Delhi District Court
State vs Geeta on 22 May, 2007
-:1:-
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ROHINI DELHI
SC No. 12/2006 Old No. 55 dated 04/09/2003
Date of Decision: 22/05/2007
STATE
Versus
1. Geeta
W/o Late Sh. Ajay Bhandari
R/o C-75, Madhu Vihar,
Delhi.
2. Ram Pyari
W/o Sh. Madan Lal Arora
R/o C-75, Madhu Vihar,
Delhi.
3. Mukesh Arora
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Arora
R/o RZC-75, Madhu Vihar,
Delhi.
4. Sunil Arora
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Arora
R/o RZC-75, Madhu Vihar,
Delhi.
5. Preeti
D/o Sh. Madan Lal Arora
R/o C-75, Madhu Vihar,
Delhi.
FIR No. 353/1998
PS Janak Puri
U/s. 306 read with Section 34 IPC
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
First the Facts Ajay Bhandari, husband of Smt. Geeta (accused), committed suicide on 19.03.98. All the five accused persons have been facing trial for an offence U/s. 306 read with section 34 IPC on the allegation that during the period from 11.10.95 i.e. from the date of marriage of Geeta (accused) with Ajay Bhandari, to 19.03.98, they all, in furtherance of their common intention, abetted commission of suicide of Ajay Bhandari.
Ajay Bhandari, the only son of Jagmohan Bhandari, the complainant, was married to Smt. Geeta (accused) on 11.10.95. Behaviour of Smt. Geeta towards family members of Jagmohan Bhandari, the complainant, was cruel. She used to spend maximum time at the house of her parents. She also used to leave matrimonial home without the knowledge of the family members of her in-laws. Geeta was insisting that Ajay Bhandari should leave the house of his parents and live with her parents at C-75 Block, Madhu Vihar. But Ajay Bhandari wanted to remain with his parents. This used to lead to tension between Smt. Geeta -:3:- and her husband and quarrel in the family. Even co-accused of Smt. Geeta used to threat Ajay Bhandari that he should live separately from his parents.
On 28.07.97, Smt. Geeta left matrimonial home without informing her in-laws whereupon her father-in-law (complainant) went to her parental house and requested her to accompany him to the matrimonial home. At that time, her mother, Smt. Ram Pyari (accused) pushed the complainant. At the same time, she asked the complainant to help her daughter join Fashion Designing Course otherwise she would get all of them falsely implicated in a dowry case. The parties were at dispute on this point.
On 10.10.97 Smt. Geeta returned to the matrimonial home after she was pacified by the complainant. She lived at the matrimonial home peacefully for a month. Smt. Ram Pyari (accused) got her daughter Geeta accused admitted in Fashion Designing Course. Smt. Geeta did not return to the matrimonial home for 3-4 days.
On 18.03.98 at about 9 p.m, the complainant returned to his house and found Smt. Geeta and her husband (since deceased) quarreling with each other but on seeing him, they became quiet. After sometime, Sunil and Mukesh -:4:- (both accused), brothers of Geeta, came there and told that her mother was not keeping good health and that Geeta was to be taken along. Ajay Bhandari suggested his wife Geeta that she could alone go to the parental house leaving the son behind. At that time, Geeta is alleged to have threatened her husband and her father (the complainant) to get them falsely implicated in a dowry case. Saying so, Geeta left for her parental house in the company of her brother. As a result Ajay Bhandari got frightened and repeatedly requested his father to report the matter to police. However, the complainant told his son that he would be reporting the matter to the police in the morning.
The complainant is alleged to have dispatched a letter to the police by way of speed post on the following day. He rang up at his house and learnt that his son had consumed poison. The complainant then reached Gandhi Nursing Home. A suicide note was found in the pocket of Ajay Bhandari holding all the accused persons responsible for his death. Ajay Bhandari then left this world.
It is also case of prosecution that complainant had kept Rs. 52,000/- in connection with marriage of his daughter but this much amount was also found missing from -:5:- the almirah lying in the house of the complainant. The complainant then tried to telephonically enquire from Smt. Geeta and her brothers about money but all of them threatened to falsely implicate them and give him beatings. They also threatened that they would not allow the marriage of his daughter to take place.
Jagmohan Bhandari then made statement before SI Ashok Kumar and got this case registered. The complainant also produced suicide note before the police. It was thereafter that the SI accompanied by the complainant reached RML hospital and carried out inquest proceedings in respect of the dead body. Dr. B.N. Acharya conducted autopsy on the dead body.
Sealed parcels containing viscera of the deceased was collected from the doctor and got dispatched to FSL for analysis.
On reaching the spot, the police prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. SI Ashok Kumar also seized notebook, I/card, copy of notice received from Crime Against Women Cell, three cheques and card from Bank of Baroda. The specimen handwriting and signatures were then sent to FSL for comparison with the handwriting available on -:6:- suicide note. Report was collected from FSL in this respect. Smt. Geeta accused was arrested on 25.08.98. All other accused were formally arrested they being under orders of anticipatory bail.
On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
Charge After compliance with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offence u/s 306 read with section 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution was called to lead its evidence.
Prosecution Evidence Prosecution has examined following twenty-four witnesses:
PW-2 Jagmohan Bhandari, the complainant is father; PW-3 Smt. Sudesh Bhandari is mother; PW-5 Ashok Bhandari is uncle; and PW-20 Smt. Poonam is elder sister of Ajay Bhandari (since deceased).
PW-18 Ram Babu and PW-19 Devender Vohra -:7:- are persons known to Jagmohan Bhandari, complainant, who used to visit his house.
Medical evidence is available in the statements of PW-4 Sh. Sulabh, PW-6 Dr. A.K. Aggarwal, PW-7 Dr. B. N. Acharya and PW-8 Sh. Surender Singh.
