Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit Page No.1 on 15 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG: ASJ-03:
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
SC No.129/11
State
... Complainant
Versus
Amit
S/o Sh. Raj Pal
R/o 592/1, Gali Teliyan
Teliwara, Delhi-110006
... Accused
FIR No.80/13
PS : Timarpur
U/S 308/323/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 15.02.2011
Date of Arguments : 11.11.2014
Date of Decision : 15.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Police was informed by Ct. Virender Kumar, Santari posted in the police station that one woman was set into fire in front of Masjid near police station. ASI Kishan Chand and HC Sachin had come out from the police station and set off the fire with the help of shopkeepers there and taken the victim to the Hindu Rao Hosital FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.1 in a Maruti Car of SI Rajesh Kumar and got admitted her in the hospital. Doctor declared the injured unfit for statement. It was also mentioned that in the MLC, burn injury on all over the body. Crime team was informed. Family members of the victim was informed through beat HC Yogesh. Ganga Ram had come to the police station who had disclosed that the victim was his daughter and she had married with Amit fifteen days ago. SDM Santosh Kumar was informed. Crime team inspected the scene of crime, scene was photographed. Statement of one Viresh was recorded who had stated that he was present at his shop at about 4.00 p.m. One woman had come in front of the Masjid. She was wet and set herself into fire and ran towards the police station. He and his neighbour Sandeep had put the Bori. Liyakat Ali had also apprised the said fact. Articles from the scene of crime were taken at the instructions of SDM. Patient was referred to Safdarjung hospital. ASI had also reached to Safdarjung hospital where doctor declared her unfit for statement. In the hospital, statement of Ganga Ram was recorded, who stated that some 15 days ago his daughter had gone out of her house for some work and she did not return back. FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.2 He thought that she might have gone to her sister's house at Bhajanpura. On the next day, four women from the Gali Teliman, Teliwara had come to his house and apprised him that his daughter had taken his son Amit. About one week prior, one person had come to his house and told that his daughter Anita had got married with Amit. On 2.2.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. Anita apprised that she was got married with Amit and he and his family members had brought Amit and his daughter to the police station. Compromise was entered in the police station. Anita had come with him and did not go to her house due to fear, rather than she went to her sister. Today Anita had gone to Gurgaon for taking her goods where she was living after marriage. Today, he had reached to the police station and came to know that Anita had set herself into fire in front of the Masjid. In the hospital, Anita had apprised him that she had set herself into fire out of anger Statement of her sister Sharda was also recorded. The above said entry was kept pending. Thereafter, on the next day, Anita was expired in the hospital. Statement of Ganga Ram was recorded. Police registered a case under Section 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, police FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.3 collected evidence, recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused Amit and Usha in this case. After being heard, only accused Amit was charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Accused Usha was discharged. Accused Amit pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has relied upon as many as thirty two witnesses, namely, Ct. Sachin, HC Satya Pal, Ct. Udayan, SI Dhiraj, HC Naresh, Santosh Kumar, Ganga Ram, Smt. Bharpai, ASI Jagwanti, Ct. Ramesh, Viresh Bansal, ASI KrishanChander, Sandeep, Smt. Sharda, SI Rajeev Kumar, ASI Roshni, Smt. Maya, Rajender Kumar, Prakash Rai, Harish Kumar, Nodal Officer Vodafone, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices, Ct. Virender, Dr. A.K. Banka, Dr. Prem Kumar, Dr. Pradeep, Dr. M.S. Dahiya, Naveen Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ct. Ramesh, Inspector Sudesh Dahiya and Inspector Kuldeep. However, the prosecution had examined twenty eight witnesses in all.
3. Prosecution evidence consists of three set of evidence. First set of evidence consists of oral testimony of Smt. Bharpai, Ganga FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.4 Ram, Sharda, Viresh Bansal, Maya, Rajinder, Parkash Raj, Harish Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Sh. Naveen Sharma examined as PW2, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13 and PW25 respectively. Second set of evidence consists of testimony of Dr. Prem Kumar and Dr. Anil Kumar examined as PW20 and PW22. Remaining witnesses are police officials who had carried out the investigation in the present case.
