation of the worker/employee. Mere going in a same flight at one point of time cannot be presumed that there was any illegal relations between the two. Moreover, accused persons have failed to show any documentary proof either by photograph, air ticket etc or by any other thing that shows deceased was having any extra marital relations. This all shows male chauvinism of indian society. In view of the same, it seems that accused persons took this defence only for the sake of defence without any reasons or substance and same seems to be based on surmises and conjectures.
42. It is admitted that relations between the parties were not cordial. CAW Cell record also is on record. There is no counter to that any such complaint is false. Apart from that, an affidavit in the form of "Ikrarnama" allegedly bearing the thumb impression and signatures of Aditya Bajaj is also on record. Contents of the same are clear to the effect SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 26 of 48 that Aditya Bajaj agreed that he would repay the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which he had borrowed from his mother-in-law Versha Kakkar, for purchasing the Santro car, by 30.04.2009; in the said affidavit he also agreed that amount of Rs 5,00,000/-which his parents had borrowed for house construction/repairs would be paid by 30.6.2019 and Deepika would not be harassed for dowry demands further. Aditya Bajaj denied this fact during his statement under Sec. 313 CrPC but there is no explanation how this affidavit bears his thumb impression and signatures and for what purposes this affidavit was prepared. Backside of the said affidavit shows that said affidavit was purchased on 30.03.2009 in the name of Aditya Bajaj. There is no denial to the contents of the said affidavit. Apart from that deceased made several complaints with CAW Cell regarding demands of dowry and cruelty at the hands of the accused persons which is proved in the statement of prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer.
43. All this clearly shows that Deepika was harassed for dowry demands by these accused persons. Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that though there is oral and documentary evidence in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC as they harassed and caused SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 27 of 48 cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry. Accordingly, accused persons namely - Ashok Bajaj S/o Sh. K.L. Bajaj; Smt. Chand Bajaj W/o Sh. Ashok Bajaj; Aditya Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj - both sons of Sh. Ashok Bajaj are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A/34 IPC.
44. Having regard to the criminal conspiracy, it is to be seen that earlier to the introduction of Sec. 120-B IPC, conspiracy per se was not an offence. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. There may be an element of abetment in a conspiracy, but conspiracy is something more than abetment. To establish a charge of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must prove an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means provided that where the agreement is other than or to commit an offence, the prosecution must go further and prove that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in pursuance of it.
45. Criminal conspiracy has been defined under Sec. 120A IPC. Under Sec. 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, when it is a legal act by illegal means over act is SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 28 of 48 necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is that all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
46. Act subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act which may be unlawful, would not make the accused part of conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
47. Each conspirator can be attributed to each other's action for conspiracy. Under Sec. 10 of Indian Evidence Act conspiracy is punishable independent of its fruitation. The principle of agency as a rule of liability and not rule of evidence has been accepted both by the Privy Council and Hon'ble Apex Court in Nalini's Case (1999) 5 SCC 253 in which it is explained that joined and every said written and done for common purpose SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 29 of 48 is deemed to have by each one of them.
48. The agreement is gist of the offence. In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design in furtherance of common design. Each appropriator plays its separate part in its integrated and unitedly to achieve common purpose. Each one is aware that he has part to play in general conspiracy though he may not at all, it secret or by mean by which common purpose is to be accomplice. The evil scheme may be promoted by some or some may dropped or some may joined at later stage, but the conspirator continued until it is broken. The conspiracy may develop in success stage. There may be general plan to accomplice the common design by such means as from time to time may found expedient.
49. The ingredients of criminal conspiracy as laid down in case of R. Ventakrishnanav Vs. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737 are:
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either -
(a) an illegal act
(b) an act which is not illegal but itself but done by illegal means.
50. In a case where conspiracy is alleged, court must enquire for what they have come together to pursuant to the unlawful object. The former does not render conspirator but the later does for the offence of SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 30 of 48 conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The evidence as to the transmission of through sharing the unlawful acts is not sufficient to conspiracy. Conspiracy is continuing offence till it is executed or reascended or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its substantiate whenever anyone of the conspirator he would be held guilty under Sec. 120B IPC.
51. In case of State of H.P. Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan (1987) 2 SCC 17 it was held that the offence of conspiracy is consisted of meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means for performance of act. Therefore pursuance to the criminal conspiracy conspirator to do many act, and all of them are liable if any one committed any part at any point of time.