PW-22 Dr. D.K. Tandon is the Senior Branch Manger of Bank of Baroda who produced before police specimen signatures card and three cheques of Ajay Bhandari (since deceased) bearing his signatures.
PW-9 Dr. Deepa Verma is Senior Scientific Officer of FSL who has proved report EX.PW-9/A given after comparison of disputed handwriting in the suicide note with the specimen handwriting.
PW-14 P. Ghosh is Deputy Director, CFSL, Hyderabad, examined to prove report Ex.PW-10/A to the effect that no common poison could detected in the viscera.
PW-1 ASI Vijay Singh, PW-11 Head Ct.
Meenakshi, PW-12 Head Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW-13 K.C. Chhabra, PW-15 Ct. Harbir Singh, PW-16 Ct. Mahabir Singh, PW-17 Head CT. Brahm Swaroop, PW-21 Ct. Mukesh Kumar, PW-23 Ct. Surender Kumar, PW-24 SI Ashok Kumar have deposed about investigation part of prosecution story.
-:8:- Defence Plea When examined U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused
persons admitted their inter-se relationship and relationship with the complainant and the deceased. However, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and pleaded false implications.
Plea put forth by Geeta accused is as under:
"I have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant as my in laws intended to save themselves because my husband died in his own house."
All other accused pleaded false implication. However, none of the accused except Geeta accused led evidence in their defence.
In defence Geeta accused tendered into evidence certified copy of judgment (Ex. DA1) and certified copy (Ex. DA2) of her statement made in proceedings before learned Judge, Small Cause Court.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Admittedly, Ajay Bhandari (since deceased), the only son of Jagmohan Bhandari (the complainant) was married to Geeta accused on 11/10/1995. During those days, Ajay Bhandari was putting up at T-7, Friday Market, -:9:- Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Case of prosecution is that from the very beginning, Geeta accused, for most of the time used to live at her parental house. She used to visit her matrimonial home but then again used to go to her parental house.
Present case was registered on 19/03/1998 on the statement made by Jagmohan Bhandari, consequent upon commission of suicide by his son at his house. Jagmohan Bhandari, the complainant, levelled allegations in his statement made before the police that Geeta accused, her brothers Mukesh Kumar and Sushil Kumar, sister Preeti and her mother Raj Rani (all accused) abetted commission of suicide by Ajay Bhandari, because of his harassment at their hands and cruel behaviour.
Learned Addl. P.P. for State has submitted that from the statement of PW-2 Jagmohan Bhandari (the complainant), case of prosecution stands established against all the accused. On behalf of prosecution, reference has also been made to suicide note of Ajay Bhandari recovered from his clothes at Gandhi Nursing Home, wherein he raised accusing finger towards all the accused. It has also been submitted that although no opinion regarding cause of -:10:- death of Ajay Bhandari is available in the medical evidence, from the expert evidence it stands establised that the specimen handwriting collected during investigation tallied with the disputed handwriting of Ajay Bhandari. So, it has been argued that prosecution case against all the accused stands fully established.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that prosecution has failed to prove on record as to what was the cause of death of Ajay Bhandari. In this respect, learned defence counsel referred to the medical evidence available on record. Then, the learned defence counsel referred to the statements of prosecution witnesses including that of the complainant, and argued that it does not stand established on record that relations between the parties were not cordial and that rather from the material available on record it stands established that their relations were cordial till 18/03/1998 and as such there was no abetment from any of the accused leading Ajay Bhandari to kill himself on 19/03/1998.
As regards, suicide note, learned defence counsel has referred to the material available on record and contended that the prosecution version regarding recovery of -:11:- suicide note from the clothes of Ajay Bhandari is highly doubtful. Learned defence counsel then submitted that prosecution has failed to prove on record that the documents sent to FSL by way of specimen handwriting, actually contained the specimen handwriting of Ajay Bhandari or that the alleged suicide note is in the handwriting of Ajay Bhandari. As regards documents collected from Bank of Baroda, to prove specimen handwriting of Ajay Bhandari, learned defence counsel contended that prosecution has failed to duly establish that these documents were bearing handwriting or signatures of Ajay Bhandari.
It was also contended that prosecution has failed to establish on record that accused persons had any motive in commission of the crime. So, it has been submitted that all the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. Cordial Relations between Ajay Bhandari and Geeta and others prior to 18.3.1998:
Case of prosecution is that Geeta accused used to insist her husband to leave his parental house and to live with her parents. According to PW2 Jagmohan Bhandari, behaviour of his daughter in law Geeta towards his family members was cruel as after the marriage she used to spend -:12:- maximum time at the house of her parents and also used to leave the matrimonial home without knowledge. Complainant is alleged to have lodged report with Police Post Matiala when he did not see any fruitful result to resolve the matter amicably. Thereafter, again he filed a complaint with the police and it was only because of pressure that Geeta returned to the matrimonial home. However, there is no evidence on record to suggest that Ajay Bhandari ever filed any complaint before the police to the effect that his wife was pressurizing him to live separately from his parents or to live at her parental house.
Complainant has also not proved on record any such complaint to support the allegations levelled against the accused. In his cross-examination, PW2-the complainant admitted that they had no differences with Geeta before 18.3.1998. Had there been any kind of difference between Geeta and her in-laws, PW2 would not have stated so in Court. All this falsifies the allegations of harassment levelled by PW2 and PW3, in their statements made in Court, against Geeta and her family members.
Surprisingly, PW3 stated in her chief-examination that in May, 1997, one day Geeta demanded Rs.70,000/-for -:13:- divorce of her brother Mukesh, but they refused to give this amount, and after this Geeta used to pick up fights more regularly. She is also alleged to have threatened Ajay Bhandari with implication in dowry case in case money was not given to her. Surprisingly, no such allegation was levelled or narrated by PW2 while appearing in Court. He did not depose about any such allegation of May, 1997. Rs.52,000/- found missing on 19.03.1998 PW2 stated in Court that a sum of Rs.52,000/-kept in an almirah lying at their house, was missing, after Geeta left the matrimonial home on 18.3.1998. To same effect is statement of PW3.
