Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Smt. Lata on 19 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 505/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0148312014
State Vs. (1) Smt. Lata
W/o Sammi
R/o C7, Shop No.18,
DDA Market, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Manoj @ Denga
S/o Ram Chander
R/o C7/408, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Sonu
S/o Sant Ram
R/o C7/432, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 505/2011
Police Station: Sultan Puri
Under Sections: 306/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions court: 2.6.2014
Date on which orders were reserved: 16.1.2015
Date on which judgment pronounced: 19.1.2015
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 1 of 79
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations on 29.10.2006 at about 8:30 PM at C2/49, Jhuggi Sultan Puri, Delhi all the accused i.e. Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu in furtherance of their common intention abetted the deceased Praveen @ Sonu to commit suicide and consequently Praveen @ Sonu committed suicide by hanging himself on the ceiling fan. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) As per the case of the prosecution on the night of 29.10.2011 about 9:50 PM an information was received at Police Station Sultan Puri regarding quarrel at shop No.1, DDA Market, C7, Sultanpuri pursuant to which DD No. 46A was lodged and SI Kulvir along with Ct. Kailash reached the spot where on inquiry they came to know that one Parveen @ Sonu had committed suicide by hanging and his relatives had taken him to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri. Crime Team was called at the spot after which Ct. Kailash was left at the spot whereas SI Kulvir reached SGM hospital and obtained the MLC of Parveen @ Sonu wherein doctor had declared him brought dead. SI Kulvir then came back to the spot where he met Smt. Darshna the mother of the deceased, Ms. Manju sister of the deceased and Neeraj brother of the deceased. Mother of the deceased made allegations against accused Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga who were residing in the neighbourhood. The mother of the deceased showed a piece of paper to SI Kulvir which paper was found St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 2 of 79 lying in the room. Crime Team inspected the place of the incident after which SI Kulvir recorded the statement of Smt. Darshna on the basis of which he prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct.
Kailash. The Investigating Officer then recorded the supplementary statement of Smt. Darshna and statement of Ms. Manju and Neeraj U/s 161 Cr. P.C. after which he took into possession one piece of chunni with which the dead body of the deceased was hanging, one knife, one piece of chunni with ceiling fan and one piece of paper on which words "Sonu Santram Ka, Lata Meat Wali and Denga" were written. On 3.10.2011 the accused Lata was arrested from her residence i.e. C7, DDA Market, Sultanpuri. Thereafter the accused Sonu was arrested from his house i.e. C7/432, Sultanpuri, Delhi at the instance of accused Lata. The accused Manoj @ Denga was also arrested by the Investigating Officer from his house at C7/408, Sultanpuri, Delhi on the pointing out of accused Sonu. The disclosure statements of the accused were then recorded wherein they confessed about their involvement in the alleged crime.
(3) On 31.10.2011 postmortem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased Praveen @ Sonu and inquest proceedings were conducted. The exhibits were then sent to FSL for expert opinion and after completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 3 of 79 CHARGES:
(4) Charges under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW Name of the Details of the witness
No. No. Witness
1. PW1 HC Govind Police Witness MHCM
2. PW2 HC Prem Singh Police Witness - Duty Officer
3. PW3 Ct Hans Raj Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
4. PW4 Insp. Anil Kumar Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
5. PW5 Dr. Kanak Lata Forensic Expert who was proved the Viscera
Report
6. PW6 Sh. S.S. Badwal Forensic Expert who has proved the physical
analysis report
7. PW7 Darshna Public Witness - Mother of the deceased
8. PW8 Neeraj Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
9. PW9 Dr. M. Das Witness from SGM Hospital who has proved
the MLC of the deceased
10. PW10 W Ct. Uganta Police Witness who has proved the arrest of
accused Lata
11. PW11 Ct. Kailash Police Witness who had reached the spot with
SI Kulvir
12. PW12 SI Kulvir Police Witness - Initial Investigating Officer
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 4 of 79
Sr. PW Name of the Details of the witness
No. No. Witness
13. PW13 SI Deepak Purohit Police Witness - Subsequent Investigating Officer
14. PW14 Dr. Manoj Official Witness/ Autopsy Surgeon Dhingra List of Documents Exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit Name of Document Proved by
No. No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness HC Govind HC Govind
Singh
2. PW1/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 13169
3. PW1/B Copy of RC 200/21/11
4. PW1/C FSL Receipt
5. PW1/D RC 201/21/11
6. PW1/E FSL Receipt
7. PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness HC Prem HC Prem Singh
Singh
8. PW2/A DD No. 46A
9. PW2/B DD No. 50A
10. PW2/C FIR
11. PW2/D Endorsement on Rukka
12. PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Ct. Hans
Raj
13. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Insp. Anil Insp. Anil Kumar
Kumar
14. PW4/A Crime team report
15. PW5/A Viscera Report Dr. Kanak Lata
Verma
16. PW6/A FSL (Physics) Report Sh. S.S. Badwal
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 5 of 79
Sr. Exhibit Name of Document Proved by
No. No.
17. PW7/A Statement of Darshana under Section 161 Darshna
Cr.P.C.
18. PW7/B Piece of paper recovered from the house of
Darshana
19. PW7/C Seizure memo of Paper
20. PW7/D Site plan
21. PW9/A MLC of Sonu Dr. M Das
22. PW10/A Arrest memo of accused Lata W/Ct. Uganta
23. PW10/B Personal search memo of accused Lata
24. PW10/C Disclosure statement of accused Lata
25. PW11/A Seizure memo of Chunni Ct. Kailash
26. PW11/B Arrest memo of accused Manoj
27. PW11/C Personal search memo
28. PW11/D Disclosure statement of accused Manoj
29. PW11/E Arrest memo of Sonu
30. PW11/F Personal search memo
31. PW11/G Disclosure statement of accused Sonu
32. PW12/A Rukka SI Kulvir
33. PW12/B Application for conducting the autopsy
34. PW12/C Inquest papers
35. PW12/D Statement of Rajesh
36. PW12/E Statement of Neeraj
37. PW12/F Dead body handing over receipt
38. PW12/G Notice U/s 91 CrPC
39. PW12/H Notice U/s 91 CrPC
40. PW12/I Copy of Bail application
41. PW12/J Refusal for comparison by FSL
42. PW12/L Application for Opinion
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 6 of 79
Sr. Exhibit Name of Document Proved by
No. No.
43. PW14/A Postmortem Report Dr. Manoj Dhingra
44. PW14/B Subsequent opinion
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as
many as Fourteen Witnesses
Public Witnesses:
(7) PW7 Smt. Darshna is the mother of the deceased who has
deposed that she is residing at C2/49, Sultan Puri, Delhi with her family comprising of her husband, her five sons and three daughters.
According to the witness her son Parveen @ Sonu was being harassed by accused Lata who was residing just opposite to her house and by accused Sonu and Manoj @ Denga who used to visit the house of accused Lata. Witness has further deposed that frequent quarrels used to take place between her son and accused Lata who used to tell her son that she would not let him live in the area of Sultan Puri. She has identified the accused Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga in the court. According to her, about three years back it was 29th day of the month of Diwali, it was occasion of Bhayya Duj when the incident took place. She has testified that all the accused persons had called her son Parveen in the house of accused Lata and they offered liquor to her son and St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 7 of 79 thereafter picked up a quarrel with him and manhandled him and on hearing this she and her husband went to the house of accused Lata. Witness has also deposed that accused Sonu was about to give a danda blow to her son Parveen @ Sonu but it hit at the head of her husband on which she brought her husband and her son back to her house. Witness has further deposed that thereafter she left her son Parveen at home and took her husband to a nearby clinic known as Nirmal Hospital for the first aid treatment and after getting first aid by her husband she alongwith her husband came back to her house. The witness has also deposed that she wanted to fill water in water tank as water supply was on at that time and hence she tried to open the door of her house but it was bolted from inside and she peeped from the window where cooler was installed and saw that her son namely Parveen @ Sonu was hanging from the ceiling fan. According to the witness she raised an alarm due to which his son Neeraj and another boy of the locality came and removed the cooler from the window and he went inside the room and unbolted the door and they they all went inside the room and brought her son Parveen down on the floor. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they took him to SGM Hospital where the doctor declared him as brought dead.
(8) Witness has further deposed that her son Parveen used to tell her that accused Lata would be the cause of his death as she used to level false allegations against him regarding his doing indecent acts with St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 8 of 79 her. According to the witness, her son Parveen also told her that accused Sonu and Manoj @ Denga used to threaten him and all the accused used to humiliate her son Parveen by leveling false allegations and by threatening him due to which reason her son used to remain under depression and under this state of mind he committed suicide by hanging. According to the witness she informed the police at 100 number on which the police came to the hospital and thereafter to the spot where her statement was recorded vide Ex.PW7/A. He has also deposed that police took into possession one document from her house bearing the writing of her son Parveen @ Sonu in which the names of accused Sonu (Sant Ram ka), Lata Meatwali and Denga were mentioned which paper is Ex.PW7/B. She has proved that the police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/C. The witness has further deposed that police took the photographs of her house and also prepared site plan at her instance which site plan is Ex.PW7/D. According to the witness the police took the chunni by which her son was found hanging, into possession and one knife by which the chunni was cut, was also taken into possession by the police.
(9) The witness has identified the case property i.e. one white coloured ceiling fan with a piece of black coloured chunni tied around it, as the same by which her son was found hanging with the ceiling fan, which chunni and ceiling fan are collectively Ex.P1; one black St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 9 of 79 coloured chunni as the same by which her son was found hanging with the ceiling fan which chunni is Ex.P1 and one knife as the same by which the chunni was cut, which knife is Ex.P3.
(10) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that she is totally illiterate but she can sign in Hindi. According to the witness her deceased son Parveen studied till class 4th and was an electrician. Witness has further deposed that her son used to sit at home and operate his electrical work from the aforesaid place. She has explained that her house is a jhuggi and is having only one room. Witness has further deposed that at the time of the incident she and her family members were sitting outside the house. The witness has also deposed that there has been a previous dispute existing between them and Lata wherein both of them had filed cross cases and had named and blamed each other. Witness has further deposed that she is not on visiting terms with the accused and has voluntarily explained that when her son or her family members used to pass in front of her shop, accused Lata used to pass comments and taunt them. She has admitted that her son had a criminal case against him and has explained that there was one case relating to a jhagra. Witness has further deposed that she is not known to Denga personally and has explained that he used to stay with Lata. According to the witness she had seen Denga prior to the incident on many occasions. Witness has further deposed that her son used to drink occasionally during the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 10 of 79 evening time. She has also deposed that the talks between the accused persons and the deceased had completely stopped. According to the witness before the time of death, her son Parveen had consumed liquor at the house of Lata and she came to know that Parveen had consumed the liquor in the house of Lata as Lata had called him to her house. Witness has further deposed that she did not stop Parveen from going to the house of Lata and has explained that he used to do the work of electrician and therefore whenever he was called by later, he used to go and she did not stop him. She has also deposed that it was after half an hour of leaving of Parveen that she heard the voice of tutu, meinmein coming from the house/ shop of Lata on which she went to the house of Lata alongwith her husband and daughter and has explained that her daughter remained outside while she and her husband entered. (11) According to the witness, she did not lodge any complaint against the accused persons regarding the quarrels picked with her deceased son Parveen but she did not want to exaggerate the quarrel as they were neighbours and she used to warn her son to quit his drinking habits and he assured him that he shall mend his ways. She has testified that the quarrel between both of them had ensued for more one hour. She has explained that she has nine children and except one son who stays separately on rent and one daughter who is married, all others were residing in the same house. Witness has denied the suggestion that her deceased son was a drunkard and often quarreled with the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 11 of 79 neighbours in a condition of intoxication. She has also denied the suggestion that in the year 1998 her son was involved in an Arms Act Case bearing FIR No. 983/98 of Police Station Sultan Puri and has explained that it was a case of jhagra. She has further denied the suggestion that on 24.08.2008 her son Parveen was involved in a case of eve teasing/ molestation of one girl by the name of Neha and a kalandra was drawn against him vide DD No.54A copy of which is Ex.PW7/DX1 (running into six pages). Witness has further deposed that she has no son by the name of Ravinder and has voluntarily explained that his name is Ravi. Witness has denied the suggestion that her son Sonu and Ravi were also involved in another case on 07.09.2009 when they were demanding money from one Sunil in a state of intoxication. She has admitted that her other son namely Deepu is in jail and has voluntarily explained that it was the accused Sonu and Lata who got him implicated in a false case. She has admitted that the FIR of the said case is Ex.PW7/DX2. Witness has denied the suggestion that her son Neeraj is involved in a case FIR No. 505/2013 of Police Station Sultan Puri vide Ex.PW7/DX3. She has further admitted that in the complaint filed by Lata, the allegations made were of molesting her daughter and has voluntarily explained that Lata was in a habit of using her daughters to foist false cases on others. Witness has further deposed that she had given a complaint to police in writing against Lata but she St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 12 of 79 is not aware of its fate. She has admitted that the said complaint was made after the complaint made by Lata. Witness has admitted that her son Parveen used to frequently go to Mumbai and has voluntarily explained that her daughter is married in Mumbai and he used to visit the house of his sister. She has admitted that in the year 2011 in the month of October a missing report of her son Sonu was lodged in Mumbai and later he was found in Sultan Puri and has voluntarily explained that the accused had taken her son to Mumbai and he was missing while he was with them and later he was found at the instance of Lata. Witness has denied the suggestion that her deceased son was mentally unstable.
(12) According to the witness, after her son was taken to the hospital by her son Neeraj, she made a call to the police. She has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime had been manipulated only after which the police was called or that the suicide note had been planted by her family to seek a revenge from the accused. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the note handed over to the police was not written by her deceased son or that the same has been fabricated by her family. She has also denied the suggestion that on 29.10.2011 her deceased son was misbehaving with women in the area in the influence of liquor or that accused Manoj @ Denga has been falsely implicated as he had stopped her son from his illegal acts when he had gone to shop of Lata to purchase eggs which did not go down well with her family. St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 13 of 79 Witness has also denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated accused Lata and her family on account of previous disputes with them. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. (13) PW8 Sh. Neeraj is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that he is residing at Jhuggi No. 49, C2 block, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with his family. According to the witness the deceased Parveen @ Sonu was his elder brother and was illiterate. Witness has further deposed that accused Lata is residing in front of his house and accused Sonu was living with accused Lata as her husband since Lata had turned her husband out from the house and accused Denga also used to visit the house of Lata being the friend of accused Sonu. Witness has further deposed that there was a quarrel between all the accused persons and his brother Parveen @ Sonu on the pretext that his brother had acted in an indecent manner with accused Lata and his brother Parveen was being tortured and threatened by accused Lata, Sonu and Denga. Witness has further deposed that accused Lata used to say that she would not let his brother Parveen live in the area of Sultanpuri due to which his brother used to remain sad.
(14) According to the witness, on 29.10.2011 accused Lata called his brother in her house where accused Sonu and Denga were also present and there his brother was offered liquor and under the influence of liquor all the accused persons started quarreling with his brother. He has testified that on hearing the noise his parents, his sister and he, St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 14 of 79 himself went inside the house of accused Lata and they saw that his brother was being insulted by all the accused persons. The witness has also deposed that while intervening his father received a danda blow on his head which was probably given by the accused Sonu and thereafter they brought his brother in their house and took his father to Nirmal hospital leaving his brother Parveen at home. He has also deposed that that when they came back and his mother knocked the door of the house for filling water and it was found bolted from inside when his mother raised alarm after peeping inside the room through the window where cooler was installed on which he along with one of boys from the neighborhood removed the cooler from the window and went inside the room and unbolted the door. He has testified that thereafter they cut the chunni by which his brother was found hanging and brought his brother Parveen down on the floor and took him to SGM hospital. According to him, police was called and police made inquiries from him and recorded his statement.
(15) The witness has correctly identified the accused Lata, Sonu, Manoj @ Denga in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one ceiling fan along with black chunni attached to the same, which chunni attached with the ceiling fan is collectively Ex.P1; a piece of black chunni which appeared to be remaining portion of the chunni Ex.P1 as the portion of chunni which was tied around the neck of his deceased brother Parveen, which chunni is Ex.P2.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 15 of 79 (16) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he does not remember when Parveen was called by the accused Lata at her home on 29.10.2011. According to the witness he heard shorsharaba after half an hour of the calling of his brother by accused Lata. He has also deposed that he does not have any criminal case against him. He has further deposed that his mother remained at Nirmal Hospital with his father for about half an hour. He is not aware for what reason shor sharaba took place in the house of accused Lata. He has admitted that the shop/ house of accused Lata is not situated exactly in front of his house and has voluntarily explained that it is situated after leaving two houses opposite his house towards its left side. Witness has further deposed that his deceased brother Parveen had studied upto 5th class. Witness has further deposed that they had given the diary of his brother Parveen to the police for specimen handwriting which diary was containing the handwriting of his deceased brother Parveen. However, the witness again clarified that he was not confirmed whether the writing in the diary was of his brother or not. He has admitted that his deceased brother was having several cut marks on his wrist/ hand. He is not aware whether he (deceased) had a habit of causing injury to himself. He is also not aware if any case of kidnapping was ever registered against him. He has also deposed that he himself did not give any medical record of his father to prove that he had sustained injury on his head during quarrel which took place for St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 16 of 79 about 1520 minutes. Witness has further deposed that he himself did not make any call to the police with regard to the quarrel. According to him, a crowd had gathered upon the occurrence of the aforesaid quarrel. He has explained that his deceased brother was working as an electrician and used to operate from his house. He has testified that his statement was recorded on 30.10.2011 in the Police Station at night time and his statement was not read over to him by police nor he had any knowledge about the content of the statement. According to the witness, the name of boy, with the help of whom he removed the cooler from the window, is Lekhu. He has also deposed that at that time a large number of public persons gathered there. He has admitted that his father is a patient of fits. The witness has denied the suggestion that prior to the quarrel on 29.10.2011 his father had suffered fits due to which he sustained injury on his head. He has denied the suggestion that they later on converted the said injury into the alleged injury in the present case. He is not aware as to how much liquor his brother used to consume everyday and is not aware as to how many time his deceased brother had been booked by the police regarding quarrel in the area. The witness is also not aware if his brother Johny was booked by the police for eve teasing in the year 2008. Witness has denied the suggestion that his brother Ravi was also arrested by the police in the year 2009. He has further deposed that his deceased brother Sonu used to frequently visit Bombay as his sister is married in Bombay. He has St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 17 of 79 admitted that his brother Parveen @ Sonu stayed with one girl namely Kiran in Bombay as well as in Delhi on rent in front of his house. The witness has also admitted that the said Kiran was already married and was having three children. He has denied the suggestion that his deceased brother Parveen was declared Proclaimed Offender by the court in a case. He is not aware as to what was the content of complaint which was lodged by the accused Lata against his deceased brother Parveen and has voluntarily explained that he is not even aware about the lodging of complaint by accused Lata. The witness is not aware if his brother had fallen from a train in Mudgaon (Mumbai) in the year 2009 and got head injury due to which he was admitted in a hospital at Jalgaon (Mumbai). He also does not aware that the injuries which his deceased brother suffered were grievous in nature. He has denied the suggestion that his deceased brother Parven lost his mental balance after the said accident. He has however admitted that the name of his sister who used to reside in Mumbai is Renu. He has also admitted that his sister Renu had lodged a missing report of his deceased brother in Mumbai on 03.10.2011. Witness has further deposed that he was found after about 1012 days of missing from Mumbai. He has also deposed that there was enmity between his family and the family of accused Lata since the last two months prior to the date of incident. According to the witness no complaint was ever lodged by him regarding the quarrel during this period of two months and it never came to his knowledge as St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 18 of 79 to when his deceased brother used to go for consumption of liquor. (17) Witness has denied the suggestion that the note handed over to the police was not written by his deceased brother or that the same has been fabricated by his family. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Manoj @ Denga has been falsely implicated as he had stopped his son from his illegal acts when he had gone to the shop of Lata to purchase eggs which did not go down well with his family. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated accused Lata and her family on account of previous disputes with them. Forensic Experts:
(18) PW5 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma has deposed that on 28.12.2011 one sealed wooden box duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary MANGOLPURI DELHI83 was received in the office of the FSL and same was marked to her for examination and she tallied the seal with the sample seal and found the same as intact. According to the witness, on Chemical, Microscopic, TLC & GCHS examination she found Ethyl alcohol in Exhibit 1A (stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a jar), Exhibit 1B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar), Exhibit 1C ( blood sample, volume 50 ml approximately kept in a bottle) and Exhibit 1C was found to contain Ethyl alcohol 67.4mg/100ml of blood. She has proved that after examination the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 19 of 79 KLV FSL DELHI. She has proved the detail report in this regard which is Ex.PW5/A. (19) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that it is possible that Ethyl alcohol can be present in certain syrups, used as medicines. She is however unable to tell that at what time the said Ethyl alcohol was consumed by the deceased prior to his death. Witness has denied the suggestion that she had not adopted standard practices and procedures while examining the exhibits. (20) PW6 Sh. S.S. Badwal has deposed that on 28.12.2011 he received two sealed cloth parcels which were sealed with the seals of KS and he tallied the seal with the sample seal and found the same intact. According to the witness on opening the same he found that one parcel was containing a ceiling fan wrapped with chunni and another parcel was containing pieces of cloth (chunni). He has further deposed that the torn cloth pieces (chunni) marked Exhibit 2 were examined physically and compared with another torn cloth piece (chunni) marked exhibit 1. He has also deposed that the torn edges of the cloth piece marked Exhibit 1 was physically fitted with the corresponding torn edges of the cloth piece marked exhibit 2. According to the witness, on examination he opined that the cloth piece marked exhibit 1 was the torn part of the cloth pieces marked exhibit 2. He has testified that after examination the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of FSL S.S.B. DELHI. He has proved his detailed report in this St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 20 of 79 regard which is Ex.PW6/A. (21) The witness has identified the case property i.e. one ceiling fan along with black chunni attached to the same which chunni attached with the ceiling fan is collectively Ex.P1 and a piece of black chunni appeared to be remaining portion of the chunni Ex.P1 as the one sent to him for examination which is Ex.P2.
(22) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that the said sealed parcels were not received by him personally. According to the witness he has only examined the chunni which was attached with ceiling fan but not the ceiling fan. Witness has denied the suggestion that the seals on the parcels were not intact or that he had not adopted standard practices and procedures while examining the exhibits.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
(23) PW9 Dr. M. Das has proved that on 29.10.2011 at around 10.10 PM one Sonu S/o Ram Bhajan, aged about 30 years was brought to the hospital by his brother Neeraj with alleged history of physical assault and on examination the patient was declared as brought dead after which the dead body was shifted to mortuary for postmortem examination. According to the witness the MLC bearing no. 17341 was prepared by Dr. Vinay which MLC is Ex.PW9/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity given in St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 21 of 79 this regard.
(24) PW14 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has deposed that on 31.10.2011 he along with Dr. Deepak Sharma had conducted postmortem on the body of Parveen @ Sonu S/o Sh. Ram Bhajan aged about 28 years, male, with alleged history of hanging and after postmortem examination they prepared their detailed postmortem report Ex.PW14/A (running into three pages) bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Dr. Deepak Sharma at point B on each page. Witness has further deposed that as per the postmortem report there is a ligature mark of 26 cm long brown parchmentized obliquely present over front and sides of neck merging with hairline posteriorly; Ligature mark was placed 2 cm below right mastoid process 5.5 cm below left mastoid process 6 cm below tip of chin, 5.5. cm above sternal notch, it is 0.7 cm wide in right side 0.8 cm in left and 0.7 cm in centre of neck. According to the witness, they kept the viscera preserved and handed over to the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that on 08.02.2013 he received an application from SI Kulvir for subsequent opinion along with FSL report and after going through the postmortem report and FSL report he gave his opinion Ex.PW14/B. He has proved having opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of Antimortem hanging under the influence of alcohol. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 22 of 79 in this regard.
Police/ Official Witnesses:
(25) PW1 HC Govind Singh is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in register no. 19 at S. No. 13169 copy of which is Ex.PW1/A, entry in register no. 21 i.e. RC No. 200/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW1/B and receipt issued by FSL copy of which is Ex.PW1/C, RC No. 201/21/2011 copy of which is Ex.PW1/D and receipt issued by FSL copy of which is Ex.PW1/E. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he has denied the suggestion that the exhibits were tampered during the time they remained in his possession. (26) PW2 HC Prem Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved DD No. 46A copy of which is Ex.PW2/A, DD No. 50A copy of which is Ex.PW2/B, FIR No.505/2011 copy of which is Ex.PW2/C and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/D. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the entries on the rukka have been ante timed on the directions of the senior officers.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 23 of 79 (27) PW3 Ct. Hans Raj is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident and having taken the photographs of the scene of crime. However, it has been observed by this Court that no photographs form a part of the charge sheet. (28) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer on 24.11.2011 and has explained that he had brought the negatives in the court. However, since the photographs were not on record, therefore the negatives have also not taken on record.
(29) PW4 Inspector Anil Kumar is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident and having prepared the crime team report which is Ex.PW4/A. (30) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he received the information regarding the incident at about 10:05 PM and he reached the scene of crime at about 10:30 PM and remained there till about 11:30 PM. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer was lifting some exhibits but he is St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 24 of 79 unable to give the details of the same. According to the witness he did not sign any document prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot and some family members were present at the time when he inspected the spot but he cannot give their details.
(31) PW10 W/Ct. Uganta has deposed that on 30.10.2011 she joined the investigation of this case and she alongwith Investigating Officer SI Kulvir Singh and Ct. Kailash reached at C7, Shop No.18, DDA Market Sultan Puri, Delhi at about 10.45AM where they met one lady who confirmed her name as Lata W/o Sammi who was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and thereafter accused Lata was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW10/A. According to the witness, she conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW10/B and her disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW10/C. He has further deposed that thereafter they came to the District Court Rohini and the accused Lata was produced before the Ld. MM and her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after which she was relieved. She has correctly identified the accused Lata in the present case. (32) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that they reached the house of Lata at around 10.3010.45AM and her husband was also present in the house at that time. She is unable to tell who identified Lata. Witness has further deposed that they were in uniform when they reached her house and St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 25 of 79 some neighbours had also gathered at that time. She has also deposed that the information of arrest of Lata was given to her husband and the accused Lata was also taken for her medical examination at SGM Hospital before being produced in the court. She has further deposed that she had mentioned this fact of taking the accused to the SGM Hospital to the Investigating Officer when her statement was recorded.
However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW10/DX1 the above fact was not found so recorded. She is unable to tell what was told by Lata to the Investigating Officer when she was allegedly interrogated. Witness has denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigation as claimed or that Lata did not give any disclosure statement to the police and she only signed the same on the asking of the senior officers in the Police Station and that is why she is unable to give the details of the disclosure statement.
(33) PW11 Ct.Kailash has deposed that on 29.10.2011 and on that day he was on Emergency Duty from 8.00PM of 29.10.2011 to 8.00AM of 30.10.2011. According to the witness, on that day he joined the investigation of this case and on receiving of DD No.46A he alongwith SI Kulvir reached at the spot i.e. C2/49, Sultan Puri, Delhi where they came to know that one boy had committed suicide and had been rushed to the SGM Hospital. Witness has further deposed that he was asked to remain at the spot while SI Kulvir went to the hospital and after about 3035 minutes SI Kulvir returned to the spot and informed St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 26 of 79 him that the victim had expired. According to the witness Crime Team also reached the spot and inspected the spot and took photographs and SI Kulvir then recorded the statement of Darshana, the mother of deceased boy and made endorsement on the same and handed over the same to him for taking the same to the Police Station for recording of FIR. Witness has further deposed that he then left the spot and went to the Police Station and handed over the rukka to the Duty Offcer HC Prem Chand and after registration of FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Kulvir at the spot. Witness has testified that thereafter SI Kulvir removed the fan alongwith the piece of chunni attached to it and converted the same into a pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of KS. According to the witness another piece of chunni of black colour was also found lying in the room which SI Kulvir seized and thereafter converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of KS. Witness has further deposed that one knife was also lying in the room which was lifted by the Investigating Officer and converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of KS and SI Kulvir also lifted one paper lying on the bed which contained the name of three persons. He has proved that all these items were seized by the Investigating Officer SI Kulvir vide memo Ex.PW11/A. (34) According to the witness, thereafter he alongwith SI Kulvir and Lady Ct Uganta went in search of accused persons and reached at St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 27 of 79 C7 Block where they searched for the accused in Block C7, C8 and C9, DDA Market, Sultan Puri but they could not find. He has also deposed that thereafter they came to know that they were available in their house on which they to went C7/408 where SI Kulvir called out to the accused and accused Manoj @ Denga came out of the house. He has testified that SI Kulvir then interrogated the accused Manoj and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW11/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/C and his disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW11/D. According to him, thereafter they went to the H. No.C7/423, Sultan Puri where SI Kulvir Singh called out the accused Sonu and a boy came out of the house and on interrogation his name was known as Sonu. He has proved that the Investigating Officer SI Kulvir interrogated and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW11/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/F and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW11/G. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he alongwith SI Kulvir and Lady Ct. Uganta reached at C7 DDA Market, Shop No. 18, Sultan Puri from where SI Kulvir interrogated one lady and her name was known as Lata who was arrested by the Investigating Officer with the help of Lady Ct. Uganta and proceedings of her arrest were conducted and they then returned to the Police Station. According to the witness after some time they went to SGM Hospital where the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 28 of 79 medical examination of the accused persons was conducted and thereafter both accused persons were produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate and were remanded to Judicial Custody and then they returned to the Police Station and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(35) He has correctly identified the accused persons in the court and also the case property i.e. one black coloured chunni which was seized by the Investigating Officer from the spot, which chunni is Ex.P1; one white coloured ceiling fan with a piece of black coloured chunni tied around it which was seized by the Investigating Officer from the spot, which chunni and ceiling fan are collectively Ex.P2 and a knife which was seized by the Investigating Officer from the spot which knife is Ex.P3.
(36) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he did not make a separate departure entry while he was leaving the Police Station and has voluntarily explained that the departure entry was made by the Investigating Officer. According to the witness he left the Police Station at about 9.50AM and finally returned back to the Police Station in the evening at about 6.00PM and when they reached the spot, he did not see any family member present there. He is not aware as to who told the Investigating Officer that the victim had been shifted to SGM Hospital. He has also deposed that when he remained at the house, there were about 1015 persons but they St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 29 of 79 were all neighbours and not the family members. According to the witness when he was left at the spot, he waited outside the house and SI Kulvir returned to the house till about 10.4511.00PM on 29.10.2011 but he is unable to tell about the family members. Witness has admitted that no documentation was done before SI Kulvir returned from the hospital. According to him, the statement of Darshana was recorded at her house. He has also admitted that it does not bears his signatures. He is unable to tell what Darshana had told the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily explained that it was SI Kulvir who was recording her statement. He has testified that he did not read the statement of Darshana when he reached the Police Station and the crime team reached the spot soon after arrival of the Investigating officer from the hospital. According to the witness, he had seen the paper lying on the bed which paper was lifted from the bed by SI Kulvir. He is unable to tell what was written on the said paper. He has admitted that SI Kulvir did not put the said document in any envelop before seizing the same. Witness has further deposed that they finally left the spot of the incident at around 2.00PM on 30.10.2011. He has admitted that when the accused were apprehended, they did not resist and cooperated with the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that both the accused did not make any disclosure statement and the same were recorded by SI Kulvir of his own which he signed on the asking of the senior officers or that all documentation was done while sitting in the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 30 of 79 Police Station and he merely signed the same on the asking of the senior police officials. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the tutoring by the Investigating Officer. (37) PW12 SI Kulvir has deposed that on the night on 29.10.2011 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and was performing emergency duty with Ct. Kailash and at about 9:50 PM on 29.10.2011 DD No. 46A Ex.PW2/A regarding quarrel at shop No. 1, DDA market, C7, Sultanpuri was entrusted to him. According to the witness pursuant to which he reached at the above mentioned address where on inquiry he came to know that one Parveen @ Sonu had committed suicide by hanging and his relative had taken him to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri. Witness has further deposed that he called the Crime Team at the spot after which he left Ct. Kailash there to guard the spot and went to SGM hospital and obtained the MLC of Parveen @ Sonu which is Ex.PW9/A wherein doctor had declared him brought dead. Witness has also deposed that thereafter he came back to the spot where he met Smt. Darshna the mother of the deceased, Ms Manju sister of the deceased and Neeraj brother of the deceased and mother of the deceased made allegations against accused Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga. According to the witness the mother of the deceased showed him a piece of paper which was found lying in the room and in the meanwhile Crime Team also reached there and inspected the place of the incident on his request. Witness has further deposed that he St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 31 of 79 recorded the statement of Smt. Darshna vide Ex.PW7/A on the basis of which he made his endorsement Ex.PW12/A and prepared a rukka. He has also deposed that the rukka was handed over to Ct. Kailash for registration of FIR at Police Station who went to Police Station and in the meantime he prepared site plan at the instance of Smt. Darshan which is Ex.PW7/D. He has testified that he recorded the supplementary statement of Smt. Darshna and statement of Ms. Manju and Neeraj U/s 161 Cr. P.C. after which he took into possession one piece of chunni with which the dead body of deceased was hanging, one knife, one piece of chunni with ceiling fan and one piece of paper on which words "Sonu Santram Ka, Lata Meat Wali and Denga" were written. He has further deposed that he sealed the ceiling fan, knife and chunni in separate pullandas with the seal of KS and seized them vide common seizure memo Ex.PW11/A and the piece of paper was not sealed and was simply seized which is Ex.PW7/B. He has testified that in the morning of 3.10.2011 he along with Ct. Kailash and L/Ct. Uganta went to C7, DDA Market, Sultanpuri in search of accused Lata after which the accused Lata was called outside her house No. C7 by L/Ct. Uganta and she was interrogated by him after which accused Lata was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/A, her personal search was conducted by L/Ct. Uganta vide memo Ex.PW10/B and her disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/C. St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 32 of 79 (38) According to the witness, thereafter they went to the house of accused Sonu at C7/432, Sultanpuri, Delhi and they arrested accused Sonu from there at the instance of accused Lata. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Sonu which is Ex.PW11/E, his personal search memo which is Ex.PW11/F and his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/G. He has further deposed that thereafter accused Manoj @ Denga was also arrested by him from his house at C7/408, Sultanpuri, Delhi on the pointing out by accused Sonu. According to the witness the arrest memo of accused Manoj @ Denga is Ex.PW11/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/C and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW11/D. Witness has further deposed that all the accused were brought to the Police Station and the case property were deposited with the MHC(M) and after their medical examination from SGM hospital, accused persons were produced before the concerned court from where they were remanded to Judicial Custody and after returning from the court, he recorded the statement of Ct. Kailash.
(39) The witness has proved that on 31.10.2011 he made an application for conducting the autopsy on the body of deceased vide Ex.PW12/B. He has also proved having prepared the inquest papers and having filled form 25.35 which is Ex.PW12/C and before the postmortem was conducted, he recorded the statement of one Rajesh St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 33 of 79 and Neeraj, relatives of the deceased vide Ex.PW12/D and Ex.PW12/E. He has also deposed that after postmortem was conducted the dead body was handed over to its relative vide receipt Ex.PW12/F. According to him, during the investigations he served a notice on the complainant Smt. Darshna to provide specimen handwriting of deceased for seeking expert opinion on the alleged handwriting which was found mentioned on the piece of paper found lying in the room which is Ex.PW7/B. He has proved the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. which are Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW12/H and in response to his notices Smt. Darshana had provided a photocopy of bail application of her deceased son wherein he had signed at encircled point A photocopy of which bail application is Ex.PW12/J. The witness has further deposed that he sent the case property as well as Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW12/J to FSL Rohini but the FSL authority had refused to received the photocopy i.e. Ex.PW12/J for comparison. He has testified that on 24.11.2011 he recorded the statements of other witnesses and he send the exhibits to FSL Rohini. According to him, on 08.02.2013 he moved an application before the Chairman Medico Legal Board, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri Delhi for seeking opinion on the ligature material vide his application Ex.PW12/K and during investigations he collected the postmortem report. He has also deposed that thereafter he handed over the case file to MHC(R) as he was transferred to Police Station Shahbad Dairy. St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 34 of 79 (40) He has correctly identified the accused persons in the court and also identified the case property i.e. one ceiling fan along with black chunni attached to the same which chunni attached with the ceiling fan is collectively Ex.P1; a piece of black chunni which appeared to be remaining portion of the chunni Ex.P1, which is Ex.P2 and one knife which is Ex.P3.
(41) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he remained posted at Police Station Sultanpuri from the year 2010 to year 2012 and had never met the family of the deceased or the deceased previously and hence cannot tell whether the deceased or anybody else from his family had any criminal background. He has also deposed that when he left the Police Station he did not make any separate ravangi/departure and has voluntarily explained that it was on the call that he had gone and therefore there was no requirement. According to the witness when he reached the spot there were about 1012 persons standing there and the mother and sister of the victim/ deceased were present at the spot. He has also deposed that at that time he did not know whether the victim was still alive or had expired and has voluntarily explained that he was only told that he had been taken to the hospital. Witness has further deposed that he did not meet anybody from the family of the deceased in the hospital and did not ask the doctor whether anybody from the family of the deceased was still present in the hospital and he did not carry out the body inspection of St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 35 of 79 the body of the deceased and has voluntarily explained that the body had been shifted to the mortuary. According to the witness he did not make any request to the doctors to permit the body inspection. He is unable to tell whether the deceased was smelling of alcohol or not because he had never carried out the inspection of the dead body and had informed the SHO about the death of the victim. Witness has further deposed that he remained at the hospital for about five to seven minutes. He has explained that he had his personal motorbike on which he was traveling and has also deposed that he reached back to the house of the deceased from the hospital at about 10:30 PM. According to him, at that time he again met the mother and the sister of the deceased and has voluntarily explained that there were large number of other persons who were also standing so he cannot tell who else from the family was present there. Witness has further deposed that it was the mother and sister of the deceased who had pointed out the spot where the incident had taken place. He has explained that the piece of paper which was lying on the bed was first pointed out to him by the mother and sister of the deceased. According to the witness, he did not make any inquiry from the mother and sister of the deceased as to how they could tell that the note had been written by the deceased. Witness has further deposed that he did not lift any finger prints/chance prints from the spot nor the Crime Team did so in his presence. According to him, he took the statement of the mother of the deceased at around 12 midnight while St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 36 of 79 sitting inside the house of the deceased. He has admitted that the scene of crime is a kachi jhuggie with only one room. He has explained that it took about 2025 minutes to write down the statement of the mother of the deceased. He has testified that he took the knife into possession after it was pointed out by the family members of the deceased as the knife with which they had cut the chunni while bringing the body down. He has further explained that he had noticed that there was one bed at the side and he assumed that the deceased had climbed over the same to reach to the ceiling fan.
(42) According to the witness, he had made inquiries from the neighbors but he could not get any eye witness and has voluntarily explained that he only came to know that the family of the accused and family of the deceased were having dispute with each other but none was ready to speak about it. Witness has further deposed that he did not sealed the piece of paper which the family claimed was the suicide note in any envelope and had asked the family of the deceased to provide him with the admitted handwriting of the deceased and also issued notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. but they could not provide any admitted handwriting and has voluntarily explained that they had provided him the photocopy of the bail application filed by him but it was not possible to get the opinion on the same. According to the witness, he did not obtain the original bail application from the court by moving any formal request before the competent court/illaqa MM. He has also deposed St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 37 of 79 that the family of the deceased did not give him any information regarding any school in which the deceased might have studied and has voluntarily explained that he had asked the family to provide him this information by giving them notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. but they did not give him this information. Witness has admitted that deceased was an electrician by profession. According to the witness he is not aware if the deceased was involved in criminal cases from their Police Station and his signatures were available on various documents prepared by the investigation officers of the said cases. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not collected the signatures and the admitted handwriting from the said documents which were already available with the Police Station in the said cases i.e. FIR No. 983/98, Police Station Sultanpuri and Kalandara drawn vide DD No. 39A on 06.09.2009. The witness has admitted that when he went to arrest the accused, there was nobody from the family of deceased to identify them and has voluntarily explained that the family of the deceased had pointed out the house of the accused which was right in front of their house and there was no dispute on identity. He has further admitted that all the three accused persons cooperated in the investigations and did not resist. Witness has further deposed that he did not join any public witness when he was interrogating the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement or that he recorded the disclosure of the accused of his own on which the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 38 of 79 accused was compelled to sign only to connect them with the offence. Witness has further denied the suggestion that all documents were prepared and all documentation was done while sitting in the Police Station on the directions of the senior officers. He has also denied the suggestion that the police witnesses were asked to sign these documents i.e. site plan, seizure memos, arrest of the accused, personal search, disclosure statements etc. According to the witness he did not mention the fact in the case diaries regarding the neighbors and public witnesses refusing to cooperate in the investigations or tell anything. Witness has further deposed that he had carried out the body inspection before the postmortem and prepared the body inspection report and has voluntarily explained that it is a part of the inquest proceedings. He has also deposed that he did not ask the doctor or family of the deceased to handover the clothes of the deceased to him nor the clothes of the deceased was hand over by the doctor to him. Witness has admitted that the viscera report Ex.PW5/A shows the presence of the Ethyl alcohol to the extend of 67.4mg/100 ml of blood. He is unable to tell if the deceased was a habitual alcoholic creating a nuisance in the area. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has not made free and fair investigations or that he was lead by the family of the deceased in the investigations.
(43) PW13 SI Deepak Purohit has deposed that on 16.02.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day further St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 39 of 79 investigations in the present case was entrusted to him. According to the witness, during investigations he recorded the statement of Smt. Darshna U/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.03.2013 and after completion of the investigations he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court through SHO. Witness has testified that he collected photographs from the photographer of crime team and filed the same vide supplementary charge sheet. However, it has been observed by this Court that no supplementary charge sheet has been received. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity granted in this regard.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(44) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating material was put to them which they have denied. All the accused have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The accused Lata has stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant. According to her, the deceased as well as his family members have been booked by the police for the offences against women. She has stated that she has three grownup daughters residing almost in front of the house of the deceased and the deceased used to frequently taunt and misbehave with her daughters for which she had strictly warned him. She has further St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 40 of 79 stated that she had also complained in this regard to his family members for which they had quarreled with her. According to her, on 10.10.2011 also she had made a written complaint at Police Station Sultanpuri but no action was taken against the deceased, however, the family members of the deceased were pressurizing her to take back the complaint but she was reluctant. She has stated that they all had threatened to implicate her in a false case and to reach her a lesson but she had not taken their threats seriously but later on she came to know that the deceased had hanged himself and a few days after the family members of the deceased have concocted a false story and have falsely implicated her and the other persons in this case.
(45) The accused Manoj has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant. According to the witness, on the date of alleged incident he had gone to purchase eggs from the rehri of Lata where he saw the deceased Praveen in drunken condition and was abusing girls. He has further stated that he told Praveen not to abuse the girls and thereafter his mother and other family members also came to the spot they started abusing him on which he left the spot. According to him, the deceased and his family members are of criminal intent and they have falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident.
(46) The accused Sonu has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant. According to the witness, St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 41 of 79 on the date of alleged incident he heard a noise of shouting and when he went to the place, he came to know that the deceased had again teased some girl and had created a scene over there for which local police had come and he made oral submissions against the misdeeds of the deceased. He has further stated that at that time the family members of the deceased were also present and they had also threatened him to teach a lesson as he had spoken against the deceased. The accused has further stated that on the next day morning he came to know through local persons that the deceased had committed suicide and thereafter he was falsely arrested in this case. According to him, it is also in his knowledge that the deceased was mentally disturbed and was into a habit of causing injuries to himself and used to cut his wrist after consuming alcohol. The accused further stated that the deceased had suffered a serious accident in Mumbai a couple of years back of this incident and lost his mental balance.
(47) The accused have examined two witnesses in their defence.
DW1 Satbir Singh is a resident of the locality who has deposed that on 29.10.2011 he was present at his house throughout the day and on that day at about 1.001.30PM a quarrel was going on between deceased Sonu and daughter of Lata near the rehri in the gali. According to the witness, Sonu (deceased) was under the influence of liquor and was abusing the daughter of Lata. He has further deposed that family members of Sonu were called and they were asked to take Sonu back to St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 42 of 79 home on which Neeraj brother of deceased and his mother took Sonu inside the house and locked him inside and after some time they came to know that Sonu had committed suicide.
(48) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that he is residing in the area since 2009 and he is known to both the parties since then. According to the witness, he is working in a Security and House Keeping Agency owned by his brother which agency is running in the name and style of Kartik House Keeping and Security Service and there is no fix timing of the agency. He has testified that they their office at Sector 20, Rohini on the Sunday Bazar Road. He has further deposed that the agency opens at around 9.0010.00AM and it is closed latest by 6.00PM. According to the witness, Lata puts a rehri of Eggs in the area. He has denied that she (Lata) is also involved into sale of liquor. According to him, he has never seen deceased Sonu @ Parveen, accused Lata, Sonu S/o Sant Ram and Denga consuming alcohol together. He has denied the suggestion that all these persons used to regularly sit together and consume alcohol and thereafter create nuisance in the area. The witness has further deposed that the house of accused Denga and accused Sonu S/o Sant Ram is in some other gali and the house of accused Lata is also at some distance in the same gali. He has admitted that deceased Sonu had good relations with accused Lata and her family. He is unable to tell about the visitors in the house of Lata as it is situated at a distance from his St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 43 of 79 house and he also cannot tell whatever transpired in her house. He has admitted that he is not a summoned witness and had come to the Court on the asking of accused Sonu S/o Sant Ram who is his good friend. The witness has further deposed that he had not made any complaint to the police or any authority regarding false implication of the accused persons in this case. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the area or at his residence on the day of incident. According to the witness, at the time of incident he was using a different mobile phone having number 9213184507.
(49) DW2 Sh. Krishan is also a resident of the same area and has deposed that on 29.10.2011 he had gone to a grocery shop in the gali to purchase some articles. According to the witness, it was around 7.00 to 8.00 PM at that time when he saw deceased Sonu present near the grocery shop under the influence of alcohol and was quarreling with some lady and talking nonsense. He has testified that some persons standing there called the family members of Sonu after which the mother and Neeraj brother of deceased Sonu came and took him back to his house and locked him inside. He has further deposed that after some time they came to know that Sonu had committed suicide by hanging. (50) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has deposed that he is residing in the area since 1995 and is known to both the parties i.e. the deceased and his family and also the accused. According to the witness, he is an working as Safai St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 44 of 79 Karamchari in the MCD for the last 20 years and his duty is from 7.00AM to 3.00PM and he used to return home by 4.004.30PM. He has testified that the house of Lata is on the main road whereas his house is situated in the gali and the house of the deceased is about 8 to 10 houses away from his house. According to him, the grocery shop from where he had gone to make purchases is in front of the house of deceased Sonu. Lata puts a rehri of Eggs in the area. He has denied the suggestion that she is also involved into sale of liquor but it is not within his knowledge that the deceased Sonu @ Parveen, accused Lata, Sonu S/o Sant Ram and Denga used to consume alcohol together and create nuisance in the area. The witness has also deposed that the house of accused Denga is situated across the park and it must be around 50 feet away from his house. According to the witness, he has no knowledge if deceased Sonu was consuming alcohol in the house of Lata alongwith the other two accused. He has admitted that there was a verbal altercation between the deceased Sonu and the accused Lata, Denga and Sonu S/o Sant Ram (Tu tarak hui thee).
