Delhi District Court
State vs . Bharat Singh Rawat on 20 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 41/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0143142009
State Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat
S/o Ummer Singh
R/o D15/165, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No. 581/08
Under Section: 306 IPC
Police Station: Sultan Puri
Date of committal to session court: 19.5.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved: 12.4.2013
Date on which Judgment announced: 12.4.2013
JUDGMENT (ORAL):
(1) As per allegations, on or before 3.9.2008 at many times at house No. D5/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi the accused Bharat Singh Rawat being the father in law abetted Smt. Rashmi Rawat to commit suicide pursuant to which on 3.9.2008 Smt. Rashmi Rawat commit suicide by hanging herself. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 3.9.2008 at about 7:50 PM an information was received at Police Station Sultan Puri that a lady had St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 1 hanged herself at D5/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi on which DD No. 45A was recorded. Pursuant to the same ASI Prem Singh along with Ct. Biri Singh reached the spot where they found one young lady hanging with ceiling fan on the first floor of the house and her name was revealed as Ms. Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh. Inquiries revealed that Rashmi Rawat was married about two years back. The dead body was thereafter brought down by cutting the chunni after which the dead body was sent to SGM Hospital through Ct. Biri Singh. Information was sent to SDM on which on the next day SDM Sh. Sukhbir Singh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased wherein they did not make any complaints against the husband of the deceased or her inlaws. The SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the documents after which the postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased during which on search of the body one suicide note was found inside the brassiere of deceased wherein the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat of molesting and making sexual advances on her and of compelling her to commit suicide. The said suicide note was shown to the parents of the deceased who identified the handwriting of the deceased in the suicide note. Thereafter the father of the deceased namely Harender Singh gave his another statement to the SDM on the basis of the which the present FIR was got registered and the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was arrested. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat.St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 2
CHARGE:
(3) Charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(4) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Fourteen Witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(5) PW1 Sandeep Rawat is the brother of the deceased Rashmi Singh who has deposed that Smt. Rashmi Singh was his elder sister and was married with Jai Singh Rawat, S/o Bharat Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter, she started residing in her in laws house. According to him on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his sister had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his sister Rashmi lying there. He has explained that first they reached at her in laws house, then they reached at mortuary of SGM hospital where they identified the dead body of his sister Rashmi. The witness has testified that the police officials present at the mortuary showed them a written paper and told them that the same was recovered from the brassiere of his sister Rashmi and he identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi on the said paper. According to him, police recorded their statements i.e. himself, his St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 3 mother and his father. He has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court which is Ex.PW1/A which is the the handwriting of his sister Rashmi. He has also identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi in Ex.PW1/B; in the diary which handwriting is Ex.PW1/C and the Diary is Ex.PW1/D. The witness has also identified the accused Bharat Singh Rawat in the Court.
(6) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witnes has admitted that SDM recorded the statement of his parents in his presence and his parents gave statement that they have no complaints against any of the inlaws. He has also admitted that no dying declaration was recovered at that time. Witness has further deposed that accused Bharat Singh used to visit their house and did not inform his parents in his presence that his sister Rashmi used to send SMS to a boy and used to talk on mobile phone in the late night. He has denied the suggestion that Bharat Singh informed his parents regarding the aforesaid fact or that Jai Singh Rawat informed him a number of times regarding sending SMS by his sister to some boy and regarding telephone calls and made a request to him to make her understand not to send the SMS to any boy or to talk on telephone. Witness has further denied the suggestion that his sister was very short tempered. He is not aware whether his sister remained tense after the accused and his son Jai Singh informed his parents regarding the SMS and her talking on telephone.
Witness has further deposed that Jai Singh used to reside at Bombay and Jai Singh came at Delhi only when his marriage was solemnized with his sister St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 4 which marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2006. He is not aware whether the mother of Jai Singh saw some SMSs in the mobile of his sister and she also heard her talking on her mobile phone to some boy on which she informed Bharat Singh regarding this fact, who in turn informed his sister (deceased) not to indulge in these things and due to this reason his sister was annoyed. He is also not aware that it was because this fact of his sister talking to some boy and regarding sending some SMS to a boy came to the knowledge of Jai Singh and his parents who also informed his parents, hence it is for this reason his sister committed suicide. Witness has further deposed that Rinku is son of his maternal uncle. He has denied the suggestion that Jai Singh husband of his sister had objections with the relations of his sister with Rink who used to reside in front of their house. (7) PW2 Smt. Kavita Rawat is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that her daughter Rashmi was married with Jai Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she started residing at her matrimonial house. According to her, after the marriage, her daughter Rashmi had not made any complaint against any member of her in laws family about any harassment or about any demand of dowry. Witness has further deposed that on 03.09.2008 at about 7:30 PM her son in law Jai Singh Rawat made a phone call to her which was attended by her and he told her that the condition of Rashmi is serious and also requested her to come to his house. She has testified that thereafter she along with her son Sandeep and her husband reached the matrimonial house of her daughter St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 5 Rashmi where she came to know that her daughter had been taken to SGM hospital. According to the witness, they reached at the SGM hospital where they found the dead body of her daughter in the mortuary. She has also deposed that since they were not having any suspicion nor were aware of the reason behind the suicide of her daughter, therefore they had not given any statement to the Executive Magistrate against any of the in laws of her daughter. Witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 when the Executive Magistrate was checking the clothes of her daughter Rashmi then he found one suicide note underneath the brassiere which her daughter was wearing and the same was taken out and read over by the Executive Magistrate. She has also deposed that in the said suicide note her daughter had made allegations against her father in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, regarding the suicide by her and she had identified the handwriting and signatures of her daughter Rashmi on that suicide note before the Executive Magistrate. She has proved her statement given to the Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/A. She has also proved that the Executive Magistrate prepared the recovery memo of the suicide note which is Ex.PW2/B. (8) She has correctly identified the suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A as the same which was recovered underneath the brassiere of the deceased at the mortuary in her presence and had identified the handwriting and St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 6 signatures of deceased Rashmi being her mother. Witness has further deposed that during the course of investigations she handed over the admitted handwriting of deceased i.e. one letter which is Ex.PW1/B which is in the handwriting of her daughter Rashmi to the Investigating Officer and also handed over four photographs Ex.PW2/X1 to X4 and the photocopy of the marriage card Mark A to the Investigating Officer which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. (9) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that she gave her statement to the SDM on 04.09.2008. Witness has admitted that her daughter namely Rashmi Rawat never made any complaint against her husband or any family member. She has also deposed that Jai Singh Rawat husband of the deceased had gone to Bombay one month prior to the marriage and had come to Delhi for solemnization of marriage and stayed for about 15 days in Delhi after solemnization of the marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that Jai Singh Rawat had came to their residence and told to her and her husband that her daughter Rashmi Rawat used to send SMS to a boy and also used to talk on mobile phone in the late night or that Bharat Singh Rawat also came to their residence and told them that they should make their daughter understand not to make telephone calls to any boy during night hours and she should also not send SMS. Witness has also denied the suggestion that Jai Singh Rawat again came to their house and he told all the facts regarding the SMS and telephones as stated above to her daughter in her presence but her daughter St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 7 could not say any thing and she kept mum. She has also denied the suggestion that her daughter was very short tempered or that her daughter committed suicide only because the fact of sending the SMS to the boy and giving telephone calls to that boy during night hours was exposed. Witness has admitted that no suicide note was recovered when they went to see the dead body of their daughter in the hospital. According to her, first her inquest statement was recorded and after that her second statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded.
(10) PW3 Harender Singh is the father of the deceased Rashmi Rawat who has deposed that his daughter was married to Jai Singh S/o Bharat Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and after the marriage his daughter started residing at the house of her in laws. According to the witness, his daughter Rashmi appeared perturbed after her marriage and when he made inquiries from her as to why she was so perturbed, she did not tell anything to him and always ignored this fact. He has deposed that on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his daughter Rashmi lying there and he identified the same. He has proved that his statement was recorded in this regard by the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/A. Witness has further deposed that after the postmortem, one suicide note was recovered from the brassiere of his deceased daughter Rashmi which fact was revealed to him St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 8 by police officials and Executive Magistrate.
(11) The witness has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court and has deposed that during the course of investigations, police had obtained admitted handwriting of his daughter Rashmi which is Ex.PW1/B. He has also identified the diary of his deceased daughter which is Ex.PW1/D and has deposed that the said diary was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Witness has further deposed that the suicide note was taken into possession in the presence of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/B and after the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to them. He has proved having given his statement to the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/C According to the witness, in the suicide note his daughter had made allegations in writing against her father in law that is accused Bharat Singh therefore he made request in his statement to take necessary action against accused Bharat Singh whom he has correctly identified in the Court.
(12) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that his daughter Rashmi Rawat never made any complaint against the accused during her life time. According to him, SDM recorded his statement on 04.09.2008 wherein he did not make any complaint to the SDM against the accused. According to him Jai Singh Rawat that is the husband of the deceased had gone to Bombay one month prior to the marriage and had come to Delhi for solemnization of the marriage but he is St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 9 not aware when he (Jai Singh) went back to Bombay after solemnization of the marriage. Witness has denied the suggestion that Jai Singh Rawat had come to their residence and told him and his wife that his daughter Rashmi used to send SMS to a boy and she used to talk with that boy on mobile in the late night or that in the evening on 03.09.2008 he was again informed by the inlaws of his daughter and his son in law that his daughter Rashmi was still sending SMS to that boy and she was talking to that boy on her mobile in the late night. He has also denied the suggestion that his daughter Rashmi committed suicide due to the reason that the aforesaid fact was disclosed and came to the knowledge of both the families. He has also denied that no suicide note was ever recovered from the dead body as he deposed in his exaggeration in chief. He has further denied the suggestion that the suicide note was later on fabricated only to implicate the accused in the present case or that the suicide note was not in the handwriting of Rashmi Rawat.
(13) PW4 Mahesh is the neighbour of the accused who has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was present at his house and on that day at about 7:30 PM he heard the noise from outside on which he came outside from his house and found several public persons present in front of house No. D5/165, Sultanpuri which belongs to accused Bharat Singh and he came to know that one Rashmi had committed suicide by hanging. According to the witness thereafter with the help of public persons, a cooler was removed from the window of the said house and one small boy entered inside the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 10 house through said portion of the window after which the said boy opened the door from inside after which they found Rashmi Rawat hanging from ceiling fan. He has proved that he informed the PCR at 100 number and investigating officer recorded his statement in this regard. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity given and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Medical witness:
(14) PW13 Dr. Manoj Dhingra is the Autopsy Surgeon who has deposed that on 04.09.2008 he along with Dr. Deepak Sharma had conducted the postmortem on the body of Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh aged 24 years old and the body was brought by Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar namely Sukhbir Singh. The body was identified by Kavita Rawat and Hari Singh Rawat. According to him on examination, there was a ligature mark, hard brown parchmentized obliquely placed over front and side of neck merging with hair line posteriorly ligature mark varies in width from 1 to 2 cm is place 5 cm below tip of chin, 8 cm, below mastoid, 2 cm below left mastoid portion. He has also depopsed that total length of ligature mark is 26 cm, neck circumference is 31 cm, note of ligature was left side of neck.
(15) He has also proved that on internal examination on Neck on fine dissection of skin under line ligature mark is white glistening no extravastion of blood present in under line tissue. On examination of St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 11 Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus is 600 gms.
(16) He has proved having opined that the death is due to asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours. According to the witness, total number of inquest papers were eleven in number which are Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E, Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G. The witness has deposed that they sealed the ligature material and blood gauze and handed over to the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that after conducting the postmortem he prepared the detailed report which is Ex.PW13/H bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Dr. Deepak Sharma at point B and the clothes of the deceased were also sealed and handed over to the police. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Forensic witness:
(17) PW12 Ms. Deepa Verma Dy. Director, FSL Rohini has deposed that on 13.10.2008 the documents were received from SHO police station Sultanpuri in case FIR No. 581/08 police station Sultanpuri vide request letter dated 13.10.2008 for examination of documents and opinion.
According to her the questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q3 existing on the suicide note. Witness has further deposed that the standard St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 12 writings of one Rashmi Rawat were supplied for comparison which were marked from A1 to A4 and after careful and thorough examination using various scientific instruments she furnished her report No. FSL/2008/T3942 dated 22.05.2009 according to which the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures mark A1 to A4 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to A3. According to her the detailed reason for her opinion are mentioned therein which report is Ex.PW12/A, the questioned writings are Ex.PW1/A and admitted writings are Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity given and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. Police / official witnesses:
(18) PW5 HC Ramesh Kumar has deposed that on 03.09.2008, he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and was working as MHC(M).
According to him, on that day ASI Prem Singh of police station Sultanpuri deposited one mobile phone make Sony Ericson of black color in the malkhana pertaining to DD No. 45A on which he made entry at serial No. 11598 in register No. 19 in this regard copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. According to him on 04.08.2008 ASI Prem Singh deposited three pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH, mortuary, Mangolpuri Delhi and one sample seal of same specimen, pertaining to the present case in the malkhana and on the same day, he also deposited one diary in unsealed condition pursuant St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 13 to which he made entry at serial No. 11602 in this regard in register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/B. According to the witness on 13.10.2008 three pullandas sealed with the seal of MK with one sample seal of MK were sent to FSL Rohini for opinion through Ct. Biri Singh, vide RC No. 171/21/08 and he made entry in register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/C. Witness has also deposed that on 01.07.2009, Ct. Tej Singh of Police Station Sultanpuri, had deposited one sealed parcel in sealed condition in the malkhana after bringing the same from police station Rohini and on the same day, he handed over the said parcel to Insp. Yashpal, investigating officer of the case and he made entry Ex.PW5/D in register No. 19 in this regard. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Biri Singh handed over copy of road certificate and receiving issued by FSL to him, photocopy of which road certificate is Ex.PW5/E and copy of receiving is Ex.PW5/F. He has proved that so long as the case property remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with by him. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity given and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(19) PW6 Ct. Hans Raj has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he along with SI Jogender, the then Incharge Mobile Crime Team reached the spot i.e. H.No. D5/165, Sultanpuri, Delhi where they inspected the spot and he took photographs of the dead body of deceased Rashmi Rawat who was hanging with the ceiling fan of the said house from different angles of the spot. The witness has proved the negatives of photographs which are St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 14 Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7 and the photographs are Ex.PW6/B1 to Ex.PW6/B7. According to him the photographs were handed over by him to the investigating officer during the course of investigations. Witness has further deposed that the Incharge Crime Team prepared his report at the spot and handed over the same to the investigating officer who recorded his statement in this regard on 05.09.2008 at the office. (20) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that when he along with SI Jogender reached the spot Inspector Mahesh Kumar along with other police officials were present there. According to him no suicide note or any other document was recovered from the dead body of Rashmi Rawat.
(21) PW7 Insp. Jogender Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008, he was posted as Incharge Crime Team, Outer District Delhi and on that day, he received a wireless message at about 8:20 PM to reach at D5/165, Sultanpuri on which he accordingly with team reached there and found ASI Prem Singh with staff present. According to the witness he inspected the spot i.e. First floor of the house where a lady by the name of Rashmi Rawat aged about 24 years was found hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of chunni and the photographs of the scene of occurrence was taken by Ct. Hansraj from different angles. Witness has further deposed that after inspection, he prepared his report which is ExPW7/A which he handed over to the investigating officer. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity given and his testimony has gone St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 15 uncontroverted.
(22) PW8 ASI Jogender Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1 AM and on that day at about 7:50 PM on receipt of intercom message from wireless operator that a lady had hanged herself at D5/165, Sultanpuri, he recorded DD No. 45A copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. According to him, the the inquiry was handed over to ASI Prem Singh who had gone with Ct. Ramesh and Ct. Biri Singh at the spot.
(23) Witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and was working as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1 AM and on that day at about 6 PM he received a rukka sent by ASI Prem Singh through Ct. Biri Singh on the basis of which he got the formal FIR recorded on the computer kept in the ordinary course of business in the police station by computer operator which was according to the contents of the rukka and the same were not tampered with. He has proved the computer generated copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW8/B and also proved his endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW8/C. He has further deposed that the rukka was given in original back to Ct. Biri Singh to be taken at the spot along with the computerized printout of the FIR and investigations of the case was entrusted to Insp. Mahesh Chand. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity granted and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 16 (24) PW9 Sh. Sukhbir Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 89 PM he received a message from SGM hospital that one lady namely Rashmi Rawat had died on which he gave directions to the investigating officer to shift the body to the mortuary SGM hospital and then he told to the investigating officer to call the parents and relatives of the deceased. Witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 he received a message from investigating officer that parents of the deceased had reached in SGM hospital on which he reached there. According to him body of the deceased was got identified by the parents vide their joint statement which is Ex.PW3/A and he recorded the statement of Harinder Singh and Smt. Kavita Rawat, parents of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X wherein no allegations was leveled against anyone. According to the witness he inspected the body in the mortuary in the presence of one Safai Karamchari Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer. He has testified that the said Sheesh Ram was removing the clothes of the deceased in his presence and during inspection, one suicide note was recovered from under brassiere of the deceased which was shown to the parents of the deceased who had identified the handwriting of deceased Rashmi Rawat and the same was received by him vide receiving memo Ex.PW2/B in the presence of parents of deceased, Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer. The witness has also deposed that after receiving of the said suicide note, the statement of parents was recorded by him again as they showed their desire to get St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 17 their statements recorded which statements are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/A after which he made his endorsement on Ex.PW3/C at point X to X regarding direction to lodge the FIR against Bharat Singh under relevant section of IPC. He has also proved his endorsement from point X to X on Ex.PW2/A regarding taking action against Bharat Singh. He has correctly identified the said suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A. The witness has proved the inquest papers i.e. Request for conducting postmortem which is Ex.PW9/A, Brief Facts which are Ex.PW9/B, Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW9/C, DD No. 45 which is Ex.PW8/A, statements of parents which is Ex.PW3/A and the statements of other relatives recorded by him. According to him thereafter the postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. (25) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that the parents of the deceased had no complaints when they met him initially. Witness has further deposed that he recorded their statements i.e. Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X and he is not aware if the parents of the deceased remained in contact and company of the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that police tutored them and thereafter, they got their statements recorded. Witness has admitted that the suicide note was not found at the initial stage of the inquiry. He has denied the suggestion that in connivance with the police, the said suicide note was got fabricated. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 18 (26) PW10 Ct. Biri Singh has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and on that day he was on emergency duty with ASI Prem Singh and on receipt of DD No. 45A, he along with the said ASI reached the spot i.e. D5/165, Sultanpuri, where PCR officials were already present. According to him the said house was constructed upto two to two and half stories and on the first floor in a room one lady was found hanging with a chunni with ceiling fan and her name was found as Rashmi W/o Jai Singh who was married two years back. Witness has further deposed that SDM was informed and crime team also reached the spot who inspected and photographed the scene of occurrence after which the dead body was taken down and was shifted to mortuary of SGM hospital in a private car in his custody. According to the witness SDM along with parents of the deceased also reached in the hospital and recorded their statements wherein they did not level any allegation against anyone. The witness has testified that one mobile phone make Sony Ericsson was found present on the bed of the deceased which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He has further deposed that on 04.09.2008 when the SDM was inspecting the dead body for getting the postmortem conducted, one suicide note was recovered from the brassiere of the deceased which she was wearing at that time and in the said suicide note, the deceased had leveled allegations against her father in law which said suicide note was recovered in his presence. According to him the said suicide note was shown to the parents of the deceased who identified the handwriting of the deceased on St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 19 the said suicide note and the statements of Harinder and his wife were recorded by the investigating officer of the case. The witness has further deposed that the Investigating officer prepared a rukka on the said statements and he (witness) took the same to the police station for getting the case registered and after registration of the FIR, he came back to the hospital and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that investigations of the case was handed over to Insp. Mahesh Kuamar after which he along with the Investigating Officer and parents of the deceased and ASI Prem Singh came back at the spot and in the said room where the dead body was found, a diary written by the deceased was found lying on a computer table wherein the deceased had also signed and the same was identified by the father of the deceased after which the said diary was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He has proved that the site plan was prepared by the Inspector on the identification of ASI Prem Singh. According to him, on 04.09.2008 after postmortem the doctor handed over three pullandas and one sample seal with the seal of SGM mortuary which was taken into possession by ASI Prem Singh vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He has also testified that on the same day, accused Bharat Singh Rawat whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/C and personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D after which the accused made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/C. The witness has proved that on 13.10.2008 he took three St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 20 pullandas and one sample seal of the hospital from MHC(M) and deposited the same to FSL vide RC No. 171/21/08 and after depositing the same, he handed over copy of the RC and receipt of FSL to the MHC(M). He has proved that till the exhibits remained in his custody, it were not tampered with.
