Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Jaspal Singh Narula, on 31 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURT:
DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No. 72/08
FIR No. 214/94
U/S: 498-A/302 IPC
P.S: Geeta Colony
State Versus 1. Jaspal Singh Narula,
S/o Late Sh. Daljeet Singh Narula
2. Amrik Singh
S/o Late Sh. Daljeet Singh Narula
3. Varryam Kaur
W/o Sh. Amrik Singh
All R/o 223, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 11.08.2008
Date of Arguments : 28.01.2014
Date of Judgment : 31.03.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the prosecution case are that late Smt. Manjeet Kaur got married with accused Jaspal Singh Narula in the year 1982. Soon after marriage, she was harassed on account of demand of dowry. She was physically as well as mentally tortured in order to put pressure upon FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 1 of page 32 the complainant to part with the money and valuables to the accused. The demands were fulfilled to the extent possible, however, on 07.10.1994 at about 11.00 pm, complainant Sh. Mahender Singh Chhabra was informed by the police that his daughter Manjeet Kaur has died. When he reached her matrimonial home, he found that she was lying dead with one eye protruding. On being asked, accused told that she died at about 8.30 p.m. due to hitting of an iron rod accidently. On seeing the condition of the body, complainant fainted. Next day, he was informed by the neighbourers that on the fateful night, she was beaten up mercilessly by her in-laws. On coming to know this, complainant Mahender Singh Chhabra made a detailed complaint at Police Station Geeta Colony narrating the aforesaid facts. He also stated that he was deceived by the accused/in-laws as he came to know after three weeks of the marriage of his daughter that his son-in-law is jobless and was employed as a helper with his elder brother Amrik Singh and on the money received from him, he was meeting his expenses. It is also stated that her Jeth Amrik Singh in the absence of her husband, tried to misbehave with her due to which she even came back to the house of the complainant and after the accused/in-laws tendered apology, she was sent back. Complainant was threatened that his daughter would be sent back in pregnant condition if he did not fulfill the demand of cash for running the business of his son-in-law. He gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the accused. Despite this, accused Jaspal Singh Narula through his counsel Sh. B.D. Sharma sent a legal notice to the complainant asking for share of movable and immovable property. He stated that Amrik Singh, Jeth of his daughter, harassed her on many occasions with intention to throw her out so that he may grab the entire property. He also stated that he came to know from different neighbourers that every night, Amrik Singh FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 2 of page 32 and Daljeet Kaur subjected Manjeet Kaur to merciless beatings and on the fateful night also, she was badly beaten and was taken inside the room where she was beaten by her Jeth, husband and Jethani. Based on the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 498-A/304-A IPC by the police on 04.11.1994.
2. After completing investigation, police filed cancellation report, which was not accepted by the court. The court directed further investigation. Vide order dated 04.08.2003, the court directed that investigation be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of an ACP. However, the result remained the same. The cancellation reports were received five times by the court. The complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court praying for investigation through CBI. The Hon'ble High Court declined the said request but directed that since the cancellation report is pending before the court, it may be determined as to whether any material is available on record to take cognizance under Section 498-A IPC or under any other provision of law. Vide order dated 15.12.2004, the learned ACMM while condoning the delay in taking cognizance of offence under Section 498-A IPC, summoned all the accused. However, complainant was not satisfied by the aforesaid order and he preferred a petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was disposed of with direction to the trial court to look into the facts of the case carefully and judicially and to proceed in accordance with law by determining if other offences are also made out. The learned MM vide order dated 10.04.2008, took cognizance of offence under Section 302 IPC and summoned the accused persons.
3. Charge under Section 498-A/302/34 IPC was framed against FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 3 of page 32 accused Jaspal Singh Narula, Amrik Singh and Daljeet Kaur Narula to which, they pleaded not guilty.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses. PW-1 is Sh. Mahender Singh Chhabra. He is the complainant. He proved his complaint Exbt. PW-1/A. He deposed about the averments made in his complaint. He proved the Protest Petition filed in the court of learned MM as Exbt. PW-1/B. He also proved the notice dated 07.08.1992 received from accused as Exbt PW-1/C. He proved the letter regarding handing over cash to the accused by him as Exbt. PW-1/F. The receipt regarding payment made by him to accused on their demand is Exbt. PW-1/G. He stated that accused persons killed his daughter by entering into a conspiracy. He further stated that accused since marriage, used to demand dowry and since he was unable to fulfill their demands, due to this reason by hatching conspiracy, they killed her.
PW-2 is retired SI Mahabir Singh, Duty Officer. He proved the FIR as Exbt. PW-2/A. PW-3 is Dr. B.N. Acharya. He had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. His detailed report is Exbt. PW-3/A. He gave subsequent report Exbt. PW-3/B. PW-4 is SI Vijay Pal Singh. He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on receipt of DD No. 26-A, he along with Constable Charan Singh reached at the spot and found that a lady was lying dead in the gallery of the house which was under construction.
FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 4 of page 32 Construction material was kept in the staircase. One girl namely Jitender Kaur met him there who told him that she and Manjeet Kaur were removing articles from the stairs and she went to keep the articles inside the room and when she came out, she found that Manjeet Kaur was lying near the staircase. Jitender Kaur further told him that an iron rod hit her eye. The iron rod was lying near the staircase. In the meanwhile, ACP and SHO, PS Geeta Colony also came at the spot and called the crime team. The blood stained rod was seized vide memo Exbt. PW-4/A. The statements of family members of the deceased were recorded. The inquest report Exbt. PW-4/B was prepared. Statements of Harpreet Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur, daughters of deceased were recorded. Statement of Jitender Kaur, niece of Jaspal Singh was recorded. He stated that accused Jaspal Singh gave a complaint for waiving the postmortem of the deceased. Another application was received at the spot in which no doubt was shown on anyone regarding the death of the deceased. The iron rod was deposited in the Malkhana. However, the postmortem of the body was conducted and after postmortem, the body was handed over to Jaspal Singh Narula. Site plan Exbt. PW-4/D was prepared at the instance of Jitender Kaur on 04.11.1994. After about one month of the incident, complaint Exbt. PW-1/A was marked to him by the SHO whereupon he prepared the Rukka Exbt. PW-4/E. He then made search of the accused but they could not be traced. Statement of Mahender Singh Chhabra was recorded. The accused persons obtained anticipatory bail. Thereafter, they were formally arrested.
PW-5 is Amarjeet Singh, TSR driver. He depsed that in October 1994, he had gone to get the magnet of his three wheeler repaired at Scooter Market, Geeta Colony. The mechanic asked him to come again at FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 5 of page 32 7.30 - 8.00 pm to collect the magnet. At about 7.30 pm, he again went to the mechanic at scooter market, Geeta Colony. The mechanic asked him to wait for some time. At about 8.00 pm, the mechanic gave him the magnet. While leaving from there, he heard the noise of a lady shouting "Bachao- Bachao" from a nearby house. Public persons started gathering there. He saw one Sardarji coming out of the said house. His clothes were smeared with blood. He identified accused Amrik Singh Narula as the same Sardarji. He then took the magnet to the mechanic near tonga stand, Geeta Colony. The mechanic asked him to come next morning as it was very late. Next morning, he went to the mechanic shop and saw some public persons sitting there and talking that the murder of daughter of Kharad mechanic Mahender Singh Chhabra has been committed. After 2-3 days, he again went to the shop of the said mechanic for getting his TSR repaired and told him that he had heard the noise when he had gone to get the magnet repaired in the gali. He further stated that the said mechanic Titu introduced him with Sardar Mahender Singh whereupon he told Mahender Singh as to what he had heard and seen. He further stated that he visited the police station 2-3 times with Mahender Singh but police told him that as and when he will be required, he will be called through Mahender Singh. After about one month, he again visited the police station and police told him whatever he was told earlier. He further stated that he was produced in court by Mahender Singh where his statement was recorded. He further deposed that he was shown the photographs by Mahender Singh wherein he identified the photographs of Amrik Singh.
PW-6 is Dr. Rajender Singh, Director, CFSL, CBI. He deposed that on 09.12.1995, he had examined the scene of occurrence at house FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 6 of page 32 No. 223, Jheel Kuranja and on the basis of the site inspection and subsequent reconstruction of the scene of crime, he found that the iron rod in question was sufficiently long, thing and strong enough and could pierce in the right eye when the same is pulled from inside the debris lying on the top of the staircase. He proved his report Exbt. PW-6/A. PW-7 is Dr. S.N. Mishra, Director, Surya Hospital. He produced the Admission Register pertaining to 07.10.1994. He stated that as per record, no patient by the name of Manjeet Kaur was admitted in his hospital on 07.10.1994.
PW-8 is HC Ravinder Singh. He stated that the DD entries have been destroyed by the orders of Additional DCP, East.
PW-9 is Sh. B.D. Sharma, Advocate. He deposed that legal notice dated 07.08.1992 Exbt. PW-1/C was given to Mahender Singh Chhabra on behalf of Jaspal Singh, who was the general attorney of his wife Manjeet Kaur.
5. Statements of all the three accused were recorded wherein they stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated.
6. In their defence, accused examined ten witnesses. DW-1 is Harpreet Kaur. She is the daughter of deceased and accused Jaspal Singh. She deposed that on 07.10.1994, her age was about 12 years and was studying in 6th Standard. She stated that neither the accused Jaspal Singh nor her uncle i.e. accused Amrik Singh were present in the house.
FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 7 of page 32 She, her brothers, sisters and her cousin Jitender Kaur were present in the house. Her mother Manjeet Kaur was in the stairs and was shifting goods from stairs to the other place. She deposed that while playing, she and her brothers and sisters reached at the gate of the house and at that time, her cousin Jitender Kaur called them and said that her mother has received injuries. She further stated that her cousin called the neighbourers and rushed her mother to the hospital along with her cousin Bua residing in the neighbourhood. She stated that she does not know as to how her mother received injuries. She further stated that police made enquiry from her and recorded her statement Exbt. PW-4/DX3.
DW-2 is Smt. Jitender Kaur. She deposed that on 07.10.1994, her Chachi Manjeet Kaur called her for help for cleaning Malba lying in the newly constructed staircase. While they were keeping the Malba including Tasla and other articles in the room opposite stairs, suddenly, she heard the cry of Manjeet Kaur who fell on her. She stated that Manjeet Kaur was stoutly built and therefore she could not manage to hold her as she was bulky and had to be laid down on the floor. She stated that Manjeet Kaur had received injuries on her eye from a saria due to which her eye came out. She stated that she could not see as to how she received injury from saria as she was on her back. However, she stated that Manjeet Kaur might have got hit with saria while taking out the goods from the Malba. She further stated that she called the daughters of Manjeet Kaur who were playing nearby and also called the neighbourers and with the help of neighbourers Narender Ahuja and Ricky @ Kapil, took Manjeet Kaur to Surya Nursing Home where the doctor after examination declared her "dead". She deposed that at the time of incident, accused Jaspal Singh, FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 8 of page 32 Amrik Singh and her grant-parents were not present but her mother Ranjeet Kaur was present at the first floor.
DW-3 is Mahender Kumar. He stated that he is a shopkeeper at Jheel Kuranja. He deposed that accused Jaspal Singh and his friend came and met him at his shop at 8.00 - 8.30 pm and from there, they went to a lottery counter near his shop. After closing the shop when he reached at his house, he came to know that the wife of Jaspal Singh had received injuries and the family members of Jaspal Singh were searching for him. He told the family of Jaspal Singh that Jaspal Singh was present at the lottery counter. He himself then went to call Jaspal Singh who was returning from the lottery counter.
DW-4 is SI Dharambir Gautam. He was the IO of this case from 15.03.1996 till 19.10.1996. He deposed that he did not meet complainant Mahender Singh Chhabra during this period and further that Mahender Singh Chhabra did not produce any eye witness before him. He stated that he had got conducted the lie detector test of six suspects/witnesses.
DW-5 is Inspector Jitender Kumar. He was the IO of this case between 01.04.1995 till 25.05.1995. He stated that complainant did not produce any eye witness before him.
DW-6 is Sh. Ram Niwas Vashisht, retired ACP. He was the SHO, PS Geeta Colony on 07.10.1993. He deposed that applications Mark PW-1/DX1 and Mark PW-1/DX2 were handed over to him by SI Vijay Pal Singh at the spot and he made his endorsement on Mark PW-1/DX2 while FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 9 of page 32 forwarding the application to ACP but at the insistence of the ACP, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. He stated that complainant Mahender Singh Chhabra filed a complaint after 26-27 days on the basis of which, FIR was registered.
DW-7 is ACP Praveen Sharma. He took over the investigation on 23.03.2000. The investigation remained with him till 13.05.2000.
DW-8 is Sh. S.R. Meena. He deposed that in August 2003 while he was posted as ACP, DIU Cell, East District, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him by the ACMM, Karkardooma Courts whereupon he filed his repot in court which is Exbt. PW-8/A. He stated that during investigation, he had called upon the complainant to produce the witnesses but he could not produce any witness and stated that except him, he has no other witness.
DW-9 is SI Kishan Chand. He deposed that on 20.11.2012, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. The investigation remained with him till 05.02.2003. During this period, he recorded the statements of Ram Dass, Sunil, Kapil @ Ricky, Jitender Kaur, Amarjeet Kaur and Harpreet Kaur.
DW-10 is Kapil Jhamb. He deposed that accused Jaspal Singh is his neighbourer and that on 07.10.1994, Parminder Narula, cousin of accused Jaspal Singh Narula came at his house and asked him to bring out his car. He accordingly brought his car at the gate of the house accused Jaspal, Parminder Narula, Jitender Narula and Narender Ahuja put a lady in his car who was having injury on her eye. He drove them to Surya FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 10 of page 32 Hospital. He stopped the car in front of emergency. The doctor came there. He stated that he became nervous and came back leaving behind his car in the hospital.
7. Arguments have been heard from the learned Additional PP on behalf of the State and from the learned defence counsel on behalf of the accused persons. The learned counsel of complainant has filed written arguments. The learned Additional PP has argued that PW-1 Mahender Singh Chhabra has proved that his daughter Manjeet Kaur was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons on account of dowry demand and also because accused Amrik Singh wanted to have illicit relations with her. It has been submitted that Pw-1 has proved that he had paid money to accused Jaspal Singh at different times as per his demand. It has also been argued that the notice Exbt. PW-1/C sent by PW-9 Sh. B.D. Sharma, Advocate further corroborates the demand of dowry of accused persons. It has been further argued that Manjeet Kaur had died within four walls of the house of accused persons. PW-5 Amarjeet Singh has proved the presence of accused Amrik Singh in the house at the time of occurrence as he had seen him coming out of the house with his clothes smeared with blood. It is submitted that the explanation offered by the accused persons that the injury was received by Manjeet Kaur accidently, is not satisfactory as such an injury is not possible due to accidental fall. It is further submitted that in the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-5, nothing has been elicited which may help the accused. It is thus argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond doubt.
8. The learned defence counsel has argued that police repeatedly FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 11 of page 32 filed closure report in this case but no evidence was found against the accused. It is submitted that complainant himself gave a writing to the police that he has no suspicion on the accused but after so many day, he made false and fabricated complaint to the police against the accused persons with a view to extort money. It is submitted that PW-1 has made ample improvements in his statements before the court from the statement Exbt. PW-1/A made to the police and therefore his testimony is liable to be discarded on this ground. It is submitted that deceased gave birth to a third daughter in the year 1990 and a son in the year 1991 which clearly shows that the relationship between the couple was cordial. It is submitted that it is revealed from the cross examination of PW-1 that there was no quarrel between the families till 1992 and it is also revealed that the son of PW-1 had proposed for the marriage of deceased with Jaspal Singh. It is submitted that the relations between both the families were good is also proved from the fact that accused Jaspal Singh had donated blood to Daljeet, son of the complainant in the year 1989 and the grandson of the Mausi of complainant was employed with accused Jaspal Singh. It is also argued that PW-5 Amarjeet Singh is a false and planted witness as PW-1 did not give his name to the police or any other higher authority till 2003. It is further submitted that PW-5 gave vague and evasive replies in cross examination and therefore he appears to be a false witness and his identity is also doubtful. It is further argued that the defence witnesses examined by the accused have proved that the death was accidental due to piercing of saria in the eye of the deceased while she was removing malba. It has also been argued that accused persons were subjected to lie detector test at CFSL but the report is negative and thus it is submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the accused persons and they are liable to be FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 12 of page 32 acquitted.
