Delhi high court judge admit the appeal with see the case file
Khema Nand
(Querist) 25 August 2015
This query is : Resolved
Respected Sir/Madm
I have won the Case U/sec 498A/406/313 IPCS In 2012, but after 4 or 5months my wife filed a Cr. Appeal appeal in Delhi High Court against the Judgement of Session Court, But we don't know that she have file a Appeal in Delhi High Court against the Judgement. We have received only Notice (Sambandh) from Delhi High Court after her appeal accepted by Delhi High court.
I have gone to Delhi High on 5 or 6 hearing. On 19 Feb 2012 Hon'ble Judge of Delhi Passed below order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.A. 539/2013
BHAGWATI DEVI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr S.K. Pandey, Adv.
versus
STATE and ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
alongwith SI Neeraj Kumar Police Station Mandawali, Delhi
Mr Vikas Mahajan and Mr Vishal Mahajan, Advs. for R-2 to 7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R D E R
19.02.2015
At request of counsel for the appellant, relist this appeal for
final hearing on 12.08.2015.
SUNITA GUPTA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2015/rd
$ 30
Before it no argument has been taken any Court of Delhi High on Cr. Appeal and when this matter have been relist for Final Hearing on 12.08.2015 then Hon'ble Court asked to my advocate/Lawyer what case is going on them my Advocate/lawyer tell the court a 498A/406/313 is going on and without listing any argument and without see the file the Hon'ble Court has passed below order
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 539/2013
BHAGWATI DEVI
..... Appellant
Through Appellant with her counsel Mr. Vijay
Kumar, proxy counsel
versus
STATE & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Ms Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State along with SI Neeraj Kumar.
Counsel for respondents no. 2 to 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 12.08.2015
Learned counsel for the appellant is stated to be unwell and is
not available today.
Respondents have been served and they are appearing through
counsel. All of them are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one surety of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court.
Admit.
List in due course.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
AUGUST 12, 2015
A
I don't how could be a High Court Judge passed Such order without listing any argument and without reading the case file.
Respected Sir/Madam,
Can you let know meaning and processed of above Passed order and Can we move against above order.
Help me Respected Sir/Madam
Anirudh
(Expert) 25 August 2015
It may be your view that the Judge has not read the file.
Just because you won the case in the lower court does not mean that in the Appeal, the Appeal should not be admitted.
Having found some merit in the Appeal, the High Court has admitted the Appeal for hearing. In the meanwhile, the Judge has ordered all the Respondent Accused persons to be released on bail on furnishing of personal bond of Rs. 10000/-, which is the normal order.
Now, you will be on bail. When the appeal comes for regular hearing, get the same defended adequately.
All the bests.
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
I am not satisfy the reply of expert. I am Sorry to Say that When Hon'ble court was doing the order at that time i was present in court. Hon'ble Judge Ms. Indermeet Kaur, Delhi High court asked to my lawyer what is the case is going on then my advocate replied that 498A/406/313 IPC metter is going on then Hon'ble court say that " Admit Kar leti hoon". If actually Hon'ble court see/read the file then why did Hon'ble court asked to my Lawyer what is metter is going on?. Please reply. For Your Kind information i was present there and Hon'ble court passed the order without doing any argument or read/See the file. If you want to see Judgement or file then I send you by E-mail.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 August 2015
You have to be sorry only.
Just because the judge asked your lawyer what is the case going on, does not mean that she has not read the file.
When she said "admit kar leti hoon', whether your lawyer argued that the appeal is not fit to be admitted and why? If not, then what is your point?
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
I don't know that why did not my lawyer point to before the Hon'ble Court. Sir I have already said that I wast present in the Court. Within 3-4 minute Hon'be judge passed the order. Can you belive within 3 or 4 minute judge read the Previous judgement and current reply .?
Before it Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Gupta Justice was looking this matter and it was the first date in the court of Ms. Indermeet Kaur Court.
Sir. Now, Please let me know that Can I moved against this order
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 August 2015
If you do not know, then ask your lawyer.
Simply because within minutes the Judge admitted the appeal for hearing, does not mean that she has not read the file. If it was not to be within few minutes, are you expecting it to be heard for hours together at admission stage?
In any case, she has only admitted for further hearing. What is your difficulty? In futher hearing putforth your arguments why the appeal is to be dismissed.
Just because you were present in the court - that does not mean you have super knowledge of law and know what the judge has done is wrong. When your lawyer simply accepted the decision of the judge to admit the appeal, that is enough. Your lawyer knows that the appeal has been properly admitted for further hearing.
You are always free to do whatever that you want (i.e. moving against the order). After all it is you who would be spending money. But, please note, any such appeal by you against the said order, will not get you any relief.
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
Sir. Now, Please let me know that Can I moved against this order
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
Dear Mr. Anirudh can you let me know your E-mail ID. I want to send you the judgment and Statement Of prosecution
What do you want to that Lower Court give Wrong Judgement on my case.
Sorry Sir, I know about my case very well to anybody. Please Don't Mind
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Bhagwati Devi …Appellant
Versus
State and Others ...Respondents
AFFIDAVIT FOR WRITTEN ARGUMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2
I, Khema Nand, S/o. Shri Devi Dutt Sharma, Age about 42, R/o E-165, Nandgram , Ghaziabad, U.P, do hereby Solemnly affirm and state as under.
1. That I am the Respondent No.2 in the captioned written argument and am well conversant with fact of the case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit for written argument.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That PW-5 SMT. BHAGWATI (Complainant) made various contradictions in her chief, xxxx (Cross) about each and every incident, as about incident of dated 29.10.2006 , 10.12.2006, etc and also from her statements recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. detail of some Contradictions are as under.
1. CONTRADITION NO.1 (DT.29.10.2006, When Comprmised has taken place at Shakarpur Police Station)
1. On 29.10.2006 my husband khema nand came to my parental house and taken me and my new born child with him. (Page No-57, 3rd para)
2. My husband had come at my parental home in 2006 and told me to live in rented accommodation separately.(Page # 60,Line no.9)
3. I do not remember on 29.10.2006 my husband khema nand came to my parental house and taken me and my new born child with him.( Page No-71, line no.14)
Note:- As per above statement, How did she reach at Shakarpur, “Told me to live in rented accommodation separately.”
IMPROVEMISESION
My husband had called me through telephone to come at my matrimonial home when I reached there my in laws had not allow me to enter and thereafter police was called. My husband had called me through telephone at my land line number. (Page No-65, Line no.14 ,On Dated 26.11.2009)
Note:- (There is a big question as per statement of PW-5 Bhagwati Devi, When khema Nand went to Bhagwati parental home on date 29.10.2006 for took her and his daughter, then how would be she (PW-5) reached at Shakarpur alongwith her mother, brother and neighbor instead of reached at Mandawli alongwith her husband, where her husband Khema Nand live on rented accommodation).?
Note:- On date 29.10.2006, Khema Nand had gone to her parental home or called her through telephone. It is doubtful also.?
Note:- As per DW-1,Khema nand deposed in his chief/statement before the hon’ble court that “ A settlement between me and my wife Bhagwati (Complainant) arrived in PS Shakarpur at the intervention of Khyali Ram SI”(PAGE NO.50,LINE# 7)
2. CONTRADITION NO.2 (incident related to Dt.10.12.2006)
1. I went to a clinic of Dr. Manju shah at Vinod Nagar. I told to the doctor about the entire incident (Page No-58, Para 2)
2. It is correct that I did not state to the doctor Manjusha regarding the allegations levelled by me against my husband and, in laws on 9.12. 2006 (gave beatings to me by my husband and in laws on 09.12.2006). (Page No-72, Line no.15)
3. CONTRADICTION NO.3 (incident related to Dt.10.12.2006)
1. I informed to my brother then my brother informed to police at 100 number then S.I Khyali Ram from P.S AMandawali come there I stated the entire incident to S.I Khyali Ram. He record my statement. (Page No-58, Last Line)
2. I had made the complaint by dialing 100 number and thereafter S.I Khayli Ram had come in the hospital where he had taken my statement (Page No-61 ,Line no.12)
3. I do not remember if I had told the IO in my statement about the fact that on 09.12.2006 ( Page #61, Line No.17)
4. I do not remember the time when my brother had made a call at 100 Number(Page #61, Last Line)
5. My brother Ramesh made a 100 No. call on my instance at about 4 P.M to 5 P.M approximate and Police reached in the hospital at about 7 to 8 P.M approximate and record my statement but I cannot tell name of police officers who record my statement.(Page # 72, Line no.23 )
6. I do not remember how many times I have given statement to the Police. I do not remember who had record my first statement and on which date(Page # 70, LINE NO.10)
7. I do not remember if Khyali Ram came to the Hospital but it may be(Page # 73, Line no.1 )
Note:- As per statement of PW-13, Retd. SI Khyali Ram, he deposed before the hon’ble court that “On date 05.02.2007 I was posted at PS Mandawali as SI. It is correct that I had not joined investigation of this case other than 05.02.2007 and 12.02.2007.(PW-13,deposed in chief and xxx on dated 26.04.2011)
4. CONTRADICTION NO. 4 (related to where petitioner and respondent were lived on rent in December 2006)
1. The house number where I had shifted along with my husband at Mandawali A73 Sewa Sadan Block, Mandawali. The above house consists of 3 floor and I was living at 2nd floor.I am not aware who was living at first and third floor. (PW-5,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 64)
2. It is correct that after compromise I lived with my husband at house Number 73 A, Sewa Sadan block Fazalpur, Mandawali, We used to live on 3rd Floor of the said house. (PW-5,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 70, LINE 16 )
5. CONTRADICTION NO.5
1. It is correct that I was made as on accused in FIR No. 224/06 P.S Mandawali. U/s 498As/406 IPC lodged by my Bhabhi Daisy. FIR lodged on 10.04.2006. It is correct that trial is going on in that case and we all are on bail (PW-5,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 63 LINE NO.9)
2. It is correct that one case u/s 498A / 406 IPC is pending against my brother, myself and my parents. I do not remember whether that case is prior in time than the present FIR or other wise. (PW-5,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 69 LINE 22)
Note:- In above Contradiction/Statement, petitioner deposed before hon’able court it happen again said I don’t know if its happen, It is Correct again deposed It is in Correct. Petitioner has given differ statement on same question. Above statement proved that there is no truth in petitioner case. This is a totally manipulated case.
3. That PW-11 Keshav Dutt, made various contradictions in his chief, xxxx (Cross) and also from his statements recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. detail of some Contradictions are as under.
1. CONTRADICTION NO 1.
1. Doctor had told/disclosed to me that he has perform operation of my daughter because she was beaten and child was aborted. IO had recorded my statement in this regard.(PW-11,in xxx dated 08.11.2010,Page# 72, LINE 2)
2. My statement was not recorded by Police(PW-11,in xxx dtd 08.11.2010,Page#80, LINE NO.2)
3. Police officials recorded my statement in this case only at Virmani hospital. I do not remember the date when.(PW-11,in xxx dated 08.11.2010,Page # 81 LINE 3)
4. I had never made any statement before any police officials regarding this case.(PW-11,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 85 LINE 8)
2. CONTRADICTION NO 2.
1. The 100 was dialed by my son for informing the police (Deposed in xxxx, Page # 80, LINE 2)
2. I do not know who had made call to police but I have not made that call (Deposed in xxxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 84, LINE 26)
3. CONTRADICTION NO 3.
1. She did the expenses of the post graduation from her pocket as the earn by offering the tuitions (Deposed in xxxx, Page # 79, LINE 2)
2. I do not know whether my daughter used to give tuitions at the house before marriage (Deposed in xxxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 83)
4. CONTRADICTION NO 4.
1. On 18.12.2001, my daughter namely Bhagwati was got married with Khema Nand ( Page # 75)
2. I do not remember the date of marriage of my daughter.(Page#83)
4. That made Contradiction between PW-11 Keshav Dutt and PW-5, Bhagwati Devi in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail of some Contradictions are as under.
1. CONTRADICTION NUMBER 1.
1. It is correct that one S.I Khyali Ram used to live in our neighbor.(PW-5,in xxx dated 08.11.2010,Page # 61 LINE NO.9)
2. It is wrong to suggest that Khyali Ram is our neighbor. (PW-11,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 85, LINE 3)
2. CONTRADITION NO.2
1. I Do not know if Khyali Ram is having one daughter namely Santosh.(PW-5 ,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 69 LINE, 16 )
2. It is correct that daughter of Khyali Ram namely Santosh and my daughter Bhagwati studied together.(PW-11,in xxx, Page # 85 LINE 5 )
3. CONTRADITION NO.3
1. My son paid the expenses of Virmani Hospital about Rs.3500.00 (PW-5 ,Page # 78, LINE 2)
2. My father had spend the money when I was admitted in Virmani Hospital on 10.12.2006 (PW-5,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 73, line 15 )
4. CONTRADITION NO.4
1. I do not know who had made the final payment (PW-5 , Deposed in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 73, line 16)
2. We made all the payment of Virmani hospital(PW-11, Page # 84, LINE 22)
Note:- DW1, Khema Nand, deposed in his statement that I produce the copy of Bill of hospital alongwith discharged slip ,same are Ex.DW1/D and Ex.DW1/E, Which show that all Payment of hospital bill paid by Khema Nand. .i.e DW1
5. CONTRADITION NO.5
1. I had never went to matrimonial house of my daughter nor I used to meet any of her in-laws. (PW-11,Deposed in xxxx ,Page # 85, LINE 11)
2. It is wrong to suggest that my parents used to visit regularly to me in my matrimonial home vol, they used to Visit occasionally at my in laws house. (PW-5, Deposed in xxx , Page # 63, LINE 1)
3. I do not know as I did not visit her matrimonial house. (PW-11,in xxxx dated 08.11.2010)
6. CONTRADITION NO.6
1. On 08.12.2001 I was married with khema nand (PW-5,in xxx dated 26.11.2009, Page # 56, line 1)
2. On 18.12.2001, my daughter namely Bhagwati was got married with Khema Nand.(PW-11,in xxx dated 17.05.2010, Page # 75, LINE 1)
3. I do not remember the date of marriage of my daughter.(PW-11, dated 08.11.2010)
7. CONTRADITION NO.7
1. On 09.12.2006 in night time the accused persons came there. they quarreled with me and gave beating to me. (Page # 58, Para 2)
2 On 10.12.2006, a quarrel took place at the house of my dauther in the same house .i.e Mandawli… at about 6 P.M .i.e (evening )(PW-11,in xxx dated 08.11.2010, Page # 77, LINE 4)
6. That Contradiction between PW-11 Keshav Dutt and PW-6, Harish Chand in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail of Contradictions are as under.
1. CONTRADICTION No. 1.
1. On 10.12.2006 I was sitting in my shop. Keshav dutt was very perturbed and going very fast. I asked him what was the matter. Keshav dutt had not replied. I called my wife to look after shop and I follow keshav Dutt and when I reached near to him he told me that his daughter was admitted in Virmani Hospital nursing home as she was beaten by her in laws when we reached Virmani Nursing home.(PW-6,deposed,On 21.12.2009,Page# 82, PARA NO.2 )
2. I do not know any Harish Chand (page # 82, PARA 2), I reached at Manju Shah Hospital directly from my home when I received the information regarding admitting of my daughter in the hospital. I reached at Manju Shah hospital alone. It is correct that from Manju Shah hospital to virmani hospital I reached alone.(Page # 82, LAST LINE)
7. That made PW-5 Bhagwati Devi in her chief and, xxxx (Cross), detail of some Contradictions are as under
1. It is correct that I did not lodge any complaint with the police since my marriage till the present complaint except the present complaint on the basis of which was registered (PAGE NO.60, LINE 21)
2. We had not called the police there by dialing 100 number Police had reached there as there was a quarrel which was called by someone by dialing 100 number the above said fact was disclosed by some police official. We had not given complaint in writing to police at shakarpur. The police official who had reached at spot had taken me alongwith my daughter and asked my in laws and my parents and brother to reach at P.S. (False statement) (PAGE NO.66, LINE 13)
Note:- DW6, Exhibited a document EXDW6/E, Which prove that no one 100/PCR call made against DW1, Khema Nand and his family by any one on date 28.10.2006 and 29.10.2006
3. My husband was disowned by publishing notice in 03.12.2004 in Rastriya Sahara.I am not ware who had disclosed the above said fact of disowning but whenever quarrel was erupted n laws themselves told me that they had disowned my husband. (PAGE NO.63 LINE 3)
Note:- PW-5, (Complainant)deposed herself before the hon’ble court that “she was resided with her parent since 18.02.2004 to 29.10.2006.
Note:- PW-7, Mr.Vijay, deposed that “No one used to visit khema nand. Not even from his family”
Note:- PW-5, by above statement No.3 prove that complainant deposed falsely before the hon’ble court because she was not resided with her husband since 18.02.2004 to 29.10.2006 and as per PW-7, member of khemanand family never visited their house when khemanand live there as a tenant.
4. It is correct that landlord also used to reside in that very house but I cannot tell the exact floor (PAGE NO.70 LINE NO.24)
5. It is correct that I gave my consent to doctor of virmani Hospital for the operation as per advice of the doctor. (PAGE NO.72, LINE 13)
6. I was pregnant with two month approximate but I cannot tell from where I got pregnancy test and I cannot tell the exact date when I knew regarding my pregnancy.(PAGE 73, LINE 7)
7. It is wrong to suggest that till today the khema nand and his families member did not harass me over demand or dowry through are given beating to me. It is correct that I had stated before court on last date that I still want to live with khema Nand. (PAGE 74 LINE 4)
Note:- This statement given by PW-5 “She still want to live with Khema nand” this statement prove itself that khema nand and his family never harass to PW-5 at any point.
