Delhi District Court
2013(3) Rcr (Criminal) 924 Titled As ... vs . State Of on 11 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 05/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0309792012
State
Versus
1) Shashi Kant Sharma
S/o late Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma
R/o C5/25, Sector15,
Rohini, Delhi.
2) Vijay Goria
S/o late Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma
R/o SLF, Safdar Hashmi Marg (College Road),
Bengali Market, New Delhi.
(since discharged)
FIR No. 220/03
PS - Prashant Vihar
U/s.498A/306 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 03/09/2003
Arguments heard on: 02/12/2013
Date of reservation of order: 02/12/2013
Date of Decision: 11/12/2013
JUDGMENT
1. On 08/05/2003, DD No. 30 was recorded at PP Sector16, Rohini, Delhi at about 2.40 p.m. day on receipt of telephonic information from HC Mohan from BSA hospital that Smt. Ruchi, wife of Shashi Kant, R/o C5/25, Sector15, Rohini, aged 39 years, had been admitted in the hospital by her husband Shashi Kant in brought dead condition and police be sent. Copy of this DD was sent to ASI Sherpal through constable Ishwar for taking necessary action.
2. Accordingly, ASI Sherpal Singh alongwith Constable Manveer reached at BSA hospital, where he collected MLC of Ruchi Sharma, who was declared SC No. 99/1 1 brought dead, with alleged history of found hanging from ceiling at residence. Dead body was inspected and was sent to the mortuary of BJRM hospital through Constable Manveer Singh. Inquiries were made from the husband of deceased and her sons. Relatives of the deceased were informed, who came. Thereafter, statement of Ashish Sharma, brother of deceased was recorded. Rukka was prepared and the case was got registered u/s. 498A/306 of IPC. Brief facts were prepared. Request for preserving the dead body was made. Dead body identifications statements of Shyam Sunder Sharma and Ashish Sharma, father and brother of deceased, were recorded. Postmortem was got conducted. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to Shyam Sunder Sharma. Postmortem report was collected.
3. During investigation, spot was inspected. It was got photographed through a private photographer. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. From the spot, two pieces of shunning were lifted and were seized in this case by preparing a memo. One iron blade was also seized from the spot. One GPA was produced by Ashish Sharma, brother of deceased. It was seized by preparing a memo. Ashish Sharma also produced photocopies of two letters, which were written by him to Smt. Vina Bhardwaj, Secretary, All India Mahila Dakshata Samiti regarding demand of dowry, harassment and beating of his sister Ruchi Sharma by accused Shashi Kant Sharma and also about murder and harassment. Same were seized by preparing a memo. DD No. 21B dated 17/11/2002, PS Prashant Vihar was also seized in this case by preparing a memo.
4. After postmortem, one sealed pullanda containing viscera of deceased Ruchi Sharma, one envelope addressed to Director (FSL) and one sample seal of Medical Supt. BJRM Hosp. Jahangir Puri, Delhi, were handed over to the police, which were seized by preparing a memo. Exhibits i.e. two pieces of dupatta/chunni and one Iron blade (Aari) were sent to Dr. Pushpinder Singh of BJRM Hospital for obtaining the subsequent opinion. The same was received and placed on record. Request to obtain opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by deceased SC No. 99/1 2 Ruchi Sharma was also made to Dr. Pushpendra Singh. The same was received and placed on record. One letter was received from Mahila Dakshata Samiti, addressed to IO Sanjay Sharma through registered post vide which it was requested that some official be sent to record the statements and to recover the relevant record. The same was seized by preparing a memo. A letter was also written to incharge, Mahila Dakshata Samiti, Connaught Place, for deputing somebody to handover the concerned record to PP Sector16, Rohini. Accordingly, the relevant record was received from Mahila Dakshata Samiti i.e. complaint made by Ruchi Sharma dated 25/11/2002 and Ashish Sharma dated 17/11/2002 alongwith other relevant record. The same was seized by preparing a memo. Exhibits were sent to FSL.
5. Accused Shashi Kant Sharma was arrested in this case on 09/05/2003. His personal search was conducted. His medical examination was got conducted.
6. Allegations of harassment and torture were also levelled against Vijay Goria, brother of accused Shashi Kant Sharma, by Ashish Sharma, brother of deceased. Inquiry was made in this respect but nothing incriminating came out against him. Hence, he was not arrested in this case.
7. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Shashi Kant Sharma U/s. 498A/306 of IPC. Case was committed to the Court of Session on 22/09/2003 and was received on 29/09/2003.
8. During trial, FSL report with viscera report filed. Admitted handwriting of deceased alongwith suicide note were sent to FSL for comparison.
9. On 24/03/2004, supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Vijay Goria. It was committed to the Court of Session on 13/04/2005 and was received on 19/04/2005. Another supplementary chargesheet was filed for the purpose of filing FSL report in respect of admitted handwritings.
10. On 28/01/2009, accused Vijay Goria was discharged in this case by the learned Predecessor, while pronouncing the order on the point of charge and prima facie case for offences u/s. 498A and 306 of IPC was found to be made out against SC No. 99/1 3 accused Shashi Kant Sharma. Accordingly, on 05/02/2009, charge u/s. 498A of IPC and u/s. 306 of IPC was framed against accused Shashi Kant Sharma, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW30 in all. Statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the case of the prosecution and has claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, accused has examined DW1 in this case.
12. I have heard learned APP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced. Finding qua offence u/s. 498A of IPC:
13. The case was registered on the complaint of one Ashish Sharma, according to which, Rs. 5 lacs were demanded to construct a separate house for the deceased and on that ground, she was treated with cruelty and was harassed and due to this reason, she was deserted for 67 months. The family members of the deceased arranged Rs. 3 lacs, which were given to the accused, against which, a plot was purchased in Sector16, but even thereafter, they started harassing the deceased for some more money to construct a house. Again, Rs. 3 lacs were given to accused persons after obtaining loan and the house was constructed. It was further told that in November, 2002, deceased was beaten and the family members of deceased were informed to take her away, otherwise, she will be killed. On the next day, she was taken to Jallandhar and complaint was lodged, but accused tendered apology, so, after 34 months, deceased was sent back and thereafter, they received information about the death of deceased.
14. So, in all, two incidents have been reported of giving Rs. 3 lacs at each time for purchase of plot and construction of the house and twice, the deceased was deserted, but she was taken back to her matrimonial house.
15. Complainant Ashish Sharma has been examined before the Court as PW1. He has stated that everything was okay in between his sister and accused SC No. 99/1 4 except minor differences on account of studies of their son Eric. After about 78 years of their marriage, a quarrel took place between his sister and accused on the account of studies of their son and after the said quarrel, he brought his sister back to his house. At that time, his sister remained with them for about 56 months. Thereafter, compromise took place between his sister and accused, so, she came back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, in the year 2003, they received information about death of his sister Ruchi Sharma. He reached at her matrimonial house and came to know that she was removed to some hospital. Accordingly, he reached at the hospital and came to know that his sister was brought dead. Then, dead body was shifted for postmortem. Thereafter, he alongwith his uncle went to PS Rohini to lodge report and police obtained his signatures on certain documents.
16. PW1 has further deposed that his sister never complained about any harassment or cruelty meted out to her by her husband and has stated that his sister committed suicide due to depression on account of studies and future of her son.
17. As PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution nor his complaint, so, he has been cross examined by learned APP, wherein except admitting his signatures on Ex. PW1/A, he has denied the contents of the same and even after putting specifically by the learned APP, he has not supported the contents of his complaint before the Court. PW1 has explained that at the time of incident, he was perturbed and his signatures were obtained on many papers by the police officials and he had not made any complaint against the accused. He has further deposed that on 09/05/2003, after postmortem, dead body was handed over to them vide Ex. PW1/C and his statement was recorded regarding identification of dead body Ex. PW1/D. PW1 has not been cross examined in any manner. As PW1 has not deposed anything about cruelty or harassment caused to his sister on account of demand of dowry, so, his testimony is not helpful to the case in any manner.
18. PW5 is Shyam Sunder. He is father of deceased. He has stated that after marriage, accused started harassing his daughter and when he had purchased a plot in SC No. 99/1 5 Sector15, Rohini, he had demanded Rs. 5 lacs through the deceased. At that time, he had arranged Rs. 3 lacs and had given the same through his daughter and plot was purchased. PW5 has further deposed that in the month of November, 2002, at about 12 p.m., a phone call was received from the accused, who told that they should take back their daughter as she was not worth for him. So, he came to Delhi and took back his daughter with him and the matter was reported to PS Prashant Vihar. Thereafter, his daughter remained with him for 34 months and he got her employed in Jallandhar and during that period, they used to receive phone calls from accused to settle the matter. Thereafter, he sent back his daughter to her matrimonial house as her two sons were staying there and were requiring the care of their mother. After marriage, accused used to beat his daughter at her matrimonial house.
19. As this witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution, so, he has been cross examined by learned APP, wherein he has stated that he had no complaint against Vijay Goria, elder brother of accused Shashikant. He has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW5/C on certain facts and has further admitted that he had told to the IO that inlaws of his daughter did not like the clothes, which were given in the marriage and were returned being of inferior quality and demand of other clothes was raised and he had also told to the IO that accused started demanding money for construction of the house.
20. Learned defence counsel has contended that mere demand of another clothes instead of inferior quality of clothes cannot be treated as demand of dowry. It is further contended that according to the examination in chief of PW5, accused got employed the deceased as a teacher in the year 1998, but PW5 has stated that accused started utilizing the the salary in the construction of the house, in the said plot. It is further contended that conduct of the accused is clear. Not only he promoted the deceased with her studies, but also got her employed and if the salary was being utilized in the construction of the house, then what was illegal in the same.
21. It is further contended that in the cross examination, PW5 has admitted SC No. 99/1 6 that at the time of marriage, his daughter was graduate and after that, she had done P.G and B.Ed and was employed temporarily in a school. It is further contended that PW5 has admitted that relations of his daughter were cordial with accused. It is further contended that in the cross examination, PW5 has admitted that he and his family members attended the various functions, whenever they were called by the accused persons.
22. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in fact, both the children of deceased and accused were below average in studies, so, this was the issue of quarrel. It is further contended that earlier, no complaint was given of any type either about the demand of Rs. 5 lacs at the time of purchase of plot and again demand of money at the time of construction of house. It is further contended that PW5 has denied the knowledge about the quarrel as to whether it was taken place in the year 2002 on the ground of low marks of the children of accused. It is further contended that deceased was called, when her younger child Aditya was admitted in the hospital, who was suffering from epilepsy. It is further contended that both the sons of accused were suffering from epilepsy and were below average in studies and this was the bone of contention between the accused and deceased, which was given colour of demand of dowry.
23. It is further contended that PW5 has admitted that after purchasing the plot, accused never demanded money from him to construct the house, whereas n the statement given to the police by PW1 Ashish Sharma Ex. PW1/A, he has stated that at the time of construction also, Rs. 3 lacs were given, so, this fact is not corroborated either by PW1 Ashish Sharma or by PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma. It is further contended that PW1 Ashish Sharma has not deposed about any demand, whereas PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma has stated that demand of Rs. 5 lacs was raised at the time of purchase of plot and Rs. 3 lacs were arranged and were given. It is further contended that both PW1 Ashish Sharma and PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma are father and son, so, it seems to be improbable that one fact, which was with the knowledge of SC No. 99/1 7 father could not be in the knowledge of son. So, even demand of Rs. 5 lacs, on which, Rs. 3 lacs were given at the time of purchase of plot, cannot be relied upon.
24. PW6 is Amit Sharma. He is cousin brother of deceased. He has stated that after marriage, deceased was harassed and was beaten by the accused and behavior of accused Shashi Kant Sharma and his brother Vijay Goria was rude, which cannot be explained in terms of words. PW6 has further deposed that accused shifted to Rohini and demanded Rs. 5 lacs for the construction of the house, for which, Rs. 3 lacs were given to the accused.
25. This witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution, so, he has been cross examined by old. APP, wherein he has admitted that deceased used to tell him about the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the accused, but he has been confronted with Ex. PW6/A, wherein he had told that Rs. 3 lacs were also given for the purchase of plot, to which, he has not deposed and supported before the Court. He had also told to the police that either his cousin sister was forced to die or she was killed in some manner.
26. In the cross examination, he has admitted that accused Shashi Kant was known to him very well before the marriage. Mother of PW6 was mediator in the marriage. He has denied the knowledge as to whether after marriage, Ruchi Sharma had done Med. because in 1992, he had gone out of station for studies, for five years. He has denied that he did not meet Ruchi Sharma in between 1992 to 1997 and has further told that whenever he used to come back to his house during holidays, he used to meet her.
27. Learned defence counsel has contended that incident had taken place on 08/05/2003, whereas statement of this witness has been recorded, as alleged, n 11/05/2003 and PW6 Amit Sharma has also admitted that he did not give any statement to the police before 11/05/2013, but it is not explained as to why statement was not given, so, statement given on 11/05/2013 was given after due deliberation. It is further contended that in the cross examination, PW6 has admitted that he had not SC No. 99/1 8 told to the IO in his statement that accused shifted to Rohini and demanded Rs. 5 lacs for construction of the house, but Rs. 3 lacs were given to him, so, he has made a material improvement regarding demand of dowry to rope the accused in this case.
28. In support of his contentions, the learned defence counsel has relied upon 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 924 titled as Bakshish Ram and another Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that:
"Demand of cooler and harmonium met be parents of deceased. There was no reason for inlaws to set aside the deceased on fire. Moreover, it was husband, who brought the deceased to hospital and informed the police and parents of deceased, hence, conviction and sentence set aside."
29. Learned defence counsel has further contended that on one hand, PW1 Ashish Sharma and PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma, who are father and sons and family member of deceased Ruchi Sharma, have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner, on the other hand, cousin brother of deceased i.e. PW6 Amit Sharma has tried to depose about the cruelty and harassment caused to deceased Ruchi Sharma, but he has made improvement regarding demand of Rs. 5 lacs and demand of Rs. 3 lacs, which he had not told to the IO, so, improvement is material, hence, this witness can also be not relied upon.
30. PW15 is Shanti Kumar Sharma. He has stated that Ruchi Sharma was his niece and was married to accused. After marriage, accused started beating and torturing Ruchi Sharma about which Ruchi Sharma used to tell them, whenever she used to come to them. She also used to tell that her husband used to come to house after consuming liquor and in her absence, her husband used to bring other girls in the house and her husband was compelling her to bring money from her house. PW15 has further deposed that according to his knowledge, family members of Ruchi and her relatives had given money to the accused persons and also got constructed a house in Sector15, Rohini. Whenever Ruchi Sharma used to complain them, they used to send her after pacifying her and on 17/11/2002, a complaint was also lodged SC No. 99/1 9 against accused Shashi Kant Sharma and his brother at PS Prashant Vihar in his presence. PW15 has further deposed that in his presence, Rs. 3 lacs were given to the accused in the year 199091 in the house of Kuldeep Raj, maternal uncle of deceased, in presence of brother and father of deceased. He has further deposed that accused used to beat Ruchi Sharma and used to pressurize her to bring money for purchase of plot and for construction of house and Rs. 6 lacs were given to Ruchi Sharma for purchasing a plot in Sector15, Rohini, and even after payment of said amount, they continued harassing Ruchi.
31. Learned defence counsel has contended that PW1 Ashish Sharma has not stated anything regarding payment of amount to the accused persons, whereas PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma, father of the deceased, has stated that Rs. 5 lacs were demanded at the time of purchase of plot, but Rs. 3 lacs were given. He has further stated in the cross examination that after purchasing the plot, accused never demanded any money from him to construct a house, whereas this witness has stated that Rs. 6 lacs were given at the time of purchase of the plot, which is contradictory to the depositions of PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma and PW6 Amit Sharma, who have also stated that Rs. 3 lacs were given to the accused at the time of construction of the house. It is further contended that PW15 Shanti Kumar Sharma has stated in the cross examination that he knows that Rs. 6 lacs were given in total and Rs. 3 lacs were given in his presence, which is contrary and contradictory to the depositions of PW5 and PW6.
32. It is further contended that facts, as deposed by PW15 about consuming liquor and bring other girls in the house, neither PW1 Ashish Sharma nor PW5 Shyam Shunder Sharma and PW6 Amit Sharma have stated so, although PW1 Ashish Sharma and PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma are family members of deceased and PW6 Amit Sharma is cousin of deceased, but even then, they have not deposed such type of allegations against accused, hence, there is no corroboration in this respect, hence, all these witnesses i.e. PW1 Ashish Sharma, PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma, PW6 Amit SC No. 99/1 10 Sharma and PW15 Shanti Kumar Sharma cannot be relied upon regarding the cruelty and harassment, as allegedly caused to deceased Ruchi Sharma on account of demand of dowry. It is further contended that even if, it is assumed that Rs. 3 lacs were given at the time of purchase of plot or at the time of construction of the house, then the same is not falling within the definition of dowry.
33. In the complaint, which has been referred dated 17/11/2002, was lodged at PS Prashant Vihar, at the time, when Ruchi Sharma was taken to her parental house. The information was given by father of the deceased that he was taking his daughter and his sons as he had received a call from accused at 12.30 on 12/11/2002 and his daughter had told that accused used to quarrel with her and sometimes used to beat her.
34. Learned defence counsel has contended that even at that time, no allegations were made regarding demand of dowry.
35. Two complaints were also given with Ms. Vinay Bhardwaj, Secretary Akhil Bhartiya Dakshita Samiti, dated 17/07/2002 Ex. PW1/A and dated 09/05/2003 Mark X1. The complaint Ex. PW1/A has been given by Ashish Sharma, brother of deceased on the basis of information received from his sister on telephone that two days before, her husband had beaten her and gave a scissor blow on her head. On 16/11/2002, accused also informed to take away the deceased, otherwise she will be killed, on which, he alongwith his parents reached at Delhi and found that Ruchi Sharma was sustaining head injury and was having swelling on the face and blackening, so, they took Ruchi Sharma with them and information was given in PS Prashant Vihar. It was further informed that immediately, no action be taken as there could be a improvement in the circumstances.
36. Learned defence counsel has contended that the facts as mentioned in this complaint Ex. PW1/A given to Mahila Dakshita Samiti, were not reported to the police in DD No. 21A Ex. PW3/A that Ruchi Sharma was beaten and they had seen head injury and swelling on face and blackening. Even there is no medical SC No. 99/1 11 examination in this respect. It is further contended that PW1 Ashish Sharma has not deposed these facts before the Court in any manner, so, there is no corroboration with the complaint Ex. PW1/A given to Mahila Dakshita Samiti.
37. Another complaint is mark X1. It was also given to Smt. Vinay Bhardwaj, Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Mahila Dakshita Samiti, according to which, after the incident of 17/11/2002, accused emotionally blackmailed Ruchi Sharma and got admitted his sons in the hospital and after tendering apology asked Ruchi Sharma to come back and yesterday on 08/05/2003, at about 5.30, they received information at Jallandhar that Ruchi Sharma had been murdered by the accused and his brother. This complaint was given again by brother of Ruchi Sharma, who reached at Delhi with his family and relatives and they got registered the FIR. It is further alleged in this complaint that they had seen certain injuries on the dead body, which was showing that she was murdered. The children were also not brought at the time of last rites.
38. It is contended by learned defence counsel that PW1 Ashish Sharma has admitted his signatures on complaint Ex. PW1/A, but has denied the contents of the same and has deposed that his signatures were obtained on blank papers on the pretext of effecting a compromise. Regarding the complaint mark X1, he has not deposed anything before the Court.
39. PW14 Anubhuti Shukla has been examined from Mahila Dakshita Samiti. In the year 2002, she was working as family counselor there. On 16/06/2003, she handed over the photocopy of enquiry record in connection with Ruchika Sharma to the IO. The same is Ex. PW8/D collectively bearing her signatures. It was seized by the IO and her statement was recorded.
40. Learned defence counsel has contended that in the cross examination, PW14 has admitted that enquiry was not conducted by her. Even she does not remember whether complainant Ruchi Sharma had appeared before her at any time, so, the record produced by PW14 cannot be relied upon in any manner. SC No. 99/1 12
41. PW21 Vinay Bhardwaj has stated that on 27/04/2004, IO SI D.D. Kalsan of PS Prashant Vihar had come to her and at that time, she was working as Secretary of Mahila Dakshita Samiti. At that time, SI D.D. Kalsan asked her to handover the complaint dated 25/11/2002 made by Ruchi Sharma, which she handed over, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW21/A. The complaint is mark X. Her statement was also recorded by the IO.
42. In the cross examination, she has stated that complaint case was dealt by Achala Srivastava. Mark X was not written in her presence, so, she is not sure in whose writing the complaint is written. She has also produced the consolidated register of complaints, according to which, proforma was filled up at serial No. 4241 in respect of complaint Mark X, photocopy of which is Ex. PW21/DA. She has further admitted that no action was taken on the complaint as requested by the complainant.
43. Learned defence counsel has contended that complaint is dated 25/11/2002. It was entered at serial No. 4241 in the consolidated register of complaints and the next serial number is 4242, which is dated 23/11/2002, which shows that record has been fabricated as date of 25/11/2002 falls after 23/11/2002 and if at all, such complaint was made, then it could have been entered only after serial no. 4242 and it proves that record has been fabricated in this respect.
44. The complaint mark X, as deposed by PW21 Ms. Vinay Bhardwaj is on record. It is a handwritten complaint bearing signatures of Ruchi Sharma. It is having date of 25/11/2002. It is alleged that just after the marriage, on account of less dowry, she was mentally tortured and accused started beating her on the pretext of dowry. She was also tortured on account of other pretext that she was not knowing as to how to cook the food, why she was using more soap in washing clothes, why she was not cleaning the house. Vijay Goria, brother of accused, used to demand Rs. 5 lacs for purchasing a separate house, otherwise she will be beaten regularly. The complainant has further alleged that she used to go to her Mausi and used to tell her only some SC No. 99/1 13 facts and her Mausi assured that they will try to complete the demands and everything will be settled.
45. It is further alleged that her husband used to put a ball pen in the bangles to twist them to torture her and used to become happy on that account. One day, accused caught hold her from her hair and dragger her to the room of his elder brother and hit her head on the wall and thereafter, on the provocation of his elder brother tried to strangulate her neck and said that he will not spare her, but elder brother pushed the accused and said that "kya naadani kar raha hai, akal se kaam le isko mar kar, kya hum sabko phansayega". Thereafter, her jethani took her in another room and asker her as to why she was getting beatings. Rs. 5 lacs were not more than her life, so, she should ask for Rs. 5 lacs from her parents. Again, she was tortured after the birth of son as nothing was given according to the satisfaction of the accused persons. Once, she was beaten and she sustained fracture in her leg. She was forcibly put in a train, which was going to Jallandhar and it was told that she should come back with the money, otherwise she should not come back. Thereafter, accused informed her parents to get their daughter from the train. In Jallandhar, she got treatment of her leg and remained there for 67 months. Her parents with the help of relatives arranged Rs. 3 lacs for the plot and thereafter, plot was purchased. It is further alleged that when the son was likely to be born, accused claimed that child was not belonging to him and was belonging to his elder brother, so, she should abort the child as she was having illicit relations with his elder brother and forcibly also gave her tablets.
46. It is further alleged that for the construction of the plot, again, money was demanded, on which pretext, after consuming liquor, accused used to torture her with a sharp edged iron rod. Again, her parents with the help of relatives collected Rs. 3 lacs, which were given to construct the house.
47. It is further alleged that in August, 1999, with the help of relatives, she joined in a school, but again, she was tortured. Her Mausi and her Mama were SC No. 99/1 14 residing nearby and used to ask about the injury marks, but she used to tell them that she slipped in the bathroom or fell down from the stairs.