9. This is a unique case where police filed cancellation reports five times but ultimately the court took cognizance and proceeded to summon the accused to face trial. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence & the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in mind is that in our system of administration of criminal justice, an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence as may show him to be guilty of offence with which he is charged. The initial burden of proving the guilt is on the prosecution and unless it relieves of that burden the court cannot record a finding of guilt against him.
10. In this case complainant Mahender Singh Chabra challenged the cancellation report filed by the police by pointing out shortcomings in the investigation and submitted that circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused. The contentions on behalf of the complainant is that deceased Manjeet Kaur was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry and also because accused Amrik Singh was having an evil eye on her due to which reason she was tortured and killed at her matrimonial home. The complainant Mahender Singh Chabra himself appeared in witness box as PW-1 wherein he deposed that his daughter Manjeet Kaur got married to accused Jaspal Singh Narula on 17.01.1982. He spent Rs.1,35,000/- in the marriage of his daughter. After marriage she started living with her husband and in laws at H.No. 783 Jheel Kuranja. She lived in the said home till her death on 07.10.94. He deposed that after few days of marriage his daughter told him FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 13 of page 32 that her husband Jaspal Narula was not employed and was dependent on her elder brother Sardar Amrik Singh. He was told by his daughter that Sardar Amrik Singh wanted to have illicit relationship with her. She was returned back several times by Sardar Amrik Singh and his wife as she refused to have illicit relationship with Amrik Singh. He stated that due to the intervention of D.R. Lakhani Advocate, Daljeet Singh Narula & Smt. Variam Kaur came at his house and tendered apology and took back his daughter to her matrimonial home. He stated that his daughter used to make phone calls to him and complained that she was beaten by all the accused because she did not maintain illicit relationship with Sardar Amrik Singh. She was thrown out twice by her in laws from the matrimonial home. She was constrained to live on rent with her husband at block No.4, Geeta Colony and thereafter she had shifted to block No.7, Geeta Colony. After one and a half year she was again taken back to the matrimonial home. PW-1 further deposed that he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to accused Jaspal Singh on 17.05.82 for running his business on the demand made by Daljeet Singh Narula, Smt. Variam Kaur and accused Jaspal Singh Narula. He further stated that while his daughter was at an advance stage of pregnancy she used to make phone calls to him telling about the demand of money of her in laws. He stated that he paid a sum of RS.10,000/- to accused Jaspal Singh Narula in the year 1988. Accused Jaspal Singh again made demand of Rs.75,000/- which were paid by him in the third month of the year 1992. He further stated that Jaspal Singh and his parents gave a notice in writing for the payment of 2 ½ Kg gold, 9 Kg silver, 3200 silver coins vide notice Ex.PW1/Mark A. He further deposed that on 16.08.92 one Kesar Singh Narula, Vicky Narula, Daljeet Singh and his wife with other persons numbering 12 - 14 came to his house at 10.30 pm for FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 14 of page 32 getting the articles mentioned in the notice and shouted "bhudhe ko bahar nikalo aaj hisab karke jainge". His son Bhupender Singh then came out and those persons gave beatings to him also. When wife of Bhupender Singh came to the rescue of her husband, she was also pushed. Her younger son Balvinder Singh was also severely beaten up and his Pagdi was removed. He stated that accused Amrik Singh and his son in law Daljeet Singh were having country made pistols in their hand and the other persons were having spears, rods & hockey in their hands. He deposed that his wife made request to them with folded hands that they would talk next day upon which the accused told her that the articles mentioned in the notice be delivered to them otherwise she will meet her daughter in Shamshan Ghat. He deposed that on 17.08.92 he made a complaint to Police station Geeta Colony about the incident dated 16.08.92. He further deposed that on 06.10.94 he and his wife had gone to meet his daughter in her matrimonial home. She asked them to take her to her parents' house otherwise the accused persons would kill her. He stated that he and his wife went straight to Police Station Geeta Colony and told this fact to SHO PS Geeta Colony but he did not pay any heed to his words. He stated that on 07.10.94 at about 11.30 pm the police officials came and told him that his daughter has expired. He further deposed that accused did not make any phone call informing them about the death of their daughter. He stated that at about 12.35 am in the night when they went to the matrimonial home of their daughter, they saw that one eye of his daughter had come out and she was lying on the bed. After seeing her, he became unconscious. The police told him that his daughter died after falling from stairs. He further stated that when the ACP came at the spot the elder daughter of accused Amrik Singh told that the death had occurred due to injuries received from FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 15 of page 32 saria but they could not disclose anything as to how the injury from saria was received by her. He stated that on 08.10.94 a complaint was written by a person who came to his house for condolence. The complaint was written on his dictation and the same is Ex.PW1/A. He further stated that the complaint was given in PS Geeta Colony but on 08.10.94 police officials had not taken the complaint and asked him to give the complaint on Monday. Thereafter he made corrections on the date on Ex.PW1/A. He made efforts to get the case registered but the same was registered on 11.11.94. He further stated that the case was not properly investigated by the police and they had filed the cancellation report whereupon he filed a protest petition Ex.PW1/B before the Ld. MM. He further stated that court issued directions to reinvestigate the matter. The DIU investigated the case but again filed the cancellation report. He then filed a petition in the Hon'ble High court. On the orders of the Hon'ble High Court the court of Ld. ACMM took cognizance u/s 498-A IPC. He again approached the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble High Court passed the order dated 23.02.07. The court of Ms. Neerja Bhatia, then MM took cognizance u/s 302 IPC vide order dated 10.04.08.
