Delhi District Court
State vs . Amrinder Mishra Etc. Page No.1/49 on 28 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.7010/2016
Unique ID No.DLST01-0003992013
FIR No.248/2013
U/s: 498A/304B IPC
Police Station : Sangam Vihar
State
Vs.
Amrinder Mishra etc.
1. Amrinder Mishra
s/o Sh. Bansidhar Mishra
R/o G-26/11, Ratia Marg,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110062
2. Pankaj Mishra
s/o Sh. Bansidhar Mishra
R/o Village Sirpura,
PO Tikari, PS Tigari,
District Gaya,
Bihar
3. Ravi Shankar Pathak
s/o Sh. Ram Kumar Pathak
R/o G-11/25A, Ratia Marg,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi
4. Shweta Pathak
w/o Sh. Ravi Shankar Pathak
R/o G-11/25A, Ratia Marg,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi ....... Accused
Date of Committal :23.09.2013
Arguments concluded on :.28.09.2019
Date of Judgment :.28.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the session case no.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.1/49 SC No.7010/20167010/2016 (old no. 76/13), arising out of charge sheet which is an outcome of FIR no.248/13, registered on 30.05.2013 at PS Sangam Vihar in connection with a case of dowry death.
Prosecution case as per charge sheet
2. Brief facts of the case emerging from the chargesheet are that upon receipt of DD no.86 dated 30.05.2013, ASI Dharamvir with Ct. Rahul reached at Batra hospital where on the MLC No.9539/13 Aparna Mishra w/o Amrinder Mishra (deceased) was reported to have been brought dead. ASI Dharamvir accordingly informed the SHO Insp. Shahid Khan, the IO of the case, who in turn informed SDM Kalkajee and also asked the crime team to reach at the spot. IO alongwith the police staff reached at the spot i.e. G-45/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar. After sometime crime team also reached at the spot and inspected and photographed the crime scene. The ligature material i.e. chunni which was lying under the bed in the room was taken into police possession, converted into pullanda by ASI Dharamvir and sealed with the seal of SGV-14-SED. A suicide note was also seized from the spot. The deceased was married on 03.12.2007 while her parents were residing in Bihar. Therefore, an inquiry u/s 176 Cr.PC was conducted by SDM/Executive Magistrate Kalkajee. Despite efforts the parents of the deceased did not turn up and therefore, tehsildar Ajit Kumar Chaudhary on 07.06.2013 got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased at AIIMS mortuary. After postmortem dead body was handed over to the husband of deceased accused Amrinder Mishra. The viscera handed over by the autopsy surgeon was also taken into police possession by ASI Dharamvir. On 08.06.2013, father of the deceased namely Kamlesh Punyark came to Delhi and his statement was recorded by the tehsildar Ajit Kumar Chaudhary and State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.2/49 SC No.7010/2016 directions were given for appropriate investigation. Accordingly, IO made the endorsement on the statement of father of deceased recorded by tehsildar and got the FIR registered.
2.1 In the complainant's statement Ex.PW1/A recorded by the tehsildar, the facts were narrated to the effect that deceased was 3 rd child amongst four children of complainant. Deceased was married to Amrinder Mishra on 03.12.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was arranged by the uncle of accused Amrinder namely Chakradhar Mishra. After few days of marriage, all the family members in the matrimonial house of deceased started taunting her. But, the reason of their said behaviour was not very clear. On 30.05.2013, at about 11pm, complainant received a phone call from the police station Sangam Vihar, Delhi and he was informed about death of his daughter Arpana @ Gunja, whose her dead body was stated to be lying in Batra hospital. He was informed that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself in the room of her matrimonial house. The complainant was shocked to know it because it was not possible that in a room of 7 feet height where 18 inch height bed was there, any person could commit a suicide by hanging herself with the fan hanging on 12 inch pipe and one feet hook, especially when the height of the deceased was only 5 feet. Hence, complainant asked the police to minutely examine and investigate the incident from all the angles. Complainant raised an issue that it was a case of murder and not suicide and expressed his inability to collect the evidences on account of his poor financial conditions. Complainant also raised a suspicion that death of his deceased daughter was the result of mental and physical harassment to which his daughter was subjected by her husband, her sister in law State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.3/49 SC No.7010/2016 Shweta, brother in law/nandoi Ravi, brother in law/devar Pankaj. As per the complainant, Amrinder Mishra the husband of deceased was a person of suspicious character as he used to leave the house at 8am and used to come in the late night in drunken condition and also used to quarrel without any reason and in the morning he used to apologize for his conduct. Deceased was not allowed to talk to her parents or brother or sister either on the mobile phone or on public phone. Accused Amrinder Mishra used to allow the deceased to talk to her parents from his mobile phone only in his presence after a gap of one week or 10 days. The complainant got his deceased daughter married from Daya Dera however, later on when he shifted to his village, the accused started having impression that complainant is a man of means and raised demand twice or thrice for Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- through his daughter on telephone. About said demand complainant had also informed Chakradhar Mishra but he did not take it seriously. Complainant also requested police to search for the diary of deceased where she used to write each and every incident of her life.
2.2. IO prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of ASI Dharamvir, arrested the accused persons Amrinder Mishra, Pankaj and Ravi Shankar Pathak, recorded their disclosure statements. On 13.06.2013, accused Shweta Pathak got anticipatory bail from the court, she was formally arrested by the IO on 20.06.2013 in this case. IO also got the scaled site plan prepared through draftsman, collected PM report of the deceased wherein the cause of death was opined to be Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The opinion of the doctor with regard to ligature material was also taken in the PM report wherein the doctor opined that the ligature mark State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.4/49 SC No.7010/2016 present on the neck of the deceased was consistent with the alleged ligature material and that ligature material could have been used for hanging. During investigation, IO also collected the photographs of marriage of deceased as well as her diary. During investigation the suicide note alongwith diary of the deceased were sent to FSL for expert opinion. The viscera of the deceased was also sent to FSL for chemical analysis. After completing the investigation IO filed the chargesheet against all the four accused for offences u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC, upon which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Magistrate on 02.09.2013. After compliance of section 207 CrPC Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the court of Session on 18.09.2013 and thereafter, the case came to be assigned to this court on 23.09.2013.
3. Vide order dated 10.12.2013, charge for the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 24 witnesses. For the sake of easy reference, said witnesses have been categorized under following heads with reference to page numbers where their testimonies have been discussed in this judgment.
A) Public witnesses (pg.6 to pg.14 )
1. PW1/Kamlesh Punyark (father of deceased)
2. PW2/Smt. Pushpa Punyark (mother of deceased)
3. PW4/Sudhir Kumar Gupta (neighbour who took deceased to hospital in his car)
4. PW5/Chandra Devo Sharma (relative of deceased's father)
5. PW11/Ram Chayan, (land lord of accused) State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.5/49 SC No.7010/2016
6. PW19/Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (landlord of deceased's father) B) Witnesses of Investigation (pg.15 to pg.27)
1. PW3/ASI Balraj Singh (duty officer)
2. PW6/Ct. Mahesh, photographer
3. PW7/HC Raj Kumar, MHC(M)
4. PW10/Ajit Kumar ChoudharyTehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kalkaji
5. PW13/Ct. Pawan
6. PW14/Insp. Krishan Kumar (Incharge Crime Team)
7. PW15/Ct. Rahul
8. PW16/ASI Birender duty officer
9. PW17/ASI Satya Prakash
10.PW18/ASI Dharamvir
11.PW20/ASI Brij Mohan
12.PW21/Insp. Mahesh Kumar (draftsman)
13.PW22/Retired Insp. Shahid
14.PW23/Ct. Narender Singh
15.PW24/HC Ashok Kumar C) Expert witnesses (pg.27 to pg.29)
1. PW8/Dr. Mir Raja
2. PW9/Dr. Hans Raj
4. PW12/Dr. Amit Bhambri Public witnesses
5. PW1/Kamlesh Punyark is the father of deceased. As per his version, he had married his daughter Arpana @ Gunja with accused Amrinder Mishra on 03.12.2007 at Gaya, at that time he was in financial difficulty and with great difficulty, he had married his three daughters. PW1 deposed that before marriage, PW1 had met Amrinder's uncle (Chacha) namely Chakradhar Mishra and told him about his poor financial condition. But, he happily accepted the proposal for marriage of his daughter Arpana @ Gunja with Amrinder Mishra. PW1 stated further that after 2-3 days of marriage, when his daughter came to their home, he found her to be totally serious State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.6/49 SC No.7010/2016 although she used to be jovial before her marriage. PW1, his wife and his other daughters wanted to know the reason of her seriousness but, she did not disclose anything. Further that, after few days, accused Amrinder came and took her to Delhi. In March, 2008, at the time of Holi, upon request of PW1, accused Amrinder alongwith his daughter came to their native place at Mainpura for Puja of Kuldevta.
