Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charges under Section 498-A/304-B/406/34 and under Section 316 IPC were framed against accused Prashant Rathi to which he pleaded not guilty. Charges under Section 498-A/304-B/406/34 IPC were framed against accused Ashok Rathi, Aruna Rathi & Prachi Rathi to which they also pleaded not guilty.

3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. PW-1 is Dr. K. Goel. He had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Smt. Poonam Rathi and prepared the detailed postmortem report Exbt. PW-1/A. He stated that blood and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and final opinion regarding the cause of death was kept pending. He further stated that on 20.11.2012, IO SI Madan Meena submitted an application along with chemical analysis reports from FSL Malviya Nagar dated 26.08.2002 and 17.09.2002. The second report showed the presence of Organo Phosphorus Insecticide. He further stated FIR No. 216/02 4 of page 49 that the FSL result did not point out any specific poison and both the reports of different dates were contradictory and therefore no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given. He gave his subsequent opinion vide Exbt. PW-1/B. PW-2 is Dr. Mahdulika Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer from CFSL. She had received the viscera for chemical examination. On chemical examination, she found the presence of Organo Phosphorus Insecticide. She proved her report dated 26.08.2002 and 17.09.2002 as Exbt. PW-2/A and Exbt. PW-2/B respectively. With regard to the report dated 26.08.2002, she stated that there was a typographic mistake in the report that Exbt. 1-A and 1-B gave negative test and that later on the same was corrected vide her letter/report dated 17.09.2002 Exbt. PW-2/B. She also produced the photocopy of the office copy of report dated 26.08.2002 in which correction in respect of the finding was carried out and the same is Exbt. PW-2/C. PW-3 is Sh. Brij Bhushan. He is the father of the victim Poonam and is the complainant in this case. He proved the statement dated 30.05.2002 made to the SDM as Exbt. PW-3/C. He stated that he made another statement before the SDM which is Exbt. PW-3/D. He stated that on 01.06.2002, he gave statement to the police in which he stated that on 30.05.2002 he was mentally disturbed due to the death of his daughter and therefore had not mentioned the name of Ashok Rathi.

10. The Ld. APP arguing on behalf of the State has submitted that FIR No. 216/02 14 of page 49 after conducting the postmortem, doctor had preserved the viscera for chemical analysis. The viscera was sent to FSL Malviya Nagar. Dr. Madhulika Sharma (PW-2) Senior Scientific Officer-cum- Ex. Officio Chemical Examiner submitted a report Ex.PW2/A dated 26.08.02 but the same contained a typographic mistake which was later on rectified by Dr. Madhulika Sharma vide her letter/report dated 17.09.02 Ex.PW2/B. It is stated that the letter/report Ex.PW2/B proves the presence of Organo Phosphorus Insecticide in the viscera of the deceased and therefore it is a case of unnatural death.

12. The Ld. APP has argued that when IO submitted the report Ex.PW2/A before Dr. K. Goyal (PW-1) for opinion regarding the cause of death, he told him that the report was not complete and therefore IO approached the FSL for giving the complete report and then it was realized that there was typographical mistake in the report Ex.PW2/A and thereupon the clarification was issued by Dr. Madhulika Sharma vide Ex.Pw2/B .

FIR No. 216/02 15 of page 49 However the Ld. Defence counsels have argued that Dr. K. Goyal had not deposed that the report was presented before him on 17.09.02 or that he had informed the IO that it was not complete. It is submitted that prosecution has not produced any application by which the opinion of the doctor with regard to the cause of death was sought. It is thus argued that IO in connivance with the parents of the deceased has got prepared the false report Ex.PW2/B. It has also been argued that Organo Phosphorus Insecticides are in multiple but the FSL result does not indicate the group of Organo Phosphorus Insecticide. It is stated that in case of Organo Phosphorus Insecticide poisoning the affected person may smell of garlic or petrol and if the poisonous symptoms are severe, it may result in pin point pupils, confusion and agitation, convulsions, copious excess secretion and depression etc. It is stated that the MLC and the postmortem report do not suggest any of the aforesaid symptoms and in fact the postmortem report proves dilated pupils and not pinpoint pupils. It is thus argued that it is not a case of Organo Phosphorus Insecticide poisoning and therefore prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased had died otherwise than under normal circumstance.

13. PW-9 SI Madan Lal deposed that on 31.07.02 the viscera was sent to FSL Malviya Nagar and on 26.08.02 he collected the FSL result Ex.PW2/A from FSL and produced the same before doctor K. Goyal for opinion regarding the cause of death but on perusal of the said report doctor told him that it was an incomplete report and therefore he again went to FSL Malviya Nagar and gave a written request Ex.PW7/D for giving a complete report and on the said request the report dated 17.09.02 was given to him which is Ex.PW2/B. In cross examination PW-9 stated that FIR No. 216/02 16 of page 49 the FSL result dated 26.08.02 was taken to Dr. K. Goyal for opinion without any forwarding letter from the SHO or any other authority. According to him there was no necessity for any forwarding letter. He further stated that Dr. K. Goyal did not give opinion in writing in respect of FSL report dated 26.08.02. He stated that for the first time he went to Dr. K. Goyal only on 17.09.02 and that Dr. Goyal had not given him anything in writing on 17.09.02 after seeing the report but informed him verbally. In further cross examination he stated that he went to FSL Malviya Nagar on 17.09.02. He met Director who asked him to submit a written request to FSL. In his request letter to FSL submitted on 17.09.02, he wrote that instructions had been given by Dr. Goyal verbally and not in writing. He further stated in cross examination that FSL report dated 17.09.02 was handed over to him personally but did not remember whether the same was given in a sealed cover or not. PW-2 Dr. Madhulika Sharma also deposed that on 17.09.02 SI Madan Meena gave a letter dated 17.09.02 to Director FSL for further clarification and the letter was marked to her by the Director and while submitting the clarification it came to her knowledge that the correction which she had made in the office copy was inadvertently left in the main copy. She stated that she accepts that it was a typographic mistake and the correction was inadvertently left in the main copy. PW-2 was extensively cross examined by the defence counsels. In the said cross examination she stated that all the reports in FSL are always forwarded by the Director through forwarding letters but clarified that the second report Ex.PW2/B is not actually a report but a clarification of the previous report and therefore no separate forwarding letter was required and the reply was submitted through main file. She stated that she had not sent anything directly and that even Ex.PW2/B was routed through the Director. She also FIR No. 216/02 17 of page 49 did not remember whether the clarification Ex.Pw2/B was handed over to SI Madan Meena in a sealed condition or not but stated that generally the report/explanation are handed over in sealed cover only. She stated that as per practice in her office, after the report is prepared and sent in the Office of Director with the original record, after approval of the director, the same is received in the office whereupon the office gives a report in a sealed cover to the concerned person.