11. In cross examination PW-1 admitted that no quarrel took place between his family and the family of accused till 1992. He was confronted with complain Ex.PW1/A where there is no mention of the incident dated 16.08.92. There is also no mention of payment of Rs.10,000/- in the year 1988 and Rs.75,000/- in the third month of the year 1992 to Jaspal Singh in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. There is also no mention in Ex.PW1/A about the phone call of Manjeet Kaur regarding the demand of money by her in laws. There is also no mention in Ex.PW1/A that on 06.10.94. PW-1 and his wife FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 16 of page 32 had gone to meet their daughter in matrimonial home. There is also no mention in Ex.PW1/A that his daughter asked him to take her to her parent's house otherwise the accused persons will kill her. There is also no mention in Ex.PW1/A that he and his wife went to police station Geeta Colony and told this fact to SHO PS Geeta Colony who did not pay any heed to his words. Manjeet Kaur died on 07.10.94 but the complaint was given to the police on 10.10.94 i.e. after a gap of three days. If any such thing had happened as deposed by PW-1, he surely would have mentioned the same in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. Thus there are material improvements in the testimony of PW-1 made in court from the complaint Ex.PW1/A given to the police three days after the occurrence. In the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2000 (4) Crimes 283 SC the Hon'ble Court found that material part of the evidence of the two witnesses in court was not deposed to u/s161 Cr.P.C. It was held that they were not reliable witnesses and conviction was set aside. In the case of Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana 2012 III AD (Criminal) (SC)(365) the Hon'ble Court found that there were major improvements/embellishments in the prosecution case and therefore appellant was given benefit of doubt.
12. In order to corroborate the allegation of payment of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & Rs.75,000/- to accused Jaspal Singh, the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.PW1/F & Ex.PW1/G but the perusal of the said document showed that they are not acknowledgment receipts but writings of PW-1 himself that he has made such payments to accused Jaspal Singh. There documents are prepared by PW-1 himself without any acknowledgment of receipt of money from accused and therefore the documents Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G do not corroborate the oral testimony FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 17 of page 32 of PW-1 regarding the payments made to accused on their demand.
13. PW-1 has proved on record a notice dated 07.08.92 sent by Sh. B.D. Sharma, Advocate. It has been submitted that by virtue of this notice the accused persons made demand of dowry from him. Sh. B.D. Sharma, Advocate was examined in court as PW-9. He stated that he had sent the notice to Mahender Singh Chabra on behalf of Jaspal Singh who was General Power of attorney of his wife Manjeet Kaur. In cross examination he stated that the Attorney Ex.PW9/D-1 was prepared by him before issuing the notice. In further cross examination he stated that Manjeet Kaur had briefed him and instructed him to give notice which was subsequently given. He stated that the instructions for preparation for the Power of Attorney were given by Manjeet Kaur and that the instructions of notice were not given to him by Jaspal Singh. PW-9 was re-examined by the Ld. APP. He admitted that it is not specifically mentioned in the notice Ex.PW1/C that he was given instructions by Manjeet Kaur.
14. From the testimony of PW-9 it appears that the notice Ex.PW1/C was given by PW-9 to Mahender Singh at the instance of accused Jaspal Singh as attorney of his wife Manjeet Kaur. As per the notice Ex.PW1/C Manjeet Kaur made demand of her share in the ancestral property. Such a demand by no stretch of imagination shall fall within the definition of dowry demand and therefore it cannot be held that the accused persons had made demand of dowry vide notice Ex.PW1/C.
15. In cross examination PW-1 admits that in the year 1990-91, his son Daljeet Singh met with an accident. He denied that Jaspal Singh, Amrik FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 18 of page 32 Singh and the friends of Jaspal Singh gave blood for the treatment of his son. However, when confronted with the Donor Card Ex.PW1/D, PW-1 stated that he does not remember if accused Jaspal Singh gave blood to his son Daljeet Singh or not. The Donor Card Ex.PW1/DA proves that accused Jaspal Singh donated one unit of blood to Daljeet Singh, son of PW-1 on 27.07.1989. It proves that the relations between the two families were good till such time. Needless to mention again that PW-1 has admitted in cross examination that till 1992 no quarrel had taken place between the two families.
16. In cross examination PW-1 was confronted with documents/applications Mark PW-1/DX1 and Mark PW-1/DX2. He denied that the same bears his signatures and the signatures of his wife. However he could neither admit nor deny the signatures of his son Bhupender Singh on Mark PW-1/DX1. He denied that Mark PW-1/DX1 is in his handwriting. He failed to admit or deny that writing on Mark PW-1/DX1 was in the handwriting of his son Pinki. Mark PW-1/DX1 is a copy of application of Mahender Singh Chabra addressed to SHO PS Geeta Colony wherein he stated that he has no suspicion on any one and that death of Manjeet Kaur was a mere accident after having received injuries with saria. Below the alleged signatures there is a writing from Pinki Chabra (son of PW-1) that he was satisfied with whatever his father gave in writing and that the death of his sister was an accident. Mark PW-1/DX2 is an application for waiving of the postmortem. This application was given by accused Jaspal Singh to the DCP/ACP stating that there was no foul play and that both the parties agreed to this. It also allegedly bears the signatures of Mahender Singh Chabra.
FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 19 of page 32
17. Though PW-1 denied having signed Mark PW-1/DX1 & Mark PW- 1/DX2 but interestingly in Para No.5 of his application dated 23.08.97 filed in the court of Ms. Pnki, then MM Shahdara, he stated that signatures of his and his wife were taken forcibly by the police. He stated that the police pressurized him and his wife to sign the statement that they were not suspecting any foul play that Manjeet Kaur has committed suicide as per the version of the accused persons. It is also stated in the said para that the police wanted him to give an application that he did not want to have the Postmortem of the dead body of his daughter Manjeet Kaur. Similarly in Para No.8 of the application PW-1 mentioned that almost all the neighbourers gathered at the spot but police did not interrogate even a single person but rather forcibly got his and his wife's signatures on the pretext that they were going to register the case against the accused u/s 302/34 IPC. Thus it may be seen that PW-1 took a conflicting stand. While in the application dated 23.08.97 he stated that signatures were taken forcibly but in his evidence in court he stated that PW-1/DX1 & Mark PW- 1/DX2 do not bear his signatures.
18. PW-4 SI Vijay Pal Singh who is the first IO of this case deposed that when he reached at the spot accused Jaspal Singh gave him a complaint for waiving the postmortem of the deceased. He stated that he had received another application at the spot in which it was mentioned that there was no doubt on anyone regarding the death of the deceased. In cross examination PW-4 stated that the family of accused as well as the complainant were present at the spot at the time when Mark PW-1/DX1 was given to him. He further stated in cross examination that he had made enquiry from Mahender Singh Chabra and his sons who told him that they FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 20 of page 32 had no doubt on anyone regarding the death of Manjeet Kaur. He stated that he had written this fact in his report which he gave to the SHO. He further stated that the documents Mark PW-1/DX1 & Mark PW-1/DX2 were not signed in his presence but he has proved that the same were given to him at the spot itself in the presence of PW-1 and his sons and on enquiry PW-1 and his sons told him that they do not suspect anything foul. DW-6 Ram Niwas who was then SHO PS Geeta Colony corroborated the version of PW-4 by deposing that applications Mark PW-1/DX1 & Mark PW-1/DX2 were handed over to him by SI Vijay Pal Singh at the spot.
19. The originals of Mark PW-1/DX1 & Mark PW-1/DX2 have not been produced in court as the same were not filed by the police alongwith cancellation repot. However, it stands proved from the testimonies of the witnesses that both the aforesaid applications were received by SI Vijay Pal Singh at the spot in the presence of PW-1 and his sons did not suspect any foul play. Thus under these circumstances the complaint Ex.PW1/A made by Mahender Singh Chabra after three days is as an afterthought. In the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 (8) Supreme Court cases 21 the Hon'ble Court held that;
A "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality & caliber whose version should be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of a witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting till the FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 21 of page 32 end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in the material particulars in order to enable the court FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 22 of page 32 trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged".
20. I find the testimony of PW-1 is not of a very high quality and caliber and therefore he is not a sterling witness on whose sole testimony the court may convict the accused. Even his family members i.e. wife & sons have not come forward to support or corroborate him in court. Thus belated allegations of dowry demand, torture and harassment are not corroborated even by the family of Mahender Singh Chabra and under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe such allegations.
21. Another important witness on whose testimony the prosecution is now relying is that of PW-5 Amarjeet Singh. He is the witness who had seen accused Amrik Singh Narula coming out of the house with clothes smeared in blood. PW-5 tried to justify his presence near the house of accused by stating that he is a TSR driver and had gone to scooter market, Geeta Colony to get the magnet of his TSR repaired. This witness gave the address of Jaipur when he came to depose in court on 26.09.11. According to him he earlier used to reside at 478, Jheel Kuranja, Subji Mandi, Delhi. He did not produce any document that the used to reside at 478, Jheel Kuranja in October 1994. In cross examination he stated that his house was situated at 20, Old Geeta Colony. It was a rented house. He could not tell the block number of Jheel Kuranja where he used to reside. He could not tell the name of the owner of H.No. 478, though he stayed at the said house for about 1 - 1 ¼ years. He could not produce the proof of the said address. He stated that his name was not in the Voter List of the area. He could not tell as to who was residing in 477 & 479. He could not produce FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 23 of page 32 his driving license as according to him the same was lost 5 - 6 months prior to the incident. He stated that he continued driving the TSR without driving license. He could not produce any complaint of the loss of driving license. He stated that he went to Jaipur in 2005-2006 and since then he has been residing in Jaipur. Thus PW-5 could not produce any document to prove that he was the TSR driver at the relevant time so much so he could not produce even his driving license or his address proof and gave evasive replies. In further cross examination he stated that he did not give his address in writing to Mahender Singh Chabra so that in case of need he may call him for statement. He did not give his address even to the police. Thus it is not known as to how Mahender Singh Chabra was able to locate Amarjeet Singh without knowing his address, after he left the house at Jheel Kuranja.
