Delhi District Court
State vs . Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 on 22 February, 2014
1
State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ - 03 : SOUTH - EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 261/13
FIR No. 432/07
U/s 302/328 IPC
P.S. Kalkaji
STATE VS. Poonam Mehta,
D/o Sh. V.P. Gandhi,
R/o S74, G.K. I, New Delhi.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.03.2013
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 22.02.2014
DATE OF ORDER: 22.02.2014
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that accused Poonam Mehta used to visit Kalkaji Mandir and generally used to sit in front of the shop of complainant Raj Kumar. On 13.05.2007 at about 12.30 PM accused had come to the shop of complainant. She was carrying two bags, one polythene bag of purple colour and other one was a hand bag of red colour. At that time one Jagdish (deceased) also came in front of the shop of complainant who was running a Piao (where public is offered water to drink). Accused went to Jagdish and offered him cold milk. She took out a bottle and opened the cap of the bottle with her own hand and offered the milk bottle to Jagdish which he drank. Thereafter, accused came to complainant and offered a bottle of milk to him. The moment, complainant took a sip, he felt something of the taste of Baygon 2 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 spray and he spit the sip of cold milk. In the mean time, he saw that Jagdish who had taken the whole bottle of the milk had become uneasy and uncomfortable and as he was trying to get up, he fell down and blood started oozing from his nose and mouth. Accused, on seeing this, tried to run away from the spot. Complainant raised an alarm and accused was apprehended while running towards the Cremation Ground. Police was informed and accused was handed over to the police. Police reached the spot and the bags which were in possession of accused were taken by the police. The polythene bag was found containing one Baygon Insect Killer, two pair of surgical gloves and other cosmetic items. The other bag of red colour was containing an iron opener. Statement of complainant was recorded. Accused was arrested. On 16.05.2007, Jagdish expired. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
2 After appearance of accused, supply of documents, arguments on charge were heard and charge U/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses in support of its case. 4 PW1 Dr. Sunay Mahesh, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS Hospital. He conducted the postmortem examination of the body of deceased Jagdish. He proved detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW1/A and detailed opinion as Ex. PW1/B. As per his report the cause of death opined was insecticide poisoning. In his crossexamination he stated that grazed abrasion is caused by dragging or sliding with a hard surface due to friction. That if a person is sitting on the floor and falls on the ground, it is 3 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 unlikely that he will get abrasions and laceration.
5 PW2 Prema stated that her husband was running business of stitching the clothes near Kalkaji Mandir under the tree. He did not know the date, month and year of the incident as she was illiterate. That after hearing the noise of some persons which was coming from the place under the tree where her husband used to do stitching work, she reached the spot and came to know that one Jagdish had fallen and he had been taken away. That she did not know anything more in this case. That police did not make inquiry from her, however, her thumb impression was taken on a paper. Witness was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State, wherein she denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that on 13.05.2007 she was present near the Muni Baba Ashram around 12.00 noon when her husband shouted 'pakropakro' as that lady is giving a poisoned milk and after hearing his shouts, she had reached to her husband and he had pointed out towards a woman who was running towards the stairs of Mandir and asked to catch hold of her and he told that she had giving him and Jagdish a poisoned milk to drink. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that she alongwith Radhav and some other persons ran after said woman running towards the Cremation Ghat via Sadan Niwas and she had met a thin man aged about 50/55 years who was wearing blue and red colour check shirt and white pant who tried to stop that woman but the said woman took out a chain from her neck and said something and thereafter the said man allowed her to go and that man also got mingled with the crowd and said woman was apprehended by her in front of Cremation Ground and she was brought by her to the Mandir and handed over 4 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 to the police. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that her husband had explained the entire incident to the police and police was also handed over two bags recovered from the woman, one of them was ladies bag and another was a polythene bag which were opened by Const. Ram Niwas and Lady Const. Saroj Gupta and the red colour bag was containing a heart shape locket made of golden material, a bottle opener, makeup articles, mobile phone and a small piece of Kachua Chap Mosquito repellent. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that said woman used to visit in Mandir and used to sit at the place where her husband used to work and therefore, they knew the said woman. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that in the meantime the condition of Jagdish deteriorated and he had fallen from the stairs and sustained injury on his eye and his face became blood stained. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that information was sent to the police post and police officials who had come to the spot and took Jagdish to the Hospital. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police that Poonam Mehra was arrested and she had put her thumb impression on her arrest memo. She denied the suggestion that accused present in the court is the same lady who was given the poisoned milk at the spot or that she had been won over by the accused or that she is deliberately not identifying the accused to save her. Witnesses was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused.
6 PW3 Rakesh stated that in the year 2007 he was priest in Kalkaji Mandir. That deceased Jagdish used to visit Kalkaji Mandir and he also used to meet him when he used to go for morning prayer at Kalkaji Mandir. That he had 5 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 no talking terms with deceased but he (deceased) used to reside in the Kalkaji Mandir. That his statement Ex. PW3/A was recorded by the IO. Witnesses was not crossexamined by or on behalf of accused.
7 PW4 Rakesh stated that in the year 2007, he was running a shop of snacks (KachoriSamosa) at Kalkaji Mandir. That he know deceased Jagdish for the last 15/20 years. That he used to reside in campus of Kalkaji Mandir. That he came to know about his death. His statement was recorded by the IO regarding identification of dead body of deceased Ex. PW4/A. That he was also inquired by the IO regarding whereabouts of the deceased and his statement Ex. PW4/B was also recorded. Witnesses was not crossexamined by or on behalf of accused.
8 PW5 Mangal Pandey stated that in the year 2007, he was running a cassette shop. That he knew deceased Jagdish 3/4 years prior to the day of incident. That Deceased Jagdish resided in Kalkaji Mandir and worked as a Sewadar. That he had identified the dead body of deceased and his statement Ex. PW5/A was recorded by the IO in this regard. Witnesses was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused.
9 PW6 HC Ramhet stated that on 13.07.2007, he was working as Duty Officer at P.S. Kalkaji from 5.00 PM to 1.00 AM. On that day, at about 5.05 PM, he received rukka from Const. Ram Bilas, sent by SI Dara Singh, on the basis of which he got recorded the FIR through computer operator and he had signed the FIR, computer copy of which is Ex. PW6/A. That he had made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW6/B. That after registration of the case, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Const. Ram Bilas for handing 6 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 over to the same to SI Dara Singh for further investigation. Witnesses was not crossexamined by or on behalf of accused.
10 PW7 Dr. Rajat Mitra stated that on 14.05.2007 (after the alleged incident) he counseled / examined Poonam Mehta for her mental health and did not find any evidence of abnormality of Poonam Mehta during the sessions. His report is Ex. PW7/A. In his crossexamination he stated that he had asked from Poonam Mehta whether she was undergoing treatment for any psychiatric behaviour. That idiosyncratic and inner fantasies means that she may be imagining lots of things and she needs further examination and assessment from a psychological penal. He admitted that the imaginations or hallucinations cannot develop in a day or two in a person and it may be in existence prior to examination. He denied the suggestion that he had not examined Poonam Mehta and his report in this regard is not a correct report. 11 PW8 Raj Kumar stated that he does the work of stitching at Kalkaji Mandir. That he did not remember the exact date and month, about more than one year back (from the date of his deposition), at about 11.30 AM, he was present at his jhuggi at Kalkaji Temple. That when he came to under the tree for fixing his tailoring machine, he heard some noise. He saw that police officials were talking to Jagdish. He did not know anything else about this case. He did not know how Jagdish fell ill. That police officials interrogated him and his statement was recorded and he told them that he had not seen anything. Witness was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State, wherein he denied the suggestion that he knew accused Poonam Mehta from last six months of the incident as she used to come at Kalkaji Mandir and 7 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 used to sit on Chabutra of his shop. He denied the suggestion that on 13.05.2007 at about 12.30 PM, accused Poonam Mehta came to his shop and gave order for stitching a blouse and and gave him a piece of cloth of red colour or that he checked the piece of cloth or that he also noticed that accused was having two bags in her hands, one of valet colour and one of red colour or that in the meantime Jagdish who used to sit at Piao also reached there, Poonam Mehta told to Jagdish that it was very hot and gave him a bottle of milk covered with a cap which was removed with her finger or that Jagdish had consumed the milk of bottle. He denied the suggestion that in the meantime, Poonam Mehta came to him and had a talk to him with regard to her blouse or that in the meantime Jagdish started feeling giddiness and he was not able to stand or that when he intended to go towards him, she told him that it was very hot that is why Jagdish was feeling giddiness or that she also offered him milk. He denied the suggestion that in the meantime accused Poonam Mehta took out a milk bottle from her polythene bag and opened the same with her ginger or that when he asked her she had brought opened bottle, she replied that she had brought the bottle already opened for their convenience or that she handed over him milk bottle or that when he took one sip of the milk, he felt the smell of Begon and he immediately spit out the milk or that in the meantime, milk bottle had fallen on the ground and all the milk had spread on the ground and the bottle was broken. He denied the suggestion that in the meantime he noticed that Jagdish was trying to stand up but he fell down on the ground and blood started oozing from his nose and face or that on seeing the condition of Jagdish, Poonam Mehta started going from there after leaving the blouse piece with him 8 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 or that he raised a notice that Madam was given poison to the public or that on hearing his noise, Poonam Mehta started running towards cremation ground or that in the meantime his family members also chased her and caught her and brought her to the police officials who were present at temple. He denied the suggestion that he had signed seizure memo Ex. PW8/B when the police seized blouse piece from his shop. He denied the suggestion that he had signed seizure memo Ex. PW8/C when the police seized the broken pieces of bottle. He denied the suggestion that he had signed seizure memo Ex. PW8/D at the time of seizing hand bag and polythene bag. He denied the suggestion that police seized the pieces of bottle vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/E and he signed the same at that time. He denied the suggestion that arrest memo Ex. PW8/F at the time of arrest of accused. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused, therefore, deposing falsely to save her from legal punishment. In his crossexamination on behalf of accused he admitted that police obtained his signatures on some blank papers on the pretext that the same are required for the identification of body of Jagdish. 12 PW9 Narayan Singh stated that about 2/3 years back (his statement was recorded on 16.04.2010), he was present at his house and heard some noise in noon time. He came outside his house and found that some public persons were gathered and told him that Jagdish had fallen ill and he was taken to Hospital. That after 2/3 days police came to his house and asked his name and address and obtained his signatures on one or two blank papers. On Court question witness stated that he cannot tell at which portion of the paper his signature was obtained by the police. He further stated that he was called in 9 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 the police station, where his signature was obtained. The witness had not identified the accused who was present in the Court. Witness was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State, wherein he denied the suggestion that memo Ex. PW9/A was prepared at the time of handing over the chain or that chain was sealed in the pullanda with the seal of DS. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused, therefore, deposing falsely to save the accused from legal punishment. 13 PW10 ACP Ranbir Singh stated that on 08.06.2007, he was working as Inspector in P.S. Kalkaji. On that day, investigation of this case was marked to him. On 14.07.2007, he called SI Mahesh Kumar (Draftsman) who took the measurement and rough notes of the place of occurrence on the pointing out of ASI Dara Singh. He recorded statement of SI Mahesh Kumar and ASI Dara Singh. In his crossexamination he denied the suggestion that SI Mahesh Kumar does not take the measurement and rough notes of the place of occurrence.
