Delhi District Court
Another vs State Of Haryana, Air 2005 Supreme Court ... on 28 April, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH V.K. GOYAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. 151/05.
FIR NO. 322/00
PS SARAI ROHILLA.
U/S 498A/304B/306/34 OF IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. PREM BALLABH,
S/O LATE SH. JIVA NAND,
R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN,
SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI.
2. GIRISH KUMAR,
S/O PREM BALLABH,
R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN,
SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI.
3. VIDYA,
W/O PREM BALLABH,
R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN,
2
SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI.
4. NIRMALA,
D/O PREM BALLABH,
R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN,
SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI. (DISCHARGED ON 29.03.2001).
JUDGMENT:-
1. FIR of this case was registered on the statement dated 01.09.2000 of one Durga Dutt, wherein he has stated that he resides alone at Dharamveer Market, CN-535, Budh Vihar, Badar Pur, Delhi and working as Senior Tea Man in K. G. Khosla, Faridabad. His family resided at Uttar Pardesh. He has stated that he has performed his daughter's marriage on 03.12.1999 with Girish Chand S/O Prem Ballabh R/O Village Bungedi, District Bageshwar, UP at village Mankot, District Bageshwar, UP, hence Prem Ballabh father of Girish Chand told that as they reside at Delhi, whatever articles he wanted to give in marriage be not given and against that equivalent cash amount be given. They also demanded one two wheeler scooter. He handed over cash of Rs.25,000/- against the articles and said that he will pay the remaining 3 cash at Delhi and will also give two wheeler scooter later on. He had given dowry articles happily according to his capacity in the marriage of his daughter which were including clothes, jewellery articles but Prem Ballabh had demanded scooter separately. He assured that after arranging the money, he will hand over the cash amount of the scooter at Delhi to them.
2. After the marriage of his daughter Janki, she came to their house in May,2000 with her in laws. Janki talked with him and reminded him about the two wheeler scooter which was not given till that day. He assured her that he will give the scooter at the earliest. He had talked with his daughter lastly in May,2000. Prior to that, he had also met with his daughter at her house. Whenever, he visited the house of her daughter, he always found her daughter sad and she used to weep. He asked about her sadness and weeping to which she replied that her husband was demanding scooter and the scooter should be given as early as possible.
3. On 24th /25th July, 2000, on telephone his daughter Janki told that he should arrange the scooter at the earliest otherwise her in laws will kill her. On this, he demanded the money on loan from his relatives 4 but due to some reasons, he could not arrange the money. He had assured his daughter that he will pay the money on 15.08.2000.
4. On 12.08.2000, he received telephone message from Nirmal, nanad of his daughter asking him to come immediately to their house. He reached there at about 9.00 AM. On enquiry, father in law of his daughter Janki told that on 10.08.2000 Janki had gone to HR hospital with her mother in law to give food to her husband but she had not returned back home till then. He afraid and asked the father in law of Janki whether he had lodged any FIR or not. On this, he told that he will lodge the FIR today. He came out and informed his relatives about this and went back to the house of his daughter Janki and met there with Nirmal, who told that her father Prem Ballabh had gone for lodging FIR at police station Sarai Rohilla. He also reached at police station Sarai Rohilla and police told him that the incident took place within the jurisdiction of police station Subzi Mandi and he was directed to reach at police station Subzi Mandi. When he reached at police station Subzi Mandi, Prem Ballabh was coming out from the police station after lodging missing report and handed over a copy of the same. Prem Ballabh also took him to one policewala namely Khalid Akhtar and 5 introduced him to Khalid Akhtar, who told him that if he was father of the girl, he should sign one paper hurriedly to take immediate action and obtained his signatures on blank paper. That policewala also took one photograph of Janki from Prem Ballabh to release the same on television. He continuously made enquiries from Prem Ballabh and police to obtain information about his daughter.
5. On 16.08.2000, at about 10.30 PM, when he came back from his duty, he received telephone call from one Umesh Chand, who threatened him on telephone as to why he was harassing his brother in law Prem Ballabh and why he was visiting his house again and again. One Bishambar, who is nephew of Prem Ballabh also threatened him and said that the education certificate of his daughter Janki is forged and he was going to create some scene even on the day of marriage but he did not tell anything on that day but now he should report to the police and he will see him after coming out. Bishambar also asked him to meet him in Gulabi Bagh Park.
6. On 18.08.2000, he had gone to police station Subzi Mandi to lodge FIR about the above threatenings but no FIR was registered. Later on, at the instructions of the SHO, FIR was registered on 6 19.08.2000.
7. On 22.08.2000, police had shown some articles recovered from one dead body, to his relatives, which were four metal bangles. The dead body was cremated on 17.08.2000 after postmortem as unclaimed. He has further stated that neither the articles nor the dead body was shown to him. Articles were shown to his relatives. Bangles were not identified by his relatives. ASI Harpal told him that bangles were identified by Girish husband of Janki. The clothes of deceased were burnt alongwith the dead body at the time of cremation because she could not have been cremated without clothes.
8. On 24.08.2000, he had given a complaint to SDM Sadar Bazar regarding the murder of his daughter by her in law and negligence of the police. On this, the SDM had directed to SHO RMD to investigate the matter and filed the report. In compliance of the order, SHO RMD produced one file DD no. 16 Dated 10.08.2000, PP Subzi Mandi, under section 174 of Cr. P. C. before the court, which including three coloured photographs and three black and white photographs and he has identified these photographs of his daughter Janki. He has further stated that SDM, Railway exhibited these photographs A to F. He has also 7 stated that he suspecting that either his daughter Janki was forced to commit suicide or she was killed.
9. The above statement was recorded by Sh. V. Valte, SDM, Sadar Bazar on 01.09.2000. in the inquest proceedings under section 176 of Cr. P. C. into the cause of death of Smt. Janki. It has been mentioned in the charge sheet that vide DD no. 25B, Sh. Prem Ballabh had informed that his son's wife Janki is missing since 10.08.2000. Sh. Durga Dutt, father of Janki and Prem Ballabh did not suspect any foul play. All the required measure were taken by the police to search Janki but could not trace her. On 19.08.2000, Sh. Durga Dutt made a complaint against Umesh Chander and Bishambar before the SHO and on the said complaint a case FIR no. 310/2000 under section 366 of IPC was registered.
10. On 10.08.2000, a train accident took place in which a lady similar in physique with Janki died. The said body was preserved for 72 hours for identification and postmortem. On 17.08.2000, the dead body was cremated by the police of Railway, Main Delhi, police station as unidentified. The photographs of the said dead body were shown to the maternal uncle and father of Janki, who were unable to identify her. 8
11. On 25.08.2000, Sh. Durga Dutt personally appear before the SHO with the same complaint. FIR was registered as per directions, under section 498A/304B of IPC. Sh. Durga Dutt also filed a petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide no. 788/2000. Proceedings under section 174 of Cr. P. C was conducted by Railway police.
12. On 01.09.2000, Durga Dutt identified the deceased lady being his daughter from the photographs. Accused Girish Kumar and Prem Ballabh were arrested. During the further investigation, Vidya Devi was also arrested. Km. Nirmala was also arrested.
13. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under section 498A/304B of IPC against the accused persons before the court of concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was committed to the court of sessions and was assigned to this court.
14. On 29.03.2001, after hearing the arguments, accused Nirmala was discharged and charge was framed against the accused persons namely Prem Ballabh, Girish Kumar and Vidhya Devi under section 498A/304B/34 of IPC. Thereafter, vide orders dated 22.05.2001, the charge was also ordered to be framed against the accused persons in alternate under section 306/34 of IPC. The same was framed on 9 06.06.2001, to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
15. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to 14 in all. Out of which PW-1 is Smt. Parwati. Deceased Janaki was her daughter, who was married to Girish Chand on 03.12.1999, with Hindu Rites at Village Mankot, District Bageshwar, Uttranchal. After the marriage, her daughter was taken to Delhi by her in laws as they were residing in Delhi. In May, 2000, her daughter Janki came to her house and told that her in law's harassed her and are demanding dowry. She also complained that they also gave beating to her after taking liquor. She also told her that they are demanding scooter and Rs.25,000/- and more dowry from her. She pacify her daughter and sent her to her in- law's house at Delhi and assured that they will arrange money to fulfill the demand made by her in law's.
