Narender Singh Arora vs State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4063 Del

               *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                                     Date of Reserve: 26th August 2010

                                     Date of Order: September 01 , 2010

                               + Crl. Revision Petition No.555/2003
%                                                                                                 01.09.2010
         Narender Singh Arora                                                            ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.                                               ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. R.S. Bains and Ms. Parvinder Khatra for revision petitioner.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State/ respondent no.1.
Mr. Satish Tamta for respondent no.2


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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?


                                                 JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been

preferred by the revision petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22 nd

March, 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case

No.104 of 2001 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of

charge under Section 498A/304B 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this revision petition are that the

petitioner's daughter Mrs. Arveen was married to Mr. Paramjit Singh Rana (respondent

no.2) in 1984. She delivered a child on 26th August, 1987. She committed suicide by

hanging herself from ceiling fan with the help of a chunni on 23rd November 1988. A case

Crl. Rev. P. No.555/2003 Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 1 Of 5 under Section 302/498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the

husband, father in law, brother in law and sister in law. When trial started, father of the

deceased through State got appointed Special Public Prosecutor in this case and Ms.

Rani Jethmalani a known criminal lawyer and Mr. P.K Dey her Junior conducted the

prosecution case.

3. The learned trial court came to conclusion that it was not a case of dowry death

and no case under Section 498A/304B or 302 IPC was made out against the accused

persons. Dissatisfied with the judgment, this revision petition has been preferred on the

ground that the judgment passed by learned trial court was based upon misreading of

evidence and misinterpretation of facts and law. It is stated that there was sufficient

evidence on record by way of testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9, PW-11, PW-15 and PW-

16 to show that the deceased was harassed for dowry and it was a case of dowry death.

It is also submitted that the trial court wrongly observed that the cruelty in the form of

beatings was not there. The cruelty could not only in the form of beatings but mental

cruelty by way of taunts, harassment, etc was sufficient to bring home offence under

Section 498A IPC. The trial court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective.

4. The counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the trial court did not

consider that it was a case of murder, if not of dowry death and should have convicted

the accused persons for murder.

5. This case is a reflection of mentality which is now taking grip of parents of a

deceased wife in the criminal cases. Whenever a woman dies an unnatural death within

seven years of her marriage at in-laws' house, whatever be the cause of death, the in-

laws must be hanged. This case also shows how truth is losing significance because of

the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged.

Crl. Rev. P. No.555/2003 Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 2 Of 5

6. Suicide is a known phenomenon of human nature. Suicides are committed by

living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses

which are common in life. Some are not able to cope up with the circumstances in which

they are placed. Some commit suicide because of frustration of not achieving the desired

goals. There are many cases where students commit suicide because they failed to

achieve certain percentage of marks. Some commit suicide because they are not able to

retain top position, some commit suicide because they are not able to cope with the

demands of life. Some commit suicide because they suffer sudden loss, some commit

suicide out of fear of being caught. There are various reasons for which suicides are

committed by men and women. All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex

phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was going on

in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every

suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws' house or at her parents' house

has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-

laws.

7. Normally in-laws are convicted on the testimonies of parents of the girl who, in a

fit of anger or because they had lost their daughter, are not prepared to believe that their

daughter could commit suicide for any other reason. Fortunately, in this case, the

deceased was in the habit of writing letter to her parents when she was living at her in-

laws' house and to her husband when she was living in her parents' house and these

letters were produced before the trial court. The trial court went through these letters and

after going through all the letters written by the deceased, preferred to believe the

circumstances prevalent between deceased and her in-laws, as reflected by the letters

instead of believing the testimony of father of the girl and other relatives of the girl who

wanted the court to believe that it was a dowry death. The learned trial court extensively

quoted these letters. A perusal of these letters would show that the deceased was in the

Crl. Rev. P. No.555/2003 Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 3 Of 5 habit of writing every minuscule thing happening in the family of her in-laws to her father.

She was in love with her father and in her letters gave details of happenings in the family

of her in-laws to her father. She had written to the extent that she had to go to market by

Rickshaw and that her in-laws were not well-off. She had written how her bhabi used to

behave cleverly and wanted to separate from the house, how her bhabi used to behave;

how her father-in-law used to behave, who were the servants in the family, how they

used to cook, what her bhabhi did at the dinner table, how she managed to take bigger

share of chicken and all trivial things. The learned trial court concluded that girl who was

writing to her father about each and every circumstance of her matrimonial home to such

minute details, could not have held back any information from her father if she was

harassed on account of dowry or any dowry demand had been made to her. I consider

that the trial court rightly put greater reliance on the letters written by the deceased right

up to the time of her death to her parents and rightly rejected the oral testimony of her

father and other family members who wanted the court to believe that she was being

harassed on account of dowry demands. It is well known maxim that men may speak lies

but the circumstances do not. The letters written by the deceased is her own testimony in

respect of what kind of life she was leading. This testimony of her is unimpeachable and

most reliable testimony because it was given by her when there was no shadow of any

litigation between the two and relations were normal. The testimony given by her father

is not normal testimony. Her father and other family members who deposed in the court

testified after death of Arveen and their testimony is coloured with the loss they suffered

due to sudden death of the daughter little realizing that she committed suicide not

because of dowry demands but because of her fragile and sensitive nature which is

reflected from the letters written by her. The letters reflect that she was in deep love with

her husband, her husband was also in deep love with her. It looks she was not getting all

those facilities at her in-laws' house to which she was used to and accustomed at her

parents' house. The letters do not reflect any kind of ill-treatment being meted out to her

Crl. Rev. P. No.555/2003 Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 4 Of 5 either at the hands of her husband or at the hands of her in-laws. The letters only reflect

the usual day-to-day hiccups which a newly married couple has to undergo. I consider

that the learned trial court relied upon the best evidence in order to come to a just and

right conclusion whether it was a case of dowry death or it was a case of simple suicide

and rightly acquitted the accused persons for the offences under Section 304B/302/498A

read with Section 34 IPC.

8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court did not look into the

theory of murder of the girl though charge of murder was there. In this case, the death

had taken place by hanging. There were ligature marks around the neck of deceased. It

is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the ligature mark was continuous on the

neck without a break and if it were a case of hanging, the ligature mark would not have

been continuous and there would have been a break in the ligature mark. It is submitted

that it was a case of manual strangulation and a case of murder. This theory was also

examined by the learned trial court. The trial court had referred to medical jurisprudence

and drawn a table showing differences between a suicidal death by hanging and a

homicidal death by strangulation and came to a conclusion that there was no evidence of

a homicidal death. The learned trial court also noted that to the doctor who conducted

postmortem, no questions were put suggesting that this was a case of murder and not a

suicidal death. Even otherwise, except the ligature marks, there was no other external

injuries, no mark of struggle and no other evidence to show that it was a homicidal death.

To my view, the learned trial court rightly came to conclusion that it was a suicidal death.

I find no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.

September 01, 2010                                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd

Crl. Rev. P. No.555/2003 Narender Singh Arora v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 5 Of 5