14 PW11 Const. Saroj Gupta stated that on 18.05.2007, she was posted at Kalkaji Mandir, P.S. Kalkaji and was on duty at Kalkaji Mandir. Accused Poonam was apprehended by public persons, who had given poison to Jagdish. That on conducting search a small bottle of Baygon was recovered from her bag. IO had seized hand bag and polythene vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. That IO seized the cloth of blouse vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. That IO prepared a seizure memo of broken bottle vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. That IO had also taken the pieces of broken glass into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/E. That she had conducted the personal search of accused and 10 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 five articles were recovered and IO prepared seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. That accused Poonam Mehta was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/F. Thereafter, she brought Jagdish to AIIMS Hospital alongwith SI Dara Singh and he was admitted there. That accused was also taken to the Hospital and her medical examination was conducted and thereafter they came back to P.S. and accused was put in lockup. Witness identified broken bottle Ex. PW11/P1, broken piece of glass Ex. PW11/P2, a plastic Baygon Ex. PW11/P3, two rubber hand gloves and one polythene bag (colly) Ex. PW11/P4, a ladies bag Ex. PW11/P5 and cloth piece of blouse Ex. PW11/P6, all produced by MHC(M) in the Court. In her crossexamination witness stated that she was on duty from 8.00 AM to 10.00 PM and was posted near the out gate. That she did not knew whether accused Poonam Mehta has signed on the seizure memos in her presence. She admitted that pullandas which were made in her presence were sealed at the spot. She denied the suggestion that neither any seizure memo or arrest memo was prepared in her presence, therefore, she had not knowledge of the dates. That she had handed over the bags to the IO after conducting search of accused Poonam Mehta. Witness admitted that she had signed on the personal search memo Ex. PW11/C of the accused. She admitted that she had signed on the memo Ex .PW8/D. She admitted that both the signatures on Ex. PW11/A and PW8/D are somewhat different because at the time of signing Ex. PW8/D, she was not wearing spectacles. She denied the suggestion that at that time she was not present so the signature was not in her handwriting. She denied the suggestion that the bottle of Baygon Spray was planted by the IO. She did not know whether personal search memo was prepared first or the arrest memo. 11
State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 She did not remember at what time they reached the Hospital. She stated that she had not come back to the spot from the Hospital. She admitted that it is not written in the memo Ex. PW8/D that she had handed over the bags to the IO. 15 PW12 HC Lokender Singh stated that on 13.05.2007, he was posted at PP Nehru Place, P.S. Kalkaji as DD writer. At about 01.05 PM he received information through Const. Ram Bilas on telephone. A lady viz Poonam Mehta has been apprehended who had given poison to Jagdish and Rajkumar. He had recorded the information vide DD No. 6 Ex. PW12/A and had handed over the same to Const. Subhash to hand over the same to SI Dara Singh. In his crossexamination he admitted that date at point X in Ex. PW12/A is different from the writing and ink written in said exhibit. He admitted that Ex. PW12/A does not mention the place where IO was to be sent by him. 16 PW13 SI Mahesh Kumar stated that on 14.07.2007 he was posted as Draftsman in Crime Branch and on the request of Inspector Ranbir Singh, Addl. SHO P.S. Kalkaji, he reached at P.S. Kalkaji. From there he alongwith IO and SI Dara Singh visited the place of occurrence i.e. Kalkaji Mandir, where at the instance of SI Dara Singh and PW Raj Kumar, he took rough notes and measurements of the spot. On the basis of those rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW13/A and handed over the same to the IO. In his crossexamination he stated that he he reached at the spot in the evening at 4.00/5.00 PM. That IO has not prepared any site plan in his presence. That he had destroyed rough notes after preparation of scaled site plan on 02.08.2007. That the scaled site plan was prepared on 02.08.2007. 17 PW14 HC Ram Vilas stated that on 13.05.2007, he was posted at 12 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 PP Nehru Place, P.S. Kalkaji. On that day his duty was at Kalkaji Mandir and Saroj Gupta from civil defence was also posted with him on duty. At about 12.30 PM, Rajkumar and his wife Prema who were having tailor shop near Kalkaji Mandir and remained mostly in Mandir complex, were shouting 'pakdo pakdo, zehar pila diya Jagdish ko", he immediately rushed towards them. Rajkumar and his wife had apprehended one lady with the help of some other person, whom they handed over to him. He identified the accused who was present in Court. That accused was having two bags, one was a leather bag of red colour and another was polythene bag of jamuni colour. On checking the red colour bag, one pendant in the shape of heart on which 'P' was written and the same was made of gold, one bottle opener and some coins and some cosmetic items were found. From another bag one bottle of