Delhi High Court
Davesh Kumar vs State & Ors. on 16 July, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.5512/2014
DAVESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Praveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI OP Mandal PS
Paharganj
Ms. Rashmi Bansal, Advocate for
Respondents No.2&3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Petitioner is facing trial for the offence of murder in a criminal
complaint filed by his wife i.e. respondent No.2 regarding the death of
her minor child. Petitioner's application for summoning his mother i.e.
respondent No.3 as an accused stands dismissed by trial court vide order
of 10th July, 2014 while noting that respondent-complainant's application
for dropping of proceedings against respondent No.3 has already been
allowed and no case for summoning respondent No.3 as an accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is made out. Revisional Court vide impugned order
of 16th October, 2014 has affirmed the aforesaid order of trial court.
Crl.M.C.5512/2014 Page 1
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the
attention of this Court to the cross examination of respondent-
complainant to point out that she has admitted in her cross examination
that her complaint in which allegations are also leveled against
respondent No.3 is correct and that respondent No.3 in active connivance
with petitioner had deliberately destroyed the evidence by cremating the
dead body of child aged 6 years. Thus, it is submitted that impugned
orders deserve to be quashed and petitioner's application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. ought to be allowed qua respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 supports the impugned
orders and submits that misunderstanding which led to the filing of
complaint in question qua respondent No.2 now stands cleared. It is
submitted that somehow it had come in the cross examination of
respondent No.2 that the contents of the complaint were correct but
respondent-complainant in her evidence has categorically deposed as
under:-
"Q. Whether your mother-in-law was involved in
covering the body as alleged by you in para 20 of
your complaint Ex. CW-1/D1?
Ans. No."
It was next submitted on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 that
respondent-complainant in her cross examination has categorically stated
that her mother-in-law i.e. respondent No.3 did not pack the dead body of
her son and that respondent No.3 was not involved in murder of her son.
Thus, it is submitted that there is no substance in this petition.
Crl.M.C.5512/2014 Page 2
Upon hearing, and on perusal of the impugned orders, cross
examination of respondent-complainant and material on record, I find that
no doubt at one place respondent-complainant had said that contents of
her complaint were correct and that respondent No.2 had actively
connived with petitioner in destroying the evidence by cremating the dead
body of her child but respondent-complainant has contradicted herself by
clearly deposing that respondent No.3 was not involved in death of her
son or destruction of evidence.
In the face of the contradictory evidence of respondent-
complainant i.e. respondent No.2, I find that no case for summoning
respondent No.3 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is made out.
Consequentially, this petition is dismissed while not commenting upon
merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 16, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.5512/2014 Page 3