5.1 PW1 has deposed further that they used to have telephonic conversations with Gunja and noticed that she was not happy. After about one year of deceased's marriage, she gave birth to a child. PW1 requested father of accused Amrinder Mishra to send his daughter to his place for the purpose of delivery but, he did not agree for it. That, on two occasions, accused Amrinder made his (PW1) daughter to make telephonic call to him and she demanded Rs.25,000/- on one occasion and Rs.50,000/- on another occasion on and around March or April, 2011, at instance of accused Amrinder. PW1 deposed further that he showed his inability and never took above demands as dowry demand as a son in law can always seek financial help from his father in law. PW1 deposed further that the reason for death of his daughter Arpana @ Gunja was not dowry although it was also not a suicide but was a homicide.
5.2 PW1 has deposed further that deceased used to be taunted for his (PW1's) poor financial condition. He deposed further that during the subsistence of marriage, PW1 and his wife had come to Delhi on two occasions and stayed for about 15-20 days in house of brother in law of Amrinder. During above stay in house of accused Amrinder, parents of deceased tried to find out the reason of their daughter's (deceased's) unhappiness but they could not succeed and State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.7/49 SC No.7010/2016 when they came back to their house after a few days, his (PW1's) wife told him that Arpana @ Gunja was in difficulty and he (PW1) should pay attention towards her.
5.3 PW1 has deposed further that accused Ravi was once arrested and brought out from custody in midnight and Arpana @ Gunja was asked not to disclose it to anybody, and threatened that otherwise, it might cause problems for her. As per deposition of PW1, he telephonically told accused Amrinder that his daughter was having ill health and that he (accused Amrinder) should choose between his wife and his sister Shweta as accused's sister Shweta and her husband were interfering in the matrimonial life of his daughter. Further, as per deposition of PW1 accused Amrinder and deceased Arpana had once visited Gaya and PW1 had a hot talk with accused Amrinder and accused Amrinder told PW1 not to drag his (accused Amrinder's) sister and her husband in it. PW1 deposed further that taunting and torture on her daughter kept increasing.
5.4 PW1 deposed further that on one occasion, his wife and his daughter Swastika @ Bulli had come to Delhi and lived with deceased for 10-12 days. PW1 has deposed further that accused Amrinder had offered to get his (PW1's)wife treated at Batra hopsital and he also did that. Every night he(PW1) used to have talk with his wife on phone and he was informed that they has been treated well and Amrinder had even taken them to see places in Delhi.
5.5 PW1 has deposed further that during the aforesaid stay of his wife at the house of accused Amrinder, on one occasion, he had a talk with his wife at 10:00 pm and again at about 10:30-10:45 pm and State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.8/49 SC No.7010/2016 he was informed by his wife on telephone that Gunja had been beaten and there were injury marks on her face and she (PW1's wife) further asked him to take some immediate steps. His wife also told him that she was abused in filthy language by Amrinder. His (PW1's) wife told him (PW1) that she would not leave Arpana there any further. PW1 deposed further that he had made a call to Narender, elder brother of Amrinder who was living nearby and requested him to bring his (PW1's) wife and daughter to his house and keep them with him for a night and accordingly, Narender went there and brought his (PW1's) wife, daughters and Arpana's children with him. In the meantime, PW1 requested his daughter in law Rakhi @ Saloni to ask her relative in Delhi to make arrangements to bring his wife and daughters and her children at Gaya and after about 2-3 days, they all came to Gaya.
5.6 PW1 has deposed further that Gunja had told him that situation had become worse. She told his wife to tell him to make some arrangements. But, she did not tell the things in detail and all these things happened near marriage of accused Pankaj. Thereafter, they decided to get Arpana's statement recorded in the court at Gaya, but in the meantime, Amrinder reached at Gaya and had a hot talk with PW1 and at the same time, Amrinder counseled Arpana and it appeared to PW1 that things had been settled. Amrinder went back but Arpana stayed back at his house. PW1 left for his work and when he came back at 10:00 pm, he came to know that Amrinder had taken Arpana with him in an auto and when PW1 asked his wife as to why she allowed Amrinder to take Arpana with him, she told him that Arpana had gone with Amrinder at her choice.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.9/49 SC No.7010/20165.7 PW1 has deposed further that Arpana had told him earlier that her husband and other family members came to know that she had disclosed about arrest of accused Ravi and for that reason they would plan to do away with her. PW1 has deposed further that he could sense that something very serious would now happen and that was his last meeting with Arpana. He has deposed further that prior to alleged incident, he came to know that accused Amrinder had a plan to take Arpana to Goa without their children & PW1 asked his wife to tell Arpana not to go with him to Goa as he had doubts about Amrinder's intentions.
5.8 PW1 deposed further that on 30.05.2013, at about 11:00 pm, he had received a call on his mobile phone from mobile of accused Amrinder and he (PW1) gave the telephone to his younger daughter Swastika @ Bulli, she answered the telephone and she fainted; at that time, PW1 was at a distance of about 3-4 feet from her and was outside the room and when he noticed her falling, he went inside the room and picked up the phone and he was told by the caller i.e. a policeman that Gunja had committed suicide and her dead body was in Batra hospital. PW1 deposed further that he disconnected the phone and after a few minutes, again a call came from said number and he gave the phone to his daughter in law and at that time caller was the elder brother Narender of accused Amrinder, who told that Gunja had committed suicide and asked them to reach Delhi; further that once again, a call was received from Inspector Dheeraj asking him (PW1) to come to Delhi and PW1 told him that due to his ill health and poor financial condition, he could not come to Delhi for 10 days and he should record his statement on telephone but that policeman State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.10/49 SC No.7010/2016 did not agree.
5.9 PW1 has deposed further that he had told Inspector Dheeraj about the height of room and other positioning of furniture in that room and requested him to make investigation in view of those circumstances and regarding previous incidents as well but, Inspector Dheeraj insisted that it was a case of suicide, although, he (PW1) was asking him to investigate it from the view point of murder. PW1 has deposed further that on two occasions, demand of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- was made but he did not fulfill the same. He has deposed further that on 08.06.2013, after recovery from his ill health, PW1 reached Sangam Vihar police station where he came to know that no arrest had been made till that time for want of his statement. He deposed further that during period of eight days, several attempts were made by persons to convince him to enter into a compromise. On the same day, PW1 was taken to the office of SDM, Kalkaji by the IO where his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the SDM. PW1 had also given a complaint Ex.PW1/B with a photograph Mark PW1/X regarding murder of his daughter Gunja to the SDM. On 02.08.2013, police official from Delhi visited his house and on his request, PW1 handed over a diary Ex.PW1/P-1 for comparison of handwriting of his daughter with the suicide note and said diary was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. PW1 also handed over photographs Ex.PW1/E-1 to E-6 showing the marriage of his daughter with accused Amrinder and same were also seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D.
