Smt. Inderjit Kaur And Others vs State Of Delhi
2001 Latest Caselaw 1424 Del

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This revision petition u/s. 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 28th September, 1998 passed by the court of Sh. Naipal Singh, Addl. Session Judge, Delhi holding that prima facie case u/ss. 304B/406/34 IPC is made out against the petitioner in the case FIR No. 232/1996 P.S. Shalimar Bagh.

2. Prosecution allegations in brief are: that on 8th October, 1995 Smt. Ritu was married to Gurvinder Singh (petitioner No. 3). She died on 18th April, 1996 in her in-laws house on account of burn injuries leaving behind a suicide note. On the same day statement of Pritam Lal father of the deceased was recorded by the SDM. He stated that at the time of marriage of her daughter, he spent enough money and had given gold ornaments, scooter, T.V., Cooler, furniture to her daughter; her in-laws were not happy and she was taunted and harassed by her in-laws but she continued to bear the cruelties. Efforts made to reconcile the matter through the mediator did not yield any result. The girl was sent back twice or thrice. In the marriage a "Bajaj Super Scooter" was given to the boy which was replaced on the demand of petitioners by a "Vespa Select", for happy married life of her daughter. The earlier scooter was still in the name of her husband. On 15th April, 1996 her daughter was sent back requiring her to bring Rs. 1.0 lac to enable her husband to start some business. On the next day he along with his daughter and mediator went to house of the petitioners and gave Rs. 10,000/- to them. They became angry and with great difficulty they could be persuaded to accept that amount. She was asked to live separately in pursuance of the pre-planning. Smt. Raj Rani, mother of the deceased also supported this version in her statement. After completion of investigations, challan was filed. By the impugned order, learned trial court ordered the framing of charge against petitioners u/s 304-B/406/34 IPC which is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suicide note left behind by the deceased does not reveal that there was any demand for dowry, therefore, the allegations made by her parents and other relations regarding the demand for dowry, in their statement before the SDM on 18th April, 1995 or before the police cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that, in any case, there is no allegation of demand of dowry, torture or harassment by the husband and, therefore, charges framed are liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Smt. Rani and other vs. State 1996 JCC 119. Learned APP for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant argued to the contrary. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kishore Kumar v. State, 1993 Crl.L.J. 253.

4. In this case, a young girl of about 19 years committed suicide on 18th April, 1996 within six and a half months of her marriage. The statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the SDM on the same day, in which they have clearly stated that their daughter was being harassed on account of demand of dowry; they had to replace the scooter given at the time of marriage to meet the demand of her in-laws; that petitioners had demanded Rs. 1.0 lac to enable her husband to start his business and petitioners could be persuaded to accept Rs. 10,000/- with great difficulty. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charge, evidence cannot be appreciated. Even a grave suspicion is enough. Dying declaration constitutes only one piece of evidence. Statement of witnesses recorded by the SDM or by the police during investigation cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The Supreme Court in Smt. Om Wati and another v. State through Delhi Administration, 2001 Crl.L.J. 1723 has observed as under:-

"We would again remind the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law."

5. The facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners ( Smt. Rani and ors. (supra) were quite different. Each cash depends on its own facts. The observations made therein are not applicable here.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge framing charge under Section 498-A/304-B IPC against the petitioners is legal and proper. There is no merit in the petition and same is dismissed. Any observation made herein shall no effect the merits of the case during the trial.