High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed for regular bail in FIR registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar for offences under Sections 341/302/323/304B/306/498A/34 IPC.
Brief Facts:
In this case the wife of the petitioner was admitted with history of ingestion of unknown substance. The incident had occurred within seven years of marriage. The victim was continuously unfit for statement and she passed away. The father of the deceased stated that the marriage of his daughter was performed four years back. He stated that after two years of marriage, the petitioner herein, his mother and younger brothers started beating, taunting and torturing his daughter for dowry. The complainant went to the house of the deceased twice, but her in-laws did not send her with him. They used to threaten the deceased that they would kill her. One day the complainant along with one Maikulal went to the house of the deceased. They were accompanied by the wife of Maikulal and the complainant's grand-daughter. The complainant was not permitted to meet his daughter. The complainant, Maikulal and Maikulal's wife went to a relative's house while complainant's grand-daughter stayed back with her aunt i.e., the deceased. The deceased consumed poison and the petitioner herein was trying to throttle her. When the complainant tried to rescue his daughter, the family members of the petitioner started beating him. The petitioner and his family members did not take the deceased to the hospital and told the complainant that they would treat her at home. Some local medicine was administered on the deceased.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is constant improvement in the version of the complainant. He stated that in his first statement given under 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant has not made any statement as to whether it is the petitioner herein who administered poison to the deceased. He stated that only when the complainant was called by the Police, the complainant improved his version by stating that he was told by his grand-daughter that she saw the deceased being forcefully administered something by the petitioner and his family members. He stated that it is not possible that a person who has seen the entire incident, would not come forward to give a statement. He contended that the whole story of the complainant is a concocted one.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 302/304B. He stated that the deceased had been constantly tortured for dowry and when the demand was not satisfied, they did away with her by administering poison to her. He contended that even charges have been framed and, therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner ought not to be granted bail.
HC’s observations:
After hearing both the sides the HC found that the petitioner is accused of a very serious offence. The Court observed that the complainant was not inside the jhuggi where the incident occurred. Therefore, the fact that he did not reveal that his daughter was administered with some poison on the very first instance cannot enure to the advantage of the accused. In fact, this shows that the complainant did not want to falsely implicate the petitioner for an offence of murder because had that been the case, the complainant would have, at the very first instance, stated that the poison was administered by the petitioner herein only. It is only when the niece of the deceased informed him that the poison was administered to the deceased by the petitioner herein that he gave a second statement. The statement of the complainant has been corroborated by the child witness who was present at the spot at the time of the incident.
The Court stated that “the reason as to why the child did not speak out immediately cannot be analysed at this stage. The grand-daughter of the complainant is only 12 years of age. Further, witnessing such kind of incident would have inevitably traumatised and horrified the child. This Court cannot find fault in her silence at this juncture.” HC relied upon second report from LBS Hospital who has opined that "After going through the PM report finding, FSL report and opinion from medicine Deptt, the cause of death was due to ingestion of Organophosphate poisoning cannot be ruled out."
HC Held:
HC held that “The statement of the child witness, even though made after some time, does make out a prima facie case of Section 302 IPC. The constant say of the complainant that dowry was being demanded constantly from the deceased, prima facie, makes out a case of Section 304B IPC. Considering the fact that the petitioner is accused of a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for which minimum imprisonment is life sentence, the consistent stand of the complainant that his daughter was constantly being pressurized and tortured for money, and also considering the fact that a small child has witnessed the incident, the evidence is yet to be recorded and the chances of the petitioner tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”
HC declined the bail application.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Omender v. State
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 2754/2021
Picture Source :