8. That PW-11, Keshav Dutt, deposed before the hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), some statement are as under.
1. I had spent an amount Rs.50000.00 or Rs.60,000.00 in purchase of Dowry articles. I am not possession any receipts of purchasing the above said articles. Total amount spent by me is around Rs.100,000.00 or 150,000.00 lac in the marriage of my daughter bhagwati (PAGE NO.79, LINE 9)
2. Doctor Manjusha had informed me at my mobile phone at about 3 or 4 P.M
3. Police person had came in the hospital where my daughter was operated or the same day. There were three police persons from/in women cell who had inquired from me (False statement)(PAGE NO.79, LAST LINE)
Note:- DW1, Khema Nand , ExDW1/I and ExDW1/J document before the hon’ble court which prove that neither any complaint made by complainant and any member of her family in CAW Cell/East nor any police personal visited Virmani hospital between date 10.12.2006 to 15.12.2006. Then how can PW-11, said that “there three police persons from/in women cell who had inquired from me.”
4. The demand of Rs. 2 Lac were made by the family members of her husband but neither I asked to her about specific name of the person who demanded said Rs.2 Lac not she disclosed anything in this regard. My daughter never disclosed to me about the date, time about the above said demand.(PAGE NO.81 LINE 13)
5. My daughter did not disclose each and every fact to me about her matrimonial life. My daughter disclosed such type of facts regarding of demand of dowry to me whenever she visited to my home. (PAGE NO.82 LINE 19)
6. I was informed by my daughter through telephone from Virmani hospital regarding her admitting in the hospital. Again said my daughter informed me from manju shah hospital through telephone. (PAGE NO.23, PARA 2)
7. I do not know whether my daughter-in-law registered a case upon me and my family member including my daughter Bhagwati regarding demand of Dowry. (PAGE 84, LINE 12)
8. I had signed the consent letter for operation of my daughter in Virmani Hospital. (PAGE 84, LINE 27)
9. It is correct that neither Khema Nand nor any of his family members had made any kind of demand from me. (PAGE NO. 85, LINE 2)
10. “03.12.2004 ko meri ladki ne mujhe batlaya ki mere sasur Devi Dutt ne mere pati ko apni sampati se bedkhal kar diya he” to maine ladki se kaha ke me garib hoon me teri kya madad kar sakta hoon” (PW-11, Deposed in statement record U/s 161 by ASI Kanta Prasad on date 28.02.2007.
On dated 03.12.2004 my daughter told me that My father-in-law Devi Dutt has been disowned to my husband from their movable and immovable property. (PW-11, Deposed in the statement record U/s 161 by ASI Kanta Prasad on date 28.02.2007.)
Note:- PW-11, Keshav Dutt, How does, deposed in his statement record U/s 161 by IO ASI Kanta Prasad, while her daughter were not lived with khema nand from 14.02.2004 to 29.10.2006. She reside with her parent in this period.
9. That PW-3, Manju Shah deposed before the hon’ble court in her chief, xxxx (Cross), detail of are as under.
1. It is wrong to suggest that my statement mark PW3/A is true and correct statement made by me to IO in this case. (page no.27, Para 3)
2. The Patient was diagnosed for Having Ectopic Pregnancy. (page no.27, Para 4)
3. Ectopic Pregnancy is the extra uterine implantation of developing ovum. It is a natural process. Ectopic Pregnancy can never be caused by any human activity.
4. It is not possible that the foetus will jump or move from uterus to fallopian tube.
Note:- (Point No. 4 prove that, PW-13, IO, Khyali ram had written the statement U/sec 161 of PW-3 and PW-4 himself without doing any enquiry from them. Because PW-13, Khyali Ram had written himself in the U/s 161 of PW-3 is that “ Bhagwati ke chot marne se bachha tube me garv se pohanch gaya” (due to injury child has reached/moved into the fallopian tube from uterus.) and U/s PW-4 is that “Bachha chot lagne se garv se khisakar fallopian tube me chala gaya” (Due to injuries child has been move to fallopian tube from uterus)
Note:- Anyone doctor never give the above statement, which were written by PW-13, Khyali Ram himself without doing enquiry from Doctor to give the color of this case u/s 313
5. When patient was brought to my clinic, she was early pregnancy and same cannot be said that there was a foetus and it was merely an early pregnancy.
6. I have never given any statement to any police official.
10. That PW-4, Sanjeev Saran, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail of are as under.
1. There was no external injury as per ultra sound report on the body of patient.(page no.30 para 2)
2. I had diagnosed that the patient was suffering from ruptured ectopic pregnancy.
3. Ectopic pregnancy means that pregnancy is occur at any other area other uterus.
4. It is a natural process and cannot be caused by any interference of any human being. It cannot be caused by any external injury.
5. In this case, it was a gestational sac which caused the rupture of fallopian tube .i.e called ruptured ectopic pregnancy.
6. I have never given any statement to the police.
11. That PW-7,Mr. Vijay, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail of are as under.
1. Police did not make any inquiries from me in February 2007 with regard to Khema nand and his family. (page no.91, para 3, line 18)
2. It is wrong to suggest that I told the police that initially for 2-4 days the accused kept the properly but thereafter started harassing and giving beating to his wife. (page 92)
3. It is wrong to suggest that I told to police on 20.11.2006 the parents,brother, sister in law(bhabhi) and younger brother of accused khema nand came there and they also abused and did hathapai with Bhagwati and raised demand of Rs.2 Lac from her.
4. It is wrong to suggest that on 09.12.2006 parents, brother, sister in law (Bhabhi) and younger brother again came to our house and quarreled with Bhagwati.
5. It is wrong to suggest that I told police that on 09.12.2006 they demand two lac rupees from Bhagwati and when Bhagwati showed inability of her father to fulfill this demand all of them gave beatings to her
6. I never told the police that parents of accused khemanand said that “iske pait main laat, maro, Jo baccha gir jayega, aisi aulad hame nahi chahiye”.