16. She has further stated that her daughter Janki became pregnant and after that they started harassing her more and again demanded dowry. They went to village and were tried to arrange money. On 30.08.2000, she came to know that her daughter Janki was killed by her in law's and her body was thrown on the railway line. She 10 reached Delhi on 06.09.2000. On 08.09.2000, SDM had shown her photographs of her daughter, then she identified the photographs of her deceased daughter as she was wearing a saree given by her. All the accused and their relatives Umesh Chand and Bishambar gave threat to them not to take any action against them. Her statement was recorded by SDM as Ex.PW-1/A and by the police also. Her deceased daughter Janki was also harassed by her nanad Nirmala and nephews of Prem Ballabh Bhishamar and Harish and also his sala Umesh. Janki used to complain that Bishambar used to catch hold of her hand without any opposition and rather with the consent of Prem Ballabh.
17. PW-2 is Durga Dutt. He has stated that Janki was his daughter, who was married with Girish Chand in December, 1999, with Hindu Rites. The Marriage was solemnized at his Village in UP. At the time of marriage, entire family members demanded cash from him for furniture and other articles. He gave all the dowry articles such as clothes, jewellery and other necessary dowry articles. Accused persons demanded Rs.25,000/- in cash and two wheeler scooter. He gave Rs.25,000/- but about the scooter he told them that he was unable to give at that time and he shall arrange shortly. In May, 2000, his 11 daughter Janki came to his house. She was pregnant. She told that she was being harassed and tortured by the accused persons as their demand of scooter was not fulfilled. She also told that they are demanding other cash of Rs.25,000/- and were harassing her on that account also. She stayed for about 10-15 days.
18. On 25th /26th July, 2000, Janki rang and told that as scooter and money was not given to them, they were torturing her and threatened her to kill, so he should make arrangement for the same. He told her that he would be visiting her on 15th August, 2000 and shall bring the scooter and the cash after making the arrangement from relatives etc. He started making some arrangement by borrowing money but before 15.08.2000 incident happened.
19. On 12.08.2000, at about 7.00 AM, he received telephone message from Nirmal, nanad of his daughter asking him to come immediately to their house. He reached there at about 9.15 AM when only Prem Ballabh and Nirmal were present there. On enquiry, Prem Ballabh told that on 10.08.2000 Janki had gone to HR hospital with her mother in law to give food to Girish and had left the hospital at 5.00 PM, but she had not returned back home till then. He also informed that his 12 relative Bishambar had come on 08.08.2000 and there was some exchange of words between him and Janki and that there was no other quarrel.
20. On his asking, as to whether the police was informed about Janki having not returned from the hospital, he replied that he will inform the police today. He left his house to inform some relatives and as it was about 11.00 AM. He returned back to Prem Ballabh's house but he was not there. His daughter Nirmal was present there. She informed that Prem Ballabh has gone for making FIR at police station Sarai Rohilla. He also went to police station from where Prem Ballabh had already left and was not there.
21. He was informed by the Sarai Rohilla police that the case of HR hospital would come in the jurisdiction of police station Subzi Mandi, then he came to police station Subzi Mandi. Prem Ballabh was coming out from the police station and he showed him a paper and said that he has lodged report regarding missing of Janki. He also took him inside the police station and introduced him to one police official Khalid Akhtar, who asked me as to whether he was the father of Janki and asked him to hurriedly sign a paper so that they may initiate prompt enquiry. He 13 obtained his signatures on a paper which he signed hurriedly and also as because he was disappointed and in confusion and wanted the enquiry to be done. Khalid Akhtar also wanted few photographs of Janki to which Prem Ballabh expressed his willingness and consent and to be given shortly after sometime.
22. He accompanied Prem Ballabh to a photo studio at Kamla Nagar and he got made number of photos from there. From there, he went to Badar Pur and Prem Ballabh went to police station for giving photographs. Next day, he came to police station Subzi Mandi and on enquiry, Khalid Akhtar said that he has received photos of Janki. In between, he kept on visiting for enquiry from the police station and from the residence of Prem Ballabh about further progress.
23. On 16.08.2000, at about 10.30 PM, he received telephone call from Bishambar and Umesh, who threatened him as to why he was making enquiry and harassing Prem Ballabh and that they would not spare him. Bishambar also threatened on telephone that he was to create some scene on the day of marriage but he did not and that certificate of his daughter was forged and also that he may lodge FIR against him and would see him. He also asked him to come and see 14 him in Gulabi Bagh Park on the next day morning.
24. On 17.08.2000, he again went to police station to lodge complaint against Umesh and Bishamber but the police official present there on duty said that the same will be recorded only by Khalid Akhtar. Then, as advised, he went to the police station on the next day i.e. 18.08.2000, again the police official on duty did not record his complaint against Umesh and Bishambar and as advised by him he contacted there with Khalid Akhtar, who also did not record any complainant and rather rebuke him asking him to show some love letter of Janki else they could not take any action against anyone. SHO also did not listen to him.
25. On 19.08.2000, he went to DCP Mr. Upadhyay who rang up SHO Balbir Singh and directed him to record FIR and report to him in 2- 3 days. The police recorded his FIR on 19.08.2000 at about 8.45 PM. On 20.08.2000, as he got sick, he was admitted in Basai Dara Pur, ESI Hospital and was discharged from there on 21.08.2000.
26. On 22.08.2000, he again went to police station Subzi Mandi and enquired from the SHO, who made him to sit there as he was busy. It was only in the evening of 22.08.2000 that police informed that one 15 dead body was recovered from railway track of Kishan Ganj and they could go there for further enquiry and confirm as the dead body had already been cremated on 17.08.2000 as unidentified. He met ASI Harpal at railway track at Kishan Ganj Railway Station and he enquired from him about the identification of dead body and other articles of his daughter. ASI Harpal told that the bangles of deceased Janki have already been identified by accused Girish and he told that the clothes of Janki which she was wearing at that time, had been burnt alongwith the dead body at the time of cremation. ASI Harpal did not show him any photograph of his deceased daughter and said that the same will be received in 3-4 days.
27. On 24.08.2000, he came to SDM Sadar Bazar, who directed Harpal Singh to come with the photo. He came there with black & white photos of Janki. She could not identified in the said photos and he desired to show him colour photos. Black and white photographs are Mark A1 to A3. These are the same which were shown to him by ASI Harpal Singh, On 01.09.2000, the colour photos was shown to him in the office of SDM which he identified as of Janki. Colour photographs are mark A4 to A6.
16
28. He has firm belief that his daughter Janki was killed by the accused persons and then dead body kept at the railway track to make out a case of train accident. He gave statement Ex. PW-2/A to SDM. He has also identified all the three accused persons before the court.
29. PW-3 is Dr. B. K. Sharma, CMO. On 17.08.2000, vide postmortem no. 1720 on the body of unknown about 25 years female body was sent by ASI Harpal Singh, police station DRP, Subzi Mandi. On postmortem external injury:-
1. Split laceration 6cm X 3cm bone deep right parietal region.
2. Split laceration 5cm X 2cm right parietal.
3. Another split laceration 4cm X 3cm occipital.
4. Multiple grazed abrasion both side of face more on the right side.
5. Multiple grazed abrasion right forearm and elbow and shoulder.
6. Grazed abrasion 10cm X 6cm right forearm, elbow and upper arm.
Avulision laceration 4cm X 2cn right forearm.
7. Deformity of left upper leg with underline fracture of left tibia bone. Laceration 4cm X 3cm left leg posterior side.
8. Deformity of right lower thigh with underline fracture of lower end of right femur bone. Laceration 6cm X 4cm right posterior thigh lower 17 part.
9. Multiple grazed abrasion all over chest and back.
10.Laceration 10cm X 4cm right upper chest and supera clavicular area.
Internal Injuries
1. Head :- Subscalp bruising all over. Scalp tissue cut in whole thickness below corrosponding injury mentioned earlier. Communiteted fractures of right frontal parital and occipital bones. Brain show massive defuse sub-archnoid hammerage all over. Contusion laceration on left parito temporul and right occipital bone (conteraoup injuries).
2. Neck intact.
3. Chest : Massiver haematoma present below the skin over sternal. Body of sternal shown fracture separation with blood clots. 2 to 6 ribs on left side fracture anterior axillary line. Left lung punctured.
