Delhi District Court
Judgment vs Balbir (Acquitted) on 8 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDRA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0157802004
Sessions Case No. : 84/2012
FIR No. : 305/2003
Under Sections : 304B/498A/34 IPC
Police Station : New Usmanpur
In the matter of :
STATE
Versus
1. BALBIR (Father-in-Law)
W/o Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o House No. 235, Gali No. 03
Chuna Bhatti, Modinagar, U.P
2. BEERMATI (Mother-in-Law)
W/o Sh. Balbir
R/o House No. 235, Gali No. 03
Chuna Bhatti, Modinagar, U.P
3. RAJIV (Husband)
S/o Sh. Balbir
R/o House No. 235, Gali No. 03
Chuna Bhatti, Modinagar, U.P
4. REKHA (Sister-in-law/Nanand) . . . Accused Persons
W/o Sh. Pawan
R/o H. No. 2-C/460, Madhavpuram
Sector-3, Meerut, U.P
Date of Institution : 17/10/12
Date of committal : 19/02/03
Date of reserving judgment : 08/08/13
Date of pronouncement : 08/08/13
FIR No. : 305/03 Page 1 of 34
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05/11/03 on receipt of DD No. 2A, SI Pramod alongwith Ct. Satvir went to H. No. J-49, Gali No. 2, Jai Prakash Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that deceased Savita was brought by her father Omkar Nath from her matrimonial home at Modi Nagar to Delhi in ill-health and unconscious condition who died on reaching her parental home. Ld. SDM was informed by the IO. SDM came at the spot and got the dead body of deceased Savita preserved in GTB Hospital and conducted proceedings U/s 176 Cr.PC. Postmortem of dead body was got conducted. Complaint dated 22/12/03 of father of deceased was sent to the police station by the SDM Seelampur for necessary action. Contents of the complaint dated 22/12/03 are as under :-
"It is submitted that the marriage of applicant's daughter, Savita Verma was solemnised on 06/12/01 with Rajiv S/o Balbir, R/o Nand Nagri, Chuna Bhatti, Gali No. 2, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Applicant spent approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- in the said marriage and household articles, clothes, utensils, jewellery, etc were given as istridhan. After some time of her marriage, her husband Rajiv, father-in-law Balbir, mother-in-law Veerwati, sister-in-law (Nand) Rekha, brother-in- law (Dewar) Rinku and brother-in-law (Nandoi) Pawan started commenting on her for bringing insufficient dowry and also tortured her demanding dowry. They also demanded Rs. 50,000/- for construction of a separate house. In January 2003 itself, I gave Rs. 10,000/- to the husband of my daughter but despite that they started harassing my daughter. My daughter told me several times on phone that her in-laws make demand for money, either you give them money else they could do something wrong with me.FIR No. : 305/03 Page 2 of 34
I made to understand my daughter as well as my son-in-law several times but despite that on 22/10/03 her husband Rajiv, father-in-law Balbir, mother-in-law Beermati, sister-in-law Rekha, brother-in-law (Nandoi) Pawan and brother-in-law (dewar) Rinku tried to kill her by hanging due to greed of dowry. She was admitted to Lokpriya Hospital, Modi Nagar. My elder daughter whose matrimonial home is at Modi Nagar, went to see her plot at Chuna Bhatti came to know the above incident, who informed through phone to my neighbour Usha, who in turn informed us.
Thereafter, my wife Ram Dulari, sons Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar and Suman wife of my elder son went to Lok Priya Hospital, Modi Nagar where husband, mother and father-in-law, nand and nandoi of my daughter Savita met us outside the hospital. From the hospital records, we came to know that my daughter Savita Verma has been admitted by the name of Savita Sharma and at that time she was in ICU. Since the condition of my daughter was serious, on our as well as Doctors insistence husband of Savita agreed to shift her to GTB Hospital, Shahdara. In the meanwhile, my elder son informed the police at 100 number. Thereafter, two police officials from PS Modi Nagar came and told to save the life of the daughter first legal action would be taken later on. My family members took Savita to GTB Hospital. On 31/10/03 in our absence Rajiv and his father took my daughter to their house at Modi Nagar. This fact came to our knowledge from the administration of GTB Hospital. Thereafter, we came to Modi Nagar and requested them to shift my daughter to hospital but they refused.
Thereafter, on 04/11/03 at about 10:30 p.m, on the direction of Sr. Superintendent of Police and with the help of police officials of PS: Modi Nagar, we took my daughter to our house but on the way itself she took her last breath. Postmortem on the dead body of my deceased daughter was got conducted by PS Usmanpur on 06/11/03 at GTB FIR No. : 305/03 Page 3 of 34 Hospital. On receipt of dead body of Savita we informed her in-laws over telephone as well as in person but they did not come at the cremation ceremony and stated that they have no concern either with my daughter or with us. I am confident that my daughter has been killed by hanging by her husband Rajiv Kumar, mother-in-law Beermati, sister-in-law Rekha, brother-in-law (nandoi) Pawan and brother-in-law (dewar) Rinku due to greed of dowry. Since then I am roaming around police station. Despite the fact that my daughter has been killed by her in-laws and husband, police officials are not getting the case registered. All the accused are roaming freely despite committing murder. We also, time and again, told the police officials at GTB Hospital to register our complaint who replied that after recording the statement of girl by SDM, complaint would be registered. After death of my deceased daughter, we requested the police officials of PS Usmanpur for registering the complaint then it was replied that after recording of statement by the SDM and as per his order complaint would be registered. In view of the above circumstances, it is requested that order be given to the PS concerned for registering the case and arresting the accused persons."