(27) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. diary of brown and black color as the same recovered from the computer table which diary is Ex.PW1/B; the handwriting & signatures of the deceased appearing on the page of 3rd January of the said diary which is Ex.PW1/C; suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A and mobile phone make Sony Ericsson which was recovered from the bed of the deceased which mobile phone is Ex.PX. (28) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that the parents of the deceased did not leave the hospital when they gave their first statements and the dead body was removed and deposited in the mortuary of SGM hospital on 03.09.2008. According to him nothing was recovered from the dead body when it was shifted to mortuary from the house and after depositing the dead body in the mortuary, he left the mortuary. Witness has further deposed that he reached at mortuary on the next day at about 1111:30 AM and the parents of the deceased came in the hospital on 04.09.2008. He is unable to tell whether the recovered suicide note was placed by the parents of the deceased in her clothes on 04.09.2008 after their arrival. He has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that he signed all the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 21 memos in the police station on asking of the investigating officer of this case or that nothing was recovered in his presence.
(29) PW11 Insp. Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri as ATO and on that day on receipt of the a wireless message regarding suicide of a lady at D5/165, Sultanpuri and he reached the spot where ASI Prem Singh and Ct. Biri Singh were already present. According to him a lady was found hanging in a room of the said house at first floor and on inquiry, her name was revealed as Rashmi, W/o Jai Singh whose marriage was solemnized two years prior to the incident. Witness has further deposed that SDM was informed and crime team was called who inspected the spot and got the scene of occurrence photographed after which he left the spot. (30) According to the witness on 04.09.2008, the investigations of the present case was handed over to him after registration of the case by the Duty Officer through Ct. Biri Singh on which he along with Ct. Biri Singh, ASI Prem Singh, Harinder Singh father of the deceased reached at the spot and outside the said room on a computer table, an executive diary of the year 2007 was found lying which was checked and the same was found containing the handwriting of the deceased on the page of 03.01.2007. Witness has further deposed that it was a ten lines poem written in the handwriting of the deceased and her signatures were also appearing on the bottom which handwriting was identified by the father of the deceased as of his daughter. He has proved that the diary Ex.PW1/D was taken into St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 22 possession by him vide memo Ex.PW3/B. According to the witness accused Bharat Singh was identified by the father of the deceased who was thereafter interrogated by him vide his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/E and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW10/D. The witness has also deposed that he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW11/A at the instance of ASI Prem Singh. He has testified that after completion of the proceedings on that day, he along with staff and accused came back at the police station and deposited the case property with the MHC(M) and recorded the statements of ASI Prem Singh and Ct. Biri Singh and the mother of the deceased was also examined by him on that day and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
(31) Witness has further deposed that on 05.09.2008 accused was produced before the concerned court from where he was remanded to Judicial Custody after which he went to the office of crime team where he recorded the statements of members of crime team who inspected the spot. According to the witness after returning to the police station Sandeep Rawat brother of the deceased was found present there who handed over one copy of Email dated 03.09.2008 sent by the deceased to him which is Ex.PW11/B and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C and recorded his statement. The witness has further testified that on 22.09.2008 mother of the deceased Kavita Rawat produced the marriage photographs which are Ex.PW2/X1 to X4 and marriage card mark St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 23 A before him which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He has proved having taken into possession one letter produced by the mother of the deceased in the handwriting of deceased Rashmi which is Ex.PW1/B. He has testified that on 13.10.2008 he sent the exhibits diary, suicide note and the letter produced by the mother of the deceased through Ct. Biri Singh to FSL Rohini. He has proved having recorded the statement of public witness Mahesh who called the police at 100 number regarding the incident and he collected the postmortem report and the photographs and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court through SHO.
(32) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that on 03.09.2008 no suicide note was recovered. According to him, Sandeep Rawat and Kavita Rawat informed the SDM that they were having no suspicion against any person. According to the witness on 03.09.2008 no copy of Email was given to him by Sandeep Rawat and on 03.09.2008 during the inspection of the spot by the crime team no diary was recovered from the spot. He has also deposed that he did not go to the mortuary as the postmortem was got conducted by the ASI. Witness has further deposed that he also did not visit mortuary on 04.09.2008. He has denied the suggestion that accused did not give any disclosure statement and he obtained his signatures on the forged and fabricated disclosure statement of the accused or that he falsely arrested the accused on the fabricated evidence. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he charge sheeted the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 24 accused on the false and fabricated evidence and statement of the witnesses. (33) PW14 SI Prem Singh is the initial Investigating Officer who has deposed that on 3.9.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri as ASI and on that day, after receiving DD no.45A at about 7.50 PM, he along with Ct. Biri Singh reached at H No. D5/165, S. Puri, Delhi where PCR van was already present. According to the witness, he found one young lady hanging with ceiling fan on the first floor of the house and her name revealed as Ms. Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh who was married about 2 years back on which he informed the senior officers. The witness has also deposed that Crime Team officials reached the spot and they inspected the scene of crime and took photographs. According to him, one mobile of Sony was found in the same room where the dead body was found and the same was kept in a polythene and seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He has also deposed that dead body was brought down after cutting the chunni and thereafter dead body was sent to the SGM Hospital through Ct. Biri Singh. He has proved having moved an application to CMO for preservation of the dead body vide his application Ex.PW13/A. The witness has further deposed that on the next day Sh. Sukhbir Singh, SDM came at the SGM Hospital and recorded the statement of parents of the deceased. He has testified that the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the documents and at his instance postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. He has also deposed that before the postmortem was conducted, on a search of the dead body one St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 25 suicide note was found inside of brassiere of the Rashmi Rawat which suicide note was read over by the SDM and the same was also shown the parents of the deceased who identified the handwriting in the suicide note of the Rashmi Rawat. He has further deposed that SDM again recorded statement of parents of the deceased and seized the suicide note Ex.PW2/B and after postmortem dead body was handed to the father of the deceased. According to the witness after postmortem the doctor handed over one plastic jar containing the chunni of the deceased, one polythene containing the clothes of the deceased and one envelope containing the blood gauze of the deceased in sealed condition sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital with sample seal to him and he seized the same vide Ex.PW10/B. He has proved that the SDM handed over the statements of Harinder Singh Ex.PW3/C and that of Kavita Rawat vide Ex.PW2/A with endorsement and direction for registration of the FIR. The witness has also proved having made his endorsement on the statement of Harinder Singh and on the direction of the SDM vide Ex.PW14/A after which he handed over the same to the Ct. Biri Singh for registration of the FIR. He has testified that further investigations were handed over to Insp. Mahesh Kumar on the directions of the SHO and he also reached the spot. According to him, Insp. Mahesh Kumar interrogated accused Bharat Singh Rawat and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/C; his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW10/D and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW10/E. The witness has proved that one diary was found on the computer table which was also lying St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 26 outside of the room where the dead body was found, which diary was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. According to him, Insp. Mahesh also prepared the site plan of the incident where the dead body was found at his instance. The witness has also deposed that he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana and on the next day i.e. on 5.9.2008 Sandeep Rawat, brother of deceased Rashmi Rawat produced photocopy of the one email Ex.PW11/B which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. (34) He has correctly identified the accused Bharat Singh in the Court and also identified the diary which is Ex.PW1/D and the suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A. (35) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused was not recorded by him and only his signatures were obtained in the disclosure statement. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was not interrogated by the main investigating officer in his presence or that the main Investigating Officer obtained signatures of the accused forcibly. According to the witness, no public witness was called at the time of arrest and interrogation of the accused present in the court. He has admitted that the suicide note was not recovered when they reached at the place of incident. The witness has denied the suggestion that the suicide note was never recovered from the clothes of the deceased. He is not aware whether during the investigations till they remained with him it was revealed that the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 27 deceased used to talk his some boy on her telephone during or she used to send SMS to that boy. He is also not aware whether the motherinlaw and fatherinlaw of the deceased came to know that deceased used to talk to some boy or that she also used to send some SMS and hence when they told her that she should not talk to that boy she committed a suicide. According to the witness, the parents of the deceased had informed that they had no complaint against the husband of their daughter or their fatherinlaw or any other inlaw of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion that the parents of the deceased made a wrong statement at the instance of their relatives after postmortem or that the diary was not recovered in his presence. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer obtained signatures on the seizure memo of the alleged suicide note and the diary.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(36) After completion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein all incriminating material was put to him which he has denied. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated and arrested in the present case and his signatures were obtained on blank papers which were subsequently fabricated into his disclosure statement. According to him, the deceased was having extra marital affair with a boy and he caught her talking with that day in the late night hours which fact was complained by St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 28 him to the mother of the deceased. The accused was also granted an opportunity to file his detail written statement under Section 313 clause 5 Cr.P.C. in addition to the statement already made by him which he did not do. However, he wanted to lead his evidence in defence but after he was provided an opportunity for doing so he did not lead any evidence and on 2.4.2013 made a statement before this Court that he did not wish examine any witness in his defence on account of which the case was fixed for final arguments and filing of written memorandum of arguments in terms of Section 314 Cr.P.C.
