ID No. 02406R0039862011 IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST) SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] FIR No. 263/2010 PS : Badarpur U/[SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY], s/o Sh. [ENTITY], r/o House No. 15, Gali No. 10A, Mollarbandh Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi. Accused no. 1 [ENTITY], w/o Sh. [ENTITY], r/o House No. 15, Gali No. 10A, Mollarbandh Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi. Accused no. 2 Instituted on : 08th March, 2011 Argued on : 24th November, 2012 Announced on :24th November, 2012 J U D G M E N T
Case of prosecution
1. Accused persons in this case were tried for commission of the offence punishable U/[SECTION] & [SECTION] [ACT]. In brief, case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial is as under. At 11.20 pm on 06.10.2010 an information was recorded vide D.D No.37 to the effect that "at H.No.15, gali No.10 Molarbad near house of [ENTITY], my wife has committed suicide". [ENTITY] (PW11) along with Ct. [ENTITY] reached at house no. 15, gali no. 10A, first floor , Molar Band Extension, Badarpur, where dead body of [ENTITY] (deceased) was found lying on the [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 1/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 bed . [ENTITY] (PW11) noticed strangulation mark on the neck of [ENTITY] (deceased) and briefed the matter to SHO and ACP from the spot. Sh. [ENTITY], ACP informed the concerned SDM through telephone and inquiry was made from a person. Ct. [ENTITY] was sent for the preservation of dead body to AIIMS hospital . On the intervening night of 06/07.10.2010, SI [ENTITY] (PW15) along with Ct. [ENTITY] (PW14) reached at house no. 15, gali no. 10A, first floor , Molar Band Extension, Badarpur . PW15 inspected the spot and prepared SOC report (Ex. PW15/A). Ct. [ENTITY] (PW14) took photographs of the dead body of [ENTITY] (deceased) Ex. PW14/A1 to Ex. PW14/A6. Negatives of these photographs are Ex. PW14/B1 to B6.
2. On 07.10.2010, Dr. [ENTITY] (PW13) prepared MLC of [ENTITY] (deceased) which is Ex. PW13/A. PW13 found that ligature marks were present around neck. He declared patient brought dead. On 08.10.2010, [ENTITY] (PW2) came to the office of Sh. [ENTITY] ADM (PW4) , who recorded his statement (Ex. PW2/A) in his own hand writing and made endorsement thereon at point B to this effect and said statement was handed over to ASI [ENTITY] (PW11) . Complainant [ENTITY] (PW2) - the father of deceased stated that his daughter [ENTITY] was married with [ENTITY] on 01.07.2009. Complainant ( PW2) stated that after about 5/6 months of marriage, accused persons started harassing her and demanding dowry of motorcycle and a refrigerator. [ENTITY] (PW2) stated that [ENTITY] and his wife used to harass [ENTITY] (deceased) and accused [ENTITY] used to drink liquor and give beatings to her . [ENTITY] (Deceased) used to call PW2 on telephone and narrate [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 2/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 about the said harassment and demand to him. She used to tell about all these facts whenever she came at their house at Bihar. Complainant further stated that he visited thrice at the house of [ENTITY] (deceased) in Delhi and tried to make her in laws understand and asked them not to demand the said dowry articles and stop harassing his daughter. On the last Sunday, prior to the occurrence, [ENTITY] (deceased) talked to her mother and his elder son [ENTITY] on telephone. At that time, she complained to them regarding beating given by accused [ENTITY] to her. Complainant (PW2) stated that about 2/3 months, prior to the incident , [ENTITY] (deceased) came to their house in Bihar and narrated the incident regarding harassment and dowry demands by accused persons. PW2 alleged that he gave the said amount of money to accused persons at their house at village Mora, District Nalanda, Bihar. Smt. [ENTITY] (PW3) and Smt. [ENTITY] (PW10), sisters of the deceased stated that two years earlier on the day before [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY] received a telephone call from [ENTITY] and stated that [ENTITY] was seriously ill. Both sisters, Smt. [ENTITY] along with Smt. [ENTITY] went to the house of [ENTITY] (deceased). On reaching there [ENTITY] (deceased) told them that she was pushed by [ENTITY] by holding her hair on the staircase, she had also sustained injuries on her forehead. They stated that [ENTITY] (deceased) told them that that accused persons used to beat him and made demands of motorcycle and fridge. It is alleged that accused [ENTITY] used to taunt [ENTITY] (deceased) that "acchi nahi hai, aur acchi layange, dahej lekar aati, padi likhi nahi hai, aur naukari karwate." It is further alleged that15/20 days prior to the incident [ENTITY] (deceased) told her father on telephone that "jeena duswar kar rakha hai, [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 3/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 maang ki wajah se. PW2 told [ENTITY] that ab kese bhi rehna hai, hum log mei to dusari shadi hoti nahi, police daroga mei jaana theek nahi hai, ab aise hi rehana jeendagi katini hai".