2. After perusal of the above said complaint by the Inspector direction was given to the Duty Officer for registering the case U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC and investigation of the case was marked to SI Pramod Kumar.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons namely Rinku Verma (not arrested/proclaimed offender), Pawan (not arrested/proclaimed offender), Rekha (not arrested/proclaimed offender), Rajiv, Balbir and Veermati FIR No. : 305/03 Page 4 of 34 U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Vide order dated 01/10/04 accused Rinku, Pawan and Rekha were declared proclaimed offenders by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against the accused Rinku Verma and Rekha. Subsequently, on 13/09/06 accused Rekha was arrested being proclaimed offender and supplementary charge-sheet against her was also filed.
4. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons namely Rajiv, Balbir and Beermati committed the case to the court of Sessions vide order dated 26/06/04.
5. My Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 09/03/05 charged accused Balbir, Beermati and Rajiv for the offences punishable U/s 498A and 304B IPC both r/w Sec. 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Rekha was subsequently charged by my Ld. Predecessor on 12/05/07 for the offences punishable U/s 498A and 304B IPC both r/w Sec. 34 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Rekha was also charged on 23/03/13 for the offence punishable U/s 174-A IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses.
(a) The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-
i) PW1 Smt. Ram Dulari (wrongly mentioned as PW1) is the mother of deceased. She deposed, inter alia, that her deceased daughter Savita was married to accused Rajeev on 06/12/01. After marriage of Savita, she resided at her matrimonial FIR No. : 305/03 Page 5 of 34 home with her husband and in-laws i.e father-in-
law Balbir, mother-in-law Beermati and husband Rajeev. Apart from these accused persons brother-in-law Rinku, Nanand Rekha and her husband Pawan were also residing at her matrimonial home. She also deposed regarding torture and harassment of her daughter at the hands of accused persons for demand of dowry.
She deposed that her daughter used to tell her about the torture and harassment at the hands of accused persons. Accused Balbir on the instigation of his wife Veer Wati also used to harass her daughter. All accused used to beat her daughter and accused Balbir Singh used to abuse her daughter Savita. All the accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- from they through her daughter Savita few days before her death. Earlier to this demand all the accused persons demanded Rs. 40,000/- from them through her daughter after 4-5 months of her marriage and they had given the said amount to the accused persons. She further deposed that after about one year and nine months of the marriage of her daughter, all the accused persons had attempted to strangulate her daughter Savita. Thereafter, she was admitted in hospital at Modi Nagar from where she was referred to GTB Hospital. She remained in GTB Hospital for 15-16 days, from where she was got discharged by the FIR No. : 305/03 Page 6 of 34 accused persons in her absence. Thereafter, she brought her daughter to her house where she expired.
ii) PW2 Omkar Nath is the father of deceased Savita and complainant of the present case. He deposed that her daughter Savita was married to accused Rajeev on 06/12/01. After her marriage she resided at her matrimonial home at Modi Nagar with her husband, father-in-law Balbir Singh, mother-in-law Beermati, Nanand Rekha, her husband Pawan and brother-in-law Rinku. After few days of her marriage all the accused persons named above alongwith above named relatives used to torture her daughter in connection with demand of dowry. They used to demand Rs.
50,000/- fro construction of a house but he showed his inability to give the said amount to the accused persons. Accused Rajeev used to beat her daughter Savita and accused Veer Wati used to tell them that she would not allow her daughter to live with them. Accused Balbir did not beat her daughter. On 22/10/03, he came to know through his daughter Radha that Savita was hanged by the accused persons. On receipt of this information, he alongwith his family members went to Lokpriya Hospital, Modi Nagar. From this hospital she was referred to GTB Hospital where she remained till 31/10/13. In their absence, Savita was got FIR No. : 305/03 Page 7 of 34 discharged from the GTB Hospital and was taken by the accused persons to their house. On 04/11/03, at about 10:30 p.m, he brought his daughter Savita from her matrimonial home to his house with the help of police. His daughter Savita expired on the same day (JAB GHAR TAK LE KE AYE WOH KHATAM HO CHUKI THI). He further deposed that on 06/11/03 after postmortem, the dead body of his daughter was handed over to him. On 22/12/03, he had given a written complaint to the SDM which is Ex. PW2/A.
iii) PW3 Smt. Suman is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of deceased. She deposed that after marriage of Savita, accused persons namely husband Rajiv, mother-in-law Beermati and Balbir father-in-law demanded Rs. 50,000/-. They handed over Rs.
50,000/- to Rajiv but they kept on continuous demand for more money. She further deposed that whenever her nanand Savita used to visit their house, she used to tell them, their demand and harassment for dowry demand.
iv) PW5 Smt. Radha is the elder sister of Savita. She deposed that Savita used to tell her that accused persons were demanding Rs. 50,000/-. Savita also used to tell her that she was subjected to cruelty for not giving Rs. 50,000/-. On 22/10/03, she had gone to Chuna Bhatti to see her plot, she heard that Savita had been killed by strangulation.
FIR No. : 305/03 Page 8 of 34Thereafter, she informed her mother. She also went to Lokpriya Hospital where Savita was admitted from where Savita was shifted to GTB Hospital. On 31/10/03, her in-laws brought her to their house from the hospital. After two days her father brought Savita to Delhi for her treatment but on the way she expired.