7. I never told the police that next day in the morning they turned out Bhagwati from their house after abusing her.
8. No incident took place in my presence. No statement was recorded by the police of mine.
9. I used to reside at 1st floor at my house. Khemanand accused used to reside at 2nd floor
10. No one used to visit khema nand. Not even from his family
11. There was cordial relations between Khemanand and his wife
12. There was no demand ever made regarding any dowry in my presence.
Note:- Statement U/s 161 of PW-7 was written by S.I Khyali Ram on 05.02.2007.
12. That DW-1, Khema Nand, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail are as under.
1. Before my marriage my wife Bhagati told me that her father was not in position to solemnized two ceremonies i.e. of marriage as well as Sagai and she requested that only one ceremony should be solemnized. Sagai ceremony was not solemnized. (page no.46, para 1, line 4)
2. After that she started saying that neither she could cook food for my family nor she could do household jobs (page no.46)
3. My wife used to quarrel with me on daily basis saying that she wanted to reside separately (page no.46)
4. Her parents took her from my parental house on 08.05.2003. She stayed in her parental house up to 17.08.2003. (page no 48 line 3)
5. In the month of July she made clear to me on telephone that she was willing to stay with me provided I live separate from my parents at another place. Accordingly, I took a room on rent and took her to that room on 17.08.2003 and we started living together. She did not bring jewellery and instead she gave a writing Ex.DWl/A. This writing is in the handwriting of my wife and it bears her signature at point A (page no.48 line 6)
6. In the month of September 2003 I came to know about miscarriage of her Bhabhi (wife of her brother). I went to meet her in the last week of September 2003 at the parental house of my wife where her bhabhi told me that miscarriage had taken place as mother of my wife had mixed some obnoxious material in her milk (page , line 18)
Note:- It is a clear case of miscarriage of 3.5 month baby as per report of Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital and ultrasound report but Sec 313 was not added in FIR by IO.
7. Her parents also used to say me "tumhari tankhwah kam hai. Tumse shaadi kerke hamari ladki ki zindagi barbad ho gai hai". I asked my wife that. her parents were interfering in our life so he intended to shift from that tenanted room to another place (page 49, line 6)
8. Her parents took her on 14.02.2004 inspite of my objection. (page 49, line 14)
Note:- DW1 Exhibited 2 pages as EXDW1/B, last entry 14.02.2012
9. On 15.02.2004, I, my father and some people of my locality went to the house of her parents. My wife and her parents insulted all of us and told us that she will not stay with me. I made a complaint Ex.DW1/C in the police in this regard on 16.02.2004. (page no.49, line 15)
10. They used to threatened me that in case I come to their house they will report the matter to the police. On obtaining the information that I had became father of a baby, I requested my father in law to see my baby but he did not allow me to see my baby. (page 50, line 3)
11. A settlement between me and my wife Bhagwati, complainant arrived in PS Shakarpur at the intervention of Khayali Ram SI. (page 50, line 7)
12. On 13.12.2006 my mother in law and SI Khyali Ram came to me at outside of the hospital and Khyali Ram said to me why you are not paying the hospital bill and my mother in law clutched my hair and abused me. (page 52, line 19)
13. On 15.12.2006 when complainant Bhagwati discharged from the hospital I asked her for back to the tenanted house then my Brother in laws Ramesh Saklani told to me first of all give the share of the property of your father then my sister will go with you. If the share in property is not received then they will book us and our family in a false case. (page no.52, line 22)
14. Khyali Ram had recorded statements of Dr. and Sh. Vijay of his own to falsely implicate us in the present case. (page 55, line 4)
15. We never demanded any dowry from the complainant or her family members and we never beat the complainant at any point of time.(page 55,line 6)
16. The list of articles filed by the complainant on judicial file, is false. The prosecution witnesses deposed falsely against us.(page 55)
Note:- When Smt. Bhagwati declined to accompany, I informed the police control room and proved that communication as Ex.DW1/F and also handed over a written application to SHO, PS Mandawali and proved as Ex.DW1/G
1. DW1, Khema Nand exhibited following document
1. EX-DW1/D Bill fully paid by Khema nand
2. EX-DW1/E Discharge Summary
3. EX-DW1/H Copy of Supply information under RTI Act ,2005 by DCP, Office, East (content of Complaint made by DW1 against SI Khyali Ram for misuse of police power and action taken report)
13. That DW-3 Smt. Daizy Saklani, deposed before hon’ble court in her chief, xxxx (Cross), detail are as under.
1. On 07.5.2003 I had to take part in the marriage of daughter of my matrimonial uncle. On that day I was told that I had to go to Nainital with my husband for honeymoon. After 3-4 days we returned from Nainital. In the meantime complainant Bhagwati also had arrived in her parents house before my return. (page no.87, line 9)
2. She continuously resided there for about three-four months (page 87, line 12)
3. One day she proposed to me to hand overall my jewelry including gold jewelery to my mother-in-law on the pretext that she had also handed over all her jewelery to her mother. (page 87, line 14)
4. My mother in law also told them that they will send their daughter to their house if separate house on rent is taken. (page 88, line 5)
5. Khemanand came to the house of complainant Bhagwati many times to take her back but her parents refused to send her back with Khemanand. (page no.89, Para 1)
