Delhi High Court
State vs Hanuman Dass on 31 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(3)CRIMES354, 33(1987)DLT42
JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.
(1) There was a burning incident at house no. 4-A, New Lailpur Colony, Delhi. This information was conveyed to the Police Station Krishna Nagar and a D.D. Entry No. 12-A dated 10.9.82 was registered. S.I. Raghunath Singh was entrusted with the job who Along with Constable Mohd. Yamin reached the place of occurrence. They found Smt. Kaushalya Devi in burnt condition in front of the kitchen and the room on the first floor of the house. The Sub-Inspector did not find any eye-witness of the incident. He summoned the Crime team. The information of the incident was also sent to Shri Bishambar Dayal, father of the deceased.
(2) Bishambar Dayal in his statement alleged that on 18.2.81, he had married his daughter Kaushalya Devi to Suresh Chand, resident of 4-A, New Lailpur Colony, according to Hindu rites. He had given a good deal of dowry, ornaments and clothes, including T.V. and fridge at the time of the marriage. However, after some days of the marriage, in-laws of Kaushalya Devi started demanding more dowry. The demands were duly met according to his capacity. In spite of this, his son-in-law Suresh Chand, his uncle Hanuman Dass and grandfather Bahadur Mal, his wife Smt. Tara Devi continued demanding more things. On 30.6.1982, Kaushalya came to his house and informed that her in-laws have demanded Rs. 20,000.00 in cash and a Vespa scooter. In case this demand is not fulfillled, her in-laws would not allow her to enter their house. The complainant further goes on to allege that he approached Bahadur Mal, his wife, Shri Hanuman Dass and son-in-law Suresh, pleading that he was not in a position to give anything more and that on that account they should not maltreat his daughter. On this, all the four told him that it would be better for him and for the welfare of his daughter that he should give Rs. 20,000.00 in cash and a Vespa scooter. In spite of this, Bishambar Dayal sent his daughter to her in-laws. After few days, he again received an inland letter from his daughter requiring him to fulfill the demands of her in-laws, otherwise, she would not be allowed to remain alive.
(3) On that very day, in between 8.30 to 9 P.M. one person came to his house and informed that his daughter had died due to burning and that he had been called to the spot. He immediately Along with his Advocate reached the Police Station Krishna Nagar and from there came to the spot. He saw burnt dead body of his daughter lying in front of the kitchen. He then identified the dead body of his daughter. Lastly, he stated that he was fully confident that his daughter had been burnt to death by all the four persons named above in conspiracy with each other as she could not meet their demands.
(4) On the basis of his statement, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station for the registration of a case. Fir 284/82 u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code was registered. Subsequently, on the basis of the Home Minister's letter dated 3.5.83, the investigation of the case was transferred to C.B.I. On the basis of the same F.I.R., the case was re-examined and after completing the investigation, the four accused, namely, Suresh Chand, Hanuman Dass, Bahadur Mal, Smt. Tara Devi and Smt. Kala Wati were charged to stand trial u/s 120-B, read with Section 302 Indian Penal Code and u/s 302 IPC. After the documents were supplied' to the accused persons, arguments on the charge were heard at length. By order dated 1st May, 1985, Shri S.P. Singh Chaudhary, Addl. Sessions Judge found a prima facie case to exist against accused Suresh Chand, Bahadur Mal and Tara Devi and were charged to stand trial. Accused Hanuman Dass and Kala Wati were discharged as no prima facie evidence was found to connect them with the commission of the offence.
(5) The State was not satisfied with the result of the finding of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge so far as the case against Hanuman Dass was concerned. They filed a revision before this Court which was entertained and numbered as Crl. R. 186/85. It was heard and disposed of by Charanjit Talwar, J. on March 3, 1986. The case was remanded to the trial court with the direction to give a finding on the undated letter alleged to have been written by the deceased Kaushalya Devi if it had been forcibly got written from her or not. The relevant extract of the Order of Charanjit Talwar, J. is reproduced below :- "MR.Khan points out that the explanation about the said letter by the prosecution is not borne out from the record. It is not advisable for me, as I stated above, to weigh the evidence. The Id. counsel for the parties agree that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not dealt with the aspect of that letter at all in his judgment. Apparently in case Mr. Khan's explanation is accepted his plea that the respondent was completely exonerated by the deceased is liable to be accepted but in case the letrer, it is found, was written by the deceased on dictation and she was forced to write it (as is alleged in the report) then no reliance whatsoever can be placed on that letter. It is expedient and also in the interest of justice that the learned Additional Sessions Judge be asked to give his prima facie finding not only on the letter, a copy of which has been supplied to the accused but also regarding the allegations of the prosecution that that letter had been forcibly got written by the deceased. For the time being I am not setting aside/confirming the order of 1st May, 1985 but remanding the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge only to give his finding regarding the aspect which has been indicated above."
In compliance with this direction, the matter was re-heard and a fresh look was given to it. In the final analysis, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Kaushalya Devi had written this letter of her own accord and had delivered the same to Sheela Garg for onward delivery to the Police.
(6) The State is still not convinced of the finding and has approached this court for putting Hanuman Dass in the array of accused persons Along with the three others.