(b) The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses:-
i) PW1 Samir C. Minz deposed that on 05/11/03 he was posted as SDM. On that day, on receipt of information from the PS New Usmanpur that dead body of Savita Verma was lying in the mortuary, he went to mortuary and examined the dead body and filled the requisite form 2535 Ex. PW1/A and also made request for conducting postmortem vide his request EX. PW1/B. On 22/12/03, on receipt of the application moved by Omkar Nath and observing the postmortem report, he directed the SHO to register the case.
ii) Prof. S.K. Verma (wrongly mentioned as PW2) Professor Department of Forensic Medicine, GTB Hospital deposed that on 06/11/03, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of one lady namely Savita Verma. He also proved postmortem report Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that after examination of the PMR No. 1006/2003 and CFSL report, he was of the opinion that cause of death in this case appeared to cerebral oedema. He has also given his FIR No. : 305/03 Page 9 of 34 subsequent opinion dated 21/01/05 which is Ex. PW2/B.
iii) PW7 HC Nepal Singh deposed that on 06/11/03, he was posted at PS New Usmanpur as MHCM. He deposed that on that day, SI Pramod Kumar deposited one pulanda of viscera in sealed condition with the seal of SKV alongwith sample seal in the malkhana vide DD No. 2A of 05/11/03 and deposited the same in the malkhana vide Sl. No. 1069 of register No. 19 vide Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that on 30/03/04, the above said exhibit was sent to CFSL, Hyderabad through ASI Giri Raj but the same could not be deposited there. On 25/05/05 exhibit was sent to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 127/21 through Ct.
Nand Kishore alongwith the sample seal. He made entry in this respect vide Ex. PW7/C. Copy of the RC is Ex. PW7/D.
vi) PW8 Ct. Nand Kishore deposed that on 25/05/04, he was posted at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi. On that day, he took viscera in sealed condition from Malkhana of PS New Usmanpur to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 127/21 with FSL form and sample seal and deposited the same in the FSL Rohini. Receipt was handed over to MHCM.
v) PW9 Dr. Vinod deposed that on 22/10/03 he was posted as Post Graduate (Medicine) and examined one patient namely Savita and prepared her MLC No. C2986 which is Ex. PW9/A.
vi) PW10 ASI Satvir Singh deposed that on 31/12/03, he was posted at PS New Usmanpur as Duty Officer. On that at about 6:00 p.m, Insp. Gurmeet Singh, SHO gave FIR No. : 305/03 Page 10 of 34 directions to register FIR on the basis of complaint Ex. PW1/E and he made endorsement vide Ex. PW6/A. On direction, he registered the FIR of the present case. Carbon copy of the same is Ex. PW10/A. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to SI Pramod and he accordingly handed over copy of FIR and original complaint to SI Pramod for further investigation.
vii) PW12 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Lal, Medical Specialist, Safdarjung Hospital deposed that on 31/10/03 he was working as Sr. Resident in GTB Hospital. He had examined the patient Savita alongwith his team and at the time of discharge, her condition was satisfactory. The final diagnosis as per the discharge summary was partial hanging with hypoxic brain damage.
(c) The prosecution has examined the following witnesses of investigation :-
i) PW4 Ct. Prem Pal deposed that on 04/01/04 he was posted at PS New Usmanpur. On that day, he joined the investigation with SI Pramod Kumar. On that day, he alongwith lady Ct. Promila and Sunil had gone to Modi Nagar. Accused Balbir and Beermati were arrested vide their arrest memos Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively. Their personal search memos are Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D respectively.
ii) PW6 Insp. Gurmeet Singh was the SHO of PS New Usmanpur. He deposed that he received a letter from SDM Seelampur for taking legal action against the FIR No. : 305/03 Page 11 of 34 accused persons. He made endorsement on the letter vide Ex. PW6/A for registration of the FIR. After registration of the case, investigation was assigned to SI Pramod. On completion of investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against Balbeer, Beermati and Rajeev.
iii) PW11 SI Pramod Chauhan was the IO of the case. He deposed that on 05/11/03, he was posted at PS Usmanpur. On that day, he received DD No. 2A from DO regarding the death of deceased Savita. He alongwith Ct. Satveer went to H. No. J-49, Gali No. 2, Jai Prakash Nagar where he found dead body of the deceased at the house of complainant Omkar Nath. He immediately informed the SDM of the area and dead body of deceased Savita was sent to GTB Hospital through Ct. Satveer.
SDM Sh. Sameer Minz reached at the spot and he inspected the site who was told all the facts. On 06/11/03, SDM Seelampur reached at the Mortuary GTB Hospital and conducted proceedings U/s 176 Cr.PC and on his request postmortem on the body of deceased Savita was conducted. After her postmortem dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased Omkar Nath. He further deposed that on 31/12/03 after registration of the case, investigation was handed over to him. On 04/01/04, he alongwith Ct. Prem Pal and Sunil brother of the deceased went to the Modi Nagar. He arrested the accused Balbir and Smt. Veermati from their residence vide their arrest memos Ex. PW PW4/A and PW4/B respectively. Their personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW4/C and FIR No. : 305/03 Page 12 of 34 PW4/D respectively. On 02/04/04 accused Rajiv was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/C. During investigation, he collected MLC of deceased Savita. He also collected FSL report Ex. PW11/D. Accused Rinku, Pawan, Smt. Rekha, Devar, Nandoi and Nanand respectively of deceased Savita could not be arrested during investigation and they were declared proclaimed offenders by the court. He submitted charge-sheet against accused Balbir, Smt. Beermati and Rajeev. On 13/09/06, he arrested accused Rekha in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/E. He submitted supplementary charge-sheet against accused Rekha.
vi) PW13 SI Anuradha deposed that on 13/09/06, she was posted as ASI at PS New Usmanpur. On that day, she alongwith Insp. Dinesh Sharma, ASI Naval Singh, Ct. Anil and Ct. Adesh went to Meerut at H. No. 1429, Brahampuri, Meerut to arrest accused Rekha, who was proclaimed offender. She arrested the accused Rekha. ASI Naval Singh prepared the arrest memo, personal search memo, etc, of the accused which are Ex. PW13/A and PW13/B respectively.