According to PW2, in the morning, his son rang up Geeta to enquire about money of Rs.52,000/-, but the phone was disconnected; that his son again rang up and this time phone call was attended by Smt.Raj Rani, accused, but she too disconnected the phone when his son enquired her about her health. Smt.Raj Rani, when once again contacted, replied that they were not thieves. At that time, she is alleged to have threatened to get them implicated in some case.
When we advert to the statement of PW3 Sudesh Rani, whose statement was recorded by the police after two -:14:- years of the occurrence, it wound reveal that she deposed her son having made phone call at the house of his in-laws only once. She did not state that her son once again telephonically contacted her in-laws to enquire about money. Furthermore, police recorded statement of PW3 on 15.4.2000 i.e. about 2 years after the occurrence, and delay in recording of her statement remains unexplained.
In this respect, it may be mentioned here that Ajay Bhandari left this world on 19.3.1998. There is nothing in prosecution evidence that Geeta attended the phone call of her husband in the morning of 19.8.1998 or extended any threat. In his alleged undated suicide note, he did not mention anywhere that Geeta took away Rs.52,000/-at the time she left the matrimonial home. Admissibility of the suicide note shall be discussed hereinafter. No date of leaving of matrimonial home by Geeta stands recorded in the suicide note. PW2 and 3 have admitted in their statements in Court that they had full faith in Geeta. PW2 admitted that he had full confidence in Geeta before 18.3.1998. He further admitted that he used to give money to his wife who in turn used to keep the same with Geeta. He further admitted that amount was never handed over by his wife to Geeta in his presence. -:15:- It is also pertinent to note that immediately after detecting loss of money, no report was lodged with the police. PW2 is alleged to have sent a complaint to police in the morning and that too by speed post. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why no report was lodged with the police and as to why PW2 thought it fit to send complaint by speed post.
As noticed above, there is nothing on record to suggest that Ajay Bhandari held his wife responsible for loss or misappropriation or theft of any such amount. Keeping in view all this, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish that a sum of Rs.52,000/- was taken away by Geeta at the time she left the matrimonial home on 18.3.1998 at about 10.05 p.m or such a fact led Ajay Bhandari to commit suicide.
Ajay Bhandari felt scared It is in the statement of PW2 Jagmohan Bhandari that his son got scared because of the threat extended by Geeta that she would implicate her husband and other family members ; that he tried to pacify his son but he was too much scared; that his son requested him to visit the police post so as to report the matter to police even before Geeta could file any complaint, but he advised his son that they would visit -:16:- police post in the morning. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that at about 2.30 a.m, when he woke up to attend the call of nature, he found his son still awake and sitting in a corner. On seeing his son in such state of mind, he again tried to pacify his son. On 19.03.1998 PW-2 learnt that his son had consumed poison.
Cause of Death of Ajay Bhandari In this respect, prosecution has relied upon medical evidence. PW-4 Sh. Sulabh Kumar is Incharge of Gandhi Nursing Home where Ajay Bhandari was initially taken to. According to PW-4, Ex.P-2 was prepared at their Nursing Home by Dr. Pawan Gandhi. Ex.P-2 is only a photocopy of medical record prepared at Gandhi Nursing Home. Its original has not been produced on record. PW-5 admitted in his cross examination to have not brought any register in respect of entry regarding admission of Ajay Bhandari. Therefore, in absence of original medical record, prosecution cannot place reliance on photocopy Ex.P-2.
Case of prosecution is that from Gandhi Nursing Home, Ajay Bhandari, was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. In this respect, prosecution has examined PW-2 Jagmohan Bhandari. No medical record of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital -:17:- was summoned by the prosecution so as to duly prove photocopy of casualty card (Ex.P3) pertaining to Ajay Bhandari. Even no doctor witness has been examined to prove the casualty card. In absence of admissible evidence, no reliance can be placed on casualty card which is only a phtostate copy and about which only PW-2, the complainant, has deposed.
It is also case of prosecution that from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Ajay Bhandari, was taken to RML hospital. PW-8 Sh. Surender Singh, Record Clerk of RML Hospital has proved handwriting and signatures of Dr. Tilak Raj on the MLC Ex.PW-8/A of Ajay Bhandari. This MLC would reveal that on 19/03/1998 at 01:45 p.m. Ajay Bhandari was brought to RML hospital by his mother Smt. Sudesh Bhandari. Alleged history as provided to the doctor and as recorded in MLC is 'unknown poison'. At that time, patient was conscious, but drowsy. He was referred to ME-4 for further examination. PW-6 Dr. A. K. Aggarwal deposed that on 19/03/1998 at about 02:10 p.m., Ajay Bhandari was examined by the resident doctors on duty available in the emergency at the time of admission after transfer to the CMO room. According to PW-6 condition of Ajay Bhandari at the -:18:- time of his admission was poor with features of shock. Allegedly, the patient had consumed Aluminium Phosphide Tablets. The doctor further deposed that unfortunately the patient expired at 02:45 p.m. i.e. within less than an hour of his admission. He further deposed that as per record brought by him it was a case of suspected poisoning. In his cross examination, the doctor witness stated that the patient was medico legally examined not by him but by a team of doctors who were working under his supervision on that date in emergency.
Then there is statement of PW-7 Dr. B. N. Acharya, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ajay Bhandari on 20/03/1998. PW-7 has proved autopsy report Ex.PW-7/A. According to the doctor, viscera was sent for analysis at CFSL and it was thereafter that he opined that he could not give definite cause of death, the reason being that viscera was sent after a gap of about two years i.e. 08/02/2000. It was for the prosecution to explain delay in dispatch of the viscera to CFSL for analysis, but prosecution has failed to explain delay in its dispatch in time.
