Delhi District Court
State vs : (1) Jai Singh, on 7 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR,
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
SC No.: 179/06
STATE VERSUS : (1) JAI SINGH,
S/O KEHAR SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HALALPUR,
DISTT. SONEPAT,
HARYANA.
(2) SMT. BHAGO DEVI,
W/O JAI SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HALALPUR,
DISTT. SONEPAT,
HARYANA.
(3) RAJENDER SINGH,
S/O JAI SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HALALPUR,
DISTT. SONEPAT,
HARYANA.
(4) JOGINDER SINGH,
S/O JAI SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE HALALPUR,
DISTT. SONEPAT,
HARYANA.
(5) SMT. RAJESH SOLANKI,
W/O ANIL SOLANKI,
R/O FLAT NO.1, IIND FLOOR,
MEERA MARG, PANJIM,
GOA.
FIR NO.: 745/05
PS : PRASHANT VIHAR
U/S : 498A/304B/34 IPC.
2
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report U/S 173 Cr.PC is as under :
One Surrender Singh of village Sannoth, Delhi married his daughter Sushma with accused Rajender Singh, a resident of village Halalpur, District Sonepat, Haryana on 28-4-99. After her marriage Sushma accordingly shifted to her matrimonial home at Village Halalpur where she used to reside along with her husband, Rajender Singh, Jai Singh (father-in-law), Smt. Bhago Devi, (mother-in-law) and Joginder Singh- devar (brother-in-law). One of her sister-in-law namely, Rajesh Solanki (nand) was already married and was residing in Goa. However, the matrimonial life of Sushma did not sail smoothly as her in-laws allegedly used to harass her on account of not bringing sufficient dowry. In the year, 2001 Sushma even delivered birth to a girl child at her parental house as her husband accused Rajender Singh at that time was lodged in jail in some other case. Sushma also used to complain to her mother that she is not being provided proper food at her matrimonial home even during the course of her pregnancy. However, despite the birth of a child the matrimonial life of Sushma did not smoothen out and her in-laws 3 continued to harass her on account of bringing less dowry and also for giving birth to a girl child. They also allegedly used to say that they will get Rajender married again so that they may get good dowry. Sushma also used to be given beating by her husband as well as by her other in-laws.
In the meantime upon getting perturbed with the behaviour of her in-laws Sushma along with her husband even shifted to Delhi in November, 2002 in Golden Jubliee Apartments, Rohini. However, the behaviour of her husband Rajender and other in-laws, who often used to visit her here also did not improve even thereafter.
In September, 2004 the parents of Sushma even got a land compensation of Rs.55 lakhs and pursuant to which in-laws of Sushma again demanded one third share of the said amount. The father of Sushma accordingly gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Sushma to satisfy her in-laws. The behaviour of the in-laws of Sushma however did not change towards her even thereafter. Thus upon being unable to bear any further with such cruel, behaviour of her in-laws Sushma finally committed suicide at her house i.e Flat No.26, Golden Jubliee Apartments, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi by hanging (I am deliberately observing herein that Sushma committed suicide by way of hanging as in the later part of my judgment, I shall be demonstrating that the death of Sushma was by way of suicide by hanging and it was not homicidal in 4 nature as was sought to be made out by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and was also asserted to by the complainant party).
On 7-8-05 at about 4pm Rajender called upon his brother-in- law Bhupender to immediately rush to his house in Golden Jubliee Apartments. Upon going over there Bhupender found Rajender along with one of his friend Rakesh Maan standing outside their flat and from the window of their flat, they showed him that Sushma has committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan. When Bhupender tried to open the door of the room, he found it to be locked from inside. Both Rajender and Rakesh informed him that they have already called for a plumber and within 2/3 minutes a plumber came over there and who thereafter opened the lock. Sushma was brought down from the ceiling fan and a doctor residing nearby was called over there. The doctor upon examination declared Sushma to be dead. She was however still taken to BSA Hospital where the doctors opined her to be dead. Matter came to be reported to the police as Sushma had died within seven years of her marriage. One SDM Sh. Kedar Nath also came over there and recorded statement of Bhupender as well as his father Surrender Singh. They however did not express any suspicion upon any of the in-laws of Sushma holding them responsible for her death.
5
Postmortem examination was then got conducted upon her dead body by Dr. LC Gupta at BJRM Hospital. He also directed the viscera sample and stomach and intestine pieces etc. to be preserved so as to get it examined at FSL. He further stated that the cause of death of Sushma will be opined after the receipt of FSL report.
However, the mother of Sushma, namely, Smt. Kaushalya Devi at that time was away to Haridwar. Accordingly, Bhupender brought her back to Delhi on the next day. After the arrival of the mother of Sushma her last rites were performed at her matrimonial home by her in-laws. Nothing thereafter happened for a period of about 13 days till all the rituals were performed by her in-laws at the matrimonial home of Sushma. However, after the 13th day of death of Sushma, Smt. Kaushalya Devi again made a statement before the SDM Sh. Kedar Nath wherein she levelled a number of allegations against the in-laws of Sushma stating that all through her matrimonial life Sushma was harassed by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. She also produced two pieces of paper containing some writing allegedly in the hand of Sushma which she claimed were handed over to her by Sushma sometime prior to her death when she had come to her house to stay for a few days. She further stated that earlier they had not lodged any complaint with the police on the ground that all the rites and rituals of Sushma should be performed without any disturbance so that her soul may rest in peace. Bhupender, 6 the brother of Sushma also again made a statement before the SDM wherein he also corroborated the allegations levelled by his mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Thus, pursuant to their statements SDM Sh. Kedar Nath directed SHO, PS Prashant Vihar to initiate action as per law. A case for the offence U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC was accordingly registered at PS Prashant Vihar. After registration of the case, investigation was taken over by Inspt.-Ram Mehar Singh-SHO, PS Prashant Vihar. All the accused persons came to be arrested in the present case and upon completion of necessary further investigation challan was filed in the court for the offence U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC against all the accused persons.
Upon committal of the case to the Court of Sessions charge for the offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC was framed against all the five accused persons. They however pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 13 witnesses. All the accused persons were thereafter examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C. They however did not lead any evidence in their defence.
Before I advert on to a discussion of the testimony of various prosecution witnesses so examined, it will be worthwhile to mention that during the course of trial of the present case, the FSL result was received and pursuant to which opinion as to the cause of death of Sushma was obtained by Inspt. CL Meena from Dr. Upender Kishore at BJRM Hospital. 7 In the FSL report, the doctors found traces of Aluminum Phosphide present in the stomach and small intestine and liver, spleen and kidney besides blood sample of Sushma was found to be containing phosphide. I am not yet entering into an analysis of the cause of death given by Dr. Upender Kishore in the present matter at this stage, for the same gained material importance during the course of subsequent trial of the case and shall be discussed by me in detail at a later stage of my judgment. However, it will be suffice to say that pursuant to the fact that postmortem in the present case was conducted by Dr. LC Gupta and the opinion as to the cause of death was given by Dr. Upender Kishore, four witnesses, namely, CW1 Sh. Jitendra Kumar, the FSL expert, CW2 Dr. Upender Kishore, CW3 Dr. LC Gupta and CW4 IO/Inspt-Ram Mehar Singh were recalled as court witnesses and were examined in detail.
I shall be first discussing the deposition of the 13 witnesses initially examined by the prosecution.
PW1 Bhupender, PW3 Smt. Kaushalya Devi and PW6 Surender Singh were respectively, the brother, mother and father of deceased Sushma. They all reiterated the prosecution story in their deposition while deposing almost on identical lines alleging that Sushma used to be harassed by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. They all also held the accused persons to be responsible for her death. 8
PW2 Dhiraj Singh Dillan was a resident of Golden Jubliee Apartments where Sushma finally died but he claimed complete ignorance as to the matrimonial life of Sushma with her husband Rajender Singh. He thus chose to not to support the prosecution story on any ground whatsoever. He was accordingly declared hostile by ld. APP and was cross examined at length but nothing material could come out from his deposition which could favour the case of the prosecution.
PW5 Virender Bhatt was also a resident of Golden Jubliee Apartments but he too chose to not to support the prosecution case on any score whatsoever as regards any bickering in the matrimonial life of Sushma with accused Rajender Singh ever observed by him. He too was cross examined at length by ld. APP but again nothing material could be elicited from his mouth, which could favour the case of the prosecution or may lead me to disbelieve his testimony.
PW4 Dr. Kuldeep Singh had initially examined Sushma at BSA Hospital on 7-8-05 at about 5.15pm and had opined her to be brought dead vide her MLC Ex.PW4/A. PW7 HC Rishi Prakash was the duty officer PS Prashant Vihar on 24.08.2005, who had recorded FIR Ex. PW7/A in the present matter.
PW9 HC Shiv Charan was the MHC(M), PS Prashant Vihar with whom the various case property articles were deposited with by the IO during the course of investigation and from him the said samples were 9 subsequently sent to CFSL through Ct. Ravinder. He thus proved the necessary entries of Register No.19 in this regard as was maintained by him.
PW10 Sh. Kedar Nath was the then SDM, who had initially recorded statement of the brother and father of Sushma on the day of her death and subsequently on 20-8-00 and thereafter the statements of her mother and other relatives were recorded by him. He had also carried out the inquest proceedings in the present case. He thus proved the proceedings so conducted by him.
PW11 SI Mithlesh Mishra was the police official, who had gone to BSA Hospital upon coming to know about the death of Sushma. Later on as no allegations were levelled against the accused persons by the family members of Sushma so, no further action was initiated by him in the matter except for getting the postmortem examination conducted and seizing of the said chunni with which Sushma had allegedly committed suicide from the said room after an inspection of the room was carried out by the SDM. Subsequently after registration of the case on 25- 8-05 he had joined the investigation in the matter with IO/Inspt. Ram Mehar Singh.
PW12 Inspt. Ram Mehar Singh was the IO of the case. In his deposition, he reiterated the investigation carried out by him besides proving the various documents/memos prepared by him during the 10 course of investigation.
PW13 SI Praveen Kumar had taken over the investigation of this case on 30-9-05 and had formally arrested accused Bhago Devi and Rajender Singh, who had obtained anticipatory bail orders from the court. He had also recorded supplementary statement of Bhupender and upon completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet in the court.
PW8 Dr. LC Gupta had carried out the postmortem examination upon the dead body of Sushma vide his report Ex.PW8/A. The testimony of this witness was initially deferred on 1-3-07 as by that time the FSL result was not yet received. Subsequently, ld. defence counsel however made a statement that he does not dispute the factum of death of Sushma by way of hanging and so PW8 Dr. LC Gupta need not be examined by the prosecution. He also made a statement that the subsequent opinion as to the cause of death given by Dr. Upender Kishore was also not disputed by him and thus the said witness also need not be examined. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence was closed by the orders of the court vide order dated 4-7-07.
For ready reference the said order sheet is reproduced here as under :
Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused on bail except Smt. Rajesh Solanki, who has been exempted through Ld. Counsel Sh. DN Joshi.11
PW12 Inspt. Ram Mehar Singh and Pw13 SI Praveen Kumar examined and discharged. No other PW present.
At this stage, ld. defence counsel has made a statement stating that he does not dispute the cause of death of Smt. Sushma as being suicide by hanging. He also states that he does not wish to cross examine PW8 Dr. LC Gupta, who was earlier partly examined and that he has no objection if his testimony already recorded is taken in evidence during the course of trial. He also states that he does not dispute the subsequent opinion given by Dr. Upender Kishore as to the cause of death of Sushma being suicide by hanging.
In these circumstances and specifically in view of the statement given by learned defence counsel, as all the material important witnesses of the prosecution have been examined so, I hereby close the PE. Ld. APP however requested for one more date but in view of the facts & circumstances of the case request is turned down.
PE is closed.
Matter be now put up for recording of statement of accused persons on 23-7-07 at 2pm.