4. PW1 being the Executive Magistrate had rushed to the spot after receiving the information. He came to know that one lady was removed to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital. In front of the shop burnt/ unburnt match sticks were found scattered. He came to know that injured was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. He rushed to Safdarjung Hospital and found the patient unfit to give statement. He had recorded the statement of Ganga Ram, father of the deceased Anita as Ex.PW1/A. He had also recorded the statement of Smt. Bharpai and Smt. Sharda in the Safdarjung Hospital. He had also conducted the enquiry from the shopkeeper and recorded the statement of Viresh Bansal and Sandeep as Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. In the meanwhile, he received a telephonic call from FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.5 the SHO that the patient was expired. He had made endorsement on the statement of Ganga Ram on Ex.PW1/A and directed the SHO to take action.
5. PW23 had informed the duty officer of the PS after seeing the lady coming from the Masjid side having setting herself into fire. He had called the Duty officer of the police station and in the meanwhile, Chitha Munshi Sachin and he himself had thrown the blanket upon the lady. He had also poured the water as well as sand upon the lady for extinguishing the fire. PW4 was working as duty officer in PS Bara Hindu Rao on 3.2.2009. On that day at about 4.07 p.m. he had received a message from the PCR which was reduced into writing vide DD No.13-A and the same was handed over to the ASI Kishan Chand. He had brought the original DD entry register and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW4/A. PW16 being the duty officer had scribed the FIR and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW16/A. PW17 was given rukka for registration of the case and came back at the spot. He had given the rukka to the duty officer and got registered the case.
6. PW5 alongwith ASI Kishan Chand went to the spot after FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.6 receiving the information recorded vide DD No.13-A and they extinguished the fire with the help of public persons. ASI Kishan Chand took that lady to the Hindu Rao Hospital. He had left the spot for its supervision. After sometimes, IO alongwith SHO and SDM came to the spot and as per the directions of the SDM, certain things lying on the spot were sealed with the seal of KC. The articles lying at the spot were burnt and unburnt match sticks, two bottles having kerosene residue, one currency note of Rs.50/-. PW14 was posted as constable at Bara Hindu Rao Hospital on 4.2.2009 at about 9.30 a.m. HC Satpal handed over the DD No.11- A to him for delivering the same to the ASI Krishan Chand, who was present in Safdarjung Hospital. He had handed over the DD No.11-A to ASI Kishan Chand. At about 2.20 p.m. ASI Kishan Chand handed over one rukka to Ct. Uddyan for registration of the case. He further deposed that on 17.3.2009, he had deposited the viscera in the FSL Rohini vide road certificate No.35/21/09. PW15 had taken the injured with the help of SI Rajeev and WASI Roshni to the Hindu Rao Hospital after extinguishing the fire. Executive Magistrate was informed. Injured was unfit for statement. Crime FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.7 team reached, they conducted their proceedings. At the spot, they seized match stick, two bottles having some kerosene oil, one lady sandel, one currency note of Rs.50/- in burn condition, some pieces of burnt clothes by making separate pulanda. He also reached to the Safdarjung Hospital where the patient was referred in his presence. Executive Magistrate asked the doctor whether the patient was fit for statement. Patient was declared unfit. PW15 prepared the rukka after the death of the deceased in the hospital. Thereafter, he handed over all the documents to Inspector Kuldeep Singh, who had taken the investigation of this case.
7. PW18 had also rushed to the spot after receiving the information on 3.2.2009 about the lady sat herself into fire in front of the Masjid near the police station. He put the soil and water over the lady to extinguish the fire. He made efforts to stop the TSR passing from that way for taking lady to the hospital but no TSR driver was willing to stop. He accompanied by ASI Roshni took that lady to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital in his vehicle. PW21 was handed over the DD No.11-A by the duty officer for delivering the same to the ASI Kishan Chand at Safdarjung Hospital. He had FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.8 handed over the same to the ASI Kishan Chand. On 17.3.2009, he had collected the viscera box with the seal of SJH and sample seal of SJH through road certificate No.35/21/09 from MHC(M) and deposited the same at the FSL Rohini.