22. If the testimony of PW-5 Amarjeet Singh is to be believed he met Mahender Singh Chabra 2 - 3 days after the incident and apprised him as to what he had seen. PW-1 Mahender Singh Chabra also stated in cross examination that Amarjeet Singh came at his work shop two days after the death of his daughter. If that is correct, the information given by Amarjeet Singh to PW-1 was a very important information which PW-1 should have mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. However, Ex.PW1/A is totally silent about what was seen and told by PW-5 Amarjeet Singh to PW-1. In Para No.8 of his application dated 23.08.97 filed before the court of Ms. Pinki, then MM, Sh. Mahender Singh Chabra stated as under :-
"That the police himself got an information on the day of murder of Manjeet Kaur through PCR who in turn had been informed by a person namely Krishan Lal a scooter FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 24 of page 32 driver, who per chance was present outside the house of accused persons and had heard the cries of "Bachao Bachao" from H.NO. 223 Jheel Kuranja Delhi i.e. the place where Smt. Manjeet Kaur was murdered. Almost all the neighbourers had gathered at the spot but the police did not interrogate even a single person and rather forcibly got the signatures of the applicant/complainant, his wife on the pretext that they were going to register a case against all the accused persons u/s 302 IPC.............."
23. The complainant gave the name of the TSR driver in the said application as Krishan Lal but the person produced in court who claimed himself to be the TSR driver present near the spot is Amarjeet Singh (PW-
5). It is also useful to note that in the said Para No.8 there is no mention that the TSR driver has seen the accused Amrik Singh coming out of the house with his clothes smeared with blood. Thus identity of the person i.e. TSR driver who allegedly was present near the spot has been changed from Krishan Lal to Amarjeet Singh. In the protest petition Ex.PW1/B also there is no mention of PW-5 Amarjeet Singh.
24. DW-4 SI Dharambir Gautam, DW-5 Inspector Jitender Kumar & DW- 8 SR Meena, then ACP have stated that complainant Mahender Singh Chabra did not produce any eye witness so much so DW-8 stated that he had called upon the complainant to produce the witnesses but he could not produce any witness stating that except him he has no other witness. The statement of Amarjeet Singh was recorded for the first time on 04.08.03 before the court of Ld. ACMM. In cross examination PW-1 admits that he FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 25 of page 32 did not give the name of Amarjeet Singh to the police or any other higher authority in writing till the year 2003. PW-5 Amarjeet Singh deposed that he visited the police station 2 - 3 times with Mahender Singh Chabra but the police told that as and when he will be required he will be called through Mahender Singh. In cross examination he admits that he did not report the matter to the police on the day he heard the noise. He could not tell the name of the police officials whom he met in the police station. He admits that no complaint was made to the superior police authorities against the police officials who did not record his statement. PW- Amarjeet Singh was produced before the court for the first time about 9 years after the occurrence and therefore he appears to be a planted witness and under such circumstances, his testimony is not reliable.
25. The Ld. counsel of the complainant has argued that since the deceased died under unnatural circumstances within the four corners of her matrimonial house section 106 of the Evidence Act makes it incumbent upon the accused to furnish an explanation as to how she died. It is submitted that accused have failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the death of the deceased and therefore the same leads to an inference that the accused are the perpetrator of the crime.
26. Similar question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No.615/2008 Mukesh Vs. State. In Para No.52 of the judgment the Hon'ble High court held as under:
"Having examined the decisions of the Supreme Court on the point of death of a wife in her matrimonial house, we deem it appropriate to classify the said judicial decisions FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 26 of page 32 into undernoted 4 broad categories for the reason we are finding considerable confusion in the minds of the subordinate judges as to the correct position of law:-
In the first category fall the decisions where it is proved by the prosecution that the husband was present in the house when the wife suffered a homicidal death and rendered no explanation as to how his wife suffered the homicidal death.
In the second category are the decisions where the prosecution could not prove the presence of the husband in the house when the wife suffered a homicidal death but the circumstances were such that it could be reasonably inferred that the husband was in the house and the husband failed to render any satisfactory explanation as to how his wife suffered a homicidal death. The circumstances wherefrom it could be inferred that the husband was in the house would be proof that they lived in the house and used to cohabit there and the death took place in such hours of the night when a husband was expected to be in the house i.e. the hours between night time and early morning.
In the third category would be proof of a very strong motive for the husband to murder his wife and proof of their being a reasonable probability of the husband being in the house and having an opportunity to commit the murder. In the decision reported as Udaipal Singh vs. State of UP (1972) 4 SCC 142 the deceased wife died in her matrimonial home in a room where she and her husband used to reside together. The accused - husband had a very strong motive to murder the FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 27 of page 32 deceased which was evident from the letter written by him to his mistress, which letter clearly brought out the feeling of disgust which the accused had towards the deceased. The accused had the opportunity to commit the murder of the deceased as there was evidence to show the presence of the accused in the village where the house in which the deceased died was situated at the time of the death of the deceased. Noting the facts that the accused had a strong enough motive and an opportunity to murder the deceased, noting that there was no evidence that the appellant was seen in his house by anybody, the Supreme Court convicted the accused.
In the fourth category are the decisions where the wife died in her matrimonial house but there was no evidence to show presence of the husband in the house at the time of the death of the wife and the time when the crime was committed was not of the kind contemplated by the decisions in category II and was of a kind when husbands are expected to be on their job and there was either no proof of motive or very weak motive being proved as in the decision reported as Khatri Hemraj Amulakh vs State of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 922 and State of Punjab Vs. Hari Kishan 1997 SCC Crl. 1211.