6. PW2/Smt. Pushpa Punyark is the mother of deceased. She, in her examination in chief deposed that on 03.12.2007, marriage of State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.11/49 SC No.7010/2016 her daughter took place with accused Amrinder Mishra and after some days, her daughter was started being harassed by her husband, nanad, nandoi and devar and her daughter used to tell her on telephone that accused persons used to demand money from her and used to harass her for that purpose. About two years prior to death of her daughter, she(PW2) had come to Delhi alongwith her daughter Swastika. After 2-4 days, behaviour of accused Amrinder started changing. One day accused Amrinder came after consuming liquor and abused her (PW2) as well and he gave beatings to her daughter Gunja. After 4-5 days of said incident, PW2 took her daughter Gunja to her native place at Gaya.
6.1 After 4-5 days of their reaching to Gaya, accused Amrinder brought back Gunja to Delhi. In the month of February, 2013, she had called Gunja at Gaya and she came alongwith her children and she remained at Gaya with them for about 8 days. Thereafter, she was brought to Delhi by her devar Pankaj. During that period, her daughter had not talked with her properly as she was not allowed by accused persons to call them alone on telephone (in privacy), and three days prior to her death, her daughter had told her on phone that she was suffering from back ache.
6.2. On 30.05.2013, they received a call regarding death of her daughter but no one from their family came to Delhi to see her and she never came to Delhi even after the death of her daughter. After about two months, one police person from Delhi came to Gaya and she had told him about the incident and also told him that they suspected that their daughter had been killed by accused persons and she had not committed suicide.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.12/49 SC No.7010/20166.3 PW2 deposed further that accused Amrinder had demanded Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on two occasions and her daughter told this fact to them on telephone but they showed their inability to fulfill their demand of money. PW2 also correctly identified the diary Ex.PW1/P-1 which was handed over to the police for comparison of handwriting of her daughter.
7. PW4/Sudhir Kumar Gupta has deposed that on 30.05.2013, at about 8:30 pm, when he was at his home, his father asked him to take wife of Amrinder i.e. the deceased to the hospital as she was serious and pursuant to that, PW4 obtained the key of Wagon-R car of their neighbour Ram Chaman and took wife of Amrinder to Batra hospital and at that time, accused Amrinder and son of Ram Chaman namely Manoj also accompanied him to the hospital. Later on, PW4 came to know that accused Amrinder's wife was declared 'brought dead' by the doctors.
8. PW5/Chandra Devo Sharma has deposed that Kamlesh Punyark, who used to live in Gaya (Bihar), was his distant relative. On 30.05.2013, PW5 came to know that daughter of Kamlesh namely Gunja who was married with accused Amrinder had expired and on 06/07.06.2013, PW5 came and took Kamlesh Punyark to PS Sangam Vihar where he lodged a complaint against accused Amrinder and others regarding harassment caused by them to his daughter due to which, she had expired.
9. PW11/Ram Chayan has deposed that about 5 years prior State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.13/49 SC No.7010/2016 to the incident, accused Amrinder alongwith his wife and two children had lived in his house as tenant. On 30.05.2013, accused Amrinder, as usual, had left the house at about 9:00 am for his work and returned back to home at about 8:30-9:00 pm. On that day, accused Amrinder went to his room after coming from his work. Further that, he (PW11) had reached at his house about 10 minutes prior to reaching of Amrinder. While PW11 was taking his tea alongwith his wife, in the meantime, he heard voice of accused Amrinder's crying on which they both went on the first floor where they saw that accused Amrinder was coming out of the room after putting his wife on shoulder and told them that his (Amrinder's) wife had committed suicide by hanging with dupatta from ceiling fan. PW11 has deposed further that he called Sudhir, son of Jage Lal and accused Amrinder alongwith Sudhir took Amrinder's wife in his (PW11's) car to Batra hospital. Later on, PW11 came to know that Arpana had expired in the hospital. On 06.06.2013, he was called at SDM office where his statement Ex.PW11/A was recorded. PW11 also identified accused Amrinder.
10. PW19/Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (landlord of deceased's father) has deposed that on 13.08.2012, one diary written by deceased Aparna, who was the daughter of his tenant Kamlesh, was taken into police possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. PW19 correctly identified the said diary as Ex.PW1/P-1. On being confronted by the Ld. Addl.PP regarding the date of seizure of aforesaid diary, he deposed that he did not remember the date whether it was seized on 02.08.2013 or not as it was seized by police long time back.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.14/49 SC No.7010/2016B) Witnesses of Investigation
11. PW3/ASI Balraj Singh, duty officer has deposed that on 08.06.2013, at about 8:20 pm, he received rukka from SHO and got recorded the FIR bearing no.248/13, u/s498A/304B IPC vide Ex.PW3/A and also made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW3/B and also gave certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW3/C.
12. PW6/Ct. Mahesh, photographer has deposed that on the intervening night of 30/31.05.2013, he alongwith Incharge mobile crime team SI Krishan Kumar and finger print proficient HC Kuldeep reached at the spot i.e. First floor of house no. G-35/10, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where at the instance of incharge crime team as well as IO, PW6 had taken three photographs Ex.PW6/A-1 to A-3 and their negatives Ex.PW6/B-1 to B-3 of crime scene from different angles.
13. PW7/HC Raj Kumar, MHC(M) has deposed that on 30.05.2013, ASI Dharamvir Singh deposited one sealed pullanda with the seal of SGV-14 SED containing chunni, in case of DD no.86-B dated 30.05.2013 and entry to that effect was made at Sr. No. 3093 in register no.19 vide Ex.PW7/A. On 07.06.2013, ASI Dharamvir Singh deposited viscera of deceased Aparna alongwith sample seal of Department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology of PM report No.703/13 in case DD no.86-B u/s 176 Cr.P.C. and entry to that effect was made at Sr. No. 3109 in register no.19 vide Ex.PW7/B. 13.1 PW7 deposed further that on 15.07.2013, he had sent sealed pullanda containing chunni to CMO of AIIMS hospital through State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.15/49 SC No.7010/2016 HC Ashok vide RC No.155/21/13 Ex.PW7/D for the purpose of obtaining opinion and entry to that effect was mentioned at point A-1 in Ex.PW7/A. On 08.08.2013, he received back said pullanda through Ct. Pawan Kumar, after opinion and entry to that effect was also made at point A-2 in Ex.PW7/A. He has deposed further that on 18.06.2013, he had sent viscera box to FSL Rohini through Ct. Pawan Kumar vide RC No.131/21/13 Ex.PW7/C and entry to that effect was mentioned at point B-1 in Ex.PW7/B. On 15.10.2013, he received viscera report and one sealed envelope from FSL Rohini through Ct. Vinod Kumar and entry to that effect was mentioned at point B-2 in Ex.PW7/B.
14. PW10/Ajit Kumar Choudhary has deposed that on 31.05.2013, while he was working as Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kalkaji, New Delhi, he received an information from SDM, Kalkaji and also from PS Sangam Vihar regarding suicide committed by one lady namely Arpana Mishra and that her dead body was in Batra hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Dharamvir reached at Batra hospital for the purpose of inquest proceedings and there he inspected the dead body of Aparna Mishra and gave directions to inform the family members of deceased and dead body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary. Till 06.06.2013, family members of deceased Aparna Mishra did not appear before him despite several requests. He came to know from IO that deceased's father refused to come by saying that he had already married his daughter with the accused.
