Delhi District Court
Sc No. 70/06, Fir No. 88/06 1 State vs Mahesh Etc. on 24 February, 2007
SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 1 State Vs Mahesh etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI
SC No. 70/06
FIR No. 88/2006
PS Maya Puri
U/s 498A/406/326/304B/34 IPC
State Vs 1. Mahesh
S/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o 591, Nangal Raya,
Pandani Basti.
Maya Puri, Delhi.
2. Sagarwati
W/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o 591, Nangal Raya,
Pandani Basti.
Maya Puri, Delhi.
3. Suraj Bhan
S/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o 591, Nangal Raya,
Pandani Basti.
Maya Puri, Delhi.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.Prosecution case in brief is that deceased Smt. Geeta had married accused Mahesh in the year 2004. Accused Sagarwati is the mother of accused Mahesh and accused Suraj Bhan is the elder brother of accused Mahesh. After SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 2 State Vs Mahesh etc. marriage of the deceased with Mahesh, she was residing with all the accused persons in House No. 591, Nangal Raya, Pandani Basti, Maya Puri. It is alleged that accused Mahesh was not doing anything and when deceased used to persuade him to work, he used to beat her. It is alleged that all the accused persons also used to make dowry demands from the deceased. On 14.3.2006 at about 1:30 am police station Maya Puri received an information which was recorded as DD no. 3A informing that the deceased has set herself fire. Accordingly SI Shiv Shankar along with Dharmender reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased. There he came to know that one PCR van has taken the Smt. Geeta (deceased) to Safdarjung Hospital and thereafter to RML Hospital. Shi Shiv Shankar reached RML Hospital, where he found the deceased under treatment and was was suffering from 95% to 100% deep burns. SDM Delhi Cantt was called who recorded the statement of the deceased on that very date and also SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 3 State Vs Mahesh etc. recorded the statement of Roop Chand the father of the deceased, Asha and Sunder the sister and sister in law of the deceased. Smt. Geeta died on 20.3.2006 on account of burns injuries. The case was investigated and challan was filed under Section 498A/406/326/304B/302 IPC against the accused Mahesh. However as against accused Sagarwati and Suraj Bhan the the charge sheet was filed under Section 498A/406 IPC only. Ld. APP argues that accused Sagarwati and Mahesh are the relatives of the deceased and as per the statements of witnesses they used to harass the deceased as they were not happy with the dowry given by the parents of the deceased. It is further argued that as per statement of Sunder Singh recorded by SDM, accused Sagarwati and Suraj Bhan did not help the deceased to take hospital rather they ran away from the spot. Ld. APP has drawn my attention to the statement of the deceased in which she has stated that none had come to save her. On the other hand Ld. SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 4 State Vs Mahesh etc. Counsel for accused Sagarwati and Suraj Bhan argued that there is nothing on record to show that these accused persons did not deliberately save the deceased. It is argued that as per the record accused Mahesh and the deceased were in the room when the deceased caught fire. It is argued that accused Mahesh tried to save her and that is why he also received around 35% burns injuries on his person. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused Mahesh was also taken to hospital by PCR van along with deceased. It is further argued that the accused Sagarwati who is the mother of accused Mahesh and accused Suraj Bhan who is the real elder brother of the deceased would not have left accused Mahesh in such a serious condition. It is further argued that by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no allegation of demand of dowry prior to the incident. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to a DD no. 35A dated 24.5.2005, PS Maya Puri in which the simple allegations against accused Mahesh is SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 5 State Vs Mahesh etc. that whenever the deceased asks him to do some work, accused Mahesh beats her. It is argued by Ld. Defence that in this DD entry there is no allegation of any dowry demand against any of the accused persons.
2. Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that there is no evidence that accused had committed murder of Smt. Geeta. It is argued that had it been the situation, accused Mahesh himself would not have received 35% burns injuries. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in order to attract the liability under Section 304 B IPC, there must be some allegations that the deceased was treated with cruelty just before the incident. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the cruelty in question must also have a nexus with demand of dowry. Ld. Defence Counsel has again drawn my attention to DD entry no. 35A and has submitted that this DD entry simply shows that there was no dowry demand and accordingly Section 304 B IPC cannot be pressed in the present case. SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 6 State Vs Mahesh etc.
3. I have considered all facts and circumstances of the case. As regard accused Mahesh, I am of the opinion that specific allegations have been made by the deceased against him in her dying declaration recorded by SDM. It is specifically stated that accused Mahesh had poured over her the kerosene oil and set her on fire. Therefore the accusations clearly set out a primafacie case under Section 302 IPC against accused Mahesh. The circumstances as to how accused Mahesh received 35% burns injury on his person is a matter to be decided after a complete trial. No inferences in favour of accused can be drawn at this stage on the basis of DD no. 35A and the burns injury on the person of accused Mahesh.
4. I am of the opinion that once there are clear cut accusations and evidence of commission of murder, the ingredients under Section 304 B IPC would not be attracted in the present case. When Section 304 B IPC is not pressed against husband, the same cannot be pressed SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 7 State Vs Mahesh etc. against his relatives also i.e. against accused Sagarwati and Mahesh. Therefore I discharge accused Mahesh under Section 304 B IPC and I disagree with Ld. APP that a charge under Section 304 B IPC should be framed against accused Sagarwati and Mahesh. In view of these circumstances, I am of the opinion that only a primafacie case under Section 498A IPC is disclosed against accused Sagarwati and Suraj Bhan. It is made clear that apart from Section 302 IPC, a primafacie case under Section 498A IPC is also disclosed against accused Mahesh.
5. Ld. APP argues that accused persons have also committed criminal breach of trust against all the accused persons and a primafacie case under Section 406 IPC be also framed against them. However after perusing the statements of all the witnesses I do not find any allegation as to what Istridhan was entrusted to which accused and which one of the articles of the deceased were misappropriated by the accused persons. Therefore to my SC No. 70/06, FIR No. 88/06 8 State Vs Mahesh etc. mind, offence under Section 406 IPC is also not disclosed against any of the accused and I also discharge all accused persons under Section 406 IPC.
6. In view of above discussions I am of the opinion that a primafacie case under 302/498A IPC is disclosed against accused Mahesh and a primafacie case under Section 498A IPC is disclosed against accused Sagarwati and Suraj Bhan. Let the charges be framed.
Announced in the open court on 24.2.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi