Delhi District Court
State vs . Abhimanyu on 1 February, 2011
State Vs. Abhimanyu
FIR No. 341/96
PS Model Town
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, LD. METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-IV, ROHINI, DELHI
FIR No. 341/96
PS: Model Town
U/S: 304-A IPC
S/V Abhimanyu
C/N 106/02
Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997
Date of Institution: 08.07.1999
Name of the Complainant Shankar Singh S/o Ranvir
Singh r/o Jhugi Kabir Nagar,
Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
Name and address of accused Abhimanyu S/o Lakhan
Singh, R/o N-12-B-188, Kabir
Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi.
Offence complained of 304-A IPC
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of reserve for orders 01.02.2011
Date for announcing the orders 01.02.2011
C/N No. 106/02
Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 1
State Vs. Abhimanyu
FIR No. 341/96
PS Model Town
Brief reasons for the judgment:
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the case FIR No. 341/96.
1.The accused was charge-sheeted U/S 304-A and sent up for trial with the allegations that the complainant Shankar Singh was residing with his wife Manju (since deceased). On 23.07.1996, Manju fell ill having vomiting and loose motions. She took a medicine from the accused but at night at about 2.00 AM, her condition deteriorated and she was taken to Hindurao Hospital where she expired on 25.07.1996. Investigation was completed.
2. After necessary compliances, charge U/S 304-A IPC was framed against the accused for causing death by negligence. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove the charges, prosecution examined 15 witnesses in total, after which, the PE was closed. Statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC was thereafter recorded wherein accused pleaded his innocence. Final arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
4. I shall briefly touch upon the statement of PWs.
5. PW-1, K.C. Rathi, Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic) Burari, Delhi, deposed that on 19.12.97 he was SDM of Model Town Division and on that day he received a request from SI Narender Singh for C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 2 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town authority letter to collect the post mortem report and Visra. He allowed the request and forwarded the same to Dr. C.B. Dabbas, HOD, HRH, Delhi. His permission to this effect is Ex.PW1/A. On 15.4.98 PW-1 sent the Visra to CFSL CBI, Delhi with forwarding note/FSL form of SHO PS Model Town. He proved his letter to this effect as Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW-2 SI Manvinder Singh received the case file of FIR no.
341/96 for investigation. He arrested the accused and conducted his personal search also. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused as Ex.PW2/A and B respectively. He identified the accused in the court. He completed the investigation, prepared challan and filed the same in the court.
7. PW-3 SI Rakesh Kumar received the case file of present FIR No. 341/96 for investigation. He found that Visra of deceased was not sent to CFSL. He took the visra to CFSL and deposited the same vide RC and deposited the same in CRFSL Lodhi Road. On 24.8.98 the investigation of the case was handed over to SI Manvinder as he was transferred from the PS. Till the pullanda remained in his possession, the same was kept safe and intact and not tempered with.
8. PW-4 Smt. Laxmi W/o Thakur Partap Singh deposed that deceased Manju was the wife of brother-in-law (sala) of her son Brij Bihari. On 23.7.96 on an information about illness of Manju, she came to Delhi and by that time she had expired. She went to call her parents. She C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 3 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town identified the dead body of Manju and received the same after postmortem. She deposed that she did not know as to from where Manju obtained treatment.
Ld. APP for the State cross-examined the witness as she was resiling from her previous statement. During her cross-examination, she stated that deceased Manju was under the treatment of accused and accused gave medicines and after taking medicines, the condition of Manju become serious. She was taken to HRH.
PW4 was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel at length. During cross-examination , she stated that she knew the deceased since her marriage. She stated that deceased Manju and Shankar were living together. To her knowledge, no quarrel took place between Manju and her husband. Father of Manju informed her about the occurrence. She was not informed that Manju had taken poison . She was not present there. She stated that accused Abhimanyu administered poisonous injection to Manju on 25.07.96 due to which she was died, from Shanker and his father, at her residence.
9. PW-5 HC Lal Singh, was the Duty Officer in the present case who proved the FIR no. 341/96 as Ex.PW5/A.
10. PW-6 Rambir deposed that his son Shanker had brought his wife from the village to Delhi after 25 days of marriage and thereafter, about 20 days he came to know that his wife has died. He came to Delhi C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 4 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town and obtained the dead body after postmortem. He deposed that the name of wife of his son was Manju. His statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW6/A.
11. PW-7 Nathi Lal is the father of the deceased who stated that after marriage his daughter was died and his son-in-law Shanker informed him that Manju has died as she was ill. He deposed that he did not know anything more about this case. He knew the accused Abhimanyu in the court as he was from the same village of his son-in-law Shanker.
He was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he was read over statement u/s 161 CrPC Mark A to which he stated that he had not made that statement. He denied the suggestion that he had mixed up with the accused and not deposing the complete true facts in order to save the accused from punishment.