(51) The witness has also admitted that Lata was not going along well with her husband and turned him out off her house. He is not aware if Lata was into a relationship with deceased Sonu and also into relationship with accused Manoj @ Denga. He is also not aware if Lata used to tell the deceased Sonu that she cannot stay with him openly in the area and on the account of which deceased Sonu remained St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 45 of 79 depresses. He has admitted that Lata is into a regular dispute with residents of the area and there are other criminal cases which she has foisted against the persons. The witness has further admitted that on the date of the incident Lata started publicly making allegation against the deceased Sonu of having misbehaved with her and has outraged her modesty (ashleel harkat kee hai). He has also admitted that the Jhagra had taken place in the house of Lata and the deceased as well as the accused were doing Tutu mainmain while coming out from there house. He has also admitted that the deceased Sonu was an electricians but has denied the suggestion that deceased was repeatedly saying that he was called by Lata to repair some item. He has denied the suggestion that accused Lata used to sell meat and popularly known as Lata Meatwali. He is unable to tell about the visitors in the house of Lata as it is situated at a distance from my house and also cannot tell whatever transpired in her house. He has admitted that he is not a summoned witness and has stated that he has come to the Court on the asking of accused Manoj @ Denga who is his good friend. According to him, he had not made any complaint to the police or any authority regarding false implication of the accused persons in this case. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the area or at his residence on the day of incident. He has further deposed that he was using a different mobile phone having number 9213184507.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 46 of 79 FINDINGS:
(52) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Medical Evidence:
(53) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Praveen @ Sonu was found hanging on 29.10.2011 at his house after which he was taken to hospital where he was declared 'Brought Dead' and thereafter his postmortem examination was conducted. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimony of Dr. M. Das (PW9) and Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW14) and the reports prepared by them.
(54) Coming first to the testimony of Dr. M. Das (PW9) who has proved that on 29.10.2011 at around 10.10 PM one Sonu S/o Ram Bhajan, aged about 30 years was brought to the hospital by his brother Neeraj with alleged history of physical assault and on examination the patient was declared as brought dead after which the dead body was shifted to mortuary for postmortem examination. He has proved the MLC bearing no. 17341 was prepared by Dr. Vinay which MLC is Ex.PW9/A. (55) Further, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW14) has proved that on 31.10.2011 he along with Dr. Deepak Sharma had conducted St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 47 of 79 postmortem on the body of Parveen @ Sonu S/o Sh. Ram Bhajan aged about 28 years, male, with alleged history of hanging and after postmortem examination they prepared their detailed postmortem report Ex.PW14/A (running into three pages). He has proved that as per the postmortem report there is a ligature mark of 26 cm long brown parchmentized obliquely present over front and sides of neck merging with hairline posteriorly; Ligature mark was placed 2 cm below right mastoid process 5.5 cm below left mastoid process 6 cm below tip of chin, 5.5. cm above sternal notch, it is 0.7 cm wide in right side 0.8 cm in left and 0.7 cm in centre of neck. The witness has also proved that initially they kept the subsequent opinion regarding cause of death pending and after receiving the Viscera Report, he gave his opinion Ex.PW14/B that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of Antimortem hanging under the influence of alcohol.
(56) The above postmortem report has gone uncontroverted since the Autopsy Surgeon has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel. However, it has not been opined whether the death has been suicidal or homicidal. In this regard, I may observe that the ligature mark was obliquely placed thereby establishing that the death was Suicidal in nature.
(57) This being the background, I hereby hold that the Medical Evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution that the death of the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 48 of 79 deceased Praveen @ Sonu was caused on account of hanging which was suicidal in nature.
Forensic Evidence:
(58) The case of the prosecution is that the ceiling fan and the chunni with which the deceased Praveen @ Sonu was found hanging, were then sent to FSL Rohini for expert opinion. Further, after the postmortem examination the viscera of the deceased Praveen @ Sonu was preserved which was sent to FSL Rohini for expert opinion. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Dr. Kanak Lata Verma (PW5) and Sh. S.S. Badal (PW6) and the reports prepared by them Chemical Analysis Report:
(59) Dr. Kanak Lata Verma (PW5) has proved that on 28.12.2011 one sealed wooden box duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary MANGOLPURI DELHI83 was received in the office of the FSL which was marked to her for examination and she tallied the seal with the sample seal and found the same as intact. She has proved that on Chemical, Microscopic, TLC & GCHS examination she found Ethyl alcohol in Exhibit 1A (stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a jar), Exhibit 1B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar), Exhibit 1C (blood sample, volume 50 ml approximately St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 49 of 79 kept in a bottle) and Exhibit 1C was found to contain Ethyl alcohol 67.4mg/100ml of blood. She has proved her report in this regard which is Ex.PW5/A. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she has explained that it is possible that Ethyl alcohol can be present in certain syrups, used as medicines but she is unable to tell that at what time the said Ethyl alcohol was consumed by the deceased prior to his death.
(60) The above chemical analysis report Ex.PW5/A establishes that the blood of the deceased Praveen @ Sonu was found to contain Ethyl alcohol 67.4mg/100ml of blood, thereby showing that he was Totally Inebriated State and this forensic report confirms the subsequent opinion given by the Autopsy Surgeon that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of his death. Physical Analysis Report:
(61) Coming now to the report of the Physics Expert, Sh. S.S. Badwal (PW6) has proved that on 28.12.2011 he received two sealed cloth parcels which were sealed with the seals of KS and he tallied the seal with the sample seal and found the same intact. He has proved that on opening the same he found one parcel containing one ceiling fan wrapped with chunni and another parcel was containing pieces of cloth (chunni). He has also proved that the torn cloth pieces (chunni) marked St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 50 of 79 Exhibit 2 were examined physically and compared with another torn cloth piece (chunni) marked Exhibit 1 and the torn edges of the cloth piece marked Exhibit 1 was physically fitted with the corresponding torn edges of the cloth piece marked Exhibit 2. The witness has further proved that on examination he opined that the cloth piece marked Exhibit 1 is the torn part of the cloth pieces marked Exhibit
2. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW6/A. (62) The above report is compatible to the case of the prosecution that the deceased Praveen @ Sonu had committed suicide by hanging himself on the ceiling fan with the help of black coloured chunni.
(63) Also, as per the case of the prosecution a suicide note alleged to be in the handwriting of the deceased containing the names of all the accused Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga, which according to the family of the deceased had been written by the deceased Praveen @ Sonu before his death. In this regard, I may observe that the Investigating Officer SI Kulvir (PW21) has stated that he had served a notice on the complainant Smt. Darshna to provide specimen handwriting of deceased for seeking expert opinion on the alleged handwriting which was found mentioned on the piece of paper found lying in the room which is Ex.PW7/B and in response to his notices Smt. Darshana had provided a photocopy of bail application of her St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 51 of 79 deceased son wherein he had signed at encircled point A photocopy of which bail application is Ex.PW12/J. Thereafter the Investigating Officer has deposed that he had sent the case property as well as Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW12/J to FSL Rohini but the FSL authority had refused to receive the photocopy i.e. Ex.PW12/J for comparison and no opinion can be given on the same. However, the Investigating Officer has made no effort to collect any other admitted handwriting of the deceased as a result of which it was not possible to ascertain whether the alleged note written on a sheet of paper, had been written by the deceased. Even otherwise, no allegations have been made in the said note against the accused and except for the names of the accused written on the same, no other word is written on the same and hence it cannot be said that the note was regarding the cause of death of the deceased Praveen @ Sonu. Hence, even if it is assumed that the alleged note was written by the deceased, it does not help the prosecution in any manner. Allegations against the accused:
(64) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Praveen @ Sonu an electrician by profession was previously known to all the three accused namely Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga. It is alleged that on the date of incident all the accused had called the deceased Praveen to the house of accused Lata where he was offered drinks and after some time they heard voices of verbal altercation from the house of Lata on St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 52 of 79 which the family of the deceased i.e. mother Darshna, father Ram Bhajan and brother Neeraj intervened during which the Ram Bhajan was given a danda blow on his head. Thereafter Darshna brought her husband and her son i.e. deceased Praveen @ Sonu to her house where she left Parveen @ Sonu at home and took her husband to a nearby clinic known as Nirmal Hospital for first aid treatment and when she came back she noticed that the room of Praveen @ Sonu was locked on which Darshna peeped inside the room from the window where cooler was installed and saw that her son Parveen @ Sonu was hanging on the ceiling fan. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused Lata who is indulged into illicit sale of liquor was into a relationship with the deceased Praveen @ Sonu. She frequently used to humiliate the deceased by leveling false allegations against him of committing vulgarity with her and used to threaten him of dire consequences and the accused Sonu and Manoj used to side with her and used to insult Praveen @ Sonu as a result of which the deceased used to remain in depression and even on the date of incident after he was made to consume alcohol by Lata he was insulted by the accused on which he returned to his house and feeling absolutely distorted, he committed suicide.
(65) I may observe that the only two material witnesses examined by the prosecution are the mother and brother of the deceased namely Smt. Darshna (PW7) and Neeraj (PW8). Coming first to the St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 53 of 79 testimony of Smt. Darshna (PW7) the relevant portion of the same is as under:
"......... I am residing at the above mentioned address with my family comprising of my husband, my five sons and three daughters. I am a housewife. My one son namely Parveen @ Sonu had expired.
My son Parveen @ Sonu was being harassed by accused Lata who was residing just opposite to my house and by accused Sonu and Manoj @ Denga who used to visit the house of accused Lata. The quarrel used to take place between my son and accused Lata who used to tell my son that she would not let him live in the area of Sultan Puri. Accused Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga are present in the court today. (Witness has correctly identified all the accused persons.) About three years back it was 29th day of the month of Diwali. It was occasion of Bhayya Duj when the incident took place. All the accused persons had called my son Parveen in the house of accused Lata and they offered liquor to my son and thereafter picked quarrel with him and manhandled him. On hearing this I and my husband went to the house of accused Lata. Accused Sonu was about to give a danda blow to my son Parveen @ Sonu but it hit at the head of my husband. I brought my husband and my son to my house. Thereafter I left my son Parveen at home and took my husband to a nearby clinic known as Nirmal Hospital for first aid treatment. After getting first aid by my husband I alongwith him came back to my house and I wanted to fill water in water tank as water supply was on at St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 54 of 79 that time. I tried to open the door of my house but it was bolted from inside. I peeped from the window where cooler was installed and saw that my son namely Parveen @ Sonu was hanging on the ceiling fan. I raised alarm due to which my son Neeraj and one another boy of the locality came and removed the cooler from the window and he went inside the room and unbolted the door. Thereafter we all went inside the room and brought my son Parveen on the floor. Thereafter we took him to SGM Hospital where the doctor declared him as brought dead.
My son Parveen used to tell me that accused Lata would be the cause of his death as she used to level false allegations against him regarding doing indecent acts with her. My son Parveen also told me that accused Sonu and Manoj @ Denga used to threaten him and all the accused used to humiliate my son Parveen by leveling false allegations and by threatening him due to which my son used to remain under depression and under his said state of mind he committed suicide by hanging. I informed the police at 100 number. Police came there in the hospital and thereafter came to the spot where my statement was recorded vide Ex.PW7/A which bears my signatures at point A. Police took into possession one document from my house bearing the writing of my son Parveen @ Sonu in which the names of accused Sonu Sant Ram ka, Lata Meatwali and Denga were mentioned. I can identify the said paper and the same is Ex.PW7/B. The police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/C bearing my signatures at point A. St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 55 of 79 Police took the photographs of my house and also prepared site plan at my instance. The site plan is now Ex.PW7/D bearing my signatures at point A. Police took the chunni by which my son was found hanging, into possession. One knife by which the chunni was cut, was also taken into possession by the police.
I can identify all accused persons.
At this stage witness has correctly identifies all the accused persons namely Lata, Sonu and Manoj @ Denga present in the court.
I can identify the chunni by which my son Parveen was found hanging. It was a black coloured chunni.
At this stage MHC(M) has produced on pullanda already opened during the examination of earlier witness and one black coloured chunni is taken out and shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same by which her son was found hanging with the ceiling fan. The chunni is already Ex.P1.
At this stage MHC(M) has produced on pullanda already opened during the examination of earlier witness and one white coloured ceiling fan with a piece of black coloured chunni tied around it is taken out and shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same by which her son was found hanging with the ceiling fan. The chunni and ceiling fan are collectively Ex.P2.
At this stage MHC(M) has produced on pullanda already opened during the examination of earlier witness and one knife is taken out and shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same by St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 56 of 79 which the chunni was cut. The knife is already Ex.P3...."
(66) She has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels wherein she has admitted that there has been a previous dispute existing between them and Lata where both of them had filed cross cases and both of them had named and blamed each other. She has explained that she is not on visiting terms with the accused but when her son or her family members used to pass in front of her shop, accused Lata used to pass comment and taunt them. She has admitted that her deceased son had a criminal case relating to a quarrel against him. She has further explained that prior to the incident, her son Parveen had consumed liquor at house of Lata but she did not stop Parveen from going to the house of Lata since Parveen used to do the work of electrician and therefore whenever he was called, he used to go. She has also explained that she did not lodge any complaint against the accused persons regarding the frequent quarrels being picked up with her deceased son Parveen since she never wanted to exaggerate the issues as they were neighbours. She has deposed that she used to warn her son to quit his drinking habits and he assured her that he shall mend his ways. She has denied that on 24.08.2008 her son Parveen was involved in a case of eve teasing/ molestation of one girl by the name of Neha and a kalandra was drawn up against him vide DD No.54A copy of which is Ex.PW7/DX1. She has admitted that her other son namely St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 57 of 79 namely Deepu is in jail and has explained that it was the accused Sonu and Lata who got him implicated in a false case FIR of which case is Ex.PW7/DX2. She has denied that her other son Neeraj is involved in a case FIR No. 505/2013 of Police Station Sultan Puri vide Ex.PW7/DX3. She has admitted that in the complaint filed by Lata, the allegations made were of molesting her daughter and has stated that Lata was in the habit of using her daughters to foist false cases on others. Darshna has also admitted that her son Parveen used to frequently go to Mumbai and has explained that her daughter is married in Mumbai and Praveen used to visit the house of his sister. She has further admitted that in the year 2011 in the month of October a missing report of her son Sonu was lodged in Mumbai and later he was found in Sultan Puri and has explained that the accused had taken her son to Mumbai and he was missing while he was with them and later he was found at the instance of Lata.
(67) It is evident from the testimony of Smt. Darshna (PW7) that the deceased Praveen @ Sonu had a previous dispute with Lata and they had been making complaints against each other. Further there were frequent quarrels between Praveen @ Sonu and accused Lata. If this be so, then it is no believable that the deceased would have gone to the house of accused Lata where he was offered alcohol and took up a quarrel. According to Smt. Darshna (PW7) the accused Sonu had tried to give a danda blow to her son Praveen @ Sonu which instead hit her St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 58 of 79 husband Ram Bhajan. This I may observe is an aspect which is not compatible to the prosecution version since it had never been the case of the victims that Ram Bhajan had received any injury, nor there is any medical record of Ram Bhajan to prove the same. I am sure, if Ram Bhajan (father of the deceased and husband of the witness Darshna) would have received injuries in the incident, the medical evidence would have confirmed the said aspect and the details of the hospital where Ram Bhajan had received treatment would have been placed before the court, which is not the case and this aspect is totally unbelievable. This witness has also admitted that her son Parveen used to frequently go to Mumbai but denied that he had been going to Mumbai to evade arrest in some criminal case.
(68) Coming next to the testimony of Neeraj (PW8), the relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"......... I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family. I am working as a labour.
Deceased Parveen @ Sonu was my elder brother. I am illiterate. Accused Lata is residing in front of my house. Accused Sonu is living with accused Lata as her husband as Lata had turned her husband out from the house. Accused Denga also used to visit the house of Lata being the friend of accused Sonu. A quarrel was going on between all the accused persons and my brother Parveen @ Sonu on the pretext that my brother had acted in an indecent manner with St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 59 of 79 accused Lata. My brother Parveen was being tortured and threatened by accused Lata, Sonu and Denga. Accused Lata used to say that she would not let live my brother Parveen in the area of Sultanpuri due to which my brother used to remain sad.
On 29.10.2011 accused Lata called my brother in her house where accused Sonu and Denga were also present. There my brother was offered liquor and under the influence of liquor all the accused persons started quarreling with my brother. On hearing the noise my parents, my sister and myself went inside the house of accused Lata and we saw that my brother was being insulted by all the accused persons. During intervention my father received a danda blow on his head which was probably given by accused Sonu. Thereafter we brought our brother to our house and took my father to Nirmal hospital leaving my brother Parveen at home. When we came back and my mother knocked the door of the house for filling water, it was found bolted from inside. My mother raised alarm after peeping inside the room through the window where a cooler was installed. I along with one of boy from the neighborhood removed the cooler from the window and went inside the room and unbolted the door. Thereafter we cut the chunni by which my brother was found hanging and brought my brother Parveen on the floor. Thereafter we took him to SGM hospital. Police was called. Police made inquiries from me and recorded my statement.
I can identify the accused persons and the case property if shown to me.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 60 of 79 At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused Lata, Sonu, Manoj @ Denga by pointing out towards them and also by name.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one parcel in unsealed condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one ceiling fan along with black chunni attached to the same is taken out and same are shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as the one with which his brother was found hanging. The chunni attached with the ceiling fan is already collectively Ex.P1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced another parcel in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and a piece of black chunni which appears to be remaining portion of the chunni Ex.P1 is taken out and same is shown to the witness which he has correctly identified as the portion of chunni which was tied around the neck of his deceased brother Parveen. The same is already Ex.P2......".