Then there is report Ex.PW-10/A received from CFLS. As per report Ex.PW-10/A "no common poison" could -:19:- be detected in Ex.1-A, 1-B, 1-C and Ex.1-D. It may be mentioned here that in autopsy report Ex.PW-7/A, Dr. B. N. Acharya had deferred opinion regarding cause of death till receiving of report regarding chemical examination. As noticed above, PW-7 Dr. B. N. Acharya could not give any definite cause of death, the viscera being sent after a gap of two years.
In view of above evidence on record, it can safely be said that although from the medical evidence, it stands established that Ajay Bhandari left this world on 19/03/1998 at about 02:45 p.m, prosecution has failed to establish as to what was the cause of death of Ajay Bhandari. Which circumstances led to death of Ajay Bhandari?
In this respect, prosecution has placed reliance on the statements of PW-2 Jagmohan Bhandari (the complainant) and his wife PW-3 Smt. Sudesh Bhandari, parents of Ajay Bhandari (since deceased). Delay in recording of FIR As noticed above, Ajay Bhandari left this world on 19/03/1998 at 02:45 p.m. at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was got admitted by his mother (Pw-3). Present case came to be registered on the statement Ex.PW-2/A -:20:- made by Jagmohan Bhandari, father of Ajay Bhandari, on 19/03/1998 at about 9 p.m. It was for prosecution to explain delay in recording of statement made by Jagmohan Bhandari before the police. Initially Ajay Bhandari was taken to Gandhi Nursing Home and then to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, but medical record does not depict presence of PW-2. MLC Ex.PW-8/A prepared at 01:45 p.m. on 18/03/1998 does not reveal presence of PW-2 in the company of Ajay Bhandari. MLC Ex.PW-8/A depicts presence of PW-3 wife of PW-2. This belies the version of PW-2 that he went to Gandhi Nursing Home. Had he reached there, why delay occurred in reporting matter to police. PW-2 was a Vigilance Officer in DESU. He has failed to explain delay in recording of his statement by the police, which puts the court on guard to carefully scrutinize his statements.
Before invoking provisions of section 306 IPC, it has to be established that someone committed suicide and secondly that accused abetted commission of suicide. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of -:21:- that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that things.
Case of prosecution is that marriage of Ajay Bhandari with Geeta (accused) was solemnised on 11/10/1995. They were blessed with a child. Allegations levelled by Jagmohan Bhandari in his statement Ex.PW-2/A and also while appearing in court as PW-2, are that all the accused persons subjected his son Ajay Bhandari to harassment as a result where of he committed suicide.
According to PW-2 Jagmohan Bhandari incident of harassment of his son before his death took place on 18/03/1998 at about 9 a.m. According to him on that date, at about 08:45 p.m., he saw the first gate of his house lying opened although it usually remained closed. He heard loud shouts coming from inside the house, as there was a fight between his son and daughter in law Geeta. On seeing him, his son and his daughter in law became quiet. Then, he made enquiry from his son as to what was happening. His son then replied that Geeta (accused) was insisting him to leave the house and to go to the house of her parents to stay -:22:- there.
At this stage, when we advert to statement of PW2 Ex.PW2/A made before the police, it would transpire that therein he did not state this fact that on his enquiry as to what was happening, his son replied that Geeta accused was insisting him to leave the house and to go to her parental house to stay there. Therefore, on this aspect, PW2 has improved upon his previous statement. There is no explanation as to why this important fact was not stated by the witness while making statement Ex.PW2/A. It is also case of prosecution that on 18.03.98 at about 9.15 p.m., Mukesh Arora and Sunil Arora, both brother of Geeta accused, came to the matrimonial home of Geeta and took her away from there. On this aspect, PW2 Jagmohan Bhandari deposed that around 9.15 p.m, Mukesh Arora and Sunil Arora came to his house; that Sunil told him that condition of his mother was not well and then requested to send Geeta with him; that Geeta lifted her son Vipul to take her along but Ajay Bhandari (since deceased) objected to it saying that she could alone go leaving Vipul behind; that when Geeta reached near the gate of his house to leave for her parental house, all of a sudden, she became furious and -:23:- threatened Ajay Bhandari that she would get him and his entire family implicated in a dowry case and also see as to how the marriage of his sister is performed. According to PW2, marriage of his daughter was going to be solemnised on 16.05.98. Then Geeta took Vipul and left for her parental house on the scooter of her brother.
It may be mentioned here that in his statement Ex.PW2/A made before the police, PW2 nowhere stated that on reaching near the gate of his house, Geeta, all of sudden, became furious. This incident alleged to have taken place near the gate of the house of the complainant and the deceased, must have attracted persons from the neighbourhood. However, in this case, prosecution has not examined anyone from the neighbourhood to support version of PW2 on this aspect.
PW3 Smt. Sudesh Bhandari, mother of Ajay Bhandari has narrated the incident dated 18.03.98 like this:
On 18.03.98 at about 9/9.15 p.m., Geeta picked up a fight with Ajay Bhandari. Two brothers of Geeta also reached there at that time and told that their mother was not keeping good health. Geeta was permitted to leave in their company. While leaving the house, Geeta and her brothers -:24:- threatened to teach them a lesson and also implicated them in a dowry case.
It may be mentioned here that police recorded statement of Smt. Sudesh Bhandari, during investigation, in the year 2000. This fact has been admitted by PW3 Smt. Sudesh Bhandari herself and also by the investigating officer. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it was duty of the investigating officer to record her statement without delay so as to rule out possibility of any concoction or introduction of false facts. However, in this case, the investigating officer has failed to furnish any explanation for delay in recording of her statement i.e. on 15.04.2000. Adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution because of delay in recording statement of PW-3.
