Delhi District Court
State vs . Devender @ Dev on 15 February, 2010
-:1:- SC No.135/09
State Vs. Devender @ Dev
IN THE COURT OF SH.R.P.PANDEY : ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE :
OUTER(II) ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
SC NO.135/09
State Vs. Devender @ Dev
FIR NO.77/09
PS KANJHAWALA
U/s 498-A/304-B IPC
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.The arguments advanced by Sh.Ram Pyara, Ld.Addl.PP for State and Sh.R.D.Dubey and Sh.Aizaz Ahmad, Ld.counsels for accused were heard on point of charge on 03.02.10 and matter was reserved for orders on charge for today.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case against accused Devender are that a DD entry No.16A was received at P.S.Kanjhawala at 10.00 a.m. on 22.04.09 on the basis of information received by PCR that in Gali No.8B, Roop Vihar, Mubarakpur Dabas, -:2:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev a girl has committed suicide. The said DD entry was assigned to ASI Satyavir Singh who reached at the spot and found deceased Ms.Kirti Singh wife of accused Devender hanging from ceiling fan by tying a knot in her neck with a bed sheet. The SDM was called at the spot who reached there, got the dead body photographed and case property was also sealed. Besides a diary maintained by deceased was also taken in possession , body of deceased was sent to postmortem and statement of father of deceased was recorded by SDM. FIR was registered and challan filed after investigation.
3. Accused Devender @ Dev has been charge sheeted by police to face trial for offence punishable u/s 498-A/304-B IPC. The FIR in this respect was registered on the basis of statement made by Mr.Gopal Singh to the SDM on 23.04.09 wherein he stated that he is a driver and had gone out of Delhi with vehicle of his employer on 20.04.09. On 22.04.09 he received information over phone from his wife that deceased Kimi @ Bulbul had committed suicide and, -:3:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev therefore, he returned back to Delhi on the same night at 8.30 p.m.
4. Complainant Gopal Singh has stated that deceased Kimi was also called by name of Bulbul who was aged about 18 ½ years and her marriage was solemnized on 30.11.08 with accused Devender after spending Rs.80-85 thousand and even thereafter he had demanded money from his wife, who had given the same after arranging from her brothers. Thereafter a gold chain was also demanded.
5. The complainant has then stated before SDM that deceased was pregnant for 3 months and had been at his house for last 8/10 days and on 19.04.09 her husband had come to take her back but they were not willing to send her as she was very weak but deceased became ready and went back with her husband but soon thereafter she returned back after quarreling, accused also came there and after pacifying the deceased he took her back after one -:4:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev hour.
6. The complainant has alleged that whenever deceased used to come to their house she told that her in laws used to scold her on petty matters and sometimes also used to beat her and in this respect he had complained to accused and his father but they did not bother. He further stated that deceased told him that some astrologer has told accused that she is having illicit relation with some person and, therefore, he used to beat her on this issue.
7. The SDM also recorded statement of Mrs.Ruth Massey mother of deceased who stated that marriage of her daughter Kimi @ Kirti aged about 18 years, had taken place with accused on 30.11.08 who had come to her house on 10.04.09 and remained there till 19.04.09 on which day accused came to take her back and therefore, she went back but in 20-30 minutes she alone came back in a rickshaw and told that she had quarrelled with accused because his -:5:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev sister has tutored him not to bring back deceased as she is inauspicious (MANHOOS HAI) and therefore, she will not go back to her husband's house where all the persons misbehave and taunt her on petty matters. She told her mother that her father-in-law does not like her and tells her husband that she does not know any work and should be kept away and he also taunts her on her dark complexion. She stated that her deceased daughter is in the habit of writing diary and she used to write everything in her diary. She also alleged that elder brother of accused does not do any work and he also used to harass deceased and tells her to cook food and hit her with glass and one day he pulled her chunni from her head. She also alleged that younger brother of accused kept on telling that deceased could not pull along and should be sent off. He told deceased that she had come from hut and always used to disregard her.
8. As per postmortem report of deceased the cause of her death was asphyxia consequent to antemortem hanging Except -:6:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev ligature mark on neck, no other mark of injury was found on the body of deceased.
9. In suicide note found recovered in diary maintained by deceased, she has written in her diary in Hindi Devanagari script, the translated version of the same is as under:-
"I am very disturbed because he (accused) does not give me even a single rupee and even does not eat food prepared by her. I have not only a doubt but I believe that he has an affair with a girl called Salma because he several times referred her name during the talk and even took oath in the name of child(unborn) when I started believing. But when he came to know that I have started doubting, then he declined. My mother-in-law and Devar mislead him about me (ULTA SEEDHA BOLTE HAI) and quarrel with me. My mother-in-law does not come near me but she puts fire over phone. My father-in- law, Jeth, Nand and other family members have nothing to do with it. It is better to die once instead of dying every day because a man who can cheat -:7:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev upon his wife, how can he spare any one else and therefore, I am leaving this world.
10. This is the entire material on the basis of which the prosecution wants to prove the offence alleged against accused Devender u/s 498-A/304-B IPC. Therefore, on the basis of this material the court has to satisfy itself as to whether elements of offences u/s 498-A and 304 B IPC exist against accused.
11. As observed by Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 2 following are the ingredients of an offence under section 498-A IPC:-
(i) The women must be married.
(ii)She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment.
(iii)Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the women or the relations of her husband.
(iv)The cruelty as referred should be of the nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave -:8:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev injury or danger to the life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) ; or with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
12. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biswajeet Halder @ Babu Halder Vs. State of West Bengal 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 395 the ingredients of an offence of dowry death u/s 304 B IPC are as under:-
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii)such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii)she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv)such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry;
(v)when the question as to whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon -:9:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with , any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
13. If we appreciate the evidence sought to be produced by prosecution in light of the essential ingredients of offence punishable under section 498-A IPC we find that there is no imputation of committing cruelty by accused husband against his deceased wife with a view to coercing her to meet his unlawful demand or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. It has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court that the alleged cruelty or harassment must had been to coerce wife or her relatives to bring more dowry or on account of failure to meet such demand. Neither in the statements of parents of deceased nor in suicide note left by deceased there is any such allegation.
-:10:- SC No.135/09
State Vs. Devender @ Dev
14. Similarly for constituting an offence under section 304 B IPC the cruelty or harassment by accused or his family members should have been for or in connection with demand for dowry and further it must be shown that soon before her death the woman had been subjected to by accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with a demand for dowry. The perusal of statements made by parents of deceased, who are the only public witnesses in this case, does not reveal any harassment or cruelty committed by accused for or in connection with demand of dowry. There is not even a whisper in any of those statements that deceased was ever harassed for dowry, much less any such harassment soon before her death. As per suicide note left by her, the cause of committing suicide by deceased was that she believed that accused cheated her as he was having an affair with another girl, whom she admittedly had never seen. Thus, the acts alleged do not constitute an offence under section 304 B. -:11:- SC No.135/09 State Vs. Devender @ Dev
15. This would be pertinent to mention here that I have also applied my mind whether there is sufficient material to frame a charge u/s 306 IPC against the accused. But I find that there is no ingredient of abetment to commit suicide by deceased by any act of instigating, engaging into conspiracy or intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission on the part of accused.
16. Thus, I find that there is no sufficient material to show that accused Devender has committed an offence u/s 304B/498A IPC and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the accused. He is, therefore, discharged.
17. Accused is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and his surety is discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open ( R.P.PANDEY )
Court on 15.02.10 Addl.Sessions Judge (Outer-II)
Rohini Courts : Delhi