4. Abdomen : Liver rapture. Splien rupture. Kidney intacts.
Stomach contain about 100 ml bile stained fluid.
5. Urinary bladder empty, ractum empty, uterus enlarge upto 18 epigastrium. On cutting show fully develop adhere placenta and a male fectus of 40 cm length. (approx. gestation age 8 months).
6. Spinal column show fracture separate of cervical 3 and 4 ver tebrae with blood clots and adjacent soft tissue. OPINION Cause of death is craniocerebral injuries consequent to head being struck against hard blunt object. All injuries are anti-mortum in nature and head injury are sufficient to cause death rapidly in ordinary course of nature. However, knock down by running train can not be ruled out. His PM report in this regard is Ex. PW-3/A which bears my signatures at point A. His opinion that the knock down by running train could not be ruled out was placed on the information given to him by the police with the alleged history of the deceased having died in train accident.
30. PW-4 is HC Prem Singh. On 05.09.2000, on receipt of rukka from SHO Kulbhushan Sharma through SI Maninder, he recorded FIR no. 322/2000 under section 498A/304B/34 of IPC, Ex. PW-4/A.
31. PW-5 is HC Om Parkash, Telephone Operator. On 10.08.2000, 19 he was posted at PCR and was on duty from 2 PM to 8 PM and on receipt of information through one Mukesh that one dead body was lying in the railway track, near railway chowki no. 2, Shanti Nagar, he recorded entry of the same on the form Ex. PW-5/A.
32. PW-6 is V. Valte, SDM. On 25.08.2000, while he was posted as SDM, Sadar Bazar, Durga Dutt personally appeared before him and made a complaint against the police that they were not investigated the matter properly about the death of his daughter. He directed SHO, RMD to report. The inquest proceeding conducted by SHO were produced before him. He recorded the statements of Durga Dutt and K. N. Pandey on 01.09.2000. The statement of Durga Dutt is Ex. PW-2/A and statement of K. N. Pandey is not available in the record. On 08.09.2000, he recorded the statement of Parvati as Ex. PW-1/A, thereafter he ordered for registration of the case vide orders Ex. PW-6/A. The statement of Durga Dutt and Parvati and the directions bear his signatures at point A.
33. PW-7 is constable Tej Pal. In the intervening night of 5/6.09.2000, while he was posted at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, he alongwith SI Maninder Singh and complainant reached at the house of 20 accused persons at Sindora Kalan. Accused Girish and Prem Ballabh were found there and were interrogated. They were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B. Their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex. PW-7/C and Ex. PW-7/D. Both the accused persons were brought to police station and locked up.
34. PW-8 is Inspector B. S. Ahlawat. On 05.09.2000, he was posted as SHO,RMD and received the orders of SDM Sadar Bazar dated 04.09.2000. He prepared his report Ex. PW-8/A and sent the same to ACP Railway with the request to mark the same to SHO Subzi Mandi for further investigation as the case has already been registered there regarding this incident. Additional DCP and ACP Railway forwarded the same and he personally handed over his report to SHO Subzi Mandi on the same day for further necessary action.
35. PW-9 is Retired Inspector Balbir Singh. On 12.08.2000, while he was posted as SHO, Subzi Mandi, one person had lodged missing report in respect of deceased Janki vide DD no. 25B Ex. PW-9/A and the same was marked to SI Khalid Akhtar for enquiry and necessary action. Later on the case was registered at police station Subzi Mandi under section 366 of IPC FIR no. 310/00 on the complaint of Durga Dutt, 21 father of the deceased.
36. On 05.09.2000, Inspector B. S. Ahlawat, SHO RMD gave his report Ex. PW-8/A to him and he made the remarks Ex. PW-9/B as the complainant had alleged about the demand of dowry and harassment by accused persons to his daughter and as per the statement the residence of accused persons falls in the area of police station Sarai Rohilla. He made request to send the report to police station Sarai Rohilla through ACP, Subzi Mandi, for further necessary action. The endorsement bears his signatures at point A. Later on, FIR 310/00 was cancelled on 23.09.2000. The cancellation report is Mark A.
37. PW-10 is ASI Nanu Ram. On 19.08.2000, while he was posted at Police Station Subzi Mandi, on receipt of rukka given to him by SI Khalid Akhtar, he recorded FIR No. 310/2000 under section 366 of IPC. Copy of the FIR is Ex. PW-10/A. After registration of the case, he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Khalid Akhtar.
38. PW-11 is HC Aman Singh. On 10.08.2000, on the request of IO ASI Harpal Singh, PP Subzi Mandi, Railway, he went to the place of incident i.e. near pole no. 4/13, railway line, Sindora Kalan and took photographs of female from different angles. The photographs are Ex. 22 PW-11/A4 to A6 and negatives are Ex. PW-11/A1 to A3.
39. PW-12 is Harender Kumar Singh. On 05.09.2000, while he was posted as ACP, Subzi Mandi, a note Ex. PW-9/B, prepared by SHO, Subzi Mandi was put up before him for approval and after perusal of the same, he passed orders Ex. PW-12/A, to SHO, Sarai Rohilla, to register a case under relevant section as the offence allegedly was committed within jurisdiction of police station Sarai Rohilla.
40. PW-13 is SI Maninder Singh. On 05.09.2000, he was posted at Police Station Sarai Rohilla and on that day, at about 8.30 PM, the investigation was entrusted to him by the duty officer. He with constable Tejpal and complainant went to Sindhora Kalan to the house of the accused persons. Complainant pointed out accused Prem Ballabh and Girish as his Samdhi and son-in-law. He interrogated both the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW- 7/B. Both accused were brought to police station and put in lock up and next day were remanded to Judicial custody.
41. On 10.09.2000, Parvati mother of the deceased came to police station and he made enquiries from her and recorded her statement. On 25.09.2000, he recorded statements of SDM, SI Khalid Akhtar, and 23 ASI Harpal Singh. On 18.10.2000, complainant met him in the court and informed him that because of his disturbed mental condition he could not make the proper statement before SDM and he wanted to make another statement. He recorded his supplementary statement on 18.10.2000. Later on, accused Vidya Devi was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-13/A. The nanad "Nirmal" of deceased had obtained the anticipatory bail so she was formally arrested and released on bail. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared. During the investigation, he had got the exhibits transferred to police station Sarai Rohilla from police station Crime in Railway.
42. PW-14 is constable M. A. Yadav. On 10.08.2000, he was posted at PP Railway Station, Subzi Mandi and on that day, ASI Harpal Singh and he received the DD no. 16, Ex. PW-14/A and for investigation, they reached near railway track, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar and found a dead body of female was lying in the centre of the railway track. ASI got the dead body photographed from different angel and made enquiries but the dead body could not be identified. ASI Harpal Singh conducted the inquest proceedings Ex. PW-14/C and recorded his statement Ex. PW-14/B. The dead body was ordered to be 24 preserved for 72 hours and request is Ex. PW-14/D.
43. ASI Harpal Singh has since died. He has also identified his signatures and writing. The brief facts are Ex. PW-14/E. ASI Harpal Singh also seized two yellow colour metal bangles from each hand, which were also removed from dead body vide memo Ex. PW-14/F and sealed the same with seal of HPS. He took the dead body to mortuary and handed over the same to constable Mukesh and then returned to police station. The dead body could not be identified so it was cremated and cremation slip Ex. PW-14/G was prepared by ASI Harpal Singh. He has also reported about proceedings conducted by him and carbon copy of the same in his handwriting is Ex. PW-14/H. He had also taken finger prints of the dead body for identification on four sheets, which are collectively Ex. PW-14/J.
44. After completion of the evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded. They all have denied the evidence on record and stated that they have not committed any crime. They have further stated that deceased Janki was living happily with them and it was a simple marriage and there was no demand of dowry or anything else. On 04.08.2000, accused Girish was admitted in hospital for treatment of 25 stone and he remained admitted till 16.08.2000 in HR hospital. They never harassed or tortured deceased Janki. When deceased became ill, she was got treated and they have documents for the same. They did best efforts to search deceased Janki.
45. In defence, accused persons examined DW-1 to DW-5 in all.
46. DW-1 SI Khalid Akhtar, Reader ACP, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. On 12.08.2001, he was investigating a missing report regarding Janki Devi D/O Durga Dutt, while he was posted at Police Station Subzi Mandi. He recorded the statement of Durga Dutt in case FIR no. 310/00 under section 366 of IPC, police station Subzi Mandi, which he had seen today and identified that the same is in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A and signatures of Durga Dutt at point B. The photocopy of the same is Ex. PW-9/DA.
47. Subsequently, a complaint was received by him on 19.08.2000 sent by Durga Dutt on the basis of which, he got a case registered under section 366 of IPC vide FIR no. 310/00. The photocopy of that complaint, he had seen in case FIR no. 310/00 which was later on furnished for cancellation. The copy of same is Ex. DW-1/A.
48. DW-2 is K. V. Singh, Record Clerk, HR hospital. He has 26 brought the summoned record regarding the patient Girish Kumar. As per record, patient Girish S/O Prem Ballabh, was admitted in the hospital on 04.08.2000 and remain admitted there as indoor patient till 16.08.2000. He was operated upon on 07.08.2000 for removal of gall stone. He has seen the discharge slip, which has been issued by their hospital. He identified the signatures of Dr. Anil at point A as he has seen him writing and signing. The doctor has left the services of the hospital. The document is Ex. DW-2/A. He has also seen the documents of the patient Ms. Janki Devi. He has stated that both the documents have been issued by their hospital against gyane no. 3943 and S4988. The same are Ex. DW-2/B and DW-2/C.
49. DW-3 is R. R. Tiwari. He has stated that he know accused Prem Ballabh since 1996. The wife of son of accused Prem Ballabh died in 2002. He came to know about the death of daughter in law of accused Prem Ballabh on 11.08.2002. On that day before 9 AM, he received a telephone call from accused Prem Ballabh, who asked him to reach his house immediately. He reached his house under the apprehension that the condition of son of Prem Ballabh, who was admitted in hospital might have worsen. Durga Dutt father in law of son 27 of Prem Ballabh was also present in the house of accused. Prem Ballabh told him that his daughter in law is missing. He advised him to inform the police. Durga Dutt, father of the girl asked them to wait for at least one day because reputation of his family and daughter were at stake. On 12.08.2002, he with Prem Ballabh went to police station Sarai Rohilla and there they were informed that the case would be handled by police station Subzi Mandi, so they reached at police station Subzi Mandi. Durga Dutt also came there. At police station report of both Durga Dutt and Prem Ballabh were recorded. During the stay of daughter of Durga Dutt in her matrimonial house, he had been visiting the house of the accused persons many times. Prem Ballabh had very good relations with his daughter in law. He has further stated that the year was 2000 and by mistake he has stated the relevant year as 2002.
50. DW-4 is Ashwani Kumar, Accountant, Apollo X-ray Ultrasound Centre. Examination of this witness was deferred and later on, accused persons have not produced this witness for further examination, hence his testimony can not be looked into.
51. DW-5 is Dr. Madhu Aggarwal. She has prepared the record on 16.03.2000 Mark A which bears her signatures at point A. same is Ex. 28 DW-5/A. This report pertaining to ultrasound of abdomen of Smt. Janki and in ultrasound, she found stone (pathri) in left ureter and six weeks intrautenni pregnancy.
52. On 30.07.2000, she prepared a ultrasound report of lower abdomen of Smt. Janki Devi. The document Mark B was prepared by her. Same is Ex. DW-5/B. The report shows 26 weeks normal pregnancy. Mark C is a film pertaining to ultrasound dated 16.03.2000 Ex. DW-5/A.
53. I have heard the learned APP for the State and counsel Sh. S. C. Garg for the accused persons and also gone through the material placed on record.
54. The husband i.e. accused Girish Kumar of the deceased Janki was admitted in HR hospital and the deceased Janki with her mother in law had gone to hospital with food to be given to accused Girish Kumar on 10.08.2000 but the deceased Janki had not returned till 12.08.2000. A DD no. 25B Ex. PW-9/A was lodged at police station Subzi Mandi by father in law i.e. accused Prem Ballabh of Janki at about 1 PM day that his son's wife aged about 20 years, white colour, height 4 ½ feet, round face, wearing green colour saree and blouse and also wearing watch 29 had gone to HR hospital, Ward no.5 and bed no.5, where his son was admitted and was stayed there to look after her husband. On 10.08.2000 at about 5 PM, she started from the hospital towards her in laws house but had not reached back.
55. Complainant Durga Dutt PW-2 was informed by one Nirmala, nanad of the deceased and complainant reached at her daughter's in laws house at about 9.15 AM and inquired from accused Prem Ballabh, who told the above fact to him. He asked as to why the police was not informed. On this, accused Prem Ballabh told that he will inform the police. PW-2 himself left the house to inform some other relatives and as it was 11.00 AM he returned back to the house of Prem Ballabh, who was not present there. Nirmala, daughter of accused Prem Ballabh informed PW-2 that Prem Ballabh had gone for making FIR at police station Sarai Rohilla. He also reached at police station Sarai Rohilla but Prem Ballabh was not there. He was informed that the jurisdiction of the incident was of police station Subzi Mandi, hence he reached at police station Subzi Mandi. Prem Ballabh was coming out from the police station and told that he had lodged the report regarding missing of Janki.
30
56. On the other hand, according to Ex. PW-5/A, one lady was found dead at Railway Chowki no. 2, near Shakti Nagar. Details have been mentioned as unknown, aged about 25/30 years, height 4.5 inch, white colour, staut, wearing red petticoat, blue blouse and green printed saree and without sleepers. It is also observed that she died with train accident. A DD no. 16 dated 10.08.2000, PP railway, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, Ex. PW-14/D was recorded to preserve the dead body for 72 hours. In this DD, Statement of constable M. A. Yadav was also recorded Ex. PW-14/B. According to the same, injuries were found on the right hand side of the head and right hand side of the neck, left elbow. Both knees were found broken. Injuries below the knee of left hand and bruises on the body. None identified the body on the spot. On enquiry, it was found that it was a train accident. The dead body was sent to Mortuary, Subzi Mandi with a request to preserve the same for 72 hours and it was also requested that the postmortem of the same be also conducted to ascertain the time of death.
57. Similarly, as DD no.14A dated 19.08.2000 was lodged on the statement of complainant PW-2 which was converted into FIR Ex. PW- 10/A wherein PW-2 has mentioned about the report lodged by the father 31 in law of his daughter Janki about the missing. He has further alleged that on 16.08.2000, brother in law Umesh of accused Prem Ballabh and nephew Bishambar of accused Prem Ballabh threatened him on telephone that as to why he was harassing the accused Prem Ballabh and further told that the education certificate of his daughter Janki was forged and he was going to create some scene even on the day of marriage but he did not tell anything on that day but now he should report to the police and he will see him after coming out. Bishambar also asked him to meet him in Gulabi Bagh Park.
58. PW-2 further alleged that due to above threatening, he is suspecting that his daughter has been kidnapped by these persons and his daughter was pregnant and requested for necessary action. This FIR 310/00 under section 366 of IPC was cancelled by the then ACP, Subzi Mandi, vide orders dated 26.09.2000.
59. The learned defence counsel has contended that in FIR no. 310/00 section 366 of IPC, complainant PW-2 has no where alleged that his daughter was being harassed and being tortured for the demand of dowry. It is further contended by the learned defence counsel that the said FIR was without any substance, hence the same was cancelled. It 32 is also contended by the learned defence counsel that from the cross examination of PW-2 i.e. complainant, it is clear that he has improved a lot in respect of the facts of the case. It is contended that the marriage was simple.
60. The learned defence counsel has further contended that in the documents on record, it is mentioned that it was a train accident. There was no demand of dowry at any time. Accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. In support of his contentions, the learned defence counsel has relied upon the judgment Tirath Kumari and another Vs State of Haryana, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4429, wherein it is held that if there is no evidence to show that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty by husband or in laws in connection with demand of dowry - accused persons entitled to benefit of doubt.
61. Now, the question before the court is whether it was a suicide or was a train accident.
62. PW-1 is mother of the deceased Janki, who has stated that Janaki was married to Girish Chand on 03.12.1999, at Village Mankot, District Bageshwar, Uttranchal. After the marriage, her daughter was 33 taken to Delhi as her in laws were residing in Delhi. In May, 2000, her daughter Janki came to her house and told that her in law's are harassing her and are demanding dowry. She also complained that they also gave beating to her after taking liquor. She also told her that they are demanding scooter and Rs.25,000/- and more dowry from her. On this, she pacify her daughter Janki and sent her to her in-law's house at Delhi and assured that they will arrange money to fulfill the demand made by her in law's.