In this view of the matter reference may be made to decision in Kartar Singh & Ors. v. State 1988 C.C. Cases 299 (HC) and Sita Ram v. State (Delhi Administration) 1997 JCC 637.
As noticed above, PW3 Sudesh Bhandari did not depose in court about any incident of quarrel between her son Ajay and daughter in law Geeta, at the time her husband (PW2) was going to enter the house on 18.03.98 at about 9 -:25:- p.m. She did not specifically state that Geeta and Ajay Bhandari were shouting at each other soon before the arrival of her husband (PW2). She also did not state that on arrival of her husband (PW2), Ajay and Geeta became silent or that PW2 then enquired from Ajay Bhandari or that Ajay Bhandari replied that Geeta was insisting him (Ajay) to leave his house and to go to his in-laws house so as to stay there. It may be mentioned here that even PW2 Jagmohan Bhandari did not depose in his chief examination that his wife (PW3) was also found present at the house, at the time, he entered the house and that Ajay Bhandari and Geeta were shouting at each other.
Improvement made in statement made in Court As noticed above, PW2 has failed to prove on record dispatch of complaint Ex.PW2/DA to the police. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated to have mentioned in Ex.PW2/DA whatever he knew by then. In the next sentence, he admitted to have not mentioned in Ex.PW2/DA that on 18.3.1998 when he returned to his house at about 8.45 or 9 p.m, he saw first gate of his house lying open and that he heard loud shouts coming from inside the house and those were shouts of fight between Geeta and his son and that on -:26:- seeing him both of them became quite. He also admitted to have not mentioned in Ex.PW2/DA that his son told him that Geeta was insisting him to leave the house and go to the house of her parents to stay there. At the same time, in his cross-examination PW2 admitted to have not mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW2/DA that while leaving the house, Geeta became furious or threatened to implicate her husband and other family members in a dowry case or threatened that she would see how the marriage of his sister was performed. He also admitted to have not written therein that his son got scared and expressed surprise as to how marriage of his sister shall be performed. PW2 further admitted to have not written in the complaint Ex.PW2/DA that his son requested him to visit the police station to lodge complaint/to make a report before Geeta could file any complaint or that he advised his son to report the matter to police in the morning because of late hours of the night. All these details must have been given in the complaint Ex.PW2/DA which PW2 is stated to have posted to the police on 19.3.1998. About omission of these particulars, PW2 tried to explain by stating that he did not consider it necessary to write every detail because basically it was a complaint regarding the amount of -:27:- Rs.52,000/-found missing from the almirah of Geeta. It is not believable that when such a big amount is missing from the house, a person like complainant would not rush to the police immediately or would opt to go to office and send complaint to the police only by post.
It is not believable that a father, even after seeing his son feeling too much scared, would opt to go to office without first taking his son to the police station to allay his fear.
This shows that while deposing as PW2, the complainant has improved upon his version given in the complaint Ex.PW2/DA, allegedly sent by him to police, even prior to his making of statement Ex.PW2/A before the police.
PW18 Ram Babu is residence of RZ-9, South Extension Part II, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He knew Jagmohan Bhandari for the last 30/35 years. According to Ram Babu, there used to remain tension between Ajay Bhandari and Geeta and also their family as Ajay Bhandari wanted to remain with his parents, while Geeta Arora was against this idea. He further stated that Geeta Arora wanted to live separately and this led to quarrel in the family.
It is pertinent to mention here that PW Ram Babu did not depose about any immediate/recent incident dated -:28:- 18.03.98. According to him, Geeta Arora left the matrimonial home for her parental house two days prior to the marriage of sister of Ajay Bhandari.
It may be mentioned here that statement of PW Ram Babu was recorded by the police three years after the occurrence i.e. in the year 2001 and this fact has been admitted by PW18. Delay in recording of his statement by the police creates doubt if he knew about any such quarrel between Ajay Bhandari and Geeta, particularly when PW-18 nowhere specifically stated that any such quarrel took place in his presence.
PW3 Suresh Bhandari nowhere deposed that at the time two brothers of Geeta came to her house, Geeta wanted to take Vipul along or that Ajay Bhandari asked her to go alone leaving Vipul behind. Thus, statement of PW2 on this aspect does not find corroboration from the statement of his wife PW3. Had Ajay Bhandari asked Geeta to leave behind Vipul and go alone to her parents house, PW3 would not have omitted to state so. This makes the prosecution version doubtful if actually Ajay Bhandari asked his wife to go alone, thereby giving a chance to her to threaten him and his family members with their false implication in a dowry -:29:- case.
Prosecution has examined PW5 Ashok Bhandari, uncle of Ajay Bhandari (since deceased) and brother of Jagmohan Bhandari (complainant). PW5 could not tell as to how Ajay Bhandari and his wife were going on together, the reason being that he used to seldom visit the house of the complainant. The witness then deposed to have come to know about death of Ajay Bhandari on 19.03.98, to have visited the house of the complainant in the company of his wife, and also to have identified the dead body of his Nephew at Willingdon Hospital. PW5 specifically stated that he never saw Ajay Bhandari and Geeta quarreling with each other. Thus, PW5 has not supported the case of prosecution so far as its story regarding any quarrel between Ajay Bhandari and Geeta is concerned.
Then there is statement of PW19 Devender Vohra. According to him, marriage of Ajay Bhandari with Geeta was solemnised in October 1995 and it was very simple marriage. It is in his statement that Ajay Bhandari and Geeta used to quarrel with each other; that Geeta used to ask her husband to live separately from his parents; that brothers of Geeta also used to visit the house of the complainant and threaten -:30:- Ajay Bhandari that he should live separately from his parents; that Ajay Bhandari got scared because of the threat extended to him.