v) PW14 SI Nawal Singh deposed that on 13/09/06, he was posted at PS New Usmanpur. He alongwith Insp. Dinesh Kumar, W/ASI Anuradha and Ct. Anil went to Brahampuri, Meerut where he arrested accused Rekha vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A. Her personal search was conducted by W/ASI Anuradha vide Ex. PW13/B. FIR No. : 305/03 Page 13 of 34
7. CW1 Dr. S.B. Mathur, Consultant (Medicine), GTB Hospital, Delhi has also been examined as court witness. He deposed that on 22/10/03 patient Savita was admitted in hospital. She was examined under his supervision by Dr. Mahesh. She was brought in unconscious state. Since there was a ligature mark on the neck, they had made presumptive diagnosis of partial hanging with hypoxic brain damage. Her vital functions were stable during her hospitalisation. She has not shown any progress/recovery in terms of neurological illness. Since her vital functions were normal, they had taken a decision to discharge her and accordingly she was discharged on 31/10/03. The patient was referred to ENT surgeon, neurologist and eye-specialist but patient had not shown any progress.
8. After closure of the Prosecution Evidence, all the incriminating evidence against the accused persons namely Balbir, Beermati, Rekha and Rajeev was put to them in their statement U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein the accused persons pleaded that the prosecution witnesses are false and interested witnesses. Accused Balbir and Beermati stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Rajeev pleaded that he is innocent. His family and the family of complainant are of poor status and there was no demand of dowry at any point of time during the life time of deceased Savita either from her or from her parents. Accused Rekha was already married and she was living at her in-laws house at Sultanpuri, Delhi. She never interfered in their family affairs and she used to visit their house occasionally. Accused Rekha pleaded that she was not present at her parental house at the time of incident or before incident as her father-in-law was unwell and was admitted in the hospital, thereafter she was busy in the construction of their house at Meerut, UP in the year 2006 from where she was arrested. Supplementary statement of all the accused persons were also recorded after examination of FIR No. : 305/03 Page 14 of 34 PW12 and CW1. Supplementary statement of accused Rekha was also recorded on 03/05/13. Accused Balbir did not opt to lead evidence in his defence despite opportunity. Remaining accused opted to lead evidence in their defence.
9. In their defence, accused persons examined DW1 Smt. Suman who is neighbourer of accused persons. She deposed that Savita used to visit their house. She was being maintained properly at her matrimonial home. DW2 Rajinder Sharma is also neighbourer of accused persons. He deposed that Savita used to visit their house and talk with his children and wife but she never complained to them for any kind of harassment or demand of dowry from the side of accused persons.
10. I have heard the submissions from Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State and Sh. A.K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons. Written submissions on behalf of the accused Balbir, Smt. Beermati, Smt. Rekha and Rajeev also filed. I have also gone through the record including written submissions filed on behalf of the accused persons.
11. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State submitted that all the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case. PW1 Raj Dulari, the mother of the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the accused has been harassing and committing cruelty upon her daughter Savita on account of demand of dowry and the accused persons have demanded Rs. 50,000/- in dowry and prior to that they have also demanded Rs. 40,000/- as dowry. Her statement was also corroborated by PW2 Omkar Nath, the father of the deceased. PW3 Smt. Suman, sister-in-law of the deceased has also corroborated the statement of PW1 Raj Dulari and PW2 Omkar Nath FIR No. : 305/03 Page 15 of 34 regarding cruelty. PW5 Smt. Radha, the elder sister of deceased has also corroborated PW1 Raj Dulari and PW2 Omkar Nath. The deceased died within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons on account of dowry and the case is proved against the accused persons and they be accordingly convicted as per law.
12. It has been submitted on behalf of accused persons that the story of the prosecution about demand of dowry is totally false and baseless and there is no iota of truth in the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses against the accused persons and the prosecution has badly failed to prove that any demand of dowry was made or any harassment was done soon before her death. The whole testimony of material witnesses i.e PW1 Smt. Ram Dulari, PW2 Omkar Nath, PW3 Suman and PW5 Smt. Radha is contradictory on material aspects and inconsistent with each other; that in the statement of PW2 Omkar Nath recorded by the SDM on 05/11/03 regarding identification of dead body there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry or harassment at the hands of the accused persons; that there is a long and unexplained delay in registration of FIR; that PW1 Smt. Ram Dulari, PW2 Omkar Nath, PW3 Suman and PW5 Smt. Radha were available to the SDM as well as to the IO but they did not give any statement about harassment on account of dowry; that the conduct of the accused/husband/other in-laws is also not adverse and the husband Rajeev had taken the injured/deceased at Lokpriya Hospital on 22/10/03 and she was referred to GTB Hospital on the same day and the accused Rajeev accompanied her to GTB Hospital alongwith his other family members. It is a well settled law that if the husband himself has admitted his wife in the hospital no adverse inference can be drawn against him (relied Jaspal Singh & Ors v The State (Delhi FIR No. : 305/03 Page 16 of 34 Administration) Crimes 1994 Part-1, page 126. PW2 Omkar Nath, father of deceased has stated in his chief examination that the accused Rajiv and deceased Savita demanded Rs. 50,000/- for construction of a house on telephone. It is worthwhile to mention here that no demand was ever made by any of the accused at any point of time and this witness has concocted a false story which is not corroborated with the statement of PW1 Ram Dulari, PW3 Suman and PW5 Radha. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devender Singh v State of Haryana, JCC 2007 Part-1, page-457 has held that any demand of money for construction of house does not fall within the ambit of demand of dowry; that PW1 Smt. Ram Dulari has made material improvement about the manner of demand of dowry and amount and time and her attention was drawn towards her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC dated 04/02/04 marked PW1/DA where all these material facts were not recorded; that PW2 Omkar Nath and PW3 Smt. Suman have also made material improvements and omission about demand of dowry; that the allegations made by PW5 Smt. Radha, who is the real sister of the deceased, in her chief examination are contradictory with the testimony of PW1 Ram Dulari, PW2 Omkar Nath and PW3 Suman. PW5 has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not give any statement to the police as stated in her chief and first time she has made her statement in the court. It is well settled law that no weight can be given to such type of evidence; that PW1 Ram Dulari, PW2 Omkar Nath, PW3 Suman and PW5 Radha have not stated that there was any demand of dowry in their presence by any of the accused persons and the testimony of these witnesses is based on hearsay evidence as stated by deceased to them. Ld. Counsel also relied on authorities reported as Atul Sharma & Anr v State 2013 [2] JCC 1472, Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors v State of West Bengal 2007 [2] JCC 959, Durga Prasad & Anr v State of M.P 2010 [3] JCC 1852, State v Mohd. Furkan & Ors 2012 [2] JCC 906, State of NCT of FIR No. : 305/03 Page 17 of 34 Delhi v Rakesh & Ors 2012 [2] JCC 1334, Vinita & Anr v State NCT of Delhi 2012 [1] JCC 340, Manmohan Singh v The State (GNCT of Delhi) 2012 [2] JCC 1350 and Bakshish Ram & Anr v State of Punjab 2013 [2] JCC 1334. Ld. Counsel for accused persons prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons.
13. Accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable U/s 498A and 304B IPC both r/w Sec. 34 IPC.
14. Sec. 498-A IPC reads as under :-
"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. -- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means --
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".
15. Section 304-B IPC, which reads as under :-
"Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the FIR No. : 305/03 Page 18 of 34 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life".
16. In order to seek conviction U/s 304-B IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove that :-
(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
(c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband;
(d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and
(e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.
17. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was married with accused Rajeev on 06/12/01. As claimed by the complainant his elder daughter informed through phone to his neighbour Usha that his daughter Savita was tried to be killed by hanging by accused persons on 22/10/03. After receiving the information the family members of the complainant went to Lokpriya Hospital, Modi Nagar where his daughter was admitted in the name of Savita Sharma in ICU. On their insistence, the Doctors agreed to shift her to GTB Hospital, Shahdara. Allegedly, on 31/03/03 in absence of family members of the complainant the accused and his father took their daughter to their house at Modi Nagar. Thereafter, on 04/11/03 with the help of police the complainant's family brought her to their house but she breathed last on her way. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted under orders of Ld. SDM.
18. PW2 Dr. S.K. Verma has deposed that he conducted the FIR No. : 305/03 Page 19 of 34 postmortem on dead body of one lady namely Savita Verma aged 22 years on 06/11/03. The body was weak. Poorly built with rigour mortis in passing face, P.M. staining on back, no sign of decomposition with mark palor (anaemia). Details of injuries are :-
Darkly stained area (scar mark) linear presently weight 1420 grams congested oedematus with uncal and tonsillar herniations and petechial haemorages present throughout the brain substance, soft to touch both lungs were congested and oedematus. Viscera was preserved in saturated solution of common salt for chemical analysis. Time since death was about 30 hours and cause of death was kept pending for the want of report of chemical analysis of viscera. The postmortem report is Ex. PW2/A. As per the FSL report bearing No. FSL-2004/C-1011 dated 28/01/05 pertaining to chemical analysis report of viscera in PMR No. 1006/2003, that gave negative result for metallic poisons, ethanol and methanol alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. After examination of the PMR and above cited CFSL report, he was of the opinion that cause of death in this case appears to be cerebral oedema. His subsequent opinion dated 21/01/05 is Ex. PW2/B. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that cerebral oedema can occur due to various reasons including diseases that can lead to natural death.
19. PW12 Dr. Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 25/10/03 there was improvement in consciousness (sensorium) of the patient with normal urinary output of patient. Till discharge on 31/10/03, there was no further improvement but the blood pressure was normal. The x-ray cervical spine was normal. The patient was discharged on the direction of Dr. S.B. Mathur. He proved the photocopy of case sheet Ex. PW12/B (colly) running into 24 pages. In cross-examination, he affirmed that at the time of discharge FIR No. : 305/03 Page 20 of 34 condition of patient was satisfactory. He explained that cerebral oedema occurs in many conditions i.e meningitis (brain fever) and encephalopathy. It can also occur in case of hanging. In this case, he alongwith other team members after examining the patient clinically could not reach at any particular opinion about cerebral oedema during the period the patient remained at the hospital and at the time of discharge.
20. PW9 Dr. Vinod has deposed that on 22/10/03 patient Smt. Savita aged about 21 years was brought by her husband with alleged history of loss of sudden consciousness. He examined the patient and prepared the MLC Ex. PW9/A. The patient was unfit for statement and under observation. On 24/10/03, he again examined the patient and at that time her husband Rajeev Verma was also present and he again changed the alleged history of finding - the patient unconscious with saree around her neck. Earlier, her husband gave the alleged history - sudden loss of consciousness, abdominal pain and fever and he mentioned all the facts in MLC. On examination, the patient was unconscious and vitals were stable. In the cross- examination, he affirmed the suggestion that in the MLC it is not mentioned as to how long the patient was kept under treatment and when she was discharged nor it has been mentioned as to when she regained her senses.