3. On 09.10.2010, [ENTITY] SDM completed inquest proceedings. Dead body was identified by [ENTITY] and father of the deceased vide their statements (Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW2/E). Sh. [ENTITY] (PW4) moved an application (Ex. PW4/C) for postmortem. Endorsement (Ex. PW4/D) on the postmortem report (Ex. PW1/A) was made . On 10.10.2010, Autopsy Surgeon conducted the postmortem on the dead body of [ENTITY] (deceased). As per postmortem report (Ex. PW1/A) , rigormortis was found to be passed of. Postmortem staining was present over legs. Greenish discoloration was present. According to autopsy surgeon , the cause of death in this case was "asphyxia due to hanging". Ligature material was a yellow colour chunni in two pieces. Dr. [ENTITY] (PW1) opined that the death could be caused by use of aforesaid ligature material for hanging. Dr. [ENTITY] (PW1) handed over exhibits and sample seal to Ct. [ENTITY] (PW6), to SI [ENTITY] (PW11), took the same in to possession vide seizure memo (Ex. PW6/A). After postmortem, dead body was handed over [ENTITY] (PW2) vide memo (Ex. PW11/C). [ENTITY] (PW11) deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. Exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. [ENTITY] (PW9) vide [CASE NUMBER]. On 10.10.2010, [ENTITY] (PW5) registered the FIR (Ex. PW5/A) on the basis of rukka (Ex. PW11/A) produced by [ENTITY] (PW11). Then, investigation was marked to Inspector [ENTITY] (PW12), who visited the place of occurrence and prepared [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 4/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 site plan (Ex. PW12/A). On 26.11.2010, Ct. [ENTITY] (PW7), IO/Inspector [ENTITY] (PW12) and SI [ENTITY] (PW11) reached at house no. 15, gali no. 10 A, Molar Band Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi and arrested the accused persons vide memos (Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B). [ENTITY] (PW12) collected the FSL report prepared by [ENTITY] Senior Scientific officer. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed in this court on 18.02.2011. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, after compliance of [SECTION] [ACT] committed the case to the court of Session on 04.03.2011.
Charges
4. Charges u/[SECTION] & [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] were framed by the Ld Predecessor of this court against accused persons on 18.04.2011. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
5. Points which emerge for determination in this case are :
(i) Whether during the period between 01.07.2009 to 06.10.2010, [ENTITY], husband of the deceased and [ENTITY] mother in law of the deceased subjected [ENTITY] (deceased) with cruelty with a view to coerce her and her relatives to meet unlawful demand of dowry?
(ii) Whether cruelty was of such a nature that it was likely to drive [ENTITY] (deceased) to commit suicide?
(iii) Whether [ENTITY] (deceased) was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons 'soon before her death'?
Prosecution Evidence
6. Prosecution in order to establish the accusation examined eleven witnesses. Gist of their testimony is as under :
6.1 Doctor [ENTITY] (PW13), deposed that on 07.10.2010, at about 02:30 am, one persons [ENTITY] w/o Sh. [ENTITY], 20 years was brought in the [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 5/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 casualty by police Constable [ENTITY], Police Station Badarpur. Patient was in an unresponsive stage and [ENTITY] was present over the dead body. PW13 deposed that the ligature marks were present around neck and he declared the patient "brought dead". Dead body was sealed and sent to Forensic Department for postmortem examination. He prepared MLC (Ex.PW13/A) of [ENTITY] (deceased). 6.2 Doctor [ENTITY] (PW1), conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the [ENTITY] (deceased) w/o of [ENTITY] 19 years female at the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital on 10.10.2010. Dead body was identified by her father Sh. [ENTITY]. PW1 deposed that "rigormortis was found to be passed of. Postmortem staining was present over legs. Greenish discolourration was present over right iliac for side. A reddish brown ligature mark present over upper one third of the neck, five centimeter from chin and 11 centimeter from suprasternal notch having width of two centimeter". Cause of death was found as "asphyxia due to hanging". PW1 proved postmortem report (Ex.PW1/A). PW1 deposed that "ligature material was yellow [ENTITY] in two pieces, 120 centimeter and 80 centimeter respectively and one red rope of 240 centimeter, was present alogwith aforesaid chunni pieces. [ENTITY]'s width was 1.8 centimeter". PW1 sealed these material and handed over to the IO.
PW1 examined ligature material allegedly used for hanging. PW1 opined that "the death could be caused by use of aforesaid ligature material of hanging". In cross examination, PW1 deposed that no ligature mark was observed on upper or lower limbs of the body. According to PW1, no contusion or abrasion or any no other external antemortem injury except ligature mark was present.
6.3 SubInspector [ENTITY] (PW11), on 06.10.2010, pursuant to [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 6/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011
receipt of (DD No. 37A), he alongwith Constable [ENTITY] reached at the spot, where at the 1st Floor of the premises bearing House No.15, Gali No.10A, Molar Bandh Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi, dead body of lady was found lying on the bed, whose name was revealed as [ENTITY], w/o [ENTITY]. On the inspection of dead body, he noticed strangulation mark on the neck of the deceased. He informed SHO, ACP and SDM. PW11 made enquiries from person present at the spot. Motherinlaw of the deceased as well as [ENTITY] mausi, of the husband of deceased were found present there and after sometime, husband of the deceased [ENTITY] also came there. He placed on record rukka (Ex.PW11/A), disclosure statement of accused [ENTITY] (Ex.PW11/B) and handing over memo of dead body (Ex.PW11/C).
6.4 Constable [ENTITY] (PW14), on the intervening night of 06/07.10.2010, he accompanied SubInspector [ENTITY], Incharge Crime Team to house no. 15, Gali No.10A, Molarbandh Extension took photographs of dead body of a female lying on the bed at the instance of IO/[ENTITY]. PW14 placed on record photographs (Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A6) and negatives (Ex.PW14/B1 to Ex.PW14/B6).