Sd/-
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/4-7-07 Thereafter, statements of the accused persons U/S 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and even final arguments in the matter were heard as were addressed by ld. APP as well as by ld. defence counsel for all the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for complainant also filed written submissions and the matter came to be adjourned for passing of final orders.12
It was at this stage of the matter that the court thought it appropriate to summon/re-summon certain witnesses of the prosecution so as to obtain certain clarifications and accordingly the said witnesses as mentioned herein above were ordered to be summoned by this court vide order dated 15-9-07. For a ready reference the said order is reproduced herein under:
Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused on bail along with counsel Sh. DN Joshi.
In the facts & circumstances of the present case and after going through the record and especially the FSL result dated 2-3-07 I deem it appropriate to summon the concerned FSL expert namely, Jitender Kumar who gave report in the present matter besides Dr. LC Gupta who carried out the postmortem on the dead body of Sushma and Dr. Upender Kishore who upon receipt of FSL result gave the subsequent opinion as to the cause of death of Sushma. The clarifications are primarily required in connection with the findings given by the FSL expert about traces of Aluminum Phosphide found in the stomach in small intestine pieces of deceased Sushma and phosphide as found in her liver, spleen and kidney and blood sample of Sushma.
Case is now adjourned for 22-9-07.
Sd/-
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/15-9-07 Pursuant to the aforesaid orders CW1 Sh. Jitender Kumar, the FSL expert appeared and he proved his FSL report Ex.CW1/A. Dr. Upender Kishore was thereafter examined as CW2 and he proved the opinion as to the cause of death given by him as Ex.C1 on an application Ex.C2 moved 13 by the IO before him in this regard. Dr. LC Gupta was thereafter recalled as CW3. He once again reiterated the findings noted by him in his postmortem examination report Ex.PW8/A. He further went on to state that in the present case, he had visited the scene of occurrence along with the police officials and the facts observed by him over there were noted down by the IO/police officials in his presence and the said facts so recorded by the IO were signed by him. He further stated that the said report viz the site inspection report was then handed over to the IO at the spot itself. However, ld. APP pointed out that no such report was available in the judicial record and nothing was mentioned about it even in the police file. However, the witness thereafter also stated that since he had carried out the postmortem examination on the body of Sushma when he was posted at BJRM Hospital so the subsequent opinion as to the cause of death should also have been obtained by the IO from him despite the fact that he was now posted in DDU Hospital. He further stated that the IO deliberately did not obtain the opinion as to the cause of death from him even though he knew fully well that the concerned doctor was now posted in DDU Hospital though not in BJRM Hospital.
Be that as it may be, after going through the FSL result Ex.C1 and the findings recorded by him in the postmortem report Ex.PW8/A the witness gave his opinion in the court itself while standing in the witness box and stated that the homicidal death of Sushma could not be ruled out. 14 He further stated that hanging in the present case was postmortem in nature.
Thereafter, IO/Inspt. Ram Mehar Singh was again recalled as CW4 and in the light of deposition of CW3 Dr. LC Gupta certain specific court questions were put to this witness and he vehemently denied that he ever accompanied with CW3-Dr. LC Gupta to the spot. He also stated that Inspt. CM Meena was directed by him to obtain the cause of death upon the receipt of FSL result from the incharge mortuary, BJRM Hospital where the postmortem examination was conducted. He further stated that there was no intention on the part of police to obtain opinion as to the cause of death from any given specific doctor or to not to obtain opinion from Dr. LC Gupta. He also stated that in the routine course of investigation, the application in this regard is always moved to the incharge of the mortuary without even mentioning the name of any concerned doctor and it was for the incharge over there to take further necessary action. He thus stated that as the incharge of the mortuary at that time was Dr. Upender Kishore so he accordingly gave the opinion as to the cause of death.
It is in the light of the aforesaid peculiar developments in the present case that I now proceed to enter into an analysis of the evidence which has come on record qua the offence U/S 498A IPC or u/S 304B IPC and also as to whether the death of Sushma was by way of suicide or 15 was homicidal in nature.
As regards the offence U/S 498A IPC, I may state at the outset that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against any of the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts. I shall be demonstrating herein after as to how the present case seems to be the result of an afterthought on the part of parents and other relatives of deceased Sushma.
As already mentioned the brother and father of Sushma, namely, Bhupender Singh and Surrender Singh both did not level even a single iota of allegation against any of the accused persons before the SDM immediately after the death of Sushma. No-doubt they have come up with an explanation that they came to know about the bickering and acrimony in the matrimonial life of Sushma only after Smt. Kaushalya Devi returned from Haridwar and informed them about all such facts. Thus presuming this assertion of their to be true then it is clear that at least except for Smt. Kaushalya Devi none of her family members were at all aware as to the condition of Sushma during the course of her matrimonial life. Thus, all the averments made by them during the course of their deposition in the court or before the SDM in their supplementary statements becomes hearsay in nature. Even otherwise, this fact on the face of it seems to be highly improbable that the brother of Sushma, who claimed to have been visiting her regularly was completely unaware as to 16 the matrimonial life of his sister. Similarly, it is also highly unbelievable that Surrender Singh, father of Sushma was also not aware of anything in this regard and despite the fact that he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Sushma by way of a cheque allegedly pursuant to the demands made by her in-laws. From the deposition of Bhupender Singh as was recorded during the course of trial, it will further become clear that the relations of accused persons with the parents of Sushma were normal all through her matrimonial life and the allegations of demand of dowry made by them are not true.
PW1 Bhupender stated that at the time of marriage of Sushma only 15-20 persons had come in the 'barat'. He also stated that his father Surrender Singh is working as a conductor in DTC and that accused persons were having the business of brick kilns. He also admitted that about two months prior to the death of Sushma he along with his family members had gone on a trip to Haridwar after borrowing a Scorpio jeep of accused Rajender. He also admitted that during the married life of Sushma they had not lodged any complaint of any nature whatsoever against the accused persons. He further stated that in November, 2002 Sushma had shifted to Golden Jubliee Apartments along with accused Rajender and her daughter. He further stated that he himself never saw the in-laws of Sushma in her said house at Golden Jubliee Apartments. He also stated that he cannot give specific details of any incident when the 17 accused persons demanded any dowry from Sushma or from them. He also stated that he himself was running a tent house and that once a labourer of his died due to electrocution in village Holambi Kalan while erecting tent at a site. He further stated that at that time accused Rajender had helped him financially as well as otherwise in all respects. He also stated that when his daughter was born at GTB Hospital, Shahdra then she was brought to his house in the vehicle of accused Rajender only.