63. She has further stated that her daughter Janki became pregnant and after that they started harassing her more and again demanded dowry. They went to village and tried to arrange money. On 30.08.2000, she came to know that her daughter Janki was killed by her in law's and her body was thrown on the railway line. She reached Delhi on 06.09.2000. On 08.09.2000, SDM had shown her some photographs of her deceased daughter, then she identified the photographs of her deceased daughter as she was wearing a saree given by her. All the accused and their relatives Umesh Chand and Bishambar gave threat to them not to take any action against them. Her statement was recorded by SDM as Ex.PW-1/A and by the police also. 34 Her daughter Janki was also harassed by her nanad Nirmala and nephews Bhishamar and Harish of accused Prem Ballabh and also his sala Umesh. Her daughter used to complain that Bishambar used to catch hold of her hand without any opposition and rather with the consent of Prem Ballabh. She has identified the accused persons before the court.
64. The learned defence counsel has contended that deposition of PW-1 is all of hearsay but I am not having the same opinion. PW-1 has specifically stated that in May, 2000, her daughter Janki told her about the demand of more dowry made by her in laws. The only fact which is hearsay is that she was informed by her brother Naveen that her daughter was died on 30.08.2000 and her brother Naveen had also told her that Janki was murdered and her body was thrown on railway line.
65. PW-1 has further stated in cross examination that Janki had come to their village in May,2000 alongwith all the accused persons. They had come to attend the marriage of son of brother of accused Prem Ballabh. She has denied the suggestion that in between 03.12.1999 to 10.08.2000, she never talked to her daughter Janki. She has also denied that the accused persons never demanded any dowry 35 from them. She has stated that no direct demand or dowry was raised on them but Janki was harassed for dowry and she had made complaint.
66. In respect of the question as to why the complaint was not lodged, PW-1 has stated that no complaint was lodged against the accused persons as they wanted that Janki should settle in her matrimonial house. She has been confronted on some aspects by the learned defence counsel to which she has explained that she had stated before the police that in laws of Janki used to give beatings to her after taking liquor but she does not know if police had recorded it or not. She has further stated that her husband had collected Rs.50,000/-. She has also denied the suggestion that neither Prem Ballabh and nor Girish take liquor. She had seen both of them taking liquor in the marriage.
67. PW-1 has stated that she does not know if accused persons had informed her husband on 11.08.2000 that Janki was missing. She has denied the knowledge that her husband met with Puran Chand Sharma with accused Prem Ballabh on 11.08.2000. She has also denied the knowledge that her husband had filed a Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus. She has also denied the knowledge about the 36 complaint lodged by her husband with SDM about missing of Janki. She has denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely that her daughter never told her anything about the beatings given by her in laws.
68. She has further stated that when Janki had complained against the accused persons and others at her native place only she was present and she had discussed the plite of Janki with her brother and she had also informed her other relatives. She has also denied the suggestion that her daughter Janki was living happily in her matrimonial house and neither cash nor scooter was demanded.
69. PW-2 father of the Janki, has stated that on 12.08.2000, at about 7.00 AM, he received telephonic message from Nirmal, nanad of his daughter asking him to come immediately to their house. He reached there at about 9.15 AM, when only Prem Ballabh and Nirmal were present there. On enquiry, Prem Ballabh told that on 10.08.2000 Janki had gone to HR hospital with her mother in law to give food to Girish and had left the hospital at 5.00 PM, but she had not returned back home till then.
70. PW-2 has specifically stated that accused persons demanded 37 Rs.25,000/- and one two wheeler scooter. He gave Rs.25,000/- in cash but about two wheeler scooter, he told them that he was unable to give at that time and shall arrange shortly. In May, 2000, his daughter Janki came to his house and she was pregnant. In this respect, PW-2 has corroborated with PW-1 that their daughter Janki came to their house in May,2000. PW-2 has further corroborated with PW-1 regarding the fact that Janki told that she was being harassed by the accused persons on the pretext of demand of scooter because the same was not fulfilled. Janki also told that her in laws were demanding other cash of Rs.25,000/- and were harassing her on that account also.
71. PW-2 has further stated that on 25th /26th July, 2000, his daughter Janki rang and told that as the demand of scooter and money was not fulfill hence they were torturing her and threatening her to kill her, so he should make arrangement for the same. He told her that he would be visiting her on 15th August, 2000 and shall bring the scooter and the cash after making the arrangement from relatives etc. He started making some arrangement by borrowing money. PW-1 has also corroborated with PW-2 in this respect, who has stated that her husband had collected Rs.50,000/-. But before 15.08.2000, incident took place on 38 10.08.2000.
72. It is strange that Janki was missing since 10.08.2000 but till 12.08.2000, neither the missing report was lodged by the in laws of Janki nor the father of Janki was informed. He was informed on 12.08.2000. A telephonic message, which was received from one Nirmala, nanad of Janki is also material in this respect because she called the father of the deceased immediately to their house which shows that it was not the case of missing only because if it would have been case of missing then at the most father i.e. PW-2 of the deceased Janki should have been informed on 11.08.2000 itself.
73. The learned defence counsel has contended that PW-2 was informed on 11.08.2000 that Janki was missing. PW-1 has denied the knowledge of this fact whereas PW-2 has also denied the suggestion that on 11.08.2000, he with accused Prem Ballabh had gone to Mr. Puran Chand Sharma, son in law of the complainant. PW-2 has further denied the suggestion that on 11.08.2000 he with R. R. Tiwari had gone to HR hospital. He has further denied the suggestion that he had met with accused Girish on 11.08.2000 in HR hospital. He has also denied the suggestion that he had requested accused Prem Ballabh not to 39 lodge missing complaint at police station which may disrepute image of the family.
74. PW-2 has admitted that he was absent on 11.08.2000. He has stated that he does not know that accused Prem Ballabh had not attended his work on 11.08.2000. He has further stated that he does not know any R. R. Tiwari. He has further denied that he with R. R. Tiwari had gone to HR hospital. PW-2 has explained that on 11.08.2000, he had taken leave because he had gone to the house of the relatives to collect money.
75. Sh. R. R. Tiwari has been examined by the accused persons as DW-3. He has stated that he came to know about the death of daughter in law of accused Prem Ballabh on 11.08.2002. He has further clarified that the year was 2000 and by mistake he has stated the relevant year as 2002 but he has not clarified that he did not come to know about the death of Janki on 11.08.2000 because as per the story of the accused persons, accused Prem Ballabh himself lodged the report of missing of Janki on 12.08.2000, when the complainant PW-2 asked as to why the report was not lodged with the police. On that day before 9 AM, DW-3 received a telephonic call from accused Prem Ballabh, who asked him 40 to reach his house immediately. He reached his house under the apprehension that the condition of son of Prem Ballabh, who was admitted in hospital might have worsen. Durga Dutt, father in law of son of Prem Ballabh was also present in the house of accused. Prem Ballabh told him that his daughter in law was missing. He advised him to inform the police. Durga Dutt, father of the girl asked them to wait for at least one day because reputation of his family and daughter were at stake. On 12.08.2002, he with Prem Ballabh went to police station Sarai Rohilla and there they were informed that the case would be handled by police station Subzi Mandi, so they reached at police station Subzi Mandi. Durga Dutt also came there. At police station, report of both Durga Dutt and Prem Ballabh were recorded. During the stay of daughter of Durga Dutt in her matrimonial house, he had been visiting the house of the accused persons many times. Prem Ballabh had very good relations with his daughter in law.
76. In the cross examination, DW-3 has stated that on 12.08.2000, the only idea in the minds of everyone, was that the girl was missing or she had gone to some relatives, hence there was no idea in the mind of anyone that there was something regarding the dowry. Witness has 41 denied that he had not gone to Police Station with accused Prem Ballabh at the time of lodging the complaint.
