Sanju @ Sonu vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 555 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                RESERVED ON : 21st January, 2014
                                DECIDED ON : 29th January, 2014

+      CRL.A. 705/2012
       SANJU @ SONU                                         ..... Appellant
                          Through :   Mr.Ravinder Narayan, Advocate.


                          VERSUS


       STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                          ..... Respondent
                          Through :   Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant (Sanju @ Sonu) challenges her conviction

under Section 307 IPC by a judgment dated 17.05.2012 in Sessions Case

No.47/2011 arising out of FIR No.193/2005 registered at Police Station,

Gokulpuri. By an order on sentence dated 21.05.2012, she was awarded

rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine `2,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 08.04.2005 at

about 11.00 A.M. at Mona's house, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, she

administered liquor after mixing acid in it in a Limca bottle to her

husband Chetan and when he became unconscious after consuming it, she

threw acid on his face in an attempt to murder him. The police machinery

was set into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No.15A (Ex.PW8/A) was

recorded at Police Station Gokulpuri at 1.20 P.M. on getting information

about a 'boy' lying unconscious near Panchayat Ghar, Primary School,

Vilage Chauhan Pur, Delhi. The investigation was assigned to ASI Ravi

Karan who with Const.Rajesh went to the spot and came to know that the

victim had already been taken by PCR to Guru Teg Bahadur hospital. The

victim was unfit to make statement. The Investigating Officer lodged

First Information Report after making endorsement (Ex.PW-8/B) on DD

No.15/A (Ex.PW-8/A). During the course of investigation, statements of

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was

apprehended and arrested. After completion of investigation a charge-

sheet was filed, she was duly charged and brought to trial. The

prosecution examined 12 witnesses. In 313 statement, she alleged false

implication but did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted

in her conviction.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the trial court record. Appellant's conviction is based upon the

sole testimony of the complainant-Chetan Singh. It is an admitted

position that on 26.12.2003 a marriage between the appellant and the

complainant took place at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. On

17.02.2004, they organized social marriage with the consent of their

parents and started living at the matrimonial home. However, the

relations became strained between the parties. Soon after that on

20.02.2004 a quarrel took place between the two when allegedly Dr.Tyagi

with whom the appellant was employed as a Nurse prior to the marriage

came to the matrimonial home and wanted to take her with him. Police

was informed at 100 and Sanju @ Sonu was sent with her parents. On

25.02.2004, she was brought back to the matrimonial home. After one or

two days again quarrel took place between the two and both started living

separate on rented accommodation at Shiv Vihar. The relations between

the two did not improve. The complainant alleged that one day when he

had gone to attend work, the appellant brought four boys and took all the

articles to Mukhiya Market. It has further come on record that the

complainant had filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under

Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. Apparently, relations between

the parties were not cordial and they were not on speaking terms.

4. Complainant alleged that on 07.04.2005 Sanju @ Sonu made

a telephone call on his mobile and asked him to visit her in her house on

the pretext that she was not feeling well but he declined to go there. On

08.04.2005, she again insisted him to come to her home. When he went

there, he found her well. She asked him to go to her friend Mona's house

to celebrate her birthday there. The appellant served him wine in which

she had mixed some poisonous substance. On consuming the liquor, he

became unconscious and thereafter acid was thrown on his face by her.

His mobile phone was snatched. He attempted to run away from the spot

but fell down and became unconscious. In the cross-examination, the

complainant took somersault and resiled completely from the version

narrated by him in his deposition on 16.09.2008. He stated that on

08.04.2005 Sanju had not gone to Mona's house. He alone had gone there

on Mona's invitation on her birthday. He further admitted that there were

many persons present and he had taken cold drink in the birthday party.

His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded implicating

Sanju. To the Court question, which of the version given by him in the

statement recorded on 16.09.2008 and 13.01.2011 was correct, he replied

that whatever was stated by him on 16.09.2008 was correct. Again he was

recalled for cross-examination on 21.04.2011. He admitted that he and

Sanju had filed divorce petition by mutual consent and the Family Court

had granted divorce.