6.5 Constable [ENTITY] (PW6), had gone to AIIMS Mortuary on 10.10.2012, alognwith SubInspector [ENTITY], Mortuary, where postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. Doctor handed over to him one pullanda containing exhibits pertaining to the deceased in sealed condition and 'sample seal', which he handed over to SubInspector [ENTITY], who seized it vide memo (Ex.PW6/A).
[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 7/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 6.6 Sh. [ENTITY] (PW4), SDM deposed that on 07.10.2010, in the
morning, he was informed by SHO, Police Station Badarpur that one [ENTITY], aged about 19 years had committed suicide by hanging from an iron guarder in a room House No. 15, Gali No. 10A, Ist Floor, Molar Band Extension, New Delhi. Information was sent to the parents of the deceased regarding the incident. Sh.[ENTITY] came to his office on 08.10.2010 and introduced himself as father of the deceased [ENTITY]. PW4 recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/A) and made an endorsement on the statement. He handed over the said statement to SI [ENTITY] for necessary action. On 09.10.2010, SDM prepared death report (Ex.PW4/A). Dead body was identified by [ENTITY] and father of the deceased vide their statements (Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW2/E). PW4 prepared an application (Ex.PW4/C) for postmortem. Postmortem report was forwarded by him to the SHO, Police Station Badarpur, after making an endorsement (Ex.PW4/D) thereon. In cross examination, PW4 deposed that word "suicide" was mentioned on the death report (Ex.PW4/A) and apparently there were ligature marks around the neck of the deceased.
6.7 Head Constable [ENTITY] (PW5), recorded FIR (Ex.PW5/A) on 10.10.2010, at about 07:20 pm. He made an endorsement (Ex.PW5/B) on the rukka. On 06.10.2010, at about 11:20 pm, he recorded (daily diary No. 37 Ex.PW5/A).
6.8 W/Constable [ENTITY] (PW7), joined investigation of this case alongwith IO/Inspector [ENTITY] and SubInspector [ENTITY] on 26.11.2010. She went to house No.15, Gali No.10A, Molar Bandh Extension, Badarpur, New [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 8/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 Delhi, where IO arrested accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], at the instance of SI [ENTITY]. She placed on record their arrest memos Ex.PW7/A & Ex.PW7/B, persons search memos Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. 6.9 Head Constable [ENTITY] (PW8), [ENTITY] deposed that on 10.10.2010, SI [ENTITY] deposited exhibits in the malkhana. Exhibits were sent to FSL through Constable [ENTITY] on 15.12.2010 Constable [ENTITY] brought the acknowledgment of deposits in FSL and handed it over to him. FSL Report was brought by Constable [ENTITY] on 03.03.2011. He placed on record, relevant entry of Register No.19 (Ex.PW8/A), copy of road certificate (Ex.PW8/B) and copy of the acknowledgment (Ex.PW8/C).
6.10 Constable [ENTITY] (PW9), on 15.12.2010, he took the exhibit given by MHC(M) from Police Station Badarpur to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 133/21/10 and deposited them there.
6.11 Inspector [ENTITY] (PW12), Investigating Officer, proved several documents prepared by him during the course of investigation. He placed on record site plan (Ex.PW12/A). FSL Report dated 10.02.2011 (Ex.PW12/P1), seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B) as regards, marriage invitation card and photographs of marriage of deceased with [ENTITY] sent by complainant through FAX. PW12 recorded statements of the father and sisters of the deceased. On completion of investigation, PW12 prepared charge sheet. 6.12 Sh. [ENTITY] (PW2), Father of [ENTITY] (deceased) and complainant. He placed on record his statement (Ex. PW2/A) recorded by SDM, copy of marriage certificate (Ex. PW2/B) and photographs (Ex. PW2/C and Ex.
[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 9/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011
PW2/D) pertaining to the marriage of his daughter . PW2 identified dead body of [ENTITY] vide statement (Ex. PW2/E).
6.13 Smt. [ENTITY] (PW3) and Smt. [ENTITY] (PW1) are sisters of [ENTITY] (deceased). Their testimony is discussed below in detail. [ENTITY]ments of accused
7. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/[SECTION] [ACT] was recorded. Both the accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused [ENTITY] stated that they were properly keeping [ENTITY] (deceased). Accused [ENTITY] stated that she and her son [ENTITY] used to go to place of work and [ENTITY] (jija of [ENTITY]) who used to reside at the native place in their absence, used to visit their house,. Their neighbours told them that on the day of incident at about 11:00/11:30 am [ENTITY] had come to meet [ENTITY] (deceased). Accused [ENTITY] stated that [ENTITY] was seen going from the house at about 01:00 pm. and he again came at 04:00/04:30 pm and left their house at about 05:30 pm. She stated that [ENTITY] took away Rs. 25,000/ lying in the almirah. Because of the fear of giving reply and because of nervousness, [ENTITY] committed suicide. Accused [ENTITY] in his statement, stated that he never harassed his wife [ENTITY] and never demanded money. He stated that his fatherinlaw and other relatives never gave any penny and his mother never harassed her. Accused stated that he alongwith his mother, used to work. Their neighbours used to tell them that in their absence, [ENTITY] (jija of [ENTITY]) used to come. On the day of incident, at about 11:00/11:30am, [ENTITY] was seen going towards their house. At about 04:00/04:30 pm, [ENTITY] was again seen coming to their house and went back at about 05:30 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 10/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 pm. He was seen by the neighbours taking away something hidden in a cloth. They came back at about 09:30/09:45 pm and saw that [ENTITY] was hanging on the chajja. They checked the room and found that Rs.25,000/ were missing. They informed the police about this fact, but police did not hear them and neighbours also disclosed this fact to the police, but they did not take any action in this regard. Defence Evidence
8. Accused produced two defence witnesses in their support. 8.1 Smt. [ENTITY] (DW1), deposed that she knew the accused [ENTITY], as he alongwith his mother Smt. [ENTITY] were residing at H No. 612 Block A, gali no. 12, Jaitpur part II for about 1012 years. She deposed that after the marriage of [ENTITY] with [ENTITY] in the year, 2009, they shifted to Molarband Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi and she used to visit residence of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]'s mother also used to visit her house [ENTITY]'s mother always used to praise her daughter in law [ENTITY] and used to say that she had no problem with her.