52. Perusal of the record of this case is crystal clear that no witness has ever been cited or produced or examined on behalf of the prosecution to the effect that he or she has ever heard them about hatching criminal conspiracy to commit any offence. Besides the above, there is no iota of evidence, either oral or documents or electronic device which show that at any point of time these accused persons have ever conspired to commit any offence. From the perusal of the record, it is amply clear that there is nothing on record which may whisper to the effect SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 31 of 48 that any criminal conspiracy was ever hatched to commit the offence as alleged. There is no evidence regarding Call Details Record of any of the accused persons or prior meeting of the accused persons at any point of time before committing the offence, there is no recovery of mobile phone etc. or any other circumstance, oral or documentary evidence to prove that accused persons ever hatched any criminal conspiracy to commit any such offence ever being produced on record by the prosecution. In order to prove the criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120B IPC, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was prior agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. In Parliament attack case, the accused had never contacted the deceased terrorist on place but had helped one of conspirators to flee a safer place after incident was not held guilty as conspirator, as observed in the case titled as State NCT of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu, [2005 (Crl.J. 3950 (SC)].
53. From the material on record as brought by the prosecution in order to prove Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution has the mobile numbers of the deceased and her family members even though, they can lay their hands to locate the mobile locations and its call details either of deceased or that of accused persons or any oral or written agreement of meeting of mind of accused persons prior to their apprehension but no CDR or call SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 32 of 48 location chart etc. has been procured by the investigating agency so as to lay hands upon the accused persons for hatching any criminal conspiracy against the accused persons. Even there is no source of inflammable article lying on the person of deceased or at the spot either by oral or scientific evidence. On this account, the prosecution case falls flat and as such, with these observations, all accused persons namely Ashok Bajaj, Aditya Bajaj, Chand Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 120B IPC.
54. Now, court has to deal with the aspect, if case does not come within the ambit of Sec. 120B IPC, whether prosecution has able to prove the case for any other offence otherwise or not?
55. Perusal of the chargesheet shows that residential address of all these accused persons is one and same as - House No. A-203, Gopal Park, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Even during their statement recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC, all accused persons mentioned their address as - House No. A-203, Gopal Park, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. It clearly shows that all the accused persons are residing in the same and one premises.
56. In case reported as Saleem (Mohd) Vs State 2013 V AD (Crl) (DHC) 301, Hon'ble Court observed as - To attract applicability of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 33 of 48 existed a common intention before a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another - it is necessary that each co-perpetrator should have the necessary intent to participate or otherwise have requisite awareness or knowledge that the offence is likely in view of the common design.
57. Ordinarily, every man is responsible criminally act done by him. No man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. The principle of criminal liability is that the person who commits an offence is responsible for that and he can only be held guilty. However, Section 34 of the IPC makes an exception to this principle. It shown a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, animating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of common intention. In such situation, each person is liable for the result that as if he had done that act himself. The soul object of Sec. 34 IPC is the joint liability in doing a criminal act. Section 34 IPC is part of the original Code of 1860 as drafted by Lord Macaulay. The original section as it stood as "When a criminal act is done by several persons, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act was SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 34 of 48 done by him alone." However, on account of certain observations made by Sir Barnes Peacock C.J. in Queen Vs. Gora Chand Gope & Ors., (1865) 5 South WR (Crl.) 45 it was necessary to bring about a change in the workings of the section. Accordingly, in the year 1870 an amendment was brought which introduced the following words after "when a criminal act is done by several persons...." "....in furtherance of common intention..." After this change, the Section has not been changed or amended ever.
58. Under Section 34 every individual offender is associated with the criminal act which constitutes the offence both physically as well as mentally i.e. he is a participant not only in what has been described as a common act but also what is terms as the common intention and, therefore, in both these respects his individual role is put into serious jeopardy although his individual role might be a part of a common scheme in which others have also joined him and played a role that is similar or different. But referring to the common intention, it needs to be clarified that the courts must keep in mind the fine distinction between 'common intention' on the one hand and 'mens rea' as understood in criminal jurisprudence on the other.
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 35 of 48
59. Circumstances and evidence leading to conclusion that these accused persons shared common intention to commit the offence in hand.