(37) However today that is on 12.4.2013 when the case was listed for final arguments an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused Bharat Singh Rawat himself for permitting him to lead defence evidence. Sh. B.S. Rana Advocate for the accused being unaware of this application filed his memorandum of arguments under Section 314 Cr.P.C. and when asked to argue on this application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. he pleaded his ignorance of the same submitting that he had not filed any such application. The perusal of the said application showed that the same has only been signed by the accused and not by any counsel nor there is any Vakalatnama attached to the same. Mr. Rana has been supplied with a copy of this application and after going through the same he submits that this application has perhaps been filed by the accused himself which he has done without his knowledge and hence the accused be personally asked about the same. The accused who was present in the Court was asked as to St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 29 who had filed this application and what he had to say in this regard on which the accused Bharat Singh Rawat submitted that some Advocate who is not his regular counsel had asked him to file this application which he had put in the petition box of this Court after signing the same but he is not aware of the contents of the same. When asked if the said counsel was present in the Court or somebody was to appear on his behalf for arguing the same, he denied the same and stated he did not know anything about the application except that he had signed the same on the asking of some counsel. On further query from the Court as to whom he wanted to examine as his witness he stated that he wanted to get the call detail record of the mobile phone of the deceased for the year 2008 retrieved. On this Sh. B.S. Rana Advocate appearing for the accused has submitted that earlier the accused had made a similar request to him but being fully aware of the fact that it would not be possible to get the Call detail Records for the year 2008 retrieved on account of the Rules and Guidelines of the Government of India in this regard, he had advised him against making such a request to the court and perhaps it is for this reason that the accused has of his own chosen to move this application. After going through the request made by the accused personally of which his counsel is not aware I am of a considered opinion that since no request had been made by the accused at the initial stages of investigations and trial for directions to the service provider for preserving the call detail record of the deceased, the request so made by the accused at this stage after almost five year of the incident cannot be allowed St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 30 in view of the settled Rules and Guidelines of the Government of India providing that the maximum period for saving the call detail records shall be one year. It is writ large that the accused has deliberately made this request belatedly being fully aware that no such record could be retrieved which reflects his malafide attempt to delay the trial. In so far as the prayer for examining other witnesses as mentioned in the application is concerned he has made no mention of the same in the Court and when asked he submitted that he is not even aware of the contents of this application and does not wish to examine anybody else. Hence, in view of the above, the application filed by the accused under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. FINDINGS:
(38) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused under Section 314 Cr.P.C. and also perused the evidence on record.
I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under
and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public witnesses:
1. Sandeep Rawat He is the brother of the deceased Rashmi Singh who has
(PW1) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That Smt. Rashmi Singh was his elder sister and
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 31
was married with Jai Singh Rawat, S/o Bharat
Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies and thereafter, she started residing in her in laws house.
2. That on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his sister had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his sister Rashmi lying there.
3. That first they reached at her in laws house, then they reached at mortuary of SGM hospital where they identified the dead body of his sister Rashmi.
4. That the police officials present at the mortuary showed them a written paper and told them that the same was recovered from the brassiere of his sister Rashmi and he identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi on the said paper.
5. That police recorded their statements i.e. himself, his mother and his father.
He has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court which is Ex.PW1/A which is the the handwriting of his sister Rashmi. He has also identified the handwriting of his sister Rashmi in Ex.PW1/B; in the diary which handwriting is Ex.PW1/C and the Diary is Ex.PW1/D.
2. Smt. Kavita Rawat She is the mother of the deceased who has deposed on the (PW2) following aspects:
1. That her daughter Rashmi was married with Jai Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she started residing at her matrimonial house.
2. That after the marriage, her daughter Rashmi had not made any complaint against any member of her in laws family about any harassment or about any demand of dowry.
3. That on 03.09.2008 at about 7:30 PM her son in law Jai Singh Rawat made a phone call to her which was attended by her and he told her that the condition of Rashmi is serious and also requested her to come to his house.St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 32
4. That thereafter she along with her son Sandeep and her husband reached the matrimonial house of her daughter Rashmi where she came to know that her daughter had been taken to SGM hospital.
5. That they reached at the SGM hospital where they found the dead body of her daughter in the mortuary.
6. That since they were not having any suspicion nor were aware of the reason behind the suicide of her daughter, therefore they had not given any statement to the Executive Magistrate against any of the in laws of her daughter.
7. That on 04.09.2008 when the Executive Magistrate was checking the clothes of her daughter Rashmi then he found one suicide note underneath the brassiere which her daughter was wearing and the same was taken out and read over by the Executive Magistrate.
8. That in the said suicide note her daughter had made allegations against her father in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, regarding the suicide by her and she had identified the handwriting and signatures of her daughter Rashmi on that suicide note before the Executive Magistrate.
9. That her statement was given to the Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/A.
10. That the Executive Magistrate prepared the recovery memo of the suicide note which is Ex.PW2/B.
11. That during the course of investigations she handed over the admitted handwriting of deceased i.e. one letter which is Ex.PW1/B which is in the handwriting of her daughter Rashmi to the Investigating Officer.
12. That she also handed over four photographs Ex.PW2/X1 to X4 and the photocopy of the marriage card Mark A to the Investigating Officer St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 33 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. She has correctly identified the suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A as the same which was recovered underneath the brassiere of the deceased at the mortuary in her presence and has identified the handwriting and signatures of deceased Rashmi being her mother.
3. Harender Singh He is the father of the deceased Rashmi Rawat who has (PW3) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That his daughter was married to Jai Singh S/o Bharat Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and after the marriage his daughter started residing at the house of her in laws.
2. That his daughter Rashmi appeared perturbed after her marriage and when he made inquiries from her as to why she was so perturbed, she did not tell anything to him and always ignored this fact.
3. That on 03.09.2008 they received information from police on telephone that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging on which they reached at SGM hospital where they found the dead body of his daughter Rashmi lying there and he identified the same.
4. That his statement was recorded in this regard by the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on
04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/A.
5. That after the postmortem, one suicide note was recovered from the brassiere of his deceased daughter Rashmi which fact was revealed to him by police officials and Executive Magistrate.
6. That the suicide note was taken into possession in the presence of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Executive Magistrate which is Ex.PW2/B and after the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to them.
7. That his statement to the Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh on 04.09.2008 which is Ex.PW3/C. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 34
8. That in the suicide note his daughter had made allegations in writing against her father in law that is accused Bharat Singh therefore he made request in his statement to take necessary action against accused Bharat Singh.
The witness has correctly identified the suicide note in the Court and has deposed that during the course of investigations, police had obtained admitted handwriting of his daughter Rashmi which is Ex.PW1/B. He has also identified the diary of his deceased daughter which is Ex.PW1/D and has deposed that the said diary was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW3/B.
4. Mahesh (PW4) He is the neighbour of the accused who has proved the following facts:
1. That on 03.09.2008 he was present at his house and on that day at about 7:30 PM he heard the noise from outside on which he came outside from his house.
2. That he found several public persons present in front of house No. D5/165, Sultanpuri which belonged to accused Bharat Singh and he came to know that one Rashmi had committed suicide by hanging.
3. That thereafter with the help of public persons, a cooler was removed from the window of the said house and one small boy entered inside the house through said portion of the window after which the said boy opened the door from inside after which they found Rashmi Rawat hanging from ceiling fan.
4. That he informed the PCR at 100 number and investigating officer recorded his statement in this regard.
Medical witness:
5. Dr. Manoj He is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved the postmortem Dhingra (PW13) report in respect of deceased Rashmi Rawat W/o Jai Singh aged 24 years old, which report is Ex.PW13/H. He St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 35 has proved the following aspects:
1. That there was a ligature mark, hard brown parchmentized obliquely placed over front and side of neck merging with hair line posteriorly ligature mark varies in width from 1 to 2 cm is place 5 cm below tip of chin, 8 cm, below mastoid, 2 cm below left mastoid portion.
2. That total length of ligature mark is 26 cm, neck circumference is 31 cm, note of ligature was left side of neck.
3. That on internal examination on Neck on fine dissection of skin under line ligature mark was white glistening no extravastion of blood present in under line tissue.
4. That on examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus is 600 gms.
5. That the death is due to asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours.
6. That total number of inquest papers were eleven in number which are Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW13/A, PW8/A, PW3/A, PW13/B, PW13/C, PW13/D, PW13/E, PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G. Forensic witness:
6. Ms. Deepa Verma This witness has proved having examined the questioned (PW12) Dy. documents marked as Q1 to Q3 and the standard writings Director, FSL of one Rashmi Rawat which were marked from A1 to A4 Rohini and after careful and thorough examination using various scientific instruments according to which the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures mark A1 to A4 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to A3. Her report in this regard is Ex.PW12/A, the questioned writings are Ex.PW1/A and admitted writings are Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 36
Police / Official witnesses:
7. HC Ramesh He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved Kumar (PW5) the entry at serial No. 11598 in register No. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/A; entry at serial No. 11602 in register No.19 copy of which is Ex.PW5/B; entries in register No. 19 which is Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D; road certificate which is Ex.PW5/E and copy of receiving which is Ex.PW5/F.
8. Ct. Hans Raj He is a formal witness being the crime Team Photographer (PW6) who has proved the negatives of photographs which are Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A7 and the photographs are Ex.PW6/B1 to Ex.PW6/B7.
9. Insp. Jogender He is the Crime Team Incharge who has proved having Singh (PW7) inspected the spot and having prepared his report which is Ex.PW7/A.
10. ASI Jogender He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Singh (PW8) proved the DD No.45A dated 3.9.2008 which is Ex.PW8/A; computer generated copy of the FIR of the present case which is Ex.PW8/B and his endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW8/C.
11. Sh. Sukhbir Singh He is the SDM who has proved the following aspects:
(PW9) 1. That on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Executive Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 89 PM he received a message from SGM hospital that one lady namely Rashmi Rawat had died.
2. That he gave directions to the investigating officer to shift the body to the mortuary SGM hospital and then he told to the investigating officer to call the parents and relatives of the deceased.
3. That on 04.09.2008 he received a message from investigating officer that parents of the deceased had reached in SGM hospital on which he reached there.
4. That body of the deceased was got identified by the parents vide their joint statement which is Ex.PW3/A. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 37
5. That he recorded the statement of Harinder Singh and Smt. Kavita Rawat, parents of the deceased which are Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X wherein no allegations was leveled against anyone.
6. That he inspected the body in the mortuary in the presence of one Safai Karamchari Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer.
7. That the said Sheesh Ram was removing the clothes of the deceased in his presence and during inspection, one suicide note was recovered from under brassiere of the deceased.
8. That the said note was shown to the parents of the deceased who had identified the handwriting of deceased Rashmi Rawat and the same was received by him vide receiving memo Ex.PW2/B in the presence of parents of deceased, Sheesh Ram and Investigating Officer.