8.2 Smt. [ENTITY] (DW2), deposed that Sh. [ENTITY] was the jija of [ENTITY] and he regularly visited the house of [ENTITY] in the absence of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] on account of his illicit relations with [ENTITY]. She deposed that on the day of incidence, [ENTITY] visited the house of [ENTITY] in the morning at about 11:00am and left the house at about 01:00 p.m. and thereafter, he again visited the house of [ENTITY] at about 2:30pm and left the house at about 3:30p.m. When [ENTITY] was going out from the house of [ENTITY], he was having a bundle of currency notes in his hand. This fact was told to her by the neighbours. In cross examination, DW2 reiterated that she had no personal knowledge about this. DW2 stated that she [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 11/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 used to visit the house of [ENTITY] and had seen [ENTITY] in the house of [ENTITY].
Submissions advanced
9. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. [ENTITY], Learned Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Learned Counsel for the accused persons and have considered the record carefully.
10. Learned Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] submits that there is no dispute that deceased [ENTITY] got married with accused [ENTITY] on 01.07.2009, Nalanda, Bihar. He submits that the material witnesses namely, [ENTITY] (PW2) father of the deceased as well as PW3 and PW10, sisters of the deceased have deposed that husband motherinlaw used to harass the deceased and demand dowry of motorcycle and fridge. He submits that PW2 deposed that accused persons used to beat her daughter for bringing the said articles or money and the deceased used to narrate the incident of harassment and demand to him. He visited the house of his daughter thrice and tried to make her inlaws understand and asked him not to demand dowry and stop harassing his daughter. PW2 stated that on the last Sunday, prior to the occurrence, his daughter talked to his wife and his elder son [ENTITY] on telephone and at that time, she had complained to them regarding beating by accused [ENTITY]. SDM recorded statement (Ex.PW2/A) of PW2. Learned Addl. PP submits that PW3 and PW10 have corroborated the testimony of PW2. PW3 received telephone call from the mother of accused [ENTITY], who told her that [ENTITY] was seriously ill, therefore she had gone alongwith her sister (PW10) to the matrimonial house of her deceased sister. PW3 deposed that her sister [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 12/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 met them, when she alongwith [ENTITY] (PW10) had gone to her house at Mollarbandh, Delhi [ENTITY] was weeping and she told her that she was pushed by accused [ENTITY] by holding her hair on the staircase and sustained injuries on her forehead. PW3 deposed that accused [ENTITY] used to beat him and make demands of motorcycle and fridge. They tried to make accused [ENTITY] understand and requested him not to beat her sister [ENTITY]. Her sister [ENTITY] also told her, that her motherinlaw also used to taunt her. PW3 further stated that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] used to stay at the house of accused [ENTITY] and used to taunt her and that mother of accused [ENTITY] used to say "acchi nahi hai, aur acchi layenge, dahej lekar aati, padi likhi nahi hai aur naukari karwate." PW3 has deposed that 1520 days prior to death her sister [ENTITY], told her on telephone that "jeena dushwar kar rakha hai maang ki wajah se" and PW3 told her deceased sister that "ab kese bhi rehana hai, hum logo mei to dusari shaadi hoti nahi, police daroga mei jaana theek nahi hai, ab aise hi rehana jeendagi katni hai."
11. Learned APP for the [ENTITY] drew attention of the Court towards the testimony of PW10, who testified that on the first [ENTITY] after the marriage of her sister, she received a call from the mother of accused [ENTITY], who told her that her son was ill. Then, she alongwith her sister namely [ENTITY] (PW3) went to the house of accused persons at Mollarbandh, Delhi. When she reached there, she saw her sister [ENTITY] was bleeding and sustained abrasions on her nose. Her hair were unmanaged. On inquiry from her sister, she told her that her motherinlaw, her husband as well as her [ENTITY] harassed and tortured her, her husband used to beat her. They used to torture her due to demand of fridge, scooter and [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 13/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 money. PW10 deposed that on the day, when she visited house of her deceased sister [ENTITY], she also told him that her husband had pushed her on the staircase and she sustained injuries. Smt. [ENTITY] (PW10) stated that she was badly weeping and appearing like a mad person. PW10 further testified that 1012 days prior to death of her sister, her sister [ENTITY] had told her on telephone about the fact that her motherinlaw, her husband as well as [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] used to beat her on account of the demand of money, fridge and scooter. She pacified her sister to remain calm that her father would manage the things, thereafter, she did not meet her sister prior to her death and on 07.10.2010, she received a call from her father that her sister [ENTITY] had committed suicide.
