Ashok Bansal vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 3725 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Judgment reserved on :11.08.2014
                              Judgment delivered on :14.08.2014
+      CRL.REV.P. 621/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.13514/2014
       ASHOK BANSAL
                                                          ..... Petitioner
                       Through     Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv.
                                   with Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary,
                                   Adv.
                       versus
       STATE
                                                      ..... Respondent
                       Through     Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the
                                   State along with SI Devinder
                                   Singh.
                                   Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Adv. for the
                                   complainant.
+      CRL.REV.P. 635/2009 & Crl. M.A. No.13788/2009
       CHETAN BANSAL
                                                          ..... Petitioner
                       Through     Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv.
                                   with Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary,
                                   Adv.
                       versus
       STATE
                                                      ..... Respondent
                       Through     Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the
                                   State along with SI Devinder
                                   Singh.
                                   Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Adv. for the
                                   complainant.
+      CRL.REV.P. 169/2010 & Crl.M.A. Nos.5296/2011 &
       15976/2012
       O P DAWAR & ANR
                                                        ..... Petitioners
Crl. Rev.Nos. 621/2009, 635/2009 & 169/2010                   Page 1 of 18
                              Through          Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Adv. for the
                                              complainant.
                             versus
       STATE & ORS
                                                                 ..... Respondent
                             Through          Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
                                              State along with SI Devinder
                                              Singh.
                                              Ms. Rebbecca M. John, Sr. Adv.
                                              with Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary,
                                              Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated

29.08.2009 wherein charge under Sections 306/498-A/406 of the IPC

was ordered to be framed against Rajiv Bansal. Against Ashok Bansal,

charge under Sections 406/498-A of the IPC and against Chetan Bansal

charge under Section 498-A of the IPC was directed to be framed.

Karan Bansal, Anjali Bansal and Suminder Pal Singh stood discharged.

2 Both the parties i.e. the complainant as also the accused are

aggrieved by this impugned order.

3      Record shows:-

(i)    On 16.02.2003, Pooja had been married to Rajiv Bansal. They

had been married according to Hindu rites. It was an arranged marriage.

(ii) On 19.12.2003, Pooja moved out of the house; she started living

in her parents' house. The contention of the accused is that she moved

out on her own whereas the family of the victim alleged that she had

been forced to go back to her parents' house.

(iii) On 09.01.2004, a complaint was made by Pooja at Crime Against

Women (CAW) Cell, Nanak Pura. Allegations in this complaint related

to demand of dowry made by her husband and his family and the

harassment suffered by her at their hands.

(iv) On 22.07.2004, the parties i.e. Rajiv Bansal and Pooja entered

into an agreement (which was drawn out in writing) and in terms of this

agreement, the parties had amicably settled their disputes. This

document was witnessed by Chetan Bansal, the brother of Rajiv Bansal

as also by O.P. Dawar, the father of the victim.

(v) On 24.07.2004, a letter was written by Pooja Bansal to the

Investigating Officer seeking dropping of the proceedings relating to her

complaint dated 09.01.2004.

(vi) On 02.11.2004, Pooja was admitted in the Hospital as she had

taken an overdose of sleeping pills. She was administered aid. She was

discharged from the hospital. Admittedly at that time, she was living in

her parents' house.

(vii) On 04.11.2004, the present FIR i.e. FIR No.964/2004 was

registered against Rajiv Bansal under Section 498-A of the IPC; this was

pursuant to the incident of 02.11.2004.

(viii) On 22.12.2004, the unfortunate incident (which is the subject

matter of this present revision petition) occurred. Pooja died by hanging.

This was in her parental home i.e. B-178, Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New

Delhi where she was living with her parents since 19.12.2003. This

incident was reported vide DD No. 7-A in the local police station.

(ix) FIR No.964/2004 which had initially been registered under

Section 498-A of the IPC was converted to an FIR under Sections 498-

A/406/306/304-B/34 of the IPC. Apart from Rajiv Bansal, five other

persons were arrayed as accused i.e. Ashok Bansal (father-in-law),

Kailash Bansal (mother-in-law and since deceased), Chetan Bansal

(eldest brother-in-law) and Karan Bansal (middle brother-in-law) and

Anjali Bansal (sister-in-law).

(x) During the course of investigation, a suicide note dated

22.12.2004 running into almost two pages written by the deceased was

found in her diary.

(xi) On 23.12.2004, the statements of the parents of the victim O.P.

Dawar and Sushma Dawar were recorded before the SDM. Allegations

of dowry demands were made.

(xii) The trial Court on the basis of the aforenoted evidence has passed

the aforenoted order and which is now the subject matter of revision

before this Court.

4 Arguments have been addressed by both the respective parties.

5 On behalf of petitioners Ashok Bansal and Chetan Bansal,

submission is that the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC

are not made out as the suicide note which is admittedly in the hand-

writing of the victim is only focussed upon the role of the husband i.e.

Rajiv Bansal; this suicide note which is the primary evidence with the

prosecution does not mention anything about any dowry demand made

by any of the aforenoted two petitioners; the question of entrustment

could not arise. To substantiate this argument, attention has been drawn

to the record including the compromise agreement dated 22.07.2004

entered between Rajiv Bansal and Pooja wherein also at the time of the

agreement to withdraw the allegations made by Pooja in her complaint

dated 09.01.2004, there is not a whisper of any dowry demand made by

the petitioners. Submission being that the supplementary statements of

the parents of the victim recorded on 23.12.2004 for the first time had

done paddings in the FIR and these supplementary statements which

were later in time and not in consonance with the earlier allegations

made by the victim herself, cannot be looked into; they are liable to be

ignored. Accordingly charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC

against petitioners Ashok Bansal and Section 498-A of the IPC against

Chetan Bansal are liable to be dropped. To support her submissions,

learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon 1996

Crl.L.J.1026 Smt. Rani & Others Vs. The State, 78 (1999) DLT 385

Parvinder Kaur Vs. Ms. Kanwaljit Kaur, 2007 (8) AD (Delhi) 528 D.

Malik Vs. State & Ors. and (2002) 2 SCC 135 Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs.

State of Maharashtra. Submission being that if there are two versions

available one of which is the narration of the deceased herself (which in

this case is the suicide note) and the other narrative being the version of

her parents (which are supplementary statements recorded on

23.12.2004), the latter necessarily cannot be looked into as they are

contrary to the version given by the victim herself. Thus, in the absence

of any particular or specific allegations against the petitioners, they are

entitled to be discharged.

6 On behalf of the complainant, arguments have been concluded

and additional submissions have been made in detail. The primary

submission of the learned counsel for the complainant being that charge

under Section 304-B of the IPC was liable to be framed against all the

accused and to substantiate his submission attention has been drawn to

the definition of 'dowry death' as contained in Section 304-B of the

IPC. Submission being that record clearly makes out a prima-facie case

not only against the husband of the victim but also against both the

petitioners as also against Karan Bansal and Anjali Bansal (brother-in-

law and sister-in-law) both of whom have been discharged. Qua the role

of Suminder Pal Singh, learned counsel for the complainant after an

initial submission; being bordered on the role attributed to Suminder Pal

Singh in the suicide note of the victim, has not pressed this argument

any further.

7 The role attributed to Suminder Pal Singh has been mentioned in

the suicide note of the victim. This note is dated 22.12.2004. Suminder

Pal Singh's name finds mention at two places. At the first point of time,

Suminder Pal Singh (an acquaintance of Rajiv Bansal) told Pooja to

withdraw her cases against Rajiv Bansal and only then would he take the

victim back in the matrimonial home; at a later point of time, the suicide

note discloses that when Rajiv had gone to America, Suminder Pal

Singh had told the victim that he (Rajiv) will not bend as he has an ego

problem.

8 By no stretch of imagination can this version in the suicide note

attribute any kind of offensive role to Suminder Pal Singh. Thus,

Suminder Pal Singh having been discharged is an order which suffers

from no infirmity.

9 Record further discloses that on 09.01.2004, the first complaint

had been made by Pooja before the Joint Commissioner of Police, CAW

Cell, Nanak Pura. In this complaint, the names of Rajiv Bansal, Ashok

Bansal, Kailash Bansal, Karan Bansal and Anjali Bansal have been

arrayed. This complaint categorically discloses that after her marriage,

the victim was harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry during her

marriage; it was recited that her parents had done the marriage to the

best of their ability but her husband and her in-laws were not satisfied;

the names of Kailash Bansal (mother-in-law), Ashok Bansal (father-in-

law) and Karan Bansal and Chetan Bansal (brothers-in-law) as also wife

of Karan Bansal (Anjali Bansal) found mention; they used to torture her.

Her husband was having illicit relations with another person. Her

mother-in-law used to instigate her husband to ill-treat her. Even on

festive occasions like Diwali, Holi, Karwa Choth, Raksha Bandhan, her

husband and his family misbehaved with her on account of bringing

insufficient gifts and not according to the standard of the family of Rajiv

Bansal. On one occasion, Chetan Bansal instead of taking her to the

doctor, dropped her back at her mother's house.