It may be mentioned here that in suchlike cases, it is for the prosecution to establish that on such and such date, quarrel took place or that such and such threat was extended by such and such accused. However, PW19 nowhere deposed as to on which date, he found Ajay Bhandari and Geeta quarreling with each other. He also nowhere deposed as to when and where Geeta asked her husband to live separately from his parents. The witness also did not state as to on which date, brothers of Geeta visited her matrimonial home and extended threat to Ajay Bhandari to live separately from his parents and as to when Ajay Bhandari got scared because of any such threat. There is nothing in the statements of PW2 and PW3, parents of Ajay Bhandari to suggest that Devender Vohra visited their house or witnessed any such quarrel or extending of threat by Geeta or her brothers.
In his cross examination, PW19 deposed that on hearing that Ajay Bhandari had consumed poison, he reached to the house of the complainant, then removed Ajay -:31:- in the company of others from the roof and removed him to hospital in an auto-rickshaw. He further deposed to have accompanied Ajay to Gandhi Nursing Home and from there to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and from that hospital to RML hospital.
At this stage, when we advert to statement of PW3 Sudesh Bhandari, mother of Ajay Bhandari, it would transpire that she nowhere deposed about arrival of Devender Vohra PW 19 at their house in the morning of 19.03.98 or his having accompanied them to Gandhi Nursing Home, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital or RML hospital. PW19 nowhere deposed that the complainant had reached Gandhi Nursing home or that any suicide note was recovered by the complainant from the clothes of his son. In his cross examination, PW19 deposed that he accompanied by Ajay reached RML hospital at about 12/12.30 p.m. and that Jagmohan Bhandari also reached RML hospital. But the fact remains that Devender Vohra nowhere deposed about arrival of the complainant at Gandhi Nursing Home or at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
It may be mentioned here that according to PW19, his statement was recorded in the year 2002. Occurrence -:32:- pertains to the year 1998. There is no explanation as to why police did not record statement of PW19 U/s. 161 CrPC on the day of occurrence or immediately thereafter so as to rule out possibility of concoction of any fact.
In view of the above discussion, prosecution cannot take any advantage of statement of PW19 Devender Vohra.
Then there is statement of PW-20 Poonam, younger sister of Ajay Bhandari (since deceased). According to her, his sister in law Geeta used to say her brother (Ajay Bhandari) that he should demand money from his father so that she could give it to her brother who was to apply for divorce. However, PW-20 nowhere deposed as to on which date and time such demand was put forth by Geeta accused before her brother (Ajay Bhandari). It is in the statement of PW-20 that Geeta accused used to ask her husband to live separately from his parents and threaten him with involvement of his entire family in a dowry case, in case he did not accede to her desire. She further deposed that other family members of Geeta also used to visit their house and ask Ajay Bhandari to live separately from other members of the family.
However, in her statement, PW-20 nowhere -:33:- deposed as to on which date and time Geeta accused ever so threatened Ajay Bhandari that he should live separately from her parents or that otherwise his entire family would be involved in a dowry case. She also nowhere deposed as to on which date, brothers of Geeta visited their house and asked Ajay Bhandari to live separately from his parents.
PW-20 further deposed that on 18/03/1995 Mukesh and Raj Rani visited their house and took Geeta to the parental house. This statement of PW-2 is in contradiction with the statements of her parents (PW-2 & PW-3). It is not case of prosecution or that of PW-2 and PW-3 that on 18/03/1995 Mukesh, brother of Geeta and Raj Rani mother of Geeta visited her matrimonial home and took Geeta away. Case of prosecution is that on 18/03/1998 Mukesh and Sunil Kumar brothers of Geeta visited her matrimonial home and took her away.
It is in the statement of PW-3 Smt. Sudesh Bhandari, mother of PW-20 Poonam, that on the night of incident, all the four members of the family members were present at the house. Thus, according to PW-3 even Poonam was present at the house. Had Mukesh and Sunil taken away Geeta from the matrimonial home on 18/3/1998, -:34:- PW-20 would not have omitted to state so in her statement made in court. She would also not have omitted to state that at that time her brother requested Geeta to go alone to her parental house to see her ailing mother, leaving the child behind. She would also not have omitted to state that on 18/03/1998 while leaving the matrimonial home, that Geeta threatened to implicate entire family in a dowry case.
As regards factum of commission of suicide by her brother, PW-20 deposed that she learnt about it from her mother. Had PW-20 been present at her house on 18/03/1998 or on the night intervening i.e. 18/19-03-1998, she must have stated about the condition in which her brother was after Geeta left the matrimonial home in the evening of 18/03/1998. However, PW-20 did not depose any such fact in court.
Case of prosecution is that on 19/03/1998 at about 10:15 a.m. Ajay Bhandari was found unconscious on the roof. According to PW-3 Smt. Sudesh Bhandari, her son Ajay Bhandari was found unconscious and first of all she called her daughter and thereafter they called persons from the neigbourhood. However, PW-20 Poonam wants the court to believe that she only learnt from her mother about -:35:- commission of suicide. There is nothing in her statement that she went to the roof on being called by her mother and found her brother lying unconscious on the roof.
