Delhi High Court
Pradeep S. Ahluwalia vs The State on 11 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999VAD(DELHI)185, 1999CRILJ4145, 81(1999)DLT111, II(1999)DMC461, 1999(50)DRJ818
Author: K.S. Gupta
Bench: K.S. Gupta
ORDER K.S. Gupta, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21st July, 1998 and also the charge framed under Section 306 IPC by an Additional Session Judge, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition.
2. Smt. Namrita after receiving the burns on the intervening night of 16/17.12.1993 at House No. B-I/122, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, was taken to Safdarjung hospital for treatment and there she succumbed to burn injuries on 20th December, 1993. Thereafter a case was registered under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner and Smt. Susheela Verma, mother-in-law of the deceased. After the filing of the charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC against both of them, by the order dated 21st July, 1998 Smt. Susheela Verma was discharged while charge under the said Section was ordered to be framed against the petitioner and on that day itself charge was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty.
3. I have heard the petitioner who has argued in person and also Sh. Akshay Bipin for the State.
4. As is manifest from the said order dated 21st July, 1998 the Additional Session Judge formed the opinion that a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC was made out against the petitioner taking note of the statements particularly of Prem Datta, father of the deceased, Sunita Datta, Sunita Meena, Harpreet Singla, colleagues/friends of the deceased had Yogender Verma, husband of the deceased. All these statements were recorded by S.D.M.(s).
5. In the statement dated 21st December, 1993 said Prem Datta has stated that the relations in between the deceased and her husband were amicable and the deceased never complained by any problem to him. Deceased was placed under suspension but that order was revoked later on. Pradeep Ahluwalia (petitioner) working in Delhi Tourism, used to harass the deceased by making frequent telephone calls and the husband of the deceased had even made a complaint in writing to DTDC Chairman against him.
6. In the statement dated 12th January, 1994 Harpreet Singla who was posted as Assistant Manager in Delhi Tourism, has stated that the deceased used to remain tense mainly because of her mother-in-law. Pradeep Ahluwalia used to harass the deceased and make telephone calls at her house. For some time the deceased and Pradeep Ahluwalia were not on talking terms.
7. Sunita Datta in her statement dated 16th January, 1994 has deposed that she is employed with Delhi Tourism and she knew the deceased for the last about 10 years. Deceased was not pulling on well with her in-laws and the husband. She used to remain extremely tense because of her suspension and the pending enquiry. Deceased herself told that Pradeep Ahluwalia made telephone calls to her. There was a quarrel in between the deceased and Pradeep Ahluwalia in North Block office in Connaught Place and the entire staff knows about it.
8. Sunita Meena in her statement dated 11th January, 1994 has stated that she is employed in Delhi Tourism since 1989 and she had talks almost daily on telephone with the deceased. Deceased was not pulling on well with her husband. She was tortured more by her mother-in-law. Pradeep Ahluwalia also harassed her besides making telephone calls. Deceased did not get moral support from her husband.
9. Statement of Yogender, husband of the deceased dated 21st December, 1993 which is material needs to be reproduced in toto. English translation of that statement is a under:-
"On Thursday around 10.30 PM we both husband and wife were talking with each other. Talk started about the tension of the wife in office. My wife was suspended in 1989. The enquiry is pending. My wife was purturbed on that count. We had engaged a counsel and paid Rs.10,000/- to him. His name is Mr. Dhupia. My wife was angry with me as I was not giving her time as I remained busy with my job. I slept by having my face on the other side. She told me to have face towards her but I did not do it. Thereupon she went out. After two minutes I felt the smell of kerosene. I got up and saw that the light of the toilet was on. Door was closed from inside. I knocked. Namrita lighted match stick and noise thereof was heard by me. She opened the door from the other hand. I tried to extinguish the fire with hands. My father was sleeping in the drawing room. Fire had spread a lot. I threw a razai on Namrita. Thereafter I, my brother and father took Namri ta in a vehicle to Medical from there she was taken to Safdarjung.
I did not know the office colleagues of my wife. I do not know Pradeep Ahluwalia. My wife wanted to leave the job. Someone from the office of Namrita used to make calls to her. I did not make any complaint in writing to DTDC Chairman but had told Namrita to make it. Some colleague in the office whose name he does not know, harassed her as told by Namrita on phone about one and a half months back.
On that night office was also discussed. There was discussion about the Advocate. Namrita was getting angry as I did not have time for her work.
I loved my wife and she loved me too. I do not know what happened to her all of s sudden. I feel that she had no intention to do it else she would not have opened the door. May be that she just wanted to draw my attention. I do not believe that such an incident had happened. We had no quarrel."
10. It would not be out of place to state that immediately after the deceased was admitted at 12.05 AM in Safdarjung Hospital, MLC was prepared by the doctor attending on her on 17th December, 1993. It is noted in that MLC that the patient herself told that she poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze due to some mental tention. Statement made to SDM(s) at 3 AM on 17th December, 1993 by the deceased is on identical lines. It seems that in between, statement of the deceased was also recorded by the I.O. wherein she stated that around 11.30 PM she caught fire suddenly from a burning stove while preparing tea and on hearing her cries her husband came and extinguished the fire. It may be noticed that the deceased's statement as recorded in the MLC and by SDM(s) on 17th December, 1993 do not speak about the alleged harassment by petitioner as the cause for committing suicide by her. As is evident from the statement of Yogender, husband of the deceased prima facie the cause which impelled the deceased to take the drastic step of committing suicide was that he did not listen to her nor was he having time for her work. In the decision in Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 CRL. L.J. 894 the Supreme Court has held that mere allegation of harassment made by the deceased in her dying claration against the accused was not sufficient to constitute offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Assuming for the sake of argument that the eceased was harassed by the petitioner before the occurrence in question took place as stated by Prem Datta, Harpreet Singla, Sunita Datta and Sunita Meena, the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted the suicide by Namrita within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. This being a case of isappreciation of evidence the impugned order and also the charge framed against the petitioner cannot be legally sustained and deserve to be set aside.
11. For the foregoing discussion the revision is accepted, order under challenge dated 21st July ,1998 and also the charge under Section 306 IPC framed against the petitioner, are set aside and he is discharged.