Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Rajesh Khanna on 29 June, 2015

IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.


SC No.170/13.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0113732012.

State Vs. 1. Rajesh Khanna
             S/o Late Sh. J.C. Khanna,
             R/o 16/4, Marla, Model Town,
             Gurgaon,
             Haryana.

           2. Smt. Sudershana Khanna
              W/o Late Sh. J.C. Khanna,
              R/o 16/4, Marla, Model Town,
              Gurgaon,
              Haryana.

           3. Sh. Ashok Grover
              S/o Late Sh. Jugal Kishore Grover,
              R/o 428/28, Jyoti Park,
              Gurgaon,
              Haryana.

           4. Smt. Suman Grover
              W/o Sh. Ashok Grover,
              R/o 428/28, Jyoti Park,
              Gurgaon,
              Haryana.


Date of Institution : 06.6.2012.

FIR No.93 dated 08.6.2010.
U/s. 498A/406/34 IPC.
P.S. CAW Cell, Nanakpura.

Date of reserving judgment/Order : 02.6.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 29.6.2015.




SC No.170/13.                                      Page 1 of 54
 JUDGMENT

1. Prosecution has chargesheeted the four accused namely Rajesh Khanna, Sudershana Khanna, Ashok Grover and Suman Grover for having committed the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/376/420/34 IPC. It may be noted herein that accused Rajesh Khanna is stated to be the husband of the complainant Leena Khanna, accused Sudershana Khanna her mother in law, accused Suman Grover her sister in law (nanad) and accused Ashok Grover her brother in law (nandoi).

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR had been initially registered u/s 498A/406/34 IPC on the basis of the complaint of the prosecutrix Leena Khanna dated 13.7.2009 wherein she alleged to have been got married to accused Rajesh Khanna and further alleged that she had been pestered with dowry demands by all the four accused right since after the marriage besides inflicting mental as well as physical torture upon her. She had mentioned various instances in her complaint when dowry demand was made to her, she was beaten and harassed for not fulfilling the dowry demands, abused and taunted. She has also mentioned one incident dated 20.4.2009 when accused Ashok Grover, Suman Grover and Sudershana Khanna forcibly administered 15 or 16 blood pressure tablets namely Betacard-50 to her with a view to eliminate her. She got saved by the dint of luck only as her husband came to her room soon after the incident and at the instance of her brother, took her to hospital where she was admitted to ICU.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the SC No.170/13. Page 2 of 54 pendency of conciliation proceedings between the parties in the CAW Cell, the husband of the prosecutrix i.e. accused Rajesh Khanna filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail before a Session Judge, wherein he disputed his marriage with the prosecutrix and has stated that they had been living in a live in relationship and that he has not obtained divorce from his earlier wife. When the prosecutrix came to know about the aforesaid stand of accused Rajesh Khanna, she submitted a supplementary complaint dated 3.3.2010 to the ACP, CAW Cell wherein, she stated that all the four accused had come to her parental house on 26.1.2008 with a proposal of marriage between herself and the accused Rajesh Khanna. They had shown a photocopy of the divorce decree obtained by Rajesh Khanna from his previous wife and accordingly their marriage was solemnised on 11.2.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter she had been staying alonwith Rajesh Khanna at his house as his wife. It was alleged by the prosecutrix that the stand of accused Rajesh Khanna in his application for anticipatory bail makes manifest that they had shown a forged divorce decree to her thereby cheating her and deceiving her into solemnising marriage with accused Rajesh Khanna and thus the acts of sexual intercourse between herself and the accused Rajesh Khanna amount to offence of rape.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the aforesaid supplementary complaint of the prosecutrix, Sections 376/420 IPC were added to the FIR.

5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Rajni Chopra who served notice u/s.91 Cr.PC upon the prosecutrix SC No.170/13. Page 3 of 54 calling upon her to produce the relevant documents regarding her marriage with accused Rajesh Khanna, list of Istridhan articles given to her. Copy of her Discharge Certificate issued by Sethi Hospital, Gurgaon, copy of complaint filed in CAW Cell, marriage photographs etc. The prosecutrix handed over these documents to the investigating officer who seized those on 14.6.2010. The IO got those documents verified and recorded statement of relevant witnesses. The IO also recorded the statement of Rajesh Khanna's wife Rashi Khanna. Accused Rajesh Khanna was arrested and his medical examination was got conducted in Safdarjung Hospital. He was taken on one day's police remand, he and the prosecutrix were taken to his house at Gurgaon where the prosecutrix had identified her Istridhan articles, which were then recovered. Search was made for the other accused but they could not be found. Ultimately, they were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 30.5.2011.

6. After completion of the investigation, IO prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted the same to the concerned Ld. M.M.

7. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charge u/s.417/34 IPC, u/s.323/34 and u/s.406/34 IPC was framed against all the four accused on 11.9.2013. Further Charge u/s. 307/34 IPC was framed against accused Ashok, Suman and Sudershana on the same day. Additional Charge u/s.376 IPC and u/s.493 IPC was framed against accused Rajesh Khanna on the same day. All the accused denied the charges and hence trial was held.

SC No.170/13. Page 4 of 54

8. At trial, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses:

(1) PW1 is HC Vinay Kumar. He was posted as Duty Officer in P.S. CAW Cell, Nanakpura, on 08.6.2010 and had registered the FIR in this case, which he proved as Ex.PW1/A. He proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B. (2) PW2 is the Pandit, who had performed marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna on 11.2.2008 in the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle at Gurgaon. He had issued marriage certificate dated 23.2.2010 Ex.PW2/A in this regard. (3) PW3 is Sh. Manish Gandhi. He is a photographer, who had taken photographs of the function held at Raj Mahal Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, on 11.2.2008. He proved these photographs as Ex.PW3/A (colly). He also produced a CD containing these photographs and another CD containing the videography done by him which he proved as Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. (4) PW4 is the prosecutrix. Her evidence would be discussed in detail in later part of the judgment. (5) PW5 is Kuldeep Kumar, the brother of the prosecutrix. His testimony would also be discussed in detail in later part of the judgment. (6) PW6 is Sh. Kapil Aggarwal. He had erected a gate in the matrimonial house of the prosecutrix at Old Gurgaon in the year 2010 and had been engaged by prosecutrix's brother Kuldeep for the said purpose. (7) PW7 is Sh. Rakesh Gupta. He is a friend of SC No.170/13. Page 5 of 54 prosecutrix's brother Kuldeep. He had been called by Kuldeep to his house on 26.1.2008 and the discussion between the two families regarding marriage of prosecutrix with accused Rajesh Khanna had taken place in his presence. He is a witness to the Roka ceremony performed on that day. He had also attended the marriage function in the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle on 11.2.2008. (8) PW8 is Sh. Satyapal Nasha. He was the Secretary of Sri Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurgaon, between the years 2010 and 2012. He deposed that accused Rajesh Khanna had come to their office and registered himself for search of a suitable match for him and his name is entered at Srl. No.15906 in the diary maintained in their office. He proved copy of the relevant page of the said diary as Ex.PW8/C. He had handed over a copy of the Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna Ex.PW8/A to police officials during the course of investigation in this case alongwith his covering letter Ex.PW8/B. (9) PW9 is Sh. Deepak Bhatnagar. He is the Manager of M/s. Raj Mahal Inn Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. He proved the certificate issued by him as Ex.PW4/M wherein it is certified that a marriage function hosted by Mr. Kuldeep Kumar regarding marriage between Leena and Rajesh Khanna was held in the premises of the Inn on 11.2.2008.

(10)PW10 is Sh. Dayal Chand Pasricha. He is the Mausa (husband of mother's sister of the SC No.170/13. Page 6 of 54 prosecutrix). He had attended the marriage between prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna on 11.2.2008 in the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle Tek Chand at 40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon. He also deposed that he used to talk to prosecutrix after marriage and she used to tell him that Rajesh and his family are harassing her by demanding money from her. One day in the year 2008, he had invited prosecutrix and accused Rajesh for dinner and had prevailed upon accused Rajesh to treat the prosecutrix properly as his wife. He had also reached Sethi Hospital, Gurgaon, during the night between 20.4.2009 and 21.4.2009 on receipt of a call from Kuldeep saying that his sister i.e. prosecutrix has been beaten in her matrimonial house and some blood pressure tablets have been forcible administered to her. According to her, accused Rajesh had executed a handwriting Ex.PW4/K in his presence in the hospital assuring that he would not show any such thing to the prosecutrix in future. He identified his signature at point B on the same.

(11)PW11 is Inspector Usha Kumari Joshi. She had conducted conciliation proceedings between prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna. She had visited Geeta Bhawan, New Colony, Gurgaon, and had obtained copy of Bio-Data submitted by Rajesh Khanna there and whereby he himself described as divorcee and issueless. Since no conciliation could take place between the parties. She had prepared SC No.170/13. Page 7 of 54 her report Ex.PW1/A and forwarded the case to the police station for registration of FIR.

