Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Riyazuddin on 6 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 106/2012
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0348952007
State Vs. (1) Riyazuddin
S/o Shabuddin,
R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Also at: C1, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(Convicted)
(2) Shabuddin
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Rehman,
R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
(3) Gayasuddin
S/o Sh. Shabuddin,
R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Also at: C1, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
(4) Smt. Hazra
W/o Shabuddin,
R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 1
FIR No. : 268/07
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Under Sections: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to session court: 13.7.2007
Date on which orders were reserved: 17.5.2014
Date on which judgment announced: 23.5.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations, between 6.10.2003 to 29.3.2007 at House No. D74, Bhagwati Garden, Delhi the accused Riyazuddin being the husband of the deceased Mumtaz, the accused Sahabuddin being her father in law, accused Hazara being the mother in law and the accused Gyasuddin being the brother in law (Jeth) along with their coaccused Afsana and Imrana (both Proclaimed Offenders) in furtherance of their common intention subjected Mumtaz to cruelty for demand of dowry. Further, it has been alleged that on 29.3.2007 the the death of Mumtaz occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by all the accused in furtherance of their common intention and in connection with demand of dowry.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 29.3.2007, DD No. 29A was received at Police Post East Uttam Nagar, Police Station Uttam St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 2 Nagar, Delhi pursuant to which ASI Om Prakash along with Ct. Badan Singh reached at the spot i.e. D74, Bhagwati Vihar. In the meantime DD No.31 was received that Mumtaz W/o Riazuddin who was got admitted in the DDU hospital by her husband, had been declared dead by the doctor on which after leaving Ct. Badan Singh at the spot, ASI Om Prakash went to DDU Hospital where he collected the MLC of Mumtaz and informed Sh. K.K. Sharma, SDM Patel Nagar who deputed the Executive Magistrate Sh. Vinay Kaushik. After some time Sh. Vinay Kaushik Executive Magistrate reached the hospital and recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased at the hospital and the dead body was sent to Mortuary. In their statements the father, mother and brother of the deceased alleged that the deceased Mumtaz who was married to the accused Riyazuddin was being tortured, harassed and beaten by the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin, Hazra, Imrana and Afsana for and on account of demand of dowry (though they gave no specific details of the said demand/ harassment). The Executive Magistrate then made his endorsement on the statement of Smt. Zareena on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. ASI Om Prakash also seized the chunni from the house of the accused persons.
(3) On the same day i.e. 29.3.2007 during night hours the accused Riyazuddin, Shahbuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra were arrested from their residence. Efforts were made to search for two Nanads of deceased namely Imrana and Afsana but they were not traceable. During St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 3 investigations the brother of deceased handed over to the Investigating Officer the photocopy of RC of Maruti car No. DL9CJ0504 which was given to the deceased at the time of her marriage by her parents and also handed over seven written papers which were in the handwriting of deceased mentioning the harassment and cruelty by the in laws of deceased which papers were then seized. The Investigating Officer collected the admitted handwriting of the deceased along with attendance sheet where deceased took training, after which the admitted handwriting and seven papers written by the deceased and other exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for expert opinion. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra whereas the accused Imrana and Afsana were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 Indian Penal Code have been settled against the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the defence and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 4
List of witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details
No.
1. PW1 HC Anil Kumar Police Witness - Duty Officer
2. PW2 L/Ct. Somita Police Witness - DD Writer
3. PW3 Shahabuddin Public witness - Father of the deceased
4. PW4 Zarina Public witness - Mother of the deceased
5. PW5 Mohd. Sartaz Public witness - Brother of the deceased
6. PW6 Shabana @ Lubna Public witness - Sister in law (Bhabhi) of
the deceased
7. PW7 Ms. Chitra R. Panchikaran Official witness Counsellor cum
Programme Secretary, Vikasini Center
for Women Empowerment
8. PW8 Ms. Kavita Goel FSL Expert
9. PW9 Ms. Anurag Sharma FSL Expert
10. PW10 ASI Om Prakash Police witness who had reached the spot
11. PW11 Sh. Vinay Kaushik The then Executive Magistrate
12. PW12 HC Badan Singh Police witness who had reached the spot
with ASI Om Prakash
13. PW13 HC Vijay Kumar Police Witness Crime Team
photographer
14. PW14 ASI Ved Prakash Police Witness who had deposited the
exhibits with the FSL
15. PW15 ASI Satyaveer Singh Police witness/ MHCM
16. PW16 SI Anil Kumar Police witness - Crime Team Incharge
17. PW17 Dr. Komal Singh Witness who has proved the Postmortem
Report and subsequent opinion
18. PW18 Dr. Dhananjay Witness from DDU Hospital who has
proved the MLC of the deceased
19. PW19 SI Satish Kumar Investigating Officer of the case
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 5
Defence witnesses:
20. DW1 Mehruddin Public witness - Mediator in the
marriage
21. DW2 Mohd. Iqbal Public witness - Mediator in the
marriage
22. DW3 Shahabuddin Accused Shahabuddin - father in law of
the deceased
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
1. PW1/A FIR HC Anil Kumar
2. PW1/B Endorsement On Rukka
3. PW1/C DD No. 38A
4. PW2/A DD NO. 29 L/Ct. Somita
5. PW2/B DD NO. 31
6. PW3/A Statement of Shahabuddin Shahabuddin
7. PW3/B1 to B7 Writing of Mumtaz
8. PW3/DX1 Confronted statement
9. PW4/A Statement of Zarena Zareena
10. PW5/A Admission Form Sartaz
11. PW5/B Dead body identification statement
12. PW5/C Dead body handed over Receipt
13. PW5/DA Confronted statement
14. Mark ZX1 Copy of Admission register Chitra R Panchkaran
15. Mark ZX copy of Attendance Register
16. PW8/A FSL Report Kavita Goel
17. PW9/A FSL report (Handwriting Report) Anurag Sharma
18. PW9/B Copy of FSL Form
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 6
19. PW10/A Seizure memo of Chunni ASI Om Prakash
20. PW10/B Arrest memo of Riayjuddin
21. PW10/C Arrest memo of Shahabuddin
22. PW10/D Arrest memo of Gyasiuddin
23. PW10/E Arrest memo of Hazra
24. PW10/F Personal search memo of Riayjuddin
25. PW10/G Personal search memo of Shahabuddin
26. PW10/H Personal search memo of Gyasiuddin
27. PW10/I Personal search memo of Hazara
28. PW11/A Endorsement of SDM on statement of Sh. Vinay Kaushik
Zareena
29. PW11/B Application for Postmortem
30. PW11/C Identification statement of
Shahabuddin
31. PW11/D Inquest Document
32. PW13/A1 to 4 Negatives of the photographs HC Vijay Kumar
33. PW13/A5 to Photographs
A8
34. PW15/A Copy of Register No. 19 Sr. No. 4567 ASI Satyaveer Singh
35. PW15/B RC No. 50/21
36. PW15/C Copy of Register No. 19 Sr. No. 4968
37. PW16/A Crime team Report SI Anil Kumar
38. PW17/A Postmortem Report Dr. Komal Singh
39. PW17/B Subsequent Opinion
40. PW18/A MLC Dr. Dhananjay
41. PW18/B ECG
42. PW19/A Site plan SI Satish Kumar
43. PW19/X Brief facts
44. PW19/B Seizure memo of sample seal
45. PW19/C Dowry articles list
46. PW19/Y Seizure memo of Maruti Car
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 7
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Nineteen Witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(7) PW3 Sahabuddin is the father of deceased Mumtaz who has deposed that he was having two sons namely Mohd. Sartaj and Mohd.
Firoz and one daughter Mumtaz who has now expired. According to him, Mumtaz was married to accused Riyazuddin @ Raju on 06.10.2003 at West Sagarpur, Delhi. He has deposed that at the time of marriage he had given Maruti Car 800, Fridge, Cooler, Washing Machine, Gyser, Furniture and golden articles weighing 20 tolas and silver articles weighing 1.5 kg. According to the witness Sahabuddin is father in law, Gayasuddin is Jeth and accused Smt. Hazra is mother in law of his daughter Mumtaz and he has identified them all. He has further deposed that after the marriage of his daughter Mumtaz, she started residing at H. No. D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi with her husband and other family members. According to witness, his daughter was not kept properly and she was harassed by all the accused persons including her two unmarried sistersinlaw namely Imrana and Afsana. Witness has deposed that immediately after the marriage of his daughter Mumtaz, her fatherinlaw fell ill and accused persons used to be taunted that "tere par hamare ghar mein abhage pade hain". He has testified that her father in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 8 law was admitted in the hospital and he (witness) paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the in laws of his daughter Mumtaz as accused persons demanded the money from him. According to the witness, his younger son had also given his blood in the hospital and at that time accused persons were under debt and they sold the jewelery articles which were given by him to his daughter Mumtaz. He has testified that he had given a Maruti 800 car at the time of marriage of Mumtaz and the accused persons started pressurizing her to transfer the car in their name. However, since the said car was got financed by him therefore it could not be transferred. Witness has further deposed that accused persons wanted to get the car transferred as they wanted to sell the car. He has testified that the accused Riyazuddin, Shahbuddin, Gyasuddin demanded a sum of Rs. one lac for opening shop of accused Riyazuddin but he could not pay the amount of Rs. one lac. He has also deposed that the accused persons used to say that the articles given by him in marriage of Mumtaz were their articles and they may given the said articles in the marriage of their daughter or they may do whatever they do. Witness has further deposed that whenever his daughter Mumtaz wanted to use the said articles and tried to touch the articles, accused persons along with two unmarried sisters in law gave beatings to her. Witness has further deposed that after one year of marriage, his daughter delivered a male child on which he gave some articles in the Chuchak as per demand of accused persons. He has testified that he had given a list of articles given by him to the police. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 9 (8) The witness has further deposed that on 30.04.2005 accused persons along with two unmarried sisters in law gave beating to his daughter Mumtaz after which accused Riyazuddin telephoned to his (witness's) elder son Sartaj at about 11:30 PM and asked him to take his sister and on inquiry he (accused Shahabuddin) told his son that he should reach at his house and take his sister as they would not keep her. According to the witness, on this he, his wife and his son Sartaj and mediator Mehruddin reached the house of accused persons where the accused persons started abusing them and manhandled them and did not allow them to meet Mumtaz. Witness has further deposed that he did not lodge a police complaint as he wanted to continue the relationship. He has testified that the accused Shahabuddin pushed Mumtaz by saying "hamara kya bigad legi". The witness has further deposed that he wanted to bring his daughter back but the persons who accompanied him told him that relationship would be destroyed on which he returned back. Witness has further testified that on 04.05.2005 he brought his daughter Mumtaz from her matrimonial house where she remained for about eight months but the respectable persons of the society pressurized him to sent his daughter Mumtaz to he matrimonial house. According to the witness in last week of December, 2005 the accused Riyazuddin came to his house on which he sent his daughter with him and the respectable persons of society assured him that accused persons would keep his daughter happily and that they would be responsible for the same. Witness has St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 10 also deposed that thereafter accused persons kept his daughter Mumtaz happily for about 2½ months and again started harassing Mumtaz on account of money. He has deposed that whenever Mumtaz used to come to their house she disclosed him that accused persons were demanding money and used to beat her and were harassing her. He has further deposed that all the accused persons including Afsana and Imrana again demanded a sum of Rs one lac from his daughter and his daughter told him about the said demand. According to him, when his daughter was pressurized by accused persons and Afsana, Imrana, his daughter gave a letter to his son Sartaj and his son handed over the said letter to him. Witness has further deposed that after reading the said letter he became disturbed and thereafter he got prepared FDR in the sum of Rs.45,000/ in the name of Mumtaz which was in the year 2006 before 56 months of the death of Mumtaz. He has also deposed that all the accused persons and Afsana and Imrana came to know about the said FDR and started pressurizing Mumtaz to pay the amount of said FDR. According to the witness, his daughter refused to encash the said FDR and to pay the money after which the accused including Afsana and Imrana started harassing his daughter. He has also deposed that they told his daughter that she could live in their house only after paying the amount of FDR and also to bring Rs. one lac. Witness has further deposed that his daughter Mumtaz along with accused Riyazuddin came to his house all of a sudden prior to the incident and at that time he was getting ready for St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 11 going to his shop. According to the witness, he went to his shop after formal talks with Mumtaz and came back in the evening at about 9:15 PM and at that time Mumtaz was getting ready to return to her matrimonial house but was disturbed at that time and she (Mumtaz) told him that he should come to take her back on 30.03.2007. Thereafter on 23.03.2007 his son Sartaj received telephone call of accused Riyazuddin after which his son Sartaj told him that the accused Riyazuddin threatened him on telephone that in case they would not pay Rs. one lac and the amount of FDR, his sister Mumtaz would not be found alive. He has further deposed that on 28.03.2007 he along with his family members had gone to village Pirathli, District Gautam Budh Nagar and on 29.03.2007 at about 1212:30 noon, he received telephonic call from accused Shahbuddin who told him that his daughter was seriously ill and she was being taken to hospital. He has also deposed that again after about five minutes he received telephone call from the mobile phone of accused Shahbuddin and at that time, SI Om Parkash was talking and told him that he should immediately reach at DDU hospital as his daughter had hanged herself. According to the witness he along with his family members came back to Delhi on 29.03.2007 and reached at DDU hospital where his daughter in law Lubna told him that after about three days prior to 29.03.2007 she had received telephone of Mumtaz who informed her that she was being harassed and beaten by accused persons including Afsana and Imrana. Witness has further deposed that police officials were found St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 12 present in the hospital and his statement was recorded by the police. The witness has testified that his daughter has been killed by accused persons and Afsana and Imrana. According to the witness he is a patient of heart disease and therefore his daughter Mumtaz did not talk much with him but used to talk with her bhabhi Shabana @ Lubna. He has proved that his statement was recorded by SDM, same is Ex.PW3/A. The witness has also proved that the writings on seven pages are the handwriting of his daughter Mumtaz bearing the signatures of his daughter Mumtaz at point A,B,C and D and the said writings which are Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 and the signatures in English of his daughter is at point E on the said writing and his daughter Mumtaz also used to sign in English and his daughter Mumtaz had studied upto 10th class.
(9) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that he had stated in his statement to the SDM that after marriage, his daughter Mumtaz was living in the house of accused persons; that after marriage Mumtaz was not kept properly and she was harassed by accused persons and her two sisters in laws Afsana and Imrana; that immediately after marriage of his daughter her father in law fell ill and accused persons used to taunt her that "tere pair hamare ghar mein abhage plad gaye". However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above facts were not found so recorded. According to the witness he had also stated to SDM that the father in law of his daughter was admitted in the hospital and he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/ to in laws St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 13 of his daughter Mumtaz as accused persons demanded money from him; that his younger son also gave blood in the hospital; that accused persons were under debt and accused persons had sold the entire jewelery which was given by him to his daughter Mumtaz at the time of her marriage. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above facts were not found recorded. He has also deposed that he also stated in his statement to SDM that he gave Maruti car at the time of marriage and accused persons started harassing his daughter to transfer the said car in their name but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above fact was not found recorded. According to the witness he had not stated in his statement to SDM that said Maruti car was got financed and therefore said car cannot be transferred and has clarified that he had stated in his statement to SDM that accused persons wanted to get said Maruti car transferred in their name; that a sum of Rs. one lac was demanded by accused Shahbuddin, Riyazuddin and Gyasuddin for opening shop of Riyazuddin. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A where it is recorded that a sum of Rs one lac was demanded and he used to say that he would open a shop. According to the witness, he has stated to the SDM in his statement that he could not pay amount of Rs one lac; that accused persons did not allow Mumtaz to touch the articles of dowry given by him as they wanted to give the said articles at the time of marriage of their daughter and whenever his daughter wanted to touch the said articles, accused persons along with St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 14 two sisters in law used to beat her; that after one year of marriage, his daughter delivered a male child; that he had given a list of articles of dowry to police. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above facts were not found so recorded. According to the witness he had not stated to the SDM in his statement that on 30.04.2005 all the accused persons gave beating to his daughter Mumtaz but he does not remember if he stated to SDM that after giving beating at about 11:30 PM, accused Riyazuddin telephoned to his son Sartaj and told him to take Mumtaz. He has further deposed that he is not suffering from any memory failure but at that time he was very much disturbed due to death of his daughter Mumtaz and he could not made the complete statement before SDM. According to the witness his statement was recorded by SDM and thereafter SDM told him to make the complete statement before police officials and his statement was recorded by police officials wherein he disclosed all the facts to police officials. He has also deposed that he had not stated in his any statement that SDM told him to make the complete statement before the police. He does not remember if he had stated before SDM that accused Riyazuddin told his son that he should take Mumtaz and he would not keep her and he had not stated before SDM that he along with his wife, his son and mediator Mehruddin went to the house of accused persons. According to the witness he had stated to SDM in his statement that thereafter accused persons started abusing them and manhandling them and did not allow them to meet Mumtaz. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 15 However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A where the above fact is not found so recorded. According to the witness he had stated in his statement to SDM that he did not lodge police report because he wanted to maintain good relationship with his daughter Mumtaz. (10) Witness has further deposed that he did not state before the SDM that accused Shahabuddin pushed deceased Mumtaz by saying "hamara kya bigad legi" and has voluntarily explained that he made this statement before Investigating Officer. According to the witness he stated said fact to investigating officer on 29.03.2007 but he had not stated before SDM that he wanted to bring his daughter Mumtaz back but the persons who accompanied him advised him not to take Mumtaz back as relationship between the families might be broken and as such they came back. He has also deposed that he had sated to the SDM that he brought back Mumtaz on 04.05.2005 to his house where she stayed for about 8 months and has voluntarily explained that he also mentioned said fact to Investigating Officer. According to the witness he had not stated in his statement before the SDM that the respectable persons of the society pressurized him to sent his daughter Mumtaz to her matrimonial home in the last week of December 2005 and accused Riyazuddin came to his house and he sent his daughter Mumtaz with him and respectable persons of society assured him that accused persons would keep his daughter Mumtaz happy. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A the above fact was not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 16 that the respectable persons who are referred by him, were the relatives of all the accused but he is not aware of their names except one Mohd. Umar. He is also not aware the exact relation of Mohd. Umar with all the accused but Mohd. Umar is one of the relative of all the accused. Witness has admitted that Mohd. Umar belongs to Saifi community to which he and all the accused also belongs. According to the witness he hand not stated to SDM in his statement Ex.PW3/A that all the accused had kept his daughter very well for about 2 ½ months and thereafter again they started harass her on account of money. Witness has further deposed that he had stated to SDM that whenever his daughter Mumtaz used to come to his house, she disclosed him that all the accused were demanding money and used to beat and harassed her but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A the above fact was not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had not stated to SDM in his statement Ex.PW3/A that the accused and his two sisters namely Afsana and Imrana again demanded a sum of Rs one lac from his daughter Mumtaz and she told him about the said demand. According to the witness he had not stated to the SDM in statement Ex.PW3/A that when his daughter was pressurized by all the accused including Afsana and Imrana, his daughter Mumtaz gave a letter to his son Sartaj which was handed over to him by Sartaj and he got perplexed after the receipt of said letter from Sartaj. According to the witness in the said letter, deceased Mumtaz narrated about the humiliation and problems caused to her by all the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 17 accused and Afsana and Imrana were mentioned but he cannot tell the exact details.
(11) Witness has further deposed that the distance between his house and the house of all the accused is about 78 km and after marriage, his daughter used to visit his house once in three month. According to the witness, he had not stated to the SDM that he got prepared an FDR for a sum of Rs.45,000/ in the name of his daughter Mumtaz and has voluntarily explained that he had disclosed said fact to Investigating Officer. He has testified that at the time of marriage of his daughter Mumtaz, he had said before the accused Shahabuddin that he would give Rs.45,000/ by way of FDR but at that time, due to financial crisis, he could not give Rs.45,000/ to his daughter Mumtaz by way of FDR. According to the witness he had conveyed and informed to all the accused that he had given Rs.45,000/ by way of FDR to his daughter Mumtaz and FDR was got prepared for a period of five years. Witness has further deposed that he himself was as nominee in the said FDR and has voluntarily added that it was due to the reason that all the accused used to torture Mumtaz. Witness has further deposed that all the accused came to know about the issuance of said FDR after a period of about three months from the date of issuance and he himself disclosed about the FDR in the name of Mumtaz to all the accused after three months. He is unable to tell the exact date, month, time and year and states that it was in the month of December, 2006. Witness has further deposed that the said St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 18 FDR was got prepared under the scheme launched by the LIC but he cannot give the exact details of scheme launched by LIC. According to the witness he had not stated to SDM that when all the accused including Afsana and Imrana came to know about the said FDR then they pressurized to Mumtaz for its encashment. He is unable to tell whether his daughter Mumtaz had told all the accused that the said FDR cannot be encashed due to the reason that he was nominee. According to the witness he had not stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW3/A that when his daughter refused to encash the said FDR and to pay money, all the accused including Afsana and Imrana started harassing his daughter and they told his daughter that she could live in their house only after paying the amount of FDR and also to bring Rs one lac. He has also deposed that he had stated before the SDM that he was not aware that his daughter would come but she came all of a sudden while he was getting ready for going to his shop; that he went to his shop after formal talks with Mumtaz and came back in between at about 9:15 PM and at that time Mumtaz was getting ready to go to her matrimonial house. According to him, the FDR for Rs.45,000/ has never been encashed by him and said FDR is still in the name of his daughter Mumtaz. Witness has further deposed that he had stated to the investigating officer that he has given Rs.10,000/ on the demand to all the accused but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/DX1 it was not found so recorded. He does not remember whether he had stated to the Investigating Officer St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 19 that the car Maruti 800 which was given by him at the time of marriage of his daughter Mumtaz was got financed by him nor does he remember the exact cost price of the car and states that he got financed of Rs. Two lacs and balance sale consideration was paid by him out of his own savings. He is unable to tell whether at that time the cost price of the Maruti 800 was approximate Rs.2,20,000/ and states that it can only be disclosed by his son Mohd. Sartaj. Witness has further deposed that in so far as he remembers the EMI of loan amount was about Rs.5,600/ per month and he used to pay the EMI from his own account. He has testified that all the accused including Afsana and Imrana had started pressurizing his daughter Mumtaz for sale of car after about two months of her marriage and by that time, he had paid only threefour installments to the finance DD Motors, Mayapuri. According to the witness he had tried to make all the accused understand that the Maruti Car would not be sold as it was got financed by him and at that time, all the accused kept mum. The witness has further deposed that he had stated to the Investigating Officer regarding giving of some articles in the Chuchak as per demand of all the accused and he had also given a list of said articles to the police but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/DX1 the above fact was not so recorded. According to the witness he had stated to the Investigating Officer that prior to the killing of his daughter Mumtaz, she came to meet him at his house but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/DX1 the above fact was nor found so recorded. According to the witness, he St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 20 had not stated to the Investigating Officer that Mumtaz had also requested him to take her back to the parental house on 30.03.2007. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing said fact only at the advise of his counsel to make his case more strong against all the accused. He does not remember as to how many times in all the accused and Afsana and Imrana demanded money from him. He has testified that he had not given Rs. one lac to all the accused as per their demands for running/ purchase of the shop for accused Riyazuddin. According to the witness he had not given and could not give Rs. One Lac and Rs.45,000/ after encashing the FDR to all the accused. He has deposed that even then Mumtaz had conveyed desire of all the accused for said amount of Rs. one lac and Rs.45,000/ and had given Rs 10,000/ to accused Gyasuddin in the hospital when accused Shahbuddin was got admitted in hospital after fivesix days of marriage of Mumtaz. Witness has admitted that except for Rs.10,000/ he had never given any money or amount to all the accused as per their demand from the date of marriage till death of Mumtaz.