21. Dr. S.B. Mathur was also summoned by court as court witness and examined as CW1. He deposed that on 23/10/03 he was working as a specialist medicine. On that day patient Savita was admitted in the hospital. She was examined under his supervision by Dr. Mahesh (PW12). She was brought in unconscious state. Since there was ligature mark on the neck, they had made assumed diagnosis of partial hanging with hypoxic brain damage. She (the patient) stayed in the hospital for a period of eight days. Her vital FIR No. : 305/03 Page 21 of 34 functions were stable during her hospitalisation. She has not shown any progress/recovery in terms of neurological illness. Since her vital functions were normal they had taken a decision to discharge her and accordingly she was discharged on 31/10/03. Therefore, in view of testimony of this witness it is established on record that the patient was discharged by the Doctors at GTB Hospital and it cannot be believed that the accused persons had put any kind of pressure on the Doctors for discharge of deceased Savita. In the cross-examination, Dr. S.B. Mathur has also admitted that they cannot discharge the patient, if the condition of the patient is critical. He admitted that no written request was received for discharge of the patient and voluntarily added that they discussed the issue with their team and made a decision to discharge the patient. He also affirmed the suggestion that as per record there was no endorsement "unfit for statement in respect of the patient with effect from 26/10/03 to 31/10/03". No treatment for neck injury was given to the patient as per CW1. He voluntarily added that he wanted natural recovery of the patient. He affirmed the suggestion that there was no bone injury as per the x-ray report and voluntarily added that the x-ray reflects only bone injury and not soft tissue injury. He admitted that as per the record, the nature of injury is not mentioned in the MLC and voluntarily also added that nature of injury is not mentioned in the case history.
22. From the testimony of PW9 Dr. Vinod. CW1 Dr. S.B. Mathur and PW12 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Lal it has been established on record that death of Savita has not been caused by any burns or bodily injury. She was first given treatment at Lokpriya Hospital, Modi Nagar and on same day she was brought to GTB Hospital. As per testimony of PW9 Dr. Vinod her husband Rajiv Verma accused had brought her and therefore the contention of the complainant that the injured was brought to the GTB Hospital by them stands contradicted. As FIR No. : 305/03 Page 22 of 34 per the postmortem report Ex. PW2/A, it was stated that cause of death will be given after receiving the report of chemical analysis of viscera. The forensic science laboratory report Ex. PW2/B shows that on chemical examination metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides could not be detected in Exts. '1A', '1B', '1C' and '1D' and PW2 Dr. S.K. Verma after considering the FSL report gave the subsequent opinion dated 21/01/05 Ex. PW2/B and according to that opinion the cause of death in this case appears to be cerebral oedema which according to him could occur due to various reasons including diseases that can lead to natural death. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove on record beyond reasonable doubt that Savita has died under abnormal circumstances. In authority reported as State of NCT of Delhi v Rakesh & Ors, 2012 [2] JCC 1334, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held if two views are possible on the evidence adduced then the one favourable to accused should be adopted.
23. Admittedly, daughter of the complainant Savita had sustained injury on 22/10/03 and the complainant claims to have got the information from his elder daughter Radha on telephone but no complaint was made on that day or subsequently till Savita died on 04/11/03 while she was being brought by the complainant from Modi Nagar. It has been claimed by the complainant that he had tried to lodge the complaint with the police but the police officials told that first the patient should be given treatment. It does not appeal to reason that if Savita was got admitted at GTB Hospital why no complaint was lodged either at Modi Nagar or at Delhi against the accused persons. If the police had not taken the complainant's report, then he could at least have sent complaint by post or by telegram because as claimed by complainant PW2, he had received information that accused persons tried to FIR No. : 305/03 Page 23 of 34 kill Savita by hanging. In the complaint Ex. PW2/A the complainant Omkar Nath PW2 has stated that on receipt of information on telephone from his elder daughter at the house of neighbourer Usha, his wife Ram Dulari, sons Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar and daughter-in-law Suman went to Modi Nagar. But strangely in his testimony recorded on 12/05/06 he has claimed that he alongwith his wife, two sons and daughter-in-law went to Lokpriya Hospital, Modi Nagar whereas PW1 Ram Dulari, his wife has deposed that she alongwith her two sons and elder daughter-in-law went to the hospital at Modi Nagar. She did not name that husband PW2 also accompanied them. CW1 Dr. S.B. Mathur has deposed that the patient Savita was discharged on 31/10/03 and in cross-examination he stated that vital functions of the patient were satisfactory. According to the complainant, the accused persons got the patient discharged from GTB Hospital without their knowledge but as per the statement of Dr. S.B. Mathur the patient was discharged by the Doctors as all vitals of the patient were satisfactory. In cross-examination of PW1 she has admitted that she had met with her daughter at GTB Hospital from where she was discharged. She denied the suggestion that she had made a false case against the accused persons of dowry demand through her daughter Savita. Even after expiry of Savita on 04/11/03, the complainant has made the complaint Ex. PW2/A on 22/12/03 and this delay of about 48 days has not been properly explained by the prosecution.