(12)PW12 is Sh. Anil Kumar. He is the Clerk in Judicial Record Room Sessions Court, Rohtak, Haryana, and produced original file pertaining to HMA petition no. 85/08 titled Rashi Khanna vs. Rajesh Khanna which is Ex.PW2/A. The file shows that an ex-parte decree of divorce had been passed in this case on 31.1.2009. (13)PW13 is ASI Balraj Singh, who was posted in P.S. City Gurgaon on 01.5.2009 and had received complaint Ex.PW13/A from accused Rajesh Khanna. He recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and her brother Kuldeep Kumar which he proved as Ex.PW13/B & Ex.PW13/C. He had also received the complaint from the prosecutrix on 29.5.2009 Ex.PW13/D. Prosecutrix and her brother Kuldeep had also handed over to him a copy of the settlement dated 21.4.2009 Ex.PW13/e. After making detailed inquiry on the aforesaid two complaints, he prepared a report Ex.PW13/F. He deposed that no action was taken on these complaints as no substance was found in the complaint of Rajesh Khanna whereas prosecutrix has stated that she would pursue her complaint at her parental house.

(14)PW14 is SI Rajni Chopra. She was posted in CAW Cell, Nanakpura and the complaint of the prosecutrix was marked to her on 08.6.2010 with the approval of the DCP for registration of FIR. She made endorsement in his complaint and got the FIR SC No.170/13. Page 8 of 54 registered. She recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and her brother on 09.6.2010. She served a notice u/s.91 Cr.PC upon the prosecutrix calling upon her to produce certain documents which were later on handed over to her on 14.6.2010. She seized those vide memo Ex.PW14/E. She sent the jewellery bills produced by the prosecutrix for verification through Const. Ram Mehar. Upon receipt of legal opinion on 09.10.2010 she added section 376 IPC to the FIR. She recorded the statement of ASI Balraj, Dayal Chand Pasricha and Manish Gandhi. She visited Geeta Bhawan temple, Gurgaon, to verify the Bio-Data submitted by accused Rajesh there. She recorded the statement of Kapil also who had installed the iron gate of the house of the accused. She made inquiries from Raj Mahal Banquet Hall, Gurgaon. She also made inquiries in Sethi Hospital, Gurgaon. She also recorded the statement of Pandit Rameshwar Prasad in Shiv Shakti Mandir, Lajpat Nagar and one Rakesh residing in Lajpat Nagar Part- III. She had arrested accused Rajesh on 11.5.2011 in the court and recorded his disclosure statement as Ex.PW14/D. She alongwith accused prosecutrix and her brother had reached the house of accused in Gurgaon on the same day which was found to be locked. They broke open the lock of the house with the permission of accused Rajesh. A list Ex.PW14/E of articles identified by the prosecutrix belonging to her was prepared and these articles were brought to the SC No.170/13. Page 9 of 54 hospital in a truck. A locked almirah was also brought to the police station as its lock could not be opened. The lock of the almirah was opened in the police station on 12.5.2011 and the articles recovered from the same were seized by her vide memo Ex.PW14/F. She recorded the statement of the prosecutrix's maternal uncle Tek Chand in July, 2011. She has prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted it to the court.

(15) PW15 is Tek Chand, the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. During visit to Geeta Bhawan, Gurgaon, in the year 2007 in search of a suitable match for his three daughters, he had come across the Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna wherein he had described himself as divorcee and issueless. He found Rajesh Khanna a suitable match for the prosecutrix and met both Rajesh Khanna and his mother in the temple premises, laid a proposal of marriage before them which was accepted by them. He deposed that the marriage was performed on 11.2.2008. According to him, the bride and the groom took rounds around sacred fire in the morning on that day. The Ring ceremony, Chunni ceremony, Chura ceremony was also performed at his house.

9. The accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 04.2.2015 wherein they denied the prosecution case. They have denied that the marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna was performed on 11.2.2008. It is admitted that they had SC No.170/13. Page 10 of 54 visited parental house of the prosecutrix on 26.1.2008. They denied that they told prosecutrix and her family members that Rajesh Khanna had obtained divorce from his previous wife or that they had showed to them a copy of divorce decree issued by Tis Hazari Judge. It has been stated that they only showed a copy of the first motion decree. They denied that Rajesh Khanna had filled up matrimonial form Ex.PW4/F in Sanatan Charam Sabha, Geeta Bhawan, Gurgaon, mentioning himself as issueless and divorcee. They have further stated that Rajesh Khanna had executed writing Ex.PW4/J and Ex.PW4/K under pressure and on the dictation of prosecutrix's brother Kuldeep. Accused Rajesh Khanna has further admitted that the conciliation proceedings were carried out in CAW Cell between him and the prosecutrix for about 1½ years. He admitted that his marriage with Rashi Khanna was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 31.1.2009. They denied all other incriminating evidence put to them.

10. Only one witness has been examined by the accused in their defence. He is the Nodal Officer of M/s. Idea Cellular Limited. He proved the customer application form in respect of mobile nos.9990272359 and 9891942649 which show that these had been allotted in the name of Rajesh Khanna and Ashok Kumar Grover respectively. However, he had not brought the call detail records of these mobile numbers from 10.2.2008 to 12.2.2008, as sought from him, for the reason that these being more than seven years old have got automatically purged from their computer system.

11. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsels appearing for the SC No.170/13. Page 11 of 54 accused and have perused the entire record. The Ld. APP as well as Ld. Defence Counsels have taken me painstakingly through the voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence on record. I have also perused the judgments cited at the Bar.

Rival submissions made by Ld. APP as well as Ld. Counsels for the accused.

12. Ld. APP submitted that the testimony of PW4 (prosecutrix), PW5 (her brother Kuldeep), PW10 (her Mausa Dayal Chand), PW15 (her maternal uncle Tek Chand) and PW2 (the Pandit) establish the fact that the accused persons had visited the parental house of the prosecutrix on 26.1.2008 to finalize the talks of marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna and when both the parties expressed willingness for such alliance, Roka ceremony was performed on the same day and customary gifts were given by the family of the prosecutrix to all the accused persons. She further submitted that the date of marriage was fixed as 11.2.2008. She also argued that the testimony of these witnesses further shows that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused so solemnized in the house of PW15 in the morning of 11.2.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies which included Saptpadi and then the accused were served with lunch in Raj Mahal Deluxe Hall later on in the day. She argued that PW2 had performed the marriage by chanting vedic mantras and also ensured that the other requisite ceremonies like Saptpadi etc. are duly performed by the wedding couple and he later on issued a certificate Ex.PW2/A in this regard. She would further argue that accused Rajesh Khanna had submitted his Bio-Data Ex.PW4/F in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Geeta Bhawan, Gurgaon, wherein he had SC No.170/13. Page 12 of 54 mentioned himself as divorcee and issueless, which had come into the notice of PW15, who found Rajesh Khanna a suitable match for the prosecutrix and initiated the marriage talks. She further submitted that admittedly Rajesh Khanna had not obtained divorce from his wife Rashi Khanna by that time and the divorce decree had been passed on 31.1.2009 implying thereby that he had mentioned himself falsely as divorcee/issueless in the said Bio-Data. She submitted that in order to assure the prosecutrix and her family that he is a divorcee, the accused had shown a fake divorce decree to them on 26.1.2008. It was thus argued by her that it is a clear case wherein accused deceived the prosecutrix into consenting for marriage with Rajesh Khanna while knowing fully well that Rajesh Khanna had not yet obtained divorce from his previous wife and therefore not legally able to solemnize second marriage. She submitted that it is manifest that the consent of the prosecutrix to the marriage as well as to the sexual intercourse with accused Rajesh Khanna had been obtained by deception, cheating and fraud and hence such consent does not hold good in the eyes of law and the physical relations between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna tentamount to offence of rape.

13. Ld. APP further argued that the prosecutrix and her family became aware about the fraud and deception played upon them by the accused during the course of hearing of anticipatory bail application of accused Rajesh Khanna in the Sessions Court on 17.2.2009 when he claimed that he could not have married the prosecutrix as he had not obtained divorce from his previous wife and was in a live in relationship only with the prosecutrix. She submitted that it is for this reason that the allegations of cheating, SC No.170/13. Page 13 of 54 fraud and rape were not levelled by the prosecutrix in her initial complaint dated 13.7.2009 Ex.PW4/A submitted to in CAW Cell, Nanakpura, as at that time she believed herself to be legally wedded wife of Rajesh Khanna. She argued that the defence of being in live in relationship with prosecutrix has been taken by accused Rajesh Khanna and his co-accused upon legal advice which they have failed to establish from the evidence on record. She argued that accused Rajesh Khanna in his complaint Ex.PW13/A filed in P.S. Gurgaon had admitted that he got married to prosecutrix on 11.2.2008 and therefore, it does not lie in his mouth now to allege that he was living only in a live-in relationship with her.

14. She further submitted that the evidence on record makes it manifest that the prosecutrix was being subjected to immense cruelty, was pestered with dowry demands regularly by all the accused and an attempt to eliminate her, was made on 30.5.2009 by administering 15 to 16 Betacard tablets to her which decreases the blood pressure and pulse rate of a person enormously and the person dies. She argued that accused Rajesh Khanna has admitted in his writing Ex.PW4/J & Ex.PW4/K that he has been inflicting cruelty upon the prosecutrix and had given assurance that he would not repeat these acts in future. She also drew my attention to the ex-parte divorce decree dated 31.1.2009 passed between accused Rajesh Khanna and his previous wife Rashi Khanna wherein it has been observed by Ld. Matrimonial Judge that the family of Rajesh Khanna had been subjecting Rashi Khanna to cruelty. She argued that it is thus manifest that the family of the accused have been treating their daughters in law SC No.170/13. Page 14 of 54 with cruelty. She submitted that in case the intention of the parties was that the prosecutrix and the accused Rajesh Khanna would sit together in a live-in relationship, there was no reason to perform Roka ceremony or the marriage function or to give huge dowry to the prosecutrix by her family. She also submitted that if it was the contention of the accused that the Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna has been manipulated, they should have filed a complaint against the prosecutrix and office bearers of Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Geeta Bhawan, Gurgaon, in this regard but they did not do so.

15. Ld. APP argued that all the accused are liable to be convicted for the charges framed against them.

16. Per Contra, Ld. Counsels for the accused argued that no marriage was performed between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna on 11.2.2008 or any other date and the parties were staying together in a live-in relationship with the consent of family members of both of them. It was further sought to convey that no divorce decree was shown to the family of the prosecutrix on 26.1.2008 and they had been informed that Rajesh Khanna has not obtained divorce from his wife but the family of the prosecutrix was very eager to have her alliance with Rajesh Khanna as soon as possible and hence both the families decided that Rajesh Khanna and prosecutrix would stay together as live-in partners till Rajesh Khanna obtains divorce decree from his wife. They submitted that to impart social value and significance to the relations between prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna, a lunch had been organized at Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall on 11.2.2008, which was attended by relatives of both the parties and SC No.170/13. Page 15 of 54 no requisite ceremonies of marriage were ever performed. It was submitted that when the High Court while hearing the anticipatory bail application of accused Rajesh Khanna observed that there is no proof of Saptpadi ceremony having been performed by prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna, a fabricated story was put forward that the marriage ceremony had been performed at 40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, the house of maternal uncle of the prosecutrix (PW15) and the prosecutrix, with the aid and advice of her brother Kuldeep, manipulated the certificate of marriage Ex.PW2/A from the Pandit (PW2), who was known to prosecutrix's brother Kuldeep. It was submitted that for this reason it has nowhere been mentioned in the initial complaint Ex.PW4/A that the marriage was performed at the house of PW15. They pointed out that the proceedings in the CAW Cell Ex.PW11/B also show that the prosecutrix was directed to submit marriage proof but she was not able to produce any such proof before the Conciliation Officer. It was submitted that the supplementary complaint dated 03.3.2010 Ex.PW4/C appears to have been submitted on 14.6.2010 and not on 03.3.2010 as contended by the prosecution. It is submitted that the order dated 03.3.2010 of the CAW Cell nowhere mentions that any such complaint was submitted by the prosecution and the FIR Ex.PW1/A having been registered on 08.6.2010, does not mention offence u/s.376 IPC. This according to the Ld. Counsels demonstrates that no complaint alleging rape by accused Rajesh Khanna, had been submitted by the prosecution atleast till 08.6.2010. It is submitted that the list of documents Ex.PW4/D seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E dated 14.6.2010 mentions the complaint dated 03.3.2010 at Srl. No.15 which is indicative of the fact that the complaint had been SC No.170/13. Page 16 of 54 submitted by the prosecutrix to the IO on 14.6.2010 alongwith other documents.

17. The Ld. Counsels further submitted that the complaint dated 03.3.2010 Ex.PW4/c mentions that the certificate of Pandit is annexed thereto but in fact, no such such certificate was annexed with the same and it if for this reason that it was not filed till 14.6.2010. They also argued that even in this supplementary complaint also, it has nowhere been mentioned that the marriage between prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna had been performed in the house of PW15 i.e. 40 Vijay Park, Gurgaon. It is submitted that the fact that Sh. Tek Chand (PW15) had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed alongwith Charge Sheet demonstrates that no ceremonies at all had been performed at his house as claimed by the prosecution. It is submitted that though the statement u/s.161 Cr.PC of the prosecutrix is stated to have been recorded on 09.6.2010, yet the Ld. APP in her opinion dated 27.9.2010 has mentioned that there is no supplementary statement on the file.

18. Ld. Counsel further argued that a bare reading of clause 'Fourthly' of section 375 IPC would indicate that it does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment reported as A Krishna Raj vs. State of Mysore, 1969(1) Mysore Law Journal 304. They further argued that section 493 IPC is also not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was also argued that no articles were entrusted by the prosecutrix to any of the accused and hence the accused cannot be held guilty of SC No.170/13. Page 17 of 54 offence u/s.406 IPC. They further submitted that no such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, did take place on 20.5.2009 which is manifest from the medical records collected from Sethi Hospital.

19. The Ld. Counsels vehemently urged that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case and prayed for their acquittal.

Analysis of the evidence led by the parties and the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

20. The main limb of the prosecution case is that accused Rajesh Khanna, being a married person, submitted his Bio-Data Ex.PW4/F in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurgaon, mentioning himself as 'issueless divorcee' and he, in collusion with the other accused, showed a fake divorce decree to the prosecutrix and her family members on 26.1.2008 thereby inducing a belief in them that he is a divorcee and then solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 11.2.2008 knowing fully well that the marriage is not legal. It is further case of the prosecution that accused Rajesh Khanna, in collusion with the other accused, deceitfully made the prosecutrix to believe that she is lawfully married to him and the prosecutrix consented to physical relations with him believing herself to be his legally wedded wife which she was not as the accused Rajesh Khanna had not obtained divorce from his wife at all.

21. The contention raised on behalf of the accused is that Rajesh Khanna had not submitted any such Bio-Data in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurgaon, and had not shown any divorce decree to the family of the prosecutrix on 26.1.2008. It is the case of the SC No.170/13. Page 18 of 54 accused that the family of the prosecutrix was informed that Rajesh Khanna has not yet obtained divorce from his wife but since the family of the prosecutrix was very eager to have her alliance with Rajesh Khanna as soon as possible, for this reason only a social function was organized on 11.2.2008 in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall and it was decided that the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna would stay together in a live-in relationship thereafter and no requisite ceremonies of marriage were performed.

22. According to the prosecution case, the Bio-Data of accused Rajesh Khanna Ex.PW4/F was found by PW15, the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, in Geeta Bhawan Temple, Gurgaon. PW5, the brother of the prosecutrix, whose responsibility it was to ensure that the prosecutrix gets a suitable match as her life partner, has not deposed anything in his testimony as to how the talks of marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna were initiated and through whom. The prosecutrix appearing as PW4 has deposed that the matrimonial form filled up by Rajesh Khanna in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Geeta Bhawan, wherein he mentioned himself as issueless divorcee, came to the notice of her maternal uncle PW15 who was satisfied with the particulars of Rajesh Khanna contained in the form and accordingly informed her family about the same. As already noted herein-above, prosecutrix's brother PW5 does not say that he was informed about Rajesh Khanna by his maternal uncle PW15.

23. PW15 has deposed that during his visits to Geeta Bhawan temple, Gurgaon, in the year 2007 for searching a SC No.170/13. Page 19 of 54 suitable match for his three daughters, came across the Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna wherein he had mentioned himself as 'divorcee and issueless'. He found Rajesh Khanna a suitable match for his niece i.e. prosecutrix. He also deposed that Rajesh Khanna and his mother were present in the temple premises at that time. He met them and told them that the particulars of Rajesh Khanna match with those of the prosecutrix and laid a proposal of marriage before them which was acceptable to them and the marriage between Rajesh Khanna and prosecutrix was finalized. When he was confronted with his statement u/s.161 Cr.PC dated 25.6.2011, it was found that he had not mentioned therein that he met Rajesh Khanna and his mother in the temple premises on the same day and the marriage between Rajesh Khanna and the prosecutrix was finalized.

24. Another important witness in this regard is PW8. He claims to have been the Secretary of Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Geeta Bhawan, Gurgaon, in the year 2010 - 12. He deposed that the police officials had come to the office of Sabha in connection with the investigation of this case and he had handed over the copies of Bio-Data Ex.PW8/A which had been duly attested by the President of the Sabha Sh. Munish Khullar. He had given this Bio- Data to the police officials alongwith a covering letter Ex.PW8/B duly signed by him. He had brought a diary also to the court wherein the names of the persons, who registered themselves in their office for search of a suitable match, had been recorded and stated that the names of Rajesh Khanna is mentioned at Srl. No. 15906 from the diary page Ex.PW8/C. SC No.170/13. Page 20 of 54

25. It may be noted here that the copies of Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW8/A are absolutely identical except that Ex.PW4/F is attested by PW8 Satya Pal and Ex.PW8/A is attested by Sh. Munish Khullar.

26. In the cross examination, PW8 deposed that it was a duty of Rajender Malik to receive the matrimonial forms throughout the year. He admitted that the form Ex.PW8/A does not bear the signature of Rajender Malik as a token of receipt of the said form. He further stated that the entries in diary Ex.PW8/C are in the handwriting of Shyam Gupta, who is Incharge (matrimonial) in the Sabha. He admitted that the form Ex.PW8/A does not bear the signature of Shyam Gupta also. His further cross examination reveals that at the time of issuing matrimonial form to a person, they used to record his name in the aforesaid diary but did not take the signature of that person in the diary. They also did not ask for identity documents of the boy or girl seeking registration in the Sabha. He admitted that anybody can obtain the form and fill it up on behalf of the bride or groom. He admitted that the form Ex.PW4/F does not mention as to who had submitted the same in the Sabha and the relation of that person with Rajesh Khanna.