27. In the present case as per the FIR the incident took place at 8.30 pm and as per DD No. 26A the information was received in the PS at about 10.40 pm. The murder thus has not taken place at any such hour of FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 28 of page 32 time when the husband is necessarily expected to be in the house and therefore the initial onus to prove that the accused were present inside the house at the time of occurrence lies on the prosecution.
28. Accused Jaspal Singh & Amrik Singh have taken the plea that they were not present in the house at the time of incident. PW-5 Amarjeet Singh is the only witness who could have proved that accused Amrik Singh was present at the relevant time but his testimony is not found to be reliable. PW-4 SI Vijay Pal Singh stated in cross examination that he reached at the spot at about 11.00 pm on 07.10.94 and at that time the accused Jaspal Singh and Amrik Singh were not present there and that they came at the spot later on. Thus prosecution has failed to prove the presence of accused at the spot at the relevant time. The defence witnesses namely Smt. Harpreet, Smt. Jatinder Kaur & DW-3 Mahender Kumar have supported the plea of alibi of the accused. Their cross examination by the Ld. APP has not yielded anything which may help the prosecution case. It is a well settled law that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and in taking this view I am supported by the judgment of Anil Sharma Vs. State 2004 RCR (Criminal) 774 SC.
29. The Ld. Counsel of the complainant has argued that the explanation of the accused persons that Manjeet Kaur had accidently fallen from the staircase while removing the debris due to which the iron rod pierced into her eye is far from satisfactory in as much as if she had fallen from the staircase, she might have received injuries on other parts of her body but as per Postmortem Report there is no other external injury on her person which proves that accused persons have cooked up a false story regarding FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 29 of page 32 the death of Manjeet Kaur.
30. DW -2 Jatinder Kaur, daughter of accued Amrik Singh has deposed that she and her Chachi Manjeet Kaur were removing the malba from staircase. Suddenly she heard her cry and Manjeet Kaur fell on her. She stated that Manjeet Kaur was stoutly built and therefore she could not manage to help her as she was bulky and she had to be laid down on the floor. She stated that Manjeet Kaur had received injuries on her eye from a saria due to which her eye came out but she could not see how she received injuries from saria as she was on her back. It is evident from her testimony that Manjeet Kaur had not fallen directly on to the floor from the staircase and had fallen on Jatinder Kaur and therefore it is probable that due to this reason Manjeet Kaur did not receive any external injury on her body due to fall from the staircase.
31. PW-4 SI Vijay Pal Singh deposed that when he reached at the spot, he found that a lady was lying dead in the gallery of the house which was under construction and the construction material was kept in the staircase. He further stated that he took blood stained iron rod into the possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A. It is thus proved from the testimony of PW-4 that the house was under construction and debris were lying in the staircase.
32. Dr. P.N. Acharya who conducted the postmortem of the deceased found that the total depth of the injury was 5 intches. He gave the opinion that the said injury can be caused by a penetrating object like iron rod and is possible during the fall from the staircase as alleged. After examination of the iron rod (saria) which was seized by the police from the spot he gave FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 30 of page 32 the opinion that when the iron rod or any other pointed object of similar kind is transfixed in building debris and somebody falls over it, then it could produce injury mentioned in the postmortem report and that the said kind of injury can also be caused by pointing object if it strikes with force. Thus in view of the report of the Autopsy Surgeon the possibility that the 5 inch deep injury was caused by the same saria which was recovered from the spot cannot be ruled out. The iron rod was also sent to CFSL. The CFSL report Ex.PW6/A was given after inspection and subsequent reconstruction of scene of occurrence. The report proves that the rod in question was sufficient long, thin and strong enough and could pierce into the right eye when the same is pulled from inside the debris/malba lying on the top of the staircase and therefore CFSL result also probabilize that the injury was received by the iron rod recovered from the spot. The accused were subjected to Lie Detector Test during investigation but the test report is negative and therefore the same is also of no help in establishing the guilt of the accused.
33. There are certain missing links which cast a shadow of doubt on the impartiality and fairness of investigation conducted by the police. The police failed to contact the person who gave information "Daljeet ki aurat ko maar diya hai body lying there" which was received vide DD NO.26A. The PCR record was not collected by the police. The photographs of the dead body and the place of occurrence were not taken. Blood/sample were not lifted from the spot. The blood was not lifted from the saria. The location of the deceased in the staircase from where she slipped is not shown. The place where body has fallen is also not shown in the site plan. The sketch of the saria was not prepared. The clothes of the deceased were not FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 31 of page 32 seized. The car in which the deceased was taken to the hospital was not seized and nor any samples were taken from the car to find out the traces of blood. The statement of Dr. Chawla was not recorded to prove that the deceased was brought to Surya Nursing Home. The investigation with regard to the aforesaid is deficient, due to which important evidence has not come before the court.
34. The court is conscious that a precious human life has been lost but prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond doubt and therefore the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. The accused are accordingly acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. However, they are directed to furnish the bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with a surety of like amount u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. After the bail bonds are furnished, the file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAVINDER DUDEJA)
COURT ON 31.03.2014 ADDL. SESSION JUDGE:FTC/E-
COURT/KKD/DELHI.
FIR No. 214/94/G. Cly 32 of page 32