8. PW26 was Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team. He had inspected the scene of crime and proved the report as Ex.PW26/A. PW3 had taken eleven photographs from different angles being photographer of the crime team and proved the photographs as Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-11 and its negatives as Ex.PW3/B-1 to Ex.PW3/B-11.
9. PW19 is the Nodal officer of Vodafone Mobile Services Ld. He had brought the original prepaid application form of mobile no. 9999485881 9873288405 and 9811143319 issued to Anita, Amit and Naveen Sharma respectively. He had proved the CDR of these numbers. All these numbers pertaining to the period from 01.11.2009 to 07.02.2009 running into seven pages, four pages and 25 pages respectively as Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW19/F.
10. PW28 is Lady Inspector Sudesh. She deposed that on 3.3.2009 at the direction of the SHO PS Bara Hindu Rao, she had FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.9 gone to the Hindu Rao Hospital where Anita was found admitted in burnt condition. Anita was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital by the doctor of Hara Hindu Rao Hospital. She alongwith SHO and other staff went to Safdarjung Hospital. Doctor declared Anita fit for statement. She had recorded the statement of Anita in question and answer forms because Anita was not able to tell anything in explanatory form. She obtained the thumb impression of Anita below her statement already Ex.PW15/A. She had handed over the statement of Anita to ASI Kishan Chand.
11. PW27 is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 04.02.2009 he was entrusted the investigation of this case. Inquest proceedings had already been done in this case by the SDM with the help of ASI Kishan and Inspector Sudesh Kumari. He deposed that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW27/A. He had recorded the statement of PWs correctly. He searched the accused but he had not found. He collected the documents qua missing report lodged by Rajpal, father of the accused, wireless message, photographs of the accused, statement of Ganga Ram, another copy of DD no.49 and proved the same as Ex.PW27/B collectively. He had sent the FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.10 request for the call detail of the phone number to the service provider of the concerned telephone number. He analyzed the call detail of the accused bearing no.9250794410, 9873288405 and another phone of the accused which he had taken in the name of other person bearing no.9210757508 and of the deceased bearing no.9999495881. He deposed that he received the photographs from the photographer who had taken the photographs at the spot, examined the witnesses. Case property was deposited in FSL for examination and report. On 7.4.2009, the postmortem report was received, the same is already Ex.PW20/A. He had also obtained the report from the FSL regarding the exhibits deposited by him. The same is Ex.PW27/E.
12. PW22 Dr. Anil Kumar Banka, while posted as CMO in Hindu Rao Hospital had examined the injured Anita when brought by the police with the alleged history of burn injury. On local examination, he found deep burn injuries on all over the body from head to toe with smell of kerosene oil present. He proved the MLC as Ex.PW22/A. PW20 had conducted the postmortem of the deceased Anita who was expired at Safdarjung Hospital. PW20 FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.11 deposed that he commenced the postmortem at about 1.10 p.m. and concluded by 2.00 p.m. The dead body was 5.1 inch tall of average built. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. Burn injury was present all over the body except both soles. Line of redness anathema and blackening was involved in the area of burn and the deceased was having 99% burn. On internal examination, brain, lungs, liver, spleen, kidney and pancreas were found congested. Stomach was found containing liquid 100 ml. Cause of death was due to shock following ante-mortem thermal burn injuries. Scalp hair was preserved to rule out the presence of Kerosene oil. Blood and viscera were also preserved and handed over to the IO in sealed condition with sample seal. He had proved the postmortem report running into two pages in his handwriting as Ex.PW20/A.