10 On 22.07.2004, a compromise was entered into between Rajiv

Bansal and Pooja wherein Pooja had agreed to withdraw all her

complaints and other pending cases. This was largely to bring end to the

matrimonial dispute and with the hope her husband would take her back

to the matrimonial home. The letter dated 24.07.2004 addressed by

Pooja to the Inspector of CAW Cell was to this effect; her statement

being that she wished to unconditionally withdraw her complaint against

her husband and his other family members; this being a voluntary act on

her part.

11 The trial Judge had rightly noted that the agreement dated

22.07.2004 and the consequential letter dated 24.07.2004 were written

by Pooja with the hope and expectation that she would be again taken

back to the matrimonial home. Submission of the learned senior counsel

for the petitioners that in none of these complaints, the role of in-laws or

any dowry demands have been mentioned, is negatived by the complaint

dated 09.01.2004 wherein the role attributed to father-in-law, mother-in-

law (since deceased), Chetan Bansal, the second brother-in-law (Karan

Bansal) and his wife (Anjali Bansal) is clear and categorical beside the

role of her husband for demands of dowry and the victim being harassed

for bringing insufficient dowry.

12 Admittedly, the victim was living away from the matrimonial

home w.e.f. 19.12.2003. It is not necessary, at this stage, for this Court

to deal with the allegations and counter allegations as to whether the

victim moved out of the matrimonial home on her own or she was

forced to leave it. Be that as it may, the unfortunate incident had

occurred on 22.12.2004 i.e. almost one year from her physical

separation from her husband. The incident had also taken place at B-

178, Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New Delhi which is the residence of her

parents. However certain other intervening things (apart from the

complaint dated 09.01.2004 and its subsequent withdrawal on

24.07.2004) are also relevant. On 02.11.2004, the victim had been

admitted to the hospital with an overdose of sleeping pills; she wanted

to end her life but she got saved. On 04.12.2004, FIR No. 964/2004 was

registered against Rajiv Bansal under Section 498-A of the IPC. This

related to the acts of cruelty meted out by the husband to the victim

during their matrimonial life reiterating her earlier woes. 20 days after

the incident of 02.11.2004, a suicide note was penned down by the

victim (which was later on discovered during the course of

investigation). By that time, Pooja had killed herself by hanging. The

suicide note runs into two pages. This note is in her own handwriting. A

22 year old girl who admittedly being well educated (having got a

diploma/degree from a reputed fashion designing Institute) had taken

her own life. This note was largely addressed to Rajiv Bansal; the sad

and woeful experiences of the victim during her matrimonial life had

been disclosed. It had been disclosed that Rajiv was having illicit

relations with another woman and that is why he did not care for her and

was not willing to share any kind of relationship with her despite all her

best efforts.

13 There is no doubt that the attack in the suicide note was against

the husband. There was no mention of any dowry demand or dowry

harassment by either Rajiv Bansal or his family member. To that extent,

the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is correct

that this note by itself may not make out a case under Section 304-B of

the IPC. However, the other evidence collected by the prosecution

cannot be given a go-by; it cannot be ignored. The first complaint given

by Pooja in the CAW Cell on 09.01.2004 i.e. about two weeks after her

separation from her husband (19.12.2003) is telling. This complaint

before the CAW Cell speaks of nothing but dowry harassment meted out

to her by her husband and the husband in turn being instigated by his

parents i.e. the victim's father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law

and Anjali Bansal.

14 It is not as if the complaint being withdrawn on 22.07.2004 had

ended the disputes. The complaint was withdrawn only in the hope that

the husband of the victim would restart his life with the victim. But this

did not happen. At this point, this Court would like to point out that it

was a joint family where Rajiv Bansal was living with his two brothers

i.e. Karan Bansal and Chetan Bansal. Chetan Bansal was eldest of the

family and Karan Bansal was middle brother. Anjali Bansal is the wife

of Karan Bansal. The in-laws i.e. Ashok Bansal, father-in-law and

Kailash Bansal mother-in-law of the victim were also living in the same

house.

15 It is in this backdrop that the evidence collected by the

prosecution has to be marshalled and which this Court notes is at the

stage of framing of the charge.

16 On 02.11.2004, also the victim had made an attempt to commit

suicide; she failed; FIR No. 964/2004 had been registered under Section

498-A of the IPC against Rajiv Bansal. Contents of this FIR have also

been perused. In this FIR, the complainant had reiterated that she had

given her complaint to the CAW Cell on 09.01.2004 but she withdrew

the same hoping that Rajiv would improve and he would take her back

to the matrimonial home. The supplementary statements of the parents

of the victim i.e. O.P. Dawar and Sushma Dawar recorded by the SDM

on 23.12.2004 have also clearly recited that their daughter was being

pressurized by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and

sister-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry. The statement of O.P.

Dawar coupled with the statement of Sushma Dawar has recited their

role. Sushma Dawar has clearly stated that Pooja used to tell her that her

father-in-law, mother-in-law, both the brothers-in-law Chetan Bansal

and Karan Bansal and his wife Anjali Bansal used to harass her that she

did not get enough dowry in her marriage and her father being a

property dealer should buy a flat for Rajiv in Delhi. On 19.12.2003,

Rajiv brought Pooja to their house and left her there stating that she

would be taken back only after a flat and a Honda City car was given to

him. After that Sushma Dawar spoke to family and even went to their

home but they kept on repeating that unless a flat and a car was given to

Rajiv, their daughter would not be taken back. Anjali Bansal also used

to torture their daughter both physically and mentally on the pretext of

dowry and it was because of these acts of these persons that their

daughter was forced to hang herself.

17 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

AIR 2001 SC 2828 Satvir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and

another to support her submission that one of the essential ingredients of

Section 304-B is that the cruelty must have been meted out to the victim

'soon before death'. Submission being that in this case the wife was

living separately from her husband for the last more than one year and

the question of 'soon before death' would not arise. To counter this

submission, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance

upon (2005) 12 SCC 104 Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of

Punjab. Submission being that the statements of the parents of the

victim, at this stage, are prima-facie sufficient to show that there was

cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. Additional

submission being that it was a continuing act of the petitioners which

had led to the instant case.

18 This Court is in agreement with the submission of the learned

counsel for the complainant. There is no doubt that the victim was living

separately from her husband since the last one year and the intervening

acts as detailed, which include the complaint made by her before the

CAW Cell on 09.01.2004 which was withdrawn on 22.07.2004 hoping

for a reunion by Pooja with her husband but with no response from him,

are admitted facts. The incident of 02.11.2004 when the victim had

taken overdose of sleeping pills to end her life and FIR registered

pursuant thereto (FIR No.964/2004) had reiterated her allegations

contained in her first complaint dated 09.01.2004 (largely based on the

dowry demands) all show that the victim was suffering cruelties at the

hands of her husband and his family on account of bringing insufficient

dowry. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the victim was

suffering from any mental insufficiency or illness.

19 In this factual scenario, it cannot be said that the incident of

22.12.2004 when the victim had committed suicide by hanging was not

an act 'soon before her death'. The physical, mental, emotional and

physiological trauma suffered by Pooja right from her physical

separation from 19.12.2003 was a continuous period of trauma which

was embodied in her mind and soul. The contents of her suicide note in

fact reflect the torture which she was suffering. It is heart rending. At

the cost of repetition, there is no doubt that this suicide note had

addressed most of its grievances against the husband for not allowing

the victim to join him in the matrimonial home but the other evidence

collected in the course of investigation cannot be belittled. This was a

clear instance of dowry demands made not only by the husband Rajiv

Bansal but also by his other family members including his father,

mother (since deceased), eldest brother Chetan Bansal, middle brother

Karan Bansal and Anjali Bansal, wife of Chetan Bansal. Parties were all

living together; the Court has been informed that it was a 125 square

yards plot where the petitioners and the victim were sharing a common

kitchen in their joint family.

20 The words 'soon before her death' referred to the perceptible

nexus between the death of the victim and dowry related harassment and

the cruelty inflicted upon her. No straitjacket formula can be laid down

and the time period as to what would qualify as 'soon before death'

depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

21 The three essential ingredients for establishing the offence

punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC are (i) that there must be a

demand of dowry and harassment by the accused, (ii) the deceased had

died and (iii) the deceased had died in unnatural circumstances. The

definition of 'dowry' as mentioned in Section 304-B of the IPC has the

same meaning as contained in Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1986; this includes 'giving' or 'taking' dowry and there is a penalty for

a demand of dowry. The presumption contained in Section 113-B of the

Indian Evidence Act is also attracted.

22 The impugned order in this background, suffers from an infirmity.

Additional charge under Section 304-B of the IPC is liable to be framed

against all the accused persons. Charge under Section 498-A also be

framed against the accused Karan Bansal and Anjali Bansal.

23 With these directions, the petition is disposed off.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 14, 2014 A