Sheela @ Sushila Chhabra vs State And Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1194 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. The deceased Madhubala and the respondent No. 3 were married on 17.11.1992. Respondent No. 1 is the mother-in-law and the respondent No. 4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Respondent No. 5 is the wife of the respondent No. 4. From the very beginning, the deceased had an unhappy married life because she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in connection with the demand of dowry. On 19.7.1996, while in office, the deceased's father Hari Chand Chhabra received the information about her death in her matrimonial home. On Receiving the said information, he rushed to the house of his son-in-law and found her daughter lying dead with several injuries on her person. This aroused his suspicion and he, therefore, made a statement before the police about murder of his daughter by the respondents on the basis of which, the FIR No. 396/96 was registered at the Police Station, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge sheet under Sections 302/201/304-B/498-A/506, IPC against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. On perusal of the materials on the record and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charges Under Sections 302/120-B/506, IPC against the accused persons are groundless. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge the materials on the record make out a prima facie case under Section 498-A, IPC against all the accused persons and a case under Section 304-B, IPC against the accused Vinnet Suri and Smt. Darshana Suri. Consequently, he discharged the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/506, IPC and framed the impugned charges against the respondents No. 2 to 5, vide orders dated 10.10.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased's mother (petitioner) has come up in revision before this Court.

2. At the outset, I must make it clear that at this stage elaborate documentation on merits is to be avoided as I am anxious not to prejudge or prejudice the case of either side. According to the prosecution case, on the day in question, the deceased Madhubala was murdered whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge took it a case of suicide. There is no direct evidence on the said point and the prosecution case solely hinges on circumstantial evidence. One of the staggering circumstances against the accused persons is the presence of 17 injuries on the dead body. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, has opined that in view of the said ante mortem injuries on the dead body the homicidal hanging cannot be excluded as these injuries could not be self-inflicted. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ignored the large number of external ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body. When these injuries are counted in association with the findings regarding the internal organs, they all would cumulatively lead to a prima facie conclusion in favour of the theory of murder. In view of such external injuries, a conclusion that the deceased would have committed suicide is a preposterous inference.

3. The materials collected by the prosecuting agency clearly suggest that the motive for the alleged crime was demand of dowry by the accused persons. Case diary statement of Dr. Harpreet Singh Cheema shows that immediately after the alleged incident, he was called by the accused persons. According to this witness, when he reached the house of the accused persons, he found the deceased dead and the accused persons sought his help to save them. That apart, none of the accused persons informed the police about the alleged incident. The aforesaid conduct of the accused has relevance in the analysis of the whole circumstances against them. It is well settled that at the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defense of the accused. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge,

4. In the instant case, material collected by the prosecuting agency clearly suggests that on the day in question, the accused persons formed a common intention to commit murder of the deceased Madhubala in pursuance of which they caused her death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC also. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in reaching the conclusion that Madhubala had committed suicide. Due to gross misreading of the circumstances propose to be proved by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge caused a miscarriage of justice by discharging the accused persons of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC.

5. In Prakash Chander v. State, I (1994) CCR 36, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the offences under Sections 302 and 304-B, IPC are not mutually exclusive. In this context I may usefully excerpt the following observations :

"We also find that Sections 302 and 304B, IPC are not mutually exclusive. If in a case material on record suggest commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and also commission of offence under Section 304, IPC, the proper course would be to frame charges under both these sections and if the case is established then accused can be convicted under both the sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 304B, in view of substantive sentence being awarded for the higher offence under Section 302, IPC."

6. Where the facts relied upon give rise to an inference of murder or dowry death, a charge may be framed under Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either cumulatively or alternatively for murder and dowry death. That being so, in the instant case, charges under Sections 302/34, IPC and in the alternative under Section 304-B, IPC ought to have been framed against the accused persons.

7. As noticed earlier, the present revision has been filed by the deceased's mother, i.e. by a private party. The State has not filed a revision against the discharge of the accused persons of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 contended that the present revision at the instant of a private party is not maintainable. In Thakur Ram and Ors.v. The State of Bihar, :

"In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of Section 435 under which the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken up the matter sou motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book."

8. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant, can be exercised only in exceptional cases where interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. (Satyendra Nath Dutta and Anr. v. Ram Narain, ; Akalu Ahir v. Ram Deo Ram, ; Chaganti Kotaiah and Ors. v. Gogineni Venkateshwara Rao and Anr., ; and Bakal putri Narayana Gajapathi Raju and Ors. v. Bonapali Peda Appadu and Anr., ). It has to be borne in mind that to commit or perpetuate an error is no virtue but to rectify an error or annul a manifest illegality or injustice is a compulsion of judicial conscience.

9. It is relevant to mention that the evil of dowry is a matter of concern for the Society as a whole. This evil is in vogue in our society since the time in memorial and will take time for its complete eradication. The crime of domestic violence or dowry death has been on the increase and spate of cases have been pouring in the Courts for adjudication and innumerable cases are lying dormant under the debris of judicial records. In Vashawant v. State of Maharashtra, :

"Wife burning tragedies are becoming too frequent for the country to be complacent. Police sensitization mechanisms which will prevent the commission of such crimes must be set up if these horrendous crimes are to be avoided. Likewise, special provisions facilitating easier proof of such special class of murders on establishing certain basic facts must be provided for by appropriate legislation. Law must rise to the challenge of shocking criminology, especially when helpless women are the victims and the crime is committed in the secrecy of the husband's home. We hope the State's concern for the weaker sections of the community will be activised into appropriate machinery and procedure."

10.1 have already held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has caused miscarriage of justice by discharging the accused persons of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC. It has to be borne in mind that criminal justice is attuned to the social well being of the society and it is not merely a question of punishing an individual accused for an isolated crime. The social objective cannot be lost sight of in dealing with the offences relating to dowry death or domestic violence. I, therefore, consider it just and expedient in the interests of public justice to set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharging the accused persons of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IPC.

11. In the result, the revision is allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to frame a charge under Sections 302/34, IPC against the accused persons in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.12.1999.