27. The testimony of PW8, thus, no longer advances the case of the prosecution that the Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna had been submitted in the Sabha either by himself or by any person on his behalf. The person in the Sabha who was supposed to receive the matrimonial forms has not been examined. No person in the Sabha has signed the Bio-Data Ex.PW8/A in token of its receipt. The person who had made entries in the diary Ex.PW8/C has not SC No.170/13. Page 21 of 54 been examined and his signature does not appear anywhere on the diary. Moreover, mere mentioning of name of a person in the diary does not indicate that he had submitted his Bio-Datra in the Sabha to look for a suitable matrimonial alliance. As per the testimony of PW8, the name of a person used to be recorded in the said diary at the time of issuing matrimonial form to him. Therefore, even the diary Ex.PW8/C is taken to be genuine, it merely indicates that a matrimonial form had been issued in the name of Rajesh Khanna. It nowhere shows that Rajesh Khanna had then submitted the duly filled up matrimonial form and his Bio- Data in the Sabha. Hence no definite conclusion can be reached from the testimony of PW8 that the Bio-Data Ex.PW8/A had been submitted by accused Rajesh Khanna or any person on his behalf.

28. Both the copies of the Bio-Data of Rajesh Khanna Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW8/A contain a line at the bottom which reads as "PARENTS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF PARTICULARS.". These copies bear the date as 23.2.2007 meaning thereby that the Bio-Data was submitted in the Sabha on the said date. It had come to the notice of PW15 in the year 2007 itself. PW8 has deposed in his cross examination that this line at the bottom of the form was added after they received the summons in this case from CAW Cell, Nanakpura. The proceedings of this case were held in CAW Cell, Nanakpura, in the year 2009 i.e. between 23.7.2009 and 22.3.2010 (see CAW Cell file Ex.PW11/B). Hence in view of the deposition of PW8, the aforementioned line "PARENTS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF PARTICULARS." mentioned at the bottom of the Bio-Data was added in the year 2009 and before that the line SC No.170/13. Page 22 of 54 was not there in the forms. As already noted herein-above, the Bio-Data Ex.PW8/A is stated to have been submitted by the accused Rajesh Khanna in the year 2007 which came to the notice of PW15 in the same year. It is thus evident that the said Bio-Data has been manipulated after the year 2009 on a new form which was not in use in the year 2007 and has been ante-dated in order to suit the prosecution case.

29. It may also be noted here that the original of this Bio- Data, copies of which are on record as Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW8/A has neither been produced before the Investigating Officer during the entire investigation nor before this court. The prosecution has miserably failed to explain why the original Bio-Data has not been seized and produced before this court. The conduct of the officials of Sabha in withholding the original Bio-Data from the Investigating Officer as well as from this court also raises suspicion about the genuineness of the said document. Since the original document has neither been seen by the Investigating Officer nor by this court, it cannot be said with certainty that the copies Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW8/A are the exact copies of the same and no reliance can be placed upon these copies. Their contents cannot be read in evidence at all.

30. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to lead any credible and trustworthy evidence to show that accused Rajesh Khanna had submitted any Bio-Data in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Geeta Bhawan, Gurgaon, describing himself as issueless divorcee.

31. It is not disputed on behalf of the accused that they SC No.170/13. Page 23 of 54 have visited the house of PW5 on 26.1.2008 to see the prosecutrix and to hold further talks regarding the alliance between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna. It has been deposed by both PW4 and PW5 that accused Rajesh Khanna alongwith his mother Smt. Sudershana, his two sisters Manisha and Suman, brother in law Ashok Grover and his two daughters had come to their house in Lajpat Nagar on 26.1.2008 and reiterated that Rajesh Khanna had obtained divorce from his previous wife. The accused showed them a copy of divorce decree issued by a Tis Hazari Court Judge. The marriage proposal was accepted and the Roka ceremony was performed on the same day. They paid money to the accused as 'Sagan' and also gave them fruits, sweets, clothes etc. The date of marriage was fixed as 11.2.2008. PW5 has stated in his cross examination that he had obtained a photocopy of the divorce decree shown to them by the accused on that day. He denied the suggestion that his maternal uncle PW15 had handed over to him only a photocopy of the statements of Rajesh Khanna and his previous wife recorded during the proceedings of first motion petition for mutual divorce and reiterated that the photocopy of the divorce decree was handed over to him by Rajesh Khanna on that day. He has further stated that he did not show the divorce decree of Rajesh Khanna to any of his lawyers between 26.1.2008 and 11.2.2008 to verify its genuineness. It has also come in his cross examination that he had engaged a counsel in relation to the court cases between his sister PW4 and her previous husband Rakesh Malhotra and also regarding civil cases relating to a property in which his mother was involved. PW4 has deposed in her cross examination that they did not demand the original divorce decree from Rajesh Khanna and as they were satisfied SC No.170/13. Page 24 of 54 about the genuineness of the said divorce decree, they did not find it necessary to make any further enquiry regarding the same. She further deposed that the name of the Judge and the date of decree was mentioned upon the document shown to them by Rajesh Khanna but she did not recollect either. She was unable to tell what is meant by 'certified copy'. She also stated that her maternal uncle Tek Chand PW15 has not seen the divorce decree of Rajesh Khanna and had told her that the accused would come to their house alongwith the divorce decree and would show the same to them. She was shown the photocopy of the judgment dated 05.7.2004 passed by Ms. Urmila Rani, the then Ld. A.D.J, Delhi, on the first motion petition for mutual divorce between Rajesh Khanna and his wife Rashi Khanna and also the photocopy of the joint statement of Rajesh Khanna and Rashi Khanna recorded in those proceedings on 28.5.2004 (Mark-X). It was suggested to her that these documents were shown by accused Rajesh Khanna to her and her family members in the meeting dated 26.1.2008 but she denied the suggestion.

32. PW7 Rakesh Gupta, a friend of PW5, is also stated to have been present in the house of PW5 on 26.1.2008 when deliberations had taken place between the accused and family members and the prosecutrix. He has deposed that Rajesh showed his divorce papers to them and he also saw the same. In the cross examination, he stated that Kuldeep (PW5) had retained a copy of divorce papers shown by Rajesh. He had gone through the main words of the divorce papers. He could only say that words 'Decree' was written on that and it was having three seal impression of Tis Hazari Court. According to him, two seal impression were round in SC No.170/13. Page 25 of 54 shape and one was triangular in shape. He did not recollect whether expression 'dissolution', 'disposal', 'motion' and 'under my hand and seal' were on the divorce papers shown by Rajesh. He also did not know the meaning of these expressions.

33. It is evident from the deposition of PW4, PW5 & PW7 that neither they nor PW15 had seen the divorce decree of Rajesh Khanna prior to 26.1.2008. They had the occasion to have a look upon the same for the first time on 26.1.2008. Only a copy of the divorce decree was shown to them and not original. They did not insist upon the production of original divorce decree. None of them was having legal background or knowledge about legal proceedings. None of them was conversant with the legal terms used in a decree of divorce and seals, if any, to be affixed upon the same by the court. Still they did not find it necessary to make any enquiry to ascertain whether the document shown to them is in fact a divorce decree and whether it is a genuine document. It has come in evidence of PW5 & PW7 that PW5 had retained a copy of the document shown to him by the accused. He was having the services of a lawyer but he did not deem it necessary to show the same to his lawyer to verify its genuineness. Moreover, PW5 did not handover the copy of the divorce decree, received by him from Rajesh Khanna on 26.1.2008, to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and also did not produce the same before this court. The prosecution has failed to explain why the said copy was not seized from PW5 during the entire investigation and why the same was not produced before this court.

34. Since the prosecution has concealed the said vital SC No.170/13. Page 26 of 54 document from the court, an adverse inference has to be taken against it in view of section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus to be presumed that if the prosecution had produced the said document before this court, it would not have supported its case. Further nothing can be discerned from the deposition of PW4, PW5 & PW7 regarding the nature of document shown to them by Rajesh Khanna on 26.1.2008. None of them has explained the contents of the document or the form of document. The conduct of PW5 also does not appear to be natural. The natural conduct would have been to get the genuineness of document verified from his lawyer or from the court which had issued the same before finalizing the marriage. It seems highly improbable that educated people like PW4, PW5 & PW7 and belonging to a very affluent section of the society would blindly take any copy of the document shown to them as genuine, moreso, when a matrimonial alliance of the sister of PW5 was to be finalized on the basis of that document. There does not appear any clinching or convincing evidence on record to show that the accused had shown photocopy of any divorce decree of Rajesh Khanna to prosecutrix and her family members on 26.1.2008.

35. PW4 has further deposed in the cross examination that the meeting held on 26.1.2008 was only a formality as Sh. Tek Chand PW15 had already made detailed enquiries regarding Rajesh Khanna and his family members. PW5 has also deposed in his cross examination that his maternal uncle had informed him well before 26.1.2008 that Rajesh Khanna is a divorcee as well as about his family background. He had not talked directly to Rajesh Khanna and his family members before 26.1.2008. He further SC No.170/13. Page 27 of 54 deposed that he had not got the information about Rajesh Khanna and his family from any other source and did not try to have such information from any other source. He further stated that they had made 50% of their mind to finalize the marriage of prosecutrix with Rajesh Khanna already before 26.1.2008 and they became fully ready for the marriage after the talks with the accused on 26.1.2008.