(69) He has also been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels wherein he has stated that he heard shorsharaba after half an hour of the calling of his brother by accused Lata. He has admitted that the shop/ house of accused Lata is not situated exactly in front of his house and has explained that it is situated after leaving two houses opposite his house towards its left side. Initially he had stated that they had given the diary of his brother Parveen to the police for specimen handwriting which diary was containing the handwriting of his deceased St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 61 of 79 brother Parveen, however, later on he clarified that he was not confirm whether the writing in the diary was of his brother or not. He has admitted that his deceased brother was having several cut marks on his wrist/ hand but he is not aware whether he (deceased) was in a habit of causing injury to himself. He is also not aware if any case of kidnapping was ever registered against him. According to Neeraj, he himself did not make any call to the police with regard to the quarrel. He has admitted that his father is a patient of fits but has denied the suggestion that prior to the quarrel on 29.10.2011 his father had an attack of fit due to which he sustained injury on his head and they later on converted the said injury into the alleged injury in the present case. He is not aware as to how much liquor his brother used to consume everyday and is also not aware as to how many time his deceased brother had been booked by the police regarding the quarrel in the area. He has explained that his deceased brother Sonu used to frequently visit Bombay as his sister is married in Bombay. He has admitted that his brother Parveen @ Sonu stayed with one girl namely Kiran who was already married having three children, in Bombay as well as in Delhi on rent in front of his house. He is not aware as to what were the contents of the complaint which was lodged by accused Lata against his deceased brother Parveen and has explained that he is not even aware about the lodging of the complaint by accused Lata. The witness is not aware if his brother had fallen from a train in Mudgaon (Mumbai) in the year St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 62 of 79 2009 and got head injury due to which he was admitted in a hospital at Jalgaon (Mumbai). He has admitted that the name of his sister is Renu who used to reside in Mumbai and also admitted that his sister Renu had lodged a missing report of his deceased brother in Mumbai on 03.10.2011 and has explained that he was found after about 1012 days of missing from Mumbai. He has further explained that there was enmity between his family and the family of accused Lata since the last two months prior to the date of incident. According to the witness no complaint was ever lodged by him regarding the quarrel during this period of two months and it never came to his knowledge as to when his deceased brother used to go for consumption of liquor. (70) It is writ large from the above that this witness is evasive on most of the material issues particularly the quantity of liquor which his deceased brother consumed daily. He is also evasive about the complaint made by the accused Lata against his brother and also on the aspect that his brother (deceased) had fallen from a train in Mumbai and received head injury pursuant to which he was admitted in a hospital in Mumbai. However, this witness Neeraj (PW8) as admitted that his brother had several cut marks on his wrist/ hand which confirms the suicidal tendency of the deceased who was a habitual alcoholic and even on the date of incident had consumed alcohol, an aspect which stands confirmed from the Viscera Report Ex.PW5/A showing that Ethyl alcohol 67.4mg was found in 100ml of blood of the deceased. St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 63 of 79 (71) It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused Manoj @ Denga that the case of the prosecution pivots around utterly false and concocted allegations leveled by incredible, untruthful and inimical witnesses and from the bare analysis of the statements of the witnesses it can be said with certitude that the facts set out therein not even remotely impute the liability of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that there is not an iota of allegation of any instigation, abetment against the accused Denga in particular and except from the bald allegation of harassment that too allegedly caused by only Lata since it is alleged that she was threatening the deceased to implicate him in criminal cases with support of Denga and Sonu, the name of accused Denga was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that the entire fulcrum of the said allegations if seen in its entirety against all the accused persons cannot by any stretch of imagination invoke the culpability incorporated under Section 306 of the IPC. It is argued that the statements of the witnesses are fabricated, concocted and set out with a view to wreak vengeance against the accused Lata since there has been a previous dispute between both the parties. It is also submitted that there is no abetment committed by the accused qua the suicide committed by the deceased to attract the ingredients of abetment which is the essential prerequisite of Section 306 IPC. It is argued that from the false and fabricated allegations even assuming to be true does not signify the intention of the accused to aid St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 64 of 79 or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide and unequivocally neither a goading or a provocation or an incitement or an urging or encouraging the deceased to have committed this act is made out. Ld. Counsels have further argued that the testimonies of the witnesses leveling self contradictory and vague allegations found no corroboration from any specific circumstances, facts or witnesses. It is argued that the suicide note seemingly planted by the prosecution could also not be proved under the pretext of not finding the admitted handwriting of the accused persons. It is pointed out that even otherwise the said suicide note does not set out any allegations whatsoever against the accused persons except for naming them. Ld. Counsels have also pointed out the various contradictions and infirmities in the testimonies of the witnesses Darshna and Neeraj. It is also argued that there was a previous enmity between the family of deceased and accused Lata and that the deceased as well as the witness Neeraj (PW8) were involved in large number of cases.
(72) The Ld. defence counsels have placed their reliance on the following judgments:
1. Ajit Singh Vs. State, MANU/ DE/3024/2009
2. Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of MP, MANU/ SC/ 1987/1995.
3. Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, MANU/ SC/0654/2001.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 65 of 79
4. State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr. MANU/ SC/0321/1994.
5. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327.
(73) Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has stated that the previous criminal record of the deceased is irrelevant for purposes of the offence in question since nobody has a right to take law into their hands and even the persons who had been named as an accused in other accused is entitled to right to live and liberty and under no circumstances can he be put to any situation compelling him to commit suicide.
(74) I have considered the rival contentions. Before coming to the facts of the case it is necessary to briefly discuss the relevant provisions of law and also the law settled by the high courts. As per the provisions of Section 306 Indian Penal Code if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (75) Conviction of an accused under Section 306 IPC merely on basis of allegation of harassment of deceased is unsustainable in law. No evidence and material available on record where from an inference of accused having abetted commission of offence may be drawn. Deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 66 of 79 discord and differences which happen in day to day life. Different people behave differently in same situation - Conviction of appellant unsustainable and set aside.
(76) The word 'Suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and required no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
(77) Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal Law, though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types.
➢ Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest.
➢ Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.
(78) This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide had been abrogated.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 67 of 79 (79) In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offence is beyond to the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC. (80) 'Abetment' has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that:
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
(81) Explanation 2 which has been inserted alongwith Section 107 reads as under :
"Explanation 2 - whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to be and the doing of that act."
(82) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in VII (2001)SLT 356 has in paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation" as under:
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 68 of 79 "...... 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forwards, provoke, incite of encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been interred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation........."
(83) In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another, reported in IV(1993) CCR392 (SC) = (1994) DMC 138 (SC)= (1994) SCC 73 the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 69 of 79 society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
(84) Further, in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in VI (2009) SLT 584 = III(2009)DLT (Crl.)1011 (SC) = IV (2009)CCR 1 (SC) = 162(2009)DLT 257 (SC) = 2009(11) SCALE 24 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be in tension to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
(85) Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
(86) The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 70 of 79 It is also required an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. (87) Also in the case of Mamta Sahu (Smt.) Vs. State of Delhi reported in 124 (2005) DLT 300 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. the offence of abetment of suicide in the following words:
"........ When Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is read carefully, it is clear that for constituting abetment, the accused should either instigate any person to do the thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing of intentionally aid by any act of omission the doing of that thing. There are two explanations to this Section. A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact can be said to have instigated the thing which is done on account of such concealment or misrepresentation. Explanation 2 prescribes that an abetment can be done either prior to or at the time of the commission of that act. In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had instigated or aided the deceased in commission of suicide. Nor is there any evidence to show that she had engaged with some other person or persons for doing any act. There is no evidence that any concealment or misrepresentation on her part had led the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evident hat she in any way did anything to facilitate the commission St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 71 of 79 of suicide by the deceased......."
(88) Of late, in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2010 SC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
".....The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129: (2004 AIR SCW 5832) as follows in paras 12 and 13:
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994 AIR SCW
844), this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had infact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive or ordinary petulance,discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 72 of 79 similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
(89) Also, it was held that:
"......Thus this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
(90) In the case of Sonti Ramakrishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree reported in AIR 2009 SC 923, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the words uttered in fit of anger or emotion without any intention do not amount to instigation.
(91) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P reported in AIR 2002 SC 1198, St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 73 of 79 has observed as under:
"...... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional....."
(92) Also in the case of K. Ramakrishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2006 Crl.L.J 4314, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"....... In the instant case also the accused in a fit of anger during the quarrel told the deceased to go and die. The utterance of these words by the accused allegedly made the deceased to take the extreme step of suicide. This incident cannot be construed as the accused having abetted the deceased to commit suicide......".
(93) Coming now to the facts of the present case, at the very Outset I may observe that Ex.PW7/B which the prosecution is claiming is a suicide note, is not a suicide note because it only mention three names in writing but does not state anything else either regarding the incident or with regard the cause of death. This note does not set out any allegations whatsoever against the accused persons except that it St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 74 of 79 names them.
(94) Secondly this note Ex.PW7/B it has not been proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased. It was open to the parents of the deceased to have provided the original/ admitted handwriting of the deceased to the Investigating Agency which has not been done nor the Investigating Officer has brought on record any evidence to show that he had made efforts to collect the admitted handwriting of the deceased which he could have sent to the FSL for matching.
(95) Thirdly despite the fact that there were large number of people present at the spot and had witnessed the incident of quarrel, as claimed by the mother and brother of the deceased, the Investigating Officer did not cite any independent public witness nor produced him in the court for examination. Mere allegations that the deceased had been offered alcohol and made to consume alcohol and thereafter there was a quarrel, is not sufficient. It was necessary to the Investigating Officer to have conducted the investigations to establish as to what exactly was the dispute between the parties and what exactly was the words spoken by the accused which could have instigated, provoked or enticed the deceased to commit suicide.
(96) Lastly it also emerges from the record that the deceased had suicidal tendencies. Even even if the entire allegations made by the prosecution are accepted as true, the intention on the part of the accused to have provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 75 of 79 suicide, are not proved from the record. It is not borne out from the record by any cogent evidence that there was any heated exchange of conversation, accused had any intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. (Ref.: Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837 and M. Mohan Vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626. What is important is not what "deceased had felt"
but what the accused had intended by their act. A fatal impulse or ill fated thought of the deceased, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot unfortunate touch the issue and it cannot establish the intention of the accused so as to make them liable under the provisions of Section 306 IPC. The deceased had a chequered background with criminal cases against him and had previously remained on run. What is it that ignited the impulsive act of the deceased is something which is not borne out from the material brought before this Court and it cannot under any circumstances be conclusively held that the accused had in any manner intentionally aided or abetted the commission of the suicide of the deceased. The mensrea on the part of the accused appears to be missing.
(97) In view of my above discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons so as to satisfy the ingredients of the charges invoked against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu deserve an acquittal.
St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 76 of 79 FINAL CONCLUSION:
(98) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(99) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. The identity St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 77 of 79 of all the accused i.e. Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu is not disputed and stands established. It has been proved that the deceased Praveen @ Sonu was previously known to all the accused namely Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu. It has been proved that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased Praveen @ Sonu and the accused so much so that both the parties have got registered criminal cases against each other. The forensic evidence establishes that the deceased had high quantity of ethyl alcohol in his blood and confirms that he was in an inebriated state before his death and the Medical Evidence establishes the death as Suicidal. However, it does not stand established and proved beyond doubt that the accused had, abetted, incited, instigated and aided the suicide of the deceased.
(100) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The material brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that each of the accused Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 78 of 79 and the accused namely Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstances evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Lata, Manoj @ Denga and Sonu beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The sureties be discharged as per rules.
(101) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 19.1.2015 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI St. Vs. Lata & Ors., FIR No.505/2011, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 79 of 79