In view of the above discussion, even statement of PW-20 Poonam does not come to the aid of prosecution. Arrival of brother of Geeta at her matrimonial home According to PW2 and 3, Mukesh Arora and Sunil Arora, accused, brothers of Geeta visited their house on 18.3.1998 sometimes after 9 p.m. The prosecution version regarding arrival of brothers of Geeta at her matrimonial home does not stand established on record. Statements of PW-2 & PW-3 There is nothing in the statements of PW2 and PW3 that either Mukesh Arora or Sunil Arora indulged in any kind of argument either with Ajay Bhandari or with his parents. Had Geeta threatened Ajay Bhandari, persons from the neighbourhood, would have been attracted to the spot and witnessed Mukesh Arora or Sunil Arora taking away their sister Geeta, as she is alleged to have threatened the family of Ajay Bhandari while standing at the main gate of the house before leaving the spot. But during investigation no person from the public has been examined to lend corroboration to -:36:- the statements of PW2 and PW3 regarding arrival of Mukesh Arora and Sunil Arora. As shall be discussed hereinafter, in DD No. 24 dated 18.03.1998 got recorded by Geeta at P.P. Matiala at 10.15 p.m., she alone visited the police post, which belied prosecution version on this aspect. Recovery of Suicide note Case of prosecution is that suicide note Ex.P1 was recovered from the clothes of Ajay Bhandari while he was at Gandhi Nursing Home. Ex.P2 is the only document of Gandhi Nursing Home produced on record. As discussed above, for want of original Ex.P2, which is only a Photostat copy of Patient card, is inadmissible in evidence. From the statement of PW4 Sh.Sulabh Kumar, Incharge of the Nursing Home, the patient was referred to government hospital without being admitted in the Nursing home. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the statement of PW4 or in document exhibited as Ex.P2 that any suicide note or other paper was recovered from the clothes which Ajay Bhandari was wearing, at the time he was brought to the Nursing Home. Was the suicide note Ex.P1 left behind by Ajay Bhandari?
As noticed above, in this case, prosecution has -:37:- not been able to establish from medical evidence as to what was the cause of death of Ajay Bhandari, but the fact remains that Ajay Bhandari left this world on 19.03.98.
In this case, prosecution has come forward with the version that suicide note was recovered from the clothes of Ajay Bhandari, by his father (PW2), at Gandhi Nursing Home. But prosecution has not been able to lead cogent and convincing evidence about recovery of suicide note Ex. P1 from the clothes of Ajay Bhandari at the time he was brought to Gandhi Nursing Home.
A perusal of record would reveal that during investigation, police seized Ex. P7, a document submitted by a new account opener and submitted to Bank of Baroda. In this document, signatures of Ajay Bhandari marked as A1, were sent to FSL for comparison with the disputed signatures available under the suicide note Ex. P1. In addition to documents Ex P7, three cheques Ex. P8, Ex. P9 and Ex. P10 were also collected by the investigating officer from Bank of Baroda as these purported to bear the signatures of Ajay Bhandari as the drawer. In these three cheques, signatures of Ajay Bhandari were marked as A2, A3 and A4. These were also sent to FSL for comparison with the -:38:- disputed signatures available under suicide note Ex P1.
Although Mark A1 was put on Ex P7, the first mentioned document to treat these signatures as admitted signatures, yet it was for the prosecution to duly establish on record that these were put by Ajay Bhandari (since deceased), while submitting an application for account opening form. In this respect, prosecution could examine the concerned Manager/official of the bank in whose presence these signatures (A1) were put or by examining the introducer,namely, Raju, resident of T-64, Shukar Bazar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. However, in this case, prosecution has examined neither the concerned Manager/Official of the bank nor the introducer to establish that these signatures (A1) were put by Ajay Bhandari (since deceased) at this point in Ex P7.
It is pertinent to mention here that signatures (A1) are not in the space prescribed for specimen signatures. The specimen signatures are available in the third column below the signatures (A1). In this column, meant for specimen signatures, two signatures are available which read as "Ajay Bhandari". There is nothing in report Ex.PW7/A to suggest as to why none of these two signatures -:39:- available in the prescribed column meant for specimen signatures was treated as the specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures.
A careful perusal of the two signatures available in the column meant for specimen signatures would reveal that these two signatures do not tally with each other. For example, firstly, in one of the signatures, a line was drawn by the author under singature but under the other no such line was drawn by the author thereof. Secondly, in one of these two signatures, there is no similarity in writing letter "R". In the first available signature in this column "R" has been written as "r" whereas in the other column letter "R" has been written as "r". From all this, it cannot be said as to which of the three signatures available on the front side of this document Ex P7 was put by Ajay Bhandari (since deceased).
Consequently, this court comes to the conclusion that the expert witness could not take into consideration signatures (A1) for comparison with the disputed signatures.
So far as signatures available on cheques Ex. P8, P9 and Ex. P10 treated as admitted signatures of Ajay Bhandari are concerned, prosecution has not led any -:40:- evidence to suggest that anyone saw Ajay Bhandari (since deceased) putting these signatures on these cheques. Furthermore, on careful perusal of signatures available on these cheques would reveal that these do not tally with the first signature available in the column meant for specimen signature of the account opening form Ex. P7. Therefore, prosecution cannot take any advantage of the signatures available in Ex. P8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 treated as admitted signatures of Ajay Bhandari. For the same reasons, signatures (S4) available at the back of the account opening form Ex P7, signatures (S6) available at the back of cheque Ex P8, treated as specimen signatures by the expert, cannot be taken into consideration, when there is no evidence that these were put by Ajay Bhandari (since deceased) and also because these differ from the signatures available in the relevant column meant for specimen signatures in the same document Ex P7.
Exercise book Ex P6 was also sent to FSL for treating same the handwriting available in it as specimen handwriting of Ajay Bhandari, for analysis with the disputed handwriting available in Ex P1 i.e. the suicide note. According to PW24 SI Ashok Kumar, Ex P6 i.e. the exercise -:41:- book was seized by him on 22.03.98 i.e. on the 4th day of commission of the offence. It is available from his statement that he reached the house of the complainant on 19.03.98, inspected it and prepared rough site plan Ex. PW24/B. Prior thereto, the complainant is stated to have produced suicide note Ex. P1 before PW24 SI Ashok Kumar at the police post at 7.30 p.m. The exercise book Ex. P6 was seized on 22.03.98. When the suicide note had already been produced by the complainant, as per statement of PW24 at police post on 19.03.98, there is no explanation as to why the SI did not ask Jagmohan Bhandari complainant to produce any such specimen handwriting of Ajay Bhandari, on 19.03.98 itself. There is no explanation as to why the investigating officer took four days to seize the exercise book Ex. P6.