6. I did not hear anything about the family members of Khemanand in the house of my inlaws (page 89)
7. Complainant Bhagwati never made any complaint to me against Khemanand or his family members.
8. She did not tell anything regarding Khemanand and his family to any of her family members in my presence.
9. I did not notice any abnormal behavior in complainant Bhagwati. She used to remain happy.
14. That DW-4, Umed Singh Bisht, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail of are as under.
1. I know the accused persons for the last 21 years but I have never heard any sound showing that his wife been beaten by him or by his family members (page no.95, line 3)
2. In 2003 complainant's father took the complainant forcibly from the matrimonial home from S-288-B, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi (Page no.95, line 14)
3. They started living separately in tenanted house somewhere in Shakarpur. Later on I came to know father of complainant again forcibly took the complainant from tenanted house. (page no.95, line 16)
15. That PW-12, Ct. Raj Kumar, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail are as under.
1. On 01.07.2007 I was posted as ct. PS Mandawli. On that day that day I joined investigation with IO ASI Kanta Prashad.
2. I do not know about the name of the landlord of house no. 73A, Gali No.2, Sewa Sadan Block Mandawli.
3. The said house was constructed as ground, first and second floor.
4. In my presence, IO did not make efforts to ascertain the fact about the name of the landlord of said house.
5. No proof regarding ownership of the said articles was given by complainant to IO in my presence.
6. Said tenanted house of khema nand was at first floor.
16. That PW-13,Retd. SI Khyali Ram S/o Late Sh. Hori Lal, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), statement are as under.
1. On 05.02.2007 I was posted at PS Mandawali as SI.
2. It is correct that I had not joined investigation of this case that 05.02.2007 and 12.02.2007
3. I had recorded statement of witnesses namely Ct. jitender, W/ASI Anita and Bhagwati Devi
Note:-1. Khayli Ram also had recorded statement of witnesses namely PW-3, Dr. Manju Shah, PW-4, Dr. Sanjeev Saran, PW-7, Mr. Vijay on dated 05.02.2007 himself without doing any enquiry from them for falsely implicated the innocent people in this. But I don’t know that, why did not Addl. PP or Naveen Singhla Counsel of PW-5, Bhagwati (Complainant) had confronted to Khyali Ram with the statement which were recorded by Khyali Ram U/s 161 on date 05.02.2007
Note:-2 As per charges sheet, PW-13, Retd.SI Khyali Ram had investigated this case since 01.01.2007 or earlier, PW-10, Retd. ASI Babu Ram also deposed in his chief that “On 01.01.2007, the above said case was transferred to SI Khyali Ram for further Investigation at the instruction of the SHO”. PW-14, Kanta Prasad also deposed in his statement that “I identify signature of Khyali Ram at point A on document Ex.PW14/D2 dated 03.02.2007”
Note:-3 If Khyali ram deposed true before the hon’ble court then charges sheet prove false itself. If charges sheet is false then this case is false prove itself. Or Khyali ram deposed falsely before hon’ble court in his chief and Cross.
17. That PW-14, ASI Kanta Prasad, deposed before hon’ble court in his chief, xxxx (Cross), detail are as under.
1. I did not investigate this case prior to 01.02.2007 and during the period 05.02.2007 to 27.02.2007
2. I do not recollect whether investigation was transferred to SI Khyali Ram on 03.02.2007 or 05.02.2007
3. I did not go through the complaint dated 28.12.2006 and supplementary statement of Smt. Bhagwati, complainant record on 28.02.2007. I cannot say if both these statement are not in conformity. I cannot say if both these document contained contradictory contents. I recorded the statement of Bhagawti at PS.
4. I did not make any inquiry from landlord of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. Vol. as he was not residing there.
5. I do not recollect if the landlord of Smt. Bhagwati was residing in the same building at first floor.
6. I do not recollect if I made any statement regarding this case in the office of DCP, East
7. I do not know if father of Khemanand accused namely Sh. Devi Dutt made a complaint against SI Khyali Ram. This document bears my signatures at point A. Same is exhibited as EX.PW14/D1.
8. I identify signature of Khyali Ram at point A on document Ex.PW14/D2. I cannot say if SI Khyali Ram changed the date 02.02.2007 and made it 03.02.2007
9. I do not recollect the contents of documents which was collected by me from Virmani Hospital Ex.PW14/D3
10. I did not have conversation about the contents of document Ex.PW14/D3 with the Doctors of Virmani Hospital. Same is my reply regarding treatement.
11. I recorded the statement of parents of Smt. Bhagwati complainant.
12. I went at the house of parents of Smt. Bhagwati for recording of their statement.
13. I did not recorded statements of Dr. Manju Shah. I recorded statement of Dr. Saran.
Note:- PW-14, Kanta Prasad, when he went to Virmani Hospital 2-3 times then why did not he asked to the doctor about to treatment of PW-5, Bhagwati, before add to Sec U/s 313 on Khema Nand and his family.
Note:-As per statement of PW-5, Bhagwati Devi (Complainant), PW-13, SI Khyali Ram is their neighbor and PW-11, Deposed that His Daughter Bhagwati Studied together with namely Santosh Daughter of SI Khyali Ram. (It might be possible for that reason PW-14, Kanta Prasad, did not understood necessary asked to the Doctor about PW-5 treatment and add U/s 313 without any knowledge of treatment)
18. That the case of petitioner is totally depends upon malafide intention.
19. Sub Inspector Khyali Ram has played a big roll to manipulating and registered a false FIR against respondents. There are some point
1. Compromised has taken place at Shakarpur Police Station due to intervation of S.I Khyali Ram. While Respondent Khema Nand do not want the Compromised in the Police station.
2. Sub Inspector Khyali Ram has written the Statement u/s 161 of Dr. Manjusha, Dr. Sanjeev Saran and Mr. Vijay his own without doing any enquiry to manipulated the case and falsely implicated respondent in this case and Charged has been framed on respondents on the ground of 161 Statement of Doctors and Mr.Vijay, which were written by S.I Khayli Ram without doing any inquiry (above facts is prove by the In statement to Doctors and Mr. Vijay)
20. Petitioner herself deposed that S.I Khyali Ram is lived there neighbourhood and father or petitioner, Mr. Keshav Dutt deposed that the Daughter of Khyali Ram namely Santosh and his daughter (Petitioner) were study together. While Petitioner deposed falsely that she do not know that If Khyali Ram has any daughter namely Santosh.