14.1 PW10 has deposed further that on 06.06.2013, he also made inquiry from husband of deceased, his (Amrinder's) landlord and others. On the same day, he went to AIIMS mortuary and recorded identification statement of Pankaj and Amrinder (devar and State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.16/49 SC No.7010/2016 husband of deceased) vide Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. PW10 requested autopsy surgeon for conducting postmortem on the dead body of deceased vide Ex.PW10/C and also filled up 25.35 (1) (B) Form Ex.PW10/D. 14.2 PW10 has deposed further that on 08.06.2013, ASI Dharamvir came in his office alongwith deceased's father for recording his statement and he verbally asked deceased's father about the incident and his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded under his (PW10)supervision in his presence. The statement of complainant was forwarded to SHO of PS Sangam Vihar for taking necessary action as per law. His endorsement on the said complaint is Ex. PW10/E.
15. PW13/Ct. Pawan has deposed that on 31.05.2013, while he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar, on the directions of Insp. Shahid Khan, he alongwith ASI Dharamvir Singh had shifted the dead body of deceased Aparna from Batra hospital to AIIMS Mortuary and the dead body was preserved there for 72 hours. He remained in mortuary for 72 hours to guard the dead body of deceased Aparna. On 08.06.2013, he joined the investigation with Insp. Shahid Khan and ASI Dharamvir Singh and went to G-35/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where accused Amrinder met them. IO made inquiries from accused Amrinder and also prepared site plan Ex.PW13/A of the spot.
15.1 PW13 has further deposed that IO arrested accused Amrinder vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW13/C and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW13/D. On the same day, they reached at house no.25A/11, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where accused Ravi Shankar State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.17/49 SC No.7010/2016 Pathak met them and IO made inquiries from him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW13/F and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW13/G. 15.2 PW13 has deposed further that thereafter on the same day, they reached at house no.G-92/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where accused Pankaj met them and after making inquiries from him, IO arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/H and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW13/I and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW13/J. Thereafter, accused persons were taken to Batra hospital for their medical examination. After their medical examination, accused persons were put behind the lockup of PS Ambedkar Nagar. In the PS on the same day, deceased's father Kamlesh Punyark produced 6 photographs in respect of marriage of his daughter i.e. deceased Aparna with accused Amrinder and handed over these said photographs already exhibited as Ex.PW1/E1 to E6, to IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D and the photographs were already exhibited as Ex.PW1/E1 to E6.
15.3 PW13 has deposed further that on 18.06.2013, on the directions of IO, PW13 had obtained one sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal from the MHCM vide RC No.131/21/13 and same was deposited at FSL Rohini and after depositing the same, he returned the copy of acknowledgment to the MHCM. On 08.08.2013, on the directions of IO, he went to AIIMS Mortuary for obtaining the subsequent opinion where mortuary clerk handed over one sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal and copy of final opinion to him. PW13 handed over the copy of final opinion to the IO and the sealed State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.18/49 SC No.7010/2016 pullanda alongwith sample seal were deposited in the malkhana.
16. PW14/Insp. Krishan Kumar, Incharge Crime Team of South East District has deposed that on 31.05.2013, on receipt of information from Control Room South East District, he alongwith Finger Print Proficient Head Constable Balbir and photographer Ct. Mahesh reached at House No.G-35/10, First Floor, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi at about 1:00am where ASI Dharamvir Singh and other police staff met them. The photographs of the place of incident were taken by Ct. Mahesh. PW14 inspected the place of incident and prepared scene of crime report vide Ex. PW14/A and handed over the same to ASI Dharamvir Singh.
17. PW15/Ct. Rahul has deposed that on 30.05.2013, at about 10-10:15 pm, ASI Dharamvir received a call from Batra hospital, pursuant to which he alongwith ASI Dharamvir reached there and ASI Dharamvir collected MLC of Smt. Arpana Mishra wife of accused Amrinder, who was declared brought dead on the said MLC. ASI Dharamvir brought to the notice of SHO Insp. Shahid Khan, PS Sangam Vihar, about this incident who also reached at Batra hospital. PW15 alongwith Insp. Shahid Khan and ASI Dharamvir reached at House No.G-35/10, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where Crime team was called at the spot and one chunni was sealed with the seal of SGV-14 SED and was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A and one suicide note was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/B. Photographer from Crime team took photographs of the place of incident.
18. PW16/ASI Birender duty officer has deposed that on State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.19/49 SC No.7010/2016 30.05.2013, at about 10:13 pm, he received an information from Batra hospital regarding death of accused Amrita Mishra wife of accused Amrinder vide MLC No.9539/13 and said information was recorded by him vide DD no.86B Ex.PW16/A and marked to ASI Dharamvir Singh.
19. PW17/ASI Satya Prakash has deposed that on 20.06.2013, he joined the investigation of this case alongwith Insp. Shahid Khan. On the said day, accused Shweta Pathak came to the police station and was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A and her disclosure statement was recorded. On 13.08.2013, he again joined investigation of this case and on the direction of IO, he collected one suicide note, one diary containing 34 pages alongwith one forwarding letter to deposit the same at FSL Rohini and to collect viscera result. PW17 deposited suicide note alongwith the said register at FSL Rohini but viscera result was not prepared and it was awaited. Thereafter, he returned to the police station alongwith acknowledgement receipt of aforesaid deposits and report of concerned official stating that the result was awaited in respect of viscera. On 26.08.2013, he again joined investigation. One notice u/s 91 Cr.PC addressed to FCM Travels Solution India Private Limited were handed over to him which he served to Executive of Admin Shri Gurpreet Singh. After serving the said notice, a copy of receiving of said notice was handed over to the IO.
20. PW18/ASI Dharamvir has deposed that on 30.05.2013, DD No.86B was assigned to him and he alongwith Ct. Rahul reached at Batra hospital where he collected MLC of Arpana Mishra wife of accused Amrinder, who was declared as brought dead on the said State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.20/49 SC No.7010/2016 MLC. PW18 told the SHO Insp. Shahid Khan about said fact, who also reached at Batra hospital. Thereafter, PW18 alongwith Insp. Shahid Khan and other police staff reached at House No.G-35/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where accused Amrinder and other relatives met them. Accused Amrinder showed them the room where the incident had taken place. They found one chunni lying on the bed, one suicide note was also lying there. The said chunni and suicide note were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A & Ex.PW15/B. Prior to possessing above articles, SHO called the crime team. Since the death of deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage, SDM was also informed about said incident. The photographer of crime team had taken photographs of the place of incident. Shri Ajit Singh Chaudhary Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate Kalkajee was deputed by SDM to conduct proceedings u/s 176 Cr.PC, who inspected the place of incident. The parents of the deceased were informed about this incident.
20.1 PW18 has deposed further that since the parents of deceased were resident of Gaya, Bihar hence, dead body was preserved for 72 hours in the mortuary. Since parents of deceased did not come even after repeated requests, therefore, on 07.06.2013, on the direction of Shri Ajit Kumar Chaudhary, postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted. On the instructions of parents of deceased, the dead body of deceased was handed over to accused Amrinder. After the postmortem, viscera box duly sealed and a sample seal were handed over to him (PW18) by the Doctor and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. On 08.06.2013, deceased's father Sh.Kamlesh came to Delhi and gave his statement to Shri Ajit Kumar Chaudhary upon which, FIR was registered in the present case.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.21/49 SC No.7010/2016After registration of FIR, PW18 again joined investigation alongwith IO Insp. Shahid Khan and Ct. Pawan. They all again reached at house No.G/35/10, Sangam Vihar and arrested accused Amrinder and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C respectively.
20.2 PW18 has deposed further regarding arrest of accused Ravi Shanker, his personal search, arrest of accused Pankaj and his personal search already exhibited as Ex.PW13/E, Ex.PW13/F, Ex.PW13/M and Ex.PW13/I respectively. He also deposed regarding handing over of six photographs of marriage of deceased with accused Amrinder, by deceased's father and their seizure vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He also proved site plan already exhibited as Ex.PW13/A. PW18 correctly identified the suicide note Ex.PW18/P1.