A perusal of exercise book Ex. P6 would reveal that at page 43 it bears the date 28.06.93. Case of complainant is that his son Ajay Bhandari was a graduate. However, in his cross examination, he could not tell the year, in which his son completed his graduation. Complainant has not led any evidence as to in which standard/class Ajay Bhandari was studying in the year 1993. Case pertains to occurrence dated 19.03.98. It is not believable that any student keeps -:42:- his or her exercise book for such a long period of five years. It was for the prosecution to prove that the exercise book contained handwriting of Ajay Bhandari. On record, this court does not find any cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that this exercise book Ex. P6 contains handwriting of Ajay Bhandari, when no one has been examined to prove that such and such handwriting was put by Ajay Bhandari in this exercise book on such and such date and in presence of such and such person. Therefore, the expert witness could not take into consideration any of the handwriting available in this exercise book Ex P6 for being treated as admitted handwriting of Ajay Bhandari. So, prosecution cannot take any advantage of the handwriting available in Ex P6 and the report of the expert of FSL so as to say that the suicide note Ex P1 was written and signed by Ajay Bhandari.
Let us assume for the sake of arguments that suicide note Ex. P1 was left behind by Ajay Bhandari, but it is yet to be seen whether prosecution has been able to establish that there was any kind of instigation, inducement or abetment in commission of suicide, or whether there was any offence committed against Ajay Bhandari or by any of the accused before his death.
-:43:-
It is well settled that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction but Courts look for corroboration from different circumstances, the reason being that whatever stands recorded in a dying declaration cannot be tested by way of cross examination. It is also duty of the Court to scrutinize such a dying declaration since accused persons have no right of subjecting such a statement to test by way of cross examination. In this respect, reference may be made to decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal and others, 1996 (2) Crimes 206.
At this stage, when we advert to the suicide note Ex.P1, it is found recorded therein that before leaving house, Geeta threatened that in case her husband did not separate from that house, she would get him and his family members subjected to beatings, report matter to the police saying that they had given her beatings, and as such get them send behind the bars, because these are the days when much attention is paid as to what a lady says. In Ex.P1, there is no reference as to arrival or presence of his brothers in law Mukesh Arora and Sunil Arora at his house on 18.3.1998.
On the other hand, Geeta has come forward with the plea that she was expelled from the matrimonial home on -:44:- 18.3.1998 at about 10.05 p.m. after she was beaten by the complainant and other family members. Suicide note is undated. It does not depict as to when Geeta did leave the matrimonial home before so threatening him and his family members. But the fact remains that Ajay Bhandari did not mention even a word about arrival or presence of his brothers in law on 18.3.1998.
Case of prosecution is that on 18.3.1998 at 10.15 p.m. DD No.24 was got recorded by Geeta at police post Matiala. PW24 SI Ashok Kumar is Investigating Officer of the case, who initially investigated this case, while posted as Incharge of police post Matiala. He candidly admitted in his cross- examination that during investigation, he came to know that Geeta had lodged DD No.24 at the police post on 18.3.98 at 10.15 p.m. He further admitted to have seized copy of DD entry No.24 during investigation of this case. Prosecution has produced on record copy of DD No.24. So prosecution can safely be said to have relied upon this document i.e. DD No.24 dt.18.3.1998, and as such its contents can safely be looked into, even though it has been marked as mark 24/A. It is well settled that admissibility of a document in evidence can be adjudged even at the time of final arguments. Even in -:45:- the course of arguments, genuineness of this document has not been disputed by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion, this court finds that DD No.24 dated 18.3.1998, relied upon by the prosecution itself, stands duly proved on record.
A perusal of contents of DD No.24 would reveal that it was got recorded by Geeta accused at Police post Matiala at 10.15 a.m. It stands recorded in this DD entry that at the time she visited the police post she was alone. There is nothing in it to suggest that any of her brothers-her co accused was accompanying her at the time she visited the police post. It stands specifically recorded in this DD entry that Geeta told the police and got it recorded by way of information that her husband and mother in law and father in law used to quarrel with her, give her beating and that even on that day, they had quarreled with her and beaten her, and that is how she had come there only in wearing apparels without carrying anything along.
It also stands recorded in DD No.24 that parents of Geeta were telephonically informed and called to the police post and that is how she left the police post in their company saying that matter shall be reported to Crime Against Women -:46:- Cell.
From the contents of the aforesaid entry, it stands established that none of the two brothers-co accused of Geeta was accompanying her at the time she visited the police post on 18.3.1998 at about 10.15 p.m. This in turn goes to show that none of the brothers of Geeta visited her matrimonial home to take her back to the parental house on the ground that their mother was not keeping good health.
The above discussed evidence also falsifies the version narrated by PW2 and PW3 about arrival of Mukesh Arora and Sunil Arora, brothers of Geeta at her matrimonial home or that Geeta left the matrimonial home in the company of her brothers on 18.3.1998 at about 9 p.m. PW 24 SI Ashok Kumar, who investigated this case, was duty bound to investigate about the information got recorded by Geeta vide DD No.24 at the same police post where he was posted as Incharge, so as to find out as to whether the contents of the information were true or false. No step appears to have been taken by the police to investigate on this aspect. All this speaks volume against the Investigating Officer about the manner in which he investigated this case, -:47:- At the same time, contents of DD No.24 dated 18.3.1998 make the defence plea put forth by Geeta probable that she felt aggrieved because of the behaviour of her in- laws and as such went to the police post without delay and got her grievance lodged for information of the police.
In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove that on 18/03/1998 Geeta or any other accused subjected her husband Ajay Bhandari to any harassment or thereby abetted commission of suicide by him.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to substantiate the accusation levelled against any of the five accused. Consequently, all the five accused are acquitted in this case.
Case property be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of appeal/revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on Dated: 22nd of May, 2007 [NARINDER KUMAR] Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court: Rohini: Delhi