9. That after receiving of the said suicide note, the statement of parents was recorded by him again as they showed their desire to get their statements recorded which statements are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/A.
10. That he made his endorsement on Ex.PW3/C at point X to X regarding direction to lodge the FIR against Bharat Singh under relevant section of IPC and his endorsement from point X to X on Ex.PW2/A regarding taking action against Bharat Singh.
He has correctly identified the said suicide note which is Ex.PW1/A. The witness has proved the inquest papers i.e. Request for conducting postmortem which is Ex.PW9/A, Brief Facts which are Ex.PW9/B, Form 25.35 which is Ex.PW9/C, DD No. 45 which is Ex.PW8/A, statements of parents which is Ex.PW3/A and the statements of other relatives recorded by him.
12. Ct. Biri Singh This witness had gone to the spot along with ASI Prem (PW10) Singh on receiving the call. He has proved the following documents:
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 38
Ex.PW10/A Seizure memo of Sony Ericson mobile
phone
Ex.PW10/B Seizure memo of the exhibits handed over
by the doctor
Ex.PW10/C Arrest memo of the accused
Ex.PW10/D Personal search memo of the accused
Ex.PW10/E Disclosure statement of the accused
13. Insp. Mahesh This was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri as ATO on
Kumar (PW11) 3.9.2008 and has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW11/A Site plan
Ex.PW11/B Email dated 03.09.2008 sent by the
deceased to her brother
Ex.PW11/C Seizure memo of Email
14. SI Prem Singh He is the Investigating Officer of the present case and
(PW14) apart from the proceedings proved by the various official
witnesses, he has proved having made his endorsement on the statement of Harinder Singh and on the direction of the SDM vide Ex.PW14/A. (39) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
Identity of the accused:
(40) In so far as the identity of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat is concerned the same is not disputed. He is the father in law of the deceased Rashmi Rawat a fact which the accused has not disputed. I, therefore, hold that the identity of the accused stands established.St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 39
Death within seven year of marriage:
(41) It is an admitted case of the parties that the marriage of the deceased Rashmi Singh was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006 and she committed suicide on 3.9.2008 i.e. less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage).
Medical Evidence:
(42) Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW13) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW13/H according to which the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours (from the conduct of postmortem examination), thereby establishing that the death of the deceased was suicidal and had taken place in the evening of 3.9.2008.
(43) Further, on the postmortem examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus was 600 gms. This fact is compatible to the contents of the suicide note wherein the deceased had mentioned about this fact and establishes that the deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident.
(44) In view of the above I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case.
Forensic Evidence:
(45) Ms. Deepa Verma (PW12) Dy. Director, FSL Rohini proved the handwriting report which is Ex.PW12/A according to which the person St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 40 who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures mark A1 to A4 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to A3.
(46) The Ld. Defence Counsel has challenged the correctness of the said report and has argued that the same is not authentic and credible and has been given on the asking of the Investigating Officer and hence cannot be relied upon. Before coming to the argument advanced before me, I may observe that it would depend upon the appreciation of report / opinion of handwriting expert and other attending circumstances as to whether the said report can be relied upon or not and to what extent.
(47) Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two hand writings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence act. To say it differently, the matching of two hand writings is itself a substantial evidence under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of hand writing and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a hand writing St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 41 expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the hand writing of the accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand writings match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal in the case of Jaipal Vs State Criminal appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs. State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under :
"......It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The Court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."
(48) It is pertinent to note that High Court of Delhi had relied upon Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under:
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 42
"....... An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinionevidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnessthe quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witness, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.
(para4) Expert testimony is made relevant by S.45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to S. 114 St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 43 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells that 'A fact is said to be provided when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further, under S. 144 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that S. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(Para 6) There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed).
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 44 Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
(Para 12) (49) It is borne out from the above that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.
(50) Now applying these principles to the facts of the present case it is writ large that the expert Ms. Deepa Verma has proved having carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents with the scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Video Spectral Comparitor IV, Docucenter and VSC - 2000/HR etc. under different lighting conditions and has also correctly identified the suicide note which has been examined by him. I may observe that the expert Ms. Deepa Verma has prepared his reports in a very scientific manner. She has given detail reasons and I appreciate the manner in which the entire work has been done in a thoroughly professional and scientific manner.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 45 (51) I have personally examined the handwriting present on the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased. I may observe that on comparison by me the said handwriting present on the questioned document i.e. suicide note has been found to be matching with the handwriting / signatures of the deceased present on the documents containing her admitted handwriting, though written at a different point of time, in broad features like spacing, size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing and termination of strokes. In this background there is no reason to disbelieve the report of the handwriting expert and I hold that the forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case that before her death the deceased had written and left a suicide note Ex.PW1/A which has been proved to be in her handwriting.
Allegations against the accused/ Suicide note left by the deceased:
(52) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was the father in law of Rashmi Singh who was married to his son Jai Singh on 10.12.2006 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and on 3.9.2008 Smt. Rashmi Singh committed suicide. It appeared to be a normal and happy marriage. There were no complaint whatsoever and hence when she expired her parents could not suspect any foul play and did not make any allegation to the SDM against the inlaws of their deceased daughter.
However, when her postmortem was about to be conducted and the clothes of the deceased were removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate a St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 46 note was recovered from her brassiere / under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide). In the said note the deceased had made specific allegations against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat of having an evil eye on her despite her close relationship with him being his daughter in law and despite the fact that she treated him as his father. She had alleged that whenever the accused got an opportunity he seized the same. Initially he only used to kiss her but later he started touching her inappropriately. She also noticed that he was a mischievous man who exhibited one behaviour to her and another before the others. Being fed up with the behaviour of Bharat Singh Rawat and not being able to confide in anybody about his ways and behaviour fearing that nobody would believe her and would instead blame her, she decided to end her life being fully aware that at that time she was pregnant and carrying a fetus.
(53) Before coming to the facts of the case, it is necessary to first briefly discuss the law relating to Suicide. I may observe that the word 'Suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and required no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. (54) Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal Law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 47 the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types.
1. Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.
2. Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.
(55) This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide had been abrogated. (56) In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offence is beyond to the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC. (57) 'Abetment' has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that:
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly 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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 48
(58) Explanation 2 which has been inserted alongwith Section 107 reads as under :
"Explanation 2 - whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to be and the doing of that act."
(59) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in VII (2001)SLT 356 has in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation" as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forwards, provoke, incite of encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred......"
(60) In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another, reported in IV(1993)CCR392(SC)=(1994)DMC138 (SC)=(1994)SCC 73 the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 49 evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (61) The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is also required an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
(62) It is a settled law that the act of abetment has to be put in consonance with the entire evidence of the case. The act of abetment attributed to the accused cannot be views or tested in isolation and hence what would constitute instigation is the entirety of evidence depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.
(63) Now, applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case I may observe that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the suicide note left by the deceased. The Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 50 Singh has proved the said note Ex.PW1/A and the proceedings which were conducted thereafter. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"......... On 03.09.08 I was posted as Ex. Magistrate, Saraswati Vihar. On that day, at about 8/9 pm I received a message from SGM Hospital that one lady namely Rashmi Rawat had died. I gave directions to the IO to shift the body to the mortuary SGM Hospital. Then, I told to the IO to call the parents and relatives of the deceased. On 04.09.08, I received a message from Io that parents of the deceased have reached in SGM Hospital. I also reached there. Body of the deceased was got identified by the parents vide their statements recorded jointly on Ex.PW3/A. I recorded the statement of Harinder Singh and Smt. Kavita Rawat, parents of the deceased with are Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW9/X wherein no allegation was levelled against anyone.
During inspection of the body by me in the mortuary in the presence of one safai karamchari Sheesh Ram and IO. The said Sheesh Ram was putting off the clothes of the deceased in my presence and during inspection, one suicide note was recovered under bra of the deceased which was shown to the parents of the deceased who had identified the handwriting of deceased Rashmi Rawat and the same was received by me vide receiving memo Ex.PW2/B in the presence of parents of deceased, Sheesh Ram and IO which bears my signatures at point X and the signatures of the said persons at different points. After receiving of the said suicide note, the statement of parents was recorded by me again as they showed their desire to get their statements recorded which are Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW2/A and I made my endorsement on Ex.PW3/C at point X to X regarding direction to lodge the FIR against Bharat Singh under relevant section of IPC St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 51 and which bears my signatures at point B. My endorsement from point X to X was also made by me on Ex.PW2/A regarding taking action taking action against Bharat Singh which bears my signatures at point B...."
(64) It is writ large that the proceedings regarding the seizure of the said suicide note has been validly conducted. It is an admitted fact that during the initial investigations the suicide note had not been recovered and nobody was aware of the reasons for the suicide of the deceased. However, it was only at the later stage when the postmortem was to be conducted and the clothes of the deceased were being removed that from the same the said note was recovered.
(65) Inquiries were then initiated against the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on the basis of the contents of the said suicide note (Ex.PW1/A) which contents I reproduce as under:
"......Mein bahaut pareshan thi aur mere pareshani ka kaaran mere sasur hai. Kuch dino se woh mujhe kiss karte hai aur koi aas pass na ho toh hath bhi lagate hai. Pehle toh mein achanak kuch samajh nahi pai, kyonki mein unhe papa sirf kehti hi nahi thi, balki unhe papa ki tehre hi pyar karte thi. Isley achanak yeh sab mein samaj nahi pai, phir mujhe unki yeh harkate gandi lagne lagi, ek din unhone mujhe kaha ki mein yeh baat kisi ko na batau. Mein bahaut dar gayi thi, kuch bhi samaj mein nahi aa raha tha ki kaya karu, upar se yeh insan sabke samne bilkul hi dusre roop mein dhikai deta tha, jaise kuch hua he na ho. Tabhi mujhe ehsas hua yeh insan kuch bhi kar sakta hai, jiske sandar itne himmat hai, jo apne beti jaise bahu ke sath gandhi harkete kar ke bare aram se apne apko sabke St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 52 samne Normal rakh leta hai. Meinandar hi andar bahut ghut rahi thi, apne pati aur mummy papa se nahi keh pa rahi thi, kyonki mein janti thi, aise admi pehle hangama karega aur phie sara iljam mere sar par laga kar mujhe hi badnam kar dega, kyonki meine dekha hai yeh kuch bhi utpatang bolne mein jara bhi der nahi lagata. Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti. Yese insan ka jo sath dega woh usse bhi bara gunhgar hoga, konki do hatyaon ka pap lagega useh do jindgiya ko khatam hone par majboor hone ka paap, ek ne to abhi tak janam bhi nahi liya. Bhagwan unhe kabhi bhi chain nahi dega....."