77. It is clear from the deposition of DW-3 that he has deposed falsely that he met with PW-2 on 11.08.2000 because PW-2 has neither in examination in chief nor in cross examination has admitted that he visited the house of accused Prem Ballabh and at that time, DW-3 was present there. Even PW-2 has nowhere stated that on 12.08.2000, when report of missing of Janki was lodged by accused Prem Ballabh, DW-3 R. R. Tiwari was with accused Prem Ballabh. DW-3 has also stated that in the Police Station on 12.08.2000, statement of complainant and accused Prem Ballabh were recorded but it is not so. As per record, missing report was lodged by accused Prem Ballabh whereas statement of complainant Durga Dutt was recorded by DW-1 SI Khalid Akhtar, to which PW-2 has already explained that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by DW-1 SI Khalid Akhtar hurriedly assuring him to initiate some action. On the other hand, DW-3 has stated that he came to know about the death of Janki on 11.08.2000, which clearly shows that this fact was concealed by the in laws of Janki and they informed PW-2 on 12.08.2000 that Janki was missing. 42
78. The learned defence counsel has further contended that in the complaint Ex. DW-1/A given to SI Khalid Akhtar, PW-2 has nowhere shown his suspicion that his daughter was killed for demand of dowry rather he has given in writing the complaint that his daughter was kidnapped by the accused persons i.e. Umesh and Bishambar.
79. DW-3 has admitted in the cross examination that there was nothing in the mind of anyone that there was something over dowry. DW-1 has stated that on 12.08.2000, he was investigating a missing report regarding Janki Devi D/O Durga Dutt. He recorded the statement of Durga Dutt, which is in case FIR no. 310/00 under section 366 of IPC, police station Subzi Mandi, which he had seen and identified that the same is in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A and signatures of Durga Dutt at point B. The photocopy of the same is Ex. PW-9/DA.
80. Subsequently, a complaint was received by him on 19.08.2000 sent by Durga Dutt on the basis of which, he got a case registered under section 366 of IPC vide FIR no. 310/00, which was later on submitted for cancellation. The copy of complaint is Ex. DW-1/A.
81. In the cross examination, he has stated that he had investigated 43 the case only from the angle of missing. He has further stated that he had not investigated the aspect of 498A of IPC. He has denied the suggestion that he obtained the signatures of PW-2 on a blank paper. On the other hand, PW-2 has stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers hurriedly to take immediate action by DW-1 SI Khalid Akhtar.
82. From the above, it is clear that DW-3 has not corroborated regarding the fact that on 11.08.2000, PW-2 was informed and was with accused Prem Ballabh in search of deceased Janki. Rather from the deposition of DW-3, it is clear that in laws of deceased Janki were having knowledge of death of Janki but they concealed this fact from complainant PW-2. Rest of his deposition is natural and corroborated with the depositions of other witnesses on record. It has not been suggested to PW-2 anywhere that he was not informed on 12.08.2000 at about 7.00 AM by one Nirmala, nanad of his daughter by asking him to reach immediate to the house of his daughter.
83. From the collective reading of depositions of PW-1,2,3 and DW- 1 and 3, it is clear that till 12.08.2000, it was not in the mind of PW-2 i.e. complainant that his daughter was killed on the pretext of the demand of 44 dowry rather as he was being threatened by Umesh and Bishamber, hence he suspected that his daughter was kidnapped by these persons and accordingly lodged FIR no. 310/00 under section 366 of IPC. PW- 1, mother of the deceased Janki has also stated that Janki used to complaint that Bishambar used to catch hold of her hand without any opposition and rather with the consent of accused Prem Ballabh. PW-2 has stated that his wife i.e. PW-1 has told him about the behaviour of Umesh, Harish and Bishambar which was not good towards Janki. This shows that besides harassment and tortured caused to deceased Janki on the demand of dowry by her in laws, she was also harassed by Umesh and Bishambar with some other motives, which were not objected by the in-laws of deceased Janki, otherwise there was no reason for Umesh and Bishambar to threat PW-2 Durga Dutt to see him.
84. As another case was registered later on under section 498A/304B of IPC, hence FIR no. 310/00 registered under section 366 of IPC was cancelled but I am afraid that role of Bishambar and Umesh has not been investigated by the police either in that FIR or in the present FIR. It does not come in the mind of PW-2 at that time that his daughter Janki was killed/committed suicide for demand of dowry and 45 even till 12.08.2000 he was under the impression that his daughter was missing or might have been kidnapped by Umesh and Bishambar whereas Janki had already died on 10.08.2000 and this fact was withing the knowledge of accused persons and DW-3 on 11.08.2000 and they concealed this fact from PW-2 Durga Dutt. Hence, the contention of the learned defence counsel that the complainant i.e. PW-2 did not make any allegations regarding the demand of dowry and killing of his daughter on the pretext of demand of dowry were not alleged earlier, is not forceful in any manner.
85. PW-2 has been cross examined by the learned defence counsel regarding the improvements made by him in his statement but even then if the improvements be not considered, the testimony of PW-2 is unshaken and unrebutted regarding the demand of dowry of Rs.25,000/- and one two wheeler scooter which deceased Janki told to PW-1 and also to PW-2 in May,2000 when lastly she visited her parental house at village Mankot.
86. It has also come in the deposition of PW-2 that on 25/26th July,2000, deceased Janki rang and told that as scooter and money was not given to them they were torturing her and threatened her to kill her, 46 so he should make arrangement for the same. Both PW-1 and 2 have corroborated each other in this respect. Even in the cross examination, PW-2 has stated that he had spend Rs.2 lacs in the marriage of his daughter. He has also explained that he had withdrawn from his PF, from his LIC policy and he had received insurance money on its maturity. He had also collected money periodically for the marriage of his daughter. It is well known in the Indian society that every parent used to save money and to collect the articles for the marriages of their daughters. This also falsify the contention of the learned defence counsel that the marriage was simple and PW-2 was not in a position to pay Rs.25,000/- in cash and two wheeler scooter. PW-2 has denied both these suggestions.
87. PW-6 is Sh. V. Valte, SDM, who has stated that on 25.08.2000, Durga Dutt personally appeared before him and made a complaint against the police that they were not investigating the matter properly about the death of his daughter. He directed the SHO, RMD to report. The inquest proceeding conducted by SHO were produced before him. He recorded the statements of Durga Dutt and K. N. Pandey on 01.09.2000. The statement of Durga Dutt is Ex. PW-2/A. (statement of 47 K. N. Pandey not available in the record)
88. On 08.09.2000, he recorded the statement of Parvati as Ex. PW-1/A, thereafter he ordered to register the case vide orders Ex. PW- 6/A dated 04.09.2000. The statement of Durga Dutt and Parvati and the directions bear his signatures at point A.
89. In the cross examination, PW-6 has denied the suggestion that no case under section 304B of IPC was made out and he wrongly ordered for registration of the case.
90. PW-4 is HC Prem Singh, who on 05.09.2000, on receipt of rukka from SHO Kulbhushan Sharma through SI Maninder, recorded FIR no. 322/2000 under section 498A/304B/34 of IPC, Ex. PW-4/A. The cross examination of this witness is not material in any manner and he is a witness of formal nature.
91. PW-8 has also corroborated with PW-6 who on receipt of order dated 04.09.2000, of PW-6, prepared his report Ex. PW-8/A and sent the same to ACP Railway with the request to mark the same to SHO Subzi Mandi for further investigation as the case has already been registered there regarding this incident. Additional DCP and ACP Railway forwarded the same and he personally handed over his report 48 to SHO Subzi Mandi on the same day for further necessary action.
92. PW-12 is Harender Kumar Singh. He has stated that on 05.09.2000, a note Ex. PW-9/B, prepared by SHO, Subzi Mandi was put up before him for approval and after perusal of the same, he as DCP ordered vide orders Ex. PW-12/A, to SHO, Sarai Rohilla, to register a case under relevant section as the offence allegedly was committed within jurisdiction of police station Sarai Rohilla. This witness has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel in any manner.
93. This case FIR was investigated by PW-13 SI Maninder Singh. On 05.09.2000, at about 8.30 PM, the investigation was entrusted to him by the duty officer. He with PW-7 constable Tejpal and complainant went to Sindhora Kalan to the house of the accused persons. Complainant pointed out accused Prem Ballabh and Girish as his Samdhi and son-in-law. He interrogated both the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B. Both accused were brought to police station and were locked up and next day, they were remanded to Judicial custody.