(12) He has also deposed that he had stated to investigating officer that Mumtaz used to talk and communicate with her sister in law (bhabhi) Lobana and that the seven pages Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 are in the handwriting of his daughter Mumtaz. According to the witness, he had not stated to the Investigating Officer that his daughter Mumtaz had studied upto class 8th and has voluntarily added that it was not asked by St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 21 the Investigating Officer. He is unable to tell when his son Sartaj had handed over pages Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 to the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily added that it can only be told by his son Sartaj. Witness has further deposed that his daughter Mumtaz had handed over the pages Ex.PW3/B to B7 to his son Sartaj about three years prior to her death and he did not lodge any police report after coming to know about the pages Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 and has voluntarily added that he did not lodge the police report to maintain the relationship. Witness has further deposed that he did not call common friends and relatives to inform them about the letters/ pages Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 nor did he lodge any complaint against all the accused, Afsana and Imrana or any of the accused before the police or CAW cell or any other forum for initiating any other legal action. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had obtained the signatures of his daughter Mumtaz at point A and B on revenue stamps of Ex.PW3/B5 and B7 respectively with a view to the get the FDR of Rs 45,000/ encashed. He has also denied the suggestion that pages Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 were fabricated by his son Sartaj with a view to implicate all the accused falsely. Witness has further deposed that his daughter Mumtaz had made the first demand of Rs.10,000/ during her matrimonial life. He does not remember whether his daughter Mumtaz was got engaged in the year 1999 with accused Riyazuddin but states that she got engaged about 2½ years prior to her marriage. According to the witness all the accused had raised the demand of car before marriage but St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 22 after engagement and further states that the demand of cash amount was not made during the said period. Witness has admitted that during the said period both the families were on visiting terms. According to the witness SDM has recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A during the night time but he cannot give the exact time. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement, after about ten minutes of recording his statement by SDM. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not make any allegation against all the accused except accused Riyazuddin as the said accused had never raised any dowry demand either from Mumtaz or him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he in connivance with his wife Zareena, his son Sartaj had lodged false complaint against all the accused only with a view to implicate them falsely. He has admitted that at the time of engagement accused Riyazuddin was working/ sitting with his father accused Shahbuddin at shop situated at Janakpuri. Witness has further deposed that when he had gone to see accused Riyazuddin for the purpose of marriage with his daughter at that time, he ascertained that accused Riyazuddin was working with his father. According to the witness, he did not make much inquiry about the monthly earning and individual financial position of accused Riyazuddin and states that during the period of 2 ½ years from the date of engagement till marriage, all the accused did not make him feel the need for ascertaining the financial position of the accused Riyazuddin. Witness has further deposed that all the accused during the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 23 period of 2 ½ years did not make any request to him for lending the money to them. He has testified that he was working/ running his business from the shop bearing No. A105, 1st floor, Kirti Nagar and has voluntarily added that after the death of his daughter Mumtaz he had stopped his business and had given the said shop to his brother in law. He does not remember when he purchased the said shop and states that he is the registered owner of said shop.
(13) The witness has further admitted that he did not hand over the copy of the LIC Policy to the police nor he told about the same to the police. According to the witness, he is the nominee of Mumtaz as per her policy. He has admitted that he has been maintaining business and maintaining bank account since last about 2022 years and that he had purchased the policies in the name of his children. He is not aware that the LIC Policy cannot be broken before its maturity. He has admitted that no demand was raised by the accused during the period between engagement and marriage. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Shahabuddin did not marry his son Riyazuddin with his daughter for three years after the engagement because he felt that the views of the two families were not compatible. He has admitted that he had asked for ITR Returns, Ration Card & Election I Card of the accused for getting the car financed in their name at the time of marriage and has voluntarily added that they demanded the car. He has however denied the suggestion that the accused Shahabuddin refused to give the aforesaid documents stating St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 24 that he does not want the car. According to the witness, the accused did not given the copy of ITR as they were not filing the income tax returns. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Shahabuddin refused to accept the car in dowry stating that he was a poor person and cannot even give a cycle in dowry to his unmarried daughters or that the gali in which the house is situated is a small gali where a car cannot pass. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused Shahabuddin even refused to accept the TV in dowry stating that the children waste their time in watching the TV and it is for this reason he had broken his own TV. He has further denied that Riazuddin came for the marriage in an old car or that after the marriage a quarrel took place since he insisted that his daughter would go in the new car but the accused refused and he insisted on taking the bride in the new car only to insult and embarrass the accused. He has admitted that accused Shahabuddin was admitted in the Mahajan Nursing Home after about three days of marriage because of a boil on his left leg but has denied that he remained unconscious for about 14 days. The witness has also admitted that he and his family had gone to see the accused Shahabuddin at Nursing Home and that after few days he was shifted to DDU Hospital and he also visited at DDU Hospital to inquire about the well being of accused Shahabuddin. He has admitted that from DDU Hospital Shahabuddin was shifted to Rajender Nagar Nursing Home and he and his family visited to see the accused and that his family had also sent food for Hazra at Rajender Nagar Nursing Home St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 25 as it was month of Ramzan. He has admitted that the leg of accused Shahabuddin was operated at the Nursing Home and that the family members of accused were looking after him at the Nursing Home. He is not aware whether accused Shahabuddin was passing urine on the bed at the Nursing Home. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Shahabuddin remained on bed for about six months after discharge from Nursing Home and has voluntarily explained that he remained on bed for about 1 ½ months. The witness has admitted that occasionally he and his family visited the house of accused Shahabuddin to inquire about his well being after his discharge from the Nursing Home.
(14) According to the witness, the accused Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin were having a joint business at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that accused Riyazuddin and his wife were residing at his house as long as accused Shahabuddin was admitted in the hospital or that Riyazuddin was earning about Rs.1,200/ to Rs.1,500/ per day prior to his marriage. He has further denied that accused Riyazuddin used to spend his income on himself and his wife at his house as long as Shahabuddin was in the hospital. He is not aware if the accused Shahabuddin had incurred about Rs. Five lacs on his treatment or if accused Shahabuddin had obtained a loan of Rs. One lac from Janakpuri Builder Surajbhan in May 2004 to meet the expenses of treatment. He is also not aware if accused Shahabuddin had obtained a loan of Rs. 97,796/ from ICICI Bank on 16.11.2004 to repay the loan amount to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 26 Surajbhan. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Shahabuddin did not demand any money from him for his treatment. He is unable to tell the exact number of times when accused Shahabuddin demand money from him and his daughter to meet the expenses of his treatment. He is also not aware whether accused Shahabuddin also obtained a loan of Rs. 19,200/ from Standard Chartered Bank to meet his medical expenses and if he had obtained a personal loan of Rs.52,415.94 from City Bank on 13.12.2005 for the aforesaid purpose. According to the witness, he had submitted the copy of the ITR (Income Tax Return) for obtaining the loan for car. He has also deposed that he had purchased Kirti Nagar shop about eight months after the marriage of his daughter. The witness has testified that he did not tell Mehruddin that the accused had sold the jewellery of his daughter and did not ask him to impress upon the accused to return the same. He has denied that with the intervention of Mehruddin the jewellery articles of his daughter were returned or that he purchased the shop after selling the said jewellery. He has denied that in the meeting for the return of the gold articles Mr. Iqbal was also present and has voluntarily explained that no such meeting took place. The witness has admitted that the child of the deceased was born at DDU Hospital and that the children in his family were born in Nursing Homes. He has further denied that his wife quarreled and torn the clothes of the accused Hazra at DDU Hospital at the time of birth of son of his daughter because of the reason that they had got the delivery done at DDU St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 27 Hospital and not in private Nursing Home. He has also denied that when accused Gyasuddin tried to save his mother Hazra, he (witness) beat him with a helmet due to which he fell down. The witness has further denied that he and his wife took his daughter and grandson from DDU Hospital, three days after the delivery and at that time he (witness) threatened the accused that he would kill them in case they approached his house for his daughter and grandson.
(15) He has also denied the suggestion that his wife was annoyed with his daughter on her meeting with the accused Riyazuddin or that his wife had beaten his daughter once for the reason that she had met her husband in a Restaurant. The witness has further denied that after about 1½ months of the delivery when his daughter and his wife went to the Doctor's clinic for administering drops to the child, accused Riazuddin met them where his wife quarreled with Riazuddin and handed over the child to him and walked back. He has also denied that the accused Riyazuddin and Hazra came to his house with the child at 12:00 night as the child was getting desperate for mother's feed or that he, his wife and his son Sartaj picked up quarrel with Riazuddin and Hazra and tore their clothes. The witness has further denied that while his daughter was taking the child inside, his wife tried to snatch the child from her in which process the child fell on the ground and sustained injuries on the right side of his head or that the matter was reported at Police Chowki in the night. The witness has also denied that his wife stated before the police St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 28 that his daughter would not live with this Kangla or that his wife told Mumtaz that if she took the child, she would think she is dead for her. He has further denied that his wife is a quarrelsome lady on account of which he himself became a heart patient or that his wife is solely responsible for suicide of his daughter. He has also denied that on 21.3.2005 accused Riyazuddin and his wife had purchased clothes for him, his wife and other family members of that when Riazuddin was about to leave, his daughter told his wife to ask the accused Riyazuddin to stay back but she was snubbed by his wife telling that Kangle ko jane de. He has further denied that there had always been quarrel between his wife and his daughter on account of accused persons meeting the grandson and Mumtaz. The witness has also denied that on 28.3.2007 when he and his family had gone to a village for attending the marriage in their absence when the accused Riazuddin took Mumtaz and his son to her matrimonial home or that life of Mumtaz had become a hell as she was unable to decide to live with her mother or with her husband due to which reason she committed suicide. He has also denied that he made no payment of Rs.10,000/ to the accused but has admitted that except Rs.10,000/ he made no payment to the accused against their demands.
(16) PW4 Smt. Zareena is the mother of the deceased Mumtaz. She has deposed that Mumtaz was married to accused Riyazuddin on 6.10.2003 and the gave a Maruti car, 20 tolas gold, silver jewellery, furniture fridge, cooler and clothes etc. in the marriage. According to the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 29 witness, the father in law of his daughter Mumtaz i.e. accused Shahabuddin was admitted in Mahajan Hospital at Uttam Nagar and the mother in law of her daughter namely Hazra, Jeth Gyasuddin, Husband Riyazuddin, Nanands Afsana and Imrana started taunting Mumtaz saying "iske pair ache nahi hai, kambakht aye hai" and due to her Shahabuddin had fallen ill. She has further deposed her husband had paid Rs.10,000/ to the inlaws of her daughter Mumtaz for the treatment of Shahabuddin and her son had also donated blood for Shahabuddin. According to her, the accused persons tortured Mumtaz and pressurized her for bringing Rs. One Lac so that accused Riyazuddin may open a shop and accused persons sold out the jewellery of her daughter which were given at the time of her marriage. The witness has testified that her daughter came back to her house and informed her that she was being taunted and tortured by the accused persons. She has further deposed that her daughter was blessed with a son one year after her marriage but she was not allowed to come to her house on completion of 40 days of the birth of the child and she was sent after about two months of the birth of child. According to her, Mumtaz remained at her house for about one month and when she went back to her matrimonial house, she was tortured and beaten as to why she has not brought Rs. One lac from her parents. She has testified that Mumtaz was asked by the accused Shahabuddin to get the car transferred from her name in the name of Riyazuddin so that they may be able to sell out the car and she was also asked to bring Rs. One St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 30 lac and encash the FDR of Rs.45,000/ which was in the name of Mumtaz. The witness has also deposed that during the day time the mother in law Hazra and Nanand Imrana and Afsana used to beat and torture Mumtaz and in the evening on the return of Riyazuddin and Shahabuddin they used to provoke them and they used to beat Mumtaz. According to the witness, the torture of Mumtaz started since the time the accused Shahabuddin fell ill and continued till she was killed by the accused. She has also deposed that when the son of Mumtaz was one year old she was mercilessly beaten by the accused Hazra, Imrana, Afsana and Gyasuddin resulting in swelling on her face and blue marks on her body and in the evening the accused Riyazuddin and Shahabuddin also beat Mumtaz on the instigation of Hazra. According to her, at about 11:30 PM accused Riyazuddin telephoned to her elder son Sartaj asking him to take back his sister Mumtaz pursuant to which she along with her husband, son and mediator Mehruddin went to the house of the accused where the accused persons abused them and pushed her. She has testified that the accused Riyazuddin, Gyasuddin and Shahabuddin also beat her husband and son. According to her, they wanted to take back Mumtaz but on the intervention of Mehruddin they brought back Mumtaz after four days only in the clothes which she was wearing and she was not allowed to take other clothes. The witness has also deposed that Mumtaz remained at their house for about eight months and no one from the accused persons came to take back Mumtaz and the respectable persons St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 31 from the community pressurized them to send Mumtaz back to her matrimonial home on which they sent back Mumtaj. According to her, Mumtaz lived happily for a month and a half at her matrimonial home after which accused persons started harassing and beating her and asked her to bring Rs. One lac to get the car transferred in the name of accused Shahabuddin and for encashing the FDR. The witness has further testified that one day when her son Sartaj went to see Mumtaz, when Mumtaz gave a letter in writing to him stating that she was being harassed by the accused. According to her, on 21st March, year she does not remember, the accused Riyazuddin left her daughter in old clothes at her house and went for his work and when she questioned Mumtaz as to why she was wearing old clothes, Mumtaz disclosed that he nanand Imrana and Afsana did not allow her to wear her new clothes telling that they were meant for nanand only. She has further testified that Mumtaz told her that accused persons were pressurizing and torturing her to bring Rs. One lac and to get the car transferred in the name of Shahabuddin and also to encash the FDR. The witness has also deposed that Riyazuddin took back Mumtaz on 21st March at about 9:30PM. She has further deposed that she had told Riyazuddin and Mumtaz that they would be going to their village on 28th March and that her brother would bring her to her parent's house on 30th March. According to the witness, on 29th March she, her husband, Sartaj and Shabana went to the village on 28th March and on 29th March accused Shahabuddin informed them St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 32 telephonically that her daughter was serious and after five minutes another call was received from a police official from the mobile of accused Shahabuddin telling her husband that Mumtaz had herself hanged and they should immediately reach to DDU Hospital. She has testified that she immediately rushed to DDU Hospital from their village but by that time Mumtaz had died. The witness has further deposed that they were not even shown the dead body of their daughter on 29th March and they obtained the dead body after postmortem on 30th March. According to the witness, her statement was recorded at DDU Hospital which is Ex.PW4/A. (17) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that her son Sartaj is well educated and is a Lecturer and her other children were also well educated. According to the witness, she had told the SDM that accused Shahabuddin had fallen ill six days after the marriage of Mumtaz; that all accused persons had demanded Rs. One lac from the deceased Mumtaz for opening the shop for Riyazuddin. However, when confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/A the above facts were not found so recorded. She is unable to tell the name of bank from which the FDR was issued and when the FDR was given to the deceased or whether it was given before the birth of the child or thereafter. The witness has admitted that she has not seen the alleged FDR and has explained that she is illiterate and therefore cannot tell whether Mark A is the policy which was got made in the name of Mumtaz. According to the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 33 witness, her husband and son Sartaj had purchased the car from their money. She has testified that she had stated before the SDM that Mumtaz was asked to bring Rs. One lac and encash the FDR of Rs. One lac. When confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/A it was found recorded that Rs. One lac was demanded for opening the shop. She does not remember whether she had stated before the SDM that the accused persons started taunting the deceased iske pair ache nahi hai, kambakht aye hai. The witness has deposed that she suffered paralysis 16 years back for which reason sometimes she forget certain things. She has testified that her husband had paid Rs.10,000/ to Gyasuddin at the Hospital but she was not present at that time. She has also deposed that she has stated to the SDM in her statement that the accused persons had sold out the gold and silver jewellery of her daughter which was given to her in her marriage. She does not remember whether she stated to the SDM that her daughter Mumtaz came back to her house and told that she was being tortured by the accused persons. She also does not remember whether she stated to the SDM that her daughter was not allowed to come to her house on completion of 40 days of the birth of the child or that her daughter was sent to her house two months after the birth of the child. According to the witness, she had stated to the SDM that when Mumtaz went back to her matrimonial house, she was beaten and tortured by the accused persons asked her as to why she had not brought Rs. One lac from her parents. However, when confronted with her statement St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 34 Ex.PW4/A the above fact was not found so recorded. She does not remember whether she had stated before the SDM that thereafter the accused persons started harassing and beating Mumtaz asking her to bring Rs. One lac to get the car transferred in the name of accused Shahabuddin and for encashing the FDR. According to the witness, she had stated to the SDM that one day when her son Sartaj went to see his sister Mumtaz she gave a letter in writing to him stating that she was being harassed by the accused. She does not remember whether she stated before the SDM the fact of accused Riyazuddin having left her daughter on 21st March and also the fact that Mumtaz disclosed to her that her nanand Imrana and Afsana did not allow her to wear her new clothes. She also does not remember whether she stated before the SDM that the accused Riyazuddin took Mumtaz back to her matrimonial home at about 9:30 PM on 21st March or whether she had told Riyazuddin and Mumtaz that they would be going to their village on 28th March and her brother would bring her to her parents house on 30th March and has voluntarily explained that she was in grief at that time because of the death of her daughter. According to the witness, the marriage of her daughter with accused Riyazuddin was performed in the year 2003 but she does not remember the year in which she expired. She is unable to tell the dates and months of the years when the demands were made from her daughter as she is an illiterate. She is also unable to tell the date and month and year when Mumtaz was beaten by the accused and has denied the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 35 suggestion that her husband and her son tutored her not to give the dates and years because the entire story is cooked. She is unable to tell the year and month in which Kirti Nagar property was purchased she does not remember whether the roka/ engagement ceremony of Mumtaz and Riyazuddin was performed about three or four years before their marriage. She has admitted that the marriage was performed, long after the roka/ engagement ceremony. She is not aware whether the accused made any dowry demand after the roka/ engagement ceremony but before the marriage and also that the family of accused Shahabuddin is on lower footing financially than their family. She has denied the suggestion that accused Shahabuddin had refused to accept the car in dowry stating that he himself had not even given a cycle to his daughters in their marriage and hence he cannot accept the car or that the mediator Mehruddin was asked to get the ration card and income tax returns of Shahabuddin for getting the car registered in his name but he refused. The witness has further denied that Shahabuddin refused to accept the TV stating that he had broken his earlier TV as the children get spoiled by watching the TV. She is not aware of the place where Riyazuddin was to open the shop after getting Rs. One lac from them. She has testified that the accused persons had asked for complete dowry from them. According to her, the clothes etc. of her daughter were given by them at their own but the other articles of dowry were given on the asking of the accused. She has further deposed that she, her husband and children were living in a joint St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 36 family and therefore all the gift/ dowry articles were given jointly. She is unable to tell as to how many months before the marriage the jewellery articles were purchased. She has denied the suggestion that accused Riyazuddin came with barat in an old car and Mumtaz went in doli in the new car given by them or that accused accused Shahabuddin insisted to take the doli in the old car stating that he does not want a new car but with a view to insult and embarrass him, she put a condition that she will let the doli go only in a new car.
(18) The witness Zareena has further deposed that the accused Shahabuddin was having a boil at the time of the marriage and was admitted in the hospital threefour days after the marriage. She has admitted that she and her family went to the Nursing Home to see Shahabuddin but she is unable to tell whether Shahbuddin remained admitted at Nursing Home for about 2025 days. She does not remember whether accused Shahbuddin was shifted to DDU hospital from the Nursing Home nor she is aware whether accused Shahbuddin had undergone any operation at DDU Hospital which operation had failed. She is also unable to tell whether Shahabuddin remained admitted for about one month at DDU Hospital. Witness has admitted that accused Shahbuddin also remained admitted at Rajender Nagar Nursing Home. She has testified that she did not herself visit the house of accused Shahbuddin after his discharge to inquire his well being and her husband might have visited but she was not sure. She is also not aware whether St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 37 accused Shahbuddin remained on bed for about two months after his discharge from Rajender Nagar Nursing Home. She has denied the suggestion that so long as accused Shahbuddin remained admitted at the hospital, accused Riyazuddin and her daughter Mumtaz were residing at her house and has voluntarily added that Mumtaz did not visit to her house during that period. She is not aware that accused Hazra used to look after accused Shahbuddin at the hospital/ nursing home and whether accused Shahbuddin and accused Riyazuddin were working on the same shop before and after the marriage. According to the witness, she did not ask at the time of engagement about the business and income of Riyazuddin. Witness has admitted that both the children of her daughter in law were born in a private nursing home. She is not aware whether Mumtaz gave birth to her child at DDU hospital and states that she did not go to see the newly born son of her daughter as she was not informed. Witness has denied the suggestion that she visited DDU Hospital where she picked up fight with accused Hazra and torn her clothes, asking her as to why her daughter has not brought to private nursing home. (19) She has further deposed that the torture, taunts and demands started since when the accused Shahbuddin was got admitted in the Nursing Home but they did not lodge any complaint either at police station, women cell or any government authority regarding the same nor did they approach Saifi Samaj to which both the parties belonged for sorting out the problem and has voluntarily added that they did not make St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 38 any complaint because they wanted that their daughter should settle at her in laws house and did not want to spoil her marital life. Witness has further deposed that she did not discuss the torture, dowry demand and taunts either with her parents family, her in laws family or neighbors and has voluntarily added that she wanted that her daughter should settle in her matrimonial house. Witness has further deposed that she did not make any complaint to the neighbors of the accused nor she lodged any report to the police regarding the incident of beating by Riyazuddin and Shahbuddin at the instigation of Hazra or regarding the beating given to her husband and her son by Riyazuddin, Gyasuddin and Shahbuddin and has voluntarily added that they made no complaint as they did not want to spoil the marital life of her daughter. Witness has denied the suggestion that she, her husband and her son Sartaj beaten the accused Gyasuddin with helmet and tore the clothes of Hazra or that accused persons made a complaint to the police and on their complaint they were taken to the police station where a compromise took place and an assurance was given by them that they would not beat the accused persons in future. She does not remember the year, date and month of the aforesaid incident stated by her in her examination in chief. According to her, she did not get Mumtaz medically examined for the injuries and has voluntarily added that she was at her matrimonial home at that time. Witness has further deposed that she did not lodge any complaint of the incident of the beating to the police and she herself did not discuss the issue of torture, beating and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 39 dowry demand with the accused either at her house or at their house and has voluntarily added that her husband might have talked with them. According to the witness they had been telling their daughter that everything would be sorted out by the passage of time. She does not remember the dates/ months/ years in which Mumtaz was beaten up by the accused persons. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was causing all the disputes between Mumtaz and her in laws and between the two families or that she insisted the accused Shahbuddin to separate the accused Riyazuddin by providing him a separate shop and house. She has further denied that accused Shahbuddin told him that he was not having sufficient means to provide separate house and shop for Riyazuddin as he was yet to marry his two daughters. She is not aware whether her husband had talked with Shahbuddin for providing separate house and shop for Riyazuddin. The witness has testified that she has been residing in Delhi for about 25 years. She does not remember in which year she got married and states that she was about 12 years at the time of her marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that she got her husband separated from his family and in the same manner she wanted her daughter to live separately from her in laws or that she has been maintaining any relations with the relatives of her husband since the last 25 years or that no relatives of her husband's family was invited for the marriage of Mumtaz. Witness has further denied the suggestion that no relatives from her husband side can be seen the photograph Mark A and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 40 has explained that many relatives from her husband side including dever Jainuddin, Nandoi Sher Mohd. can be seen in photograph at points A and B and her father in law also attended the marriage. Witness has admitted that he is not seen in the photograph mark A and that the photograph mark B (bicholia) Iqbal is on the driver seat with his son in law on the adjacent seat. According to the witness it may be seen from photograph mark B that her daughter was ready for bidai.