(66) It is evident from the above suicide note that it is in the nature of a Dying Declaration and before proceeding to end her life the deceased Rashmi Singh had given the reasons why she chose to do so. The entire prosecution case rests upon this suicide note which is the last document left by the deceased. The entire law of the Dying Declaration rests on the premise that the dying person tells no lie for he would not face his maker with a lie on his lips. However, the Law as it has emerged in India is that the said note has to be read in the light of the other evidence and surrounding circumstances and due caution needs to be exercised since the accused does not stand a chance to crossexamine the maker of the same. Hence in this background in order to ascertain the psyche / state of mind of the deceased before her death and to determine the reasons why a young girl of hardly 24 years of age in less than two years of marriage would St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 53 choose to end not only her life but also that of her unborn child, I now proceed to again read the entire suicide note once again and from a bare reading of the same the following stands reflected:
➢ That the deceased Rashmi was very disturbed and the cause for the same was her father in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat (Mein bahaut pareshan thi aur mere pareshani ka kaaran mere sasur hai).
➢ That for some days Bharat Singh Rawat the father in law of deceased Rashmi used to kiss her and when there was nobody around he also used to touch her inappropriately (Kuch dino se woh mujhe kiss karte hai aur koi aas pass na ho toh hath bhi lagate hai).
➢ That initially since all this happened all of a sudden the deceased Rashmi did not understand the same because not only did she call the accused Bharat Singh Rawat her father (Papa) but also used to love him like her own father and therefore could not perceive and understand his intentions (Pehle toh mein achanak kuch samajh nahi pai, kyonki mein unhe papa sirf kehti hi nahi thi, balki unhe papa ki tehre hi pyar karte thi. Isley achanak yeh sab mein samaj nahi pai).
➢ That it was sometime later when the deceased Rashmi Singh realized the intent of the accused she started disliking the above acts of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat (phir mujhe unki yeh harkate gandi lagne lagi).
➢ That one day the accused Bharat Singh Rawat told the deceased Rashmi Singh that she should not tell about these things to anybody St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 54 else (ek din unhone mujhe kaha ki mein yeh baat kisi ko na batau).
➢ That the deceased Rashmi Singh became extremely scared and did not know what to do because outwardly the accused Bharat Singh Rawat used to behave differently as if nothing had happened (Mein bahaut dar gayi thi, kuch bhi samaj mein nahi aa raha tha ki kaya karu, upar se yeh insan sabke samne bilkul hi dusre roop mein dhikai deta tha, jaise kuch hua he na ho).
➢ That it is then that the deceased Rashmi Singh realized that the accused Bharat Singh Rawat could do anything as he had the guts to do these dirty acts with his daughter in law who was like a daughter to him after which he would appear and behave perfectly normal before everybody else (Tabhi mujhe ehsas hua yeh insan kuch bhi kar sakta hai, jiske andar itne himmat hai, jo apne beti jaise bahu ke sath gandhi harkete kar ke bare aram se apne apko sabke samne Normal rakh leta hai).
➢ That it was this which suffocated the deceased Rashmi Singh from inside as she felt that she could not even disclose these facts to her own husband, mother and father knowing that in case if he did so Bharat Singh Rawat would then create a scene / hangama after which he would shift the entire blame on her i.e. deceased and defame her because she had herself seen and knew that Bharat Singh Rawat could speak any nonsense (utpatang) within no time (Mein andar hi andar bahut ghut rahi thi, apne pati aur mummy papa se nahi keh pa rahi St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 55 thi, kyonki mein janti thi, aise admi pehle hangama karega aur phie sara iljam mere sar par laga kar mujhe hi badnam kar dega, kyonki meine dekha hai yeh kuch bhi utpatang bolne mein jara bhi der nahi lagata).
➢ That it is because of this persistent suffocation that the deceased Rashmi Singh was compelled to commit suicide because she knew that very soon i.e. either today or tomorrow the accused Bharat Singh Rawat would do something to her which she will not be able to tolerate (Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti).
(67) It is writ large from the aforesaid that this young girl of hardly 24 years of age with less than two years of marriage whose husband had been staying in a different city (Mumbai) while she herself was staying with her inlaws in Delhi has chosen the embrace of death despite the fact that she was pregnant and this was on account of the constant and persistent intrafamilial sexual abuse / molestation by none less than her own father in law. This harassment and molestation was not a casual feature but was persistent. The husband of the deceased Rashmi Singh was in a different city i.e. Mumbai. She was totally at the mercy of the overbearing father in law i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. Her relationship with the accused is of fiduciary nature and Bharat Singh Rawat was in a position to dominate St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 56 her will on account of his relationship with her. The deceased realized that with her husband not being around and her predatory father in law always looking for an opportunity to molest her when nobody is around and thereafter cleverly coveringup his illegal acts by appearing perfectly normal she stood little chance in case if she disclosed about these happenings either to her husband or to her parents, for in case if she did so her fatherinlaw i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was capable of shifting the entire blame on her and of creating a scene in the house. It is this constant presence of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat (father in law) around the deceased and his acts of molestation and sexual abuse of the deceased whenever he found an opportunity (the husband of the deceased living in a separate city) and the further threat of an aggravated sexual assault looming large on the head of the deceased that was the proximate cause why the deceased chose death to disgrace. The extent of threat, frustration and suffocation felt by the deceased on account of the repeated acts and threats of the accused are reflected in the suicide note left by the deceased and so also the extent of harassment and torture which the deceased faced from the accused find reflected in her suicide note when she states that ".....anybody who sides with the accused would be a bigger offender than him for he would be guilty of finishing two lives one of whom has not even seen the light of the day (Yese insan ka jo sath dega woh usse bhi bara gunhgar hoga, konki do hatyaon ka pap lagega useh do jindgiya ko khatam hone par majboor hone ka paap, ek ne to abhi tak St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 57 janam bhi nahi liya)..." and further when she goes on to say ".....God will not let him rest in peace (Bhagwan unhe kabhi bhi chain nahi dega)...".
(68) It is pertinent to note that intra familial sexual abuse is a deep seated malady in our social order and a crime which most of the family members tend to conceal. This case is a glaring example of how a young girl hardly married for two years was compelled not only to end her own life but also of her unborn child only because the lustful eyes of her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) had fallen on her and he lost no opportunity to molest and sexually abuse her by taking advantage of his dominating relationship and her vulnerable position. The circumstances of the case speak for themselves. For a young housewife aged 24 years hardly married for less than two years with her husband staying away from her in a different city and her father in law having an evil eye on her and seizing every opportunity to prey upon her, is an instigating situation compelling the victim to take the extreme step of ending her life. Initially the deceased had been a victim of sexual abuse of a lesser degree and there was an impending threat looming large on her head that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to prey upon her and this fact is evident from the suicide note Ex.PW1/A wherein the deceased has mentioned that "....Kuch dino se woh mujhe kiss karte hai aur koi aas pass na ho toh hath bhi lagate hai..." and further when she adds "....Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti....." St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 58 (69) It is in this background that with a persistent impending threat of sexual abuse looming large on her head and fearing social stigmatization and disgrace she rather chose to embrace death and this she did, despite knowing that she was carrying a fetus at the relevant time. The fear that the accused Bharat Singh Rawat could do anything to her anytime was so great that she immediately chose death and this is reflected from her words "....Isi ghutan mein ghutteghutte mein atamhatya karne ke liye majboor ho gayi hu. Aaj nahi toh kal yeh mere sath kuch bhi kar sakta hai aur mein yeh bardast nahi kar sakti. Yese insan ka jo sath dega woh usse bhi bara gunhgar hoga, konki do hatyaon ka pap lagega useh do jindgiya ko khatam hone par majboor hone ka paap, ek ne to abhi tak janam bhi nahi liya......" which clearly reflect her psyche and state of mind and the reason why she chose to commit suicide.
(70) The only defence offered by the accused is that he had caught the deceased sending SMS's and talking to one boy over mobile phone. I note that at one place in the crossexamination the defence offered by the accused is that it is his son i.e. husband of the deceased who caught her telephoning and SMSing to some boy namely Rinku to which he objected as she was having relations with him which fact his son Jai Singh also conveyed to her parents whereas in his own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has stated that he had caught her talking to a boy in the late night hours which fact he had informed to the parents of the deceased. I have considered the defence offered by the accused which on the face of it is St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 59 vague, unconvincing, not probable and apparently an after thought. Firstly it has come in the testimony of the parents and brother of the deceased that there was no such incident nor any such fact was communicated to them. There is no reason to disbelieve the family of the deceased for they were already in a legally advantageous position their daughter having expired (unnatural death) within seven years of marriage and that too in the house of her inlaws. Therefore, in this background if what has been pleaded by the accused (that she was having an affair with some other person) was correct then the family of the deceased were in a position to legally preempt these allegations being leveled on their deceased daughter by invoking special provisions (Section 498A & 304B IPC) which they did not do. Secondly it has also come in the testimony of the parents that the husband of the deceased namely Jai Singh was staying at Mumbai and had only come to them once after the marriage and thereafter had never visited them so there could have been no occasion for him to have made any such complaint. Thirdly it has also come in the testimony of the family of the deceased that this boy on whom the allegations are now being made namely Rinku is the cousin brother of the deceased being the son of maternal uncle who is residing in the same area where the deceased was married. Lastly assuming what the accused is saying is correct then if it was anybody who could have caught her speaking to any man during late night hours it would have been her husband and not the father in law i.e. the accused. Even otherwise with the husband not residing with her, had the deceased any St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 60 relations with any other person there was sufficient opportunity for her to have walked out of the marriage rather than ending her life which is not the case. She was a young girl belonging to a conventional family with certain values and perhaps it is for this reason that she could not tolerate and withstand the objectionable acts and behaviour of her fatherinlaw whom she treated as her own father. I may further note that the husband of the deceased namely Jai Singh has not appeared as a witness before this Court. I am sure if anything of this kind would have happened he would have gone out of his way to defend his father (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) which again is not the case.