13. PW13 was Pujari of Arya Samaj Mandir. He deposed that on 14.09.2009, Amit and Anita came to him. He had solemnized the marriage of Amit and Anita after finding that they want to perform the marriage with their own free Will. He proved the marriage certificate as Ex.PW13/A issued by him and identified his FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.12 signatures at point A. PW25 deposed that he got solemnized the marriage of Amit and Anita in Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. Both Amit and Anita wanted to get their marriage registered, marriage certificate was given to him. He deposed that on 14.3.2009, he had handed over the marriage certificate of Amit and Anita to the IO which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW12 deposed that mother of the accused used to work at his office as sweeper and accused used to come to their office. Accused wanted to get married and he asked to witness the marriage. Initially, he refused to become the witness but lateron he agreed as a witness to the marriage performed at Arya Samaj Mandir.
14. PW9 & PW10 are the husband and wife to whom the accused alongwith a girl approached for taking a room on rent on 14.1.2009 and PW9 had given a room on rent to them in presence of PW10.
15. PW11 deposed that on 17.01.2009, he was working as supervisor with M/s Bipul Green, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. On that day, accused Amit came to his office and asked for a job. As FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.13 there was vacancy, the accused started job as security guard at M/s Bipul Green. His duty hours were from 8.00 a.m. till 8.00 p.m. he deposed that on 02.02.2009, three four persons came there and stated themselves to be parents of accused Amit and they had taken him with them. On the next date i.e. 03.02.2009, wife of the accused Amit had come to him and she took the jacket of the accused. He had handed over the photocopy of the duty register to the police. He had proved the entry made by him in his hand writing as Ex.PW11/A-1 to Ex.PW11/A-13. PW8 had witnessed the incident while being present at his shop of spectacles situated at 8792/3, Pul Bangash, Delhi. He deposed that on 3rd February at about 3.00- 4.00 p.m. he was sitting at his shop. He saw a woman in wet clothes. Suddenly, that woman took out a matchbox and lit herself and ran towards the police station Bara Hindu Rao. Police officials PS of Bara Hindu Rao also tried to extinguish the fire from the body of that lady with water and blanket. Police officials took that lady in their van to some hospital. On the same day, SDM had also reached at his shop and had recorded his statement.
16. PW2, PW3 and PW7 was mother, father and sister of the FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.14 deceased. PW2 deposed that prior to the death of her daughter Anita, mother of accused Amit alongwith her four daughters came to their house and threatened them that her deceased daughter Anita had married to the accused Amit and they will not spare her and kill her. However, he did not depose anything. On further being cross examined by the ld. Addl. PP. He deposed that after hearing the death of her daughter Anita, she alongwith her husband and youngest daughter Sharda visited the hospital.
17. PW6 deposed that his elder daughter was got married with one Bharat Kumar in the year 2004-05 due to matrimonial differences with her husband she came to the parental house and started living with them with her daughter. Accused Amit started chasing his daughter and threatening her. Finally, accused Amit married his daughter Anita in January, 2009 in the court. He came to know about the said marriage when the mother of the accused Amit alongwith her daughters came to their house. He alongwith his wife went to the PS Bara Hindu Rao and reported the matter to the police but police did not take any action and no complaint was registered in the PS. On 3.2.2009, one police official Yogesh came FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.15 to his house from PS Bara Hindu Rao and asked him to visit the police station. He accompanied that police official at the gate of police station, SHO of PS told them that 'Tumhari beti Jal gai hai"
and she was taken to a hospital at Pahari Dheeraj, where he came to know that his daughter had been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. He rushed to the Safdarjung Hospital, where doctor told him that his daughter was expired. After marriage, his daughter Anita alongwith her daughter started living with accused Amit in a house at Gurgon. He further deposed that one day prior to the death of his daughter, she came to the house of his another daughter Sharda living at Bhajanpura to drop her daughter. In the house of Sharda, Anita received a call from Amit on her mobile and Amit told her to bring his luggage alongwith clothes, utensils, etc. to handover to him at Azad Market. On the next day, i.e. on 3.9.2009 his daughter Anita brought the articles and luggage of Amit as well as her from the house at Gurgaon and came to the house of his another daughter Sharda and from there she went to a place near PS Bara Hindu Rao to hand over the articles to the accused Amit. One day prior to the death of his daughter Anita, they were called in the PS FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.16 by the police as police informed them that they had caught Anita and Amit. He had seen his daughter alongwith accused Amit, his father and few relatives. Certain talks were held there and after that, his daughter went to the house of his another daughter Sharda and accused Amit left with his father. He further deposed that in the PS, a document was executed in writing regarding the said compromise. The same is Ex.PW6/A. Since his daughter was feeling ashamed, so she went to the house of his another daughter Sharda.