Furthermore, PW6 Surrender Singh stated in his deposition in court that on 7-8-05 when he had reached BSA Hospital then within few minutes the other family members of Rajender had also reached over there from village Halalpur. He also stated that he found Rajender in a perturbed condition and he consoled him by stating that though it is bad but one has no other alternative. This witness was unable to give details of any incident whatsoever when Sushma was given beating by the accused persons or was treated with cruelty by them much less on account of demand of dowry.
Coming to the testimony of PW3 Smt. Kaushalya Devi i.e the mother of Sushma, I may once again reiterate that strangely enough this witness preferred to keep mum for a period of about 12 days after the death of Sushma despite being allegedly aware of the matrimonial life of Sushma. This conduct in itself seems to be quite unnatural and the 18 explanation put forth that they wanted the last rites of Sushma to be performed in peace clearly seems to be an afterthought. She introduced a new fact by stating that at the time of marriage, the accused persons had demanded a car but when they said "NO" for giving the car then the accused persons stated that they have no objection even if the car is not given. She also admitted that about two months prior to the death of Sushma, she along with her family members and accused Rajender and Sushma had gone to Haridwar, Dehradun & Mussorie in the vehicle of Rajender for a period of five days. She also stated that during those five days, no untoward incident took place. She however contradicted the testimony of PW1 Bhupender when she stated that Rajender had not helped them financially at the time of death of one of the labourer in village Holambikalan due to electrocution. She also stated it to be wrong that her grand children i.e the children of Bhupender and his brother were brought to their house after their birth from the hospital in the vehicle of accused Rajender. She further stated that till the death of Sushma no one in her family except she herself was aware about the condition of matrimonial life of Sushma . She also stated that all the family members used to think such quarrels to be trivial in nature. She however further stated that she cannot give any specific instance of beating given to Sushma or demand of dowry made from Sushma or from them by the accused persons. She merely stated that it was a continuous affairs. 19
I have chosen to reiterate the main crux of the deposition of all the three material witnesses of the prosecution while also highlighting some of the contradictions and improvements made by them during the course of their deposition in the court over their earlier statements made before the SDM so as to show that the allegations levelled against the accused persons with respect to demand of dowry or even cruelty meted out to Sushma on any score whatsoever were per se vague in nature. Admittedly, one of the accused Smt. Rajesh Solanki was married much prior to the marriage of Sushma and was admittedly residing in Goa. Thus, roping her also in the present case goes to show the attitude of the accused persons in involving as many family members of the house of in- laws of Sushma as possible. In the absence of any specific instance when Rajesh Solanki had come to Delhi or had given beating to Sushma or had demanded dowry from her or her parents or still had harassed Sushma on any account whatsoever it is clear that there is absolutely no case made out against her.
As regards accused Jai Singh, Smt. Bhago Devi and Joginder Singh, the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Sushma they all were admittedly residing in vilage Halalpur, District Sonepat. On the other hand from November, 2002 onwards till her death Sushma was residing in Golden Jubliee Apartments, Delhi along with her husband Rajender. Once again in the absence of there being any specific details 20 of any incident whatsoever when the above three accused persons might have committed cruelty upon Sushma and coupled with the fact when PW1 Bhupender Singh stated that he never saw the in-laws of Sushma in her house at Golden Jubliee Apartments, it is crystal clear that they too have been roped in as an afterthought by the parents and other relatives of Sushma. Not only from the deposition of PW1 Bhupender Singh it is clear that he used to visit the house of Sushma at Rohini but even otherwise it is often seen and especially in villages that normally the parents avoid visiting the house of their daughter and it is the brothers who visit her even on certain festivals/occasions. Thus, if there had been any instance of cruelty meted out to Sushma by accused Jai Singh, Smt. Bhago Devi and Joginder Singh then it ought to have been to the knowledge of Bhupender Singh. I am not completely ruling out the fact that these persons might have visited the houe of Sushma ever at Golden Jubliee Apartments but the mere fact of their visiting her cannot make them liable for the offence U/S 498A IPC.
Coming to the role of accused Rajender, I may again state that cordiality between him and Sushma vis-a-vis the parents of Sushma is clearly apparent from the various instances as have been deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, about two months prior to the death of Sushma, they all went on a five day trip to Haridwar, Dehradun and Mussorie in the vehicle of Rajender along with him and Sushma. 21
Admittedly, no untoward incident took place during the said trip. It is highly unbelievable that if the relations were not cordial amongst them then how all these persons chose to go on a such like trip. Furthermore, PW1 Bhupender Singh admitted that after the birth of his daughter at GTB Hospital, she was brought to his house by accused Rajender in his own vehicle. PW1 Bhupender Singh also admitted that at the time of death of one of his labourer due to electrocution accused Rajender helped him financially as well as otherwise. These all facts coupled with the fact that immediately after the death of Sushma not even a whisper of any allegation whatsoever was made against the accused persons with respect to the demand of dowry or subjecting Sushma to cruelty, it is clearly apparent that all such allegations subsequently made were the result of an afterthought. It will be also worthwhile to mention that the impugned amount of rupees one lakh given by Surrender Singh to his daughter Sushma by way of a cheque remained deposited in the bank account of Sushma and was never withdrawn by the accused persons. Thus, from the aforesaid circumstances and the vague nature of allegations made by the witnesses without there being any specific instance when Sushma was treated with cruelty or the accused persons demanded dowry so the charge for the offence U/S 498A IPC cannot hold ground. 22
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the case BALDEV RAJ VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH & OTHERS 142 (2007) DELHI LAW TIMES 259.
Coming to the applicability of Section 304B IPC, I may state that despite the fact that Sushma died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage but, on account of the fact that the prosecution has been unable to lead any cogent, convincing or reliable evidence to prove that she was subjected to cruelty by any of the accused persons during the course of her matrimonial life much less on account of demand of dowry so, the charge for the offence U/S 304B IPC also does not hold ground.