Baygon 500 ml in which 1/3 liquid was found and one rubber /plastic gloves and piece of mosquito coil was also found in the bag. That they told him that Poonam had given them a bottle of milk mixed with poison and Jagdish had drank the same and started having some uneasiness. He stated that Rajkumar told him that he had taken a sip of that milk and he felt smell of Baygon and he spit out the milk from his mouth. Jagdish was in bad condition and feeling dizzy and he fell down and some blood was coming out from his nose and face. That he immediately informed the police post after seeing that the condition of Jagdish had deteriorated. That after some time SI Dara Singh reached at the spot and he told him to take Jagdish to Hospital. He had handed over both bags to IO which were recovered from accused Poonam. That he admitted Jagdish in AIIMS Hospital. That after some time IO also reached in the Hospital. IO prepared 13 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 rukka and handed over the same to him, he went to P.S. and got the case registered and came back to the spot with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to IO. Thereafter, accused was brought to P.P. Nehru Place and was interrogated. Upon a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for State, witness admitted that doctor had handed over viscera and sample seal to him, which he handed over to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A. 18 In his crossexamination witness denied the suggestion that since nothing was seized in his presence as such he had not signed on any memos. He stated that after opening the bag the entire articles were seen by him by spreading on the bench. That he had not made any inventory of the articles. That thereafter, bags were given to PW Rajkumar and later on the same were given to IO by Rajkumar himself. That no memo regarding those bags was prepared by the IO at that time in his presence. That he had not gone to the shop of Rajkumar nor at the spot as they had brought injured Jagdish to him in the police chowki. That he had not seen any broken pieces of glass or the bottle at the spot. That he had taken injured Jagdish to the Hospital in an auto rickshaw.
19 PW15 Dr. Divya Babu, Junior Resident, AIIMS, stated that according to MLC No. 55137/07 dated 13.05.2007 Jagdish was brought in AIIMS Casualty with alleged history of ingestion of Baygon, one bottle of about 500 ml, about 12.30 PM. The alleged history of fall on the ground from standing position and sustained injury on head. On examination, patient was conscious and alert, GCS E4, V5 and M6, pulse rate 90 per minute, BP220/130 mmhg, 14 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 localized swelling over right eyebrow and incised wound, 34 mml over left eyebrow. The patient was further referred to Department of Medicine and Neurosurgeon. The detailed report of Dr. Naseer Ali Das is Ex. PW15/A, which bears his signatures at Point A. In her crossexamination witness stated that when a patient is brought in the Hospital regarding the preparation of MLC the date and time of his arrival is mentioned in the MLC. After perusing the MLC Ex. PW15/A, she admitted that the time of arrival was not mentioned, she admitted that at point B time has been overwritten.
20 PW16 ASI Bir Singh stated that on 13.05.2007 he was posted at P.S. Kalkaji as MHC(M). On that day SI Dara Singh deposited 4 sealed parcels with seal of DS and he made entry in this regard in register no.19 at Sl. No. 3477 Ex. PW16/A. On 18.05.2007, SI Dara Singh deposited 2 sealed parcels with seal of DS and he made entry in this regard in register no.19 at Sl. No. 3482 Ex. PW16/B. On 31.05.2007, he sent 6 parcels to FSL, Rohini through Const. Tahir Khan vide RC No. 79/21 Ex. PW16/C. Const. Tahir Khan went to FSL, Rohini and thereafter he came back to P.S. after depositing the said parcels and handed over receipt to him.
21 PW17 SI Dara Singh stated that on 13.05.2007, on receiving DD No. 6 Ex. PW12/A at about 1.05 PM regarding one lady viz. Poonam Mehta gave poison to two persons viz. Rajkumar and Jagdish, he alongwith Const. Subhash reached at the spot i.e. Kalkaji Temple, where public persons were found including Jagdish (Piyau wala), Rajkumar and his wife Prema, one Const. Ram Vilas was also present there and they produced accused Poonam Mehta. The condition of Jagdish was very serious and he was sent to AIIMS Hospital 15 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 through Const. Ram Vilas. One Delhi Civil Defence Const. Saroj Gupta was also there. Accused was having two bags at that time, one red colour ladies handbag containing some cosmetic items, one heartshaped pendant of golden colour on which 'P' was engraved and two coins of Rs. 5/ and 1/ and Nokia mobile, the same bag was also containing one opener of iron. One brown colour mosquito coil was also found. All the articles were put into said bag and put into the pullanda and sealed with seal of DS. Another bag which was of polythene and on which 'Ahuja Vastra Bhandar' was written. The bag was checked and found one green colour rectangular bottle on which 'insect killer 500' ml was written. It was filled up about 1/3 rd and was also written 'poison' on bottle. Two pairs of surgical gloves of cream colour were also found. All the articles were put into the same bag and then put into the pullanda and sealed with