48. It is further alleged that accused earlier gave a matrimonial advertisement and contacted a widow to provoke her to perform marriage and obtained Rs. 10,000/ from her. Once, in front of one Neelam, after consuming liquor, accused caused beating to her with iron punch and with the help of said Neelam tide her with a chair in front of the room and in her front, accused performed sex with the said lady and she did not disclose these facts to her parents because she did not want to make them unhappy. Accused used to beat her on her private parts and wanted to kill her.
49. It s further alleged that on 11/11, accused came after consuming liquor with a new girl and started abusing her and also gave beatings to her. When she resisted, she was beaten mercilessly and given a scissor blow on her head. Next day, again, accused gave beatings to her and made a call to her parents in the midnight to take her away, so, her parents came with her brother on 16/11 and she was taken on 17 because she was pushed by the accused from her house, so, she left her matrimonial house with her parents in three clothes and information was given at PS Prashant Vihar and in the last, it is requested that immediately no action be taken as the circumstances could be improved.
50. This complaint was seized from PW21 Vinay Bhardwaj vide memo Ex. PW21/A. The complaint was sent to FSL. Admitted signatures were obtained i.e. on Ex. PW18/B, which are containing admitted signatures 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14, Ex. PW17/B containing admitted signatures A4, specimen signature card of UCO Bank containing admitted signatures A1 to 3 and Ex. PW19/B containing admitted signatures A3 and A6. Ex. PW18/B has been proved by PW18 Ms. Sujata Rai Spolia, Deputy Director, Navyug School Educational Society, N.P. Primary School, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. She has stated that on 23/04/2004, while she was working as Deputy Director, SI D.D. Kalsan came and on his request, documents having signatures of Ruchi Sharma were given to the IO, which were seized vide SC No. 99/1 15 memo Ex. PW18/A and the documents running into 17 pages were given Ex. PW18/B. This witness has not been cross examined in any manner, so, signatures of Ruchi Sharma on these documents Ex. PW18/B collectively have not been disputed in any manner.
51. Ex. PW17/B was taken into possession from Jwala Cooperative Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Cycle Market, Jhandewalan, Delhi. PW17 P.D. Gupta has stated that in the year 2004, he was working as Secretary of the society. On 24/04/2004, SI D.D. Kalsan came and on his request, he produced the admission form, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW17/A. The admission form is Ex. PW17/B. This witness has also not been cross examined in any manner, so, signatures of Ruchi Sharma appearing at point A4 are also not disputed.
52. According to PW20 Sh. R.K. Goyal, Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, Punjab, on 26/04/204, he was posted as Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Patel Nagar branch, Delhi. On that day, IO had come to him. He handed over specimen signature card of Ruchi Sharma to the IO. It was seized vide memo Ex. PW20/A and the card is Ex. PW20/B also bearing the photographs of Ruchi Sharma. This witness has also not been cross examined in any manner, so, specimen signatures A1 to 3 are also not in dispute.
53. The admitted handwriting of the deceased was collected by the IO from PW19 J.K. Sambhi. On 23/04/2004, she was working as Principal in Navyug School, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. On that day, one SI of PS Prashant Vihar had visited her and asked about the admitting handwriting of Ruchi Sharma and she produced one application, which was moved by Ruchi Sharma for obtaining experience certificate. The same was in the handwriting of Ruchi Sharma and was bearing her signatures. It was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW19/A. The application of Ruchi Sharma is Ex. PW19/B.
54. PW19 has further deposed that on 26/04/2004, the said police official again visited the school and she handed over the teacher's diary of Ruchi Sharma, SC No. 99/1 16 which was containing her handwriting and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW19/C. She has also identified the diary before the Court as Ex. PW19/D. Her supplementary statement was recorded. This witness has also not been cross examined in any manner by learned defence counsel, so, it is not disputed that Ex. PW19/D i.e. diary is not containing the handwriting of Ruchi Sharma.
55. The admitted writing i.e. A1 to A21 and questioned handwriting Q1 to Q10 were sent to FSL. According to the report of PW22 Ms. Deepa Sharma, Deputy Director, FSL Rohini, Delhi, Ex. PW22/A, the person, who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A21 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q10.
56. PW22 has been cross examined by learned defence counsel for accused at length, but nothing came out from her cross examination to disbelieve her testimony.
57. In defence, DW1 OM Prakash Sharma has been examined. He has stated that it was a dowryless marriage and after marriage, relations between the couple were very good. In the year 1997, accused Shashikant made his house on a plot purchased by him in the year 1994 in Rohini. He arranged the money from his own source from his account in UCO bank. He was a witness to the agreement to sell and purchase executed in favour of accused Sashikant, photocopy of which is Ex. DW1/A. The receipt is Ex. DW1/B. Copy of the Manager's check is mark A and the deed of will is Ex. DW1/C and Ex. DW1/D. Accused got executed the GPA in favour of his wife out of love and affection. Subsequent copy of completion certificate was obtained of the said plot, which is Ex. DW1 /E. Accused shifted in the house at Rohini in the year 1998. Both husband and wife were having good relations. Two children born out of wedlock. In the year 2002, in the month of November, a small dispute arose between the deceased and accused with regard to study of Eric, so, he went to her parental house and came back after few months, after persuasion by the accused. However, children were not ready to accept their mother and were annoyed with her as she left them for no valid reason and had deserted the children. SC No. 99/1 17 Eric was suffering from epilepsy. After marriage, accused got admitted Ruchi Sharma for B.Ed from Kurukshetra University and also helped her in seeking admission and obtaining MA degree.
58. In the statement also, accused has stated that he was married to Ruchi Sharma on 12/10/88. It was a love marriage. She used to visit her aunt namely Shashi Sharma in Dev Nagar. He was residing in her neighbourhood and they started having a liking for each other, which resulted in the marriage. After marriage, they lived together peacefully. Ruchi was never harassed by him or anybody else after marriage for any reason whatsoever. There was no demand of any kind whatsoever from her at any point of time or from her family members. They both had great love, respect and affection for each other. In fact, after the marriage, they had gone for honeymoon to Shimla and thereafter used to go to one place or other regularly. His relations with his inlaws were very cordial and they used to visit each other regularly. After marriage, he persuaded Ruchi to further study and as such got her admitted for MA and thereafter, she did her B.Ed from Kurukshetra University and Diploma in Computer Science from Delhi. She started working in Navyug School on adhoc basis thereafter. They were blessed with two children namely Aditya Karan and Eric. Eric was weak in studies and he had failed in 7th standard. In the year, 2002, he received a complaint from the school of Eric regarding his disinterest in studies. Earlier also, many complaints were made by school authorities but were concealed by him from Ruchi. Ruchi was not taking good care of the education of the children, although she herself was a teacher and as such, a quarrel took place between him and her. Thereafter, she went to her parental home and after deserting him and children, although no big quarrel to that extent had taken place between them.
Accused has further stated in his statement that his sons were suffering from epilepsy. After Ruchi left home, he made numerous attempts to bring her back, SC No. 99/1 18 but to no avail as Ruchi was under the influence of her sister Bindu Sharma and other relatives. His sons were hospitalized during this period and she only visited once and that too after he begged her to do so since it was having very bad effect on the mental state of the children that the mother was not visiting them in the hospital. His sons were depressed with the conduct of their mother, who did not take care of them or return home, when they were sick. After great efforts, he somehow managed to persuade Ruchi to return home after five months. However, his children were reluctant in accepting her since they felt that she had not attended them at the time of need. He made all efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the children and their mother, but to no avail. Shashi, aunt of Ruchi had taken a sum of Rs. 20,000/ from him and had not returned the same. In order to avoid return of payment, she on some filmsy ground stopped all interactions with them and in fact did not invite Ruchi to the Grah Pravesh ceremony on 08/05/2003. Ruchi was extremely disappointed and depressed with the conduct of her aunt. Further, since his younger son Aditya was not at all ready to accept Ruchi, she was further depressed.