(71) This Court cannot ignore the harsh realities of sexual abuse of woman not only within the family and blood relations but also within the family of the inlaws particularly when the husband is not residing with her on account of work exigencies and this I may observe is one such case and in a similar case of intrafamilial sexual abuse where the victim daughter chose to end her life the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of State Vs. Anthony Nikolas reported in 2006 CriLJ 1582 while deprecating the conduct and attitude of the accused who instead of protecting his daughter had cast his lustful eyes on her and was trying to force her to have sexual relationship with him when she ended her life not only held him guilty of the offence under Section 306 and 354 Indian Penal Code but also awarded him the maximum punishment provided for the same. St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 61 (72) I may observe that the cases relating to incest and intrafamilial sexual abuse have to be treated differently for they are offence which are committed in secrecy within the four walls of the house and where the family is anxious to protect the perpetrator of the crime for saving the Family Honour and hence there being Collective Conspiracy of Silence within the family. It is only the victim who knows what she has undergone and can tell about the same. Intrafamilial sexual relationship is never consensual and rooted in the physical as well as familial and other powers which the abuser uses to pressurize his victim. Often in such an act when exposed there is a Disbelief, Denial and CoverUp to save Family Reputation. A young girl of self respect and dignity, conscious of her chastity and family honour would not falsely accuse her own father in law and to expose the entire family to shame at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. There is no reason to disbelieve the version given by the deceased in her suicide note. The deceased at the time of her death was carrying a male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus was 600 gms. It is impossible to believe that she would have embraced death under the given circumstances. Assuming what the accused states is correct that he caught her sending SMSs and making calls to some boy, what was it that the deceased embraced death so easily when it was equally convenient for her to walked out of the marriage. The deceased was an educated and intelligent girl and her suicide note which the forensic report proves has been written in her handwriting, establishes that she was St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 62 feeling extremely suffocated and harassed by the illegal acts of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat that she had chosen to welcome the embrace of death. (73) From the evidence and the material which has come on record the sequence of events which now emerge are as under:
➢ That the marriage of Ms. Rashmi Singh (deceased) was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006.
➢ That husband of Rashmi Singh namely Jai Singh used to reside at Mumbai and the deceased Rashmi Singh was residing at her matrimonial house along with her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) and mother in law.
➢ That on 3.9.2008 in the evening hours Rashmi Singh committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself with the ceiling fan within less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage).
➢ That since the unnatural death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home hence the information was sent to the Executive Magistrate / SDM on which an inquiry was conducted and the family of the deceased including her parents and brother made no allegations against the husband and inlaws of deceased in respect of demand of dowry or harassment. ➢ That initially nobody was aware of the cause / reason of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi Singh nor any suicide note was found at the spot and the dead body of Rashmi Singh was shifted to the St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 63 Mortuary of SGM Hospital.
➢ That on 4.9.2008 before the postmortem examination of the deceased was being conducted when the clothes of the deceased were being removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh a note was recovered from her brassiere / under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide).
➢ That in the said suicide note the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat (accused) of intra familial sexual abuse thereby compelling her to take this extreme step.
➢ That the family members of the deceased i.e. brother and parents identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note which also stands duly confirmed from the forensic examination report.
➢ That before her death on 3.9.2008 the deceased Rashmi Singh had sent a mail to her brother Sandeep Rawat at 6:57 PM of which Sandeep was not aware and came to know of it much later and he then handed over the copy of the same to the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2008 wherein the deceased Rashmi had asked her brother to take care of her parents particularly the mother who was short tempered and also that he should study hard for clearing the CAT examination and do well in life.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 64 ➢ That the above Email sent by the deceased Rashmi to her brother indicates her psyche / state of mind before her death wherein she makes no allegations whatsoever against either her husband or any of her inlaws and only wants that her brother should do well in life and take care of the parents. It is indicative of the fact that she was making preparation for taking an extreme step.
(74) It is writ large from the above that it was the conduct of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat which instigated and enticed the victim to not only end her life but also the life of her fetus which no mother would obviously do. Hence in view of the above discussion I hereby hold the accused Bharat Singh Rawat guilty of repeatedly outraging the modesty of the deceased Rashmi Singh his own daughter in law and intrafamilial sexual abuse thereby abetting the deceased Rashmi Rawat to commit suicide (Section 306 r/w Section 354 Indian Penal Code). Here I may clarify that though no separate charge for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code had been initially framed yet from the evidence which has come on record in the form of the suicide note written by the deceased and duly proved by the prosecution that it has emerged that the proximate cause of the suicidal death of deceased was the act of the accused of repeatedly molesting the victim (i.e. outraging the modesty and committing intrafamilial sexual abuse upon the deceased Rashmi Singh) and hence in terms of the provisions of Section 221 Code of Criminal Procedure, I St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 65 hereby read the provisions of Section 354 IPC along with the provisions of Section 306 IPC.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(75) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 66 show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(76) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses, the following facts stand established:
➢ That the marriage of Ms. Rashmi Singh (deceased) was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006.
➢ That husband of Rashmi Singh namely Jai Singh used to reside at Mumbai and the deceased Rashmi Singh was residing at her matrimonial house along with her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) and mother in law.
➢ That on 3.9.2008 in the evening hours Rashmi Singh committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself with the ceiling fan within less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage).
➢ That since the unnatural death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home hence the information was sent to the Executive Magistrate / SDM on which an inquiry was conducted and the family of the deceased including her parents and brother made no allegations against the husband and inlaws of St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 67 deceased in respect of demand of dowry or harassment. ➢ That initially nobody was aware of the cause / reason of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi Singh nor any suicide note was found at the spot and the dead body of Rashmi Singh was shifted to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital.
➢ That on 4.9.2008 before the postmortem examination of the deceased was being conducted when the clothes of the deceased were being removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh a note was recovered from her brassiere / under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide).
➢ That in the said suicide note the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat (accused) of intra familial sexual abuse thereby compelling her to take this extreme step.
➢ That the family members of the deceased i.e. brother and parents identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note which also stands duly confirmed from the forensic examination report.
➢ That before her death on 3.9.2008 the deceased Rashmi Singh had sent a mail to her brother Sandeep Rawat at 6:57 PM of which Sandeep was not aware and came to know of it later and he then handed over the copy of the same to the Investigating Officer on St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 68 5.9.2008 wherein the deceased Rashmi had asked her brother to take care of her parents particularly the mother who was short tempered and also that he should study hard for clearing the CAT examination and do well in life.
➢ That the above Email sent by the deceased Rashmi to her brother indicates her psyche / state of mind before her death wherein she makes no allegations whatsoever against either her husband or any of her inlaws and only wants that her brother should do well in life and take care of the parents. It is indicative of the fact that she was making preparation for taking an extreme step.
(77) The medical evidence on record proves that the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours thereby establishing that the death of the deceased was suicidal and had taken place in the evening of 3.9.2008. Further, it stands established that on the postmortem examination of Uterus it contained male fetus of 400 gms in weight and 19 cm long total weight of fetus was 600 gms, which is compatible to the contents of the suicide note wherein the deceased had mentioned about this fact and establishes that the deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident. The forensic evidence on record is also compatible to the prosecution case that before her death the deceased had written and left a suicide note which has been proved to be in her handwriting.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 69 (78) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(79) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (80) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate that it was the conduct of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat which instigated and enticed the victim to not only end her life but also the life of her fetus which no mother would obviously do. Hence in view of the above discussion I hereby hold the accused Bharat St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 70 Singh Rawat guilty of repeatedly outraging the modesty of the deceased Rashmi Singh his own daughter in law and intrafamilial sexual abuse thereby abetting the deceased Rashmi Rawat to commit suicide and hence, I hereby hold him guilty of the offence under Section 306 r/w Section 354 Indian Penal Code.
(81) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 18.4.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 12.4.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 71
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 41/2013 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0143142009 State Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat S/o Ummer Singh R/o D15/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No. 581/08 Under Section: 306 IPC Police Station: Sultan Puri Date of conviction: 12.4.2013 Arguments heard on: 18.4.2013 Date of sentence: 20.4.2013 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Bharat Singh Rawat has been produced from Judicial Custody.
ORDER:
This unfortunate case relates to molestation and IntraFamilial Sexual Abuse of the victim Smt. Rashmi Singh Rawat a young girl of 24 years with marriage of less than two years by none else than her own father St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 72 in law i.e. accused Bharat Singh Rawat as a result of which being fed up she decided to end not only her life but also her unborn child. The offence was exposed only when the suicide note was recovered from the body of the deceased before the postmortem.