(20) She has denied the suggestion that a Panchyat took place at the house of accused Shahbuddin where accused Shahbuddin returned all the jewelery articles in the presence of Mehruddin and Iqbal or that the Kirti Nagar shop was purchased in her name after selling the jewelery articles of Mumtaz. She does not remember whether Kirti Nagar shop was purchased in her name before or after the birth of son of Mumtaz. Witness has admitted that the shop was purchased after the marriage of Mumtaz. She has denied the suggestion that she has deliberately concealed the date of purchase of shop. Witness has further deposed that she did not give any statement to the police. She does not remember whether she was called by the police to record the statement. Witness has denied the suggestion that the police had called her but had not recorded her statement in collusion with her husband and her son as the entire story was cooked up and may not have sustained in the Court. Witness has admitted that accused Shahbuddin has five daughters including three married daughters and that accused Gyasuddin son of accused St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 41 Shahbuddin is handicap and walks with the helps of baisakhi. She is not aware if accused Shahbuddin had not even given a cycle in dowry in marriage of his three daughters and has voluntarily explained that their marriage was performed before the marriage of Riyazuddin. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Shahbuddin did not make any dowry demand from them because he himself had not given any dowry to his daughters. She has admitted that her husband is a heart patient for the last ten years but has denied the suggestion that he has become a heart patient because of her quarrelsome nature or that she and her family are being cursed by Saifi Samaj for falsely implicating the accused. She has also denied that when she went to DDU hospital to collect the body of the deceased, she had abused and had beaten the members of Saifi Samaj present in the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that she had beaten and had thrown out her husband in the year 1990 or that he returned back home only after a year or that she was disrespectful towards her in laws or that they always showed disrespect towards accused Shahbuddin and his family. Witness has denied the suggestion that she never gave respect to Riyazuddin as son in law. She is also not aware if the income of Riyazuddin from the shop was about Rs.12001500/ per day. Witness has denied the suggestion that Riyazuddin used to spent all earning on Mumtaz and her family or that Gyasuddin and his wife are residing on the second floor of the house and has voluntarily added that they are running factory on the second floor and residing on the ground St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 42 floor. Witness has further denied the suggestion that Gyasuddin had to bear the expenses of the treatment of accused Shahbuddin because Riyazuddin was not bearing the same. She is not aware if Rs. Five Lacs were spent on the treatment of accused Shahbuddin and if in the year 2003 accused Shahbuddin obtained a loan of Rs. One lac from a builder Suraj Bhan for his treatment and also obtained a loan of Rs.97,796/ on 16.11.2004 from ICICI bank and returned the loan amount to Suraj Bhan. Witness has denied the suggestion that no demand was made from them as accused Shahbuddin had obtained loan for his treatment. She is not aware whether the accused had obtained a loan of Rs.19,200/ from Standard Chartered Bank on 24.06.2005 to meet his medical expenses and whether accused Shahbuddin obtained a loan of Rs.52,415/ on 13.12.2005 from City Bank to meet his medical expenses. She is also not aware whether accused Shahbudin obtained a loan of Rs.29,669/ from City Financial to meet his medical expenses. Witness has denied the suggestion that they forcibly took Mumtaz and her son from DDU hospital to their house or that she threatened to kill the accused persons in case they dare to enter her house to meet the child or that she had been cursing herself and her daughter for relation with accused. She is not aware why the marriage was not performed for three years after engagement. Witness has denied the suggestion that it was not performed because accused Shahbuddin was having a feeling that there was no compatibility between the two families or that the marriage was St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 43 performed on the pressure of her husband, bicholia and Iqbal. Witness has further denied the suggestion that she had beaten her daughter several times when she came to meet her against the wishes of Riyazuddin or that she took her daughter and grandson to doctor for administering the drops to the child where her daughter had called Riyazuddin and Hazra where she picked up quarrel with Riyazuddin and Hazra and put the child in their lap and took Mumtaz to her house. Witness has denied the suggestion that in the night at about 12 PM Hazra and Riyazuddin came at her house to deliver back the child who was getting desperate for mother's feed or that she and her husband and her son picked up quarrel with Riyazuddin and Hazra and torn their clothes. She has also denied that while her daughter was taking the child inside she tried to snatch the child from her and in the process the child fell down on the ground and sustained injuries on right side of his head. She has denied the various suggestions put to her by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
(21) PW5 Mohd. Sartaj is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that the marriage of Mumtaz was solemnized with accused Riyazuddin on 06.10.2013 and the marriage card is Ex.PW5/A. According to the witness they gave clothes, utensils, furniture, electronic goods, gold and silver ornaments, Maruti car and Rs.21,000/ cash in the marriage. He has further deposed that after threefour days of the marriage accused Shahbuddin the father in law of Mumtaz got admitted in Mahajan Nursing Home, Uttam Nagar, Arya Samaj Road as he was St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 44 having a boil. Witness has further deposed that accused Gyasuddin (Jeth of Mumtaz), mother in law Hazra and accused Riyazuddin husband (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) and nanands Imrana and Afsana (Proclaimed Offenders) started taunting his sister "tere pair hamare ghar mai theek nahi pade hai, tu abhagi hai, teri vajahe se hamare pitaji bimar pad gaye hai". According to the witness they went to see accused Shahbuddin at the Nursing Home where he and accused Gyasuddin demanded money from them pursuant to which they gave Rs.10,000/ to accused Gayasuddin. Witness has further deposed that accused Shahbuddin shifted to DDU hospital for treatment where her younger brother donated one unit of blood to accused Shahbuddin and they came to know through somebody that there is a good nursing home at Rajender Nagar and hence they got the accused Shahbuddin shifted to the said Nursing Home and got him treated and was operated. Witness has further deposed that he and his father took full care of accused Shahbuddin and had also borne some of the expenses of medicines but the accused persons continued their taunts to her sister Mumtaz. According to him, accused Shahbuddin was discharged from Nursing Home after treatment after which once his sister Mumtaz came at their house and informed that the accused have sold off her ornaments to pay their debts and the accused also wanted to sell off the car but could sell the same as it was in the name of Mumtaz. Witness has testified that they started beating Mumtaz and pressurized her to get the car transferred in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 45 their name but he and his father refused to the same as it was financed on which the accused Shahbuddin, Gyasuddin and Riyazuddin demanded Rs. One Lac in cash for getting separate shop for accused Riyazuddin but they refused to pay Rs. One Lac since they were not in a position to pay the money. Witness has further deposed that Mumtaz was not allowed to use the clothes and utensils which were given by them in marriage and her nanads used to tell that the said clothes and utensils were meant for them and when his sister objected to the same, she was subjected to abuses during the day time and in the evening they used to provoke the accused Shahbuddin and accused Riyazuddin against Mumtaz. He has testified that Mumtaz gave birth to a son after about an year of marriage and as per practice usually, the girl is sent to her parent's house on completion of 40 days of the birth of the child but she was allowed to come to their house after about two months of the delivery. According to the witness when she returned back to her matrimonial home, the same problems continued and his sister had also informed him telephonically that the accused persons have refused to pay for the insurance of the car because of the reason that car was not transferred in their name and therefore he (witness) paid the first year premium for the insurance of the car. He has further deposed that they invited Mumtaz to their house in April, 2005 and when he was to go to bring her to their house the accused persons told that they would send Mumtaz either in April end or in May and on 30.04.2005 night accused Riyazuddin made a telephone call to him St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 46 asking him to immediately take back Mumtaz. According to the witness on the insistence of Riyazuddin, he along with his father, mother, younger brother and bicholia Mehruddin (mediator) went to the house of accused where they saw injury on the lips of Mumtaz and blue marks on her face. According to him, her bangles on the wrist were broken and on questioning she informed that all accused persons along with Imrana and Afsana had beaten her and when she told the accused that she would inform the police and neighbors about their behaviour, they again beat her and did not allow her to leave the house. The witness has testified that while she was narrating all this to them, accused Shahbuddin pushed his sister threatening that he would see what her family members will do and on their objection all the accused persons along with Imrana and Afsana beat them. Witness has further deposed that they wanted to bring Mumtaz back to their house but on the persuasion of mediator Mehruddin it was decided that they would take her back after three days and they then came back to their house. Witness has also deposed that on 04.05.2005 his father Shahbuddin went to the house of the accused to bring back Mumtaz and his father was not received well at the house of the accused and was not even offered a cup of tea and accused persons did not even talk to him. According to the witness his father brought back Mumtaz only in the wearing clothes and accused Shahbuddin and Riyazuddin while leaving the house in the morning retorted that how long the parents to Mumtaz would be able to keep her and also said that she St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 47 can returned back only when she brings Rs. One Lac with her. Witness has also deposed that Mumtaz stayed with them for about seven to eight months at their house and during this period the accused never inquired about her and the people from the biradari tried their best to pressurize the accused to take back Mumtaz but they did not agree and kept insisting that they would take nor her back unless she brings Rs. One Lac cash and gets the car transferred in their name. According to the witness people from the biradari also pressurized him to sent Mumtaz to her matrimonial home assuring that they take the responsibility that she would not be tortured and beaten at her matrimonial home and at the pressure of the biradari they sent Mumtaz to her matrimonial home in December, 2005 with accused Riyazuddin but after few days she was again pressurized for bringing Rs. One Lac and get the car transferred. He has further testified that Mumtaz had also informed that she was not even being served the breakfast. According to the witness, he used to extend financial help to her by giving Rs.2,0004,000/ as and when he used to go and meet her. Witness has further deposed that in April or May, 2006 when he had gone to meet her, she gave him a letter in her handwriting Ex.PW3/B. Witness has further deposed that his sister learn stitching from Vikasani Mahila Vikas Karyakaram and the form which she filled for admission in the said institute is Ex.PW5/A which is in her own handwriting, which he has identified as he had seen her writing and signing. According to the witness, he came back at his house and showed St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 48 the letter to his father and they had also shown the letter to the members of biradari on whose responsibility they had sent Mumtaz to her matrimonial home. Witness has further deposed that at the time of marriage of Mumtaz his father had announced that he would give an FDR to Mumtaz and ultimately his father decided that he would give something to Mumtaz and for this he got an FD (Fixed Deposit) for Rs. 45,000/ made from LIC in market plus scheme which policy is Mark A. Witness has testified that in December, 2006 when the accused persons came to know about this FD, they started putting pressure to Mumtaz asking her to encash the FD and to bring Rs. one lac and also to get the car transferred in their name.
(22) He has further deposed that on 23.03.2007 accused Riyazuddin repeated his demands on telephone to him for encashment of FD, Rs. One Lac and transfer of car in his name and also threatened that in case their demands are not met, his sister would not stay alive. The witness has testified that he told Riyazuddin that they would go to the village on 28.03.2007 and would return back on 29.03.2007 after which and they would meet and talk about it. According to the witness he also told him that he should talk about settling in marital life and not to spoil the same. Witness has further deposed that they went to the village on 28.03.2007 and on 29.03.2007 at about 12:30 PM accused Shahbuddin gave a telephone call to his father telling him that Mumtaz is seriously unwell and was being rushed to DDU Hospital and asked them to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 49 immediately reach the hospital. According to the witness after about five minutes another call was received from the telephone of Shahbuddin from ASI Om Parkash that Mumtaz has been hanged and asked him to immediately reached to DDU hospital on which they immediately rushed back from the village and reached DDU hospital in the evening, where they came to know that Mumtaz had expired. Witness has further deposed that the accused persons killed Mumtaz due to their greed for money and the letter Ex.PW3/B was handed over to the police by him which was seized vide memo Mark B which bears his signatures at point X. He has also deposed that on 30.03.2007 he identified the dead body of his sister and his statement in this respect was recorded which is Ex.PW5/B and the dead body was handed over to him and his father vide receipt Ex.PW5/C and police recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. (23) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he did not tell the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding giving of Rs.21,000/ cash at the time of marriage and has voluntarily added that at that time he was in grief and sorrow. Witness has denied the suggestion that Rs.21,000/ cash was not given. Witness has further deposed that he had stated to the police that the accused persons including Imrana and Afsana had started taunting his sister. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/DA only the name of Hazra is found recorded. According to the witness he did not tell in the statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Shahbuddin and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 50 Gyasuddin had demanded money from them at Mahajan Nursing home and was shifted to DDU Hospital. He has further deposed that he did not state in the statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. that they got the accused Shahbuddin shifted to Rajender Nagar Nursing Home and got him treated their but he does not remember whether he stated that they looked after accused Shahbuddin and had borne the expenses of his medicines. He also does not remember whether he stated in the statement that accused persons continued with their taunts and what he mean is that he might have or might have not stated the aforesaid facts to the police. According to the witness he had stated in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that his sister had informed that the accused persons had sold her ornaments to pay the debts after discharge of accused Shahbuddin from hospital; that accused wanted to sell the car but could not sell the same as it was in the name of Mumtaz and used to beat her to get the car transferred in their name; that he and his father refused to get the car transferred in the name of accused. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/DA the above facts were not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he did not tell the police in the statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. that he and his father informed the accused that the car cannot be transferred in their name as it was financed. According to the witness the accused did not tell them where the shop for Riyazuddin was to be purchased and he did not state in the statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. that they refused to pay Rs one lac telling what they were not in a financial position to pay the same. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 51 (24) The witness has testified that he had stated to the police that his sister was subjected to abuses during the day time and in the evening they used to provoke the accused Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin against Mumtaz. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/DA the above facts were not found so recorded. According to the witness he did not state to the police that his sister had informed him that accused had refused to pay for the insurance of the car because it was not transferred in their name and hence he himself paid the first year premium of the insurance of the car; that when he along with his parents visited the matrimonial house of Mumtaz, he saw injury on her lips and blue marks on her face, her bangles on the wrist were broken and on question Mumtaz informed them that she had been beaten by accused persons and has voluntarily explained that he had told the police that she was beaten up by all the accused. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/DA the above facts were not found so recorded. The witness has testified that he had not stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that his sister informed them that when she told the accused that she would inform the police and neighbourers about their behaviour they again beat her and dd not allow her to leave the house; that his father was not received well at the house of the accused; that the accused Riyazuddin and Shahabuddin while leaving the house retorted that how long the parents of Mumtaz will be able to keep her and she can return back only when she brought Rs. One Lac with her; that during this period the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 52 accused never inquired about her; that the people from the community tried their best to pressurize the accused to take back Mumtaz but the accused insisted that Mumtaz should bring Rs. One Lac and get the car transferred in their name; that the people from the community also pressurized them to sent Mumtaz to her matrimonial home and took the responsibility pursuant to which in December 2005 they sent Mumtaz back to her matrimonial house but after few days she was again taunted for not bringing Rs. One Lac and for not getting the car transferred. According to the witness, he has informed the police that the letter was in the handwriting of Mumtaz when it was seized on 16.4.2007 but he had not given anything in writing to the police to the effect that the said letters were in the handwriting of his sister or that he had seen her while writing or signing nor police recorded his statement to this effect. He has further deposed that he had not stated in his statement to the police that his sister learnt stitching from Vikasani Mahila Vikas Karyakaram or that he identified the signatures of his sister on Ex.PW5/A. He has also deposed that he did not tell the police in his statement that at the time of marriage of Mumtaz, his father had announced that he would give an FDR to Mumtaz but ultimately his father had decided that he would give something to Mumtaz and then got prepared an FDR of Rs.45,000/ made from LIC; that in December 2006 when the accused persons came to know about this FDR they started putting pressure on her asking her her to encash the FDR, to bring Rs. One Lac and to get the car transferred in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 53 their name and has voluntarily added that he had only stated in his statement that on 23.3.2007 accused Riyazuddin telephonically asked him to encash the FDR and fulfill his other demand raised earlier otherwise his sister would not stay alive. According to the witness, he got terrified about the safety and security of his sister but did not report this matter to the police or to his family members or to the community from 23.3.2007 to 28.3.2007 since he wanted his sister to settle in her matrimonial home and did not want the same to be spoiled. On a specific question the witness stated that he tried to persuade and made understand Riyazuddin not to spoil his marital life and also told him that they were going to village and would settle the issue on return. He has testified that he did not bring his sister to his home to save her from their threat and also did not take her to village along with them. According to the witness, he had kept the letter Ex.PW3/B in his small almirah in which he usually keeps his books. He has explained that it was only when the police asked on 16.4.2007 that he handed over the letter to the police after 18 days. He has further deposed that he had offered to give letter to the police on the date of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the police told that they would take the letter when the same is required. He is unable to tell why his sister had signed on revenue stamps. He has denied the suggestion that he had forged the letter Ex.PW3/B or that they had encashed the FDR and for that purpose they had taken the signatures of Mumtaz on differed revenue stamps.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 54 (25) The witness has also deposed that whatever he had stated in his examination in chief, was also stated to different people of community including Mohd. Omar, Mehruddin and Iqbal. He has further deposed that they had paid Rs. 10,000/ to the accused Gyasuddin with the expectation that he would return the same but he does not remember the date on which money was given to the accused nor is he able to tell the date and month when his sister informed him that the accused had sold her ornaments since his sister did not tell the date of selling her ornaments. He has testified that no complaint regarding the same was made in the community/ Biradari, Women Cell or to the police nor did he and his father go to the house of accused to complain about the same. According to the witness, they had informed Mehruddin that the accused were pressurizing for the transfer of the case in their name. He is unable to tell the date and month when Mumtaz was pressurized for the first time for transfer of the car and states that it may be within fivesix months of the marriage. He has admitted that the dowry articles and the car were displayed for the Biradari at the time of marriage. He is not aware if his father had asked accused Shahabuddin for giving the copy of ITR (Income Tax Return) and ration card to get the car financed in the name of Riyazuddin but the accused Shahabuddin refused to do so because he was not willing to take car for his son. He has explained that the finance amount was Rs.1,70,000/ and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/ to Rs. 55,000/ was paid in cash from his father's account. According to the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 55 witness, at the time of giving the car on the date of marriage, the entire documents of the car were given to the accused and they (accused) might have come to know about the finance of the car on the day of marriage itself. He has denied the suggestion that they had given the car in dowry for their prestige and family status and has voluntarily added that the car was demanded by the accused persons. He has further testified that the accused Shahabuddin demanded the car from his father one month prior to the marriage when his father had gone at the shop of accused to meet him. He does not remember the day and date when the accused had demanded Rs. One Lac in lieu of car for getting separate shop for accused Riyazuddin nor does he remember the day, date and month when they had refused cash of Rs. One Lac to the accused. He has admitted that his father owns a floor and his mother also owns a floor in the commercial property in Kirti Nagar admeasuring 100 sq. yards each. According to the witness, his father might have purchased the floor in the year 2002 and his mother purchased the said floor in the year 2004. (26) The witness is unable to tell the day, date or month when his sister was tortured by the accused and her nanand refused her to permit her to use clothes and utensils, nor is he able to tell the day, month and year when his sister was subjected to abuses. He has further deposed that from the date of marriage till the child was born, they did not call any Panchayat of the community or their neighbourhood or of the accused about the torture and beatings caused by the accused to his sister nor did St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 56 they go to the house of the accused to complain about their bad behaviour and torture to his sister and has voluntarily explained that they had gone to the shop of the accused. The witness has also testified that they had complained to Mohd. Omar, Mehruddin and Sher Mohd. about the accused nor taking his sister to this home, on which Mohd. Omar and other people called both the parties but he does not remember the date. According to him, from the side of accused, the accused Shahabuddin was present along with one Mohd. Iqbal and on this side he (witness) was accompanied by his father and the agenda of the said meeting was the torture to his sister and dowry demand by the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that there was no such agenda in the meeting and the actual agenda was the demand of his father, mother and sister to have separate residence for her and separate shop for his brother in law (Riyazuddin). He has admitted that the meeting continued till late in the evening but he does not remember whether his father had told the community that he would sent his daughter to her matrimonial home when Riyazuddina and Shahabuddin would come to his house and take her. He has denied the suggestion that his father had told the Biradari and accused Shahabuddin that the problem would be solved only when Shahabuddin comes to his house and takes a cup of tea on which accused Shahabuddin had come to their house along with Mohd. Omar, Iqbal and Mehruddin and had a cup of tea there. He has admitted that accused Riyazuddin took his sister to her matrimonial home happily after 1012 St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 57 days. He has denied the suggestion that when they had gone to the house of the accused along with Mohd. Iqbal to discuss the issue of selling the jewellery of the deceased, accused Shahabuddin denied the allegation that the jewellery was sold by them and had produced the entire jewellery before him, his father and Mohd. Iqbal and in the presence of Mohd. Iqbal handed over the entire jewellery to him and his father. (27) The witness Mohd. Sartaj has further deposed that they got the FDR prepared as a dowry for Mumtaz on the demand of the accused knowing that the money would go to the accused. He has admitted that the money of FDR has not been given to the accused and that his father is the nominee in the said FDR. According to him, they did not make the payment in cash to the accused on their demand and instead for an FDR prepared for the reason that they were not sure that even after getting the money the accused would torture Mumtaz. He has admitted that they did not show the FDR to the biradari or to the accused but they had told the police about the FDR. He has testified that the information about the FDR was given to the police perhaps on the date on which the letter was seized. He has denied the suggestion that they got the FDR prepared out of the part sale proceeds of the ornaments of Mumtaz or that the property at Kirti Nagar was purchased in the name of his mother was out of part sale proceeds of ornaments of Mumtaz. The witness has also denied the suggestion that while driving the car of Mumtaz, he met with an accident at Mahipal Pur in which the car was badly damaged and Rs.16,000/ had St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 58 to incurred on the repair of the car. He is not aware if the accused Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin do not have a licence to drive the car and hence could not have driven the car. According to the witness, the engagement ceremony took place about 2½ years before marriage. He has denied that the marriage did not take place 2½ years after engagement since the accused Shahabuddin was not interested in the marriage on account of the compatibility problem but he (witness) and his father forced the marriage. The witness has testified that accused Riyazuddin was working with his father on the shop where they used to manufacture grill gates and he continued to work with his father even after the marriage and besides this the accused Riyazuddin used to work on sites. According to him, they never asked about the income of Riyazuddin but the accused told them that accused were earning handsomely. He has testified that they did not make any inquiry about the financial status of the accused before marriage. He has also deposed that one month prior to the marriage the accused had made demands like car, jewellery, electronic items, cash etc. and had the accused not demanded dowry they would not have given the the same as per the normal practice. He has denied the suggestion that the actual disputes between the families was that his parents and his sister used to demand separate residence and separate shop for accused Riyazuddin. He has admitted that the accused Shahabuddin has give daughters, three are married and two are unmarried. He has also admitted that accused Gyasuddin has been St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 59 married to one handicap lady. He is not aware whether the accused Shahabuddin has not given even a bicycle as dowry in the marriage of his three daughters since he did not attend the said marriages. The witness has denied the various suggestion put to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the accused demanding dowry or harassing the deceased. He has also denied that they did not see any injury on the lips of Mumtaz and blue marks on her face. According to the witness, the bangles on the wrist of Mumtaz were broken but they did not report the matter to the police nor filed any complaint in this regard and only informed the Biradari about this incident. The witness has also deposed that one Sher Mohd. from the Biradari intervened while trying to persuade the accused but he is not aware whether Sher Mohd. met the accused. He is also not aware if the daughter of Sher Mohd. is married in the relation of accused Shahabuddin or whether there was a dispute between the daughter of Sher Mohd. and the relatives of Shahabuddin which was pending in Women Cell/ Court.
(28) The witness is unable to tell the day and dates of the dowry demand made by the accused since the marriage till her death. According to him, there was no dowry demand in the year 2003 but in the months of January 2004, April 2004, June and December 2004 there were dowry demands of Rs. One Lac and transfer of car which demand were also made in the month of May, August and November of 2005; April, June and November of 2006 and in the months of February and March of the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 60 years 2007. The witness has further deposed that the accused Shahabuddin was being looked after by accused Hazra and other family members at the hospital but he is unable to tell whether accused Shahabuddin remained admitted at Rajender Nagar Nursing Home for about threefour months and has voluntarily explained that he remained admitted for about 1½ months. He has however admitted that it was the holy month of Ramzan and they used to serve food at the Nursing Home. The witness is not aware that the accused Shahabuddin was confined to bed for about two months after discharge from the Nursing Home and whether the accused Gyasuddin had borne the expenses of treatment of accused Shahabuddin. He is also unable to tell whether the expenses of treatment of accused Shahabuddin was Rs. 6 lacs and states that his father did not give any money to accused Shahabuddin except Rs.10,000/. According to him, the accused Shahabuddin, Guasuddin, Hazra and Riyazuddin did not demand any other amount from his father for his treatment. He is not aware about the details of various amounts of loans obtained by the accused Shahabuddin to meet his medical expenses. He has admitted that most of the children in their family are born in nursing homes and that Mumtaz (deceased) had given birth to the child in DDU Hospital. He has denied the suggestion that his mother had a fight with accused Shahabuddin, Riyazuddin and Hazra in DDU Hospital since she protested to the accused as to why they brought Mumtaz to dirty DDU Hospital for the delivery of the child. He has denied the various St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 61 suggestions put by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the behaviour and conduct of his mother.