12. PW-8 Ranbir Singh deposed that deceased was his cousin sister and married with Shanker. On information about the death of deceased, he came at Delhi with his uncle Rambir where they were enquired by the police and their statement were recorded. He deposed that he did not know more about the case.
He was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he was read over statement u/s 161 CrPC Mark B to C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 5 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town which he stated that he had not made that statement. He denied the suggestion that he had mixed up with the accused and not deposing the complete true facts in order to save the accused from punishment
13. PW-9 HC Hukam Singh is a formal witness who accompanied SI Lal Bahadur to HRH where SI Lal Bahadur obtained the MLC and the patient was declared unfit for statement. Thereafter, he returned back. His statement was recorded.
14. PW-10 SI Narender deposed that he was handed over investigation of the present case and he had gone through the case file and found that PM report and Visra had not been collected. He visited the hospital for same number of time but the same was not available and was not given to him. Meanwhile he was transferred from the PS and he submitted the case file to MHC(R) on 19.12.97.
15. PW-11 Shankar Singh is the husband of the deceased Manju, turned hostile and deposed that his wife Manju fell ill and suffered decentary who took medicines from some Doctor . However, he was under
impression that she had taken medicine from Dr. Abhimanu who was running clinic in Kabir Nagar. Thereafter, he took his wife to HRH where she was medically examined and was admitted for 2/3 days and thereafter, she expired. He deposed that he did not know as to from whom his wife has taken treatment when she suffered decentary in his absence. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and during his cross-examination C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 6 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town conducted by Ld. APP for the State , he voluntarily stated that police officer obtained his signature on some papers and his statement was not read over to him. He stated that he did not discuss the cause of death of his wife with accused.
16. PW-12 K.V. Singh was the Record Clerk from HRH. He proved the MLC of Manju Devi as Ex.PW12/6 prepared by Dr. Renu.
17. PW-13 Dr. Dhananjay proved the Postmortem report No. HRH
-251/96, pertaining to Smt. Manju , prepared by Dr. Dinesh Kumar. He deposed that Dr. Dinesh Kumar had left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not available in the hospital . He identified the signature of Dr. Dinesh Kumar at point A on Ex.PW13/A. During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he stated that the postmortem report Ex.PW13/A was not prepared in his presence. He stated that he had last seen Dr. Dinesh Kumar signing in the year 1996.
18. PW-14 Lal Bahadur Singh (retired) Sub Inspector deposed that on 24.07.96 complainant Shanker Singh came to PP Sangam Vihar and he recorded his statement Ex.PW11/A. He recorded his said statement and made the endorsement Ex.PW14/A on the same and got the case registered through Ct. Surender Singh vide FIR Ex.PW5/A. He along with one HC reached at HRH where injured Manju was not fit for her statement. He collected her MLC Ex.PW12/A and came back at PP Sangam Vihar. On 25.7.97 injured Manju expired in the hospital . He C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 7 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town deposed that SDM called the parents of Manju in the hospital through him from Rajasthan. SDM fixed 29.07.97 for postmortem. The dead body was identified by the father of Manju in the hospital. After conducing the postmortem , he handed over the dead body to the father of Manju vide receipt Ex.PW14/B. The statement of identification of dead body is Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D. He recorded the statement of Rambir Singh father of deceased Manju as Ex.PW6/A and statement of Laxmi Devi as Ex.PW14/E. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS.
19. PW-15 SI S.K. Rana deposed that on 21.01.97 the case file of the present case was assigned to him for further investigation. He tried to collect the postmortem report as well as the report of SDM/inquest report but in vain. Thereafter, he was transferred and the case file was assigned for further investigation to other official.
20. After appreciation of the statement of witnesses and other material available on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case firstly for the reason that in the FSL result with respect to the Viscera, no common poison was found in the Viscera after chemical analysis. At the time of initial examination vide MLC Ex. PW 12/A, the doctor suspected it a case of poisoning but FSL result has not supported this opinion.
21. Secondly, the complainant / PW-11 or for that matter the other family members namely PW-4 Smt. Laxmi PW-7 Sh. Nathi Lal and PW-8 C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 8 State Vs. Abhimanyu FIR No. 341/96 PS Model Town Sh. Ranvir Singh have not supported the prosecution case. PW-11 stated that he was only under the impression that Manju had taken medicine from the accused and he added that he did not know as to from whom Manju took the medicine. These witnesses could not prove that accused administered any medicine to the deceased.
22. The cause of death of Manju could not be attributed to any act/ omission/ negligence on the part of the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold the accused not guilty for the offences charged. The accused Abhimanyu is accordingly entitled for acquittal. He is accordingly acquitted for the offences charged.
23. The Bail Bond stands cancelled and surety for the accused stands discharged. Any endorsement placed on the documents of the surety may accordingly, be cancelled. The original documents of the surety, if retained on record be returned against acknowledgment. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Neeraj Gaur) on 01.02.2011 MM-IV/ Rohini/Delhi C/N No. 106/02 Unique ID No. 02404R0062651997 9