Before, I may advert further, I may also state that presuming that the death of Sushma was by way of suicide then also the accused persons cannot be held liable even for the offence U/S 306 IPC, for the prosecution has been unable to prove that she was ever subjected to cruelty by the accused persons much less they goaded her or incited or provoked her to commit suicide.
As regards the two notes Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which were allegedly written by Sushma and were handed over to her mother, I may state that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving it beyond shadows of reasonable doubts that the said two writings were in the hand of Sushma. Even otherwise the contents of the said two documents are of no help to the prosecution in proving its case against the accused persons. 23
Admittedly, the two documents could not be got compared from any handwriting expert as no admitted handwriting of Sushma was made available to the investigating officer by the parents of Sushma. The only evidence thus led by the prosecution to prove the said two documents to be in the hand of Sushma was by way of a statement made in this regard by her mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi. However, from a bare perusal of the said two documents, it is clearly apparent that the said two pieces of paper are not in the hand of same person. Moreover, without further entering into a comparison of the handwriting of the two documents, I may also state that the prosecution has been otherwise also unsuccessful in corroborating the averments made in the said two documents by any other piece of evidence i.e either from the attendant circumstances or by way of the testimony of her parents and brother. Smt. Kaushalya Devi failed to state any date or month when documents Ex.C1 was handed over to her by Sushma. She further stated that Sushma had handed over to her the said document from her closed fist. However, a bare perusal of the said document Ex.P1 shows that the same is a plain piece of paper without there being any signs of folding it or it having been crumpled. It was thus not possible to handover the said piece of paper by Sushma without even first folding it from her closed fist. Moreover, when admittedly about two months ago, prior to her death Sushma along with her parents and brother had gone on a trip to 24 Haridwar, Dehradun and Mussorie along with accused Rajender and that too in the vehicle of Rajender and when admittedly no untoward incident took place during the course of five days trip then it seems to be quire strange that within next few days Sushma started apprehending threat to her life. The prosecution in these circumstances ought to have led some cogent evidence as to what transpired thereafter between the couple which traumatised Sushma to such an extent that she was apprehending a threat to her life. Furthermore, the fact that none of the other family members in the house of Sushma except her mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi were aware of any such writing given by her to her mother also raises suspicion as to the veracity of the said document. At the same time the conduct of Smt. Kaushalya Devi in not disclosing about the said document either to her husband or to her son despite finding that Sushma is apprehending threat to her life is also quite strange. It is highly unnatural and unbelievable that a lady despite coming to know about a threat to the life of her daughter does not care to inform about the same to any of her family members. It would have been a different case that the mother of Sushma would have taken some steps to ensure her safety but, her silence on this issue in not disclosing anything about such a document either to the police or to SDM despite after 13 days of the death of Sushma clearly shows that this document was subsequently manufactured by them in order to concoct a story.25
As regards the document Ex.P2 also, I may state that the same merely speaks about the disappointment of a lady in the matrimonial home after she gives birth to a girl child. Certainly, any such attitude on the part of in-laws of Sushma about cursing her for giving birth to a girl child cannot be justified under any circumstance but, at the same time it cannot be held that this act of the in-laws of Sushma will amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Furthermore, document Ex.P2 does not speak of any demand of dowry having been made by the accused persons. It is usually seen in Indian society and especially in villages that upon the birth of a girl child the families feel disappointed.
Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, which makes document Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to be short of rendering any support to the prosecution case, I may also state that document Ex.P1 also mentions only general averments against the accused persons about demand of dowry being made by them or cruelty inflicted upon Sushma by them but it also does not speak of any specific incident. The writing on Ex.P1 further states that the residents of Golden Jubilee Apartments will also verify for the cruel behaviour of the in-laws of Sushma towards her. However, two such residents of Golden Jubilee Apartments were examined by the prosecution, namely, PW2 Dhiraj Singh and PW5 Virender Bhatt but, both of them categorically denied having any such knowledge of the cruel behaviour of accused Rajender towards Sushma. In fact, they specifically 26 denied any such statements suggested to them by ld. APP to be wrong. Thus, it is clearly apparent that document Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 not only falls short of rendering any corroboration to the prosecution story but the conduct of Smt. Kaushalya Devi in not disclosing to her family members about the threats to the life of Sushma also shows that all this exercise is an afterthought.
Coming to the last important aspect of the prosecution case as to whether the death of Sushma was homicidal or was by way of suicide, I may state that in view of the deposition and report of CW2 Dr. Upender Kishore and CW3 Dr. LC Gupta (PW8), this court was left with no other option but to marshal its own knowledge so as to arrive at a final conclusion as to the cause of death of Sushma. No-doubt, no charge for the offence U/S 302 IPC was framed against the accused persons and in the absence of any such charge, the accused persons could not have been convicted for the said charge if found guilty but still, I thought it appropriate to proceed further instead of first framing a new charge for the offence U/S 302 IPC as it was found that the deposition of CW3 Dr. LC Gupta that he inspected the spot soon after the death and even measured the distance between the floor and the fan from which Sushma was found to be hanging to be not even sufficient for the purposes of hanging of a lady of the height as that of Sushma or that he prepared a site inspection report and after signing it handed it over to the IO, clearly 27 appeared to be a statement unbelievable or worthy of any credence. I am deliberately mentioning the aforesaid fact to be unbelievable as not only from the scientific evidence as is available on record but, even otherwise this statement of Dr. LC Gupta does not appears to be correct. I shall be demonstrating henceforth as to how this preposition of mine holds ground.
Dr. LC Gupta admitted that at no place of his proceedings he made any noting or observation as regards his visit to the scene of crime. He also did not mention anywhere in his proceedings that any such report was prepared by him or was handed over to the IO by him. On the other hand, in view of the specific denial by Inspt. Ram Mehar Singh, who was not only the IO of the case but was also the SHO, PS Prashant Vihar in this regard, it thus cannot be believed that Dr. LC Gupta ever visited the scene of crime much less prepared any such report. It also seems to be quite strange that Dr. LC Gupta, who entered the witness box to make such a statement on 29-9-07 clearly remembered the details of the present incident which took place in August, 2005. Admittedly, Dr. LC Gupta has been working in a government hospital where he had to carry out postmortem examination upon a number of dead bodies day in and day out. Both BJRM Hospital where Dr. LC Gupta was at the relevant time posted when the impugned postmortem examination was carried out by him and DDU Hospital now where he is at present posted are one of the 28 busiest hospitals of Delhi where a number of dead bodies are daily received for the purposes of postmortem examination. He also stated that he carries out spot inspection in most of the cases. Thus, this fact on the face of it appears to be highly improbable that a doctor will orally remember all such details of any given case. Thus, the absence of there being no mention of any such site inspection carried out by him in his proceedings at any place whatsoever further lends support to my aforesaid conclusion that statement made by Dr. LC Gupta in this regard is not correct and is not worthy of credence. I shall be also showing as to what could have been the probable reason for the doctor to make such a statement.