the seal of DS. After using the same, it was handed over to Const. Mohan Shyam as he was also at the spot. He recorded the statement of Rajkumar Ex. PW8/A. Const. Mohan Shyam and Civil Defence Const. Saroj Gupta were directed to take care of the spot and accused Poonam Mehta and pullandas as they were remained in custody of Const. Mohan Shyam and Saroj Gupta. Thereafter, he reached at AIIMS, where Jagdish was found admitted and doctor declared him unfit for statement on MLC Ex. PW15/A. He made endorsement Ex. PW17/A and at about 4.50 PM the rukka was handed over to Const. Ram Vilas for registration of FIR. Const. Ram Vilas went to PS and after registration of FIR, he reached at spot. He handed over copy of FIR Ex. PW6/A and rukka to him. The sealed pullandas of both bags was seized vide memo Ex. PW8/D. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PW17/B at the instance of Rajkumar. 16
State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 Accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW8/F and her personal search was conducted by Lady Const. Saroj Gupta vide memo Ex. PW11/A. The bottle was put into the pullanda and sealed with seal of DS as he had received the seal from Const. Mohan Shyam and seal was put on the pullanda and seized vide memo Ex. PW8/C. The broken pieces of bottle were put into the pullanda and sealed with seal of DS and seized vide memo Ex. PW8/E. One piece of cloth (blouse piece) was also handed over to him. The colour of piece of cloth was red/purple with design. The cloth piece was put into the pullanda and sealed with the seal of DS and seized vide memo Ex. PW8/B. Const. Saroj Gupta and Const. Mohan Shyam were directed to take the accused to PP Nehru Place. He came to PS alone and pullandas were deposited in malkhana and then he reached PP Nehru Place. Thereafter, he alongwith Const. Saroj Gupta reached AIIMS Hospital for medical examination of accused. She was medically examined vide application Ex. PW17/C. Thereafter, accused was brought to PS Hauz Khas as the lockup of PS Kalkaji was already occupied. 22 He further stated that on 14.05.2007, at the direction of Senior Officer, one doctor belonging to NGO viz, Rajat Mitra was called who examined the accused. Accused was produced before the concerned Court and sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, he went to AIIMS Hospital to know about the condition of Jagdish, but doctor declared him 'unfit for statement' on his application Ex. PW17/D. That on 15.05.2007, he received DD no. 16 and came to know that Jagdish had expired. He reached AIIMS Hospital and moved application Ex. PW17/E for preservation of dead body of deceased Jagdish. He issued hue and cry notice Ex. PW17/F. He recorded statement of witnesses. 17
State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 That on 18.05.2007, Rakesh and Mangal Pandey had identified the dead body of Jagdish at mortuary AIIMS vide identification memos Ex. PW4/A and PW5/A. He had also received death summery report Ex. PW17/H from AIIMS Hospital. Form 25.35 was filled up, which is Ex. PW17/J. The application for postmortem is Ex. PW17/K. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Naresh Bhardwaj vide handing over memo Ex. PW17/L. After postmortem he received viscera and sample seal through Const. Ram Vilas with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicines AIIMS and seized vide memo Ex. PW14/A. The viscera peti was deposited in the malkhana. That on 18.05.2007, at evening time one person namely Prem Narayan came to PP Nehru Place and handed over one golden chain and stated that a lady / accused, when she was apprehended by him, had handed over the same golden chain and stated that in lieu of golden chain she may be let off. The chain was without pendant as pendant had remained with that lady. The chain was taken into possession, kept in pullanda and seal with the seal of DS and seized vide memo Ex. Pw9/A. That on 31.05.2007, he had collected the postmortem report Ex .PW1/A. That on 31.05.2007, he received all the five exhibits from malkhana vide RC No. 79/21 and he alongwith Const. Mohd. Tahir reached at FSL, Rohini and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini and after depositing the same, the receipt was deposited in the malkhana. Witness identified one ladies bag Ex. P5, the comb Ex. PW17/P1, golden pendant Ex. PW17/P2, another brown envelop containing Rs. 6/ (Rs. 5/ coin and Rs. 1/ coin) Ex. PW17/P3, one bottle opener Ex. PW17/P4, Nokia mobile phone Ex. PW17/P5, piece of mosquito coil Ex. PW17/P6, cosmetic items and other 18 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 items used by ladies Ex. PW17/P7, polythene bag Ex .PW17/P8, Baygon greed colour rectangle bottle Ex. PW17/P9, two pairs of surgical gloves Ex. PW17/P10, small polythene bag Ex. PW17/P11, pieces of bottle Ex .PW17/P12 (colly), broken milk bottle Ex. PW17/P13 (already exhibited as Ex. P1), blouse piece of purple colour on which golden design is made Ex. PW17/P14 (blouse cloth already exhibited as Ex. P6), golden chain Ex. PW17/P15. That on 08.06.2007, the investigation was marked to Inspector Ranvir Singh and case file was handed over to him. That on 14.07.2007, he went at the spot alongwith SI Mahesh Kumar, draftsman alongwith IO and at his instance, SI Mahesh Kumar took the measurements of the place of occurrence for preparation of scaled site plan.