21. The falsity of the above said case could be very well gathered from the fact that during trial, it has come on record that there is no complaint since the date of the marriage i. e. 08/12/2001 till 28/12/2006 present complaint, neither any medical report/MLC regarding any beating nor a single injuries on the body of petitioner etc. except two incident October, 2003 and December, 2006 and both are related to ectopic pregnancy.
22. That the PW-3 Dr. Manjusha, PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Sharan and PW-7 Mr. Vijay. Neither the doctors deposed that petitioner has been operated due to any injuries and as per ultrasound there is no mark of any external injuries on the body of petitioner, this is the case of Ectopic Pregnancy nor PW-7, Mr. Vijay ((Where petitioner and respondent no.2 live on rent in 2006) deposed that any incident has been taken place on 09.12.2006 and before it between Petition and respondent regarding any dowry demand and any beating.
23. PW-5, PW-11, PW-6 are interested ,subordinates to complainant and made lot of contradiction and false statement on each and every fact also. Therefore, their evidence can not be believed.
24. That neither respondent has committed the alleged offence nor he is previous convict (per instruction) but the complainant has implicated respondent and his family in this case falsely with the help of S.I Khyali Ram (I.O).
25. The statement of PW-3 Dr. Manjusha, PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Saran and PW-7 Mr. Vijay prove that S.I Khyali Ram has played a big roll in this case to falsely implicated the innocent people in this case. It is submitted that S.I Khyali Ram has himself/his own written the false statement of PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, without doing any enquiry or investigation from them. Also prove that PW-5, PW-6 and PW-11 stated a manipulating and fabricated story before the hon’ble court to give the coulour the this case as a 498A/406/313 IPC. Because no one doctor can say that 6 week fetus move or jump from uterus to fallopian tube by any reason as written by S.I Khyali Ram to manipulated this case.
26. That on the basis of aforesaid/above arguments/statment, it can safely be said that the story of alleged incident is managed one which was cooked with help of S.I Khyali ram (I.O) or any legal consultant because petitioner and her father has made lot of contradiction on each and every facts before the hon’ble court in their statement and also with recorded 161 statement as above mentioned hence, on such account the false implication of respondent cannot be ruled out.
27. That the petitioner has compromised with respondent in October 2006 and just after one month she has registered a false case against respondent and his family and Once again petitioner deposed before the hon’ble court that “still she (petitioner) want to live with Khema Nand (respondent no.2)” and beside she has filed an appeal against Khema Nand (respondent no.2) and his Family to falsely implicated the innocent people in this case, instead of file Sec 9/24. (if actually she want to live with respondent no 2) , How can respondent and his family have faith on petitioner who have this mentality (Or say that criminal mentality). Bhagwati and Her Family already accused in 498A/406 case.
28. It is further submitted that from 10/12/2006 till filing of the complaint dated 28/12/2006 and further recording of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 05/02/2007. The I.O. in the present case S.I. Khyali Ram could not record or filed any statement of the complainant, her father, any doctor who operated the complainant at VIRMANI HOSPITAL, and landlord where petitioner and respondent were resided on rent. It is apparent that I.O. Khyali Ram intentionally delayed the recording of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. to get to manipulate the facts as an afterthought to cover up the allegations leveled in the complaint, so he falsely recorded the statement without conducting any proper and fair investigation in the present case and also the doctors PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 (son of landlord) have denied to had given any statement to the police.
29. On 29/10/2006,in compromised, the complainant or her family members did not mention of any cruelty and dowry demand of Rs. 2 lac made either by the respondent or his family members while the content of this Compromised prove that the Conduct of Ms. Bhagwati (Petitioner) and her family was not good with respondent no.2 (Mr. Khema Nand). The compromise EX. PW-5/DA was admitted but it was made with the intervention of S.l. Khyali Ram because pertaining to this incident, the complainant made various contradictions and improvement in her statement before the Hon'ble Court and earlier statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C
30. It is also submitted that the complainant 18/02/2004, wherein the allegation is levelled against all respondents that she was thrown out from her rented accommodation after giving beatings. However, there was no complaint, medical or any case filed against the husband for maintenance for a period of more than two years as per their own assertion i. e. 18/02/2004 till 28/10/2006 and further in her statement before the Hon' ble Court, she has stated that she was thrown out by her husband (the date is also not correct, correct date 14.02.2004).
31. That the incident dated 20/11/2006, where the complainant has tried to implicate all the accused persons by making a false PCR call because she stated in her cross examination that no complaint was made by her prior to the present complaint. However, PW-7 Mr. Vijay stated that no family members of the respondent no.2 or the petitioner ever visited at the tenanted premises.
32. The incident dated 09/12/2006 has again been falsely concocted in order to implicate all respondent, when no such incident took place as alleged. It is submitted here that the complainant was having the history of ectopic pregnancy and it is unbelievable that why no M. L. C. was prepared by the hospital or why no police was called by Dr. MANJUSHA herself, when the complainant had reported the incident to the doctor and why no visible marks on the womb and the ultrasound report also reflects that it was a case of ruptured ectopic pregnancy and admittedly, the petitioner and respondent no.2 (Khema Nand) was Living separately from the other co-respondent persons witnesses and the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and had there been any truth of beatings or any dowry demand or the allegation dated 09.12.2006 by the respondent, then the petitioner PW-5 would never want to live and In-law of the complainant have disowned their son on 03/12/2004.
33. It is impossible that any alleged dowry demand can be made by all respondent on each and every specific occasion as alleged in the complaint when the father of the respondent has categorically admitted that no demand was made to him. However, complaint given on 28/12/2006 before the DCP, EAST, SHAHDARA, DELHI is under a pre-planned conspiracy to falsely implicate the accused persons. That it is alleged that since the marriage of the complainant till the present complaint the respondent persons is raising dowry demand of RS. 2 lac for starting the computer business of respondent KHEMA NAND however as per her complaint she was thrown out from the rented accommodation on 18.02.2004 and remained in her parental home for more than two years i.e. upto 28.10.2006 and no police complaint was made of any alleged beating or demand of dowry and there is no whisper in the settlement/Compromised about the demand of Rs. 2 lac. However, the accused KHEMA NAND has specifically mentioned that complainant will not ill-treat him and her family members will not interfere as pre-condition to live separately in a rented accommodation at MANDAWALI and the alleged dowry demand is made throughout in the present complaint is to give colour to implicate all the accused persons under section 498-A/406/313 IPC.
