Delhi High Court
Reenu & Ors. vs State on 7 July, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 271/2011
% Judgment delivered on:7th July, 2011
REENU & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Anil Kumar Thakur, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for
the State
W.Inspector Parvati from PS
DIU/outer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? YES
SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)
1. Notice. Counsel as above accepts notice on behalf of the
State. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final
hearing.
2. On receipt of DD No.6A ASI Anil Kumar along with Ct. Abhay
reached at the house No.811, Khera Khurd, wherein he found that
the main gate of the house was opened and on the spot one Jai
Bhan and Jaipal Khatri were present. In their presence the police
broke open the door of the room and found, on the floor of the
one room, dead body of one Reena W/o Hemant was lying. On
enquiry it was revealed that she had been married only two years
ago. The Executive Magistrate was informed, who recorded the
statement of one Jaipal KHatri, the father of deceased, which
reads as under:-
"That he had married his dlder daughter
Reena on 10.02.2008 with Hemant R/o
Village Khera Khurd, as per Hindu Rites and
Rituals and he had spent `15 lacs on the
marriage. After marriage, his daughter
used to be harassed by her husband and
Nanad Kavita for the demand of dowry. His
son in law used to demand Santro Car,
though, he had given an alto Car in the
marriage, which he had broken down. The
sisters of his son in law used to demand
their share in the property and they used to
threaten his daughter that in case, the
demands were not met they would kill her.
This fact was disclosed to him by his
daughter Reena. Today on 8.12.2009, he
was informed by one Jai Bhagwan that
Hemant had killed Reena and had run away.
Thereafter, he reached the spot and found
that the main gate of the house was open
and with the help of police, the door of the
room was broken, where the dead body of
his daughter was lying and he was having
strong suspicion that his daughter Reena
had been killed by her husband Hemant and
three sister in laws along with Mama of
Hemant in a conspiracy."
3. On the said complaint endorsement was made and
consequently an FIR No.257/2009 under Section 498A/304B was
registered at P.S. S.B.Dairy and investigations were taken up by
Inspector Vikram Singh.
4. During investigation by another Inspector Rakesh Rawat to
whom the complainant produced two letters written in the
handwritings of the deceased which were also seized.
Supplementary charge-sheet qua the accused persons Renu,
Ranjana, Kavita and Joginder was also filed.
5. Vide order dated 22.09.2009 the court directed that both
the charge-sheets to be tried together, as they emanated from
the same FIR. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed and
vide order dated 22.03.2011 order on charge was passed.
6. It is apparent from the statement of complainant Jaipal
Khatri recorded on 08.12.2009 by the SDM, and his
supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded
on 28.04.2010. The statement of his wife Krishna u/s 161 of
Cr.PC, as well as the writings left by the deceased Reena, which
has been found to be in her hand writing as per the report of the
hand writing expert of the FSL dated 26.11.2010.
7. On the basis of the sufficient material on record the learned
trial Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against
the accused Hemant Mann, the husband of deceased, and against
the petitioners/co-accused under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
8. In the present case there is sufficient material on record as
well as the allegations that all the accused persons soon before
the death of the deceased treated her with cruelty in relation to
the demand of dowry as stated by father of the deceased in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased told him
on 21.11.2009 i.e. soon before her death, which took place on
08.12.2009. There is a similar statement made by his wife
Krishna mother of the deceased regarding cruelty made out by all
the accused persons on the deceased in relation to the demand
of dowry soon before her death.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on mere
suspicion none of the person can be impleaded in the criminal
case. The letters on record are undated. The first statement
recorded before SDM which is at page 48 of the petition shows
that there was no demand of dowry before the death of
deceased. Petitioners were implicated only in the supplementary
statements.
10. The petitioner is in the revision against the charge framed.
The settled law is that if the evidence against the petitioner goes
un-rebutted, even then the accused persons would not be
convicted or a case of no evidence, in that case the accused
persons could be discharged at the stage of framing of charge.
11. Here in the instant case the statement of the father and
mother of the deceased who made allegations against the
petitioners and thereafter the handwriting expert has also given
the opinion on the letters written to the father and mother of the
deceased prior to her death, wherein allegations are there
against the petitioners.
12. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized on 10.02.2008
and death took place within the seven years of marriage under
the suspicious circumstances. As is recorded in the post-mortem
report the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia, as a
result of smothering. Postmortem findings are consistent with
attempt to manually strangulate, and as per settled law if the
ingredients of Section 304B are satisfied, then the section would
apply, if the death is unnatural, either homicidal of suicidal, it
would be the death, which can be said to have taken place in
unnatural circumstances and the provision of Section 304B would
be attracted. Accordingly, the charge would be framed u/s 304-B
also, as was decided by the Supreme Court in case of Smt.
Shanti & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226.
13. Prima facie, in the letters the serious allegations are made
against the petitioner. Moreover, at the stage of charge the Court
cannot examine and appreciate the evidence meticulously, as
this is not an appeal before this Court, therefore, I am not inclined
to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge.
14. The revision petition No.271/2011 is dismissed.
15. All other pending applications are disposed of being
infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
JULY 07, 2011/
mr/RS
