Delhi High Court

Surmila Devi vs The State & Anr. on 3 December, 2008

Author: Aruna Suresh

              "UNREPORTABLE"
*     HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Crl. Rev. (P). 297/2005

                                    Date of decision: 3.12.2008

#     SURMILA DEVI                               ..... Petitioner
!                     Through : Mr. S. C. Sagar, Advocate


                               Versus

$     THE STATE & ORS.            ..... Respondents
^             Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney,
                        APP for the State
                        Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate for
                        Respondnet Nos. 2-4

%
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

     (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
         allowed to see the judgment?

     (2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

     (3) Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest ?

                            JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 read

with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code

(hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed

by the complainant Smt. Surmila Devi against the

judgment dated 8.2.2005 of the then Additional

were acquitted of the offences under Sections

302/498/201/34 IPC.

2. Briefly narrated, the case of the prosecution is that

Meena since deceased was married to accused

Ram Naresh on 10.12.1998/1993 (year of marriage

is disputed) at Imligarh, Gulluwara, Bihar. After

her marriage with respondent Ram Naresh, Meena

lived in her matrimonial home in Bihar and she

visited her parents house at Delhi only thrice on

the occasion of marriage of her sisters since after

her marriage till her death on 17.08.2003. On

27.5.2003, marriage of Meena‟s sister Seema was

fixed and she was brought from Bihar by the

petitioner and her husband on 19.5.2003 to Taimur

Nagar and deceased was taken away by her

husband to Bihar on 29.5.2003 and upon reaching

Bihar, Meena gave a phone call to the petitioner

that she was alright. On occasion of Raksha

Bandhan on 11.8.2003, Meena‟s father went to

Meena‟s house, where he was abused and Meena

was not sent along with him and finally on

17.8.2003, petitioner received the information

about Meena‟s death and also that she had been

cremated.

3. After the death of Meena, the concerned SDM

recorded the statement of the

complainant/petitioner and in her statement, she

levelled allegations of torture and harassment for

want of dowry against the respondents namely

Babaji Kharga; father-in-law, Ram Naresh; husband

and Hari Narayan; brother-in-law (Jeth) of

deceased Meena and expressed her suspicion that

Meena was killed by the respondents. Statement

of the complainant was also endorsed by Uma

Kant, father of the deceased and another

prosecution witness. Uma Kant also made similar

statement before the SDM. Hence, at the instance

of the SDM, the case was registered against

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 498-A/304-

B/34 IPC.

4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments on

charge, was of the view that since marriage had

taken place 10 years before the death of Meena,

charges under Section 304-B IPC were not made

out and therefore was pleased to frame charges

under Sections 498A/302/201/34 IPC against the

respondents. In the impugned judgment, the Trial

Court discussed the entire evidence of the

prosecution as produced before it on the merits of

the case and found that prosecution had failed to

prove its case against the respondents and was

pleased to acquit all the respondents of the charges

framed against them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the Trial Court erred in not framing charge

under Section 304-B IPC against the respondents

and also in not proceeding further in the trial of the

case for the said offence. This plea cannot be

allowed to be raised by the petitioner in this

revision petition specially when after the framing of

charges, the complainant/petitioner had no

grievance against the order of the Court on charge

and consequent framing of charges as the State did

not prefer any revision petition against the said

order on charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that Meena was actually married on 10.12.1998

and therefore she died of unnatural death within 7

years of her marriage and the marriage card

placed on record and relied upon by the Trial Court

pertained to one Asha and did not relate to the

marriage of Meena. According to the petitioner,

she has no daughter by the name of Asha. The fact

remains that the card was got verified by the Trial

Court and the verification report clearly indicated

that it was deceased Meena who was married to

Ram Naresh on 10.12.1993 and Meena was also

known by the name of Asha. The parentage of

Asha on the card is that of the petitioner and her

husband Uma Kant. There is also a document

annexed to the verification report signed by as

many as 49 persons including the Sarpanch etc. of

the village certifying that Ram Naresh‟s marriage

was attended by those persons which took place on

10.12.1993. In this marriage, Ram Naresh was

married to deceased Meena who lived in her

matrimonial home in the village itself for 10 years.

The Trial Court considered this objection of the

petitioner in its judgment and observed:-

"........ While mother of deceased had stated that deceased was married to accused Ram Naresh on 10.12.98, accused during interrogation stated that he was married to Meena on 10.12.93. He also gave to the police, his marriage invitation card. A police official visited the village of accused to verify the date of marriage of Ram Naresh and a large number of witnesses, who had attended the marriage party and Up Mukhiya (vice president) of Distt. Mujaffarpur, village Pirocha had supported the fact that Ram Naresh was married to Meena on 10.12.93. The marriage invitation card was also stated to be correct.

....

The complainant had given the date of marriage of deceased as 10.12.99, whereas the accused Ram Naresh in his disclosure statement to police stated that he was married to her on 10.12.93. Accused also produced the wedding card, copy of which is on record. Prosecution in the challan has not disclosed the entire facts, which came out in the investigation. However, Const. Devnidhi had visited the village of accused persons to find out as to when accused Ram Naresh got married to deceased and he recorded statements of several witnesses, which are placed on record. It is settled law that if

prosecutions has filed some documents on record, same can be read in evidence in favour of accused without formal proof. These documents are diary dated 29.10.03 regarding departure of Const. Devnidhi for Mujaffarpur, Bihar at 5.30 p.m. on 31.10.03. At Bihar he recorded statements of one Vinod Kumar and other witnesses and he gave report. Documents show that he had recorded statements of Pandit who performed the marriage, Nai (barber), florist and other members of marriage party and after recording statements, he proceeded back on 1.11.03. There is DD entry dated 31.10.03 of Gayaghat Thana showing his presence in that police station at Bihar. Statements of witnesses recorded by him and his report shows that marriage had taken place on 10.12.93. However, prosecution did not made his report, the documents and statements of witnesses recorded by him as part of evidence. Wedding card given by accused persons was verified and found to be correct."

7. The Trial Court therefore was right in its view that

complainant had deliberately given false statement

regarding the date of marriage of deceased Meena

with Ram Naresh, so as to bring the case within the

ambit of Section 304-B IPC; may be at the instance

of the police officials.

8. Admittedly, no evidence has been placed on record

by the prosecution to indicate that Meena was

murdered by the respondents. Expression of

suspicion on the respondents by the

complainant/petitioner and her husband Uma Kant

in their statement made to the SDM that Meena

was killed by the respondents, without any

corroborative piece of evidence, cannot be

considered as sufficient evidence to implicate the

respondents for having committed an offence

under Section 302 IPC. Prosecution has not

collected any evidence nor investigated the case to

find out if Meena was murdered by the

respondents/accused. Might be, the Investigating

Officer did not proceed with the investigation of

this case in the perspective of an offence having

been committed under Section 302 IPC because of

the reason that the persons, who accompanied the

deceased to the clinic of Dr.Vinod Wadhwa (PW-6)

had given him the history of diarrhoea and

vomiting for one day which finds mention in the

Doctor‟s certificate Ex. PW6/8. There is no

evidence to the contrary to indicate that Meena did

not die of natural death.

9. As regards the offence under Section 498A IPC, the

Trial Court was right when it held that there was

no evidence on the record to indicate that Meena

was tortured and harassed, physically or mentally

for demand for dowry. As per the FIR, at the time

of marriage, respondent Babaji Kharga, father-in-

law of the deceased had demanded Rs. 90,000/- as

dowry and at that time Rs. 70,000/- were paid but

remaining Rs. 20,000/- could not be paid by the

complainant/petitioner as she could not arrange

the same. Petitioner had tried to state that in

between Meena used to tell her that her father-in-

law and husband used to beat her for remaining Rs.

20,000/-. Suspicion to the cause of death, probably

also was caused because Meena was cremated on

16.8.2003 at Kapasheda by accused Ram Naresh

and Hari Narayan in the presence of neighbours,

without giving any information to the complainant

and her husband Uma Kant; the parents of the

deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

has dealt with the charges under Section 498-A IPC

in his judgment in the following manner:

"The charges in this case were u/s 302/201/498A IPC. It is the case of parents of deceased that she used to live in Bihar at the native village of her husband Ram Naresh. He used to work in Delhi and used to go to his native village for 10-15 days in a year. During the entire years of her marriage, she was brought to Delhi thrice by her parents on the occasion of marriages of her sisters. It is obvious that prior to the incident, there was no complaint made by deceased to her parents about anything, either about her harassment or demand of money and she was not visiting her parents time and again. She was living in Bihar and accused used to visit his village once in a year for few days. If there would have been any complaint, deceased would have written letters to her parents or she would have visited her parents more frequently. If she had no money to visit her parents more frequently, she would have atleast told her parents to counsel her in laws not to harass her but the evidence shows that there were only three visits of deceased to her parents‟ house during the entire period of her married life."

10. The Trial Court was correct in its approach while

assessing the prosecution evidence as adduced on

the record in coming to the conclusion that

prosecution had failed to prove its case against the

respondents either under Section 302 IPC or under

Section 498-A IPC or even under Section 201 IPC

of having destroyed the evidence.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that even

ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made from

the allegations contained in the FIR. There is no

evidence to indicate that deceased Meena was

subjected to cruelty for demand for dowry.