21. PW20/ASI Brij Mohan has deposed that on 29.06.2013, IO Insp. KL Meena handed over him one authority letter to collect the PM report from AIIMS hospital pertaining to this case. PW20 collected PM report no.703/13 dated 29.06.2013, alongwith two envelopes duly sealed with the seal of hospital and handed over the same to the IO.
22. PW21/Insp. Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 12.07.2013, at the request of SHO/Insp. Shahid Khan, he had reached at PS Sangam Vihar. From there, PW21 alongwith Insp. Shahid Khan visited the place of incident i.e. first floor, House No.G-35/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, Delhi where at the instance of Insp. Shahid Khan, PW21 took measurements and prepared rough notes. On 18.07.2013, on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW21/A and handed over the same to State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.22/49 SC No.7010/2016 the IO.
23. PW22/Retired Insp. Shahid Khan has deposed that on 30.05.2013, DD no.86B Ex.PW22/A was received in the police station from Batra hospital in respect of a lady Arpana Mishra wife of Amrinder Mishra aged 26 years R/o G-35/10, Sangam Vihar being brought dead at Batra hospital and said DD was assigned to ASI Dharamvir Singh, who alongwith Ct. Rahul reached the hospital and collected MLC No.9539/13 vide which Arpana Mishra was declared brought dead.
23.1 PW22 has deposed further that since Arpana had expired within seven years of her marriage, hence, he informed the area SDM Kalkajee and the crime team to reach at the spot. He also reached at the hospital where he met ASI Dharamvir, Ct. Rahul and accused Amrinder. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Dharamvir, Ct. Rahul and accused Amrinder reached at the place of incident i.e. House No.G- 35/10, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and inspected the room where incident took place and found one chunni lying on the bed and a suicide note written in Hindi also lying on bed.
23.2 PW22 deposed further that crime team also reached at the spot and inspected the scene of crime and photographer took photographs of the place of incident. The chunni was sealed with the seal of SGV14SED and suicide note were seized by ASI Dharamvir Singh. ASI Dharamvir also received report of crime scene prepared by SI Krishan Kumar Incharge of Crime team. Deceased's father Kamlesh Punyark was also informed and asked to reach Delhi as soon as possible. Thereafter, PW22 alongwith ASI Dharamvir Singh and Ct.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.23/49 SC No.7010/2016Rahul and Amrinder again went to hospital where tehsildar Shri Ajit Kumar Chaudhary conducted proceedings u/s 176 Cr.PC and he inspected the dead body and thereafter, they all again returned to the spot alongwith Shri Ajit Kumar Chaudhary.
23.3 PW22 has deposed further that Executive Magistrate also directed ASI Dharamvir to inform the parents of deceased and get the body preserved at Mortuary. ASI Dharamvir deputed Ct.Pawan Kumar to shift the body from hospital to mortuary for preservation. The postmortem on the body of deceased got conducted by SDM on 07.06.2013 as the father of deceased informed on phone that it was not possible for him to come in short period of time. After postmortem dead body was handed over to Amrinder.
23.4 PW22 deposed further that on 08.06.2013, Sh. Kamlesh Punyark alongwith Chander Dev Sharma arrived at PS Sangam Vihar. ASI Dharamvir took both of them to the office of SDM Kalkajee and their statements were recorded by Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate Kalkajee Shri Ajit Kumar Chaudhary. The said statements were forwarded to PW22 by SDM for taking necessary action as per law. On the statement of deceased's father, he prepared rukka Ex.PW22/B and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, PW22 alongwith ASI Dharamvir and Ct. Pawan left the police station for the house of accused Amrinder at G-35/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where accused Amrinder was found present and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/B, conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW13/C and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW13/A. The information about arrest of accused Amrinder was given to his elder brother Narender.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.24/49 SC No.7010/201623.5 PW22 deposed further that thereafter, they went to the house of accused Ravi Shankar Pathak, brother in law of accused Amrinder at house no.G-25A/11, Ratia Marg, Sangam, Vihar, New Delhi where on the identification of accused Amrinder accused Ravi was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F. They then reached at House No.92/10, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and at the identification of accused Amrinder arrested co-accused Pankaj and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW13/M and Ex.PW13/I. Disclosure statement of all three accused were recorded vide memo Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/G and ExPW13/J respectively. Applications Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW22/D and Ex.PW22/E were moved for medical examination of the above accused and after their medical examination, they were sent to lockup.
23.6 PW22 has also deposed that on 08.06.2013 six photographs of marriage (Ex.1 to Ex.6) were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. On 09.06.2013, accused were produced in court and sent to JC. PW22 deposed further that he tried to trace the remaining accused persons namely Shweta Pathak but she could not be arrested. On 13.06.2013 accused Shweta got anticipatory bail and on 20.06.2013 she was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A. On 18.06.2013, viscera box of deceased was sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Pawan Kumar. During investigation, HC Ashok had gone to the house of parents of deceased at Gaya, Bihar and from there he seized the handwritten diary stated to be in the handwriting of deceased which was produced to him by the complainant and he had also conducted investigation there. During investigation, the State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.25/49 SC No.7010/2016 chunni was also sent to Forensic department of AIIMS hospital for seeking expert opinion. The expert opinion in this regard was obtained vide Ex.PW9/B. During investigation, suicide note was sent to FSL for comparison with the handwriting of deceased written in diary produced by the complainant. He recorded the statement of witnesses who joined investigation with him. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in court. On 19.10.2013, he filed the FSL report in respect of suicide note, viscera report of deceased and handwriting of deceased on suicide note in the court vide his applications Ex.PW22/F, Ex.PW22/G and Ex.PW22/H. FSL Report in respect of viscera is Ex.PW22/I. During investigation, he also served a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC Ex.PW22/J to the FCM Travel Solutions India Pvt. Limited where accused Amrinder was employed in respect of his(Amender's) attendance on 30.05.2013 and PW22 received a reply Ex.PW22/K from the said office.
24. PW23/Ct. Narender Singh has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he alongwith SI Dharamvir went to AIIMS mortuary where tehsildar Shri Ajit Kumar Chaudhary got conducted postmortem of deceased Alpana Mishra. After postmortem dead body was handed over to her husband accused Amrinder Mishra. IO ASI Dharamvir took into possession the viscera and sample seal given by the doctor. IO prepared the seizure memo of viscera and sample seal vide Ex.PW18/A.
25. PW24/HC Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 15.07.2013, MHCM handed over sealed exhibits of chunni to deposit the same at AIIMS mortuary vide RC No.155/21 dated 15.07.2013. PW24 deposited the exhibit of chunni at mortuary AIIMS and collected the receiving State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.26/49 SC No.7010/2016 and handed over to MHCM. On 01.08.2013, on the order of Senior officers, he had gone to the house of Shri Kamlesh father of deceased at Ramana Majar, Gaya, Bihar and reached there on 02.08.2013 where Shri Kamlesh met and he handed over one yellow diary (identified by witness as Ex.PW1/P1) written by deceased Arpana and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and also obtained the signature of Rajesh Kumar owner of the house. PW24 recorded statement of Rajesh Kumar, Kamlesh and Pushpa. He served parcha 12 regarding accused Amrinder, Pankaj, Ravi Shankar Pathak and Shweta Pathak to police station. On 06.08.2013, he handed over the document to the concerned IO Insp. Shahid Khan.
Expert witnesses
26. PW8/Dr. Mir Raja has deposed that on 30.05.2013, at 8:50 pm, while he was working in Batra hospital, one Arpana Mishra w/o Amrinder Mishra, aged 26 years, r/o G-35/10, Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi was brought to casualty by accused Amrinder in unconscious state. PW8 examined the patient vide MLC No.9539 as Ex.PW8/A and on examination, he found the patient unconscious and declared her 'brought dead' at the same date. On local examination, there was ligature mark present on anterior aspect of neck. The body was packed and sent to mortuary for postmortem.