(29) PW6 Smt. Shabana @ Lubna is the bhabhi of the deceased who has deposed that her nanand Mumtaz was got married to accused Riyazuddin, son of accused Shahbuddin on 06.10.2003 and her father in law, mother in law, her husband and her devar gave dowry articles more than their capacity. According to the witness a maruti car, fridge, cooler, TV, washing machine, almirah, clothes, utensils and furniture etc., 20 tolas of gold and about half kg silver ornaments were given in the marriage of Mumtaz. Witness has further deposed that immediately after marriage Mumtaz was subjected to torture and beatings by accused Riyazuddin, Shahbuddin, mother in law Hazra, jeth Gyasuddin and two unmarried nanads Imrana and Afsana. According to the witness immediately after the marriage accused Shahbuddin got hospitalized on which the accused persons started taunting her nanand Mumtaz "tere pair abhage hai, tu asnai hai, tu abshugni hai". Witness has further deposed that they had given Rs.10,000/ for the treatment of accused Shahbuddin and her devar had also donated blood for his treatment. She has testified that the accused persons were under the burden of debt and therefore sold the entire jewelery of Mumtaz and started demanding Rs. One lac from them but they refused to give the same. According to the witness as and when Mumtaz used to come to their house, she used to tell her about the atrocities being committed on her by the accused persons St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 62 and she (Mumtaz) used to tell her (witness) that accused Shahbuddin, Hazra, Gyasuddin, Imrana and Afsana used to provoke her husband Riyazuddin and that the accused Gyasuddin used to carry stick in his hand and often used to beat her with the stick. Witness has further deposed that Mumtaz also told her that she was not allowed to use her dowry goods like furniture, clothes and utensils saying that she had no right over the same and that the same would be given in the marriage of Imrana and Afsana and she also told her that accused persons also wanted the car transferred in their name so that they may sell the same. Witness has further deposed that on refusal of Mumtaz to get the car transferred, she was beaten up. She has testified that after an year of marriage Mumtaz gave birth to a male child and after 40 days of the birth of the child, Mumtaz was not allowed to come to her parents house. According to the witness the accused persons kept on delaying her return to their house. She does not remember the date but states that it was in April, 2005 when accused Riyazuddin gave a telephone call to her husband on which her husband, her mother in law, her father in law, her devar, bicholia Mehruddin went at the house of accused persons to take Mumtaz but the accused persons abused and manhandled them and did not send Mumtaz with them. Witness has further deposed that after fourfive days her father in law Shahbuddin brought back Mumtaz from her matrimonial home where Mumtaz stayed for about seveneight months at their house and when she had come to their house, she was having marks on her body St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 63 and on being asked, Mumtaz told her that they were the result of beatings given by the accused and also told her about the atrocities committed by her in laws. Witness has further deposed that after 78 months, due to intervention of the people of the samaj and briadari and with an intent to save the matrimonial life of Mumtaz they sent her to matrimonial home with accused Riyazuddin, but the behaviour of the accused persons did not change. Witness has further deposed that the accused persons used to beat Mumtaz and kept demanding Rs. One Lac and the transfer of car telling her that until she brings Rs. one lac and gets the car transferred in their name, they will continue the same treatment with her. She has testified that as and when Mumtaz used to visit their house, she used to tell her about the beatings and the torture and she used to give Rs. 4,0005,000/ to her without telling her husband, but even the same was being snatched away by the husband of Mumtaz and the other accused persons after beating her. Witness has further deposed that Mumtaz used to tell her about the beating and torture given by the accused telephonically to her. She has testified that Mumtaz had also written a letter to her husband in this regard and last time when she came to their house, she told her that the accused persons has come to know of the FD of Rs.45,000/ made in her name by her father and that they are demanding Rs. One lac, transfer of car in their name and the enchashment of the FD to them and threatened to kill her on non fulfillment of their demands. Witness has further deposed that Mumtaz returned back to her St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 64 matrimonial home with accused Riyazuddin on same day on her persuasion and after few days she telephonically told her that the accused persons were torturing and troubling her and would kill her and she spoke to her in a heavy voice and told that she was making the call while hiding herself from the accused persons and without telling them. According to the witness, she tried to persuade and console Mumtaz by telling that they were going to village to fulfill the manat and that on their return they would being her back. She has testified that thereafter they went to the village and next day accused Shahbuddin made a call on the telephone of her father in law and told him that Mumtaz was seriously unwell and has been hospitalized at DDU hospital and asked her to immediately reach. The witness has also deposed that she contacted the accused Riyazuddin on his telephone but he did not give any straight reply as to what had happened to Mumtaz and told her to ask the accused Gyasuddin and disconnected the phone. Witness has further deposed that immediately thereafter, a police official informed her father in law on her telephone that her sister in law Mumtaz had been hanged and asked them to immediately reach at DDU hospital on which they immediately started from the village and by that time they reach DDU hospital, Mumtaz had already expired. According to the witness the SDM recorded the statements of her mother in law and father in law and her sister in law was a brave woman and had gone back to her matrimonial home with a hope that her marital would be save and could not commit suicide and she St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 65 was very much attached to her son. Witness has further deposed that she is sure that the accused persons as well as Imrana and Afsana had killed her and she had given her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(30) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that she does not remember whether she got recorded in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that accused Gyasuddin used to carry a stick in his hand and used to beat Mumtaz with the stick. Witness has denied the suggestion that she has falsely stated that accused Gyasuddin used to carry stick in his hand and used to beat Mumtaz with the stick. She does not remember whether she told the police in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that she noticed marks on her body on her return to their house or that the same were the result of beatings and torture given by the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that she has stated falsely that there were marks on the body of Mumtaz due to the beatings given by the accused. She has testified that she is Graduate from Delhi University and her date of birth is 15.01.1979 and the date of birth of her husband is 31.07.1977 and the name of her son is Amaan whose date of birth is 19.05.2000. According to the witness she had told in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that they had gone to village but does not remember having said that they had gone there for the fulfillment of Mannat. She does not remember whether she stated in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that Mumtaz had written a letter to her husband and the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 66 torture on Mumtaz started after about fourfive days of her marriage by the accused. She is unable to tell how much extra jewelery was given to Mumtaz in her marriage as compared to what she was given in her marriage. She is unable to tell as to how many sets, bangles and ear rings were given to Mumtaz in her marriage but they were approximately 20 toals. She has further deposed that she had gone to the shop for the selection of the design of the jewelery but she is unable to tell the address of the shop from where the jewelery was purchased nor the market where the shop is situated. According to her, the marriage of Mumtaz was performed with pomp and show as she was the only daughter int he family and lot of people attended the marriage. Witness has admitted that the dowry articles were displayed at the time of marriage for the biradai. She is unable to tell tell the date and month when for the first time Mumtaz was subjected to torture and dowry demand nor is she able to tell as to how many number of times Mumtaz narrated to her about the torture, beatings and dowry demands made by the accused in the year 2003. The witness is also unable to tell as to how many number of times Mumtaz narrated to her about the torture, beatings and dowry demands made by the accused in the year 2004, 2005 and 2006. According to the witness she visited the matrimonial house of Mumtaz once or twice but she is unable to tell whether Mumtaz and accused Riyazuddin were using the same furniture including bed and sofa which was given in the marriage. She is not aware whether the room where she was made to sit St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 67 in the house of accused Shahbuddin was of Mumtaz and states that but states that Mumtaz came and met them in that room. She has denied the suggestion that Mumtaz was using all the dowry articles which she was given in the marriage. Witness has further deposed that her husband had told her that the weight of the gold articles was 20 tolas. According to her, she did not visit to see accused Shahbuddin while he was unwell. Witness has admitted that Rs.10,000/ was not paid in her presence. She is unable to tell the date and month when the jewelery of Mumtaz was sold but states that it was sold after accused Shahbuddin came back to house after discharge from the hospital and the jewelery might have been sold after twothree months of the marriage but she was not sure. The witness has further deposed that the accused were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/ on the pretext of getting shop for Riyazuddin. Witness has admitted that the engagement/ roka was performed about two and a half years of the marriage. She does not remember whether the accused Riyazuddin was doing the welding work with accused Shahbuddin at his shop both before and after the marriage. She is not aware what was the earnings of accused Riyazuddin nor is she unable to tell that accused Riyazuddin was earning Rs.1,200/ to Rs.1,500/ per day. The witness has also deposed that she knew that her family had refused to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ as she herself heard the same from her husband and her family members. She has further deposed that she used to tell her husband and in laws about the information regarding the ill treatment given to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 68 Mumtaz. Witness has further deposed that they did not lodge any police complaint or in women cell or court in respect of the torture to Mumtaz and she discussed about the beatings, tortures and dowry demands with her neighourers and her relatives on her parents side but she did not suggest her husband or in laws to report the matter to the police or women call as they wanted to save the marital life of Mumtaz. Witness has further deposed that she herself did not visit the house of accused to persuade them not to torture Mumtaz but her husband and her father in law used to persuade them not to beat/ torture Mumtaz and her husband himself used to tell her about the same. According to the witness no panchayat took place regarding the beatings and dowry demands either at their house or at the house of accused or their respective neighborhood and has voluntarily added that when the accused came to take back Mumtaz after she stayed at their house for 78 months, a panchayat of biradari took place. She does not remember having given the date of visit of her father in law, mother in law, husband, devar and mediator Mehruddin at the house of accused to bring Mumtaz back as 30.4.2005 in her stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She does not remember having given the date of the last visit to Mumtaz to their house as 21.3.2007. She has testified that she was not scared to hear from Mumtaz that the accused would kill her since accused persons had been extending the threats earlier and had also been torturing her. According to her, the accused persons had threated to kill Mumtaz many times between 2003 to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 69 2007 but she is unable to tell the number of time. On being specifically asked as to what steps she took to save Mumtaz from the threats of the accused from the date of threats to 28.3.2007, the witness replied that they did not lodge any complaint with the police or to the Biradri but she persuaded Mumtaz and assured her that they will talk with the accused persons on their return from village and would bring her back. She has also deposed that they did not visit the house of the accused to meet Mumtaz and to ask her about the details of threats before going to the village. According to her, they used to receive telephone calls of Mumtaz on their landline connection but she is not aware from which mobile number Mumtaz used to call. According to the witness, she is not aware the date, month and year of the FDR or whether her father in law was the nominee in the FDR or that it was an insurance policy for 20 years and has voluntarily explained that she was informed by the male members that it was an FDR of Rs.45,000/. She is not aware whether accused Shahabuddin had incurred Rs. Five lacs on his treatment. She is also not aware of the details of the various loans took by the accused Shahabuddin to meet his medical expenses. The witness has denied the various suggestions put to her by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
(31) She has further deposed that she gave her statement to the police on 29.3.2007 at Police Chowki and the statements of her husband, father in law and mother in law were also recorded on the same day. She has denied that the accused Shahabuddin was opposed to the marriage St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 70 since there was no compatibility between the two families but her husband and her parents in law were adamant. According to her, in the engagement/ Roka ceremony clothes, rings for accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Jhumkas for accused Hazra, pajebs for nanands, sweets and other gifts were given. She has testified that accused persons did not send any gift etc. in return for Mumtaz nor any gift was given by the accused persons to Mumtaz even till marriage or even at Eid or Ramzan. According to her, the gold was purchased only after the fixation of marriage and has voluntarily stated that her in laws did not want to give much gold but 20 tolas was given at the demand of the accused. She has further deposed that the accused Shahabuddin was given one gold ring of more than one tola; accused Riyazuddin was given a ring and a chain which more than one tola each; nanands were given silver pajebs; the jhumkas given to accused Hazra were more than 45 tolas and accused Gyasuddin was also given a gold ring weighing more than one tola and a wrist watch, which jewellery was given on the demand of the accused. According to her, perhaps three heavy sets of gold were given to Mumtaz in marriage but she is unable to tell the weight of the said sets. She has testified that the accused persons gave only set to Mumtaz. She does not remember the date month and year when Mumtaz told her that the accused have sold out her jewellery. She has admitted that the accused Gyasuddin and his wife are handicapped and accused Gyasuddin walks with the help of clutches. She is unable to tell the date, month or year St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 71 when Mumtaz told her that she was not allowed to use her dowry articles and the accused were pressing for transfer of the car. She has also deposed that Mumtaz resided at their house for about seven - eight months after April, 2005. She is unable to tell the date and month when Mumtaz was having marks on her body due to beatings given by the accused. According to the witness, it was she who had seen the marks on the body of the deceased and she informed about the same to her husband and mother in law. The witness has testified that no complaint was either made to the police or to the Biradari or the accused on seeing the marks. She has also deposed that the meeting of Biradari was not held at their house and she is not aware as to who attended the said meeting. (32) The witness Shabana has further deposed that her mother in law had purchased a shop at Kirti Nagar after the marriage of Mumtaz but she is not aware whether it was purchased for Rs. 40 lacs. She has admitted that her father in law had also purchased a shop at Kirti Nagar after the marriage of Mumtaz where they are running a furniture shop but she is not aware of the cost of the shop. According to her, the salary of her husband is about Rs.25,000/ per month but she is not aware what is the rent of the shop of Kirti Nagar. She does not remember whether they sent the food for accused Hazra during the Ramzan month while accused Shahabuddin was hospitalized. According to the witness, her father in law paid Rs.10,000/ to the accused as a financial help for the treatment of accused Shahabuddin and her husband told her about the payment of Rs. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 72 10,000/ to Gyasuddin. She is not aware if any other amount was given to the accused as financial help for treatment of the accused Shahabuddin. The witness has denied the various suggestions put to her by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
(33) PW17 Dr. Komal Singh from DDU Hospital has proved the postmortem report No. 277/07 of deceased Mumtaz W/o Riyazuddin, aged 24 years female prepared by Dr. Amit Pundhir who had left the services of the hospital. According to the witness, the postmortem was conducted on 30.03.2007 from 11:45 AM to 1:40 AM and there was alleged history of hanging as per the inquest papers presented by the investigating officer with patient declared brought dead on 29.03.2007 in DDU Hospital. She has proved that the deceased was wearing white kurta, pink salwar, light green color bra and white chemise and there were no visible external injuries except the ligature marks which incompletely encircled the neck and it was obliquely placed and knot area was on the left side of the neck, about 2.5cm x 3 cm in size and encircle the neck and went upto the right back of the neck and ligature mark was brownish in color and the bruise was surrounding it and its underneath surface was dry and glistening, parchemntised. The witness has further proved that on internal examination the brain was congested and oedematous and on exploration of neck tissues, the subcutaneous St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 73 tissues under the ligature mark was dry as mentioned above, there was no fracture of any neck cartilage, there was frothing inside the lumen of the trachea and right lung was adherent to the chest wall, both lungs were congested and oedematous and other body organs were congested. (34) She has further deposed that the nail clippings from the both hands, blood and the viscera were preserved in the common salt and handed over to the investigating officer for chemical examination and the opinion regarding the cause of death was deferred. She has proved the detailed postmortem report which is Ex.PW17/A. Witness has further deposed that on 12.10.2007 an application by SI Satish Kumar of Police Station Bindapur was received by her by way of which the final opinion regarding the cause of death of Mumtaz was sought by SI Satish Kumar who also presented the FSL report No. 2007/C1725 dated 21.09.2007.
According to the witness after perusal of the postmortem report and the FSL report, it was concluded that cause of death was asphyxia subsequent to antemortem hanging, which report/ opinion is Ex.PW17/B. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (35) PW18 Dr. Dhananjay, MO from DDU Hospital has proved the MLC of Mumtaz W/o Riyajuddin, 24 years female dated 29.03.2007 which is Ex.PW18/A according to which the patient was brought in Casualty in an unconscious state. According to the witness, her pulse was not palpable, BP was not recordable, her Central Nervous system was not St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 74 responding to deep painful stimuli (DPS), pupil were dilated and not reacting to light on both side and no respiratory movement was found, no heart sound was audible and the ECG showed straight line. Witness has further deposed that the patient Mumtaz was declared brought dead and the body was directed to packed, sealed and to be sent to mortuary. According to the witness he was the CMO and patient was examined by Dr. Manjri Gupta, senior resident and the patient was examined by Dr. Manjri Gupta who has left the service of the hospital and her present whereabouts are not known. He has also proved the ECG of the deceased showing straight line which is Ex.PW18/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
FSL Experts:
(36) PW8 Ms. Kavita Goyal, Senior Scientific Assistant from FSL Rohini has deposed that three parcels in connection with case FIR No. 268/07 dated 29.03.2007 U/s 498A/304/34 IPC PS Uttam Nagar were duly received in the office of FSL on 21.05.2007 which were alloted to her on 02.08.2007. According to the witness the parcels three in number marked 1, 2 and 3 respectively which were sealed and tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded along with the forwarding letter.
Witness has further deposed that on chemical and Thin Layer Chromatography examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 75 alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A,1B,2A,2B and 3. She has proved her detailed report in this regarding which is Ex.PW8/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(37) PW9 Sh. Anurag Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) from FSL, Delhi has deposed that total eight sheets in open condition were received in their laboratory on 04.07.2007 through ASI Zile Singh No. 1578/D, Police Station Uttam Nagar and the documents were marked as Q1 to Q16 and A1 to A16. According to the witness after receiving the documents he had examined the documents with scientific aids mentioned in his report and he was of the opinion that the signatures marked Q10,Q12,Q14 and Q16 and admitted writings and signatures marked A1 to A16 were written by one and the same person and no opinion could be offered on the question writings marked Q1 to Q9, Q11, Q13 and Q15 on the basis of materials at hand. Witness has further deposed that after examination and reporting, all the documents which were received in this case were handed over to the authorized messenger Ct. Harphool Singh No. 1379/W, PS Bindapur. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW9/A. (38) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that in the records produced by him as also in Ex.PW9/A the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 76 word "admitting writing" is not specifically stated and has voluntarily added that in standard writings, in means of the documents science it includes both the writings whether it is specimen (request writing) or admitted writings (written in normal course of business). Witness has further deposed that in the FSL form forwarded by the SHO Police Station Uttam Nagat, it is clearly mentioned that admitted handwriting of the deceased are enclosed and the copy of the FSL Form is Ex.PW9/B. Witness has further deposed that as per the science of handwriting examination, they cannot tell the age of writing and the age of handwriting is given by the chemical examination which they are not understanding in FSL laboratory Rohini as it is a destructive method. Police/ official witnesses:
(39) PW1 HC Anil Kumar is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has deposed that on 29.3.2007 he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar and was working as Duty Officer from 05.00 PM to 11.00 PM and on that day at about 08.30 PM Reader of Inspector P.C. Mann, SHO produced a rukka before him on the basis of which he recorded the FIR number 268/07 copy of which is Ex.PW1/A. Witness has further deposed that after recording FIR, he has made the endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/B and DD No. 38A was also recorded at the time of recording FIR copy of which DD is Ex.PW1/C. He has further deposed that thereafter he sent the rukka and copy of FIR St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 77 to SI Satish Kumar through Ct. Vijay Kumar. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(40) PW2 Lady Constable Somita has deposed that on 29.03.2007, she was posted at police station Uttam Nagar, Delhi and was working as a DD writer. According to the witness, at about 12.30 AM a wireless message was received at Police Post Bindapur pursuant to which she lodged DD No. 29 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A which was was sent to ASI Om Parkash through Ct. Manoj Kumar. The witness has also deposed that at about 01.30 PM she received a message from Duty Constable Rajesh from DDU Hospital on which she lodged DD No.31 copy of which is Ex.PW2/B and was sent to ASI Om Parkash through Ct.
Ashok.
(41) In her crossexamination, the witness has admitted that she has not brought any certificate to the effect that the daily diary register contains how many pages. Witness has deposed that daily diary register starts from 14.3.2007 to 29.3.2007 and has voluntarily added that it contains page numbers 1 to 100. She has also admitted that after page 100 last page has been detached and has voluntarily explained that every page from no. 1 to 100 was having second copy and the page after page 100 has been detached as carbon copy was prepared which was detached from daily diary register and kept on record. She has testified that the carbon copy of DD entry used to be deposited in the office of ACP and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 78 Incharge Police Post used to go through the daily diary register regularly and sign after closing the DD entry at 12.00 midnight. Witness has admitted that daily diary register does not bear the signature after DD no. 31 dt. 29.03.2007, however, it bears signatures on other pages. (42) PW10 ASI Om Prakash has deposed that on 29.03.2007 he was posted at Police Chowki East Uttam Nagar, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi and on that day on receipt of DD No. 29A Ex.PW2/A he reached at the spot at D74, Bhagwati Vihar. According to the witness, he then received DD No. 31 Ex.PW2/B that Mumtaz W/o Riazuddin was got admitted in the DDU hospital by her husband and she has been declared dead by the doctor. According to the witness after leaving Ct. Badan Singh at the spot, he went to DDU Hospital where he collected the MLC of Mumtaz and informed the SDM. He has further deposed that Sh. K.K. Sharma, SDM Patel Nagar deputed Tehsildar Mr. Kaushik who came at the spot and Sh. Vinay Kaushik Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased at the hospital. According to him, the dead body was sent to mortuary and at the instance of Executive Magistrate, Sh. Vinay Kaushik the FIR was registered and further investigations was conducted by the Chowki Incharge SI Satish Kumar. (43) The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State since he was resiling from his previous statement made to the police. The witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by SI Satish Kumar. Witness has admitted that he stated in his statement U/s St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 79 161 Cr.P.C. that the statement of Smt. Zareena, was put up before the SHO for action on which FIR No. 268/07, U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered. Witness has also admitted that he has seized the chunni of white and gerua color of deceased Mumtaz with which was used for hanging was seized from the fan vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. Witness has admitted that the chunni was handed over to SI Satish Kumar or that in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. he stated that accused Riazuddin, Shahbuddin, Giasuddin and Hazara were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/E respectively. According to the witness their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW10/F to Ex.PW10/I. Witness has admitted that in his statement to the Investigating Officer, he has stated that nanands Imrana and Afsana were not traceable despite search. Witness has admitted that he had got conducted the postmortem of the deceased and then handed over the papers to SI Satish or that because of lapse of time, he has forgotten the above said facts. (44) The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. white color chunni in two pieces which is Ex.P1.
(45) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he does not suffer a memory failure. He is unable to tell exactly at what time, he seized the chunni which was in two pieces, one piece of chunni was attached with fan but he does not have any idea about the another piece. Witness has admitted that he only seized the small St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 80 piece of chunni which was attached with fan and that the other piece of chunni had gone with the dead body for postmortem but has added that there was no material on record to show that half of the chunni had gone with dead body and half was seized by him. He does not remember as to whether half of the chunni had gone with the dead body. He also does not remember as to whether he has stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr. p.C. that chunni was recovered in two pieces. The witness also does not remember whether it is mentioned in the seizure memo that the chunni was in two pieces and also the day and time when he first entered at the spot of occurrence. He further does not remember as to what were other objects in the said room and does not remember the clothings of the dead body and the door of the room was opened. Witness has further deposed that nobody was present in the said room and the dead body was on the floor and accused Shahbuddin was present at the house at that time but he does not remember about the presence of other accused at the house. According to the witness, he remained at the spot for about one hour but he cannot give the timings. According to the witness during his one hour stay at the time he inspected the spot and searched all the three room for suicide note or any incriminating evidence. The witness has testified that he has not mentioned anywhere in his statement or any other document that he remained at the spot for about one hour and during this one hour he searched three rooms. Witness has further deposed that none of the accused tried to run away from the spot and there was no evidence in the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 81 room to show any fight or disturbance. Witness has admitted that the chunni has been cut in two pieces. Witness has further deposed that he did not investigate this aspect of the piece during his investigations and did not conduct any local inquiry from the neighbors regarding the incident. He does not remember the time when Smt. Zareena gave the statement to Sh. Kaushik Tehsildar and states that the statement was recorded in his presence. Witness has further deposed that he did not interrogate Smt. Zareena about the case prior to her statement before Sh. Kaushik. He is unable to tell as to whether Zareena's statement was recorded before 1:00 PM, after 4:00 PM or after 7 PM. He does not remember as to who was the other police persons from police station who accompanied him to the spot and he did not prepare any Panchnama of the body of the spot. Witness has further deposed that he did not see the body at the spot and states that the body had already been removed by the time, he reached at the spot . According to him, one piece of chunni was found hanging from the ceiling fan and other piece was lying on the floor. Witness has further deposed that accused Shabuddin had informed that they had removed the second piece of the chunni from the neck of the body and both the pieces of the chunni were seized from the spot. The witness has also deposed that he did not state so in his statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. or any other document. Witness has admitted that he had not seen the second piece of chunni tied around the body.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 82 (46) PW11 Sh. Vinay Kaushik has deposed that on 29.03.2007 he was posted as Executive Magistrate cum Tehsildar, Sub Division Patel Nagar, District West, Rampura and on that day he received a telephone call from ASI Om Prakash from East Uttam Nagar Chowki under Police Station Uttam Nagar at around 1:30 PM that dead body of Mumtaz was lying at DDU hospital. According to the witness it was a hanging case and Mumtaz was married on 06.10.2003 and he called him for inquest proceedings and reached at East Uttam Nagar Chowk at 3:30 PM from there he along with SI Lalit he visited the site i.e. D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that according to SI Lalit, Mumtaz was hanging in the bedroom on the backside from the ceiling fan and there was gap between bed and ceiling fan of about eight feet and height of Mumtaz was five feet. He has stated that the statement of father of deceased Mumtaz Sh. Shahbuddin and mother Zareena was recorded and same is Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW4/A respectively. According to the witness he made endorsement on the statement of Zareena, wife of Shahbuddin and directed SHO police station Uttam Nagar to take necessary action as per law vide his endorsement Ex.PW11/A. Witness has further deposed that on the next day i.e. 30.03.2007 he requested for postmortem vide his application Ex.PW11/B and the identification statement of Mohd. Sartaj Ex.PW5/B and Shahbuddin Ex.PW11/C were recorded. According to the witness he St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 83 prepared the inquest documents which are Ex.PW11/D collectively and dead body of Mumtaz was got subjected to postmortem examination and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to relatives vide memo Ex.PW5/C. Witness has further deposed that he also attested the DD No. 29 dated 29.03.2007 which is Ex.PW2/A and DD No. 31 which is Ex.PW2/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (47) PW12 HC Badan Singh has deposed that on 29.03.2007 he was posted at Police Post East Uttam Nagar and on that day on receipt of DD No. 29 PP East Uttam Nagar, he along with ASI Om Parkash reached House No. D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi where ASI Om Parkash received another DD No. 31PP East Uttam Nagar by which it was revealed that Mumtaz, wife of Riyazuddin was admitted in DDU Hospital by his husband who was declared dead. According to the witness ASI Om Parkash left him on the spot and went to DDU hospital and ASI Om Parkash thereafter returned to the spot from hospital and one chunni which was hanging from the fan in a room at the spot by which it came to his knowledge that Mumtaz had committed suicide by hanging from the fan was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. Witness has further deposed that the aforesaid chunni was in two pieces and one of the pieces was hanging on the fan and another was allegedly opened from the neck of the deceased. He has testified that SI Satish Kumar also reached on the spot who instructed him to remain at the spot and the in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 84 laws of Mumtaz came at the spot in the night and he accordingly informed SI Satish Kumar who came to the spot along with ASI Om Parkash. According to the witness all the four accused persons namely Riyazuddin, Shahbuddin, Gyasuddin and Smt. Hazra were arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/E and their personal search was carried out vide memos Ex.PW10/F to Ex.PW10/I. Witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court and also the case property i.e. Chunni which is Ex.P1.