Coming to the scientific nature of evidence as is available on record, I may state that Aluminum Phosphide is basically a poison used to kill pesticides and is commonly available by the name of Alphos, Celphos, Phosick, Phosphine, Phostoxin and Quickphos. However, it is well known that Aluminum Phosphide is a fumigant pesticide. However, it is equally well known and as is also mentioned in the medical books such as MODIS Book on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology & LYONS's Book on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology that Aluminum Phosphide has a very pungent smell and its homicidal intake is almost impossible. It is also well known that intake of Aluminum Phosphide immediately results in vomiting and pain in stomach. Thus, it is almost impossible that a person 29 could have been administered such a strong pungent smelling poison by any other person. Such an exercise would have certainly resulted in a scuffle besides immediate vomiting by the person concerned. However, in the present case, there were clearly no signs of vomiting or of scuffle present at the scene of occurrence either found by PW1-Bhupender Singh, the brother of deceased Sushma or by the SDM, who subsequently inspected the spot along with SI Mithlesh Mishra . Even Dr. LC Gupta, who carried out the postmortem examination did not observe anywhere in his proceedings that in the clothes found on the dead body of Sushma he found any signs of vomiting or smell of vomiting.
Thus, in these circumstances it seems to be highly improbable that accused Rajender would have first administered such a strong poison to Sushma and thereafter would have chosen to change her clothes and thereafter would have made her to hang from the ceiling fan besides also cleaning the entire area. Furthermore, the said room was admittedly found bolted from inside even by Bhupender Singh, the brother of Sushma and the door could be opened only by a plumber, who was called to the spot.
Moreover, if from the finding noted and observed by Dr. LC Gupta as are mentioned by him in his postmortem report he suspected the death of Sushma to be homicidal in nature then, there was no reason for him to wait for the receipt of viscera report before giving the cause of 30 death. He ought to have mentioned this opinion of his immediately at the time of giving the postmortem report. It will be also worthwhile to mention that in the postmortem report the doctor stated about the presence of a typical unidentifiable smell to be present but he failed to observe the said smell to be that of Aluminum Phosphide.
The smell of Aluminum Phosphide clearly has a typical identifiable pungent smell and non-observance of the same by the doctor clearly speaks against his own claim. Thus, the observance by the doctor in his postmortem report about presence of some unidentifiable smell clearly shows that the doctor did not suspect it to be of Aluminum Phosphide. It cannot be stated that Dr. LC Gupta, who had long experience in the field of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology could not have identified the pungent smell of Aluminum Phosphide.
Furthermore, the presence of brownish digestible unidentified food, measuring about 150ML also belies the theory of administration of Aluminum Phosphide. Presence of such kind of food material in the abdomen is clearly uncommon in cases of Aluminum Phosphide poisoning primarily on account of vomiting which is bound to occur immediately upon the intake of Aluminum Phosphide.
Moreover, it also seems to be highly improbable that a dead body of a well built lady as Sushma was, could have been hanged by a single person with the ceiling fan. Dr. LC Gupta mentioned in his report 31 that the body of Sushma was averagely built and was nourished.
Furthermore, the statement made by Dr. LC Gupta that "V" shape ligature mark on the neck can be present in antemortem as well as postmortem hanging cases cannot be per se believed in the absence of any other peculiar attendant circumstances having been not examined by the doctor viz as regards the ligature material used or the position in which the body was found to be hanging from the ceiling fan. It is well known that in antemortem hanging, the ligature marks which appears on the neck are generally in "V" shape. This shape however normally does not exist in the cases of postmortem hanging. Furthermore, the skin around the ligature mark was found to be parchmentised. Such parchmentisation of the ligature mark is possible in ante mortum as well as postmortem hanging once the body is released from suspension point.
No-doubt in extremely rare cases the ligature mark found on the neck in antemortem hanging vis-a-vis a postmortem hanging may be found to be overlapping each other in their similarities. However, a perusal of the report Ex.PW8/A in the present case does not show that any such fine distinction was observed by the doctor carrying the postmortem examination. Moreover, the possibility of a ligature mark in postmortem hanging similar to the one occurring in antemortem suicidal hanging which though may exists in very rare cases largely depend upon the nature of ligature material used in hanging the body. Strangely enough 32 Dr. LC Gupta had not examined the said ligature material which was used in the present case so that he could have opined about any peculiarity of the ligature mark found on the neck by him. It will be also worthwhile to mention that the postmortem staining was found to be positive at the back as is mentioned in report Ex.PW8/A. This fact could not have been possible in the case of postmortem hanging or in cases of death by the administration of Aluminum Phosphide. The aforesaid facts thus again goes to support the conclusion that the hanging in the present case was antemortem suicidal hanging.
As regards the observation of Dr. LC Gupta that he did not find the distance between the ceiling fan and the floor where Sushma was allegedly found hanging to be sufficient for the purpose of committing suicide by hanging by a person of the height of Sushma, I may state that the same is not only contradictory to the well known medical findings but rather reflects upon the determination of the doctor concerned in proving the case to be homicidal at any cost whatsoever. In chapter LIX dealing with asphyxial deaths in the LYONS's Book on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, it has been mentioned that the jugular veins are closed by a tension on the ligature or rope of 2kg, the carotid arteries at 5kg, the trachea at 15kg and the vertebral arteries at 30kg. It was further observed quoting "Polson" that a pressure of 3.2kg is sufficient to obstruct blood flow in the carotid arteries and that with a tension of 3kg cerebral anoxia 33 and unconsciousness could occur. It has thus been observed that even partial hanging produces sufficient tension in the ligature material to cause death by cerebral anoxia.
Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that this contention of Dr. LC Gupta as regards the distance between the ceiling fan and the ground even if it is presumed that he had measured it was less than the height of deceased Sushma does not hold ground.
At this stage, it will be worthwhile to mention that the evidence of a medical man or expert is merely an opinion which lends corroboration to the direct evidence in the case. Where there is a glaring inconsistency between direct evidence and the medical evidence in respect of the entire prosecution story then, it is undoubtedly a manifest defect in the prosecution case. Moreover, it is also well settled that where there is conflict between the opinion of two experts the court should normally accept the evidence of the expert whose evidence is corroborated by direct evidence of the case which according to the court is reliable. Thus, where the opinion of a medical witness is contradicted by another medical evidence both of whom are equally competent to form an opinion, the opinion of that expert should be accepted which supports the direct evidence in the case.
Thus, coming back to the findings recorded by Dr. LC Gupta at the time of conducting the postmortem examination, I may state that 34 nothing is mentioned in his entire report that he suspected it to be a case of poisoning. It is highly improbable that in a case of Aluminum Phosphide, a doctor with such a long experience as Dr. LC Gupta was having, was not able to observe any peculiarity as are commonly associated with the cases of Aluminum Phosphide. No-doubt, the doctor could not have given any final opinion as to the actual poison responsible for the death of a person but, if Dr. LC Gupta was of the opinion that Sushma was hanged from the ceiling fan after her death or Sushma was made to hang from ceiling fan by some one i.e her death was homicidal in nature or it was a case of postmortem hanging then he ought to have mentioned all such observations in his report at that time itself. He cannot say that all such facts would have been mentioned by him upon the receipt of FSL report.
Firstly, as in the present case, the cause of death was not opined by him on account of having been transferred from out of BJRM Hospital, there could have been similarly a number of other reasons also be it natural or otherwise which could not have made it possible for the police to obtain cause of death from him then all such findings which he might claim were in his mind could not have seen the light of day.
Secondly, by not mentioning all such initial observations of his at the time of giving his postmortem examination report, he deprived the investigating officer of a valuable clue in the investigation of the matter . Now, Dr. LC Gupta cannot claim that out of lack of experience, he did 35 not make such observations in his postmortem examination report or about the site inspection report in his proceedings, for he admittedly was having an experience of 19 years in government service carrying out postmortem examinations.
The aforesaid facts thus clearly goes to suggest that this observation by Dr. LC Gupta that the death of Sushma was homicidal in nature or that it was a case of postmortem hanging was clearly false. On the other hand, Dr. Upender Kishore, who gave the opinion as to the cause of death clearly opined suicide to be a possible mode of death and in the overall facts & circumstances of the case, it was for the prosecution to show that the opinion given by Dr. Upender Kishore was not correct.
At this stage, it will be also worthwhile to discuss about one bluish bruise which was found on the left arm of Sushma of the size 1X1 cm. Clearly, if Aluminum Phosphide was forcibly administered to Sushma or she was made to hang forcibly or in the alternative after her death she was dragged and the body was made to hang from the ceiling fan then there would have been a number of dragging signs or struggle signs found on the body of Sushma. The presence of one bruise of size 1X1 cm which CW2 Dr. Upender Kishore even observed was possible even upon striking with a wall. It was even otherwise also possible when a person attempts to commit suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan. Thus, nothing 36 much can be inferred from the presence of said bruise of size 1X1 cm on the left arm of Sushma.
Coming now to my earlier observation as to why opinion given by Dr. LC Gupta is not worthy of credence, I may state that shockingly during the course of cross-examination of Dr. LC Gupta and even subsequently during the course of final arguments, a number of startling facts were brought to the notice of the court. Before, I advert on to the said facts, I may state as a word of caution that though, I am not entering into an analysis of the said facts/allegations, which were levelled against Dr. LC Gupta by learned defence counsel, for the same is not an issue over here but, the said facts does call upon this court to exercise extreme care and caution while dealing with the report of Dr. LC Gupta.
It was brought to the notice of the court that in the year 2004 vide order no.F.342/06/2004-H&FW/5368, the then Additional Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT, Delhi had constituted a Medical Board comprising of three senior doctors of Maulana Azad Medical College, namely, Dr. PC Dixit, Dr.SK Khanna and Dr. AK Aggarwal to review all the postmortem cases conducted by Dr. LC Gupta, who at the relevant time was working as Junior Specialist Forensic Medicine under Delhi Government.
The reason for passing of such an extra ordinary order by the Health and Family Welfare Department of Government of NCT, Delhi 37 arose as a number of instances were brought to the notice of the concerned authorities where the opinion given by the Dr. LC Gupta as to the cause of death in different cases were found to be either motivated or per se false. In fact, vide letter no.PS/PSH/2002/679 dated 25-10-2002, the then Principal Secretary Home of NCT Delhi Sh. R. Narayan Swami had written to the then Principal Secretary Health, Sh. SP Aggarwal for initiation of departmental action against Dr. LC Gupta for his unprofessional and indiscipline conduct. The Principal Secretary Home had cited certain instances while observing that Dr. LC Gupta was in the habit of writing autopsy reports very late and further distorting his findings and giving a distorted cause of action.
It was also brought to the notice of the court that vide letter no.3273/C&T (AC-VI) PHQ dated 25-7-03, a letter was written by the then DCP-HQ, Delhi Sh. V. Ranganathan to Deputy Secretary Home, Government of NCT, Delhi mentioning about certain cases in which postmortems were conducted by Dr. LC Gupta and he requested for constitution of Medical Boards to review the reports given by Dr. LC Gutpa and also prayed for shifting of Dr. LC Gupta from Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital to some other hospital as the reports given by Dr. LC Gupta were contrary to the facts of the cases and showed an indifferent attitude on his part.38
One other letter no.10162/C&T (AC-VI) dated 27-3-02 written by Sh. SK Sharma, the then ACP, HQs to Deputy Secretary Home, Government of NCT, Delhi was also brought to the notice of the court. In the said letter again reference to some cases was made in which objectionable conduct of Dr. LC Gupta was also highlighted.