27. PW9/Dr. Hans Raj has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he was posted as Junior Resident at Department of Forensic Medicine AIIMS, New Delhi. On that day, he had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Arpana Mishra, aged 26 years, w/o Amrinder Mishra r/o G-35/10, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi vide PM report No.703/13 Ex.PW9/A. PW9 deposed further that on examination, he found State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.27/49 SC No.7010/2016 following injuries :-
(1). Ligature Mark - A dark reddish brown parchmentised ligature mark of width 1 cm was present at the middle one third of neck. The ligature mark was running obliquely, upwards and backwards, merging with posterior hairline at nape of neck, incompletely encircling the neck. The ligature mark was 8 cm below the mentum and 7 cm above suprasternal notch in anterior midline of neck. The ligature mark was 3 cm below right mastoid tip and 7 cm below left mastoid tip on lateral aspect of neck. Total neck circumference was 31 cm. On dissection of neck, the underlying soft tissue was dry, pale, glistening, white and hard to touch and was devoid of any extravasation of blood or hematoma. The underlying muscles and blood vessels of neck were intact and were devoid of any extravasation or hematoma. Thyrohoid complex was intact. Tracheal mucosa was congested.
(2). A red brown abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cm was present on dorsal aspect of right arm.
(3). A red blue contusion of size 5 x 5 cm was present over left eye and eyebrow.
No other ante-mortem injury was present.
The cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and viscera was preserved for toxicology analysis and handed over dead body, PM Report Ex.PW9/A, inquest papers (total 32 in number) and viscera to the IO.
27.2 PW9 has deposed further that on 15.07.2013, a request from IO Inspector Shahid Khan for expert opinion was received with one sealed pullanda containing chunni used by deceased for State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.28/49 SC No.7010/2016 committing suicide, seizure memo of chunni, photocopy of PM report No.703/2013, copy of FIR and MLC no.9539/13 of Batra hospital. On 29.07.2013, after perusing the PM report, inquest papers and alleged ligature material, PW9 gave final opinion Ex.PW9/B in respect of PM report no.707/13 and opined that ligature mark present over the neck of the deceased was consistent with ligature material and that ligature material could have been used for hanging. PW9 identified ligature material Chunni as Ex.PW9/P-1.
28. PW12/Dr. Amit Bhambri, who was deputed by Medical Superintendent to depose on behalf of Dr. Surender, has proved on record MLC bearing no. 5266/13 of deceased Arpana as Ex.PW12/A prepared by Dr. Surender. He deposed that as per said MLC, on 31.05.2013, at 12:48 pm, ASI Dharamvir brought dead body of one Aparna from Batra hospital and Medical Research Centre for postmortem. The dead body was sent to AIIMS mortuary for postmortem.
29. Prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel and relevant part of their cross-examination shall be discussed in later part of this judgment.
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
30. After completion of evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were separately recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence which had come on record against them during trial, were put to them but, the same were denied by them as wrong and incorrect. Accused persons though admitted that deceased was married to accused Amrinder on 03.12.2007 but accused persons State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.29/49 SC No.7010/2016 denied about demand of dowry from the deceased.
30.1 All the accused persons pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is stated by all accused that neither accused Amrinder nor his relatives had ever demanded any dowry either from deceased or from her parents. It was further stated by deceased that deceased used to remain under depression due to behaviour of her parents who remained under illusion that deceased was not happy in her matrimonial home. Also that, prior to her death deceased had been taken to Batra hospital by her husband Amrinder for her treatment for neurological problem.
Defence arguments
31. Ld. LAC Sh. Rajeev Jain has vehemently argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused persons as the testimony of prosecution witnesses is not reliable on account of various discrepancies and contradictions. It is further argued that prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove it on record that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death so as to raise the presumption of Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act. He further argued that the material on record is totally lacking to prove any of said material facts to seek conviction for the offence u/s 304-B IPC. He further urged that general allegation of harassment and cruelty without describing the exact conduct of accused will not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A or 304-B IPC.
31.1 It is further argued on behalf of the accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.30/49 SC No.7010/2016 the offence of Section 304 B IPC. It is argued that the presumption of Section 113 B IPC is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry that too when she was subjected to such cruelty and harassment soon before her death that is to say there should be reasonable contiguity of death whereas prosecution has failed to bring forth any cogent evidence of any such cruelty or harassment.
31.2 It is further argued that prosecution evidence being incoherent, discrepant and contradictory apart from being an after thought, is unworthy of reliance.
31.3 It is further argued that deceased did not have any grievances against her husband and same is evident from the suicide note Mark A recovered by the police from the room where deceased had committed suicide wherein, she did not put any blame on her husband and rather held herself responsible for her death. It is further argued that since the parents of the deceased were not happy with the accused therefore, they falsely implicated him in this case.
Arguments of Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor
32. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Pravin Rahul, rebutted the arguments by submitting that admittedly, the deceased had died otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage with accused Amrinder and by clinching evidence of parents of deceased, prosecution has sufficiently proved on record that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of non fulfillment of demands of dowry raised by the accused persons therefore, presumption of Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act for the State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.31/49 SC No.7010/2016 offence of Section 304-B IPC is clearly drawn in favour of prosecution and the defence has miserably failed to rebut said presumption through the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
33. It is further urged that in such like cases of dowry death, it is rare to find any direct evidence because such crimes are committed within the four corners of matrimonial house of deceased, but in the instant case there is ample material in the form of deceased's conversation with her parents and other family members soon before her death and in view of the fact that said conversation is concerning the cause of her death and the circumstances of transaction which resulted into her death, same is admissible as dying declaration u/s 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, which is an exception to hearsay evidence. It is further argued that besides the version of family members of deceased, the PM report has also disclosed a red brown abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cm was present on dorsal aspect of right arm and a red blue contusion of size 5 x 5 cm was present over left eye and eyebrow and the same itself reflects that she was subjected to utmost cruelty by the accused soon before her death.
34. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised from both the sides and also carefully perused the entire material on record.
Court's discussion
35. Before embarking upon the evidence adduced on record, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of law for the sake of ready reference. As noted above, the accused were charged for the offences punishable u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.32/49 SC No.7010/201636. Section 498A:-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty -
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or death (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
304B. Dowry death.-
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961) (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
"Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.33/49 SC No.7010/2016
Definition of "dowry". - In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage;or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II. - The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code."
113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death", shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
37. Cruelty is defined under two clauses of Explanation to Section 498A. Clause (a) talks about willful conduct of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. As per clause (b), it also includes harassment of woman in furtherance of any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any person related to her to meet such demand.
38. Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 (9) SCC 64, Hon'ble Apex court observed as under:-
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.34/49 SC No.7010/2016"29... what is punishable u/s 498A or Section 304B IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband of the woman. It will be also clear from Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act that only when it is shown that soon before her death, a woman has been subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such person caused death within the meaning of section 304 B IPC. The act of subjecting a woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be established by the prosecution for the court to presume that the accused has caused the dowry death."
39. By according said presumption u/s 304B IPC, the legislature has relieved the prosecution from the rigour of proof of practically inaccessible recesses of life happening within the guarded confines of matrimonial home. But before raising any such presumption in favour of prosecution, the basic ingredient as enumerated in the section has to be credibly proved by the prosecution, and in no circumstance, prosecution can be over-eased on this legal obligation to prove the essential ingredients beyond any reasonable doubts, lest justice shall be the casualty.