12. On the other hand, Learned Defence Counsel submits that the landline or mobile phone telephone numbers of any of material witness PW2, PW3 and PW10 has not been placed on record. He submits that the story of making telephone calls by the deceased to her father and sisters is a concocted story fabricated by the IO. He submits that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the deceased used to make telephonic call to her father and to her sisters. He submits that no call detail record is placed on record to show that there was any telephonic conversation between deceased and father of deceased (PW2) or between Smt. [ENTITY] (PW3) and Smt.[ENTITY] (PW10). He argued that deceased [ENTITY] had not lodged any complaint or reported against the accused since the date of her marriage on 01.07.2009 till her death on 06.10.2010 regarding the fact of harassment or beating or making any demand of dowry of motorcycle, fridge and money by the accused persons at any point of time.
[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 14/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011
13. Learned Counsel argued that the deceased used to remain alone in the matrimonial home as accused persons used to leave the residence in the morning at about 09:00 am and used to return back at 10:00 PM and in case of any harassment or beating by the accused or demand of dowry, she could have easily written any letter to her parents or sister, but there is nothing on record to show that she wrote any letter. Learned Counsel further submits that as regards the alleged incident of [ENTITY] i.e. fivesix months after her marriage, deposed by PW3 and PW10, her sister, who stated that the deceased [ENTITY] had sustained injuries on her forehead or she was bleeding, no medical record has been placed or proved on record to show that she sustained any injuries. Learned Counsel argued that (PW3 and PW10) sisters of [ENTITY] (deceased), who were residing at Okhla at a place which was not very far away from the matrimonial house of deceased had not made any complaint to the Police. Learned Defence Counsel urged that PW2 in his cross examination, deposed that he had not told the mobile phone number of himself and his daughter to the Police. He further submitted that PW3 deposed that she had told to the police in his previous statement about her mobile phone number or phone number of her sister [ENTITY]. She was confronted with the previous statement (Ex.PW3/DA), where it was not so recorded. PW10 in cross examination, she voluntarily stated that she had used the mobile phone of her sister [ENTITY], who was residing near her house and she had not given the number of mobile of [ENTITY] to police. In cross examination, PW2 stated that police did not ask him about the mobile phone of [ENTITY] (deceased) and accused persons, so he had not given it him to them.
[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 15/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011
14. Learned Defence Counsel pointed out that Smt. [ENTITY] (PW3) in the statement (Ex.PW3/DA) u/[SECTION] [ACT] stated that she heard that on the day of [ENTITY] in 2010, [ENTITY] had pushed after consuming her deceased sister for not bringing sufficient dowry and after hearing, she alongwith her husband had gone to her residence at Mollarbandh. Learned Counsel submits that in her testimony PW3 deposed that she had received a telephonic call from the mother of the accused [ENTITY]. In the statement of Smt. [ENTITY] u/[SECTION] [ACT] (Ex.PW3/DA) it is not mentioned that the mother of [ENTITY] had made a telephonic call and it is also not stated as to how [ENTITY] came to know about the alleged incident of pushing from the staircase after consuming liquor on the day of [ENTITY], 2010 or what was the source of her information. Furthermore, in the statement of Smt.[ENTITY] (PW10) u/[SECTION] [ACT] (Ex.PW10/DA), alleged incident of [ENTITY] is not mentioned at all and this fact is not mentioned that the mother of [ENTITY] had made a telephonic call as deposed by her. In cross examination, PW3 deposed that she had told police about this fact, in her previous statement. She was confronted with her this previous statement (Ex.PW10/DA), where this fact was not recorded in this form. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not specific and are vague as no date or time of any of the alleged incident has been proved on record. In cross examination, PW3 deposed that she had not taken [ENTITY] to any doctor or hospital but simply pacified her. He argued that defence version is that Sh. [ENTITY], brotherinlaw of [ENTITY] (deceased) used to visit [ENTITY] at her matrimonial home, in the absence of accused persons and had illicit relation with her and on 06.10.2010 i.e. day of incident at about 11:00/11:30 am, [ENTITY] had [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 16/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 come to meet [ENTITY] and he was seen by neighbours including DW1 and DW2. Learned Defence Counsel submits that DW1 voluntarily stated in the cross examination that sometimes she used to stay for a short time in the house situated in the neighbourhood of accused [ENTITY] and similarly, DW2 in the cross examination, voluntarily stated that she used to visit the house of [ENTITY] and she saw [ENTITY] in the house of [ENTITY].
15. In rebuttal, Learned Addl. PP submitted that the testimony of DW1 and DW2 is hearsay. They have deposed that they were told about the fact of illicit relation and about presence of [ENTITY] at the matrimonial house of [ENTITY] (deceased) in the absence of accused was told to them by the neighbours. Those neighbours who had seen [ENTITY] going inside the house on earlier occasions or on the day of incident i.e. 06.10.2012 have not been produced in the witness box by the accused.
16. Learned Defence Counsel submitted that defence version that [ENTITY] used to visit [ENTITY] (deceased) in absence of her husband as well as her motherin law has been put to all the material prosecution witnesses right from the inception of the case and accused persons have stated about this fact in their statement u/[SECTION] [ACT] and since the neighbours, who were residing there and were eye witnesses had left the place of occurrence, therefore, he could produce only those witnesses, who were available and accused had only to show that their defence is probable.