18. PW7 is the sister of the deceased. She deposed that 15 days prior to 3.2.2009, Anita had come to her house in Bhajanpura and asked to accompany her to Tis Hazari Court as she had married Amit and he was required to become a witness of their marriage. She alongwith her sister Anita came to the Tis Hazari Court and met her lawyer, where her signatures were obtained on two three papers and her photograph was also taken by the lawyer. After about 15 days of this, the family members of the accused Amit including Amit and her sister Anita went to the PS Bara Hindu Rao and from his parental side, only his father was there. Accused Amit FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.17 stated in the PS that he had not married Anita. Certain compromise was made in the PS and thereafter, accused Amit went to his house and Anita came to his house at Bhajanpura alongwith her five years old daughter, who was born to her from the previous marriage of Anita. Anita told her that "Amit Shadi se Mukar Gaya Hai' and he did not want to keep her with him and was obeying his family members. Next day, her sister Anita went to Gurgaon to fetch her clothes as well as the clothes of her daughter, where she was living with the accused Amit as husband and wife after marriage. Anita left her daughter at her house. After two or three hours, Anita came back to her house alongwith clothes brought by her from her Gurgaon house. Thereafter she received the telephonic calls from the accused Amit who was asking her to handover his clothes, mobile phone and charger to him at his house. Accused Amit kept on telephoning his sister Anita continuously. Her sister Anita got nervous and immediately after that she left her house with the above said things alongwith her articles including clothes, leaving her daughter at her house. Thereafter, she did not receive any telephonic call from her sister FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.18 Anita. However, in the evening, she received a call from her mother, who informed him that Anita had been set on fire.
19. In order to afford an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused claimed innocence and false implication. However, he did not prefer to examine any witness in defence.
20. On behalf of the State, Ld. Addl. PP has presented the facts and stated that the prosecution has proved the factum of marriage held between the deceased and accused Amit. After marriage, both the parties had lived together for about 15 days at Gurgaon in a rented premises, which fact has been proved by PW9 and PW10. The prosecution further proved the fact that it was the accused's family members who had opposed the marriage and had come to the house of the accused and threatened to kill them. Even one day prior to the incident, both Amit and Anita had brought to the police station and both of them had gone from the police station alongwith their family member. He further deposed that it was accused Amit who had denied the marriage and had demanded his FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.19 articles from Anita and for this Anita had set herself into fire. He has submitted that due to disturbance caused by accused Amit, deceased had committed suicide. Even the deceased in his statement had blamed all this things to the accused Amit. PW28 Inspector Sudesh had recorded the statement of the deceased at Safdarjung Hospital in question answer form and proved the same as Ex.PW15/A. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused Amit under Section 306 IPC.
21. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused Ms. Seema had rebutted the arguments stating that statement allegedly given by Anita to Inspector Sudesh cannot be termed as dying declaration because ASI Kishan Chand had not mentioned the above said facts of recording the statement of Anita by Inspector Sudesh, even at about 10.30 p.m. when he lodged the arrival entry in the police station. She further stated if Inspector Sudesh had handed over the statement to ASI Kishan Chand, then he must have mentioned the above said facts in the arrival entry in the PS which he lodged about 10.30 p.m. Even the police had kept the matter pending and did not register the case even then statement FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.20 was with him. Therefore, she submitted that authenticity of this document is in doubtful. Moreover, there is no conversion took place between the deceased and the accused on 3.2.2009 which the sister of the deceased had alleged. She had submitted that virtually, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. She had relied upon Pallem Dental Victor @ Victor Hanter and others Vs. State of A.P. 1997(1) Crimes 499, where it was held that to attract offence, intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased is necessary. She further relied upon State Vs. Chander Mohan and other 2012 III AD (Crl.) DHC 334, where it was held that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any act or omission attributable on the part of the respondents to persuade, incite, goad compel or instigate the deceased to commit offence of taking her own life.
22. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and analyze the evidence. Accused herein had been charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC requires to be reproduced:
"Abetment of suicide - If any person commits FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.21 suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The word 'abetment' has been defined in Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC requires to be reproduced herein.
"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 place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
23. In order to constitute the abetment, the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally' aided the commission of crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without interposition of the alleged abettor, is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 I.P.Code.
24. Here, it is an admitted fact that the deceased had set herself into fire while pouring the kerosene oil in front of Masjid near police station Bara Hindu Rao. This fact has been proved by the prosecution by evidence of PW8, who was present at the shop and FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.22 seen the deceased setting herself into fire. At that time, the deceased was alive. The factum of marriage of the deceased and accused had been proved on record. It is further admitted fact that the deceased was died due to ante-mortem injuries having 99% burn injuries. However, prosecution claims that the deceased made statement to the lady Inspector Sudesh where she had blamed for her death to the accused. However, the authenticity of this statement recorded by the Inspector Sudesh is doubtful. The deceased was not in a position to give any statement at 5.15 p.m. or 8.00 p.m. on 03.02.2009 and the same was reflected from the document Ex.PW22/A as well as in the deposition of PW1 SDM, who had reached at the hospital at about 8.10 a.m. As per the prosecution, Inspector Sudesh had reached before arrival of the SDM at Safdarjung Hospital. On the instructions of the SHO, she had recorded the statement Ex.PW5/A of the deceased where the deceased had stated that she set herself into fire and she had quarreled with her husband, but surprisingly the above said fact had not been mentioned by ASI Kishan Chand who had lodged the DD No.18-A of his arrival in the PS at 10.30 p.m. on 03.02.2009. FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.23 Meaning thereby upto 10.20 p.m. there is no statement of any kind of Anita with the police. In case the statement of Anita was there, then ASI Kishan Chand must have recorded those facts in the arrival entry Ex.PW15/B. It appears that the statement has been taken lateron in order to give leverage to the police because of the fact that a lady had set herself into fire in front of Masjid near the police station.
25. Now, coming to the another arguments of the prosecution.
The prosecution has taken the plea that PW7 deposed that there was a talk of accused Amit and deceased over the telephone and Amit had talked with the deceased on 2.3.2009 but the prosecution itself had stated in the charge sheet that after settlement in the police station, there was no conversation between the deceased and the accused on their mobile phone and it was concluded by the police on analyzing the call detail record of the mobile phone of accused and deceased. Therefore, the testimony of PW7 in this respect does not inspire confidence that accused Amit had asked to return the goods on telephone from her deceased sister and for this reason, her sister had committed suicide.
FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.24
26. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused Amit for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Accused is acquitted from the charge under Section 306/34 IPC. His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled and discharged. However, accused is directed to furnish bail bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. File is consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On 15.11.2014 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.25 FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit PS : Bara Hindu Rao 15.11.2014 Present: Ld. Addl. PP (Substitute) for the State.
Accused Amit is on bail.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced, accused Amit is acquitted from the charge under Section 306/34 IPC. Bail bond and surety bond of the accused stands cancelled and discharged. However, accused is directed to furnish bail bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. File is consigned to record room.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)/ Delhi.
15.11.2014 FIR No. 16/09 State Vs. Amit Page No.26