23 In his crossexamination PW17 admitted that in DD No. 6 there is mention that, that Const. Ram Niwas was taking Jagdish to AIIMS Hospital. That when he reached for the first time at the spot he did not find any broken glass pieces at the chabutra or at the shop of Rajkumar. He recorded statement of Raj Kumar. He remained at the spot for about 2/ 2½ hours on his first visit. He prepared seizure memos regarding the bags handed over to him by witness Premo on his first visit. He admitted that from the statement of Rajkumar, cognizable offence was disclosed but still he had not sent the rukka from the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had not recorded statement of PW Rajkumar at that point of time nor any such statement was given to him by Rajkumar and for this reason no rukka was sent from the spot. He also denied the suggestion that as such the rukka as well as the statement of Rajkumar are manipulated by him. He admitted that as per rukka Ex. PW17/A, there is 19 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 overwriting at Point Y. he denied the suggestion that number 'I' in time 12.30 was added later on. He denied the suggestion that Narayan had not come to him on 18.05.2007 nor he had given him anything and for that reason he had not recorded any statement of the said witness U/s 161 Cr. P.C. He also denied the suggestion that documents prepared by him in this regard are false and fabricated. He also denied the suggestion that since nothing was seized in the presence of any public witness nor any seizure memo was prepared in their presence, as such seal was not given to the public witness. He also denied the suggestion that seizure memos in this regarding prepared by him are false and fabricated. He stated that he had sent viscera on 31.05.2007 through Const. Mohd. Tahir to FSL and he had recorded statement of Const. Mohd. Tahir in this regard. That he had taken the accused to Dr. Rajat Mitra for medical examination as her mental condition appeared to deteriorate. He denied the suggestion that he had tampered with the case property later on and introduced false and fabricated articles including the bags to falsely involved the accused in the present case. He admitted that he had not recorded any statement of accused in this case. He denied the suggestion that he had tampered with the case property including viscera. He also denied the suggestion that he had planted the articles on the accused to implicate her in the present case or that he had prepared false documents in this regard or that falsely involved the accused in the present case.
24 PW18 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini stated that after examination of exhibits, he prepared detailed report dated 12.12.2007 Ex. PW18/A. He denied the suggestion that no such test was 20 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 conducted by him or that report was prepared at the behest of IO. 25 PW19 Ranveer Singh (Retired ACP) stated that on 08.06.2007 he was working in Delhi Police as Inspector and was posted with PS Kalkaji as Addl. SHO. On that day the investigation of the case was assigned to him and he had perused the file. That on 14.07.2007, he called draftsman and taken him to spot and got the measurements taken for the purpose of preparation of scaled site plan. That during the period the case was investigated by him, he had also interrogated accused Poonam at her residence in presence of her mother. That he had obtained the scaled site plan Ex. PW13/A and placed the same on file. In his crossexamination he stated that he had not recorded any statement of accused Poonam. He denied the suggestion that he never met Poonam Mehta or that he had never interrogated her.
26 In her statement accused denied the prosecution evidence as false. She stated that she was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. That she was not even knowing any person by the name of Jagdish (deceased) or any person, Rajkumar, Narayan Singh or Premo. That she is patient of schizophrenia and she had suffered a lot for that as for this reason even her husband had divorced her and her two children are also living with her husband. That because of her false implication in the present case, her father and mother had suffered a great trauma as she is the only child of her old aged parents and for this reason even her father has expired now and her mother is also very sick and infirm. Two witnesses have been adduced in evidence in defence. 27 DW1 Dr. Sushil Khetrapal, Proprietor of R.N. Khetrapal Memorial Nursing Home stated that he knew Poonam Mehta as being a patient and he 21 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 treated her for paranoid schizophrenia. That he treated Poonam Mehta from 10.03.2007 till 05.05.2007 and since she had not shown any signs of improvement, she was referred to RML Hospital for further management on 05.05.2007. He stated that paranoid schizophrenia is chronic brain disorder. That a patient of paranoid schizophrenia may become violent at one point of time and may be compose and calm immediately or after some time, and they don't remember about the event or the act the patient has committed during the period of said violent attack. In his crossexamination he stated that some times the violent behaviour of such patient completely disappear within few minutes, might be one or two minutes. He admitted that after the said treatment given to patient by him, patient never came to him again for any treatment. He admitted that original copy of prescriptions wherein medicines are prescribed are retained by the patient. That the document Mark A, A1 and A2 are prescriptions. He denied the suggestion that document Mark A, A1 and A2 are manipulated documents and that is why their original have not been produced in the Court. 28 The witness was further examined on application U/s 311 Cr. P.C. He stated that he had seen the original OPD card of R.N. Khetrapal Memorial Nursing Home dated 10.03.2007 and 14.06.2007 pertaining to Ms. Poonam Mehta and same bears his signatures at Point A under his seal on Ex. DW1/X and DW1/Y. He admitted that the patient of paranoid schizophrenia have their own perception and they cannot distinguish between right and wrong and in that perception and hallucinations they can commit suicidal as well as homicidal act. He agree with the observations laid down in the clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines made by World Health Organization, Geneva, 1992 in 22 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 ICD10 (Classification of Mental & Behaviour Disorder). The same are Ex. DW1/Z. In his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for State he stated that patient had visited 2/3 times in the OPD. He admitted that his opinion as stated above regarding the patient of paranoid schizophrenia is general. That during his treatment, the patient did not improve, therefore, he referred her to another Hospital. That he had given the above opinion because the patient could not give answers and also from her behaviour further she could not even identify him when visited second time in the OPD.
29 DW2 Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk, RML Hospital brought summoned record of OPD pertaining to 26.06.2007. As per record, at Sl. No. 144, Dr. Poonam Mehta had attended the OPD vide OPD No. 3202/07. The photocopy of same is Ex. DW2/A. Two treatment documents dated 19.06.2007 and 14.08.2007 purported to be pertaining to Dr. Poonam Mehta belonging to RML Hospital, shown to the witness who identified the documents and stated that the documents pertain to RML Hospital and both were bearing the signatures of Dr. Arvind Kumar at Point A, the same are Ex. DW2/B and DW2/C. In his crossexamination he admitted that he had not written the entry Ex. DW2/A. He also admitted that the same was not written in his presence. He admitted that there is no parental name and address mentioned in the entry Ex. DW2/A. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of these documents. 30 I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Jitender Sethi, Ld. Counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the material placed before me.