36. The deposition of PW4 & PW5 thus demonstrates that the detailed enquiries regarding marital status, social status and family background of Rajesh Khanna were made by PW15 and neither PW4 nor PW5 bothered to make any such enquiry as they believed the information given to them by PW15 as correct, he being their maternal uncle. Therefore, it can be understood that PW15 had made enquiries about Rajesh Khanna and his family members regarding every possible aspect including the marital status of Rajesh Khanna. Therefore, he must have come to know that Rajesh Khanna was not a divorcee and only a first motion petition for divorce by mutual consent between him and his wife Rashi Khanna had been passed and the second motion petition was yet to be filed. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused had shown a copy of false divorce decree to PW15 also. He has not deposed anything in this regard.

37. Interestingly, PW15, has nowhere stated in his deposition that he has made any detailed enquiry about the marital status and family background of Rajesh Khanna. His deposition is to the effect that on the day when he noticed the Bio- Data of Rajesh Khanna in Geeta Bhawan temple, Gurgaon, he met SC No.170/13. Page 28 of 54 Rajesh Khanna and his mother in the temple premises and laid a marriage proposal before them which was accepted by them. He even does not say that Rajesh Khanna had told him that he has obtained divorce from his previous wife. This implies that PW4 & PW5 have stated falsely that their maternal uncle (PW15) had made detailed enquiry about the marital status and family background of Rajesh Khanna. PW5 had made 50% of his mind to finalize marriage of prosecutrix with Rajesh Khanna before the meeting which took place on 26.1.2008. The impression which can be gathered is that either PW5 or PW15 had gathered information about the marital status and family background of Rajesh Khanna and probably they were well informed that divorce between Rajesh Khanna and his wife Rashi Khanna has not been granted finally and only the first motion petition of mutual divorce has been granted.

38. Let me now discuss as to what kind of ceremonies had been performed between the prosecutrix and the accused on 11.2.2008, where and in which sequence. It is the prosecution case that the marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna was solemnized on the said date. It is further contended on behalf of the prosecution that the requisite ceremonies of the marriage like Saptpadi etc. were performed in the morning in the house of Pw15 at house no.40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, and the lunch had then been organized in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall.

39. PW4, PW5 & PW7 have deposed that it was finalized in the meeting held on 26.1.2008 that the marriage would be SC No.170/13. Page 29 of 54 performed on 11.2.2008. However, neither party to the marriage had got any marriage invitation card printed and distributed. It appears very strange that the family of the prosecutrix, being a very affluent family, as his brother has deposed that his monthly income is Rs.8 Lacs, did not get any marriage invitation card printed. No witness examined by the prosecution has explained as to why were not the marriage invitation cards got printed and distributed by the family of the prosecutrix. No doubt that it was second marriage of the prosecutrix but there should have been some other compelling reason which weighed in the mind of PW5 and his family for not getting the marriage invitation cards printed and distributed. That reason has not come on record.

40. PW4 has not stated either in her complaint Ex.PW4/A or in her supplementary complaint dated 03.3.2010 Ex.PW4/C or in her deposition before this court that the requisite ceremonies of marriage were performed at the house of her maternal uncle PW15. In the complaint Ex.PW4/A she has mentioned that the marriage was performed with great pomp and show in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall, Gurgaon. Her brother PW5 has also mentioned in his statement u/s.161 Cr.PC dated 09.6.2010 that the marriage of his sister with Rajesh Khanna was performed on 11.2.2008 in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, with great pomp and show and according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. There is no mention of house no.40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, in the said statement of PW5. It is for the first time in his deposition before this court that he stated that this marriage ceremony was performed in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, and Feras were taken by the bride and groom at the residence of his SC No.170/13. Page 30 of 54 maternal uncle Sh. Tek Chand Grover at 40 Vijay Park, Gurgaon. During the course of his deposition, his attention was drawn to the aforesaid statement u/s.161 Cr.PC wherein this fact is not mentioned. Therefore, this is a clear improvement upon his earlier statement u/s.161 Cr.PC and has to be kept out of consideration.

41. In his cross examination, he deposed that no tents were got erected near the house of PW15 on that day and about 10 to 15 family members alone were present in the house at that time. He stated that they reached the house of PW15 at about 7 a.m. and the ceremony was completed by 7.30 a.m. According to him, 'Chura' ceremony was performed in the drawing room of the house and Feras were taken in the lobby outside the drawing room. Since the fire had to be lit, for this reason Feras were not taken inside the house. He admitted that none of the persons present in the house at that time took photographs of any of the ceremonies with his/her mobile phone.

42. PW7 has deposed that the mother of PW5 had invited him on the phone to the marriage to be performed on 11.2.2008. Accordingly, he alongwith his wife attended the marriage function. He deposed that the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the house of maternal uncle of the prosecutrix and the arrangement for lunch had been made in the nearby banquet hall. In the cross examination, he stated that no decoration had been arranged in the house on the date of marriage. He admitted having mentioned in his statement to police that the prosecutrix's Mausa Dayal Chand had got decoration in a very good manner at the time of marriage.

SC No.170/13. Page 31 of 54

However, he explained that he had said so as the banquet hall had been decorated. He reiterated that there was no decoration in the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle. He admitted that nobody had taken photographs either from camera or from mobile phone during the marriage ceremonies held in the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle. He further deposed that the Ring ceremony was performed in the banquet hall. He also stated that he had not seen any marriage where 'Jaimala' is exchanged between the bride and groom after taking Feras or that the Ring ceremony is performed after the Feras.

43. PW10 Sh. Dayal Chand Satija, the Mausa (maternal uncle i.e. husband of mother's sister of the prosecutrix) is also a material witness in this regard. He deposed that he attended the marriage of prosecutrix with Rajesh Khanna on 11.2.2008, which was performed in the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle Sh. Tek Chand i.e. 40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, as the same was performed by Pandit Rameshwar Prasad Tripathi. He stated that the lunch was organized at Raj Mahal Deluxe Hall on the same day i.e. 11.2.2008 and the hall had been booked by him. In the cross examination, he stated that the prosecutrix's brother Kuldeep had come to his residence on 28.1.2008 and informed him about the engagement of prosecutrix with Rajesh Khanna. He deposed that the marriage invitation cards had not been got printed but could not tell any specific reason for the same. He further deposed that no photographs had been taken when the bride and the groom took rounds around the sacred fire. He could not say whether none of the guests or family members present at the function did not have camera in his/her mobile phone. He also deposed that Ring SC No.170/13. Page 32 of 54 ceremony, Chunni ceremony, exchange of Jaimala and Sindurdan ceremony were performed in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall.

44. PW15 Sh. Tek Chand has deposed that the marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna was performed on 11.2.2008 in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall, Gurgaon. He further deposed that the bride and groom took rounds around the sacred fire at his house no.40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, in the morning of that day. According to him, the Ring ceremony, Chunni ceremony, Chura ceremony and the exchange of Jaimala by the bride and groom were also performed at his house. Chura ceremony was performed by him alongwith Pandit. In the cross examination, he deposed that no photographs had been taken at his house when the aforesaid ceremonies were performed. He did not see any person having camera or mobile phone with camera on that day at his house.

45. The Pandit, who is stated to have performed the marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna, is PW2. He does the job of Pandit in Shiv Shakti Mandir, Sai Samarak, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi, which is in front of the house of prosecutrix's brother Kuldeep. He deposed that Kuldeep had asked him to reach 40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, on 11.2.2008 to solemnize the marriage of prosecutrix with Rajesh Khanna. He reached there on 11.2.2008 at 7 a.m. and came to know that it is the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle. All the family members and relatives of the prosecutrix were already present in the house. The four accused also reached the house at about 8 a.m. He solemnized marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna and SC No.170/13. Page 33 of 54 completed all the ceremonies within one hour. He deposed that the bride and the groom took seven rounds around the sacred fire in his presence and accordingly, their marriage was solemnized. He chanted all the vedic mantras which are usually chanted at the time of solemnization of marriage. He had also issued a certificate dated 23.2.2010 Ex.PW2/A in this regard to the parties.

46. In the cross examination, he admitted that in a marriage 'Lagan Tika' is performed first of all followed by Gurchari, Sehrabandi, then Barat, then Jaimala, Gotra Uchcharan, Kanyadan, then Feras/Saptpadi and lastly Sindurdan. He further deposed that when he reached the house of prosecutrix's maternal uncle at Gurgaon about 10 - 15 persons were present there. First of all, the Chura ceremony was performed and then after the arrival of accused and his family, Saptpadi was performed. The Chura ceremony was completed in half an hour and remaining ceremonies of marriage were performed in one hour. He stated that the ceremonies of Dev Pujan, Gotra Uchcharan, Kanyadan, Lava Fere, Sindurdan were also performed. He also stated that the ceremonies of exchange of Jaimala was also performed but no photographs were taken at that time. He did not notice whether any of the persons present was carrying mobile phone but he did not see any of those persons taking photographs. He stated that the house was not decorated. The balcony of the house had been covered by a curtain but no tent had been erected. According to him, the Feras were taken in the Lobby adjacent to the drawing room. He further deposed that no Saptpadi was performed and he only performed Saptvachan, which is equal to Saptpadi.