40. The first ingredient of Section 304B IPC i.e. the death of a woman had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance within 7 years of her marriage is answered in affirmative because it is not in dispute that firstly, the death of deceased was within 7 years of marriage and secondly, the same was otherwise than under normal circumstances. The questions that now fall for consideration are 1) whether the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty at the instance of her husband or any relative of her husband; 2) if answer to the first question appears to be in affirmative, whether that harassment or cruelty was in connection with the demand of dowry;
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.35/49 SC No.7010/20163) whether such cruelty or harassment if so, was subjected to the deceased soon before her death. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliyaperumal vs. State of T.N. (2004) 9 SCC 157, wherein the essential ingredients which the prosecution is required to prove before seeking presumption of dowry death to be raised in its favour, were delineated as under:
(i) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman, (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC).
(ii) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(iii) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
41. Undoubtedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of deceased's parents.
42. I may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), Crl. A. 433/2012, decided on 01.06.2017, wherein it was held that Section 304B IPC does not contemplate that the harassment should be within minutes or hours or few days of the time since death but a reasonable period prior to the death when deceased is subjected to cruelty is sufficient to show the live link. While taking said view, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also referred to its earlier decision in Riyazuddin vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in MANU/DE/3997/2010 and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kansraj vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 207.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.36/49 SC No.7010/201643. In Riyazuddin (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:-
"6. I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the prosecution has not been able to prove that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry. "Soon before" is a relative term to be considered under specific circumstances of each case. The prosecution is required to prove that there is a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death. In a case of persistent demand and repeated harassment on that count, the proximate and live link can be said to be proved by the prosecution. In every case the same is not required to be proved by proving a solitary incident immediately prior to the incident."
44. In Kansraj (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that:-
"15. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her death. "Soon before" is a relative terms which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long before the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances sowing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. It the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.37/49 SC No.7010/2016 showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
45. In order to succeed in proving the charges for the offence of Section 304B IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. The 'cruelty' has been defined in Clause (a) & (b) of the explanation to Section 498A IPC and 'dowry' has been defined u/s 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty as defined in explanation to Section 498A IPC. The expression 'cruelty' would also take in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. But for attracting the provisions of Section 304B IPC, the cruelty and harassment should be in furtherance of unlawful demand referable to marriage. In Hansraj Sharma vs. State of Govt. of NCT, 2010 Criminal Law General 4664, it was held that if the husband of the girl or any other person related or connected to him demands something from the girl or her parents or any other person related to or connected with her, saying that the articles being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in the marriage that also would constitute demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 304B IPC.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.38/49 SC No.7010/201646. In Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal no. 1097/15 decided on 18.11.2016, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that cruelty or harassment of the lady by her husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences of Section 304B and 498A IPC. It held that cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry to reiterate is the gravamen of the two offences. The court further observed that the presumption under Section 113-B (Presumption as to dowry death) of the Evidence Act as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. It was held that such a proof is thus legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith.
47. In order to prove the alleged harassment or cruelty meted out to deceased by the accused persons in connection with the demand of dowry, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the parents of deceased who were examined in the matter as PW1 and PW2. I have carefully perused the testimony of both the said material witnesses. In the examination in chief of the complainant PW1, who is State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.39/49 SC No.7010/2016 the father of the deceased the allegations raised against the accused are broadly that after marriage, the daughter of deceased Gunja, who used to always remain jovial prior to her marriage, started remaining serious and unhappy though she never disclosed the reason for said change in her behavior to PW1. As per the version of PW1, deceased gave birth to a child after one year of her marriage and from his testimony it appears that till the delivery of child to the deceased, the parents of the deceased could not know the reason of the deceased's alleged unhappiness. PW1 in his examination further deposed that deceased had been asked by her husband Amrinder to demand Rs.25,000/- from her parents and accordingly, she demanded Rs.25,000/- on the first occasion and on second occasion a demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by her daughter at the instance of her husband and the second demand was raised around March-April 2011. As per his version both the said demands were raised on telephone and PW1 did not take said demands as dowry demands seriously thinking that a son in law can always seek financial help from his father in law. PW1 further stated that reason for death of his daughter Aparna @ Gunja was not dowry although it was also not a case of 'suicide' either but, was a 'homicide'. He further deposed that deceased used to be taunted for poor financial condition of her father. Here, I may note that the allegation regarding taunting is general and unspecific as neither the witness has disclosed as to who used to taunt the deceased nor he specified as to how he came to know about said ill- treatment of deceased i.e. whether the deceased herself told him or he came to know about said fact through someone else. No date, month or occasion has been mentioned when the deceased was so taunted by the accused and what was the language or manner of said taunting.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.40/49 SC No.7010/201648. As regard the demand of money, I may note that not every demand is covered within the purview of section 498A or 304B IPC. Furthermore, merely raising of demand of dowry is no offence unless the victim is subjected to cruelty either physical or mental in furtherance of such demand. The version of PW1 to the effect that he did not take the alleged demand of money raised on two occasions as 'dowry demand' saying that a son in law can always seek financial help from his father in law, itself shows that said alleged demands for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were made just for seeking financial help and were not made in connection with the marriage. Here I may refer to the judgment in Hans Raj Sharma (supra) which clearly shows that if something is demanded from the girl or any other person related to her by saying that the article/cash being demanded by them was expected to be given or ought to have been given in the marriage, then only it would constitute demand of dowry. Mere asking of some cash without expecting it to have been given in the marriage or without subjecting the girl to any coercion, cruelty or harassment in furtherance of said demand would not make the act punishable u/sec. 498A or 304B IPC. If the woman is harassed with a view to force her or her parents to meet such demand of any article, cash or valuable security, then only it would constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498A IPC. Though it is alleged that deceased was taunted for poor financial condition of her father but, as noted above the allegations are vague, unspecific and general.
49. PW1 has mentioned one more instance when the deceased was allegedly ill-treated by her husband and the same was when his wife with his younger daughter Swastika @ Bhuli had visited State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.41/49 SC No.7010/2016 deceased's matrimonial home and lived there for 10-12 days. In the testimony of PW1 no date, month or year of said visit has been mentioned. However, his version reflect that prior to said visit of his wife some hot talks were exchanged between accused Amrinder and PW1 when PW1 asked Amrinder to chose between his sister and his wife (i.e. the deceased) and wanted his sister and husband not to interfere in the matrimonial life of deceased. PW1 has further deposed that thereafter, taunts and torture of his deceased daughter increased but again he nowhere mentioned that how and in what manner deceased was subjected to alleged torture. With regard to aforementioned visit of his wife to the matrimonial house of deceased, PW1 deposes that during said visit of his wife, he used to telephonically talk to his wife everyday and he was informed that they were being treated well and accused Amrinder had also taken them out to see places in Delhi. However, on one occasion his wife told him on telephone that Gunja was beaten up and there were injury marks on her face and she asked PW1 to take immediate steps. His wife also told that she (PW2) was also abused in filthy language by accused Amrinder. Thereafter, at the request of PW1 the elder brother of accused Amrinder namely Narender brought deceased, her mother and children as well as her sister to his house as he (Narender) was also living nearby and later on they all came to the parental home of deceased at Gaya. Further as per the version of PW1, after the deceased came to her parental home, she slightly opened up and told him that situation had become worst and further asked wife of PW1 to ask PW1 to make some arrangements. However, she did not tell things in detail. Here, again the version of PW1 is quite vague and unclear in as much as neither he disclosed as to how the situation had allegedly become worst nor even he told as to what arrangements he State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.42/49 SC No.7010/2016 was asked to make by the deceased or his wife.
50. It is also necessary to mention here that with regard to alleged incident of beatings given to the deceased by her husband at the time of visit of her mother and sister to her matrimonial house, PW2 says that two years prior to the death of her daughter she had come to Delhi alongwith her daughter Swastika to stay with deceased at her matrimonial home. On that day accused persons kept them very happily but after 2-3 days their behaviour started changing. Accused Amrinder Singh came after consuming liquor and abused her (PW2) and also beaten up her daughter Gunja i.e. the deceased. After 3-4 days of said incident, PW2 took her daughter Gunja to her native place at Gaya. After 4-5 days of reaching Gaya, accused brought back the deceased to Delhi. As per PW2, thereafter deceased visited her native village in the month of February 2013 but at that time she came alone with her children and remained with them for 8 days and thereafter, she was again brought back to Delhi by deceased's brother in law/devar. She further deposes that 3 days prior to her death, her daughter informed her that she was suffering from backache.