24. In the complaint Ex. PW2/A the complainant Omkar Nath has stated that he had spent Rs. Three lac in the marriage of deceased Savita with accused Rajiv which was performed as per Hindu rites and jewellery, utensils, clothes, etc were given as stridhan. He has alleged that accused persons used to taunt the deceased for bringing less dowry and they used to torture her in different ways and started demanding dowry and also made a FIR No. : 305/03 Page 24 of 34 demand of Rs. 50,000/- for constructing separate house. In January 2003 he gave Rs. 10,000/- to accused Rajiv but they did not change their attitude and started harassing his daughter in different ways. His daughter had also called him on phone informing that accused persons were demanding money and he should pay the money to them otherwise they can commit any act. The complainant tried to make them understand despite that the accused persons had allegedly tried to kill his daughter on 22/10/03 by hanging. This witness has been examined as PW2 wherein he deposed that after few days of marriage, all the accused persons used to torture his daughter Savita with dowry demand. He used to receive call from Savita and her husband with respect to dowry demand. He further deposed that they used to demand Rs. 50,000/- for construction of a house but he showed his inability. The above statement made by the PW is merely bald statement and there is no corroboration with the documentary evidence such as any complaint having been made by the deceased or her family members contemporaneously with respect to these allegations. This demand cannot be termed as dowry demand. The authority reported as Durga Prasad & Anr v. State of M.P 2010 [3] JCC 1852 is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. This witness further deposed that accused Rajiv told him that he should borrow money from his friend and give money to them but this witness refused to give money. He further deposed that accused Rajiv used to beat his daughter Savita and accused Veermati used to tell him that she would not allow his daughter to live with them. According to this witness, accused Balbir Singh did not beat his daughter. On 22/10/03, his daughter Radha informed them on telephone at his house about the incidence. Thereafter, he claims to have gone to Lokpriya Hospital, Modi Nagar alongwith his wife, two sons and daughter-in-law. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint Ex. PW2/A he has not stated that on that day he had also gone with his wife, two sons and FIR No. : 305/03 Page 25 of 34 daughter-in-law to the Hospital. His wife PW1 Ram Dulari has not stated that PW2 had also gone with them. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that Om Parkash was the mediator of the marriage of Savita and accused Rajiv but this witness never met the mediator after the marriage. He also did not tell the mediator about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- for construction of house. He did not make any written complaint to any authority about the harassment of his daughter. No specific date of demand has been mentioned nor any contemporaneous complaint in this regard has been made to any authority. Even in statement Ex. PW2/A this allegation is not mentioned. In the said statement it is also not mentioned that accused Rajiv used to beat his daughter Savita and accused Veerwati used to tell him that she would not allow his daughter Savita to live with them. According to this witness there was no telephone connection with them at the time of incidence as such no telephone call could come at his house. He voluntarily added that telephone call was received at the house of Smt. Usha, a neighbourer which was attended by his wife Ram Dulari. There is not documentary corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim of complainant that he had received a telephone call from his daughter Radha. The IO has not joined any Usha in the investigation nor she has been examined by the prosecution to whom Radha PW4 had allegedly made a call on telephone about the allegation of strangulation of Savita by the accused persons. Even the telephone number of said Usha has not been disclosed by PW2. PW2 in his cross-examination also added that there was no demand of dowry either before marriage or at the time of marriage. Whatever he had given in the dowry that was given by him on his own free will to his daughter.
25. Smt. Ram Dulari PW1 has deposed that after about 15 days of marriage accused Veermati used to harass and torture her daughter for FIR No. : 305/03 Page 26 of 34 bringing less dowry and on her instigation accused Rajiv also used to harass her daughter. Her daughter used to tell her about the torture and harassment at the hands of accused persons. She has even alleged that accused Balbir also used to harass her daughter, although PW2 has deposed that accused Balbir Singh did not beat his daughter. According to PW1 all the accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- from them through his daughter few days before her death whereas as per PW2 only accused Rajiv made the demand. PW1 has further deposed that all the accused persons have earlier demanded Rs. 40,000/- through their daughter Savita after about 4-5 months of her marriage and they had given the said amount to the accused persons but PW2 does not say so. PW1 further deposed that after about one year and nine months of marriage of her daughter all the accused persons had attempted to strangulate her daughter Savita. In her cross-examination, PW1 claims that her husband has written many complaints to authorities but she could not tell the details of those complaints nor she had put her thumb impression on any complaint whereas PW2 has not claimed that he has ever made any such complaint to any authority. PW1 in her cross-examination stated that she had stated to the police that her daughter used to tell her about the torture and harassment at the hands of accused persons which fact was not recorded in her statement mark PW1/DA wherein it was also not recorded that she has stated to the police that accused Balbir on the instigation of his wife Veermati also used to harass her daughter. In the said statement the words few days before death were not mentioned. The fact of alleged demand of Rs. 40,000/- was also not mentioned in the said statement. There is no mention of the allegation of any attempt to strangulate Savita after about one year and nine months of her marriage. In further cross-examination PW1 has stated that she had told the police that her daughter Savita was got discharged by the accused persons at their back on that day as she was FIR No. : 305/03 Page 27 of 34 unwell otherwise she daily used to remain there throughout day and night. She was confronted with statement mark PW1/DA where it was not so recorded. She pleaded ignorance about the name of the mediator and stated that she could not admit or deny whether Om Parkash was mediator which fact has been admitted by PW2. She admits that the telephone connection at her home was disconnected after two months of marriage of Savita. She admitted that on 22/10/03 there was no telephone connection at their house. She voluntarily added that phone calls used to come at the house of one tenant opposite to their house but she could not give the telephone number and further stated that the said tenant has vacated the premises and has not stated the present whereabout of said tenant for obvious reasons.
26. PW3 Suman has deposed that Savita was her nanad and after her marriage with accused Rajiv the accused Veerwati, mother-in-law and Balbir, father-in-law demanded Rs. 50,000/- and they handed over Rs. 50,000/- to accused Rajiv whereas PW2 Omkar Nath, the complainant has deposed that the demand was made for construction of house but he had refused to give any amount. PW3 has also deposed that the accused persons kept on continuous demanding more money. On confrontation with her statement Ex. PW3/DA these allegations were found not so recorded. PW3 has not disclosed any date of such demand nor she has claimed to have made any complaint to any authority. In her cross-examination she has gone to the extent of stating that although demand for Rs. 50,000/- was made but only Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the mother of deceased to Savita and Rajiv. However, her mother-in-law PW1 has nowhere deposed this fact. PW3 has further stated in her cross-examination that earlier also she has mentioned that Rs. 50,000/- was demanded but Rs. 10,000/- was paid to them but she does not know how it was mentioned in her earlier statement made in the FIR No. : 305/03 Page 28 of 34 court that Rs. 50,000/- was given to Rajiv. This witness voluntarily stated that even Rs. 10,000/- was not given to Savita and Rajiv in her presence and therefore her testimony is only hearsay and no amount towards dowry was given to the accused persons either by PW2 or PW3. None of them has stated that any money was given by PW1 to the accused persons in their presence. PW3 has affirmed the suggestion that no demand was made by the accused in her presence.