(48) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that they reached the place of incident at about 12:30 PM to 1:00 PM and they did not find the dead body at the spot and were informed by the neighbors that deceased Mumtaz has been taken to hospital by her husband accused Riyazuddin. According to the witness the Investigating Officer ASI Om Parkash went to the hospital but he remained at the spot and no family persons was available at the place of incident. He is unable to tell as to whether other family persons had accompanied the deceased to hospital or they were at some other place and the main door of the house was open and lot of people had gathered on the spot and the spot of incident was the ground floor of the house. According to the witness Investigating Officer had handed over him two pieces of the chunni between 12:30 PM to 1:00 PM and he had told to the Investigating Officer in his statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. that two piece of chunni were collected by him and handed over to him. However, when confronted with his St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 85 statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW12/DX1 where the above fact was not found so recorded. He has admitted that no chunni as a single piece was recovered from the spot, however, witness has denied the suggestion that he has stated so wrongly in his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. Witness has admitted that no piece of chunni was opened from the neck of the deceased in his presence. He has further deposed that it may be that he had stated on 21.05.2010 that "another was allegedly opened from the neck of the deceased" but the same is wrong because no piece of chunni was removed from the neck of the deceased in his presence. (49) He has testified that the accused had come to their home at about 12:20 AM on 30.03.2007. He is unable to tell whether accused Riyazuddin and accused Hazra were arrested from the hospital itself when they had gone with the deceased to the hospital because he was not with the Investigating Officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Shahbuddin had gone to the police station at 2:30 PM and he was apprehended there or that accused Gayasuddin who is disabled and unable to move was apprehended at 12:30 PM on 29.03.2007 from home only. He does not remember whether the chunni was shown to him in the court was of one piece or two pieces and the room had a bed and other domestic articles. According to the witness the bed sheet was little disturbed however all other things in the room were in their normal position and the pieces of chunni which were handed over to him could be of a half a meter length. Witness has further deposed that the height of St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 86 the room may be about ten feet and the fan was a celling fan. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded his statement, statement of women constable and statements of other two police officials at the spot and investigating officer did not record statements of any person present at the spot or the neighbor.
(50) PW13 HC Vijay Kumar has deposed that on 29.03.2007 he was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team West District and on that day, he along with the Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District and other staff on receipt of a call, reached D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar where he took four photographs of the room at the aforesaid house where Mumtaz committed suicide by hanging through a fan. Witness has further deposed that after developing the photograph, he handed over the same to the investigating officer. He has proved the negatives of the same which are Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A4 and the photographs are Ex.PW13/A5 to Ex.PW13/A8 and his statement was recorded. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(51) PW14 ASI Ved Prakash has deposed that on 21.05.2007 he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Head Constable and on that day, he took exhibits duly sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU hospital from MHC(M) Police Station Uttam Nagar to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 50/21/07 and deposited them in the FSL. According to the witness as long as the exhibits remained in his custody no body tampered or St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 87 interfered with them and after depositing the exhibits the receipt was handed over to MHC(M). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted.
(52) PW15 ASI Satyaveer Singh has deposed that on 30.03.2007 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Uttam Nagar and was doing the job of MHC(M) in the malkhana and on that day SI Satish, Chowki incharge, East Uttam Nagar deposited four sealed pullandas and one sample seal with the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital vide serial No. 4567 of register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW15/A. The witness has further deposed that on 21.05.2007 three sealed pullandas and one sample seal were deposited at FSL Rohini through HC Ved Parkash vide RC No. 50/21, copy of which RC is Ex.PW15/B. He has also deposed that on 10.08.2007 SI Satish Kumar deposited one Maruti 800 car No. DL9C A0504 vide serial No. 4968 copy of which is Ex.PW15/C. According to him, on 28.09.2007 he received two sealed pullandas and one viscera box along with FSL result in the malkhana through HC Hari Om. He has testified that on 30.09.2007 the FSL report was handed over to the Investigating Officer SI Satish Kumar. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(53) PW16 SI Anil Kumar has deposed that on 29.03.2007 he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District and on that day he was called by ASI Om Parkash of Police Post East Uttam Nagar at H.No. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 88 D74, Bhagwati Vihar on which he along with his team, photographer HC Vijay reached the spot. According to the witness the photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime and he inspected the scene of crime and prepared his report which is Ex.PW16/A. Witness has further deposed that two pieces of yellow and white chunni, one piece found hanging with ceiling fan, were found at the spot and the injured was already shifted to the hospital and he handed over report to the investigating officer.
(54) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that the two chunni pieces which he referred in his statement were neither seized by the police nor he had seen the said pieces in the court.
(55) PW19 SI Satish Kumar has deposed that on 29.03.2007 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Uttam Nagar and on that day, after registration of present case FIR, case was received to him for investigations on which he along with ASI Om Parkash, Ct. Badan reached at H.No. D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. According to the witness the said house was found lying open and one relative of the occupants of the said house was present inside the house and other members of the house had absconded. He has proved having prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. ground floor of the said house at the instance of ASI Om Parkash which site plan is Ex.PW19/A. Witness has further deposed that he left Ct. Badan Singh at the spot with the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 89 instructions that if any occupant of said house return back, then he should inform him immediately and thereafter police team returned back to Police Post East Uttam Nagar where parents of deceased Mumtaz met them. The witness has testified that he recorded the statement of Shahbuddin father of deceased and Sartaj brother of deceased and supplementary statement of Jarina mother of deceased. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Badan Singh informed him at around 11:15 PM that members of the said house had returned back on which he along with police team immediately rushed to said house and all the four accused namely Riyazuddin, Shahbuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazara (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court) met him. Witness has further deposed that they were interrogated and brought to police chowki where he arrested all the accused persons vide arrest memo ExPW10/C to Ex.PW10/E and their personal search memos were also prepared vide Ex.PW10/G to PW10/I. According to the witness accused persons were kept in police chowki during the night hours and they were thoroughly interrogated and in the morning hours, bhabhi of deceased namely Shabana @ Lubna came to Police Chowki and he recorded her statement. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he asked ASI Om Parkash to accompany the Tehsildar at the mortuary of DDU Hospital for postmortem of deceased and he handed over brief facts and copy of MLC of the deceased to ASI Om Parkash which brief facts are Ex.PW19/X. Witness has further deposed that he made search for two Nanads of St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 90 deceased namely Imrana and Afsana but they were not traceable. According to him, all the accused were got medically examined from DDU Hospital and he produced all the accused in the court and they were sent to Judicial Custody. Witness has further deposed that in the evening time, ASI Om Parkash handed over to him four sealed pullandas with the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital and one sample seal after postmortem of deceased. According to the witness he seized the pullandas and sample seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B and during interrogation, he obtained list of dowry articles from the brother of deceased which is Ex.PW19/C. Witness has further deposed that he also collected marriage photographs of deceased Mumtaz from her brother which are mark A to D and also collected marriage card of deceased which is Ex.PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that on 10.08.2007 the relatives of accused persons namely Noor Mohd produced aforesaid Maruti Car in the police chowki which was seized by him through seizure memo Ex.PW19/Y. He has testified that during investigations, the brother of deceased also handed over to him photocopy of RC of Maruti Car No. DL9CJ0504 which was given to the deceased at the time of her marriage by her parents, photocopy of RC is Mark E. According to the witness he also collected photocopy of installments paid by the parents of deceased for the payment of Maruti car which was financed from Maruti countrywide and same is Mark F. According to the witness, he also St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 91 collected cash memo of fridge from the parents of deceased which is Mark G and the brother of deceased Mohd. Sartaj also handed over seven written papers which were in the handwriting of deceased mentioning the harassment and cruelty by the in laws of deceased, which papers are Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 and the seizure memo of the same is Mark B. The witness has also deposed that he collected the admitted handwriting of the deceased which is Ex.PW5/A along with attendance sheet where deceased took training Ex.Z/1. Witness has further deposed that the admitted handwriting and seven papers written by the deceased and other exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for expert opinion and he also recorded statement of witnesses during his investigations. He has also deposed that during investigations section 406 IPC was added as accused persons did not return the dowry articles of deceased except Maruti Car. Witness has further deposed that after completion of investigations, file was put up before SHO, Uttam Nagar who forwarded the challan to the court. The witness has testified that he also got issued NBWs of Imrana and Afsana, both Nanads of deceased and they were got declared Proclaimed Offenders later on. According to the witness after receipt of FSL result, he obtained subsequent opinion regarding cause of death of deceased from the doctor Komal Singh which subsequent opinion is Ex.PW17/B. The witness has also deposed that the case file regarding PO (Proclaimed Offender) proceeding against the accused Imrana and Afsana were handed over to MHC(R) as he was transferred to some other St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 92 police station.
(56) The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. car bearing registration No. DL9CJ0504 make Maruti 800 of white color as the same which was seized by him which car is Ex.PW19/PX.
(57) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 9:30PM and he is not aware about the proceedings of the investigations till 9:30 PM and has voluntarily added that being the Incharge of the police post he was informed about the facts of the case by ASI Om Parkash. According to the witness accused persons namely Riyajuddin, Gyasuddin, Shahbuddin and Hazra were taken to the Police Post from their house at about 11:30 PM - 12 night. Witness has denied the suggestion that Shabuddin was taken into custody at about 2:30 PM from his house and was kept at Police Post or that Riyazuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra Begum were taken into custody from DDU hospital where they had accompanied the deceased. Witness has further deposed that he has mentioned the brief interrogations of the accused person in his case diary. According to the witness, he had interrogated accused Shahbuddin and had mentioned his interrogation in his case diary dated 29.03.2007 at page No. 6. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Shahbuddin had told him during interrogation that the mediator who had arranged the marriage was Sh. Mehruddin and he is witness to this fact that any demand of dowry was St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 93 never made nor the deceased was harassed at any moment of time for dowry. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not mentioned this fact in his case diary or that accused Shahbuddin had told him during the interrogation that allegations of dowry demand and harassment are fabricated and this fact can be verified from two respectable persons of the Saifi biradari namely Sh. Iqbal of Rama Park and Umar Mohd. of Sitapuri. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Shahbuddin had told him in his interrogation that the complainant Sh. Shahbuddin father of the deceased had made allegations in Saifi Biradari against their family that they have misappropriated the gold and jewelry of deceased and on this point there was a panchyat at the residence of accused Shahbuddin where it was proved that the gold and jewelry of the deceased was very much with the accused Shahbuddin and was not misappropriated. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Shahbuddin had told him during the interrogation that the entire gold and jewelry was returned to the deceased and her father in presence of Sh. Iqbal or that accused Shahabuddin in his interrogation had told him that the complainant Shahbuddin had sold the gold and jewelry of the deceased and purchased shop in her name. Witness has further deposed that he added section 406 IPC in the challan because the accused had refused to return the dowry articles and had also filed their objections to the release of Maruti Car in favour of the complainant Sh. Shahbuddin but he did not give any specific notice to the accused for return of dowry St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 94 articles. According to the witness he added section 406 IPC at the time of final stage of the investigations. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not add section 406 IPC till the last stage of investigations because he was conveyed of the fact that the gold and jewelry articles were returned to the deceased and her father and that her father after selling the jewelry and old articles had purchased a shop in her name. Witness has further deposed that he cannot show any record either on the Judicial file or in his case diary to show that the accused had filed their objections to the release of Maruti Car on superdari to the complainant. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately invoked Section 406 IPC at the instance of the family of the deceased only to aggravate the offence against the accused. Witness has admitted that as per the MLC her husband has brought the deceased to the hospital but he is unable to tell about the presence of the mother in law, brother in law and father in law. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Riazuddin was apprehended from the hospital itself at 11:30 PM while he was already present along with the dead body of the deceased and also along with his mother and brother. Witness has further deposed that he did not record any statement of the neighbors nor he made any inquiries from them. He has admitted that the place where the accused are staying is a residential locality with a large number of persons residing near by their house. Witness has further deposed that apart from the recording of statement of the family of the deceased he did not make any inquiries St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 95 to find out the background of the manner in which the marriage was solemnized or with regard to the correctness of the allegations made. Witness has further deposed that he had mentioned this fact regarding absconding of the accused in the case diaries. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused was available and cooperating with the investigations or that he has wrongly mentioned this fact of their having absconding. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiries as to where were the accused Gyasuddin, Shahbuddin and Riyajuddin at the time when the deceased had expired and has voluntarily added that the accused told him that they were not at home and has again stated that when he had reached the spot, the above accused were not present there and he came to know that they had absconded from the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that during the interrogation, the accused Shahbuddin had informed him that he had left for his shop at WZ 17A, B1 Janakpuri at 9:00 AM and it was later that he came to know on telephone that the incident had taken place. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Riyazuddin had informed him during the investigations that at the the time of the incident he was working at Sector 22, Dwarka on the contract of Sh. V.K. Uppal and was doing the work of iron fabrication and it was later during the day that he came to know on telephone about the incident. Witness has admitted that the accused Gyasuddin is handicap and cannot move without clutches. He has admitted that there is no disclosure statements of the accused persons and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 96 has voluntarily added that they did not make any disclosure during interrogations. He has admitted that when he had reached the house of the accused, he had met some relative but he is unable to tell the name and details of the said relative. He is also unable to tell if the accused belongs to a very week financial background whereas the family of the complainant is financially and educationally well off. Witness has denied the suggestion that during interrogations accused Shahbuddin had informed him that he was not in favour of this alliance because their family was not financially compatible to the family of the complainant there being a lot of difference but it was only on account of the insistence of the father of the deceased that he had agreed to the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was informed by the accused Shahbuddin that in the marriage the father of the deceased wanted to gift the car to the accused Riyazuddin and for this purpose he had demanded the ID and the address proof of the Riazuddin which accused Shahbuddin had refused to give on account of which the car was ultimately given in the name of the deceased. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no space outside the house of the accused where a car could have been parked and has voluntarily added that there is sufficient space in the gali outside. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiries from the other family members of the accused regarding their background and character and he did not verify whether the vehicle given to the deceased in the marriage was on the installments or not. Witness has denied the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 97 suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the family of the deceased despite there being no evidence against them. Witness has denied the suggestion that there was no demand of dowry at any point of time or even prior to the death of the deceased or that the deceased was not compatible with the family of the accused and wanted to separate out with Riyazuddin on account of which there were brick bats between Riyazuddin and the deceased on this account as Riyazuddin was not ready to separate on account of two unmarried younger sisters. Witness has denied the suggestion that the mother in law of Riyazuddin frequently insulted him on this account. Witness has further deposed that he has not made any inquiries with regard to the manner in which the accused Shahbuddin had got the marriage of his four daughters conducted and hence he is unable to tell if he is against the system of dowry and had even not given any dowry to his daughters in the marriage. Witness has admitted that the family of deceased is fairly educated where as the accused and his family are uneducated. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any inquiries with regard to the manner in which the marriage had taken place and hence he is unable to tell if the engagement of the deceased and Riazuddin had lasted for about three years. He is unable to tell if it was on account of the opposition of accused Shahabuddin the said alliance that the marriage was delayed for three years. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 98 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(58) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. All the accused have stated that the marriage of Riyazudin and the deceased was a happy marriage and though they (accused) were against this marriage from the very beginning because of their social, educational and economic background, but the father of the deceased was adamant on getting the deceased married to Riyazuddin and this was the reason that the deceased and Riyazuddin were engaged for a long period of three and a half years. According to the accused, the mother of the deceased was not in favour of this marriage but she could not convince her husband and due to their economic condition, the mother of deceased would always taunt Riyazuddin and call him 'bhikhmanga' 'bhikari' and she would insult and annoy them (accused) on all the family occasions. They have further stated that even on the day of marriage, they (parents of the deceased) openly raised dispute about the fact that their daughter would not go to her inlaws in an old car but they (accused) had refused to go in their car and the mother of deceased exclaimed in open 'meri beti sasural khatara gadi mei nahi jayegi'. The accused have also stated that it was then at the intervention of Sh. Mehruddin that the bride and bridegroom went back in the car of the deceased. According to the accused, the case is false and manufactured against them and they never demanded any money or St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 99 dowry from the deceased or her parents and no moment of time any money was given by the deceased or her parents to them (accused persons). It is further stated that Riyazuddin loved his wife to the hilt and they respected the deceased and was never tortured as alleged. According to the accused, the deceased was always living a normal life and whenever she would go to her mother's house and on her return all the problems would be created because those were the creation of her mother who was never happy with this relationship and it is a fact that immediately one week before the unfortunate incident of the death of deceased, the deceased had happily gone to her mother's place for one week but the day Riyazuddin dropped her there, immediately on the same day in the evening she called Riyazuddin and asked him to take her home.
They have further stated that Riyazuddin reached his inlaws house in the same night and brought his wife back with him and on their return they made shopping and also had snacks at a restaurant. The accused have also stated that the deceased at that moment of time was a little disturbed and when Riyazuddin asked her the reason she did not tell anything. It is further stated that during this week the mother and the father of deceased would call her regularly and she would get disturbed by such calls. (59) The accused have further stated that the accused Gyasuddin is 60% disable and is not able to even attend the call of nature without support and move on clutches/ baishakhi since his childhood. According to the accused Gyasuddin he was living separately on the first floor along St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 100 with his wife and son and the newly born daughter. He has further stated that on the first floor itself he was doing the independent job of plastic moulding since he had installed a small machine on the first floor only. The accused Gyasuddin has also stated that on the date of incident he was called by his mother on which he came down and saw the deceased hanging pursuant to which he called his brother Riyazuddin and father Shahabuddin. According to him, when Riyazuddin reached home he along with his mother and brother Riyazuddin took the deceased to DDU Hospital and on the way to the hospital he called at 100 number. (60) According to the accused Riyazuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra they were detained in the hospital itself and then taken to the Police Station at about 5:00 PM and while the accused Shahabuddin directly reached his residence from Janakpuri shop, he was apprehended at his residence and brought to the Police Station at about 6:30 PM. (61) In order to prove their defence the accused have examined Three Witnesses in their defence.
(62) DW1 Sh. Mehruddin is the Mediator to the marriage. He has deposed that he knew complainant Sahabuddin and also the accused Sahabuddin and his family and he and Mohd. Iqbal were mediator (bicholiya) in the marriage of accused Riyazuddin and deceased Mumtaz. According to the witness he had gone to the house of accused Sahabuddin for the marriage of complainant's daughter deceased Mumtaz and the marriage of the deceased and accused Riyazuddin took place after three St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 101 and half years after the roka. Witness has further deposed that at the time or roka, there was no demand of dowry from the family of accused and it was decided that the marriage will be celebrated in a simple manner as per Islamic law. He is however unable to tell the reason for delay of marriage for a period of about three and a half years. Witness has denied that the delay was due to the fact that accused Shahabuddin was reluctant to perform this marriage because of inequality between the families. Witness has further deposed that the car given to the daughter by the complainant at the time of her marriage for the facilitation of his daughter, the accused had not demanded the said car in dowry. He is not aware as to whether accused Shahabuddin had refused to take the car due to the reason that he was unable to maintain the car due to his poverty. According to the witness to his knowledge, the family of the accused never demanded any money or dowry from the complainant or the deceased from the time or roka till the unfortunate death of deceased. Witness has admitted that on 8.10.2006 i.e. one day after Valima (reception) accused Shahbuddin was admitted to hospital because of a poisonous boil on his upper limb and was hospitalized for about seven months. He is not aware as to whether after discharge from the hospital, accused Sahabuddin was bedridden for a period of about eight months. Witness has admitted that the wife of accused Shahabuddin was looking after the accused in the hospital during his treatment. According to the witness he has seen it whenever he went to hospital to seek accused St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 102 Sahabuddin in the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Riyazuddin had come to him and told him that his inlaws and the deceased are insisting him for a separate residence which he is not in a position to do before he gets his younger sister marriage. (63) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State witness has deposed that he is not related to both the parties and has voluntarily added that he belong to the same community to which the parties belong and hence as a matter of social obligation, he had intervened as a mediator for getting the alliance between the parties finalized. According to the witness he is known to both the parties for the last 14/15 years. Witness has admitted that the girl was under graduate at the time of marriage and the boy only 10th pass. Witness has admitted that family of deceased Mumtaz was much better of than family of Riyazuddin. Witness has denied the suggestion that after introduced both families he did not know what transpire thereafter. According to the witness he was aware that both the family were on visiting terms for almost three years. He has further deposed that he did not find it unusual that marriage did not take place for three years and has voluntarily added that there are times when marriages are not solemnized for five years. Witness has testified that he was never told by either Riyazuddin or his father Shahabuddin that they did not want to perform the marriage. According to the witness neither Riyazuddin nor Shahabuddin ever told him that on account of financial and educational inequalities they do not want to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 103 perform marriage. Witness has admitted that Shahabuddin the father of deceased Mumtaz/ complainant had given a car in the marriage to Riyazuddin and in his presence neither Riyazuddin nor Shahabuddin refused to receive the same. He is not aware the exact date when accused Shahabuddin was hospitalized after reception and has voluntarily added that it was after twothree days. According to the witness he had gone to see Shahabuddin in hospital after three four days when he came to know of the same. The witness has also deposed that Shahabuddin remained in the hospital for about two months and he was frequently discharged also and has voluntarily added that he went there when he was required bandage. He is unable to tell the name of Nursing Home where he had gone to see Shahabuddin and states that he had never been gone to the house of Shahabudin after the marriage of Riyazuddin and has voluntarily added that he only went to the hospital to see him. Witness has admitted that he cannot tell if Mumtaz was being harassed on demand of dowry or not keeping well by her inlaws. Witness has admitted that Shahabdudin the father of deceased Mumtaz had made a call to him informing that there was mar pitai incident with Mumtaz in her in laws house and requested him to accompany him on which he had gone to the house of accused Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin with the complainant Shahabuddin. According to the witness, when they reached the house of accused Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin, Mumtaz was crying/ weeping and the complainant Shahabuddin and his wife wanted to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 104 take their daughter with them but he intervened and told them to permit Mumtaz to stay. He has testified that they (parents of the deceased) also wanted to make a police complaint but he (witness) told them not to do so and to give the family of accused Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin a chance. Witness has further deposed that on that day, the complainant Shahbuddin did not take his daughter but it was on the next day that he came and took back his daughter Mumtaz with him. Witness has further admitted that he was not present at the time when Mumtaz was taken to her parental house by her father and has voluntarily added that the only time he met the parties was in the house of Mohd. Umar at Sitapuri after eight months when both the families sat together and decided to send Mumtaz back with Riyazuddin and that Riyazuddin would not mis behave(mar pitai) with her. Witness has further deposed that after this incident he never met with both the parties and the only information received was that Mumtaz had committed suicide.
