Dauji Ram & Another vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 2345 Del

                                                         UNREPORTED

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     BAIL APPLN. 867/2009
                                       DATE OF RESERVE: May 26, 2009

                                       DATE OF DECISION: May 29, 2009

      DAUJI RAM & ANR.                             ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. C.S.S. Tomar, Advocate

                          versus

      STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI                           ..... Respondent
                           Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State along
                                     with Investigating Officer Inspector
                                     Rishipal Sharma.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

:     REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This is an application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on

behalf of the petitioners, Dauji Ram and Chhoti Devi, in respect of offences

registered against them under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. On the basis of

the statement of the complainant, Shri Than Singh, the father of the deceased,

Smt.Bharti, an FIR bearing No.70/2009 dated 20.03.2009 was registered

against the husband of the deceased Bharti, namely, Sonpal @ Sonu,

Smt.Chhoti Devi (Mausi), the petitioner No.1 and Shri Dauji Ram (Mausa) the

petitioner No.2 under the aforesaid Sections. All the said three accused persons

are in judicial custody since 21.03.2009.

2. The background facts are as follows. On 19.03.2009, a PCR call vide

DD No.15A was received at Police Station Khajuri Khas that at House No/C-

2/739, Gali No.12, Second Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, a woman had committed

suicide. The same was entrusted to Head Constable Om Pal Singh of the

aforesaid Police Station for taking necessary action, who reached the spot and

found that the house was a two-room set, in one of which a woman aged about

22 years was found hanging with the help of a white cotton chord. A plastic

chair was found lying on the bed in the same room. The Crime Team was

called by Head Constable Om Pal Singh and on enquiry, it was revealed that

the deceased Bharti was married to one Sonpal @ Sonu four years prior to the

occurrence. After the marriage, the deceased was living with the accused Sonu,

his aunt Chhoti Devi (Mausi) and his uncle Dauji Ram (Mausa) at the aforesaid

house in Sonia Vihar, where they were subjecting her to harassment and

torture, mental and physical, for not bringing dowry. The Executive

Magistrate, Seelampur recorded the statement of Shri Than Singh, the father of

the deceased, in which he stated that after the marriage, his daughter was being

beaten and tortured by the petitioners and whenever he came to meet his

daughter, the petitioners would not allow him to meet her. During the four

years of her marriage, he stated, the petitioners had allowed her to visit her

parental home only once. On 19.03.2009, the husband of his daughter had

telephoned him to say that his daughter was sick and he should come and visit

her. On the morning of 20.03.2009, when they reached the house of Bharti,

they were informed by the neighbours that their daughter had committed

suicide by hanging herself.

3. On the aforesaid statement of Shri Than Singh, as already stated, the

First Information Report was registered and all the three accused persons were

arrested by the police. Post mortem was conducted and the cause of death was

opined to be "Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging". The statements of

the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, including the

statement of Shri Than Singh, the father of the deceased, Smt.Omwati, the

mother of the deceased and Shri Raju Singh, the uncle of the deceased. The

said witnesses stated that after a few days of the marriage of Bharti with

Sonpal @ Sonu, her husband and his Mausa and Mausi, Dauji Ram and Chhoti

Devi, who were residing in the same house, started harassing and beating the

deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. The husband of the deceased (Sonpal

@ Sonu) demanded a plot of land. Since the said demand could not be fulfilled

by them, the torture of their daughter Bharti continued and she was regularly

beaten by the aforesaid three persons. Ultimately, since she was not in a

position to bring money for the plot, Bharti had been compelled to commit

suicide. It was further stated by the mother and the father of the deceased that a

month prior to the incident, they had gone to visit their daughter and after a lot

of difficulty, they were allowed to meet the deceased, who told them that she

was being harassed by the aforesaid three persons to the extent that she wanted

to commit suicide.

4. On the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that, though the FIR had been registered under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC,

the ingredients of the said offences were not made out. He contended that in

order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, there must have been a

demand for dowry and that too soon before the death of the deceased, and, in

the instant case, the contents of the FIR showed that the father of the deceased,

in the first instance, though he stated that the deceased was being beaten and

tortured by the accused persons, there was no reference to any dowry demand

by him. There being no reference in the FIR to any dowry demand, he further

contended, subsequent reference to the demand for dowry by way of a plot of

land, as set in the statements of the father, the mother and the uncle of the

deceased, could not be relied upon, being an after-thought. Thus, the learned

counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contents of the FIR, even if taken

to be wholly correct, no offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out against

any of the accused persons. Further, the learned counsel submitted, in the

statements of the father, the mother and the uncle of the deceased, the only

allegation was that the husband of the deceased (co-accused Sonpal @ Sonu)

had demanded a plot of land, but there was no such allegation against the

present petitioners. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in

Smt.Inderjeet Kaur Vs. State reported in 2005(2) JCC 720 to contend that the

petitioners deserved to be granted bail as the ingredients of the offence under

Section 304-B IPC were non-existent.

5. Mr.Manoj Ohri, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, on the

other hand, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the

ground that there was sufficient evidence on the record to prima facie suggest

that all the three accused persons were guilty of the commission of the offences

under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. He submitted that the contents of the

challan revealed that the deceased was being harassed and tortured for dowry

and the aforesaid harassment and torture, including beatings which were being

regularly meted out to her, were on account of the insufficient dowry taken by

her to the house of her in-laws and the demand for a plot of land by them. The

deceased, he further submitted, was not allowed to meet her parents or to go to

her parental home and was virtually a prisoner in her matrimonial home. On

the one occasion, when her parents visited her house to meet her, she

complained to them that such was the harassment and torture meted out to her

that she wanted to commit suicide.

6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

AIR 2008 SC 332, to contend that the statement of a witness for the purpose of

enabling the Court to arrive at a finding that the ingredients of the offence

under Section 304-B IPC had been established, must be read in its entirety. It is

not necessary for a witness to make a statement in consonance with the

wording of the statute and what is needed is to find out as to whether the

evidence brought on record satisfies the ingredients thereof. In the instant case,

the evidence brought on record clearly establishes that the deceased Bharti had

all along been subjected to harassment, torture and even beatings on the ground

that her father had not given enough dowry to her at the time of her marriage.

Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi

Lal (supra), Mr.Ohri also contended that for proving the said fact, it was not

necessary that the demand of any particular item should have been made. In

any event, he submitted, in the instant case after the recording of the FIR, the

statement of the father of the deceased Bharti had been recorded, in which he

clearly stated that the demand of her in-laws was for a plot of land. The

statements of the mother of deceased Bharti, Smt.Omwati and her uncle were

to the same effect and corroborated the statement of the father.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, I am of the view that it bears keeping in

mind that this is not a case where omnibus allegations have been made against

all the members of the family, inasmuch as the other in-laws of the deceased

Bharti, who were not residing with the deceased, have not been roped in the

case. The First Information Report was lodged only against the accused

persons, with whom the deceased had been residing during the four years'

duration of her marriage. Accordingly, on the facts, as narrated in the challan,

and as they emerge from the statements of the parents of the deceased, prima

facie, in my view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC

must be held to be made out. Indubitably, there must exist a live and

proximate link between the cruelty and harassment, the demand for dowry and

the resultant death of the wife so as to form a cause and effect nexus. It is so

evidenced by the language used by the legislators while drafting Section 304-

B IPC and it has been so interpreted in a catena of judicial decisions. Such a

live and proximate link, in my view, is prima facie clearly made out in the

instant case, which, coupled with the presumption raised by virtue of Section

113-B of the Evidence Act, disentitles the petitioners to the grant of bail.

8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the

decision of this Court on the case of Inderjeet Kaur (supra) is also misplaced,

as in the said case, the learned Single Judge had arrived at the conclusion that

even if the entire contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the deceased's

mother are taken at their face value and taken to be true and correct, no

offence under Section 304-B IPC was made out qua the petitioners (not

including the husband). It was also noticed in the said case that the

learned counsel for the State had been unable to point out any specific demand

of dowry having been made on the part of the petitioners. In the present case,

clearly it is not so. The statements of the father, the mother and even the uncle

of the deceased leave no manner of doubt that the deceased was imprisoned in

her own house, taunted, tortured and beaten by the petitioners on account of

the fact that her parents had not satiated their lust for dowry. The parents of

the victim were not allowed to interact with her. This by itself is a

circumstance which speaks volumes and not much imagination is required to

arrive at the inference which follows viz., they did not consider it worth

their while to maintain ties with the other side who had not lived upto

their expectations. The victim bore the brunt of it to the point that she

preferred to snap her link with life. In such circumstances, to say that

the father of the victim, in the FIR, should have come out with minute

details and a precise statement in consonance with the statute would, in my

view, tantamount to dogged refusal to read and view the evidence in its proper

prospective.

9. Bail Application No.867 of 2009 accordingly stands dismissed.

REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

MAY 29, 2009 dc