27. PW4 Radha has deposed that after marriage, her sister Savita used to tell her that the accused persons were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and was subjected to cruelty for not giving Rs. 50,000/-. This witness has nowhere stated that any amount of money was given by the complaint's family to the accused persons. Even the allegation of demand has been stated on the basis of information given by Savita. PW4 has not stated that any amount was demanded by the accused persons in her presence. The complainant in his complaint Ex. PW2/A has stated that information about hanging of Savita was given by her on telephone. It is admitted by PW1 to PW4 that they had no telephone connection at their house on the date of incidence i.e 22/10/03. PW4 has not stated in her testimony that she had given the intimation on phone to the complainant or family of the complainant. PW4 has not stated the name of any person to whom the information was given nor she has disclosed any telephone number or address of person to whom the information was given. This witness was also not joined during the investigation by the IO.
28. From the testimony of PW1 to PW4 it is established on record that they have failed to prove on record that the accused persons had made dowry demand. Neither any complaint was made to any authority with respect to the allegation of harassment or torture of the deceased Savita by the FIR No. : 305/03 Page 29 of 34 accused persons nor any independent witness has been joined by the IO. All the material witnesses have made improvement in their testimony and there are material contradictions in the testimony of these material witnesses, as such their testimony does not appear to be trustworthy [relied S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna v. State of Karnataka, 2013 VII AD (S.C) 641]. There is no contemporaneous complaint from the complainant or his family including the deceased against the accused persons with respect to any alleged dowry demand or with any allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand or she was harassed by the accused persons in relation to such demand. As per the MLC, postmortem report and final opinion of the concerned Doctor the possibility of deceased having died by way of natural death cannot be ruled out. The prosecution has failed to prove on record that death of deceased was caused by suicide or by strangulation. Prosecution has also failed to prove on record that death of deceased Savita was caused due to burn or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Prosecution has also failed to prove on record that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband accused Rajiv or by his family members, the co-accused persons facing trial. The testimony of DWs also corroborates this view. Therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the accused persons U/s 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal and they are accordingly acquitted. Their bails bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. All the accused except accused Rekha are directed to furnish personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each in terms of provision of Sec. 437-A Cr.PC within a week.
FIR No. : 305/03 Page 30 of 3429. However, accused Rekha was also charged on 23/03/13 for the offence U/s 174-A IPC. As per order-sheet dated 01/10/04, she was declared proclaimed offender by the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after recording the statement of SI Pramod Kumar. The court can take judicial notice of judicial order. Therefore, the accused Rekha is held guilty and convicted for the offence U/s 174-A IPC. Let she be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the open court today i.e 8th August 2013 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdra District Karkardooma Court, Delhi FIR No. : 305/03 Page 31 of 34 IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SHAHDRA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0157802004 Sessions Case No. : 84/2012 FIR No. : 305/2003 Under Sections : 304B/498A/34 IPC Police Station : New Usmanpur In the matter of :
STATE Versus
1. BALBIR (Acquitted) W/o Sh. Sohan Lal R/o House No. 235, Gali No. 03 Chuna Bhatti, Modinagar, U.P
2. BEERMATI (Acquitted) W/o Sh. Balbir R/o House No. 235, Gali No. 03 Chuna Bhatti, Modinagar, U.P
3. RAJIV (Acquitted) S/o Sh. Balbir R/o House No. 235, Gali No. 03 Chuna Bhatti, Modinagar, U.P
4. REKHA (Convict) . . . Accused/Convict W/o Sh. Pawan R/o H. No. 2-C/460, Madhavpuram Sector-3, Meerut, U.P Date of Institution : 17/10/12 Date of committal : 19/02/03 Date of reserving judgment : 08/08/13 FIR No. : 305/03 Page 32 of 34 Date of pronouncement : 08/08/13 ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE I have heard the submissions from Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State as well as from Sh. A.K. Singhal, Ld. Defence Counsel on the point of sentence and gone through the record.
2. Vide my separate judgment of even date, accused Rekha has been convicted for the offence U/s 174-A IPC.
3. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for State submitted that the convict be awarded maximum sentence. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that convict Rekha has been acquitted for the offence U/s 498-
A/304-B IPC both r/w Sec. 34 IPC and when she has been acquitted of the main offences, a lenient view may be taken in awarding sentence for offence U/s 174-A IPC.
4. The convict Rekha remained in J/C from 13/09/06 to 18/09/06 and in my considered view the interest of justice shall be met, if she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already suffered by her in J/C. Ordered accordingly. She is directed to furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of provision of Sec. 437-A Cr.PC within a week. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room with direction to preserve the file as two accused of this case namely Rinku Verma and Pawan are proclaimed offenders. Prosecution is at liberty to revive/re-
FIR No. : 305/03 Page 33 of 34open the file as and when any of/both the accused person(s), who are proclaimed offenders, is/are arrested.
Announced in the open court today i.e 8th August 2013 (T.S. Kashyap) ASJ-01/Spl. Judge (NDPS) Shahdra District, KKD Courts, Delhi FIR No. : 305/03 Page 34 of 34