(64) DW2 Iqbal Saifi has deposed that he knew the families of accused as well the complainant and he along with Sh. Mehruddin (DW1) were middleman in the marriage of accused Riyazuddin and the deceased. Witness has admitted that before Sh. Mehruddin went to the residence of the accused for the marriage of deceased with accused Riyazuddin, he had gone with the same proposal to accused Sahahabuddin but accused Shahabuddin had refused to get his son married to the deceased on the ground that the family of deceased are St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 105 much higher in status than them and this marriage among the unequals would not be successful. Witness has further deposed that on the day of the roka, he was present along with Mehruddin and other relatives and there was no demand of dowry or car from the family of accused. Witness has admitted that from the day of roka till marriage and from the day of marriage till the unfortunate death of the deceased there was no demand of dowry from the family of accused and the accused to the complainant or the deceased. Witness has admitted that few days before the marriage a dispute arose between accused Sahabuddin and the complainant on the ground that complainant wanted to give four wheeler to his daughter and accused Sahabuddin refused to take the same on the ground that because of his economic condition he would not be able to maintain. Witness has further deposed that accused Sahabuddin had refused to take the car further on the ground that he has five daughters and he has already married three daughters and has not given even a bicycle in dowry, how can he accept four wheeler or two wheeler. According to the witness at the time of bidai a dispute arose between the family on the ground that the wife of complainant Smt. Zareena insisted that her daughter would go to her inlaws house in a brand new car whereas accused Sahabuddin was reluctant to take the bride in brand new car and he was insisting that he would take the bride in the same car in which the bridegroom had come. Witness has admitted that he settled the matter and himself driven the car with the couple because Riyazuddin was not knowing driving. Witness St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 106 has further deposed that on the next day of valima (reception) accused Sahabuddin fell ill because he had a boil in the upper limb and was admitted to different hospitals for about seven months and whenever he went to see accused Sahabuddin in the hospital, he was looked after by his wife. According to the witness after the accused Sahabuddin was discharged from the hospital he was bedridden for a period of more than eight months at his house and another dispute arose between the families on the issue of admission of deceased in nursing home instead of DDU Hospital by the accused. Witness has further deposed that Smt. Zareena was insisting that the accused should get her admitted in the Nursing Home and not in DDU Hospital to which accused Shahabuddin replied he cannot afford a nursing home and in his family all the deliveries have taken place in DDU hospital. According to the witness on 30.4.2005 at about 11.30 PM he received a phone call from accused Shahabuddin that there has been some dispute between Riyazuddin and his wife and the family of deceased were coming to their residence and had requested him and one Sh. Shaukat to come and he along with Shaukat reached there at about 12.00 night. Witness has further deposed that after they reached, the family of deceased which included Sh. Shahabuddin, his wife and his two sons and Mehruddin came to the residence of the accused and there was hot exchange of words between the families. Witness has testified that the son of Shahabuddin attempted to hit accused Gayasuddin with helmet on which he intervened and fell on ground and he and Mehruddin St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 107 calmed both the parties. He has also deposed that the family of deceased wanted to take their daughter at that very moment of time but they requested both the families to let the matter settled down and take the daughter after one or two days. He has clarified that the dispute on that day was among the husband and wife it was not connected with any dowry demand. Witness has further deposed that after a day or two the complainant took his daughter and she remained at her father's house for about eight months and after about eight months at the instance of Sh. Mohd. Umar, a meeting was held at the residence of Mohd. Umar to settle the matters between the families. According to the witness in the meeting, neither complainant Shahabuddin nor any of his relatives claimed that the deceased was tortured or troubled for dowry and the main dispute raised by complainant was that the accused are not keeping his daughter as she used to live in her father's house and they do not provide her with fruit and milk and further he was complaining that the family of accused were not well off to provide sufficient food to the family. Witness has further deposed that the family of accused claimed that they were living as per their own standards and within their bare means. He has testified that the meeting went up to 3:00 AM and it was decided that the deceased would not visit so often to her father's house and would try to settle down in her matrimonial home. Witness has further deposed that the complainant Shahabuddin agreed that he would not keep his daughter at his home frequently and would not interfere in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 108 her matrimonial life and both the families decided that accused Riyazuddin would go to his inlaws house and would get back his wife. According to the witness the complainant Shahabuddin told them that he would not send his daughter unless and until accused Shahabuddin comes to his house and takes a cup of tea with him in order to clear the polluted air, on which he took accused Shahabuddin to the residence of complainant at about 3.00 AM and all of them had a cup of tea at the residence of complainant and both the families were happy and after that accused Riyazuddin got back his wife after a day or two. According to the witness after this settlement, both the families lived happily and the husband and wife also lived happily and he himself and Mehruddin did not receive any complaint from either of the families. Witness has admitted that two days before her death, the deceased visited her father's house. He has testified that the marriage between the two families could not be successful because of economic equality between the families. Witness has further deposed that from the day of roka, till the unfortunate death of deceased, the complainant, his family members or any other persons had never complained to him about any dowry demand made by the accused to the complainant, his family members or deceased. (65) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that he is not related to both the families and has voluntarily clarified that their community was the same. He has further deposed that his business and also the business of complainant Shahabuddin is the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 109 same. Witness has further deposed that he is known to the complainant Shahbuddin and his family for the last 25 years and to the accused family for about 20 years. Witness has admitted that girl Mumtaz was more qualified as of Riyazuddin and her family was more well off than Riyazuddin family. Witness has admitted that despite the above differences the marriage was solemnized and has voluntarily added that it was with the mutual agreement of both the parties. He has further deposed that he did not pressurize the accused Shahabuddin or Riyazuddin for the marriage. Witness has admitted that the marriage was delayed for three years and has stated that during this period nor Shahabuddin nor Riyazuddin told that they were not willing for the marriage with Mumtaz. According to the witness, he is not on visiting terms with the family of accused Shahabuddin and has voluntarily added that he had only gone to their house for arranging the alliance. Witness has admitted that complainant had given a car in the marriage. He has denied the suggestion that Shahabuddin and Riyazuddin had not refused to accept the same and has voluntarily added that Shahabuddin had said that he had five daughters and he had not given anything in dowry and was against it. Witness has further deposed that at the time of this marriage, three daughters of accused Shahabuddin were already married. He is not aware in whose name the said car was registered. The witness has testified that Bidai had taken place in his presence and there was no dispute and has voluntarily added that there was just a small disagreement St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 110 because the accused Shahabuddin wanted to take Doli in the vehicle arranged by them whereas the complainant wanted to send Mumtaz in their vehicle. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had intervened to settle the matter and drove the car himself. He is not aware if there was a video film of the said marriage but he is aware that a list of dowry articles was prepared.
(66) The witness has further deposed that he came to know about the ailment of accused Shahabuddin and his admission in hospital on the next day and has voluntarily added that somebody made a call on his cell phone bearing No. 9810618740 from their house and informed him about the same at around 9:0010:00 AM and he did not inform complainant Shahbuddin about it. Witness has further deposed that accused Shahabuddin was admitted in Mahajan Nursing Home, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar and he went to see him in the hospital on the same day. He has also deposed that accused Shahabuddin received treatment in various hospitals as an outdoor patient and has voluntarily explained that he was brought back to the house in the evening. Witness has further deposed that the treatment of accused Shahabuddin continued for about seven to eight months. Witness has admitted that during this period he did not visit the house of accused Shahabuddin and that during this period, he is not aware how Mumtaz was being treated at home. Witness has denied the suggestion that during this period the father of Mumtaz made a complaint that she had been subject to mar pitai or that the father of St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 111 Mumtaz had also called him and informed him that she is being harassed by the family of accused Shahabuddin. Witness has further deposed that when he reached the house of accused Shahabuddin, the parents of Mumtaz along with her two brothers and Mehruddin were also present there and he did not make any inquiry from Mumtaz there. Witness has further admitted that family of Mumtaz that she had been beaten and accused had misbehaved with her. He has admitted that he and Mehruddin had intervened to sober down the parties and that the parents of Mumtaz wanted to take her back with them but they intervened and told them that it was improper for them to take Mumtaz immediately in the heat of moment and the matters should be allowed to be cooled and has voluntarily added that he was told later that Mumtaz was taken away by them subsequently and thereafter. Witness has also deposed that the Kazi who had got the marriage performed was not called and apart from them, no other Kazi was called when the settlement was effected. Witness has admitted that at the time of settlement at the house of Mohd. Umar no Kazi was called and the entire settlement was effected in their presence. Witness has also admitted that it was settled that Mumtaz would go back with Riyazuddina and that Riyazuddin would not beat her. According to the witness he did not personally speak to Mumtaz on both the occasions. He has testified that after this incident, he never went to the house of both the parties and the only information received was that Mumtaz had committed suicide and has voluntarily added that he was St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 112 receiving telephone calls from the family of accused Shahabuddin that there was no dispute. Witness has further deposed that he did not give in writing to the police accused Shahabuddin and family has been falsely implicated nor he moved any application before any court in this regard. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is an interested witness being personally known to the family of accused Shahabuddin or that he is falsely deposing in the court on the asking of accused Shahabuddin and his family members. According to the witness he is a summoned witness and he came to the court along with his son.
(67) The accused Sahabuddin Saifi has examined himself as DW3 wherein he has deposed that it was in the year 1999 that Sh. Iqbal Saifi came to him with a marriage proposal from complainant Sh. Shahabuddin's daughter with his son Riyazuddin but he refused the proposal on the ground that he belong to lower economic strata whereas the complainant Shahabuddin was very rich and his daughter would not be comfortable in his home. Witness has further deposed that after some time, Sh. Mehruddin Saifi called at his residence and gave proposal of the marriage of complainant's daughter with his son Riyazuddin and also asked him as to why he had turned down this proposal earlier. According to the witness subsequently, at the instance of Sh. Mehruddin he agreed for the marriage and roka was held at his home which was attended by the family of complainant, his family, Sh. Mehruddin and Sh. Iqbal Saifi. He has also deposed that the delay of three and half years from the day of St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 113 roka till the marriage was mainly due to the reason that he was reluctant to go for this marriage and he and his family members never demanded any dowry, gold, money or car from the family of complainant. Witness has further deposed that it was before 15 days of the marriage that complainant Sh. Shahabuddin had come to his residence and asked him for copy of ITR and Ration Card when he asked the reason on which he told him that he want to get a car financed in the name of accused Riyazuddin and he refused the request and told him that he cannot maintain the car and does not want car. According to the witness, he told the complainant that he has not given any dowry in the marriage of his three daughter neither he accept any dowry and the complainant left his residence and he complaint about this thing to Sh. Iqbal Saifi. Witness has further deposed that they had taken the barat in the car of a relative and at the time of bidai a dispute arose between him and the wife of complainant Smt. Zareena on the ground that Smt. Zareena insisted that her daughter would go to her inlaws house in a brand new car whereas he was reluctant to take the bride in brand new car and was insisting that he would take the bride in the same car in which the bridegroom had come. Witness has further deposed that the matter was settled by Sh. Iqbal and he drove the car with the couple because Riyazuddin was not knowing driving. According to the witness on the next day of valima he fell ill because he had a boil in the upper limb and was admitted to different hospitals for about seven months and was being looked after by St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 114 his wife in the hospital during this period of seven months. He has testified that after he was discharged from the hospital he was bedridden for a period of more than eight months at his house. Witness has further deposed that another dispute arose between the families on the issue of admission of deceased in nursing home instead of DDU Hospital by them. According to the witness Smt. Zareena was insisting that they should get her admitted in the nursing home and not in DDU Hospital to which he replied that he cannot afford a nursing home and all delivery in his family have taken place in DDU hospital. Witness has further deposed that Smt. Zareena had also raised objections for his not visiting the deceased at DDU hospital at the time of delivery. According to the witness from the day of marriage till the unfortunate death of deceased, there was no dispute between accused Riyazuddin and deceased both were living with extreme love and affection. Witness has further deposed that on 30.4.2005, at about 11.30 PM there was some dispute between his son and the deceased and he called Sh. Iqbal and Sh. Shaukat and told them that the family of deceased is arriving and it was after the arrival of the father, two brothers of the deceased and Sh. Mehruddin that they started beating them and he was assaulted by eldest son of the complainant. He has also deposed that the complainant tried to hit his disabled son with helmet and his clothes were torn and the mother of deceased came in front of him, removed her headgear and assaulted him. Witness has further deposed that the complainant wanted to take his St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 115 daughter but Sh. Mehruddin and Iqbal intervened and settled that the deceased would go to her father's home after one or two days and it was after a day of two, that complainant came to their house and took his daughter with him. Witness has further deposed that the deceased remained at her father's house for about eight months and requested the complainant on many occasions to send her daughter and refused their request and then, a meeting was held at the instance of one Mohd. Umar at the residence of Sh. Mohd. Umar at Sitapur. According to the witness the complaint of complainant in the meeting was that the accused are troubling deceased, they do not provide her with milk and fruit and he told in the meeting that if his son wants to live separately, he has no objection to which his son told him that unless and until he gets his younger sisters marriage, he will not live separately. Witness has further deposed that he told in the meeting that he will live as per economic standards and it was settled in the meeting accused Riyazuddin will go to his inlaws house and bring back his wife and it was also decided that the deceased would not go very often to her father's house and her father will not keep her in his house for unlimited period. According to the witness, the meeting went up to 3:00 AM and the complainant also insisted that he should visit his home and have a cup of tea with him to settle down the issue forever and on his insistence he, Mohd. Umar, Sh. Iqbal, Sh. Mehruddin and son of Sh. Mehruddin reached the residence of complainant at about 3.00 AM where they all had a cup of tea with him St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 116 and the matter was settled forever. The witness has further deposed that his son brought his wife to his residence after about three four days and from this day till two days before the death of deceased there was no dispute between the family and husband and wife and it was two days before the death that the deceased visited her father's house and on return she was depressed. According to the witness on the day of incident, he had left his home for his shop at Janakpuri at about 8.30 AM and at about 12.00 he received a phone call from his neighbor that the deceased was serious and he immediately came to his house. According to the witness as soon as he reached there, Riyazuddin, his wife and his son Giyasuddin were taking the deceased to the hospital in a car and he himself called police and remained at home whereas his son, another son and wife took the deceased took the hospital. Witness has further deposed that at about 1:00 PM he was taken to Police Station and had called the complainant on phone and informed him about the unfortunate incident and his son Riyazuddin, Giyasuddin and his wife were arrested at DDU Hospital. (68) In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State witness has deposed that he was not known the family of complainant prior to the alliance. Witness has admitted that the marriage between his son and deceased was without any pressure from any source. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not willing for the marriage and for this reason there was a delay in the marriage or that this marriage had been delayed only to arrange for the marriage of his daughters and has voluntarily St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 117 added that three daughters already married. Witness has further deposed that he remained admitted in the hospital at Rajender Nagar for about seven months but he is not aware the name of that hospital. According to the witness during this period of seven months Mumtaz was not with him in the hospital and ahs voluntarily added that she remained at home. Witness has admitted that his wife use to take care of him and Riyazuddin also remained at home. He has denied the suggestion that on account of his admission in the hospital and ailment he was not aware of the relationship between his son Riyazuddin and Mumtaz and has voluntarily added that he use to make inquiries from them and came to know that the relations were normal. According to the witness an expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/ to Rs.1,25,000/ had been incurred in the hospital and he had made the payment of the hospital in cash and has voluntarily added that he had borrowed some amount from builder Suraj Bhan. Witness has denied the suggestion that there were allegations of mar pitai and harassment of Mumtaj on account of which her family was compelled to seek the intervention of middlemen who had arranged for the alliance or that an undertaking was given by their family that they would not harass Mumtaj and it is on the asking of middlemen namely Mehruddin and Iqbal that the complainant had agreed to leave Mumtaj at their house whom they took away on the next day.
(69) Witness has also denied the suggestion that there was a constant demand for dowry and harassment caused to Mumtaj on this St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 118 account by him and his family on account of which a meeting also took place at the house of Umar Mohd. where his son Riyazuddin undertook not to misbehave with Mumtaj or beat her and has voluntarily added that the meeting did take place but the allegations of harassment are incorrect. Witness has admitted that the Quazi who got the marriage performed or any other Quazi / priest was not called to participate in the settlement talks which took place at the first instance in their house and thereafter in the house of Umar Mohd. Witness has admitted that when the talks took place in the house of Umar Mohd. Mumtaj was not present. He has also admitted that nobody asked Mumtaj what she wanted and what was the problem when the meeting took place at the house of Umar Mohd. Witness has denied the suggestion that being an accused in the case he has created a false story in defence only to save himself from penal consequences.
FINDINGS:
(70) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed by both the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various prosecution as well as defence witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 119
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public witnesses:
1. Shahabuddin ➢ Shahabuddin (PW3) is the father of the deceased,
(PW3), Smt. Smt. Zareena (PW4) is the mother of the deceased,
Zareena (PW4), Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) is the brother of the deceased
Mohd. Sartaj and Smt. Shabana (PW6) is the sister in law
(PW5) and (Bhabhi) of the deceased Maumtaz.
Smt.Shabana ➢ They have deposed on the aspects of harassment
(PW6) and torture given to the deceased Mumtaz on
account of the demand for dowry but it is for the
first time in the Court that they have came up with
definite instances, particularly the parents of the deceased who are silent on this aspect in their statements either to the SDM or the police.
➢ Shahabuddin (PW3) has also placed on record the letter/ note Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B7 which they claimed were written by the deceased Mumtaz and were handed over to Mohd. Sartaj two months prior to her death when he went to her house.
➢ Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) has also placed on record a copy of the admission form (Ex.PW5/A) which he claimed is the admitted handwriting of the deceased, which I may observe has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law.
2. Ms. Chitra R. She is the Counsellor cum Programme Secretary, Vikasini Panchkaran Center for Women Empowerment. She has neither been (PW7) able to prove the admission form Ex.PW5/A in accordance with law nor the identity of the person whose photograph has been attached. She has also not been able to produce the original attendance register and has also not been able to vouch on the authenticity and correctness of this document.
Witness of Medical Record:
3. Dr. Komal Singh She has proved the postmortem report of the deceased (PW17) Mumtaz which is Ex.PW17/A and also proved the subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW17/B according to St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 120 which that cause of death was asphyxia subsequent to antemortem hanging.
4. Dr. Dhananjay This witness has proved the MLC of Mumtaz Ex.PW1/A (PW18) according to which Mumtaz was declared Brought Dead at DDU Hospital FSL Experts
5. Ms. Kavita Gel She is Senior Scientific Assistant from FSL Rohini who has (PW8) proved the chemical analysis report Ex.PW8/A according to which on chemical and Thin Layer Chromatography examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A,1B, 2A,2B and 3.
6. Sh. Anurag He is Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) from FSL, Sharma (PW9) Delhi has his report Ex.PW9/A according to which the signatures marked Q10,Q12,Q14 and Q16 and admitted writings and signatures marked A1 to A16 were written by one and the same person and no opinion could be offered on the question writings marked Q1 to Q9, Q11, Q13 and Q15 on the basis of materials at hand.
Police / Official witnesses:
7. HC Anil Kumar He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has (PW1) proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A, his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/B and DD No. 38A which is Ex.PW1/C.
8. L/Ct. Somita She is a formal witness being the DD Writer who has (PW2) proved the DD No. 29 which is Ex.PW2/A and DD No. 31 copy of which is Ex.PW2/B.
9. ASI Om They had reached the spot pursuant to DD No. 29 and has Prakash (PW10) prove proved the seizure memo of the chunni which is and HC Badan Ex.PW10/A. They have also proved the arrest memos of Singh (PW12) accused Riazuddin, Shahbuddin, Giasuddin and Hazara which are Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/E respectively and their personal search memos which are Ex.PW10/F to Ex.PW10/I. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 121
10. Sh. Vinay He is the then Executive Magistrate who had conducted the Kaushik (PW11) Inquest proceedings. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW3/A Statement of Shahabuddin
Ex.PW4/A Statement of Zareena
Ex.PW11/A Endorsement on the statement of Zareena
Ex.PW11/B Request for postmortem
Ex.PW11/C Dead body identification statement
Ex.PW11/D Inquest documents
11. HC Vijay Kumar He is a formal witness being the Crime Team (PW13) Photographer who has proved the photographs taken by him which are Ex.PW13/A5 to Ex.PW13/A8 and the negatives of the same are Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A4.
12. ASI Ved He is a formal witness who had deposited the exhibits of Prakash (PW14) the case with the FSL.
13. ASI Satyaveer He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved Singh (PW15) the entry at serial No. 4567 of register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW15/A; copy of RC No. 50/21 which is Ex.PW15/B and entry at serial No. 4968 copy of which is Ex.PW15/C.
14. SI Anil Kumar He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge (PW16) who has proved having visited the spot of the incident and prepared his report which is Ex.PW16/A.
15. SI Satish Kumar He is the investigating officer of the present case. Apart (PW19) from the various documents proved by the other witnesses he has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW19/A Site plan
Ex.PW10/B Arrest memo of Riayjuddin
Ex.PW10/C Arrest memo of Shahabuddin
Ex.PW10/D Arrest memo of Gyasiuddin
Ex.PW10/E Arrest memo of Hazra
Ex.PW10/F Personal search memo of Riayjuddin
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 122
Ex.PW10/G Personal search memo of Shahabuddin
Ex.PW10/H Personal search memo of Gyasiuddin
Ex.PW10/I Personal search memo of Hazara
Ex.PW19/X Brief facts
Ex.PW19/B Seizure memo of exhibits preserved by
the Autopsy Surgeon
Ex.PW19/C List of dowry articles
Ex.PW5/C Marriage card
Ex.PW19/Y Seizure of Maruti car
Ex.PW3/B1 to Letters/ notes allegedly written by the B7 deceased Mark B Seizure memo of the above letters/ notes Ex.PW5/A Alleged admitting handwriting of the deceased Ex.Z/1 Attendance sheet The Investigating Officer SI Satish Kumar has admitted that he did not collect the admitted handwriting of the deceased Mumtaz from any institution or bank etc. and has also admitted that the letters/ notes Ex.PW3/B1 to B7 were not handed over to him at the first instance. He has claimed that the admitted handwriting of the deceased had been given to him by Mohd. Sartaz the brother of the deceased at a later stage.
Defence Witnesses:
1. Mehruddin ➢ Both these witnesses are senior citizens, belonging (DW1) and to the Saifi Community to which both the parties Mohd. Iqbal belong and are involved in social and religious (DW2) activities.
➢ They are the mediators in the marriage of the deceased Mumtaz and accused Riyazuddin.
➢ They have proved that there were differences between the husband and wife and they received a complaint of the accused Riyazuddin beating her wife Mumtaz.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 123 ➢ Both of them have unanimously denied the aspect of any demand for dowry or harassment caused by the other accused persons and have affirmed that the dispute was between the husband (Riyazuddin) and wife (deceased Mumtaz) interse on domestic issues like the deceased not getting sufficient diet etc. and not because of any demand.
➢ On one occasion when there was a dispute between Riyazuddin and Mumtaz, the family of Mumtaz had gone to the house of the accused and both Mehruddin and Mohd. Iqbal had accompanied them in which Mohd. Sartaj the brother of the deceased had given a blow to Gyasuddin and when he intervened, Mohd. Sartaj also pushed him as a result of which he fell down.
2. Shahbuddin The accused Shahabuddin has examined himself as his (DW3) own witness wherein he has denied all the allegations raised by the family of the deceased. He has claimed that all the disputes arose because there was an economic incompatibility between the two families and their life styles since the family of the deceased were much financially well off than his family.
(71) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused persons.
Identity of the accused:
(72) In so far as the identity of the accused persons are concerned the same is not disputed. The accused Riyazuddin is the husband of the deceased Mumtaz; accused Shahabuddin is the father in law; accused Hazra is the mother in law and accused Gyasuddin is the brother in law/ Jeth of the deceased Mumtaz. They have been duly identified in the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 124 Court as such and hence I hold that the identity of the accused persons stands established. Further, I may observe that the nanand of the deceased Mumtaz i.e. Imrana and Afsana are absconding and have been declared Proclaimed Offenders.
Unnatural death within seven years of marriage:
(73) It is an admitted case of both the parties that the marriage between the accused Riyazuddin and deceased Hazra was an arranged marriage and the engagement ceremony took place in the year 1999 followed by marriage after two and a half years on 1.6.2003. Thereafter a son was born out of the wedlock on 31.7.2004 and Mumtaz expired on account of hanging (suicidal) on 29.3.2007 i.e. within seven years of marriage (precisely within three years, five months and twenty three days), which aspects stand established.
Medical Evidence:
(74) Dr. Dhananjay (PW18) from DDU Hospital has proved the MLC of Mumtaz W/o Riyajuddin dated 29.03.2007 which is Ex.PW18/A according to which the patient was brought in Casualty in an unconscious state by her husband on 29.3.2007 at 1:25 PM. It is evident from the MLC that the pulse of Mumtaz was not palpable, BP was not recordable, her Central Nervous system was not responding to deep painful stimuli (DPS), pupil were dilated and not reacting to light on both side and no St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 125 respiratory movement was found, no heart sound was audible and the ECG (Ex.PW18/G) showed straight line and hence the patient Mumtaz was declared brought dead.
(75) Dr. Komal Singh (PW17) from DDU Hospital has proved the postmortem report of deceased Mumtaz W/o Riyazuddin, aged 24 years female prepared by Dr. Amit Pundhir which report is Ex.PW17/A according to which there were no visible external injuries except the ligature marks which incompletely encircled the neck and it was obliquely placed and knot area was on the left side of the neck, about 2.5cm x 3 cm in size and encircle the neck and went upto the right back of the neck and ligature mark was brownish in color and the bruise was surrounding it and its underneath surface was dry and glistening, parchemntised. Dr. Komal Singh has proved that blood and viscera were preserved in the common salt and handed over to the investigating officer for chemical examination and the opinion regarding the cause of death was deferred. She has further proved that on 12.10.2007 an application by SI Satish Kumar of Police Station Bindapur was received along with the FSL Report which showed that metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected; she opined that the cause of death was asphyxia subsequent to antemortem hanging which report/ opinion is Ex.PW17/B. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 126 (76) It is apparent that the Autopsy Surgeon has not given any opinion on the manner of death i.e. whether it was caused on account of suicidal hanging or was homicidal hanging and it is for the Court to formulate an opinion on the basis of the material on record. It is evident from the postmortem report Ex.PW17/A that the ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased was incomplete and was obliquely placed with a knot area on the left side of the neck, thereby proving that the suicidal nature of hanging. This being the background, I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case that the death of the deceased Mumtaz was on account of Suicidal Hanging. I may further observe that though there are allegations that the deceased was being regularly subjected to harassment and beatings by the accused persons and was even beaten a couple of days earlier to her death, yet it is apparent from the MLC and the postmortem report there are no sign of injuries either visible or internal on the body of the deceased.
Forensic Evidence:
(77) In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the Chemical Analysis Report and the Handwriting Expert Report.