94. On 10.09.2000, Parvati mother of the deceased came to police station and he made enquiries from her and recorded her statement. 49 On 25.09.2000, he recorded statements of SDM, SI Khalid Akhtar and ASI Harpal Singh. On 18.10.2000, complainant met him in the court and informed him that because of his disturbed mental condition he could not make the proper statement before SDM and he wanted to make another statement. He recorded his supplementary statement on 18.10.2000. Later on, accused Vidya Devi was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-13/A. The nanad "Nirmal" of deceased had obtained the anticipatory bail so she was formally arrested and released on bail. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared. During the investigation, he got the exhibits transferred to police station Sarai Rohilla from police station Crime in Railway.
95. Cross examination of PW-7 is of formal nature but PW-13 has been cross examined by the learned defence counsel at length regarding the fact in case FIR no. 310/00 of Police Station Subzi Mandi registered under section 366 of IPC that complainant Durga Dutt had not levelled allegations regarding the demand of dowry causing death of his daughter Janki. The above fact has already been discussed above, hence the cross examination has no relevancy to the investigation conducted in the FIR of this case. Even otherwise, both 50 PW-7 and 13 are the witnesses of formal nature because the case was registered on the statement given by the complainant to the SDM.
96. PW-5 is HC Om Parkash, Telephone Operator. On 10.08.2000, he was posted at PCR and was on duty from 2 PM to 8 PM and on receipt of information through one Mukesh that one dead body was lying in the railway track, near railway chowki no. 2, Shanti Nagar, he recorded entry of the same on the form Ex. PW-5/A.
97. PW-11 is HC Aman Singh. He has corroborated with PW-5. He has stated that on 10.08.2000, on the request of IO ASI Harpal Singh, he went to the place of incident i.e. near pole no. 4/13, railway line, Sindora Kalan and took photographs of female from different angles. The photograph are Ex. PW-11/A4 to A6 and negatives are Ex. PW- 11/A1 to A3.
98. PW-14 is constable M. A. Yadav. He has corroborated with the other two witnesses that on 10.08.2000, ASI Harpal Singh and he received the DD no. 16, Ex. PW-14/A and for investigation, they reached near railway track, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar and found a dead body of female was lying in the centre of the railway track. ASI got the dead body photographed from different angel and made enquiries 51 but the dead body could not be identified. ASI Harpal Singh conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded his statement. The dead body was ordered to be preserved for 72 hours.
99. ASI Harpal Singh has since died. He has also identified his signatures and writing. His statement is Ex. PW-14/B. The inquest proceeding are Ex. PW-14/C. The request for preservation of dead body is Ex. PW-14/D. The brief facts are Ex. PW-14/E. ASI Harpal Singh also seized two yellow colour metal bangle from each hand, which were removed from the dead body vide memo Ex. PW-14/F and sealed the same with seal of HPS. He took the dead body to mortuary and handed over the same to constable Mukesh and then returned to police station. The dead body could not be identified so it was cremated and cremation slip Ex. PW-14/G was prepared by ASI Harpal Singh. He had also reported about the proceedings conducted by him and carbon copy of the same in his handwriting is Ex. PW-14/H. He had also taken finger prints of the dead body for identification on four sheets, which are collectively Ex. PW-14/J.
100. All the witnesses are of formal nature and have not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel on any material aspect. PW- 52 9 and 10 have been examined by the prosecution to prove the FIR 310/00 which was registered under section 366 of IPC. PW-9 has stated that on 12.08.2000 while he was posted as SHO Subzi Mandi, one person had lodged missing report in respect of Smt. Janki, he made DD entry no. 25B in this respect. Copy Ex. PW-9/A was marked to SI Khalid Akhtar for enquiry and necessary action. Later on, the case was registered under section 366 of IPC vide FIR no. 310/00 at Police Station Subzi Mandi on the complaint of Durga Dutt, father of deceased Janki. He has further stated that on 05.09.2000, Inspector B. S. Ahlawat, gave his report Ex. PW-8/A and he made remarks Ex. PW-9/B as the complainant had alleged about the demand of dowry and harassment by accused persons to his daughter and as per the statement the residence of the accused persons falls in the area of Police Station Sarai Rohilla, then he made request to send the report to Police Station Sarai Rohilla through ACP Subzi Mandi for further necessary action. Later on, case FIR was cancelled on 23.09.2000. The witness has been cross examined by the learned defence counsel on the fact that complainant did not give any statement or tell him that his daughter Janki was harassed or tortured by the accused persons 53 due to demand of dowry. The above fact has already been discussed.
101. PW-10 is ASI Nanu Ram. On 19.08.2000, on receipt of rukka given to him by SI Khalid Akhtar, he recorded FIR No. 310/2000 under section 366 of IPC. Copy of the FIR is Ex. PW-10/A. After registration of the case, he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Khalid Akhtar. The depositions of PW-9 and 10 are not much relevant as the FIR no. 310/00 was cancelled later on.
102. From the above discussions, it is clear from the depositions of PW-1 and 2 that accused Girish being husband, accused Prem Ballabh and accused Vidya being father in law and mother in law of deceased Janki harassed and tortured her with a view to compel her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/- cash and a two wheeler scooter to be given by her father to them. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accused all three are held guilty for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and convicted for the same.
103. Now the question for consideration before the court is whether offence 304B of IPC is proved or offence under section 306 of IPC is 54 proved by the prosecution.
104. From the testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that accused Girish was admitted in HR hospital and it has been stated so by DW-2, who has proved the record Ex. DW-2/A, B and C. It is also proved that Janki had gone with her mother in law to provide some food in HR hospital on 10.08.2000 and while she was coming back, as per record Ex. PW-5/A, PW-8/A, PW-14/A to J, Smt. Janki found dead on railway line at chowki no. 2, near Shakti Nagar.
105. The contention of the learned defence counsel is that it is a train accident. Janki was died while she was coming to her house. It is further contended that the house of the accused persons was near the railway line and she took a short cut to reach at her house. While she was crossing the railway line, she met with a train accident and died.
106. Death came to the knowledge of the police at about 7.35 PM on 10.08.2000. According to the postmortem conducted by PW-3, various injuries on the body of Janki and external injuries were also seen as mentioned by him in his deposition. He has given his opinion that the cause of death is craniocerebral injuries consequent to head being struck against hard blunt object. All injuries are anti-mortum in nature 55 and head injury are sufficient to cause death rapidly in ordinary course of nature. He has further stated that knock down by running train can not be ruled out. He has proved postmortem report as Ex. PW-3/A. He has clarified that the knock down by running train could not be ruled out was placed on the information given to him by the police with the alleged history of the deceased having died in train accident.
107. In my opinion, it has come on record only because the postmortem was conducted on 17.08.2000 whereas case under section 498A/304B of IPC was registered later on after recording the statement of Durga Dutt by the then SDM V. Valte on 01.09.2000. The opinion of the doctor was based upon the alleged history, which was given by the police to the doctor because till that day, there was nothing within the knowledge of the police that it was a case under section 498A/304B of IPC, hence the case was investigated by the police with the angle that it was a train accident, hence it can not be said that actually it was a train accident. The circumstances which create doubt about the train accident is that it is not explained as to why the complainant i.e. father of the deceased was not informed by the in laws of the deceased on 11.08.2000 that Janki was missing from 10.08.2000. Even the in laws of 56 Janki had not lodged any report about her missing and lodged the report on 12.08.2000 only on the asking of the complainant Durga Dutt which shows that even till that time they were not willing to lodge the report of missing of Janki.
108. It has also been discussed above that it came to the knowledge of accused persons on 11.08.2000 that Janki had died. Since beginning it was in the mind of complainant that Janki was missing because it was told so by the accused persons to him, hence neither any report was lodged regarding the harassment and torturing of Janki on the pretext of demand of dowry nor at initial stage any complaint was investigated with this angle.
109. As per complaint DW-1/A, the report was lodged by the complainant regarding the kidnapping of his daughter because Umesh and Bishamber were threatened him as to why he was making enquiries from accused persons about the missing of Janki. Later on, he gave statement to the SDM on which the present case was registered wherein he had given the details of torturing and harassment caused to his daughter by the accused persons for demand of dowry i.e. cash of Rs.25,000/- and a two wheeler scooter.
57
110. The accused all have been charged under section 306/34 of IPC in alternate for abetment to commit suicide by Janki. Abetment has been defined under section 107 of IPC.