(7) The contention is that the Ld. trial court failed to take into consideration the specific documents and the evidence which has come on record pointing an accusing finger towards Hanuman Dass. Ld. counsel pointed out that in the two letters dated 27.6.82 and 7.7.82 admittedly in the hand of the deceased, make a specific allegation against Hanuman Dass, a party to the illegal demand of Rs. 20,000.00 and a scooter. In these letters, it is also alleged that incase the demand is not fulfillled by the deceased's father, her life will be in danger. Ld. counsel also relied upon the statement of the deceased recorded on 5.9.82 wherein she levelled some allegations against Hanuman Dass. Besides that, reliance was also placed on the statements of Jagdish Chand and Sukhdev Sharma wherein Hanuman Dass is alleged to have reached the spot at the time of the incident when the deceased was burning and leaving the place on his scooter. All this material, according to Id. counsel, prima facie, makes out a case for charge against Hanuman Dass. Undated letter, even if it be assumed to have been written by the deceased herself is of no consequence and will not wipe out the evidence referred to above which form part of the record.
(8) The submission of the Id. counsel for the respondent Hanuman Dass admittedly is residing in a far off colony and had no interest in the affairs of the deceased and other members of the family. Admittedly, neither he was in the house at the relevant time nor was he instrumental in the alleged burning of the deceased. The undated letter which has been found to have been written by the deceased in her own hand without any undue pressure from any quarter completely exonerates him. Ld. counsel also disputes the correctness of the statements of Sukhdev Sharma and Jagdish Chand which were recorded by the C.B.I, after a lapse of more than a year or so. Lastly, his submission is that once the Id. lower court has taken into consideration all the material before it and has arrived at a particular conclusion, this Court should not interfere in the said finding.
(9) For the purpose of framing charge, the duty of the Judge is to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of the said materials, there is a reasonable probability or chance of the accused being found guilty of the offence alleged. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Judge will be at liberty to presume, " that the accused has committed an offence" as mentioned in Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of framing the charge. For the purpose of determining whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, the Court possesses comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. However, the court is entitled to sift and weigh the evidence which has come on record as to whether or not a prima facie case against the accused persons has been made out. The Court is. not expected to frame the charge mechanically but has to exercise its judicial mind to the given facts of the case.
(10) With this background, the facts of the case can be examined. The undated letter admittedly is in the handwriting of Kaushalya Devi. It came into existence sometime in between 5th September, 1982 and 10th September 1982 when she died of burns. This letter was delivered by Kaushalya Devi herself to Sheela Garg who, in turn, had handed it over to her husband Manohar Lal. Manohar Lal handed over the letter to Anand Prakash who delivered the same to A.S.L Rishi Ram and it ultimately came to the hand of R.C. Thakur, SHO/ 10 of the case. The statements of these witnesses have been duly recorded and have been believed to be correct as per the prosecution case.
(11) The contents .of this letter revealed that Kaushalya Devi had written it after her statement was recorded on 5.9.82 by Budhi Singh. In this letter, she asserted that her father had got written from her one letter in which it is mentioned that her in-laws are demanding Rs. 20,000.00 and one scooter and that they are harassing her on that account. She goes on to say that in fact there has never been any demand from her in-laws and she is writing this letter in her full senses. It is being written because she could not give the statement to the constable due to nervousness. In fact she is living with the family of her in-laws in complete harmony and without any difficulty. She concluded that no proceedings should be initiated at the asking of her father. This letter is addressed to the Sho Police Station Krishna Nagar.
(12) The contents of this letter go to show that Kaushalya Devi was quite happy with her in-laws. There was no demand of dowry from their side. The letter on which much reliance is placed by the State was got written from her at the instance of her father. In this letter, she also explains the circumstances under which she was made to make a statement to the Constable. This letter in fact wipe out the effect of the documents and the evidence now sought to be relied upon by the State against Hanuman Dass.
(13) It is not disputed that Hanuman Dass was not present at the time of the incident. In fact he had not played any part in the unfortunate incident. Further more, Hanuman Dass was not to be benefited directly or indirectly from the dowry demands, if any, made by the other accused. There is no document or any other material to show that Hanuman Dass was having a joint family with the remaining accused or was living with them in the same house.
(14) In cases of bride-burning, it has become a normal practice with the complainant party to involve each and every member of the family of in-laws of the girl, even though they are not directly or indirectly concerned with the offence. Of course, these are the grave offences and should be viewed with seriousness. However, the Court is not to be swayed away by the sentiments of the complainant party and try to rope in the innocent. It is the foremost duty of the Court to sift the evidence justifying the involvement of the real culprits.
(15) The learned lower court has taken into consideration all the relevant material and in my opinion has come to a right conclusion in exonerating Hanuman Dass. There is no worthwhile evidence to connect the accused with the offence sought to be charged. The impugned order is just, proper and cannot be said to be perverse.
(16) As a result of the above discussion, I see no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The unfortunate incident of burning took place on the 10th of June, 1982. The case is still at the stage of framing of charges. The learned lower Court is directed to dispose of this case at its earliest convenience and, if possible, by giving it precedence over the other matters.