SC No.170/13. Page 34 of 54

47. He admitted that he had issued certificate Ex.PW2/A after about two years of the marriage between prosecutrix and Rajesh. He had issued the certificate on the asking of Kuldeep. He was not aware about the residential addresses of the parties at the time of issuing the certificate and admitted that the addresses mentioned by him in the certificate were told to him by Kuldeep.

48. PW3, the photographer Manish Gandhi, is also a relevant witness regarding the events which had taken place on 11.2.2008. He is running a photography shop under and name and style of M/s. Gandhi Photographer and Events Creations on the ground floor of his house no.712/13, Pratap Nagar, Gurgaon. He deposed that his neighbour Sh. Dayal Chand had told him in the last week of January, 2008 that there is a marriage in his relation on 11.2.2008 and booked him for that day. Sh. Dayal Chand told him that Feras would be held at 8'O clock and asked him to reach Raj Mahal Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, which was the venue of marriage. He was also told that the Feras would be held at home at Vijay Park but the exact address was not communicated to him. He further deposed that Sh. Dayal Chand had not told him as to whether Feras would be held at 8 a.m. or 8 p.m. and since the Feras are usually held in the evening hours after exchange of Jaimala between the bride and groom, he thought that in this marriage also, the Feras would be held in the evening. He reached the marriage venue i.e. Raj Mahal Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, on 11.2.2008 at 11 a.m., but to his surprise, he was told that Feras have already been held. Thereafter other marriage ceremonies like exchange of Jaimala etc. were performed and he took photographs as well as videography of the ceremonies till 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. He SC No.170/13. Page 35 of 54 handed over the album containing the photographs of Sh. Dayal Chand after a few days of the marriage ceremony. He identified those photographs from the court record as Ex.PW3/A (colly). He had brought a CD of these photographs alongwith him and another CD containing the videography done by him and proved these as Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively.

49. In the cross examination, he deposed that he remained at the marriage venue i.e. Raj Mahal Banquet Hall till about 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. According to him, Ring ceremony, Jaimala, Chura ceremony and few other ceremonies were performed in the marriage. He deposed that all the ceremonies of the marriage were performed. He had not received any phone call from Sh. Dayal Chand in the morning of 11.2.2008. He further deposed that he has not seen any Pandit during the time he was present in the marriage ceremony from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.

50. Upon a close scrutiny of the deposition of aforesaid witnesses regarding the sequence and venue of the events that are stated to have taken place on 11.2.2008, one would doubt whether any ceremony of marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna had taken place in the house of PW15 on that day. PW4, PW5, PW7 & PW10, who are members of family of the prosecutrix, and were present in the marriage ceremony held on 11.2.2008, did not say in their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer after the registration of FIR in this case that the marriage ceremonies were performed in the house of PW15 Tek Chand i.e. house no.40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon. Similarly, neither the complaint Ex.PW4/A of the prosecutrix nor her supplementary SC No.170/13. Page 36 of 54 complaint dated 03.3.2010 Ex.PW4/C does mention that the marriage ceremonies were conducted in the house of PW15. To the contrary, it is mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW4/A that the marriage was performed with great pomp and show in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall, Gurgaon. PW5, brother of the prosecutrix, has mentioned in his statement u/s.161 Cr.PC dated 09.6.2010 that the marriage was performed in Raj Mahal Deluxe Hall, Gurgaon, with great pomp and show and according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The statement of PW15 u/s.161 Cr.PC has been recorded on 25.6.2011 i.e. more than one year after the registration of the FIR wherein he states that the Feras between the bride and the groom were performed at his house no.40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon. He was the most material witness in this case for the reason that he was instrumental in fixing the alliance between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna and ceremonies of marriage are also stated to have been performed at his house. Recording of his statement after more than one year of the registration of the FIR raises very serious doubt about the veracity of what he has mentioned in his statement u/s.161 Cr.PC and in his deposition before this court. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why his statement was recorded such belatedly. The investigating officer PW14 has deposed in his cross examination that she visited the house of PW15 i.e. 40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, on 17.11.2010 but did not record the statement of the house owner. She nowhere says that PW15 was not present in his house when she reached there on 17.11.2010 or that he did not respond to the notices sent to him to join the investigation. The recording of statement of PW15 at such a late stage of investigation and there being no reason for such huge delay gives SC No.170/13. Page 37 of 54 rise to a logical inference that PW15 was not prepared to support the prosecution case but later on succumbed to some external pressure.

51. If it is to be believed that the ceremonies of marriage like Saptpadi etc. was to be performed in the house of PW15 in the morning of 11.2.2008, there should have been some decoration in the house, howsoever, little it would have been. As already noted PW5 is a very wealthy person earning about Rs.8 Lacs per month and it was the marriage of his only sister, though her second marriage. It was very natural to get the marriage venue decorated. However, it is manifest from the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses that there had been no decoration at all in the house of PW15 on 11.2.2008. PW2, PW7 & PW10 have specifically deposed in their cross examination that the house of PW15 had not been decorated at all. On the other hand, Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall where no ceremony of marriage had to be performed, had been got decorated, which is evident from the photographs Ex.PW3/A (colly). What further intrigues this court is that no photograph at all is stated to have been taken during the ceremonies of marriage conducted in the house of PW15. It was argued by Ld. APP that the photographer PW3 had been engaged for the function but he did not arrive in time when the ceremonies of marriage were being performed in the house of PW15 in the morning of 11.2.2008 and hence there are no photograph of the ceremonies. The submissions of the Ld. APP appear to be without any force. According to the deposition of PW3, the photographer, he was not asked to reach the house of PW15 at 40, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, to take photographs of the marriage ceremonies. He has SC No.170/13. Page 38 of 54 deposed that he was engaged by PW10 and was asked to reach the marriage venue Raj Mahal Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, at 8'O clock. He was also not told that the marriage is to be performed early in the morning. PW10 has nowhere deposed that he had asked PW3 to reach the house of PW15 early in the morning of 11.2.2008 to take photographs of the marriage ceremonies.

52. Assuming for the sake of arguments that on account of some miscommunication regarding the time and venue of marriage, PW3 did not reach the house of PW15 to take the photographs of marriage ceremonies, there is no evidence on record to show that PW5, PW10 or PW15 had made any call to PW3 asking him why he has not reached the marriage venue to take the photographs. PW10, who had engaged PW3, should have made calls to PW3 asking him why has not reached the marriage venue. Further now-a-days, there is a camera or a mobile phone having camera in every household. As already noted herein-above, PW5, PW10 & PW15 belong to affluent section of the society and it cannot believed that they did not possess a camera or a mobile phone having camera in their households. Even otherwise also, it has nowhere come in their deposition that they were not having either a camera or a mobile phone having camera. Hence, even if PW3 was not able to reach the marriage venue in time, photographs and video could have been taken by a camera or a mobile phone having camera. Intriguingly, that does not appear to have been done as no such photographs or videos have been placed on record.

53. PW15 has deposed that Ring ceremony, Chunni SC No.170/13. Page 39 of 54 ceremony, Chura ceremony, exchange of Jaimala and taking of rounds around the sacred fire were performed at his house in the morning of 11.2.2008. PW2 the Pandit has also deposed on the similar lines. However, PW10 has deposed that the Ring ceremony, Chunni ceremony, exchange of Jaimala and Sindurdan were performed in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall. PW3 also has deposed that he had taken photographs and videos of the ceremonies like exchange of Jaimala, Ring ceremony, Chura ceremony etc. in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution itself that photographs Ex.PW3/A (colly) have been taken in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall. These photographs also show that the Ring ceremony, exchange of Jaimala between bride and groom etc. have been performed in this hall. It is thus amply clear that no ceremony at all had been performed in the house of PW15 in the morning of 11.2.2008. All the ceremonies like Ring ceremony, exchange of Jaimala, Sindurdan, Chura etc. were performed during the day time in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall. If the Feras/Saptpadi have been performed in the house of PW15 then all the aforementioned ceremonies which preceed Saptpadi, should have also taken place in the house of PW15. Since the evidence on record makes it manifest that all these ceremonies had been performed in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall, it cannot be believed that Saptpadi/Feras were performed in the house of PW15 in the morning.

54. PW2 has added a peculiar twist to the prosecution case in this regard. In the examination in chief, he has deposed that Saptpadi was performed but in the cross examination, he SC No.170/13. Page 40 of 54 deposed that no Saptpadi was performed and he only performed Saptvachan. Thus the witnesses of the prosecution itself has demolished its case. PW2 is the person who is stated to have conducted marriage ceremonies. He deposed that the Saptpadi was not performed and only Saptvachan was performed. There is no evidence on record to show that Saptpadi is not performed in the marriage in the community to which the prosecutrix and accused belong and only Saptvachan is performed. What exactly is Spatvachan has not been explained by the witness nor by any other prosecution witness. The other witnesses say that Saptpadi was performed but this witness PW2 says that he conducted only 'Saptvachan' and not 'Saptpadi'. Moreover, PW2 in his affidavit dated 29.8.2011 filed by him in the Supreme Court in SLP No. 18496-18498/11 filed by the prosecutrix assailing the order dated 30.5.2011 of the High Court vide which anticipatory bail was granted to the accused, has stated that he performed the marriage between prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna according to Hindu rites and ceremonies including 'Saptpadi'. (A copy of this affidavit has been filed alongwith the Charge Sheet). It is, thus, evident that PW2 says sometimes that he performed 'Saptpadi' and sometimes says that only 'Saptvachan' was performed by him. The stark inconsistency in his statements in this regard creates doubt in the whole prosecution case and it appears that probably no marriage ceremony at all was performed by PW2 and he is a planted witness.