60. It is admitted position of law that - "It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof " and for holding this view, court is taken support from a case reported as Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of UP [(21.05.2012 - SC) Crl. Appeal No. 1340 of 2007].
61. PW-13 Subhash Chand and PW-14 J.P. Sharma in clear words stated that relations between Deepika and her in-laws were not cordial and even civil and criminal cases were filed against each other. PW-13 Subhash Chand in examination-in-chief stated that -
"When I moved 2-3 steps ahead I saw 3-4 persons were running towards the back side of the house of the accused. Voltd. Mujhe pichy se wo log accused Ashok Bajaj, Aditya Bajaj and Abhishek lage SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 36 of 48 they."
62. As discussed above, in preceding paras of the judgment, accused persons gave false answer to the question no. 52 regarding filing of complaints by deceased and it also draws an adverse inference against the accused persons.
63. So far as Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, first of all the prosecution has informed through a telephonic message given by the PCR which has been converted into audio recording in the form of CD and the same has also been transcribed on the hard copy to prove by W/HC Lalita (PW-2) who testified that on 19.07.2009 at about 8.30 am, while she was posted as CPCR as Constable received a call from Deepika and she informed that "....her in-laws wanted to kill her by burning her and on being asking, she stated that she was badly burnt and she be saved." She disclosed her complete address of Krishna Nagar. This fact has also been corroborated by PCR call form 1 Part II which is Ex.PW2/A wherein the details of mobile of Deepika was mentioned with address and message as received. The defence counsel alleged that as Ex. PW2/A Kayuum Miyan is a caller but ignored the caller mobile number which is mentioned on the PCR Form the same belong to the deceased Deepika. Apart from that the call received in the PCR Office also been recorded in the audio SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 37 of 48 tape, which has been proved to be the voice of deceased as per the statement of PW-18 Dr. C.P. Singh.
64. Now, the crucial question came before the court is to see whether deceased committed suicide at the "abetment" of accused persons or for some other reasons? Or it is a case of homicide or the accused persons has committed some mischief by putting the deceased in flames of fire.
65. As per the Black's Law Dictionary (Tenth Ed. - Bryan A. Garner) word "abet" is defined as "1. To aid, encourage or assist (someone) esp. in the commission of a crime and 2. to support (a crime) by active assistance.
The gravamen of the offence punishable under Sec. 306 IPC is abetting suicide. Section 107 IPC defines abetment as comprising
(a) instigation to commit the offence
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence; and
(c) aiding the commission of an offence.
66. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in commit suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ration of the cases decided by the Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Sec. 306 IPC. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 38 of 48 deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. (S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. 2010 (22) SCC 1990).
67. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, it is perverse reasoning. (Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2014 CrlLJ 2425).
68. Besides the above, as mentioned above, no particulars by way of any oral or documentary evidence i.e. by joint ticket or photographs etc was ever given by the accused persons. For this conduct of the accused, Section 106 Indian Evidence Act can be taken into consideration. Said Section is reproduced here to facilitate the matter:
69. Section 106 Indian Evidence Act - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 39 of 48
70. In terms of the opinion in the post-mortem report which has given the cause of death as burn injries, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the "commission of crime" which is the basis for application of Sec. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The moment prosecution is able to prove that the death of deceased was homicide that had occurred in the house of the accused persons, the burden shifts under Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act on to them to explain the injuries on the body of deceased and how she had died. In judgment reported as Sunil Duggal & Ors. Vs. State, 2019 III AD (Delhi) Hon'ble High Court mentioning the case reported as TrimukhMarotiKirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 (9) AD (S) 81 = (2006) 10 SCC 681 observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 40 of 48 evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties.
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of the Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 41 of 48 duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation."