5. Complainant's statement has not been corroborated by any

other independent witness. PW-2 (Manorama) at whose residence the

birthday party had taken place turned hostile and expressed her ignorance

about the case. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by

learned Additional Public Prosecutor after seeking Court's permission.

She denied statement Mark PW-2/A dated 28.04.2005 recorded by her to

the police. Despite cross-examination nothing material could be elicited

to benefit the prosecution. PW-3 (Desh Raj) also resiled from the

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and did not opt to support the

prosecution. He deposed that on the day of incident, he was on duty.

After 7/8 days police officials brought complainant Chetan in the street

and he told the police that he did not know anything about the occurrence.

Cross-examination by Additional Public Prosecutor did not yield any

result. PW-4 (Raj Kumar), complainant's uncle, disclosed that on

08.04.2005 at about 01.00 P.M. he found complainant lying in semi-

conscious state in the gali. On enquiry from him, he was told that Sanju

and one Tyagi had forced him to drink whisky mixed with acid. He was

confronted with statement (Ex.PW-4/DA) where it was not mentioned that

accused Sanju had mixed acid in his whisky. PW-4 (Raj Kumar) did not

disclose as to from where he got the information about Chetan lying

unconscious in the gali. He did not take the victim to hospital and MLC

(Ex.PW-11/A) does not record his name. Moreover, he is not a witness to

the occurrence. Injuries on the body of the complainant were found

'simple' in nature. It is unclear as to when he was discharged from the

hospital. MLC records that the patient was conscious and oriented at the

time of his admission. However, he did not disclose the name of the

assailant or the circumstances in which the incident took place.

6. During the pendency of the trial both the complainant and the

appellant appear to have settled their matrimonial dispute. The

complainant had already filed a petition for divorce which was pending.

After settlement, they both filed petition (Ex.PW-1/DA) for dissolution of

marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 27.11.2008. In the

said petition, affidavits were filed by the complainant and it was stated

that the parties were living separate since 14.04.2004. It was further

mentioned that FIR No.193/05 registered at Police Station Gokulpuri

under Section 307 IPC was due to misunderstanding. Parties were

granted divorce by mutual consent. It is further informed that they had

moved this Court for quashing of the FIR which did not take place.

7. The investigation carried out is highly faulty and defective.

The Investigating Officer did not collect call details of the mobile phones

of the complainant or the appellant. No genuine/sincere efforts were

made to find out if any birthday party was organized at the residence of

Mona on a particular day and what were its timings. It was also not

ascertained as to who else had participated in the said birthday

celebration. None of them was interrogated and examined to find out as

to under what circumstances, the poisonous substance was administered to

the complainant. The Investigating Officer did not collect cogent

evidence if the complainant had visited the said house along with the

appellant with whom he had strained relations. The police also did not

examine Mr.Tyagi whose name find mention in the deposition of PW-4

(Raj Kumar). The contractor who had conversation with the complainant

at the relevant time was also not examined. There is no credible evidence

to find out at what time the complainant along with the appellant had gone

to Mona's house. The FIR was not registered on the complainant's

statement. The appellant did not abscond and was apprehended only on

21.06.2005. Nothing incriminating was recovered at her instance. The

Investigating Officer did not collect the required information as to from

where the poisonous substance was arranged/obtained or if there was

connivance of Mona in the occurrence. Apparently, the appellant had not

gone with any poisonous substance with her at the time of birthday

celebration at Mona's residence. It was imperative for the Investigating

Officer to find out as to from where Limca or the acid was arranged and

by whom. Mona had not invited the complainant to attend her birthday

celebrations. Since the relations between the parties were hostile, it was

not believable that the complainant would accompany the appellant at odd

hours to her friend's residence and would consume wine despite resistance

and indication by Mona not to consume it. The appellant had not

anticipated the arrival of the complainant on her request to preplan the

mixing of poisonous substance in Limca. Considering all the deficiencies

in the prosecution case, the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant

who opted to resile from the statement at first instance is not enough to

base conviction under Section 307 IPC and the appellant deserves benefit

of doubt.

8. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant's appeal is

accepted; the conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant will be

set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

9. Trial Court record along with a copy of this order be sent

back forthwith. A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar

Jail for intimation.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 29, 2014 sa