Legal position
17. Before evidence is discussed, relevant legal positions may be noted. In a criminal trial, however intriguing may be the facts and circumstances of the [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 17/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirements of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The legal position is well settled that requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT].
18. In order to attract application of [SECTION] [ACT], the essential ingredients are:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
19. As per the definition of "dowry death" in [SECTION] [ACT] and the wording of [SECTION] of the [ACT], one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the concerned woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment "soon before her death" and that too "for or in connection with the demand for dowry". On a joint reading of [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] it is clear that there must be cogent material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment, and that too in connection with any demand for dowry. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 18/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 bring it within the purview of the "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where presumption u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] are pressed into service.
20. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment; and only thereafter, the presumption would operate.
Evidence in this regard has to be led and established by the prosecution beyond doubt. "Soon before" is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would be the quantum to constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. The expression "soon before her death" used in the substantive [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT], is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression "soon before" is not defined. A reference to the expression "soon before" used in [SECTION] of the [ACT] is relevant. The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" has to be determined by the court, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question.
21. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. Before a [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 19/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 presumption is raised under [SECTION] [ACT], the foundation thereof must exist. Unless and until the preliminary facts are established beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution, it is not open to draw a presumption against the accused to invoke this Section.
22. Although, accused persons in this case have not been charged u/[SECTION] [ACT] but it is pertinent to note here that it is well established that the mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband, does not automatically give rise to presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Thus, before holding an accused guilty, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It cannot be said that a person subjecting a woman with cruelty shall also be guilty of abetment. [SECTION] [ACT], [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] are independent Sections in the [ACT] and while considering the guilt or otherwise of an accused for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT]., we have to read only [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] is out of question so far as the question of abetment is concerned. Without knowledge or intention there can be no abetment and the knowledge and intention must relate to the crime and the assistance must be something more than a mere passive [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 20/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 acquiescence. In the absence of proof of any direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide or a conspiracy or any act facilitating the commission of suicide, it cannot be said that the accused was guilty of abetment to commission of suicide.
23. In Sunil Bajaj vs. [ENTITY] of M.P. 2001 CrLJ (SC) 4700, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in case of an offence under [SECTION] [ACT] an exception is made by deeming provision as to nature of death as "dowry death"
and that the husband or his relative, as the case may be, is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of the ingredients of the said offence by convincing evidence. Hence, there is need for greater care and caution, that too having regard to the gravity of the punishment prescribed for the said offence, in scrutinizing the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above mentioned ingredients of the offence are proved by the prosecution. In Harjit Singh vs [ENTITY] of Punjab 2006 (1) JCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that presumption will operate if the prosecution is able to establish the circumstances as set out in [SECTION] [ACT]. In M. Srinivasulu vs [ENTITY] of A. P. 2007 (4) JCC 2698, Apex Court held that the expression "soon before her death" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and livelink between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 21/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011
24. In Rani vs [ENTITY] of NCT of Delhi 2011 (1) JCC 668, it was observed that every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be a suicide due to dowry demand and it should not be the tendency of the Court that since a young bride had died after marriage, now somebody must be held culprit and the noose must be made to fit some neck. In [ENTITY] vs Jitender Garg and ors 2008 (1) JCC 76, it was observed that, there was much improvement in the depositions of the witnesses, who were close relatives of deceased, as compared to their earlier statement recorded during the course of investigation and this factor casts suspicion on the veracity of the deposition of these witnesses. The authenticity of the statement of the complainant forming the basis of the FIR and the statements of other relatives of the deceased is not free from suspicion.
Discussion of evidence
25. Now, on the touchstone of legal position noticed above, I shall advert to the allegations and gist of evidence adduced by the material prosecution witnesses. Factum of marriage of the deceased with [ENTITY] on 01.07.2009 has not been disputed and deceased expired on 06.10.2010. Her cause of death is "asphyxia due to hanging". Thus, it stands established that the deceased [ENTITY] had a unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. The crux of the specific allegations against accused are on the day of holi in the 2010, fivesix months after marriage decased was caused with harassment and beating; there was demand of refrigerator, motorcycle (scooter); there was telephonic information by the deceased to her father and deceased visited Bihar and narrated about the incident to her father (twothree months prior to the incident of her death); there was [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 22/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 telephonic talk of the deceased with her mother and brother [ENTITY] complaining incident of beating on last Sunday prior to her death; as per PW3, 1520 days prior to her death, deceased telephonically told about the harassment by the accused persons; that the accused used to beat her on account of demand of money, fridge and scooter. This Court finds that except the the alleged incident of holi, no other incident of cruelty or telephonic call or commission of cruelty, soon before her death, is proved beyond doubt.