55. The certificate Ex.PW2/A issued by this witness has no value at all as admittedly it has been issued by him after about two years of the so called marriage at the instance of PW5.

SC No.170/13. Page 41 of 54

56. Hence there is not any cogent and convincing evidence on record to show that any marriage ceremony like Saptpadi etc. between the prosecutrix and the accused Rajesh Khanna was performed in the house of PW15 on 11.2.2008. From the evidence lead by prosecution, it appears that the family of the prosecutrix was aware that Rajesh Khanna had not obtained divorce from his wife Rashi Khanna and hence the legally valid marriage between him and the prosecutrix is not possible. At the same time, they were eager to see that the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna start residing together. Therefore, with the approval of accused's family, a function was organized in Raj Mahal Deluxue Banquet Hall, Gurgaon, on 11.2.2008 wherein ring ceremony was performed and the couple exchanged garlands. This was done probably to show to the society that the prosecutrix has got married to Rajesh Khanna. Accordingly, the prosecutrix accompanied Rajesh Khanna to his house on 11.2.2008 and started residing with him as his wife, knowing fully well that she is not his legally wedded wife.

57. Since both the families knew that marriage between prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna is not legally possible, till he obtains divorce from his wife Rashi Khanna, they kept the event dated 11.2.2008 a low key affair and did not create any evidence of marriage. No marriage invitation cards were got printed and distributed by any of the families. The house of PW15, where the marriage ceremony is stated to have been performed, was not decorated at all. No photographs showing the bride and groom circumambulating around the sacred fire have been taken or SC No.170/13. Page 42 of 54 placed on record.

58. The prosecution has failed to lead any clinching evidence to demonstrate that the accused had shown a false divorce decree to the family of the prosecutrix on 26.1.2008 and thus cheated as well as deceived them by inducing a belief that Rajesh Khanna is a divorcee. The evidence on record does not suggest that the prosecutrix and her family was not aware about the actual marital status of Rajesh Khanna or that actual marriage between prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna was performed on 11.2.2008. The prosecutrix and her family knew all along that Rajesh Khanna is not a divorcee and they took a conscious decision whereafter the function dated 11.2.2008 was organized and the prosecutrix accompanied Rajesh Khanna to his house to reside with him as his wife.

59. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix and her family became aware about the alleged fraud and deception played upon them by the accused during the course of hearing of anticipatory bail application of accused Rajesh Khanna in Sessions Court on 17.2.2009 when he claimed that he could not have married the prosecutrix as he had not obtained divorce from his previous wife and both were living in a live-in relationship. As noted herein-above, the prosecutrix is stated to have submitted a supplementary complaint dated 03.3.2010 Ex.PW4/C wherein she contended for the first time that she has been deceived, cheated and raped by accused Rajesh Khanna. The delay of almost 20 days in submitting the supplementary complaint has nowhere been explained by the prosecution. The proceedings before the Crime SC No.170/13. Page 43 of 54 Against Women Cell were going on during that period. The prosecutrix appeared before CAW Cell on 18.2.2010 and 02.3.2010. She neither told the Conciliation Officer that she has been subjected to deception and rape by accused Rajesh Khanna nor did she submit any written complaint. Further the record of the case nowhere shows that the prosecutrix had submitted the supplementary complaint Ex.PW4/C on 03.3.2010 or on any date around that date. The proceedings of the CAW Cell dated 03.3.2010 and 22.3.2010 do not mention anything about the submissions of a supplementary complaint by the prosecutrix. The investigating officer has mentioned about the said complaint dated 03.3.2010 in the seizure memo dated 14.6.2010 Ex.PW4/D at Srl. No.15. This amply demonstrates that the supplementary complaint dated 03.3.2010 Ex.PW4/C was handed over to the IO on 14.6.2010 and had not been submitted on 03.3.2010 as contended by the prosecution. The final report dated 02.6.2010 Ex.PW11/A prepared and submitted by the Conciliation Officer Inspector Usha Joshi also does not mention about the said supplementary complaint.

60. The record also reveals that after receipt of supplementary complaint of the prosecutrix, the IO SI Rajni Chopra sent the file, with the approval of the concerned ACP, to the prosecution branch for opinion as to whether the offences u/s. 494/376/420 IPC are attracted to the case. It would be relevant to reproduce here the following paragraphs of the opinion rendered by Ms. Satvinder Kaur, Ld. APP, on 29.9.2010 :

"The complainant in her supplementary complaint SC No.170/13. Page 44 of 54 dated Nil in reference to her previous complaint had stated that the accused had physical relations with her fraudulently."

61. It is thus evident that when the file was sent to the prosecution branch for legal opinion in September, 2010, the supplementary complaint of the prosecutrix was not bearing any date which makes it manifest that the date has been put on the said complaint later on as 03.3.2010, to suit the prosecution case. This gives a clear indication of the manipulation of the documents by the prosecutrix in collusion with the investigating officer.

62. The certificate Ex.PW2/A issued by Pandit (PW2) bears the date as 23.2.2010. The FIR Ex.PW1/A has been registered on 08.6.2010 u/s.498A/406/34 IPC. One wonders why the FIR was not registered u/s.376 IPC also when there were clear cut allegations of rape in the supplementary complaint Ex.PW4/C of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix had also furnished the certificate of Pandit dated 23.2.2010 Ex.PW2/A regarding her marriage with accused Rajesh Khanna. Here it would be pertinent to refer to the order dated 30.5.2011 of the High Court vide which accused Sudershana Khanna, Suman Grover and Ashok Grover were granted anticipatory bail. It has been mentioned by the High Court in the said order that the perusal of the photographs placed on the police file and shown to the court reveals that at the time of alleged marriage between the prosecutrix and son of Sudershana Khanna, no 'Saptpadi' was performed. The aforesaid observations of the High Court indicates that the certificate of the Pandit Ex.PW2/A had not been shown to the court or otherwise, the High SC No.170/13. Page 45 of 54 Court would not have made the aforesaid observations. It appears that the said certificate Ex.PW2/A was not in existence before 30.5.2011, for which reason it had not been brought to the notice of the High Court. No reason can be fathomed for not producing the said certificate before the High Court if it was in existence at that time. It is thus evident that the said certificate Ex.PW2/A was procured after the aforesaid observations were made by the High Court in the order dated 30.5.2011 in order to strengthen the prosecution case and has been ante dated. The record of the proceedings in the Crime Against Women Cell also shows that the prosecutrix was repeatedly asked to furnish the proof of marriage with Rajesh Khanna but she avoided to do so. It is for this reason that the notice dated 09.6.2010 u/s.91 Cr.PC was served upon her by the investigating officer calling upon her to furnish marriage registration certificate, receipt of marriage home or tent house, details of expenses of the marriage alongwith proof etc. and other related documents.

63. It appears that after the High Court observed in its order dated 30.5.2011 that there is no proof of 'Saptpadi', the family of the prosecutrix and the investigating officer got into a hurdle to create proof of marriage. They then came up with a story that the rituals of marriage including 'Saptpadi' were performed in the morning of 11.2.2008 at the house of PW15. It is for this reason that in none of the statements of any witnesses recorded prior to 30.5.2011 is it mentioned that the marriage ceremonies had been performed in the house of PW15. It is mentioned in the Charge Sheet that further inquiries were made from Pandit Rameshwar Prasad (PW2) and Sh. Tek Chand (PW15) after the SC No.170/13. Page 46 of 54 aforesaid observations were made by the High Court vide order dated 30.5.2011 and their statements were also recorded by the investigating officer. However, those statements of PW2 & PW15 recorded after 30.5.2011 have not been filed on record, the reason for which has not been explained by the investigating officer. It appears that the statement u/s.161 Cr.PC of the Pandit (PW2) dated 29.12.2010 is the same statement which had been recorded after 30.5.2011 and has been ante dated.

64. The conduct of the prosecutrix, her family members and the investigating officer, as discussed herein-above, manifests that no essential ceremony of marriage was performed between the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna on 11.2.2008 and the whole gamut of evidence sought to be projected in this regard is far from being convincing or reliable and appears to be manipulated. The evidence on record leads to the inference that the prosecutrix and her family members knew that her marriage with Rajesh Khanna is not legally possible as Rajesh Khanna has not obtained divorce from his wife Rashi Khanna and therefore, it was decided that the prosecutrix and Rajesh Khanna would start residing together in a live-in relationship and a function was organized in Raj Mahal Deluxe Mahal Hall on 11.2.2008 to show to the society at large that they have got married to each other and to avoid humiliation in the society.

65. The evidence lead by the prosecution nowhere indicates that any false misrepresentation or false statement of fact was made by any of the accused to the prosecutrix or his family. Hence there was no deceit practised by the accused.

SC No.170/13. Page 47 of 54

Thereafter none of the offences u/s.417, 493 and 376 IPC can be said to have been committed by any of the accused. It was a conscious decision of the family of the prosecutrix that she would go alongwith Rajesh Khanna after culmination of the function held on 11.2.2008 in Raj Mahal Deluxe Banquet Hall and would start residing with him. Prosecutrix knew fully well that she is not the legally wedded wife of the accused Rajesh Khanna and despite that starting residing with him and cohabiting with him voluntarily. The ingredients of sections 417, 493 and 376 IPC are not satisfied in this case.

66. It was submitted by Ld. APP that accused Rajesh Khanna had himself mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW13/A filed in P.S. Gurgaon that he got married to the prosecutrix on 11.2.2008 and therefore, it did not lie in his mouth to contend that he was living only in a live-in relationship with the prosecutrix. The argument has been noted only to be rejected. It may be noted in this regard that admittedly the prosecutrix and accused were staying together as husband and wife since 11.2.2008 which may have given rise to an impression in their mind that they are a wedded couple which in fact they were not. However, the fact remains that the prosecutrix was not deceived into staying with accused Rajesh Khanna in a live-in relationship and in cohabiting with him. Further the admission of the accused Rajesh Khanna of the marriage with prosecutrix is no evidence at all and it was the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the essential ceremonies required for a legally valid marriage were performed between the prosecutrix and accused Rajesh Khanna. The prosecution has failed to do so.

SC No.170/13. Page 48 of 54

67. Coming to the charge u/s.307 IPC framed against accused Ashok Grover, Suman Grover and Sudershana Khanna. It is the case of the prosecution that they forcibly administered 15 or 16 Betacard-50 tablets to the prosecutrix in the evening of 20.4.2009 with a view to eliminate her and thus have committed an attempt to murder her. It was submitted by the Ld. APP that these tablets reduce the blood pressure and pulse rate of a person drastically and the person may die instantaneously on consuming such number of tablets. The prosecutrix (PW4) has deposed in this regard that after these tablets were forcibly administered to her, her condition became worse and she started sweating and feeling difficulty in breathing. At about 11.50 pm. in the night her husband Rajesh opened the door of the room and became scared on seeing her condition. He gave his mobile phone to her and asked her to make a call to her brother as he did not want to get involved in a police case. She made a call to her brother asking him to come immediately to take her to hospital. Her brother talked to Rajesh Khanna and requested him not to waste further time and take her to hospital. She deposed that Rajesh took her to Sethi Hospital, Gurgaon, where she was admitted in ICU. In the cross examination, she has deposed that she was taken to hospital at about 11.15 p.m. and that time her condition was very critical. The doctor did not make any inquiry from her. She was in a semi conscious state.

68. No doctor from Sethi Hospital, who examined and treated the prosecutrix during the night intervening between 20.4.2009 and 21.4.2009 has been examined by the prosecution.

SC No.170/13. Page 49 of 54

There is only one document on record in this connection i.e. Discharge Card issued by Sethi Hospital Ex.PW4/L. Perusal of the said card reveals that the blood pressure of the prosecutrix was 160/110 when she had been brought to the hospital. Her pulse rate was found to be 80 per minute. These are almost normal readings and do not indicate that the prosecutrix had been brought to the hospital after having administered about 15 to 16 Betacard-50 tablets to her. If, in fact, she was forced to consume such a number of tablets, her blood pressure reading and pulse rate could not have been as normal as it was. She did not lose consciousness and was in senses even at 11.50 p.m. when she was removed to hospital by Rajesh Khanna. She was even in a position to talk and in fact talked to her brother on phone. Her blood pressure and pulse rate had not come down even a bit and in fact both were found to be on a slightly higher side when she was examined in the hospital.

69. The physical and mental condition in which the prosecutrix was after having been administered allegedly such a large number of Betacard-50 tablets, as noted herein-above, does not indicate that she had taken any such tablet. The evidence on record including the medical evidence in the nature of Discharge Card Ex.PW4/L does not show or suggest that any such incident had taken place. It is very difficult to believe that such large number of blood pressure tablets had been administered to the prosecutrix, as her condition was stable, she was conscious as well as oriented, was in a position to talk and all her vital parameters were found to be within normal limits at the time sahe was brought to Sethi Hospital. It is highly improbable that such an SC No.170/13. Page 50 of 54 incident had taken place. The accused cannot be held guilty u/s. 307 IPC on the basis of such weak and unconvincing evidence. Further, the prosecution has not lead any evidence to show that a person would certainly die if he/she consumes 15 - 16 Betacard-50 tablets.

70. Therefore, the evidence in this regard is also highly deficient and far from being cogent or convincing. It is very difficult to believe that such a large number of blood pressure tablets had been administered to prosecutrix, when her all vital parameters were found to be within normal limits at the time she was brought to the Sethi Hospital. Hence the Charge u/s.307 IPC also must fail.

71. It is also intriguing that the prosecutrix accompanied Rajesh Khanna to his house on 22.4.2009 after discharge from Sethi Hospital. It does not appear from her testimony that she had shown any reluctance to go to the house of Rajesh Khanna from the hospital. Even her brother and his relatives, who were present in the hospital, did not think it advisable to take the prosecutrix to their house so that she would come out of the shock and trauma of the incident dated 20.4.2009 when an attempt to eliminate her is stated to have been made. The prosecutrix has deposed that Rajesh Khanna had offered apology to her in the hospital and promised to her that he would not harass or torture her in future. She believed his words as she did not want her marital life to get disturbed. She further deposed that Rajesh Khanna had written apology letters in the hospital in front of all the relatives from both the sides and proved these apology letters as Ex.PW4/J and SC No.170/13. Page 51 of 54 Ex.PW4/K. I have gone through these documents Ex.PW4/J and Ex.PW4/K. There is no mention of incident dated 20.4.2009, when the prosecutrix is stated to have been administered forcibly certain Betacard-50 tablets by the accused, in these two letters. It appears that the prosecutrix was only concerned with a separate portion in the house of the accused and a fixed amount from the salary of Rajesh Khanna and therefore, only these two terms had been incorporated in the document Ex.PW4/J. There is nothing in these two documents to show that Rajesh Khanna admitted that his family members had forcibly administered certain Betacard-50 tablets to the prosecutrix on 20.4.2009 and he felt contrite for that. Therefore, the conduct of the prosecutrix in going to the house of the accused straightaway from the hospital after her discharge does not suggest that any attempt to take away her life had been made by the accused.

72. Regarding the Charge for the offence u/s.406 IPC framed against the accused, the prosecutrix has deposed that after about 10 days of her marriage, her mother in law, accused Susdershana and her sister in law accused Suman took away all her jewellery saying that they would keep these articles in a safe custody but did not return the same to her thereafter despite her demands. She further deposed that she demanded the jewellery from them on 03.3.2008 as she had to go to her parental house on the occasion of birthday of her niece, but they did not handover the jewellery to her. She again demanded the same from them on the occasion of 'Sagan' ceremony and marriage ceremony of her mother held on 22.2.2009 and 03.3.2009 respectively but that time also they did not give her the jewellery.

SC No.170/13. Page 52 of 54

73. When she was confronted with her written complaint Ex.PW4/A in her cross examination, she admitted that she had not mentioned therein that she had demanded her jewellery from accused Sudershana and accused Suman on 03.3.2008, 22.2.2009 and 03.3.2009. Therefore, this portion of her testimony is a clear improvement upon her initial statement to the police and has to be discarded. Moreover, her brother (PW5) has not mentioned anything regarding this fact in his entire testimony. It is manifest from the deposition of PW4 & PW5 that they were in regular touch with each other on phone and PW5 had been visiting the house of the accused several times during the period PW4 was staying there. Therefore, if, in fact, the jewellery of the prosecutrix had been snatched or taken away by the accused, she would have definitely informed her brother about the same and her brother would have deposed regarding the same in his testimony before this court.

74. It may also be noted here that the prosecutrix has deposed in her cross examination that after her first marriage with Rakesh Malhotra, her jewellery had been taken away by her in- laws and she had filed a complaint u/s.498A/406 IPC against Rakesh Malhotra and his family. She proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/D1. As is said that once bitten twice shy, it cannot be believed that the prosecutrix would handover all her jewellery to accused Sudershana and Suman even after she knew that it is difficult to get back the jewellery and had experienced the same thing in her first marriage with Rakesh Malhotra. No prosecution witness i.e. any member of parental family of the prosecutrix has SC No.170/13. Page 53 of 54 deposed that the prosecutrix was not wearing the jewellery, which was given to her on 11.2.2008, during the functions dated 03.3.2008, 22.2.2009 and 03.3.2009. Hence I find that evidence in this regard also is neither cogent nor convincing and therefore, no finding of guilt u/s.406 IPC can be recorded against any of the accused.

Conclusion

75. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to adduce any convincing, clinching and trustworthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence led by the prosecution is shaky, untrustworthy and far from being credible. It appears that few documents were got manipulated and fabricated later on to suit the prosecution case and to implicate the accused in this case on false grounds.

76. Resultantly, all the accused are hereby acquitted and are hereby acquitted as such.

Announced in open                     (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 29.6.2015.                  Addl. Sessions Judge
                                   (Special Fast Track Court)
                                   Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.




SC No.170/13.                                        Page 54 of 54