Accused has further pleaded that on 08/05/2003, he was informed that Aditya had not brought his holiday homework from the school. He told Ruchi that this was not fair on her part that even Aditya was not doing well in his studies and she was not making any sincere efforts in this regard. He alongwith Eric went to Bharat apartment to bring the homework from a classmate of Aditya and on return asked Aditya as to where his mother was, who was perplexed and did not say anything. He sent Eric upstairs to look for his mother and hearing his scream, he rushed upstairs and brought down Ruchi after cutting the chunni and took her to hospital when all resuscitation efforts failed. His inlaws and relatives were also informed. Police also reached at the hospital and he was taken to PS from home. At PS, his father in law Shyam Sunder Sharma and brother in law Ashish Sharma told the police that the relations between him and his wife were very cordial and they did SC No. 99/1 19 not have any complaint against him. However, Amit and Shanti Sharma prevailed upon them and made them signed certain papers and he was falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused has further stated that plot bearing No. 25, pocket 5, Block C, Sector15 was purchased by him on 02/05/94 after arranging funds from his sources for a sum of Rs. 51,000/. He had withdrawn the said amount from his bank account in United Commercial Bank, Patel Nagar Branch, account No. 9462 and got prepared a draft of the said amount from the same bank on 29/04/94. The construction on the said plot was done by them in part and was completed in the year 1997 and he had obtained a completion certificate from DDA dated 18/11/97.
Accused has further stated that suicide note is in the handwriting of his wife. He has seen her writing and signing. However, the complaint addressed to Mahila Dakshita Samiti is not in the handwriting of Ruchi. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
59. Learned defence counsel has contended that according to cross of PW28 Inspector Sanjay Sharma, initially, he had given report to his seniors that complaints seems to be manipulated, which were given in the Office of Akhil Bhartiya Mahila Dakshita Samiti, so, the complaints cannot be believed.
60. I am not agree with the contention of learned defence counsel because it has been deposed by the witness in respect of the complaints dated 17/11/2002 and 09/05/2003, whereas the main complaint given by the deceased herself is dated 25/11/2002 Ex. PW22/C, so, this observation of the IO is not helpful to the accused in any manner.
61. A letter Ex. PW22/C, dated 25/11/2002, was given to incharge, Mahila Dakshita Samiti, Connaught Place, Delhi, wherein deceased had given the incidents of treating with cruelty and causing of harassment physically and mentally. The incidents are of such nature, which could not be disclosed to the family members and relatives by the deceased. It is also mentioned in the letter that at the time of purchase SC No. 99/1 20 of plot, Rs. 3 lacs were given and again, Rs. 3 lacs were given for the construction of the house. This letter has been proved to be in the handwriting of deceased Ruchi Sharma and bearing her signatures, so, under such circumstances, witnesses can depose falsely, but the documents cannot, hence, this letter cannot be disbelieved in any manner and the letter Ex. PW22/C is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, according to which, he treated the deceased with cruelty and caused her physical and mental harassment for demand of money.
62. In view of above, PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma, PW6 Amit Sharma and PW15 Shanti Kumar Sharma have corroborated each other regarding the cruelty and harassment caused to Ruchi Sharma and demand of Rs. 3 lacs each at the time of purchasing the plot and at the time of construction of the house. The contradictions, which have appeared in the depositions of these witnesses, are minor in nature. These witnesses have also corroborated with letter Ex. PW22/C, which was written by Ruchi Sharma prior to her death and was given in Mahila Dakshita Samiti, so, under such circumstances, PW5, PW6 and PW15 cannot be disbelieved in any manner. DW1 Om Prakash Sharma and accused himself have stated that plot was purchased in the year 1994 for a sum of Rs. 51,000/ only, which were withdrawn by the accused from UCO Bank, but it is well known that there is a practice to pay over and above money in cash, while dealing in property, so, only on this ground, witnesses cannot be disbelieved alongwith the letter Ex. PW22/C written by Ruchi Sharma.
63. In view of above, the contentions of learned defence counsel are not forceful in any manner. The judgment relied upon by the learned defence counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case for the offence u/s. 498A of IPC. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence u/s. 498A of IPC beyond reasonable doubts against accused Shashi Kant Sharma, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
Finding qua offence u/s. 306 of IPC :
64. Information of the incident was given at 2.40 p.m. day, on 08/05/2003 by SC No. 99/1 21 HC Mohan from BSA hospital, on which basis, PW2 HC Vijay Laxmi, who was posted at PP Sector16, Rohini of PS Prashant Vihar and was working as DD Writer at that time, recorded the information as DD No. 30, which was regarding admission of Ruchi Sharma by her husband in dead condition. Copy of the DD is Ex. PW2/A. She has also produced original DD register before the Court. It was handed over to SI Sher Pal through Constable Ishwar for necessary action.
65. PW26 SI Sherpal has stated that on 08/05/2003, he was posted as ASI at PP Sector16 of PS Prashant Vihar. On that day, he was present at PP on emergency duty and while he was present in the area of PP Sector16, Constable Ishwar came to him and handed over copy of DD No. 30 dated 08/05/2003. On receipt of the same, he alongwith Ct Ishwar and Ct Manvir reached at BSA hospital and collected MLC of Ruchi Sharma, on which, doctor had opined her brought dead with alleged history of found hanging from ceiling at her residence at around 12.45 p.m., as told by the husband of the victim.
66. PW26 has further deposed that dead body was removed to the mortuary of BJRM hospital through Ct Manvir vide application Ex. PW26/A. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct Ishwar came back at the spot. After making inquiries, relatives of the deceased were informed about the incident and were asked to reach at the spot. After sometime, brother of deceased namely Ashish Sharma came and he got recorded his statement, on which, he prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct Naresh for registration of the case. Constable Naresh was the beat constable and he also reached at the spot,so, he handed over rukka to him for registration of the case. PW26 called the private photographer Naresh at the spot, who got the spot photographed. After sometime, Ct Naresh came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR alongwith rukka to him.
67. PW26 has further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PW26/B. One piece of chunni of green colour was found lying on the floor and the other piece of chunni was found tied with the iron angle of SC No. 99/1 22 the roof. Both the pieces of chunni were taken into possession by preparing a pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of SK and was seized vide memo Ex. PW11/A. One piece of iron blade was also lying on the floor. It was also seized vide memo Ex. PW11/B. Thereafter, he recorded statements of witnesses and came back to PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana.
68. PW26 has further deposed that on 09/05/2003, Sunita Sharma, Shyam Sunder, Ashish Sharma and Bindu Sharma came to him at PP and he recorded their statements and all these persons reached at the mortuary of BJRM hospital. He got conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased. He prepared inquest papers at that time. He prepared brief facts, which are Ex. PW26/C. Form No. 25.35 (1) (b) was filled up by him. He also recorded statements of Shyam Sunder Sharma and Ashish Sharma regarding identification of dead body , which are Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW1/D. After postmortem, dead body of deceased was handed over to Shyam Sunder Sharma vide Ex. PW1/C. After postmortem, doctor handed over one sealed viscera, one envelope addressed to Director (CFSL) and one sample seal, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/A. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
69. PW26 has further deposed that on 09/05/2003, he alongwith Constable Virender Singh, after depositing the case property in the malkhana, reached at the house of accused in Sector15, Rohini and after making inquiry, accused was arrested by him vide memo Ex. PW8/E. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/F. Thereafter, accused was brought to PP and was produced before the Court concerned, from where, he was remanded to J.C.
70. PW26 has further deposed that on 09/05/2003, Shyam Sunder Sharma had also produced photocopy of DD No. 21B dated 17/11/2002 of PS Prashant Vihar, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/B and photocopy of the same is Ex. PW3/A. On 11/05/2003, witness Ashish Sharma had produced one photocopy of GPA dated 02/05/94, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/G. Photocopy of SC No. 99/1 23 GPA is Ex. PW8/J. On 27/05/2003, PW26 moved an application Ex. PW26/D before Dr. Pushpinder Singh of BJRM hospital for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding two pieces of chunni and iron blade, which he had taken from Malkhana. The doctor had given his opinion, which is Ex. PW26/E and also returned the pullandas after resealing the same with his seal, which he deposited in the malkhana.
71. PW26 has further deposed that on 02/06/2003, he moved another application before Dr. Pushpinder Singh for getting some more opinion vide Ex. PW26/F and the opinion is Ex. PW26/G.
72. PW26 has further stated that on 10/06/2003, in his presence, Constable Virender Kumar handed over two letters, which were written on the letter pad of Mahila Dakshita Samiti, Connaught Place, New Delhi, which were taken into possession by IO SI Sanjay Sharma, vide memo Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B, whom further investigation was handed over. PW26 has also identified two pieces of chunni as Ex. P1 and one iron blade as Ex. P2.
73. PW4 ASI Ashok Kumar was working on 08/05/2003 as duty officer and on receipt of rukka from constable Naresh, sent by PW26 SI Sherpal Singh, he recorded FIR of this case, copy of which is Ex. PW4/A. He has also produced original FIR register before the Court. He has also proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW4/B. PW4 has not been cross examined in any manner, so, he has been able to prove that on the day and time, as deposed by him, he recorded FIR of this case and has corroborated the version of PW26 SI Sherpal Singh.
74. PW9 HC Manvir Singh has deposed the same facts regarding investigation as of PW26 SI Sherpal Singh. He had accompanied SI Sherpal to BSA hospital and dead body was preserved. After postmortem, dead body was handed over and viscera alongwith one sealed envelope and sample seal were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW9/A. PW9 has also not been cross examined in any manner, so, his unrebutted testimony has corroborated the facts with the deposition of PW26 SI Sherpal Singh.
SC No. 99/1 24
75. PW11 HC Naresh Kumar has also deposed the same facts regarding registration of FIR and seizure of the exhibits from the spot i.e. pieces of chunni and iron blade vide memo Ex. PW11/A and has identified the pieces of chunni as Ex. P1 and iron blade as Ex. P2. PW11 has also not been cross examined in any manner, so, his unrebutted testimony is corroborating with the deposition of PW26 SI Sherpal Singh.
76. PW12 HC Khushi Ram was working as MHC(M) at that time. He has deposed about depositing of case property by PW26 SI Sherpal Singh on 08/05/2003, 09/05/2003, 23/05/2003, 27/05/2003 and he made necessary entries in this respect. The case property was also sent to FSL through Constable Ganga Sharan on 22/07/2003 vide RC No. 35/21/03 and was received back on 07/03/2004 through constable Ramesh Kumar. He has produced original register No. 19 before the court. Copy of the entries is Ex. PW12/A. Entries of RC book have not been disputed. This witness has also not been cross examined.
77. So, in all, investigation conducted by PW26 SI Sherpal Singh with all these witnesses has not been disputed in any manner.
78. PW28 Inspector Sanjay Sharma, to whom, further investigation was handed over, on 27/05/2003, he sent PW26 SI Sherpal Singh to obtain subsequent opinion regarding recovered chunni, about ligature mark and after obtaining the opinion, SI Sherpal Singh handed over to him subsequent opinion Ex. PW26/D alongwith application Ex. PW26/D. On 10/06/2003, two letters were received by Constable Virender at PP Sector16, from Mahila Dakshita Samiti, Connaught Place, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/A and on 16/06/2003, he reached at Mahila Dakshita Samiti, Connaught Place, to meet Smt. Anubhuti Sharma, but she was not present at that time. Latter in the evening, she came at PP Sector16 and handed over nine photocopies of complaint enquiry alongwith forwarding letter, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW8/C. The forwarding letter is Ex. PW8/D. On 01/07/2003, he had gone on long leave, so, case file was handed over to MHC(R). SC No. 99/1 25
79. Further investigation was handed over to PW29 Inspector Deen Dayal Kalsan and on 22/07/2003, he got send the viscera to FSL Rohini through Ct Ganga Saran. On 05/08/2003, he submitted the case file before the then SHO T.R. Mongia on completion of investigation. FSL report was not ready, so, it was collected later on and was placed on record. On 15/04/2004, he had moved application Ex. PW29/A before the Court of ld. ASJ for obtaining the suicide note of Ruchi Sharma. It was allowed and photocopy of suicide note is Ex. PW29/B. He made inquiries from government handwriting expert, who told that opinion could not be given on the photocopy of the suicide note, so, again on 22/04/2004, he moved application for obtaining original suicide note, which was allowed on 26/04/2004.
80. PW29 has further deposed that on 23/04/2004, he obtained admitted handwriting of Ruchi Sharma from NDMC School, Kidwai Nagar, from Jwala Co operative Society, Urban Thrift on 24/04/2004, from UCO Bank, Paten Nagar on 26/04/2004, from Navyug School, Sarojini Nagar on 26/04/2004 and from Mahila Dakshita Samiti, Kidwai Nagar on 27/04/2004. Thereafter, he send the admitted handwriting suicide note to the FSL and later on obtained opinion and prepared supplementary chargesheet on 23/05/2004. He had also collected the subsequent opinion regarding cause of death vide application Ex. PW29/F.
81. Learned defence counsel has contended that marriage of the deceased had taken place in the year 1988, whereas she died in the year 2003, so, presumption u/s. 113A of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised against the accused.
82. PW1 Ashish Sharma has nowhere deposed that at any time, during her lifetime, his sister Ruchi Sharma had told that accused had abetted at any time to commit suicide. He has stated that his sister never complained them about any harassment or cruelty caused by the accused and he came to know that his sister had committed suicide due to depression on account of studies and future of her son. On this aspect, he has been cross examined by ld. APP, but even then, he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.
SC No. 99/1 26
83. PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharnma has stated that on receipt of information of the incident, which was verified by his son Ashish Sharma, they came to Delhi. Firstly, they reached at the house of accused, but it was found locked. Thereafter, they reached at PS Prashant Vihar. He saw accused in PS Prashant Vihar, who told that he had not done anything and his wife i.e. deceased had committed suicide. This PW has also not deposed that during her lifetime, Ruchi Sharma had told that accused had abetted her to commit suicide. In the cross examination, PW5 has stated that according to him, relations of his daughter were cordial with the accused. He has also admitted that he and his family members had attended various functions, whenever they were called by the accused persons. He had also admitted that both the children of his daughter were below average in studies He has denied the knowledge whether the quarrel had taken place in the year 2002 due to low marks of children of accused. He has also admitted that accused had made telephonic calls to his daughter to come back, when younger child Aditya was admitted in the hospital, who was suffering from epilepsy.
84. PW6 Amit Sharma, who is cousin of deceased, has stated in the cross examination conducted by ld. APP that he had told to the police in his statement either his sister was forced to die or she was killed in some manner. Learned defence counsel has contended that PW6 Amit has stated that incident had taken place on 08/05/2003 and his statement was recorded on 11/05/2013, which was given after due deliberations. It is further contended that PW6 has not given any explanation as to why his statement was recorded so late. More so, his statement to the fact that his cousin sister was forced to die or she was killed in some manner has not been deposed either by PW1 Ashish Sharma or PW5 Shyam Sunder Sharma i.e. brother and father of deceased nor they have corroborated the same in any manner.
85. PW15 Shanti Kumar Sharma has stated that persons from the neighbouring houses were present, who told that Ruchi had died in the noon time at about 1.00 p.m. and further that, accused had removed the deceased in a vehicle to SC No. 99/1 27 Ambedkar Hospital in dead condition. It was further told by the neighbours that in the noon time, Ruchi was doing vomiting on the roof of the house and accused was also standing there, having a rope and chunni in his hand.
86. Learned defence counsel has contended that this part of evidence is hearsay. No such person has been examined from whom these facts came to the knowledge of PW15 and in the cross examination, he has stated that he treated this case as of murder. It is further contended that accused has been charged for offence u/s. 306 of IPC and PW15 has also not been able to depose that during her lifetime, Ruchi Sharma had told that accused was abetting her to commit suicide or was creating such circumstances forcing her to commit suicide.