71. In view of the above, court is of the view that the defence story put forward by the accused is an amalgam of gargantuan lies. The accused's attempt to tilt at windmills does not ring the bell. The defence has fizzled out faster than the morning mist. The evidence on record evinces the guilt of the accused persons namely Ashok Bajaj, Aditya Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj as stated by PW-13 Sh. Subhash Chand apart from the said accused, the presence of above named accused persons and Chand Bajaj at th place of incident has not been denied in any manner. Rather the accused Mrs. Chand Bajaj after seeing the flames of fire and smoke at the place of incident alleged to make call to the police by dialling 100 number but did not call to Fire Brigade and no explanation to this effect given. Informing to police shows the presence of the accused persons at the time and place of incident. The defence witness produced by the accused persons i.e. defence witness produced by Adtiya Bajaj under Sec. 315 CrPC tendered the document pertaining to the previous litigation between the accused persons and deceased and her family members which show that there are several criminal and civil litigations pending between the parties and their relations are very bitter. Even the accused persons including DW-1 had not denied their presence. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 42 of 48
72. Regarding contradictions and improvements in the statements of the material witnesses, it is well settled law that Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in catena of judgments that only major contradictions and discrepancies need be considered. Minor discrepancies are to be ignored. Reference may be made to A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 279 wherein it was observed as follows :
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety."
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 43 of 48
73. Deceased was found with 97% burns at the spot on the day and time of incident. Injuries were mostly on the face and upper part of the body. PW-8 Dr. Akash Jhanjee opined - no smell of kerosene/petrol felt on the body and scalp hairs and no white ointment present. PW-17 Sh. Amar Pal, FSL Expert, in his report Ex.PW17/A mentioned as - "xxx The presence of flammable chemicals cannot be ruled put in the collected exhibits."
74. Contentions qua second floor, stairs etc. are of no use as every person has its own way to describe the incident.
75. Ld. defence counsel took one more contention that owner of the mobile phone from which police was informed has not been produced on record and it is fatal to the prosecution is very unrealistic and beyond imagination. Information about the incident is not disputed. Accused persons also not denied that incident did not occur on the day, time and spot.
76. Apart from that, perusal of the record shows that at the time of filing of complaint before CAW Cell, Krishna Nagar complainant mentioned her mobile phones no. as 9891640555 and 9871776104. It is also interesting to note that in the complaint dated 23.07.2019 filed by one Sh. SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 44 of 48 Sanjeev Kumar, Attorney of Ashok Bajaj, himself prayed for CDRs of phones of Deepika mentioning numbers as - 98914055; 9871776014 (phone from which PCR call was made); 22526178 and 9871220394. Now nothing left to be within it.
77. One of the contentions of the ld. defence counsel is that mother and brother of deceased were not made as a witnesses. This contention is not tenable in the circumstances of the case. These persons have no concerned with the present matter as they have not seen the incident. Mere number of witnesses is not important. Rather quality of evidence matters. If everything was normal in the life of the couple and relations between the parties were normal otherwise, accused persons have every right and remedy to produce them in their defence.
78. In Dalip Singh V. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of Hon'ble Apex Court are as under:
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basis values of life i.e. Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 45 of 48 Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings."
79. Hence, in view of the above said discussion, coupled with evidence and circumstances of the case on record, that here prosecution has discharged its part of the burden by leading evidence of which it was capable by substantiating the fact (I) that there has been demand of dowry;
(ii) deceased Deepika was present in her matrimonial home at the time of her death; (iii) at the time of death of deceased accused persons were inmates of the house; (iv) death of deceased in question has taken place SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 46 of 48 inside the house; and (v) the burn injuries of 97% clearly reflected that it is a case of abetment - and once chain of events are clearly linked up then in view of Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act, as mentioned above. When a crime in question inside the house has taken place, then there is corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. The principle is that when an incriminating evidence/circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused does not offer any explanation which on the face of it is found false or untrue, then the same becomes additional link in the chain of circumstance to make it complete (Ref: Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs. State of UP, 2018 V AD (SC) 589) and as such, this court is of the view that prosecution has fully proved its case against all these accused persons for committing offence punishable under Sec. 306/34 IPC also.
80. With these observations, in view of the above couple with the material on record as well as the circumstances, it has come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against all these accused SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 47 of 48 persons namely Ashok Bajaj; Mrs. Chand Bajaj; Aditya Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A/34 IPC and 306/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ashok Bajaj; Mrs. Chand Bajaj; Aditya Bajaj and Abhishek Bajaj are held guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A/34 IPC and 306/34 IPC and convicted accordingly .
Digitally signed
SATINDER by SATINDER
Announced in the open Court
KUMAR KUMAR GAUTAM
on 01st day of May, 2019 Date: 2019.05.01
GAUTAM 15:57:32 +0530
(Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East):
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
SC No. 247/16 State Vs. Ashok Bajaj etc. Page No.: 48 of 48