Viscera Report:
(78) Coming first to the Chemical Analysis Report which is Ex.PW8/A duly proved by Ms. Kavita Goyal (PW8) according to which St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 127 report on Chemical and Thin Layer Chromatography examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides could not be detected in the exhibits. This report hence rules out poisoning of the deceased.
Handwriting Report:
(79) Coming next to the report of the hand writing expert, the case of the prosecution is that there was a long standing demand of dowry by the accused persons for which reason the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the accused persons. It is alleged that on one occasion when the brother of the deceased i.e. Sartaj had gone to visit the matrimonial home of deceased she had handed over to him a letter which Sartaj had handed over to the Investigating Officer later after eighteen days of her death. The said document i.e. letters Q1 to Q16 had been sent for forensic examination along with another document for comparison which the parental family of the deceased i.e. her father and brother claimed was bearing her handwriting and signatures i.e. A1 to A16 which document is an application form. The parents and brother of the deceased claimed that during the period the deceased was having a differences with her inlaws and remained at their house she learn stitching from Vikasani Mahila Vikas Karyakaram and the form which she filled for admission in the said institute is Ex.PW5/A which form St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 128 according to them bears her photograph and is in her own handwriting.
This handwriting had also been sent to FSL for examination and expert Sh. Anurag Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) from FSL, Delhi has given his detailed report which is Ex.PW9/A according to which the signatures marked Q10, Q12, Q14 and Q16 and admitted writings and signatures marked A1 to A16 were written by one and the same person but no opinion could be offered on the question writings marked Q1 to Q9, Q11, Q13 and Q15 on the basis of materials at hand i.e. copy of the applicant form. The witness Anurag Sharma (PW9) has been exhaustively crossexamined wherein he has admitted that the words 'Admitted Handwriting' is not specifically stated in the Standard Handwriting. He has also admitted that he cannot ascertain the age of writing which he has clarified can be obtained by way of chemical examination.
(80) A dispute has been raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel on Ex.PW5/A since on the face of it the application form does not appear to be an authentic document. Initially one Ms. Chitra R. Panchkaran (PW7) Counsellor cum Programme Secretary, Vikasini Center for Women Empowerment was examined in the Court in the year 31.3.2009. In her examination in chief she stated that she had handed over to the police the admission form which Mumtaz filled up in her own handwriting along with the copy of the attendance register of the month of December 2005 which was seized by the police. Here, I may observe that neither the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 129 seizure memo is on record nor the original register has been placed/ produced before the Court. The examination in chief of this witness was deferred and opportunity was granted by the Court to produce the original but the witness was never recalled until September 2013 when the witness Ms. Chitra R. Panchkaran stated that she cannot produce the original attendance register because it was destroyed in the year 2011 when the new Director joined. I may mention that in the year 2009 time was granted to her to produce the original attendance register which register was never produced and her examination in chief was not conducted by the prosecution till the year 2013. An adverse inference is drawn for non production of the said register. Further, the witness Ms. Chitra has specifically stated that she had never seen Mumtaz personally and hence she cannot confirm whether the admission form Ex.PW5/A belongs to the deceased Mumtaz or to some other lady. She is also not able to confirm whether the lady whose photograph has been attached on the admission form was actually the one who was attending the Institute or attending the classes as alleged by the prosecution. She admits that there are interpolations on Ex.PW5/A and white fluid had been put on the column next to the name of the father and also on the column where the caste is required to be mention in which there is a cutting and the words "Shahbuddin" has been written at serial No. 2 and the words "Saifi" have been written at serial No. 3 against the column of caste. She has further admitted that at the time when the girl who was given the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 130 admission told that she was unmarried and it was later when the police came after fourgive years 45 years then they came to know that she was married. According to her, as a matter of practice and procedure adopted in the office, the photograph of the person to be admitted is normally pasted on the form and the staple is put only if there is an additional need to ensure that the photograph does not come off but in the present case the photograph has been loosely stapled. She has further admitted that the application form does not bear the signatures of any of the officer of their Institution nor the stamp and has explained that in the present case there is no stamp because it was a project run by NGO but in government related projects they put their stamp and endorsement. (81) After having considered the testimony of the witness Ms. Chitra from the Institute Vikasani Mahila Vikas Karyakaram I may observe that the objection with regard to the handwriting present on A1 to A16 on Ex.PW5/A as not being of the deceased is not all that unfounded. The entire application is on a handwritten form which is a photocopy. There are interpolations and cutting in the columns of name of the father, caste and religion. Further, the father of the deceased i.e. Shamshuddin (PW3) has in his examination in chief claimed that his daughter had studied till 10th but in the said application form Ex.PW5/A the educational qualification of the applicant have only been given as 4th pass (Chauthi pass). Also, the applicant in whose handwriting the above said form has been filled, has been shown as unmarried and as admitted St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 131 by Ms. Chitra (PW5) that they came to know that the applicant was married only when the police contacted them. Further, the original attendance registered has also not been produced in the Court which withholding of register appears to be deliberate since initially in the year 2009 the examination in chief of this witness was deferred only to enable her to produce the original record which was not produced and later in the year 2013 when this witness was recalled, she informed that the register had been destroyed and she is unable to do so. Once the Predecessor Court had directed the production of the original register and granted time for the same, the question of the destruction of this document does not arise. The attempts on the face of it is to withhold the original form the original from the Court for which an adverse inference is drawn.
(82) I may also note that the brother of the deceased i.e. Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) is qualified being MA, B. Ed. and is into teaching line and was the one who according to Ms. Chitra had come to them to obtain the original copy of the same. The Investigating Officer does not prove the seizure of this document nor any seizure memo is placed on record. It is also admitted by the father of deceased i.e. Shamshuddin (PW3) that he is running a private business whereas the occupation of the father in the admission form Ex.PW5/A has been shown as 'Private Service' with monthly income of hardly Rs.3,000/. The possibility of the said form having been manufactured at a later stage in connivance with the workers St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 132 of the local NGOs cannot be ruled out or else there was no reason why the original of the same would not be made available to the Court. Also, the fact that the photograph of the said form has not been pasted and appears to have been stapled at a later stage, raises a serious doubt on the credibility of the said document Ex.PW5/A and strengthens the inference that there is a possibility of the same being fabricated, manufactured and created to be used as an evidence in the present case cannot be ruled out. (83) I may also observe that the deceased was an educated girl who had studied till class 10th as stated by her father Shahabuddin (PW3) and there were ample opportunities for the Investigating Officer to have collected the admitted handwriting of the deceased Mumtaz from the school last attended by her, which could be the best documents of her admitted handwriting which has not been done. Further, it is also the case of the prosecution that there was an LIC Policy and also FDR in the name of the deceased Mumtaz for a sum of Rs.45,000/ (where her father was himself the nominee). The deceased was also the registered owner of a Maruti car. I am sure that documents relating to LIC Policy/ FDR, Registration Certificate of the car and her school record would be having the handwriting and signatures of the deceased to which no one can object and there was sufficient opportunity for the Investigating Officer to have collected those documents containing the admitted handwriting of the deceased. Why the admitted handwriting of the deceased was not taken from the said documents and it is this which raises a serious doubt St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 133 in the mind of the Court, more so because the document Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B7 which the family of the deceased claimed has been written by the deceased and handed over to her brother before her death, appears to be a fabricated document for the following that though apparently the said document has been written at different point of time yet the handwriting shows that it has been written in the same flow and in a running hand. Further, it is evident that the revenue stamps are pasted on Ex.PW3/B5 and Ex.PW3/B7. What was the requirement of putting the revenue stamps and from where the deceased Mumtaz was able to get the revenue stamps are the questions for which no answers are forthcoming. (84) I may further observe that in so far as the report of the handwriting expert Ex.PW9/A is concerned, it has been opined that the questioned signatures marked Q10, Q12, Q14 and Q16 have been written by the same person who had written the standard writings and signatures marked A1 to A16 were written by one and the same person. In respect of the question writings marked Q1 to Q9, Q11, Q13 and Q15, though some similarities are there but all the characters occurring in the questioned writings are not accounted for from the standard writings and hence no definite opinion can be expressed on the questioned writings. Ld. Defence Counsel has explained that since there was an LIC Policy which had been taken by the father of the deceased in her name in the year 2006 where Shahabuddin himself the nominee, there is a possibility that the signatures of the deceased might have taken on St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 134 blank papers on the revenue stamps for the said purpose which after her death have been confirmed into the questioned document. How the brother of the deceased came into the possession of these questioned handwriting? Why these documents were handed over to the Investigating Officer after eighteen days her death? Why Mohd. Sartaj (brother of the deceased) and the parents of the deceased did not mention this fact regarding the deceased handing over these written pages to Mohd. Sartaj to the SDM at the very first instance? All these are very serious issues and questions for which no answers are forthcoming.
(85) The manner in which the entire questioned document has been written in one flow apparently by the same ink, does not appeared to be natural. Rather, the possibility of the same being fabricated after the death of the deceased cannot be ruled out and perhaps it is for this regard that the admitted handwriting of the deceased has been withheld not only from the Court but also from the Investigating Agency as it would have exposed the said document being fabricate and another document i.e. the photocopy of an application form of some programme run by an NGO has been fabricated in the same handwriting which was then handed over to the Investigating Officer by stapling the photograph of the deceased also bearing the signatures of her father. I am convinced that both these documents have been fabricated at the end of the family of the deceased. (86) Here, I may note that the role of the Investigating Officer has been severely lacking. He could have easily got the admitted handwriting St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 135 of the deceased from the school last attended by the deceased and also from other places/ institutions i.e. Bank, LIC Office and the concerned Agency from where the Maruti Car was purchased which was registered in her name of from other places which has not been done. This is highly improper. The Investigating Officer is an officer of the Court whose job is not to play in the hands of either of the accused or the complainant but to fairly investigate the matter and bring the truth before the Court but he has miserably failed in the same.
(87) This being the background, I hereby hold that the report of the handwriting expert does not assist the prosecution in any manner. Allegations against the accused under Section 498A & 304B IPC (dowry death proximity test):
(88) The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the deceased Mumtaz and Riyazuddin was an arranged marriage through one Mehruddin belonging to the same community. The engagement ceremony took place in the year 1999 followed by marriage after two and a half years on 1.6.2003. In the marriage the family of the deceased had given her everything as per their capacity which included Maruti 800 car which had been got financed by them, fridge, car, furniture, gold & silver jewellery and it was a decent marriage. Soon after the marriage the father in law of the deceased i.e. accused Shahabuddin fell ill and has to be hospitalized on which the deceased was being frequently taunted by the accused saying that she was a curse for the family from the day one St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 136 she stepped into their house. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was given frequent beatings and demand of money was raised from time to time and she was not allowed to touch the article which had been given to her by her parents stating that they were meant for the unmarried sisters in laws. Even after the male child was born to her after a years, the harassment continued and on one occasion being fed up with the same the deceased had been brought back to her parental house where she stayed for about eight months but with the intervention of the respectable persons of the community another chance was given to the accused persons. It is further alleged by the prosecution that even thereafter the harassment continued as a result of which the deceased had committed suicide at her matrimonial house by hanging herself on the ceiling fan.
(89) In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Shahabuddin (PW3) who is the father of the deceased, Smt. Zareena (PW4) mother of the deceased, Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) brother of the deceased and Shabana (PW6) bhabhi of the deceased.
(90) However, before coming to the discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on merits, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 137 section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression "willful" in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonably expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 138 relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(91) The expression "Cruelty" takes in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
(92) If the woman has been harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The expression "harassment" has not been defined in Section 498A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. However, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 139 (93) Further, in order to establish a charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, which deals with what is described as "dowry death", the prosecution must necessarily prove the following ingredients: i. The death of a woman must have been caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstance;
ii. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;
iv. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
v. Such cruelty or harassment is when to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
(94) The term "Dowry" has not been defined in Section 304B of IPC, but, since this expression has been defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is required to be given the same meaning for the purpose of under Section 304B IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as under:
"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 parent of either party to a marriage or by any St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 140 other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 3 or any time after the marriage 4in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."
(95) Dowry would include that property or valuable security which is actually given or which is agreed to be given, in relation to the marriage of a person in question. The property or valuable security may be given or may be agreed to be given before marriage or at the time of marriage or at any time after the marriage, so long as it is connected with the marriage. However, there has to be a link between the property given or agreed to be given and the marriage. If at any time before or at the time of or even during marriage, the parents of a woman or any other person related or connected to her agree to give some cash, valuable security or property to her husband or inlaws after marriage, that also would be covered within the definition of dowry as the agreement or promise in such a case would be attributable to the marriage or proposed marriage and if there is demand for any cash property, valuable security etc. which is promised, but not given, it would constitute demand for dowry. 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 were expected to be given or ought to have been given in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 141 marriage, that would also, to my mind, constitute demand of dowry because even though such an article may not have been agreed or promised to be given by the girl or her family members, it might have been in the contemplation of the boy and/or his family members, on account of the expectation that such an article would be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, such demand would be considered to be a demand in connection with the marriage though made after the marriage has been solemnized. Even demand of articles such as T.V., fridge, jewellery, clothes, furniture, etc. which usually are given or expected in marriages in our country, would, considering the objective sought to be achieved by incorporating Section 304B in Indian Penal Code and enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 fall within the purview of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code.
(96) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property, etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage, and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 142 referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and, therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.
(97) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties".
This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage."
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 143 (98) In the case of Appasaheb and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2007 SC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...... In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning........ A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 144 expenses and for purchasing manure....."
(99) The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act are both remedial and penal statutes. As such Courts are expected to construe the provisions in a way that the purpose is fulfilled through and within the limits of language employed in the statute. If a case is established then the Courts are to be stringent in dealing with the culprits. The Courts while taking a stringent view and despite the obligation of the Legislature enactment a success have also to keep in mind that the charge should be made out. The main ingredients to be proved for establishing a case under Section 304B IPC are (i) unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and (ii) she being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with any demand of dowry.
(100) The words "it is shown" occurring in section 304B IPC are of significance for the reason that the initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Section 304B IPC do exist on the prosecution. This being shown or established, the question of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would arise. In other words, to draw a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act the necessary ingredient that it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry has to be proved. Only when these facts are proved then St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 145 by virtue of the deeming provision of section 304B IPC, the Court shall presume that the husband or any relative of the husband had caused dowry death. Though cruelty at any time after the marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and harassment envisaged by Section 304B is to be soon before the death of a woman. (101) The Courts are required to scrutinize the evidence carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is a demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of her husband within a short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as the torture and harassment is confined to the four walls of the house. The Courts are, however, required to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are strained for any reason whatever it might be.
(102) Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological problem or mental agony or such circumstances that the person committing suicide may think that life he or she is living is more miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance would vary from person to person . Some persons try to make the life St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 146 easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their life. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported as Gurditta Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 309).
(103) The importance of proximity test is both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" used in Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Illustration (a) of the Act is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before"
would normally imply that the interval should not be too much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 147 (104) It is well settled by several judgments that mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt. In the case reported as State of Punjab Vs.. Bhajan Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 258, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "......... The circumstances of this case undoubtedly create suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused....."
(105) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: ".......Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.
This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have benefit of St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 148 that doubt........
It needs all the same to be reemphasized that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record.
Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused...."
(106) In another case reported as AIR 1973 SC 2622, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under : "...... Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before the court can convict and the mental distinction between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration....."
(107) Further more, in another case reported as Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : ''......Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 149 society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of "Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637) stated thus:
It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished.
There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted....."
(108) It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. (109) Applying the settled principles of law the facts of the present case, at the very Outset I may observe that Mehruddin was the mediator in the marriage, has not been cited nor examined as a prosecution witness and has rather appeared as a Defence Witness. It is an admitted case of both the complainant and the accused that the engagement had St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 150 taken place in the year 1999 and it was after two and a half years that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 which fact has gone undisputed. All the witnesses of the prosecution who are the parents, brother and sister in law (bhabhi) of the deceased have for the first time in the court deposed in a parrot like manner on the aspect of demand of dowry and harassment caused to the deceased details of which are being culled out as under:
➢ That after the marriage the deceased started residing along with the accused persons at her matrimonial house i.e. D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
➢ That soon after the marriage the accused Shahabuddin fell seriously ill and was hospitalized as he was suffering from a boil and which deteriorated on which the deceased was being taunted and was told that she was a curse for the family. While the witness Shahabuddin (PW3) claimed that the accused used to taunt the deceased saying "tere pair hamare ghar mein abhage pade hain" whereas the witness Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) claimed that she was being taunted by saying "tere pair hamare ghar mai theek nahi pade hai, tu abhagi hai, teri vajahe se hamare pitaji bimar pad gaye hai".
➢ That the accused were in need of money on which the father of the deceased i.e. Shahabuddin (PW3) had given Rs.10,000/ to the accused persons.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 151 ➢ That the accused persons sold the jewellery of Mumtaz to meet the expenses incurred by them in the treatment of accused Shahabuddin.
➢ That the younger brother of the deceased had donated blood for the accused Shahabuddin.
➢ That a Maruti Car which was in the name of the deceased was financed by her father Shhabuddin but there was a demand to transfer the Maruti car in the name of accused Riyazuddin. ➢ That a sum of Rs. One lac was demanded by the accused Shahabuddin and other accused persons for opening a shop in the name of Riyazuddin.
➢ That the accused persons did not allow to touch the articles which were given to her by her parents saying that they were meant for the unmarried sisters in law and were to be used at their marriages. ➢ That when the deceased Mumtaz was expecting her first child there was a dispute between the parental and matrimonial family of the deceased Mumtaz since her parents wanted the delivery of the child to be in a Private Nursing Home whereas the accused were not in a financial position to afford the same and the delivery had taken place in DDU Hospital (government hospital). ➢ That when a male child was born to Mumtaz, she was not sent to her parental home by the accused persons even after forty days. ➢ That on 30.4.2005 the unmarried sisters in law of the deceased and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 152 other accused persons gave beatings to Mumtaz which resulted into swelling on her face and blue marks on which Riyazuddin called Mohd, Sartaj and asked him to take Mumtaz away. ➢ That Shahabuddin father of the deceased, his wife Zareena, son Mohd. Sartaj and mediator Mehruddin went to the house of the accused persons as there was a dispute between Mumtaz and Riyazuddin and accused Riyazuddin had done maarpitai with her. ➢ That the family members of the deceased were manhandled and the accused Shahabuddin pushed Mumtaz saying "hamara kya bigad legi"after which with the intervention of the Mediator the matter was sorted out but on the next day Mumtaz was taken by her parents to their house where she stayed there for about eight months.
➢ That in the last week of December 2005 there was a meeting of respectables of community who assured that Mumtaz would be taken care of and the accused Riyazuddin would not beat her after which she was sent back to her matrimonial house. ➢ That initially for two months Mumtaz remained happy but thereafter the accused again started demanding Rs. One lac and for transferring the Maruti car in the name of the accused Riyazuddin. ➢ That in the month of AprilMay 2006 when Mohd. Sartaj went to the house of Mumtaz to visit her, she handed over her some letters (Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B7) wherein she mentioned about the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 153 harassment and torture being given to her by the accused persons. ➢ That the father of Mumtaz got an FDR/ LIC Policy in her name and when the accused came to know about the same, they started pressurizing Mumtaz to encash the FDR to which she refused and suffered harassment in their hands.
➢ That Mumtaz came to visit her parents along with Riyazuddin in the evening and asked her father to bring her back on 30.3.2007. ➢ That on 23.3.2007 Mohd. Sartaj received a call from Riyazuddin asking him to encash the FDR and fulfill his other demand raised earlier otherwise his sister would not be alive. ➢ That on 28.03.2007 the parents of the deceased i.e. her father and mother went to their native village Pirathli, District Gautam Budh Nagar and on 29.03.2007 at about 12:0012:30 noon, they received a telephonic call from accused Shahbuddin who told him that Mumtaz was seriously ill and she was being taken to hospital. ➢ That after five minutes the parents of the deceased received a call from ASI Om Prakash that Mumtaz had committed suicide by hanging herself and was in DDU Hospital.
(110) In their examinations in chief all the four witnesses have unanimously corroborated each other on the above aspects. In fact in so far as the witness Zareena (PW4) is concerned, she has also stated that the mother in law of the deceased i.e. accused Hazra and both the sisters St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 154 in law (i.e. accused Imrana and Afsana who as PO) used to frequently beat the deceased and on their provocation the accused Riyazuddin and Shahabuddin also joined them. Further, in so far as the Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) is concerned he has also stated that at the time of marriage Rupees Twenty One Thousand had been given in cash to the accused persons. In their crossexamination all the witnesses have admitted that at no point of time any medical examination of the deceased was got done including the time when they had noticed swelling on the lips of the deceased and blue marks on her face and also when she had come back to their house with the said injuries. The witnesses Shahabuddin (PW3) and Zareena (PW4) have been confronted with their earlier statements made to the SDM and the witnesses Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) and Shabana (PW6) have been confronted with their earlier statements made to the police. It has been found that all the allegations made by theses witnesses are a total improvement to what they have earlier stated to the SDM or to the police.
They have introduced the following aspects in the court for the first time :
➢ That all the accused and the deceased were staying the same house. ➢ That the accused Shahabuddin, Hazra, Gyasuddin, Imrana (PO) and Afsana (PO) along with Riyazuddin were constantly harassing the deceased.
➢ That the deceased was being taunted by the accused Hazra, Gyasuddin, Imrana (PO) and Afsana (PO) along with Riyazuddin when Shahabuddin fell ill and was hospitalized the accused blamed St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 155 it on her saying that she was a curse to the family.
➢ That the parents of the deceased had given Rs.10,000/ to the accused persons.
➢ That the younger brother of the deceased also donated blood for the accused Shahubuddin.
➢ That the accused Shahabuddin, Hazra, Gyasuddin, Imrana (PO) and Afsana (PO) along with Riyazuddin had sold the entire jewellery of the deceased to meet the expenses incurred in the treatment of accused Shahabuddin.
➢ That they had given a Maruti Car in the marriage which was registered in the name of the deceased and the accused wanted the same to be transferred in the name of accused Riyazuddin so that they could also sell off the same.
➢ That Rupees One Lac was demanded by the accused persons for opening a separate shop of Riyazuddin.
➢ That the deceased was not permitted to use the articles given to her by her parents including utensils/ clothes.
➢ That on 30.4.2005 the deceased was being given a beating by the accused persons and there was swelling on her lips and blue marks all over her face pursuant to which the parental family of Mumtaz had to come to their house and were wanting to take her back but the accused did not permit the same.
➢ That the accused Shahabuddin pushed Mumtaz by saying "hamara St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 156 kya bigad legi".
➢ That Mumtaz had come back to her parental house on 4.5.2005 and stayed there for about eight months and again went back to her matrimonial home in the last week of December 2005. ➢ That the deceased Mumtaz had visited her parents two days before her death and also disclosed about the harassment being caused to her by the accused persons and asked them to take her back and she was told by her parents that they were going to their native village and after their return they would take her back on 30.3.2007. ➢ That the accused Riyazuddin made a call to Mohd. Sartaj saying that is Rs. One Lac was not given to them Mumtaz would not be seen alive.
➢ That a letter had been secretly given by the deceased Mumtaz to her brother Mohd. Sartaj about two months before her death wherein Mumtaz has mentioned various circumstances of her matrimonial family and her harassment, which letter Sartaj later on handed over to the Investigating Officer after eighteen days of her death.
(111) It is writ large that all the above allegations are total improvements over the earlier statements made by the witnesses to the SDM or to the police. The only explanation given by the father of the deceased and her family is that they were disturbed at that time on account of the incident and therefore could not have informed the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 157 Investigating Officer and the SDM about the complete details but when asked if they had given their detailed statement to the Investigating Officer they denied having doing so. I may observe that it has emerged from the evidence on record that even before this incident there were serious matrimonial disputes between the deceased and her husband as it was alleged that accused Riyazuddin used to beat her and on one occasion Mumtaz had been brought back by her parents and she had stayed with them for almost eight months. Hence, in this background assuming that Mumtaz did give a letter/ note to Mohd. Sartaj wherein she had mentioned that in case if anything happens to her the accused persons should he held responsible, then under the given circumstances it does not appear possible that the family of the deceased Mumtaz particularly Mohd. Sartaj would have either forgotten or withheld this information regarding the note/ letter from the SDM/ local police at the first instance.