51. I may note that though PW2 also talked about physical cruelty allegedly meted out to deceased by her husband at the time when PW2 had stayed at the matrimonial house of deceased but, in her entire deposition, PW2 has not given any inkling as to what was the reason for giving alleged beatings to her daughter. It is nowhere alleged either by PW2 or PW1 in their respective depositions in the court that aforementioned beatings were given in furtherance of any illegal demand raised by accused Amrinder Mishra or his family members. It is further not stated by either of the parents as to how State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.43/49 SC No.7010/2016 and in what manner the beatings were given to the deceased. We cannot lose sight of the fact that mere a solitary act of physical cruelty against married woman in her matrimonial house is not punishable u/sec 498A IPC, though it may be a cause for judicial intervention under some other laws. It is only when the physical or mental cruelty is meted out to the victim in furtherance of the demand of dowry, it will amount to 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 304 B IPC.
52. In the instant case, though both the parents have raised allegations regarding alleged demand of money on two occasions but, they nowhere have alleged that in furtherance of said demand for money their daughter was subjected to cruelty or beatings. From the deposition of the mother of the deceased it appears that alleged beatings given to deceased at the time of her visit to deceased's matrimonial house was given by accused Amrinder Mishra under the influence of liquor as there is no allegation that said accused had been demanding dowry from the deceased or her parents prior to said alleged act of beatings given to the deceased. Here, I would also refer to the cross examination of PW1, wherein he has deposed that on both the occasions demand of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were raised by deceased on telephone and on both the occasions it was his wife i.e. PW2 who had talked to the deceased and his wife had told him about said alleged demand. However, when PW2 was examined in the court she did not talk about said demands of money unless she was put leading question by ld. Addl. PP. Only after she was put leading question with the permission of the court, she came out with the allegation that accused Amrinder Mishra had demanded money on two occasions and her daughter had told this fact to them on State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.44/49 SC No.7010/2016 telephone. However, she categorically denied the suggestion put to her by ld. Addl. PP that accused Pankaj, Ravi and Shweta Pathak had also demanded money.
53. In his examination in chief, PW1 has testified that when deceased came to her native place at Gaya with her mother, accused Amrinder also came there after few days and he (accused) counseled deceased and it appeared to PW1 that things had been settled. Thereafter, PW1 left the house and when he came back in the night, he was informed by his wife that deceased had gone with her husband Amrinder with her own choice. Here PW1 has also deposed that deceased had earlier told him that the accused persons would plan to do away with her because they had come to know that deceased had disclosed about the arrest of accused Ravi and therefore, when PW1 came to know about Aparna being taken away by her husband Amrinder, he could sense that something very serious would now happen and this was his last meeting with Aparna @ Gunja.
54. With regard to the last visit of deceased to her matrimonial house, there appears to be discrepancy in the testimony of PW1 because, as per his examination in chief, the last visit of deceased to her native place was the visit when she was brought by her mother with her children to her native place Gaya after the alleged incident of beatings given at her matrimonial home at Delhi. In his examination in chief he deposed that after said visit the deceased was brought back to Delhi by her husband Amrinder Mishra. Whereas, in his cross examination, PW1 deposed that after the aforementioned visit to Gaya with her mother, deceased had again State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.45/49 SC No.7010/2016 visited Gaya in January-February 2013 and she stayed there for 3-4 days.
55. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of said visit of deceased in the month of February 2013 in the examination in chief of PW1. Although, PW2 in her examination in chief has referred to said visit of deceased and stated that deceased visited her parental home in February 2013 when she visited her parents with her children alone and she remained there for 8 days and that thereafter, she was brought back to Delhi by her devar Pankaj, but none of the parents have disclosed anything about the deceased having told them about any alleged demand of her husband or his family or regarding her having been subjected to any cruelty by them in furtherance of any such demand during her said visit in February 2013. I may also refer to the deposition of father of deceased where he has categorically stated that the reason of death of his daughter was not dowry though he alleged that it was not suicide even. However, I may note here that no charge of murder in this case was framed as the accused were charged only for the offence of 498A/304B IPC.
56. As I already noted above, in isolation neither the act of demand of dowry nor the act of cruelty is punishable u/s 498A or 304 B IPC, it is only when demand of dowry is coupled with the physical or mental cruelty in furtherance of said demand, the same becomes an offence u/sec 498A IPC. And when said cruelty in furtherance of demand of dowry is committed soon before death and said death occurs in suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage of the deceased woman, same becomes punishable as 'dowry death' u/s 304 B IPC.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.46/49 SC No.7010/201657. Whereas, in the instant case, material on record is totally lacking to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty in furtherance of demand of dowry by any of the accused. The allegations raised by the parents are vague, ambiguous and unspecific. Though, there are some allegations regarding demand of money raised against accused Amrinder Mishra but, there is nothing on record to suggest that same was in connection with the marriage or that deceased was ever subjected to any physical or mental cruelty in furtherance to said alleged demand of money. As per the father of deceased, the 2 nd demand for Rs.50,000/- was made in April 2011 whereas, the first demand of Rs.25,000/- was made prior to that. However, in any case there is nothing to suggest that any demand for money was ever raised subsequent to April 2011. As per the chargesheet, the deceased expired on 30.05.2013, i.e. after two years of the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/-. The material on record is totally lacking to show that the deceased was ever subjected to any kind of cruelty by the husband or his family members in furtherance of demand of dowry soon before her death.
58. As per postmortem report three injuries were seen on the body of the deceased, one was ligature mark around the neck and the other two injuries were in the form of abrasion on the dorsal aspect of right arm and contusion over the left eye and eyebrow. However, in absence of any cogent and conclusive evidence regarding demand of dowry and consequent harassment thereof, mere presence of some external injury marks on the dead body will not be sufficient to prove the offence of section 498A or 304B IPC.
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.47/49 SC No.7010/201659. There is one more material aspect of the matter supporting the defence plea of accused's innocence that is the suicide note which was recovered from the room where the deceased committed suicide. The handwriting on said suicide note Ex.PW18/P1 was duly compared with the admitted handwriting of deceased on the diary Ex.PW1/P1 and the handwriting at point Q1 on the suicide note was found to be handwriting of the same person who wrote at point A1 of the diary Ex.PW1/P1. As such even as per prosecution case, the handwriting on the suicide note was that of the deceased. Report of handwriting expert of FSL is available on record as Ex.PW22/H. I have carefully perused the contents of said suicide note wherein deceased has not come up with any allegation of demand of dowry or any consequent cruelty on the part of her husband or inlaws. From the perusal of the contents of said suicide note it appears that deceased was having grievances against the husband for not giving her sufficient time but, it nowhere suggests that she was being subjected to any kind of cruelty by her husband or inlaws. There is absolutely no mention of any demand of dowry in the suicide note. When the testimony of parents of deceased is found lacking on material ingredients of alleged offences, there is no need for this court to discuss the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, whose testimonies at the most, are in the nature of corroborative or link evidence.
60. Having regard to above discussion, prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any credible evidence to prove the charges against any of the accused for any of the alleged offences. Accordingly, all accused persons are acquitted from the charge of all State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.48/49 SC No.7010/2016 offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Their earlier bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged. Accused persons are directed to furnish their bail bonds in terms of section 437A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court
on 28.09.2019 (Sunena Sharma)
Additional Sessions Judge-03, (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
SUNENA
SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2019.10.01
15:45:16
+0530
State Vs. Amrinder Mishra etc. Page No.49/49
SC No.7010/2016