34. The doctors PW-3 and PW-4, who appeared in the witness box had denied that any statement was recorded by the I.O. and further, the Literature produced before the Hon' ble Court through R.T.I. and from Internet, it is clear that in ectopic pregnancies, the fertilized egg is implanted outside the uterus and ending the pregnancy is the only option and if not recognized and treated, the embryo will grow until the fallopian tube ruptures resulting in severe abdominal pain and bleeding and it can cause permanent damage to the tube and if not promptly can lead to death and in this context, the complainant suffered ectopic pregnancy at SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL, NEW DELHI and even in the report of VIRMANI HOSPITAL dated 28/02/2007, it is mentioned that BHAGWATI was the patient of ectopic pregnancy and had suffered from sudden abdomen pain. It is further submitted that PW-3 and PW-4 categorically stated that it was a case of ectopic pregnancy and thus, no offence under section 498A/406/313/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons in the light of the facts and the marked variations and contradictions in the story as put by the petitioner. When various witnesses have even denied to give any statement before the police and the I. O. S.I. Khyali Ram under a pre-planned conspiracy with the complainant/petitioner and her family members has falsely implicated the respondent persons in the present case by assisting the complainant in drafting the complaint of the petitioner as he was close neighbour of the complainant's father and no reason as to why the investigation in the present case was time and again transferred to SI Khyali Ram which can be corroborated from the record of the present case.
35. There are major contradictory statement of the witnesses and the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and had there been any truth of beatings or any dowry demand or the allegation dated 09.12.2006 by the respondents, then the complainant PW-5 would never want to live with accused KHEMA NAND but PW-5 categorically in her cross examination in open court stated that she still wants to live with KHEMA NAND. Bhagwati (Complainant) gave lots of false, confusing and contradiction statement in the court
36. Neither PW-5 deposed in her statement that on 09.12.2012 about any dowry demand made by accused person and nor PW-7, PW-11 deposed in their statement about any dowry demand made my respondent person in their presence and Her father PW-11, also gave the lots of false, confusing and contradiction statement.
37. The demand of Rs. 2 Lac for start computer business never made by respondent because parents of respondent no.2 have already disowned respondent no.2 and petitioner (Khema nand and Complainant Bhagwati) on date 03.12.2004. and both respondent no.2 (Khema nand) and his wife (petitioner) were start to reside separately after few months of their marriage and PW-7, Mr. Vijay also deposed that there were no incident has been taken place on 09.12.2006 and before it regarding any dowry demand and beating by respondent with petitioner. All is baseless allegation for giving the colour of 498A/406/313 to this case. All above fact sufficient to prove the falsity of the allegation leveled on all the respondent persons.
38. It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of safe administration of criminal justice, more than one infirmity is not required and even single infirmity creating doubt in prudent mind regarding the truthness of charge makes the whole case as doubtful, hence, dismiss the appeal and release the the respondents of above case which based on contradictory and false evidence of prosecution.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the appeal and release the respondent persons under the offence under section 498¬A/406/313/34 IPC as no case is made out against them at all, in the larger interest of justice.
Khema Nand
RESPONDENT NO.2
DT:13.08.2015
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 August 2015
Those things are irrelevant, when the matter has already been admitted by the High Court for further hearing.
I have nothing more to add.
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
It is Not irrelevant Question.Me and my family is facing the problem due to this order.
My wife and her parents was already accused in case U/sec 498A/406.
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
For Your Kind Information Her Lawyer was reading on 19.02.2015 the statement recorded U/sec 161 Crpc of Doctor then Hon'ble Justice said to her lawyer why did you read the Statement recorded U/sec 161. Please read statement which were recorded before hon'ble court.
For your kind information Statement u/sec 161 Crpc of Doctor and Mr. Vijay recorded by S.I Khayli Ram, who live in the neighbourhood of my wife parent house. Daughter of S.I Khyali ram studied together with my wife and both were friend.
Further As per Statement of Doctor and Mr. Vijay police have not recorded their statement.
My case is totally manupluated by S.I Khyali ram. He has recorded the Statement U/Sec 161 Crpc without doing any inquiry from Doctors and Landlor to falsely implicated us this case.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 August 2015
I said that the information provided by you just prior to my post, are irrelevant at this juncture, as the High Court has already admitted the Appeal for further hearing.
Your telling those things here are not going to change the order passed by the HC, unless you prefer an appeal as proposed by you (though, according to me, such an appeal may not fetch you any relief to you.)
Khema Nand
(Querist) 26 August 2015
Thanks Mr. Anirudh. I Will be consult with other lawyer on this matter. Thanks for your reply
seshadri dubey
(Expert) 28 August 2015
dear author I you were given opportunity of being heard and thats why you were being noticed but you have lost that opportunity, and the H'ble justice in right in her stand, your lawyer should have raised objections at the time of admission hearing.
seshadri dubey
(Expert) 28 August 2015
and re you may consult as many lawyers you want, but exprt Anirudh is right, dont forget that you are being given a free advise, so be humble.
Khema Nand
(Querist) 28 August 2015
You are right Sir. But I don't why did raised objections at the time of admission hearing. I asked the same question to my Lawyer then he Said to me that we have to go daily on this court we can object the order of court. Now tell me what we do.
Do you know any best lawyer in East Delhi. If yes then please give me the contact number and address
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 28 August 2015
HC admitted appeal, so will hear it and decide.
Nothing abnormal.
hv to bear
seshadri dubey
(Expert) 29 August 2015
sorry Dear Nand, I do not know any lawyer from Delhi as I am from West Bengal but other members of this forum may help you.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 26 August 2015
