Satnam Singh vs State & Another
2019 Latest Caselaw 1170 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of Order: February 21, 2019

+            CRL.M.C. 4017/2017 & CRL.M.A. 16179/2017
      SATNAM SINGH                                   .....Petitioner
                              Through:   Mr. Harpreet Singh Popli, Mr.
                                         Mukul Girdhar and Mr. Anuj
                                         Yadav, Advocates
                     versus

      STATE & ANOTHER                                       .....Respondents
                   Through:              Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
                                         Public Prosecutor with Inspector
                                         Kanchan
                                         Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior
                                         Advocate with Mr. R.S.Chaggar
                                         and Ms. Sangeeta Singh,
                                         Advocates for respondent No. 2
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                              ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner is the brother of deceased-Mandeep Kaur, who was married to respondent No. 2-Maninder Singh (as per amended memo of parties) on 7th December, 2014. Deceased-Mandeep Kaur, aged 24 years, had died unnatural death in her matrimonial house on 3 rd May, 2016, regarding which FIR for the offence under Sections 304B/498-A/34 was registered against second respondent, his mother and sister. After filing of the charge-sheet, trial court vide impugned order of 7 th June, 2017, ordered framing of charges under Section 304B/34 and under Section

498-A/34 of IPC and in alternative, charge under Section 302/34 of IPC has been ordered to be framed against second respondent and his co- accused (who have been declared as Proclaimed Offenders).

2. Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of the Court to the post-mortem report of deceased to point out that deceased had suffered six external injuries and the subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death is that Mandeep Kaur had died of asphyxia due to anti-mortem hanging, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all injuries are anti-mortem in nature and of recent duration. As per the aforesaid opinion, injury No. 1 is caused by ligature material around the neck and injuries No. 2,3,4 and 6 are said to have been caused by blunt forceful impact and injury No. 5 is said to be caused by sharp-edged object, like nails.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that circumstantial evidence clearly brings out that the offence committed by second respondent and his co-accused is of murder. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Pal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) 15 SCC 163 to submit that when evidence, direct or circumstantial, is available, then charge under Section 302 of IPC ought to be framed in the first instance.

4. It is pointed out that after this incident, respondent No.2 had fled away and had surrendered soon after his pre-arrest bail application was dismissed and that co-accused of respondent No.2 are absconding. It is submitted that accused persons did not call police and the photographs show that the crime scene was tampered with. Lastly, it is submitted that

accused have murdered Mandeep Kaur and they should be tried for the offence of murder and in the alternative, for the offence of dowry death under Section 304-B of IPC.

5. On the contrary, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 supports impugned order and submits that there is no basis to try respondent No.2 and his co-accused for the offence of murder. It is pointed out that as per the postmortem report of the deceased, out of six injuries, three are bruises, two are abrasions and one is a ligature mark on the neck, which indicates that deceased had committed suicide and she had left behind a suicide note, of which there is a reference in the FIR. It is also pointed out that the suicide note is contained in a diary, which was recovered from dressing table at the spot and its perusal reveals as follows: -

"Meri kismat kharab hai jo mujhe aisa parivaar mila hai, mera habby to bahut achcha hai, par iss parivaar me rahne wale baaki log bahut kharab hain."

6. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 that the bruises found on the body of the deceased are self inflicted. A reference is sought to be made to DNA report as well as to Chemical Analysis Report to submit that the death of deceased was suicidal and not homicidal.

7. Upon hearing and on perusal of charge-sheet and the decision cited, I find that if the material on record justifies framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC in the first instance, then charge of murder has to be framed. In the instant case, I find that trial court has taken into consideration the ocular version and the medical evidence and has rightly

framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, in the alternative. The prosecution version prima facie makes out a case of dowry death. Whether deceased had committed suicide or her death was homicidal, is an aspect which is in grey area and is required to be determined after the evidence is led by the prosecution.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned order of 7 th June, 2017 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No case for quashing of the impugned order is made out. Interim order is vacated. Records be remitted back forthwith.

9. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment on merits of this case, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY 21, 2019 v/s