The Delhi High Court granted bail to a man facing charges under Section 302 (murder), Section 498A (cruelty), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC in connection with his wife's death. The Court observed that the doctor's unequivocal opinion, stating the cause of death as asphyxia resulting from antemortem hanging, prima facie indicated a misalignment between the medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner in this case sought bail under Section 306 IPC. The case revolves around the death of Shama, his wife, who was admitted to GTB Hospital on July 26, 2017, in an unconscious state and later declared brought dead. Suspicion arose due to ligature marks found on Shama's neck, leading to the filing of charges.
Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner, represented by Habibur Rehman, pursued regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The defence asserted that Shama was adopted, and her biological father had not complained about dowry demands. Discrepancies in statements, particularly from Shama's children, recorded after a 46-day period in the custody of maternal grandparents, were emphasized. The defence pointed out the Post Mortem Report's opinion, indicating the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging, not strangulation.
The State, represented by Rupali Bandhopadya, opposed the petitioner’s bail application, aligning with the Status Report. The State argued that the charges against the petitioner, encompassing Sections 302, 498A, and 201 IPC, were of a grave nature. Reference was made to the initial FIR under Section 306 IPC, highlighting allegations of cruelty and dowry demands against him. The severity of the offence, the potential for witness tampering, and the likelihood of him absconding if granted bail were emphasized. The State maintained its position, citing the gravity of the charges and their impact on the democratic fabric of society.
Observations by the Court:
The Court noted that the information about Shama being admitted to GTB Hospital in an unconscious state was received on the said date. The doctor's report indicated ligature marks on her neck, leading to the suspicion of foul play.
During the investigation, statements from various individuals, including Shama's biological parents and children, were recorded. The adoptive father, Nasiruddin, stated that Shama was adopted and alleged that the petitioner had been subjecting her to cruelty for money. However, discrepancies emerged during the proceedings.
The Court observed that the biological father, Chaman Khan, gave conflicting statements regarding the alleged demand for money by the petitioner. The Court questioned the credibility of witnesses, especially the petitioner and Shama's children, considering they were in the custody of their maternal grandparents for 46 days after the incident.
Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the medical evidence, emphasizing the doctor's opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. This finding contradicted the prosecution's claim of strangulation.
The Decision of the Court:
In granting bail, the High Court considered various factors, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner's time in custody (over 2.5 years), and the completion of the investigation. The Court imposed conditions for the petitioner’s release, emphasizing that nothing in the order implies an opinion on the case's merits.
Case Title: Rihan vs. The State (GNCTD)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case No.: Bail Appln. 1175/2023
Advocate of the Petitioner: Mr. Habibur Rehma
Advocate of the Respondent: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadya, ASC for State with Insp. Umed Singh PS Gokul Puri
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :