Rajendra Nath Chopra & Ors vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 1509 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               RESERVED ON : 6th FEBRUARY, 2013
                               DECIDED ON : 3rd APRIL, 2013

+                           CRL.A. 175/1994

       RAJENDRA NATH CHOPRA & ORS                        ..... Appellants
                            Through :   Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with
                                        Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocate.


                            versus


       STATE                                             ..... Respondent

                            Through :   Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. R.N.Chopra, V.K.Chopra, Smt.Subhashna Chopra &

V.K.Kalra were arrested in Sessions Case No. 136/1989 arising out of FIR

No.239/1989 PS Kirti Nagar and were challened to the Court for Trial on

the allegations that on or before 12.07.1989 they harassed and maltreated

Kamal Chopra, legally wedded wife of V.K.Chopra on account of dowry

demands during her stay at the matrimonial home at 7/204, Ramesh

Nagar, Delhi. On 12.07.1989 at about 10.00 A.M. Kamal Chopra

committed suicide. During the course of investigation, Mr.V.K.Jain, SDM

recorded statement of the deceased's father and lodged First Information

Report. Post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was

conducted. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were

recorded. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation,

they were charge-sheeted and brought to Trial. The prosecution examined

twenty one witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C.

statements, the accused pleaded false implication. They examined seven

witnesses in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the

rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned

judgment, convicted all of them under sections 498A/304B IPC. Vide

order dated 29.07.1994, all the four accused were sentenced to undergo RI

for two years with fine ` 2,000/- each under Section 498A/34 IPC.

Subhashna Chopra and V.K.Kalra were sentenced to undergo RI for seven

years under Section 304 B IPC. R.N.Chopra and V.K.Chopra were

sentenced to undergo RI for ten years under Section 304 B IPC.

2. The convicts challenged the judgment of conviction in

Crl.A.No.175/1994. This Court vide judgment dated 10.10.2001

dismissed the appeal. The matter went to Supreme Court. Appeal

preferred by R.N.Chopra (Father-in-law) abated due to his death. Appeal

preferred by Subhashna Chopra (Mother-in-law) and V.K.Chopra

(husband) was dismissed. They had also undergone the sentence awarded

by the Trial Court. Appeal preferred by V.K.Kalra was accepted and the

judgment of this Court was set aside. The matter was remanded to this

Court for disposal on merits vide order dated 17.03.2009.

3. Counsel for the appellant- V.K.Kalra urged that he was not a

family member of the deceased and had no concern with their affairs.

Allegations against him are uncertain, vague and unspecific. Learned APP

urged that the appellant harassed Kamal Chopra and instigated her in-laws

to turn her out of the matrimonial home to extort money from her parents.

There are specific allegations that at the time of 'Vidai', he forced

Kamal's parents to pay ` 25,000/- though the demand was for ` 50,000/-.

The appellant did not allow PW-11 (Bawa Jai Gopal Singh), Kamal's

father to go out of the home when he went to see his daughter on getting

information about her death.

4. Admittedly, V.K.Kalra is the brother-in-law and was married

to the sister-in-law (nand) of the deceased prior to her marriage. He lived

with his family at a distance of about 3 K.M. from the matrimonial home.

Kamal was married to V.K.Chopra on 21.10.1987. She committed suicide

at the matrimonial home on 12.07.1989. No complaint was ever lodged

against the appellant by the deceased or her parents for harassment and

torture on account of dowry demands. There were specific allegations of

harassment on account of dowry demands against husband, father-in-law

and mother-in-law. None of the witness examined by the prosecution

claimed any specific demand of dowry by the appellant either from the

deceased or her parents. It is not the prosecution's case that any dowry

article including cash was ever given by deceased's parents to the

appellant to fulfil his demand. He is not a beneficiary. The parents of the

deceased were regular visitors to the matrimonial home. No dowry

demand was ever made by the appellant from them any time. The

prosecution witnesses did not depose if during their visit to the

matrimonial home, the appellant was found present or he participated in

any meeting or interfered in the family affairs of his in-laws. He also

never visited the house of the deceased's parents after the marriage.

5. In his statement (Ex.PW-11/A) made to the SDM soon after

the occurrence, PW-11 (Bawa Jai Gopal Singh) did not give specific

instance of harassment by the appellant. He made vital improvement in

Court statement that at the time of 'Vidai', he had demanded ` 50,000/-

though the deceased's parents were to pay only customary amount of `

5,001/-. He was duly confronted with his statement (Ex.PW-11/A) where

there was no such mention. PW-17 (G.S.Bawa), Kamal's brother did not

depose if any such demand was made at the time of 'Vidai'. Apparently,

the appellant was not beneficiary of that payment. It is alleged that the

appellant used to dominate the affairs in the matrimonial home and

instigated his in-laws to turn Kamal Chopra out of the matrimonial home

to extort money. Again, PW-11 did not disclose this vital fact in his

statement Ex.PW-11/A made to the SDM. No specific date was given

when the appellant allegedly instigated deceased's in-laws. His alleged

instigation had no impact and there is nothing to infer if the deceased was

ever ousted from the matrimonial home. Rather it has come in evidence

that the deceased was transferred to Ajmer and she stayed there for

substantial period even without pay. PW-11 did not give specific dates

when the deceased remained in their house for substantial period. There is

no substance in the allegation that the appellant prevented PW-11 not to

go out of the matrimonial home after he saw the body of her daughter.

Presence of the appellant being son-in-law was natural at the time of

death. PW-17 (G.S.Bawa) did not corroborate the testimony of PW-11

(Bawa Jai Gopal Singh) that he was prevented to go out to lodge the

report with the police. PW-21 (Mr.V.K.Jain) has categorically stated that

he went to the spot at 12.30 P.M. and recorded statement of deceased's

father. The information about the death of the deceased was given by her

in-laws to her parents. No other role whatsoever has been attributed to the

appellant. There are no allegations that he ever demanded any dowry

articles or maltreated the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of dowry

demands. There are no allegations of any physical or mental torture to the

deceased at the hands of the appellant. The deceased was stenographer in

Union Bank of India. She used to send letters to her parents during her

stay at Ajmer. No such letter in which she ever complained harassment at

the hands of the appellant was brought on record. No report was ever

lodged by the deceased either at Delhi or Ajmer for subjecting her to

cruelty.

6. The prosecution did not examine any independent public

witness to establish appellant's involvement in the incident. PW-3 (Kartar

Singh Bajaj) in the cross-examination expressed his ignorance if Kamal

was ever maltreated at the matrimonial home. The appellant- V.K.Kalra

had no direct confrontation with the deceased and at no stage, he

threatened her to leave the matrimonial home or to bring dowry articles

from her parents. The accusations attributed to the appellant were not

sufficiently deep seated or grave to constitute cruelty under Section 498A

IPC. The allegations that the appellant used to provoke her in-laws do not

amount to harassment with a view to coercing the deceased to meet an

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The evidence is

scanty and is not enough to prove appellant's complicity or nexus with the

unnatural death.

7. In the light of above discussion, the impugned judgment

convicting the appellant-V.K.Kalra under Sections 498A/304B IPC

cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Appeal of the appellant,

V.K.Kalra, is allowed. His bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 03, 2013 tr