31 Accused has adduced two defence witnesses namely Dr. Susheel 23 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 Khetrapal and Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk, RML Hospital to prove that she is a patient of paranoid schizophrenia. That despite treatment from Dr. Susheel Khetrapal Proprietor of R.N. Khetrapal Memorial Nursing Home between 10.03.2007 to 05.05.2007 she had not shown any signs of improvement and therefore, was referred to RML Hospital for further management. It has been emphasised upon by Ld. Defence Counsel that paranoid schizophrenia is chronic brain disorder and that the patient becomes violent at one point of time and may be composed and calm immediately thereafter. That the patient does not remember anything after the violent attack. Documents Mark A, A1 and A2, which are the prescriptions have been placed on record to show that she was under treatment with DW1 Dr. Susheel Khetrapal. While DW2 Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk of RML Hospital placed on record photocopy of OPD Card to show that the accused had attended two sittings at the RML Hospital being patient of paranoid schizophrenia. Ld. Counsel has emphasised that accused being a patient of paranoid schizophrenia cannot distinguish between right and wrong and has her own perception and hallucinations and can become suicidal or homicidal. That the case of the accused falls within the category of Section 84 IPC. Section 84 IPC reads as under: "Act of a person of unsound mind.Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law" and that accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground itself.
32 In order to constitute legal insanity to get benefit of Section 84 IPC 24 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 the state of mind at the time of offence neither ante nor post offence is material. However, there is nothing on record to show that at the relevant time the accused was in such a state of mind that she was incapable of knowing the nature of her act. Benefit of Section 84 IPC cannot, therefore, be granted to her. 33 One of the cardinal principle which has always to be kept in mind in administration of criminal justice is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty. Burden of proving the accused to be guilty is on prosecution and unless it relieves of that burden, Court cannot record a finding that accused is guilty. Accused Poonam Mehta has been charged U/s 302 IPC in the present case. Essential ingredients of Section 300 IPC are that death has been caused by the accused with:
(a) Intention of causing death. or
(b) Intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm is caused. or
(c) Intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. or
(d) Knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous that it must in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the act having been committed without any excuse for murdering, the risk of causing death or such (bodily) injury as aforesaid. Thus, to convict a person U/s 302 IPC prosecution has to prove that the death of deceased has been caused by the accused in a manner which falls within one of the above said categories.
There should not be any scope for doubt, relying on Harbans Singh Vs. State, AIR 1957 S.C. 637, where it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme 25 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 Court that "Between 'may be' and 'must be' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the hole of this distance must be covered by prosecution by legal reliable and unimpeachable evidence before the accused can be convicted of murder".
34 In the case in hand, prosecution has not been able to prove prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt as all the public witnesses namely PW2 Prema, PW8 Raj Kumar (alleged second victim and complainant) and PW9 Narayan Singh, from whom the gold chain of accused was allegedly recovered, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version even to the extent of identification of the accused or apprehension of the accused in presence of PW2 and PW8. Both PW2 and PW8 deposed that they had reached at the spot after the incident. While PW9 denied receiving any gold chain from the accused. The presence of PW9 is also doubtful as not even his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was admittedly ever recorded by the IO. 35 Secondly, recovery of bags from the accused is also under cloud of doubt, whereas the prosecution version was that PW2 Premo and PW8 Raj Kumar chased and apprehended accused Poonam Mehta who was carrying two bags, but it has been specifically denied by both PW2 and PW8 that any bags were recovered from accused. It is only PW11 Const. Saroj Gupta who stated that accused was apprehended by public and on conducting the search by the IO a bottle of Baygon was recovered from the bag of accused. However, in her crossexamination, she stated that she was not aware about the use of seal on 26 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 the articles and its nomenclature or to whom the seal was handed over after use. As per her crossexamination, she was not even aware as to when the seizure memo was prepared. She admitted that the seizure memos were having details of the case namely FIR number, P.S. etc. at the time when she signed it, while as per the version of the IO the seizure memos were prepared before registration of the FIR, who admitted that the details of the case on the top of seizure memo were subsequently added. The contradictions and assertions on the part of IO and Const. Saroj Gupta only go on to show that the memos were prepared subsequently at the P.S. The version of PW11 Const. Saroj Gupta that the bags were handed over to the IO who conducted search of the same and seized and sealed the bags is contradicted and wasted away by the statement of PW14 HC Ram Vilas who was present in the Temple and had admittedly checked the bags of accused Poonam Mehta, who also admitted that he had opened the bags near the Police Post and had spread all the articles lying in the bags and had not prepared any inventory of the same. But DD No.6 vide which information was sent to P.S. about the incident does not find any mention about the bags recovered from the accused at the time of apprehension. Recovery of bags from accused in the presence of PW14 is further contradicted by the fact that seizure memo Ex. PW8/D has not been signed by HC Ram Vilas and the accused Poonam Mehta.
36 Similarly, the recovery of broken glass pieces of bottle in which the laced milk was allegedly given by accused Poonam Mehta to deceased Jagdish and PW8 Raj Kumar is also highly doubtful. PW17 IO / SI Dara Singh has admitted in his crossexamination that on his first visit to the spot in which he 27 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 had remained there for about 2/2½ hours, he did not find any broken glass pieces either at the chabutra or at the shop of Raj Kumar. PW14 HC Ram Vilas also admitted that he had not seen any broken pieces of glass bottle at the spot. The doubt is further strengthened by the fact that recovery memo of broken pieces of glass bottle Ex. PW8/C do not find mention of any date on it. Similarly, there is contradiction as to the colour of the blouse piece which the accused had allegedly given to PW Raj Kumar for stitching. As per the rukka and the statement of PW Raj Kumar the blouse piece was of red colour, while the seizure memo Ex. PW8/B mentions 'Jamuni' (purple) colour blouse piece. Therefore, the recovery of blouse piece does not inspire any confidence. That the case property was tempered with is fortified by the fact that PW8 Raj Kumar has categorically denied having given any blouse piece to the IO. 37 Further, PW17 IO / SI Dara Singh was unable to explain as to why viscera was sent to FSL on 31.05.2007 i.e. 15 days after its seizure. As per the register no.19, all the sample parcels were sent to FSL through Const. Mohd. Tahir, but he has not even cited as a witness nor was examined by the IO as a relevant witness. Absence of Const. Mohd. Tahir as a witness is material in this case as link in the chain is missing and thus the tempering of case property cannot be ruled out. This view is supported by 1996 JCC 513 (DHC) and Balbir Singh Vs. State, AIR No.1993 S.C. 31.
38 Further, PW12 Const. Lokender Singh, who had proved DD No.6 as Ex. PW12/A, admitted in his crossexamination that the date mentioned on the said DD was not in his handwriting. He further admitted that he was not aware as to when and by whom date 13.05.2007 was mentioned on the said 28 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 DD.
39 IO admitted that no glass pieces of bottle were found at the spot on his first visit, whereas he had stayed there for about 2/2½ hours. However, subsequently glass pieces allegedly of the bottle by which the poisonous substance was consumed by the deceased were collected and sealed. The seal after use was handed over to Const. Mohan Shyam who has also not been cited as a witness thereby casting doubt on the prosecution version of recovery of the pieces of bottle itself. Thus, there was apparently tempering on document Ex. PW12/A. 40 No explanation has been offered by the IO to explain as to why, when the statement of complainant Raj Kumar was recorded at the spot, rukka was not sent from the spot itself and was rather sent from the Hospital. PW14 HC Ram Vilas, however, submitted that IO had sent the rukka from Hospital after obtaining the signatures of complainant who was present in the Hospital which is contradictory to the statement of PW17 (IO) as well as to the prosecution case itself. MLC of deceased Ex. PW15/A read with postmortem report Ex. PW1/A further cast doubt on the prosecution case. The postmortem report mentions nine injuries present on the person of deceased which included abrasions, contusions and even lacerated wounds. In his crossexamination PW1 Dr. Sunay Mahesh admitted that these injuries cannot be sustained unless the person is dragged or stretched on a rough surface. It is well settled that the positive evidence in a case is that of eye witnesses who had seen and narrated the entire occurrence. The evidence of a medical man or an expert is merely an opinion which leads corroboration to the direct evidence in the case. 29
State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 Where there is inconsistency between direct evidence and the medical evidence in respect of entire prosecution story that undoubtedly be a manifest defect in the prosecution case.
41 The prosecution case is that the accused had offered milk contained in a bottle which was laced with insecticide to Jagdish (deceased) and had thus caused the death of Jagdish by giving him poisonous milk. Eye witnesses have not stated that the deceased was dragged or stretched on a rough surface. Thus, the medical evidence has not fully supported the case of prosecution. Further, as per PW11 Const. Saroj Gupta, injured Jagdish was taken to Hospital by her alongwith IO, while PW14 HC Ram Vilas asserts that he had taken the injured to the Hospital, while the version of HC Ram Vilas is that injured was brought to him at the Police Post by the public persons, from where he took the injured to Hospital, while as per IO the injured was removed to Hospital from the spot itself. Both PW11 Const. Saroj Gupta and PW14 HC Ram Vilas have materially improved their statements U/s 161 Cr. P.C., to which they were confronted by Ld. Defence Counsel.
42 Last but not the least, there is contradiction as to recovery of bottle of "Baygon" which PW11 Const. Saroj Gupta and PW14 Ram Vilas stated that inter alia rectangular bottle of green colour of "Baygon" was in one of the bags recovered from accused. IO stated that "one green colour rectangular bottle on which "insect killer 500 ml" and "poison", was written" was found in the bag. 43 It is settled law that burden of establishing guilt of accused is on the prosecution and the prosecution must prove every link in the chain against accused from beginning to end and thus burden never shifts. The right of 30 State Vs. Poonam Mehta S.C. No. 261/13 accused to obtain benefit of reasonable doubt is the necessary outcome of failure of prosecution to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the case in hand, we have already discussed the discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case in addition to all the the public witnesses being hostile even as to the identity of the accused entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt which is hereby granted to accused Poonam Mehta who is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC. Her bonds are cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on the 22nd day of Feb, 2014 (RAJ RANI MITTRA)
Additional Sessions Judge 03/SE
Saket Courts, New Delhi