A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
1. Investigates any person to do that thing;
2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
3. intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
111. The accused persons have also been charged for offence punishable under section 304B/34 of IPC. Accused Girish Kumar was married with Janki on 03.12.1999 and she died on 10.08.2000. This fact is not disputed in any manner. The prosecution has also been able to prove that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. It has come in the deposition of PW-1 and 2 that in May,2000, Janki visited her parental house in village Mankot and told PW-1 and 2 that 58 her in laws i.e. accused persons were harassing her and were torturing her for demand of dowry and were demanding Rs. 25,000/- and two wheeler scooter and PW-2 assured her that he would visit her in laws house on 15.08.2000 and will bring the scooter and cash after making arrangement from the relatives and started making arrangements.
112. The visit of Janki in May, 2000 with her in laws family members to village is not disputed as they had gone to attend a marriage of one of their relatives. PW-2 has also stated that on 25th /26th July, 2000, deceased rang and told that as scooter and money were not given to them i.e. accused persons, hence they were torturing her and threatening her to kill her. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that in between 03.12.2000 to 10.08.2000, she never talked with her daughter.
113. The learned defence counsel has further contended that no talk took place of deceased Janki with PW-2 on telephone on 25th /26th July,2000.
114. PW-1 has stated in her cross examination that her husband is not working for the last about 14 months. Her examination was conducted on 02.04.2002, it means till February or March, 2001, PW-2 was working in K. G. Khosla & Company. She has further stated that a 59 telephone was installed in the office of one Dharam Pal in Budh Vihar where her husband i.e. PW-2 was living. Her husband used to reside in the office of Dharam Pal as he was friend of Dharam Pal. This clearly shows that demand of Rs.25,000/- and one two wheeler scooter was raised by the accused persons, as told by deceased Janki to her parents in May,2000, when she visited her parental house. Again on 25th / 26th July, 2000, she rang to her father and told him that as scooter and money were not given to accused persons, they were torturing her and threatening her to kill her and thereafter on 10.08.2000 she died.
115. The sequence of demand as deposed by PW-1 and 2 clearly proving that soon before the death of Janki, she was subjected to harassment and torture in connection with demand of dowry.
116. The learned defence counsel has further contended that Janki met with train accident, hence it can not be said that death of Janki occurred otherwise then under natural circumstances.
117. First of all, it is to be noted that death had not taken place under natural circumstances. It has come in the evidence of both prosecution and accused persons and also as per deposition of DW-5 that deceased 60 Janki was having 26 weeks of normal pregnancy i.e. 6 ½ months. As discussed above, it is clear that she was under the stress due to the demand of dowry for which she was being threatened to kill by the accused persons and she told this fact to her parents in May,2000 and again 25th / 26th July, 2000 to her father on telephone.
118. The nature of injuries are helpful to show as to whether it was a train accident or deceased Janki committed suicide. PW-3 Dr. B. K. Sharma has deposed the external and internal injuries observed by him during the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Janki. The external injuries were found on the body but the noticeable injuries are mentioned in Ex. PW-14/D. According to the same, injuries were found on the right hand side of the head and right hand side of the neck, left elbow. Both knees were found broken. Injuries below the knee of left hand and bruises on the body. If the deceased Janki was crossing the railway line and met with a train accident, then such injuries could not have been appeared on her body because in that event she had sustained injuries on one side of her body with blunt force and on the other side of the body by falling on railway line and stones. In that event, she could have also been cut into pieces but that is not the case. 61 From the injuries, it is clear that she was standing in the middle of the railway line with intent to commit suicide and due to this reason both her knees found broken which could have only been broken with the blunt force.
119. The statement of PW-14 constable M. A. Yadav, is very much relevant and important in this respect, who reached at the spot with ASI Harpal Singh after the information received by them of a train accident. He found that the body of a female was lying in the centre of the railway track, which shows and proved that deceased Janki was standing in the centre of the railway track with intent to commit suicide and for this reason her body was found lying in the middle of the railway track. If deceased Janki had met with an accident while crossing the railway line, then she could not have been found lying in the middle of the railway track because in that event, she must had been dragged on track by the train but in the present circumstances as her body fell down in the middle of the railway track, hence the train passed over her body, which remained laid in the middle of the railway track. Regarding the nature of injuries sustained by deceased Janki, PW-3 and PW-14 have corroborated each other. It has already been explained by PW-3 that he 62 gave his opinion in this case as train accident on the basis of information given to him by the police with the alleged history of train accident and till that time, no case was registered against the accused persons under section 498A/304B of IPC.
120. From the above discussions, presumption under section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, is also in favour of the prosecution, which accused persons have failed to rebut the same in any manner. The accused persons by demanding dowry of Rs.25,000/- in cash and a two wheeler scooter, harassed and tortured deceased Janki to the extent that she was compelled to commit suicide and in such manner and as per evidence on record, it is proved that death of Janki occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage.
121. In view of the above discussions, prosecution has been able to prove the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accused all three are held guilty for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and convicted for the same.
122. prosecution has also been able to prove the offence punishable under section 304B of IPC only out of offences punishable under section 63 304B of IPC and in alternate 306/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons namely Prem Ballabh, Girish and Vidya, hence they all are held guilty for offence punishable under section 304B of IPC and are convicted for the same.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.04.2007.
(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.
6426.04.2007.
Present :- APP for the State.
All the three accused persons present on bail.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, prosecution has been able to prove the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC beyond reasonable doubts, against all the accused persons, hence all the three accused persons namely Prem Ballabh, Girish and Vidya are held guilty for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and are convicted for the same.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts, the offence punishable under section 304B of IPC only out of offences punishable under section 304B of IPC and in alternate 306/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons namely Prem Ballabh, Girish and Vidya, hence they all are held guilty for offence punishable under section 304B of IPC and are convicted for the same. All the three accused persons be taken into custody and remanded to JC.
Adjourned for arguments on sentence on 28/04/2007.
(V. K.GOYAL) ASJ/DELHI.
26.04.2007.
65IN THE COURT OF SH V.K. GOYAL, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI SESSION CASE NO. 151/05.
FIR NO. 322/00
PS SARAI ROHILLA.
U/S 498A/304B OF IPC STATE VERSUS
1. PREM BALLABH, S/O LATE SH. JIVA NAND, R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI.
2. GIRISH KUMAR, S/O PREM BALLABH, R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI.
3. VIDYA, W/O PREM BALLABH, R/O C-192, DDA FLATS, SINDHORA KALAN, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 28/04/07 Present :- APP for the State.
Convict all produced from J.C. with counsel Sh. S. C. Garg. Heard on sentence.
It is contended by learned counsel that convict Prem Ballabh is aged about 58 years and is having a marriageable daughter. He has already undergone imprisonment for 7 months during the trial.
It is also contended that another convict Vidya Devi, has also 66 undergone imprisonment for 4 months during the trial and convict Girish Kumar has also undergone imprisonment for 11 months during trial.
It is further contended that the convict Prem Ballabh is a public servant and is going to be retired after 2 years, hence it is requested that the sentence for offence under section 498A of IPC be imposed as already undergone imprisonment by the convicts. It is further requested that the minimum sentence be imposed for offence punishable under section 304B of IPC.
On the other hand, learned APP has contended that the deceased died within one year of her marriage. At the time of death, she was pregnant and was carrying a child for about 6 ½ months in her womb.
No one wants to die but the deceased was harassed and tortured to the extent that even in the pregnancy, she committed suicide before the train.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, sentence of three years SI each is imposed for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- each upon each convict. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo SI for six months.
Sentence of imprisonment of life is imposed upon each convict for offence punishable u/s.304B of IPC.
The sentence imposed u/s.498A of IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed u/s.304B of IPC. Benefit of section 428 of Cr. P. C. be given to the convicts. Fine not deposited. Convicts all be remanded to serve the sentence. File be consigned to record room.
(V. K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.
6728/04/2007 Present :- APP for the State.
Convict all produced from J.C. with counsel Sh. S. C. Garg. Heard on sentence.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, sentence of three years SI each is imposed for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- each upon each convict. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo SI for six months.
Sentence of imprisonment of life is imposed upon each convict for offence punishable u/s.304B of IPC.
The sentence imposed u/s.498A of IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed u/s.304B of IPC. Benefit of section 428 of Cr. P. C. be given to the convicts. Fine not deposited. Convicts all be remanded to serve the sentence. File be consigned to record room.
(V.K.GOYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, DELHI.