26. Sh. [ENTITY] (PW2), deposed that after about 5/6 months of marriage, the husband and mother in law of his daughter [ENTITY] started harassing her and demanding dowry of motorcycle and refrigerator. PW2 deposed that Sh. [ENTITY], the mausa of [ENTITY] and his wife also used to harass his daughter and used to instigate [ENTITY] and his mother to compel his daughter to bring the dowry articles. PW2 deposed that accused persons used to beat his daughter. Accused [ENTITY] used to drink liquor and give beatings to his daughter to bring said articles. His daughter used to call him on telephone and narrate him about the harassment and demand to him. [ENTITY] used to tell about this all whenever, she used to come to their house at Bihar. PW2 visited the house of his daughter in Delhi thrice and tried to make her in laws understand and that not to demand dowry articles and stop harassing his daughter. PW2 deposed that on the last Sunday, prior to the occurrence, his daughter talked to his wife and his elder son [ENTITY] on telephone. At that time, [ENTITY] complained to them regarding beating of accused [ENTITY] to her. He deposed that after 2/3 months, prior to the incident, his daughter came to their house in Bihar and narrated the incident regarding harassment and dowry [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 23/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 demands by accused persons. PW2 gave money to accused persons at their house at village Mora, District Nalanda, Bihar. In cross examination, PW2 admitted that his daughter [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] was residing in the village. He did not know whether accused persons used to leave their residence in the morning at 09:00 or 09:15am and come back at night around 10:00pm or while they were away for duty, on their back [ENTITY], his son in law used come in the house and meet [ENTITY].
27. PW2 stated that he did not know what used to happen at his back. PW2 could not admit or deny the suggestion whether during the period from November 2009 till 06.10.2010, [ENTITY] came to the house and met [ENTITY] during the course of day. PW2 could not tell whether [ENTITY] came on 06.10.2010 at 11:25 am till 01:10pm and form 03:00pm to 04:50pm at the house of [ENTITY]. PW2 did not now whether [ENTITY] left his service after the occurrence and took employment else where. PW2 admitted that before her death, during her marriage , his daughter [ENTITY] had never lodged any complaint in the police station of area of his village after his daughter had complained to him of harassment meted to his daughter, which she allegedly told him 2/3 months prior to her death. He had not lodged any complaint with police before death of his daughter [ENTITY] about any demands of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. PW2 stated that he had not told number of his mobile phone or of his daughter to police. PW2 stated that his daughter [ENTITY] told him on telephone about the demands of motorcycle and refrigerator by the accused, prior to her death . He stated that mother of accused [ENTITY] told him on telephone three days prior to death of [ENTITY] that "[ENTITY] baar baar [ENTITY] par hath chodh deta hai, maanta nahi hai." According to PW2, he gave number of [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 24/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 mobile phone to Inspector [ENTITY] but no such number or its detail is on record. PW2 did not know whether [ENTITY] was treated for any of alleged beatings given by accused at any hospital or clinic.
28. Smt. [ENTITY] (PW3), sister of deceased deposed that two years ago, on the day before [ENTITY], she received telephone call from mother of accused [ENTITY], who told her that [ENTITY] was seriously ill, thereafter, she alongwith her elder sister [ENTITY] went to the house of [ENTITY] at Molar Band in Delhi. When they reached at the house of [ENTITY], they saw that [ENTITY] was weeping. [ENTITY] told her that she was pushed by [ENTITY] by holding her hair on the staircase and she sustained injuries on her forehead. [ENTITY] told her that [ENTITY] used to beat him and make demands of motorcycle and fridge. They tried to make [ENTITY] understand and requested him not to beat her sister [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] told her that her motherinlaw used to taunt her. Mother of accused [ENTITY] used to say 'achhi nahi hai, aur acchi layange, dahej lekar aati, padi likhi nahi hai aur naukari karwate' PW3 deposed that 1520 days prior to death of her [ENTITY], she told her on telephone that "jeena dushwar kar rakha hai maang ki wajah se". She told [ENTITY] that "ab kese bhe rehana hai, hum logo mei to dusari shadi hoti nahi, police daroga mei jaana theek nahi hai, ab aise hi rehana jeendagi katni hai". In cross examination, PW3 deposed that her father did not give Rs. Two lacs in cash in her presence. PW3 stated that she had gone by bus to the house of accused in the evening time. PW3 was confronted with previous statement (Ex. PW3/DA) where at point B to B she stated that "jo holi 2010 mai thi, us din [ENTITY] ne sharab pikar dahej lane ke chakkar mai meri bahan ko jeena se dhakel diya, jo yah sunkar main va mera pati [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 25/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 Molerband, Nayi Dilli ghar par gaye or meri behan ne batlaya ke mujhe mera pati [ENTITY] va Saas dahej lane ke liye pareshan kar rakha hai; meri zindagi durbhar kar rakhi hai; aur mujha aaye din motorcycle va fridge lane ke liye marta pitata hai" .
29. PW3 deposed that she did not lodge any report with the police for any dowry demands or any cruelty committed by any accused persons. PW3 stated that [ENTITY] never lodged any complaint to police against accused persons during her lifetime. She stated that [ENTITY] was a very simple and straightforward girl. PW3 stated that [ENTITY] was husband of her younger sister [ENTITY], who was elder to [ENTITY]. PW3 denied that on 06.10.2010, in the afternoon, said [ENTITY], brother in law of [ENTITY] came to the house of [ENTITY] and on that evening said [ENTITY] took Rs. 25,000/ from [ENTITY] and since [ENTITY] had fallen in the trap of [ENTITY], she committed suicide. PW3 denied that to escape from the trap of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] committed suicide.