Yet one other letter no.1741/SI/NDR dated 23-10-02 addressed to Principal Secretary Home and written by the then Joint Commissioner of Police -Sh. BK Gupta was also pointed in which Sh. BK Gupta had written a report on the conduct of Dr. LC Gupta was at that time was working as Autopsy Surgeon in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi. In the said letter also a request was made for initiation of departmental action against Dr. LC Gupta on account of his conducting postmortem examination in an unprofessional and perfunctory manner.
Yet one other letter written to Sh. B Parsad, the then Secretary to the Hon'ble Lft. Governor, Delhi by Sh. Ajay Raj Sharma, the then Commissioner of Police, Delhi bearing no.606/SI/NDR dated 26-4-02 was pointed out wherein it was stated by Sh. Ajayraj Sharma that Dr. Dr. LC Gupta is in the habit of writing autopsy report very late and he twist his findings in some cases. Once again Sh. Ajayraj Sharma sought transfer of Dr. LC Gupta from the concerned hospital.39
One other letter No.3937/SO/SR (AC-III) dated 4-7-06 written by Sh. Bhim Sain Basi, the then Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi and as addressed to the Principal Secretary Home, Government of NCT, Delhi was also brought to the notice of the court in which Sh. Bhim Sain Basi had sent a report on the unprofessional and indiscipline conduct of Dr. LC Gupta, Head of the Department, DDU Hospital. In the said letter also Sh. Bhim Sain Basi pointed out a number of cases while requesting Principal Secretary Health, Government of NCT of Delhi to transfer Dr. LC Gupta to some other unit where he may not have to deal with police matters.
It was also pointed out that in a number of well known cases in which suicide was committed by various persons after jumping from Janak Puri District Center Tower, Dr. LC Gupta opined the cause of death to be homicidal. However, his opinion was subsequently reviewed by Board of Doctors at Maulana Azad Medical College and the Board opined the cause of death to be suicidal. It was also pointed out that a case FIR No.402/01, PS Kalyan Puri, U/S 7 Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 also stood registered against Dr. LC Gupta.
Before, I advert further, I may state that though during the cross-examination Dr. LC Gupta claimed ignorance about any such letters written by various authorities to Principal Secretary Home but, he did admit the factum of an FIR having been registered against him and 40 some other instances where his postmortem report came in question even before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but he further stated that the said FIR has already been cancelled. To specific suggestions put to him by learned defence counsel that in a case titled BD Singh Vs. Government of NCT-Delhi, SHO, Janak Puri and Others in CWP No.1883/05, the Hon'ble High Court had suggested for initiation of departmental inquiry against him, he claimed ignorance and rather stated that on the basis of the postmortem report prepared by a Board of Doctors in which he was also a member. Hon'ble High Court had even ordered for registration of a case U/S 302 IPC.
Be that as it may be, I may once again reiterate that though I am not entering into a discussion as to the veracity or otherwise of the aforesaid instances referred to by learned defence counsel as regards past conduct of Dr. LC Gupta in a number of other cases but, I may once again mention that all these facts however put this court on extra caution while dealing with his testimony. In fact, from the aforesaid circumstances his claim that he had visited the spot along with IO and had given a signed report to the IO does not inspire confidence especially as he did not state anything in this regard anywhere in his proceedings.
Thus, my aforesaid findings as regards the observations made by Dr. LC Gupta in his postmortem report vis-a-vis opinion given by CW2 41 Upender Kishore and the attendant circumstances when the door of the room in which Sushma was found hanging was bolted from inside and could be opened by a plumber only clearly goes to suggest that the death of Sushma was by way of suicide by antemortem hanging. The absence of any vomiting signs in the room or smell of vomiting in her clothes also rules out the possibility of intake of Aluminum Phosphide. One important question at this stage may arise as to how the FSL expert came to opine about the presence of Aluminum Phosphide in the stomach and in the pieces of small intestine or that of phosphide in liver, spleen and kidney pieces or in the blood sample. In fact, in a discussion on axphysial deaths in the LYONS's Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 966, it has been observed that if the postmortem appearances do show that death was due to hanging then the discovery of poisoning in the body does not generally affect the presumption in favour of suicide. I may also state that sometimes the presence of poison in a given sample can also occur when proper precautions are not taken in the collection or subsequently sealing of the samples such as the jars in which the samples were collected were not properly cleaned or were already contaminated etc. I thus, keeping in view the overall facts & circumstances of the case and in the absence of there being no evidence having been led on record qua the proceedings adopted towards the collection and sealing of these samples, am of the opinion not much can be read against the 42 case of the accused persons in this regard.
From the aforesaid circumstances, it is thus clear that reliance cannot be placed upon the deposition of Dr. LC Gupta when he states the death of Sushma to be homicidal in nature as not only his opinion does not find any support from the other evidence led on record by the prosecution much less from the attendant circumstances which stands proved on record. The opinion to the contrary of Dr. Upender Kishore also casts grave shadows of doubts as to the conclusion drawn by Dr. LC Gupta. Clearly, the overall facts & circumstances of the case thus presents a picture where the prosecution has miserably failed in proving that the death of Sushma was homicidal in nature. Though, even in those cases where two views are possible then the one favouring the accused has to be relied upon but, in the present case, in my considered opinion the overall facts & circumstances of the case suggests only one view that the death of Sushma was suicide by way of hanging.
Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against all the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts.
I accordingly hereby acquit all the accused persons, namely, Jai Singh, Smt. Bhago Devi, Rajender Singh, 43 Joginder Singh and Smt. Rajesh Solanki of the offence U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Bail bonds of all accused persons stands cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7-11-2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I. 44 FIR NO.: 745/05 PS : PRASHANT VIHAR U/S : 498A/304B/34 IPC.
7-11-07 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present on bail with counsel.
Sh. Bhupender Singh is present on behalf of complainant.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 7-11-07 accused persons, namely, Jai Singh, Smt. Bhago Devi, Rajender Singh, Joginder Singh and Smt. Rajesh Solanki have been acquitted of the offence U/S 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Bail bonds of all accused persons stands cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Documents of their sureties, if any be returned forthwith.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7-11-2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I. 45