The evidence on record suggests that Mohd. Sartaj had been most aggressive and the parents of the deceased had been time and again going to the house of the accused and questioning their conduct with Mumtaz. How under the given circumstances they could have missed out on the important details particularly the note given to Mohd. Sartaj mentioning about the demand/ harassment. No reasonable person under the given circumstances could have done this. In the present case no such allegation which are now being made in the Court for the first time were ever made previously or told to the police, or to the SDM either at the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 158 first instance or after the death of Mumtaz or even later after her last rites. It is now in the Court that all these details have emerged for the first time as a total improvement over the earlier statements of the witnesses. This being so, the testimonies of the family members of the deceased i.e. father, mother, brother and sister in law (Bhabhi) who are all aggrieved by the death of the deceased and have for the first time came up with new versions are required to be read with caution and it has become necessary for this Court to look for independent corroboration which incidentally is not forthcoming in so far as the aspect of demand of dowry is concerned. (112) I may observe that the best witness who could have confirm the above aspects was the mediator Mehruddin. The family members of the deceased had claimed that on one occasion they had taken Mehruddin to the house of the accused persons and it was in his presence that there was a dispute and later a meeting had taken place wherein the elder of the community had gathered an aspect not disputed rather agreed to by the accused. The Investigating Officer has neither cited Mehruddin as a witness nor any other person from the community who had attended the meeting wherein it was decided to send Mumtaz back. Rather, it is the accused who had produced these witnesses in the Court. I may note that Mehruddin who has been examined by accused DW1 has not supported either the version given by the complainant or the version of the accused and on the face of it, it appears to be more independent. At the very outset, I may observe that initially he has admitted that he had mediated St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 159 in the marriage between the deceased Mumtaz and accused Riyazuddin and the marriage took place three and a half years after the roka ceremony. He has specifically stated that there was no demand of dowry from the family of accused and it was decided that the marriage would be performed in a simple manner as per Islamic law. He is an independent witness and has is unable to give the reason as to why the marriage was delayed and has denied that it was delayed on account of the fact that accused Shahabuddin was reluctant to perform this marriage because of inequality between the families. He has admitted that a car was given by the complainant to the accused but he is not aware whether the accused Shahabuddin had refused to take the car due to the reason that he was unable to maintain the car due to his poverty. According to him, to his knowledge the family of the accused had never demanded any money or dowry from the complainant or the deceased from the time of roka till the unfortunate death of the deceased. It is this version given by Mehruddin a mediator to marriage and an independent witness known to both the families and a respected elder of the community to which the parties belong which defeats the entire version of the parents, brother and sister in law (bhabhi) of the accused that harassment was being given to the deceased was on account of demand for dowry or money. Mehruddin (DW1) has also admitted that the accused Shahabuddin had been admitted in the hospital soon after the marriage on account of boil and was bed ridden for almost eight months during which period his wife St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 160 (Hazra) has been taking care of him in the hospital. This fact of the accused Shahabuddin having admitted in the hospital for many months has also been admitted by the family of the deceased. They have also admitted that the family of accused Sahabuddin including his wife used to be taking care of him, where then was the occasion for the accused Hazra or accused Sahabuddin indulging into harassment and beatings to the deceased during this period when they themselves were not at home on account of hospitalization of Shahabuddin. Though a suggestion has been put to this witness Mehruddin (DW1) by the accused themselves that the accused Riyazuddin had come to him and told that in laws and the deceased were insisting him for a separate residence but he is not in a position to do so because he had to get his younger sisters married, but the witness Mehruddin has denied this aspect. This only establishes the fairness and independence of this witness Mehruddin an aged man of 62 years who is not related to any of the parties but had acted as a mediator to the marriage. He has admitted that the family of the deceased was much well off than the family of accused and soon after the marriage he does not know what had transpired between the families. He has also stated in his crossexamination that the he had never informed by either Riyazuddin or his father Sahabuddin that they did not want to perform the marriage and has further stated that he is not aware how Mumtaz was kept in her matrimonial home. He has proved that on one occasion the father of the deceased Mumtaz made a call to him informing that there St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 161 was a marpitai incident with Mumtaz in her matrimonial house and requested him to accompany on which he went to the house of accused along with the complainant Sahabuddin. He has explained that when they reached the matrimonial house of the deceased, they found Mumtaz crying/ weeping and the complainant and his wife wanted to take their daughter with them and to make a complaint but he intervened and told them not to do so and to give another chance to the accused persons. Mehruddin (DW1) has explained that on account of his intervention the complainant Shahabuddin did not take her daughter back but on the very next day Shahabuddin took his daughter back with him. He has stated that it was after eight months that he met both the families in the house of Mohd. Umar at Sitapuri and it was decided to send Mumtaz back with Riyazuddin and that Riyazuddin would not misbehave/ marpitai with her. He has explained that after this incident he never met both the parties and the only information received was that Mumtaz had committed suicide. It is writ large from the testimony of Mehruddin (DW1) that the aspect of marpitai/ harassment by the accused Riyazuddin is borne out from the same yet in so far as the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on this account is concerned, he does not confirm the said allegations. (113) Iqbal Saifi also an old man of 60 years and is known to both the families has also been examined by the accused persons as DW2. He was also the mediator to the marriage along with Mehruddin and a respectable person belonging to Saifi community to which parties belong. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 162 He has similarly confirmed the testimony of Mehruddin to the effect that at the time of roka there was no demand of dowry from the family of the accused. He admits that a few days before the marriage a dispute had arisen between the accused Shahabuddin and the complainant on the ground that the complainant wanted to give four wheeler to his daughter whereas the accused Shahabuddin had refused to take the same on account of his economic condition and also on account of the fact that he has given daughters of whom he had already married three daughters and had not given even a bicycle in dowry. He has further explained that at the time of Bidai a dispute also arose when the wife of the complainant insisted that her daughter would go to her matrimonial house in the new car whereas the accused Sahabuddin was reluctant and was insisting that he would take the bride in the same car in which the bridegroom had come. He has stated that he settled the matter and himself drove the car with the couple because the accused Riyazuddin was not knowing driving. The witness Iqbal Saifi has also on the next day of reception accused Sahabuddin fell ill because he had a boil in the upper limb and was admitted to different hospitals for about seven months and whenever he went to see the accused Sahabuddin in the hospital, he was looked after by his wife. He has explained that another dispute arose between the families on the issue of admission of deceased in nursing home instead of DDU Hospital by the accused since Smt. Zareena was insisting that the accused should get Mumtaz admitted in the Nursing Home and not in St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 163 DDU Hospital whereas the accused Shahabuddin was not able to afford a nursing home. He has further stated that on 30.4.2005 at about 11.30 PM he received a phone call from accused Shahabuddin that there has been some dispute between Riyazuddin and his wife and the family of deceased were coming to their residence on which Shahabuddin requested him and one Sh. Shaukat to come pursuant to which he along with Shaukat reached at the house of accused at about 12.00 night where the father of the deceased, his wife and his two sons and Mehruddin came and there was hot exchange of words between the families. He has further explained that the son of complainant Shahabuddin attempted to hit accused Gayasuddin with helmet on which he intervened. He has corroborated the testimony of Mehruddin to the extent that the parents of deceased wanted to take their daughter at that time but they (witness Iqbal and Mehruddin) requested both the families to let the matter settled down and take the daughter after one or two days. He has specifically stated that the dispute was between the husband and wife and was not connected with any dowry demand. He has further stated that the complainant took his daughter after one day and she remained at her father's house for about eight months. The witness Iqbal Saifi had also stated that after about eight months at the instance of Sh. Mohd. Umar, a meeting was held at the residence of Mohd. Umar to settle the matters between the families but in the meeting neither complainant Shahabuddin nor any of his relatives claimed that the deceased was tortured or troubled for dowry St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 164 and the main dispute raised by complainant was that the accused were not keeping his daughter as she used to live in her father's house and were not providing her fruit and milk and was complaining that the family of accused were not economically sound to provide sufficient food to Mumtaz. He has further stated that the meeting continued till 3:00 AM and it was decided that the deceased would not visit so often to her father's house and would try to settle down in her matrimonial home and the complainant Shahabuddin also agreed that he would not keep his daughter very often at his home and would not interfere in her matrimonial life after which both the families decided that accused Riyazuddin would go to his inlaws house and would get back his wife. He has explained that the complainant Shahabuddin told them that he would not send his daughter unless and until the accused Shahabuddin would come to his house and take a cup of tea with him in order to clear the polluted air, on which he (witness) took accused Shahabuddin to the residence of complainant at about 3.00 AM and all of them had a cup of tea at the residence of complainant. According to the witness after the above settlement, both the families lived happily and the husband and wife also lived happily and he himself and Mehruddin did not receive any complaint from either of the families. The witness Iqbal Saifi has stated that as per the his assessment the marriage between the two families could not be successful because of economic inequality between the families but there was no demand for dowry. In his crossexamination the St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 165 witness Iqbal Saifi (DW2) has admitted that during the period when the accused Sahabuddin was admitted in the hospital for about seven/ eight months, he did not visit the house of the accused and he is not aware how Mumtaz was being treated at the house of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that Mumtaz was being subjected to marpitai. (114) The accused Shahabuddin has also examined himself as DW3 wherein he has denied the allegations of making any demand for dowry as claimed by the accused persons and has stated that the various disputes were basically on account of their unequal financial status. (115) It is writ large that the best witnesses in the case who could have independently thrown light on the nature of disputes between the parties i.e. the mediators Mehruddin and Iqbal Saifi have not been cited or examined by the prosecution and were withheld. They have been rather examined by the accused as their defence witnesses despite the fact that these persons have not exonerated the accused and have fairly informed the court of the nature of dispute which existed between the parties and how there were allegations of the accused Riyazuddin was beating Mumtaz. It is borne out from the same that there was no demand of dowry and it is evident that the entire dispute between the deceased and the accused was on account of the fact that there were very serious adjustment problems. The deceased Mumtaz was belonging to a family which was financially and economically well off as compared to the family of the accused and was even more educated than Riyazuddin. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 166 Under the given circumstances when after her marriage the matrimonial family was faced with a financial crunch on account of ailment of her father in law for seven to eight months as a result of which they were compelled to borrow money from various places, she was exposed to a totally different environment. While the accused could not have been able to afford the delivery of the child in a Private Nursing Home, there was an insistence by the mother of the deceased to get the delivery of the child done in a private Nursing Home and when Mumtaz was admitted in DDU Hospital it enraged Zareena. It is also evident from the testimonies of the independent witnesses Mehruddin (DW1) and Iqbal Saifi (DW2) that it was the parents and brother of the deceased who were highly aggressive and frequently intervened in personal affairs of the family of the accused. While the financial condition of the accused was much weaker there was an insistence and persistence by the parents of the deceased to ensure that she is provided for in the same manner in which she was being treated at the house of her parents. These are natural day to day skirmishes of matrimonial life but there are times when one of the party is highly aggressive when things take a turn for the worse, as has happened in the present case. For eight months the deceased had stayed at the house of her father. No police complaint was ever made. It is stated that during this period the deceased Mumtaz had done a stitching course from a local NGO which appears to be doubtful (as already discussed separately) and at that time the admission form Ex.PW5/A was St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 167 filled by her which does not appear to be probable. The details of the applicant who attended the course do not match with that of the deceased. The deceased Mumtaz was married at the relevant point of time having a child staying with her father with a background of having studied till 10 th class whereas the applicant has been shown to be studied till 4th calls with many interpolations where the father's name and details of caste/ community is given coupled with the fact that the photograph has been stapled on the same at a later stage. It has been claimed by the family members of the deceased that on account of frequent demands made by the accused persons, the complainant Shamshuddin (PW3) had prepared an FDR for a sum of Rs.45,000/ but I may observe that no such FDR has been placed on record and in fact an LIC Policy had been prepared for a sum of Rs.45,000/ which was for a period of 16 years and the father of the deceased namely Shahabuddin himself was the nominee in the said LIC. This raises serious questions not only on the authenticity of the alleged letters written by the deceased (Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B7) but also on the allegations of demand as claimed by the complainant. The possibility of the complainant Shahabuddin having got the signatures of the deceased on some blank papers in order to get the said policy encash cannot be ruled out. The independent witnesses from the community have admitted that though there used to be disputes between the deceased and the accused Riyazuddin but have unanimously stated that there was no demand of dowry at any point of time till the death of the deceased St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 168 and the disputes were purely between the husband and the wife. They have both proved that even at the time of community panchayat the only allegations made was regarding the deceased being beaten by the accused persons but there was no allegations of any demand of dowry. In fact Iqbal Saifi (DW2) has been very specific in this regard and it is also borne out from the record that the accused Shashuddin himself has five daughters, three of whom have been married. He has also proved that there was an insistence by the family of the deceased to give a Maruti Car to Mumtaz which was being objected to by the accused Shahabuddin claiming that he had never given any such dowry to any of his daughters in their marriage and was not able to maintain the car on account of his weak economic condition but because of the insistence by the family of the deceased to send her in the new car. Iqbal Saifi has proved that when this dispute had arisen he had to intervene and settle the same and it was he who drove the new vehicle since none from the family of the accused knew driving. The extent of aggression of the parents and brother of the deceased also establishes from the fact that according Iqbal Saifi (DW2) he had gone to the house of the accused when there was a dispute between Riyazuddin and his wife on 30.4.2005 at mid night, Mohd. Sartaj had become violent and had hit Gyasuddin with his helmet in which he (Mohd. Iqbal) intervened but was hit and fell down. I may observe that both Mehruddin (DW1) and Iqbal Saifi (DW2) are both senior citizens aged more than 60 years and are involved in social and religious activities St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 169 and are known to both the parties. There is no reason why they would depose in favour of one or against the other nor any allegation has been made against him by the family of the deceased. Hence, I hold their testimonies to be truthful and credible and they have demolished the claims made by the family of the deceased regarding the demand of dowry and there being no independent confirmation to the testimonies of Shahabuddin (PW3) father of the deceased, Smt. Zareena (PW4) mother of the deceased, Mohd. Sartaj (PW5) brother of the deceased and Shabana (PW6) bhabhi of the deceased from any documentary record or otherwise, it will not be safe to rely upon their testimonies. (116) This being the background, in so far as the provisions of Section 304B Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed herein above that the deceased Mumtaz had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by the accused persons. All the allegations made against them in this regard are vague, general and non specific. Hence, in this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra regarding harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry, beyond St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 170 reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
(117) In so far as the provisions of Section 498A Indian Penal Code is concerned, it stands established that the dispute was between the accused Riyazuddin and the deceased Mumtaz. It also stands established that the accused Riyazuddin had undertaken before the community panchayat not to beat his wife. However, no investigations have been made by the Investigating Officer as to what transpired immediately before the death of the deceased i.e. whether she was alone at that time, where there was any instigation on the part of the accused which fact is not borne out from the evidence on record. The attitude and conduct of the accused Riyazuddin in causing maarpitai (beatings) to the deceased (as independently borne out from the statements of Mehruddin and Mohd. Iqbal the defence witnesses) Mumtaz is squarely covered under Explanation (a) of Section 498A Indian Penal Code which provides that for the purposes of Section 498A IPC 'Cruelty' means ".....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 health (whether mental or physical) of the woman....". Hence in this background I hereby hold that in so far as the accused Riyazuddin (husband of the deceased) is concerned, his case is covered within the provisions of St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 171 Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
(118) However, in so far as the accused Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Smt. Hazra are concerned, the allegations against them are vague and non specific and no specific role have been attributed to them. Therefore, benefit of doubt is being given to the accused Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Smt. Hazra who are acquitted of the charge under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(119) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 172
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(120) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses the following aspects stand established:
➢ That the accused Riyazuddin is the husband of the deceased Mumtaz; accused Shahabuddin is the father in law; accused Hazra is the mother in law and accused Gyasuddin is the brother in law/ Jeth of the deceased Mumtaz.
➢ That the marriage between the accused Riyazuddin and deceased Mumtaz was an arranged marriage which was mediated by Mehruddin and Mohd. Iqbal who were known to both the parties. ➢ That the engagement ceremony took place in the year 1999 followed by marriage after two and a half years on 1.6.2003. ➢ That after the marriage the deceased started residing along with the accused persons at her matrimonial house i.e. D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 173 ➢ That soon after the marriage the accused Shahabuddin fell seriously ill and was hospitalized as he was suffering from a boil which deteriorated and he remained admitted in the hospital for about seveneight months.
➢ That the accused were in need of money on which the father of the deceased i.e. Shahabuddin had given Rs.10,000/ to the accused persons.
➢ That the younger brother of the deceased had donated blood for the accused Shahabuddin.
➢ That a Maruti Car which was in the name of the deceased was financed by her father Shahabuddin.
➢ That when the deceased Mumtaz was expecting her first child there was a dispute between the parental and matrimonial family of the deceased Mumtaz since her parents wanted the delivery of the child to be in a Private Nursing Home whereas the accused were not in a financial position to afford the same and the delivery had taken place in DDU Hospital (government hospital). ➢ That Shahabuddin father of the deceased, his wife Zareena, son Mohd. Sartaj and mediator Mehruddin went to the house of the accused persons as there was a dispute between Mumtaz and Riyazuddin and accused Riyazuddin had done maarpitai with her. ➢ That with the intervention of the Mediator the matter was sorted out but on the next day Mumtaz was taken by her parents to their St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 174 house where she stayed there for about eight months ➢ That in the last week of December 2005 there was a meeting of respectables of community who assured that Mumtaz would be taken care of and the accused Riyazuddin would not beat her after which she was sent back to her matrimonial house.
➢ That on 28.03.2007 the parents of the deceased i.e. her father and mother went to their native village Pirathli, District Gautam Budh Nagar and on 29.03.2007 at about 12:0012:30 noon, they received a telephonic call from accused Shahbuddin who told him that Mumtaz was seriously ill and she was being taken to hospital. ➢ That after five minutes the parents of the deceased received a call from ASI Om Prakash that Mumtaz had committed suicide by hanging herself and was in DDU Hospital.
(121) It stands established from the medical evidence on record that the cause of death was asphyxia subsequent to antemortem suicidal hanging. However, it is apparent from the MLC and the postmortem report there are no sign of injuries either visible or internal on the body of the deceased.
(122) However, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Mumtaz was being taunted by the accused persons to the extent that she was a curse for the family; that the accused persons sold the jewellery of Mumtaz to meet the expenses St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 175 incurred by them in the treatment of accused Shahabuddin; that there was a demand to transfer the Maruti car in the name of accused Riyazuddin;
that a sum of Rs. One Lac was demanded by the accused Shahabuddin and other accused persons for opening a shop in the name of Riyazuddin; that the accused persons did not allow to touch the articles which were given to her by her parents saying that they were meant for the unmarried sisters in law and were to be used at their marriages; that when a male child was born to Mumtaz, she was not sent to her parental home by the accused persons even after forty days; that on 30.4.2005 the unmarried sisters in law of the deceased and other accused persons gave beatings to Mumtaz which resulted into swelling on her face and blue marks on which Riyazuddin called Mohd, Sartaj and asked him to take Mumtaz away; that the family members of the deceased were manhandled and the accused Shahabuddin pushed Mumtaz saying "hamara kya bigad legi"; that thereafter initially for two months Mumtaz remained happy but thereafter the accused again started demanding Rs. One lac and for transferring the Maruti car in the name of the accused Riyazuddin; that in the month of AprilMay 2006 when Mohd. Sartaj went to the house of Mumtaz to visit her, she handed over her some letters wherein she mentioned about the harassment and torture being given to her by the accused persons; that the father of Mumtaz got an FDR/ LIC Policy in her name and when the accused came to know about the same, they started pressurizing Mumtaz to encash the FDR to which she refused and St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 176 suffered harassment in their hands; that Mumtaz came to visit her parents along with Riyazuddin in the evening and asked her father to bring her back on 30.3.2007; that on 23.3.2007 Mohd. Sartaj received a call from Riyazuddin asking him to encash the FDR and fulfill his other demand raised earlier otherwise his sister would not be alive. (123) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (124) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 177 (125) This being the background, in so far as the provisions of Section 304B Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Mumtaz had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house but the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment by the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by the accused persons. All the allegations made against them in this regard are vague, general and non specific. Hence, in this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra regarding harassment to the deceased on account of demand of dowry, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Riyazuddin, Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Hazra are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.
(126) In so far as the provisions of Section 498A Indian Penal Code is concerned, it stands established that the dispute was between the accused Riyazuddin and the deceased Mumtaz. It also stands established that the accused Riyazuddin had undertaken before the community panchayat not to beat his wife. The attitude and conduct of the accused Riyazuddin in causing maarpitai (beatings) to the deceased (as independently borne out from the statements of Mehruddin and Mohd. Iqbal the defence witnesses) Mumtaz is squarely covered under St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 178 Explanation (a) of Section 498A Indian Penal Code which provides that for the purposes of Section 498A IPC 'Cruelty' means ".....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 health (whether mental or physical) of the woman....". Hence in this background I hereby hold that in so far as the accused Riyazuddin (husband of the deceased) is concerned, his case is covered within the provisions of Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I hereby hold the accused Riyazuddin guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code for which he is accordingly convicted.
(127) However, in so far as the accused Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Smt. Hazra are concerned, the allegations against them are vague and non specific and no specific role have been attributed to them. Therefore, benefit of doubt is being given to the accused Shahabuddin, Gyasuddin and Smt. Hazra who are acquitted of the charge under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.
(128) Be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Riyazuddin on 30.5.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 23.5.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 179 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 106/2012 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0348952007 State Vs. (1) Riyazuddin S/o Shabuddin, R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Also at: C1, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. (Convicted) (2) Shabuddin S/o Late Sh. Abdul Rehman, R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. (Acquitted) (3) Gayasuddin S/o Sh. Shabuddin, R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Also at: C1, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. (Acquitted) (4) Smt. Hazra W/o Shabuddin, R/o D74, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. (Acquitted) St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 180 FIR No. : 268/07 Police Station: Uttam Nagar Under Sections: 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code Date of conviction: 23.5.2014 Arguments concluded on: 4.6.2014 Date of sentence: 6.6.2014 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Riyazuddin in Judicial Custody with Sh. Mir Akhtar Hussain Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per the allegations, between 6.10.2003 to 29.3.2007 at House No. D74, Bhagwati Garden, Delhi the accused Riyazuddin being the husband of the deceased Mumtaz, the accused Sahabuddin being her father in law, accused Hazara being the mother in law and the accused Gyasuddin being the brother in law (Jeth) along with their coaccused Afsana and Imrana (both Proclaimed Offenders) in furtherance of their common intention subjected Mumtaz to cruelty for demand of dowry. Further, it has been alleged that on 29.3.2007 the the death of Mumtaz occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by all the accused in furtherance of their common St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 181 intention and in connection with demand of dowry.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly Shahabuddin father of the deceased, Zareena mother of the deceased, Mohd. Sartaz brother of the deceased and Smnt. Shabana bhabhi of the deceased and also on the basis of the other material on record, this Court has held the accused Riyazuddin guilty of the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code but acquitted him of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. Further, in so far as the accused Shahabuddin (father in law of the deceased), Gyasuddin (brother in law/ jeth of the deceased) and Smt. Hazra (mother in law of the deceased) are concerned, they have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the aspect of sentence qua the convict Riyazuddin. He is stated to be a young boy of 32 years, having a family comprising of parents (Shahabuddin and Hazra), handicapped brother Gyasuddin, five sisters (two of whom are still unmarried) and a school going son aged about ten years. He is 5th class pass and is running a shop of manufacturing grills/ gates along with his father.
Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict has old, aged and infirm parents who have no source of income and are completely dependent on the convict. It is also submitted that the elder brother of the convict is handicapped with 60% disability and it is the convict who is looking after the family of the said brother comprising St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 182 of his wife and two children. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the convict has remarried after the unfortunate death of his first wife and out of the said wedlock, he has another child aged hardly six (6) months. The Ld. Counsel has also informed the Court that the custody of Mohd. Zaid the son born to the convict Riyazuddin from the deceased Mumtaz who was previously with the parents of the deceased, has been given to him from the competent Court at Dwarka who is presently aged about 10 years and totally dependent upon him. He submits that any harsh view would be detrimental for the future of both the children. It is also pointed out that the convict has no past history of any criminal behaviour or misdemeanor and has been living a very civilized life working hard to sustain his old and infirm parents and his family. Ld. Counsel has also argued that the continued incarceration of the convict will cause havoc to the social, economic, emotional and family life of the convict. It is further argued that the convict and his entire family have suffered to an unlimited extent socially, economically, emotionally and physically for the last seven years in the present and even the father of the convict had to sell his house and are presently living in a very small house. He has further pointed out that the convict Riyazuddin has no record of criminal involvements and the circumstances in which the deceased committed suicide were most unfortunate. He prays that a lenient view be taken against the convict. On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed for a stern view against the convict keeping in view the allegations involved. St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 183
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict Riyazuddin is a young man of 32 years and has already remained in Judicial Custody for Two Years, Three Months and Eight Days. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is Three years and fine. Keeping in view the period of detention already undergone by the convict and the circumstances of his family with two minor children, handicapped brother and his family and the aged parents totally dependent upon him, a lenient view is taken against the convict Riyazuddin who is hereby sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and Four Months and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac) for the offence under Section 498A IPC. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three months. The entire fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac) shall remain deposited in the form of an FDR (as compensation) in the name of the child left behind by the deceased namely Mohd. Zaid who is presently aged 10 years which FDR should be for the period till the child Mohd. Zaid attains the age of 18 years.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 184 an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on the arrest of accused Imrana and Afsana who are Proclaimed Offenders.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 6.6.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Riyazuddin Etc., FIR No. 268/07, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 185