30. Smt.[ENTITY] (PW10), elder sister of deceased ([ENTITY]) deposed that on the first [ENTITY] after the marriage of her sister, she received a call from mother of [ENTITY], who told her that her son was ill. She along with her sister [ENTITY] (PW3) went to the house of accused. On reaching there, she saw that her sister [ENTITY] was bleeding and had sustained abrasions on her nose. Her hair were unmanaged. On inquiry , she told her that motherinlaw, her mausi, mausa and her husband had harassed and tortured her. Her husband also used to beat her. They used to torture her sister due to demand of fridge and scooter and money. PW10 deposed that when she visited her house, she told her that her [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 26/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 husband had pushed her on the staircase , due to which she sustained injury. She was badly weeping and appearing like a mad person. PW10 deposed that 1012 days prior to death of her sister, [ENTITY] had told her on telephone that her mother inlaw , her husband and her mausa and mausi used to beat her on account of demand of money, fridge and money. PW10 pacified her sister to remain calm and her father would manage the things. In cross examination, she deposed that in her presence, not a single rupee was given by her father out of Rs. Two lacs and when said sum was given in parts, she was at Delhi . PW10 deposed that she had told the police in her previous statement that "on the first [ENTITY], after the marriage of her sister, she received a call from the mother of [ENTITY], whereon , she told her that her son was ill. She alongwith her sister [ENTITY] had gone to the house of accused persons at Morband, Delhi . When she reached there, she saw her sister [ENTITY] was bleeding from her nose and she sustained abrasions on her nose, her hair were also unmanaged. When , she inquired from her sister, she told her that her motherinlaw , her mausi and mausa, her husband harassed and tortured her; her husband also used to beat her. They used to torture her sister due to demand of fridge, scooter and money. With regard to the injury, sustained by her sister on the day when she visited her house, she told her that her husband had pushed her on the staircase and she sustained said injury. She was badly weeping and appearing like a made person. PW10 was confronted with her previous statement recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT] (Ex. PW10/DA), where it was no so recorded.
31. PW10 stated that she had neither made any call to PCR at 100 number nor reported the matter to police, since in their families , all this was not [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 27/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 done. PW10 stated that thereafter she pacified [ENTITY]. PW10 did not remember the date or month when demand of scooter or motorcycle was made. PW10 stated that she had not taken [ENTITY] to any doctor or hospital and simply pacified her. She stated that [ENTITY] was not having any mobile with her.
32. Court has to consider the evidence as a whole to see its intrinsic worth. Smt. [ENTITY] (PW3) sister of the [ENTITY] (deceased) has categorically deposed that on the day of [ENTITY] in the year 2010, she reached at the matrimonial house of [ENTITY] (deceased) at Molarband, Delhi alongwith her sister Smt. [ENTITY] (PW10) . Her sister [ENTITY] was weeping and told her that she was pushed by the accused [ENTITY] from the staircase and that [ENTITY] and her mother in law were harassing her. Sh. [ENTITY] (PW2) and Smt. [ENTITY] (PW7) have supported her version in material particulars in this regard. The version of these witnesses at least as regards the incident which occurred on the day of [ENTITY] in the year 2010, has remained unchallenged. Lodging of complaint or medical examination are not sine qua non for proving case as far as [SECTION] [ACT] is concerned, but , in view of position of law noticed above, merely the fact that the husband was not treating the wife properly or had beaten her on one or two occasions, after consuming liquor will not be sufficient to establish the offence of dowry death or offence of the abetment to commit suicide. Evidence on record has not been able to establish the allegations that on the last Sunday or on 1520 days before her death or two three months before her death, deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused persons or that any telephonic call was made by deceased to her family members in this regard. This Court finds that prosecution [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 28/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 has failed to prove that [ENTITY] (deceased) was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons soon before her death.
33. On appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that ingredients of offence of [SECTION] [ACT], are not fulfilled. However, this Court finds that prosecution has proved that accused persons subjected [ENTITY] (deceased) with cruelty of such a nature which was likely to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or her mental or physical health. Therefore, ingredients of [SECTION] [ACT] are fulfilled. For the foregoing reasons, both the accused are acquitted for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] r/[SECTION] [ACT], however, they are convicted for the offence punishable only under [SECTION] [ACT] r/[SECTION] [ACT].
announced in the open court on ([ENTITY]) 24th November, 2012 Additional Sessions Judge04 (SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 29/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST) SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI [CASE NUMBER] PS : Badarpur U/[SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY], s/o Sh. [ENTITY], r/o House No. 15, Gali No. 10A, Mollarbandh Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi. Accused no. 1 [ENTITY], w/o Sh. [ENTITY], r/o House No. 15, Gali No. 10A, Mollarbandh Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi. Accused no. 2 O R D E R O N S E N T E N C E
Having convicted the accused for the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] , I have heard convicts and Sh. [ENTITY] Ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] on the point of sentence. Convict [ENTITY] submits that he is 22 years of age and Smt. [ENTITY] is 39 years of age . They are in Judicial Custody during trial for exactly two years i.e. since 26.11.2010. convict [ENTITY] submits that she is having a minor daughter . Ld. Counsel for convicts submits that they are not previous convicts and no other case is pending against them. On considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, and keeping in view their conduct during trial, both the convicts are sentenced for a period of two years simple imprisonment apart from deposit of a [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 30/29 ID No. 02406R0039862011 fine of Rs. 1000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo five days SI. Since convicts have already undergone two years detention during trial, therefore, said period is set off against two years imprisonment awarded to them. Fine has been deposited by convicts and they have furnished requisite bail bond u/[SECTION] [ACT] Convicts are directed to be released, if not wanted in any other case. File be consigned to RR.
announced in the ([ENTITY]) open court on Additional Sessions Judge04 26th November 2012. (SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. [CASE NUMBER] 31/29