Ms. Rashmi Singh was married to Jai Singh Rawat son of accused Bharat Singh Rawat (accused before this court) on 10.12.2006 after which she started residing at her matrimonial house i.e. house No. D5/165, Sultan Puri, Delhi along with her inlaws whereas her husband Jai Singh was staying at Mumbai. As per the allegations accused Bharat Singh Rawat the father in law of Smt. Rashmi Rawat frequently outraged her modesty and molested her thereby compelling her to commit suicide on 3.9.2008.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution including the brother & parents of the deceased and also on the basis of medical and forensic evidence on record, this Court vide a detail judgment dated 12.4.2013 held the accused Bharat Singh Rawat guilty of the offence under Section 306 r/w 354 Indian Penal Code. It has been observed by this Court that it stands established that the marriage of Ms. Rashmi Singh (deceased) was solemnized with Jai Singh son of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat on 10.12.2006; that husband of Rashmi Singh namely Jai Singh used to reside at Mumbai and the deceased Rashmi Singh was residing at her matrimonial house along with her father in law (accused Bharat Singh Rawat) and mother in law. It also stands established that on 3.9.2008 in the evening hours Rashmi Singh committed St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 73 suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself with the ceiling fan within less than two years of marriage (within seven years of marriage); that since the unnatural death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home hence the information was sent to the Executive Magistrate / SDM on which an inquiry was conducted and the family of the deceased including her parents and brother made no allegations against the husband and inlaws of deceased in respect of demand of dowry or harassment and nobody was aware of the cause / reason of suicidal death of the deceased Rashmi Singh nor any suicide note was found at the spot; that the dead body of Rashmi Singh was shifted to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital; that on 4.9.2008 before the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted when the clothes of the deceased were being removed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Sh. Sukhbir Singh a note was recovered from her brassiere / under garment which on perusal was found to be a suicide note (i.e. containing reasons why she had committed suicide); that in the said suicide note the deceased had made allegations against her father in law Bharat Singh Rawat (accused) of intrafamilial sexual abuse thereby compelling her to take this extreme step; that the family members of the deceased i.e. brother and parents identified the handwriting of the deceased on the said suicide note which also stands duly confirmed from the forensic examination report. Further, it stands established that before her death on 3.9.2008 the deceased Rashmi Singh had sent a mail to her brother Sandeep Rawat at 6:57 PM of St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 74 which Sandeep was not aware and came to know of it much later and he then handed over the copy of the same to the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2008 wherein the deceased Rashmi had asked her brother to take care of her parents particularly the mother who was short tempered and also that he should study hard for clearing the CAT examination and do well in life; that the above Email sent by the deceased Rashmi to her brother indicated her psyche / state of mind before her death wherein she makes no allegations whatsoever against either her husband or any of her inlaws and only wanted that her brother should do well in life and take care of the parents and was indicative of the fact that she was making preparation for taking an extreme step.
Vide this judgment dated 12.4.2013 this Court observed that the deceased a young girl of hardly 24 years of age with less than two years of marriage whose husband had been staying in a different city (Mumbai) while she herself was staying with her inlaws in Delhi has chosen the embrace of death despite the fact that she was pregnant and this was on account of the constant and persistent intrafamilial sexual abuse / molestation by none less than her own father in law. This harassment and molestation was not a casual feature but was persistent. The husband of the deceased Rashmi Singh was in a different city i.e. Mumbai. She was totally at the mercy of the overbearing father in law i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat. Her relationship with the accused was of fiduciary nature and Bharat Singh Rawat was in a position to dominate her will on account of his St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 75 relationship with her. The deceased realized that with her husband not being around and her predatory father in law always looking for an opportunity to molest her when nobody was around and thereafter cleverly coveringup his illegal acts by appearing perfectly normal she stood little chance in case if she disclosed about these happenings either to her husband or to her parents, for in case if she did so her fatherinlaw i.e. the accused Bharat Singh Rawat was capable of shifting the entire blame on her and of creating a scene in the house. It was this constant presence of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat (father in law) around the deceased and his acts of molestation and sexual abuse of the deceased whenever he found an opportunity (the husband of the deceased living in a separate city) and the further threat of an aggravated sexual assault looming large on the head of the deceased that was the proximate cause why the deceased chose death to disgrace.
In the judgment this Court has also concluded that the medical evidence on record established that the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon antemortem hanging and time since death was 15 hours thereby establishing that the death of the deceased was suicidal and had taken place in the evening of 3.9.2008. Further, the postmortem report confirmed the presence of male fetus of 600 gms and establishes that the deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident. The forensic evidence on record has also been held compatible to the prosecution case that before her death the deceased had written and left a suicide note which has been St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 76 proved to be in her handwriting.
This being the background, it was held by this Court that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate that it was the conduct of the accused Bharat Singh Rawat which instigated and enticed the victim to not only end her life but also the life of her fetus which no mother would obviously do and hence the accused Bharat Singh Rawat has been held guilty of repeatedly outraging the modesty of the deceased Rashmi Singh his own daughter in law and intrafamilial sexual abuse thereby abetting the deceased Rashmi Rawat to commit suicide.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Bharat Singh Rawat is staged to be aged about 61 years having a family comprising of aged wife, two sons and one married daughter. He has studied upto 7th class and was doing a private job in a printing press. Ld. Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Bharat Singh Rawat is a senior citizen and has no criminal antecedents. He has prayed that keeping in view the age of convict a lenient view be taken against him.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for the maximum sentence to be imposed upon the convict submitting that the convict Bharat Singh Rawat who is the father in law of deceased Rashmi Rawat has committed "intra familial sexual abuse" upon her compelling her to not only end her life but that of he unborn child and hence, deserves no leniency.
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 77
I have considered the rival contentions. The Delhi High Court in the case of Khem Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2008 (IV) JCC 2497 enumerated the principle factors to be taken into account by the courts while assessing as to what could be the appropriate sentence in a given case. Some of the factors enumerated are (i) Criminal and Crime, (ii) Manner of Commission of offence, (iii) Violence involved, (iv) Whether the offender or accused was in a position of fiduciary, trust or exploited a social or family relationship, (v) State of victim, impact of crime on the victim.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of quantum of sentence in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gajender Singh reported in 2008 (III) JCC 2061 observed as under:
"... The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property for the people is an essential functions of the state. It could be achieved through the instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins...."
In a similar case of intrafamilial sexual abuse where the victim daughter chose to end her life the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of State Vs. Anthony Nikolas reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 1582 while dealing with the aspect of sentence to be imposed relied upon the authority St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 78 in the case of Ravaji Vs. State reported in 2004 Crl. L.J. 658 wherein it was observed that "....It is the nature of and gravity of the crime but not the criminal which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime, which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against the society....."
The Hon'ble Court also relied upon the observations made by Lord Denning appearing before the Royal Commission on 'Capital Punishment' wherein he expressed following views:
".... Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing and in order to maintain the respect for law, it is essential that punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of the citizen. For them it is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being deterrent or in affirmative or preventive and nothing else. The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists adequate punishment because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is deterrent or not...."
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2004 Crl. L.J. 658 wherein it has been observed observed that:
"....... The principle of proportion between crime and punishment is a principle of just deserts that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable."
As a principle of Criminal Justice, it is hardly less familiar St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 79 or less important than the principle that only the guilty shall be punished. Indeed the requirement that punishment shall not be disproportionately great, which is called as the principle of just deserts is dictated by the same principle that does not allow punishment of the innocent, for any punishment in excess of what the criminal's conduct deserves is a punishment without guilt. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion in arriving at correct decision on the sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more supple consideration of culpability that are raised by the special facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts in essence affirm that punishment which always ought to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined also by other considerations, like correctional need of the perpetrator. One of the considerations is the desirability of keeping the accused out of circulation and sometimes even the tragic results of his case. The proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and in spite of different views, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentence. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought to be a measure of tolerance that is unwarranted and unwise."
And hence in said case i.e. State Vs. Anthony Nikolas (Supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court while directing the awarding of maximum punishment to the convict observed that:
"....... a father, who is required to protect his daughter, has cast his lustful eyes on her and was trying to force her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a modest young girl, St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 80 though the deceased Sunita tried to resist, ultimately, she could not do so and thought to end her life itself prematurely by setting on fire after pouring kerosene on herself. The conduct and attitude of the accused, ultimately resulting in nipping a young life in bud, deserves the maximum punishment. ...."
In the above case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while deprecating the conduct and attitude of the convict who instead of protecting his daughter had cast his lustful eyes on her and compelled her to have sexual relationship with him on which she ended her life not only held him guilty of the offence under Section 306 and 354 Indian Penal Code but also awarded him the maximum punishment provided for the same.
This Court cannot ignore the harsh realities of sexual abuse of woman not only within the family amongst blood relations but also within the family of the inlaws. Intra Familial Sexual Abuse is a deep seated malady in our social order and a crime which most of the family members tend to conceal. This is one such case wherein a young girl hardly married for two years was compelled not only to end her own life but also of her unborn child only because the lustful eyes of her father in law (convict Bharat Singh Rawat) fell on her and he lost no opportunity to molest and sexually abuse her by taking advantage of his dominating relationship and her vulnerable position. The circumstances of the case speak for themselves.
I may observe that cases relating to incest and intrafamilial sexual abuse have to be treated differently for they are offence which are St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 81 committed in secrecy within the four walls of the house and where the family is anxious to protect the perpetrator of the crime for saving the Family Honour and hence there being Collective Conspiracy of Silence within the family. It is only the victim who knows what she has undergone and can tell about the trauma which she has faced in the hands of the perpetrator. Intrafamilial sexual relationship is never consensual and rooted in the physical as well as familial and other powers which the abuser uses to pressurize his victim. Often in such an act when exposed there is a Disbelief, Denial and CoverUp to save Family Reputation. A young girl of self respect and dignity, conscious of her chastity and family honour would not falsely accuse her own father in law and to expose the entire family to shame at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. The victim at the time of her death was pregnant and was aware of this fact that by her act she was taking away the life of an unborn child and it is difficult to believe that she would have embraced death under the given circumstances. The convict Bharat Singh Rawat the father in law of the deceased by taking advantage of his dominating relationship with the deceased daughter in law by his willful conduct created a situation for her which virtually pushed her into a desperate situation of no return and compelled her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide.
There is something seriously wrong with our social setup. If a woman is not safe in her own house, she is safe nowhere. Instead of being a shield to his young pregnant daughter in law in the absence of his son who St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 82 was away to a different city on account of work exigencies, he rather took advantage of the situation. The trick was very simple. Either the deceased submits to his evil designs or else face social disgrace and defamation. It is this realization which impelled the deceased to end her life finding herself alone and helpless in wardingoff and resisting the advances of her father in law (as reflected from the Suicide Note). Many a women in our society have silently suffered this kind of sexual exploitation by the husband's family as a matter of right and it is revolting to witness this commoditization of women as an object of sexual gratification. The sufferings which the deceased must have undergone must be immense and unimaginable that she chose death rather than to submitting to evil designs of her father in law. What the convict has done with his own daughter in law is sickening and unpardonable. Let alone leniency the convict Bharat Singh Rawat deserves exemplary punishment and the court shall be unsparing in this regard. I hence award the following sentences to the convict Bharat Singh Rawat:
For the offence under Section 306 read with 354 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 83 given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached along with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.4.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
St. Vs. Bharat Singh Rawat, FIR No. 581/08, PS Sultanpuri Page No. 84