87. According to PW10 Beena Khurana, on the day of incident, accused requested her to give her Maruti Car for taking Ruchi Sharma to hospital, so, she handed over the key of her Maruti Car No. DL8CD9055, in which, Ruchi Sharma was removed to hospital. Her statement was recorded by the IO. In the cross examination, she has stated that she had never seen accused quarreling with his wife nor heard noise of quarrel coming out of their house. Even Ruchi Sharma never complained her against the accused in any manner.
88. According to the case of the prosecution, deceased has left the suicide note Ex. PW22/B. According to PW22 Ms. Deepa Verma, Deputy Director, FSL Rohini, Delhi, she had examined this suicide note marked as Q1 with admitted handwriting of deceased marked as A1 to A22 and gave her report Ex. PW22/A. According to her report, the person, who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A21 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q10. So, it is proved that this suicide note is in the handwriting of Ruchi Sharma.
89. The contents of suicide note are that she is dying at her own will and no one is involved in the same, so, no one should be harassed. It is dated 08/05/2003.
90. Learned defence counsel has contended that in view of the suicide note of SC No. 99/1 28 Ruchi Sharma, it is clear that she committed suicide due to the circumstances, as deposed by the witnesses, at her own and this was due to the fact that her both the sons were suffering from epilepsy and were below average in studies and she came to her matrimonial house after about 56 months, at the time, when her elder son was admitted in the hospital, so, she might have been unable to bear the situation and was running from the upbringing of two children, who were suffering from epilepsy, hence, committed suicide.
91. PW23 Eric Karan is son of the deceased. He has stated that he and his father had gone to Bharat Apartment to take his brother's holiday homework. After collecting the same, he alongwith his father came back to their house at about 1.40 p.m. At that time, his mother was not present in the house, so, his father asked his younger brother to see where his mother was and then his father asked him to see upstairs. Accordingly, he went upstairs and saw that his mother was hanging from the roof of the room situated at first floor. On seeing the same, he screamed, at which, his father came. His father lifted his mother. In the meantime, he brought one aari blade and cut the chunni with the help of Aari blade. His father tried to revive his mother, but she could not be revived. His father asked him to call the neighbours. After about 10 minutes, his mother was taken to Ambedkar Hospital. IO had made inquiries from him and he had given this statement to the police.
92. In the cross examination, PW23 has stated that he was very poor in the studies and his mother was not taking care in this respect. He failed in 6th class and then in 7th class. His teacher used to complain about his studies to his parents. He has further stated that on this issue, many times quarrel had taken place between his father and mother and on this issue, his mother had left for her parental house at Jallandhar on 17/11/2002 and remained there for 56 months and during that time, she visited once to see his ailing younger brother only for one hour. Many times, his father made telephonic calls to his mother in his presence to come back and in the year 20022003, he and his younger brother were suffering from epilepsy and he SC No. 99/1 29 remained in the hospital from 15/03/2003 to 18/03/2003 in RML hospital and prior to that, he remained admitted in the hospital, but his mother did not come to see.
93. PW23 has further stated that he and his brother were unhappy with the conduct of their mother, who had left them and had not taken care of them, when they were sick and due to this reason, his brother was not talking with his mother, after she returned back till her death, whereas he had very strained relationship with his mother.
94. PW23 has further identified the writing and signatures of his mother on Ex. PW22/B. He has also stated that in the police station, on the day of incident, he had seen Ashish Sharma, Shyam Sunder Sharma, Amit Sharma and Shanti Kumar Sharma, whose signatures were obtained on some blank papers by the police. PW23 has further stated in the cross examination that on the day of death of his mother, she told that there was a function in the house of her Mausi and she was not invited, so, she was feeling very sad. They had informed about the death of his mother to the relatives in Delhi and outside.
95. It is further contended by learned defence counsel that deposition of PW23 Eric Karan is clearly falsifying the depositions of other witnesses about the cause of suicide. He has also proved that both he and his brother were suffering from epilepsy and were not looked after by Ruchi Sharma. Even his younger brother did not talk with his mother, when she came back from Jallandhar in the year 2002 till her death, so, this could be the cause to commit suicide and not the abetment on the part of accused, as alleged.
Cause of death:
96. According to PW13 Dr. N.K. Singh, CMO, BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, on 08/05/2003, he had examined Ruchi Sharma, wife of accused, with alleged history of found hanging from ceiling at her residence at about 1.45 p.m.. After examination, he declared the patient as brought dead. He further referred to forensic expert, SGM hospital for postmortem examination. He prepared MLC, which is Ex. PW13/A. SC No. 99/1 30 PW13 has not been cross examined in any manner.
97. PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh has been deputed by Medical Superintendent, BJRM hospital, to depose on behalf of Dr. Pushpinder Singh, who was working as Senior Resident in the mortuary of BJRM hospital. Dr. Pushpinder has left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known, so, PW30 being acquainted with the writing and signatures of Dr. Pushpinder Singh has proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW30/A, which was prepared by Dr. Pushpinder Singh after conducting the postmortem. He has also produced the original postmortem record register before the Court. The cause of death was opined to be given after receiving chemical analysis report of viscera from forensic science laboratory.
98. PW13 has proved Ex. PW26/E and Ex. PW26/G i.e. subsequent opinion given by Dr. Pushpinder Singh, which are in the handwriting of Dr. Pushpinder Singh. As per Ex. PW26/E, Dr. Pushpinder Singh opined that dupatta was strong enough to carry the weight of the deceased. Ligature mark present on the neck of the deceased could have been caused with the dupatta or similar type of cloth. Dr. Pushpinder has further opined that ligature mark was antemortem in nature and postmortem findings were suggestive and consistent with antemortem suicidal hanging. As per document Ex. PW26/G, Dr. Pushpinder Singh further opined that injuries mentioned in the postmortem report from serial No. 1 to 6 were fresh and antemortem in nature. Age and duration of injuries were within 24 hours till postmortem. Dr. Pushpinder further opined that injuries no. 1 to 6 and 6 were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury no. 5 could cause death in ordinary course of nature and report was submitted accordingly. It was further opined that injury No. 1 to 4 were unilateral, multiple and superficial in nature and could be possible due to self infliction during agonal stage and injury no. 6 could be possible due to fall.
99. Viscera of the deceased was also sent for chemical examination and according to PW27 Dr. Madhulika Sharma, on 22/07/2003, she had examined viscera SC No. 99/1 31 i.e. Ex. 1A stomach and piece of small intestine, Ex. 1B piece of liver, spleen and kidney and Ex. 1c dark brownish red colour liquid stated to be blood sample of Ruchi Sharma. On examination, Ex. 1a gave positive test for aluminum phosphide and Ex. 1b and Ex. 1c also gave positive test for phosphide. Remnants of exhibits were sealed with the seal of MS FSL Delhi. She prepared her detailed report Ex. PW27/A. She has identified the viscera before the Court as Ex. P3, which was examined by her. PW27 Dr. Madhulika Sharma has been cross examined at length, but nothing came out from her cross examination.
100. PW24 Dr. B.N. Acharya has stated that on 13/03/2004, he was working as incharge, Mortuary BJRM hospital. On that day, he had perused the postmortem report alongwith FSL result regarding viscera. After examining the same, he opined that cause of death was antemortem suicidal hanging. As aluminum phosphide was also detected in viscera as per FSL report, so, the same indicated that victim had consumed aluminum phosphide before hanging. He also prepared his report in this regard Ex. PW24/A.
101. Learned defence counsel has contended that in the cross examination, PW24 has stated that aluminum phosphide poisoning causes rotten fish/garlic smell in the stomach, which can be felt after the stomach is opened during postmortem and in the postmortem report, no such thing is mentioned. He has further admitted that toxic dose of aluminum phosphide is 500 to 750mg/70 kg and the interval between ingestion and onset of symptom is 30 to 45 minutes and during this period, the incumbent would be in a fit condition to hang oneself and has further admitted that in case of consumption of toxic substance, sub mucus haemorrhage in the stomach would be present, although as per postmortem report, congestion was found.
102. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the cross examination, PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh has also admitted that at the time of opening of the stomach of dead body, in the case of poisoning of aluminum phosphide, there always comes stink/smell of rotten fish and massive garlic as aluminum phosphide SC No. 99/1 32 after consumption reacts with water and hydrochloric acid, thus resulting in release of phosphine gas, having pungent garlic smell. It is further admitted that phosphine gas by diffusion goes into the organs of the body, whereas the inactive residue i.e. aluminum chloride and aluminum phosphide remain in the abdomen and they are nontoxic. He has further admitted that it is not mentioned in the postmortem report that there was any smell of phosphine gas. He has further admitted that stomach was empty and aluminum chloride and aluminum phosphide were not found in the stomach. There was no sub mucus haemorrhage as per postmortem report and according to him, as an expert, there are no postmortem findings suggestive of aluminum phosphide poisoning.
103. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the final report given by Dr. Pushpinder, proved by PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh, it was opined a case of suicidal hanging and according to PW24 Dr. B.N. Acharya, FSL report shows that aluminum phosphide was consumed before hanging, so, it is doubtful whether deceased had consumed aluminum phosphide before hanging herself as the deposition of PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh and PW24 Dr. B.N. Acharya are contrary to the findings of PW27 Dr. Madhulika Sharma and are not supporting the postmortem report in any manner regarding presence of residue of aluminum phosphide.
104. According to PW23 Eric Karan, when his father removed his mother, while she was found hanging, in that process, the body slipped from the hands of his father and fell down. The same is corroborating with the testimony of PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh, who has deposed that injury no. 6 could be possible due to fall.
105. From the overall reading of the depositions of PW24 Dr. B.N. Acharya, PW27 Dr. Madhulika Sharma and PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh, it seems that if at all, it was a case of poisoning, then firstly, Ruchi Sharma consumed aluminum phosphide and then caused injuries to herself, which has been corroborated by PW30 Dr. Bhim Singh, who has deposed that Dr. Pushpinder had opined that injury no. 1 to 4 were unilateral, multiple and superficial in nature and could be possible due to self SC No. 99/1 33 infliction during agonal stage and thereafter, she hanged herself.
106. When it came to the knowledge of the accused, he immediately removed the body of his wife and had taken her to hospital by borrowing the car from PW10 Beena Khurana and the family members were informed. Marriage of the accused had taken place with the deceased in the year 1988 and incident had taken place in the year 2003, so, there could not be any occasion for committing such crime after so many years. Even injuries, which have been mentioned in the postmortem report were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
107. In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has relied upon 2000 VII AD (Delhi) 629 titled as Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State, wherein it has been held that:
"The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, therefore, active complicity is the gist of the offence3 of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107 IPC."
108. Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2000 VI AD (Delhi) 902 titled as Hira Lal Jain Vs. State, wherein it has been held that:
"As per clause "Firstly", of Section 107 of IPC, a person is said to instigate another when he goads, provokes, incites, urges forward or encourage another to commit a crime. The fact that a suicide note was recovered and from the SC No. 99/1 34 contents thereof it certainly cannot be said that the petitioner had goaded, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. There being no material on record to show that the ingredients of the offence of abatement have been satisfied the framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner was bad in law."
109. In view of above, the contentions of learned defence counsel are forceful. Presumption u/s. 113A of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised in this case. The suicide note has been opined to be in the handwriting of deceased Ruchi Sharma, wherein she has written "main apni marji se mar rahi hoon. Isme Kisi ka koi haath nahi hai isliye kisi ko bhee tang na kiya jai" and there are no allegations of abetment on the part of accused in any manner, so, prosecution has not been able to prove offence u/s. 306 of IPC against the accused, for which, he is acquitted.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 11th of December, 2013 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 99/1 35
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 05/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0309792012
State
Versus
1) Shashi Kant Sharma
S/o late Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma
R/o C5/25, Sector15,
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 220/03
PS - Prashant Vihar
U/s.498A of IPC
Date of Decision: 11/12/2013
Date of order on sentence: 11/12/2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
11/12/2013
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Shashi Kant Sharma in person with counsel Sh. Anupam Sharma.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict is aged about 56 years. He had not performed second marriage after the death of his wife Ruchi Sharma. Since the death of his wife, he is maintaining and upbringing his two sons, aged about 23 years and 18 years and both are suffering from epilepsy. It is further contended that accused is working as homeopathic doctor and is earning Rs. 25,000/ per month. It is further contended that accused has obtained the loan of the house, for which, he is paying EMI of Rs. 3,800/ per month. It is further contended that accused has his own house and he is paying the study expenses of both the children. The elder son is doing law from Amity University and his younger son is studying in 12th standard in Vidya Bharti School. Learned defence counsel SC No. 99/1 36 has further contended that he is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. It is further contended that accused remained in custody in this case from 09/05/2003 to 17/05/2003, 26/05/2003 to 12/11/2003 and 30/11/2003 to 25/05/2004.
On the other hand, ld. APP has contended that appropriate sentence be awarded for the offence which prosecution has been able to prove against the accused.
I have considered the submissions of ld. APP and learned defence counsel for the convict. The prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 498A of IPC against accused Shashi Kant Sharma.
Offence U/s. 498A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
I have considered the submissions and age, character and antecedents of the convict. He has already undergone custody of about one year as contended by learned defence counsel. Since the death of his wife in the year 2003, he has faced trial of this case for the last about 10 years and has appeared regularly. He is also maintaining and upbringing both of his sons, who are suffering from epilepsy. So, considering the above facts, sentence for the period already undergone by the convict i.e. from 09/05/2003 to 17/05/2003, 26/05/2003 to 12/11/2003 and 30/11/2003 to 25/05/2004 is imposed U/s. 498A of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
On the point of compensation, it is contended by learned defence counsel that the convict is earning Rs. 25,000/ per month, out of which, he is paying EMI of the house and also paying the study and other expenses of both his children alongwith their treatment expenses, who are suffering from epilepsy, hence, minimum compensation be awarded.
It has been held in Delhi Domestic Working Women's forum V. Union of India and ors. (1995) 1 SCC 14 that:
"Compensation payable by the offender was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 which gave the Courts powers to make an ancillary order for compensation in addition to the main penalty in cases where 'injury, loss, or damage' had resulted. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 made it possible for the first time to make a compensation order as the sole penalty. It also required that in cases where fines and compensation orders were given together, the payment of compensation should take priority over the fine. These SC No. 99/1 37 developments signified a major shift in penology thinking, reflecting the growing importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims of conventional punishment. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 furthered this shift. It required courts to consider the making of a compensation order in every case of death, injury, loss or damage and, where such an order was not given, imposed a duty on the court to give reasons for not doing so. It also extended the range of injuries eligible for compensation. These new requirements mean that if the court fails to make a compensation order, it must furnish reasons. Where reasons are given, the victim may apply for these to be subject to judicial review. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act contains a number of provisions which directly or indirectly encourage an even greater role for compensation.."
In judgment dated 03/05/2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 689/2013 titled as "Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra", it has been held that:
"Amongst others, the following provisions on restitution and compensation have been made:
12. Restitution shall be provided to reestablish the situation that existed prior to the violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Restitution requires inter alia, restoration of liberty, family life, citizenship, return to one's place of residence, and restoration of employment or property.
13. Compensation shall be provided for any economically assessable damage resulting from violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, such as;
(a) Physical or mental harm, including pain, suffering and emotional distress;
(b) Lost opportunities including education;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential;
(d) Harm to reputation or dignity;
(e) Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicines and medical services.
In view of above, on account of physical or mental harm, including pain, suffering and emotional distress caused to the family members of deceased Ruchi Sharma and considering the financial position of the convict, who is already burdened with the EMI of the house and maintenance and upbringing cost of both of his sons, who are suffering from epilepsy, a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ is imposed upon the convict in favour of father of deceased. In default of payment of compensation, convict shall undergo six months simple imprisonment.
SC No. 99/1 38
Compensation, if deposited and no appeal is preferred within the period of limitation, then the same be released to father of the deceased.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convict.
Fine deposited. Compensation not deposited.
Announced in the open court (Virender Kumar Goyal)
today on 11th of December, 2013 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,Delhi.
SC No. 99/1 39