Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Rani & Others on 27 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Argument :20.07.2011
Date of Order :27.07.2011
SC No.38/10
FIR NO.:379/07
PS:Geeta Colony
U/S:498-A/304-B/34 IPC
State Vs. Raj Rani & Others
ORDER ON CHARGE
The prosecution case in brief is that Ms.
Sobha was married with Sh. Sumit Gupta on
12.05.2006. Smt. Raj Rani is mother-in-law, Sh. Amit is
brother-in-law (Devar), Ms. Guddi, Ms. Shama, Ms.
Sonika and Rafi are the sisters-in-law of Ms. Sobha.
The in-laws of Ms. Sobha had demanded Rs.
2,00,000/- in cash and articles of Rs. 2,50,000/- before
solemnization of Tika ceremony. The Tika ceremony
did not take place due to non fulfillment of said
demands. Few days before the marriage the in-laws
demanded Maruti. Due to intervention of relatives,
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 1 of 15
marriage was solemnized without giving Maruti.
However, the parents of Smt. Ramwati, Mother and Sh.
Tara Chand Gupta, spent more than Rs 1,50,000/-
which was beyond their capacity in the marriage.
There were no usual visiting terms of Ms. Sobha in her
parent's house after the marriage. In the month of
January, 2007 Smt. Raj Rani demanded Rupees Two
Lacs for arranging employment for her son Sumit,
husband of Ms. Sobha. The parents delivered this
amount after taking loan. In August, 2007 at the
festival of Rakhi Smt. Raj Rani demanded chain of two
tola and one ring and CBZ motorcycle. The parents
could not fulfill this demand. As in-laws of Ms. Sobha
did not allow her to have conversation on phone
22442264 installed at her matrimonial house so they
delivered a mobile no 9250277287 to her so that they
could have conversation with her. On 23.10.2007 at
about 06:30 pm neighbours of in-laws of Ms. Sobha
came and informed them that Ms. Sobha had
committed suicide by hanging. They arrived at her
matrimonial house. Police was found present there.
Their daughter was found hanging on the fan. It has
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 2 of 15
been alleged that family member of her in-laws
namely Smt. Raj Rani, Sh. Amit, Brother-in-law, elders
Nanad Guddy and her husband Sanjay used to harass
her and Smt. Raj Rani used to beat her. On the
statement of parents of Ms. Sobhs FIR No.379/07 at PS
Geeta Colony U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC on 23.10.2007
was recorded. After investigation of the case police
filed a charge sheet against Smt. Raj Rani and Sh. Amit
Gupta, Mother-in-law and brother-in law of deceased
Ms. Sobha for their trial for said offences. Smt.
Sangeeta Gupta and Sanjay Gupta were shown in
column no. 2 in charge sheet.
2. Ld. ACMM vide his order dated 14.02.2008
took cognizance of said offences only against accused
Ran Rani and Amit Gupta. After supplying of copies of
documents and charge sheet the case was committed
to the court of sessions and it was assigned to this
court.
3. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 3 of 15
accused persons on charge and perused file.
4. Ld. Defence counsel argued that there is not
sufficient evidence on record against any of the accused
for framing charge against them, therefore, they may be
discharged for the above offences punishable U/s
498A/304B/34 IPC.
5. In his arguments Ld. Defence Counsel also relied
on the contents of suicide note left by deceased. It will be
relevant to reproduce the said contents which run as
under:
"Dear Monu,
Main ja rahi hoon kyunki ab main nahi jeena chahti
hoon. Mujhe kisi se bhi koi shikayat nahin hai. Aap ki
mummy acchi hain mujhe pyar bhi karti hai. Un se bhi
mughe koi shikayat nahin hai. Bas ab man bhar gaya hai.
Ham dono main bahut pyar hai. Aap khush rehna aur
apni mummy ki sari baat maan lena. Samagh rahe
ho na ki main kya kehna chahti hoon. Accha ab bas.
Mummy papa main apni marzi se mar rahi hoon
kyunki ab lagta hai ki bas sari duniya dekh li. Aap koi bhi
rona mat kyunki aisi maut per koi nahin rota hai. Mujhe
maaf ker dena.
Ankur, Amit, Aakash ab tum mummy papa ka kehna
manna. Un ko sambhal lena. Papa aap bahut acchein
hain. Aap ne hamesha mera sath diya par ab main app ko
rula ker ja rahi hoon. Mujhe maaf ker dena.
Monu aap bhi mujhe bahut pyar kerte hain. Main
janti hoon ki app mere jane per bahut roenge par rona
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 4 of 15
nahin. Bhagwan se meri prarthana hai ki har janam main
aap hi mughe mile.
Love you Monu.
Sab ko pyar."
6. In support of his arguments Ld. Counsel for
accused persons relied on a case Smt. Rani & Another
vs. The State 1996 JCC 119 wherein it was held by Delhi
High Court that:
"In the suicide note, which is taken to be the dying
declaration, there is no mention of any in-laws making any
demand for dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty or
harassment for any connection with any demand for dowry.
It appears from the dying declaration in the suicide note
that the husband had taunted her for dowry on that day
only and had beaten her badly for the first time. The said
dying declaration opens with the words "Ganesh today you
have suspected me without any reason as no act of mine is
wrong"... "I am angry only because he has suspected me
without any basis. There is in my heart no body except
him. There was none before and nor will there be any in
future." This shows that the reason for maltreatment was
suspicion in the mind of husband about wife's fidelity. The
further words in the said note read that "I am also pained
that Ganesh has taunted me today for the dowry. Ganesh
has beaten me badly for the first time." This, shows that
beating and taunting for dowry took place on that day for
the first time. A plain reading of the dying declaration
would show that the main allegation which hurt the
deceased most, was a suspicion by the husband about her
character and she has tried to point out that there was no
other person in her life except the husband. From the
dying declaration, it also becomes clear that Ganesh had
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 5 of 15
beaten her badly for the first time and had also taunted her
for dowry on that date. There is no history of any demand
for dowry or allegation of such a demand by the husband
or from any of the relations of the deceased. It was only in
the course of the investigations that the aunt and the
mother of the deceased stated that the deceased had
earlier been also taunted by the in-laws or their relations
for dowry and that she had come on earlier occasions also
and had revealed the fact of such taunts for dowry to her
aunt. It is on the basis of those allegations that the
proceedings were initiated. The learned ASJ after going
into the facts of the case has disclosed in the report under
Section 173 that "but whenever daughter used to come to
her parent's house, she used to disclose to her mother and
aunt that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and her
husband used to tease her for dowry. They used to tell her
that she has not brought scooter or colour television and
Ganesh, at the instance of her brother-in-law, sister and
mother, used to misbehave with her concerning taunts."
The Sessions Judge has also noted that "on the day of the
marriage, the brother-in-law of Ganesh and other relations
abused after taking liquor and also quarelled with them. In
this quarrel, there is no mention of dowry. The Sessions
Judge has, however, wrongly noted in the order that in the
suicide note, it was further mentioned that her husband
has again teased her for dowry (emphasis supplied). There
is no mention of the word 'again' in the suicide note and it
appears that this word has been inadvertently supplied by
the Sessions Judge. On the question of beating also, the
suicide note clearly mention that she has been beaten by
Ganesh badly for the first time. This clearly discounts and
earlier beating. Again in para-4 of the impugned order, the
learned Sessions Judge has totally misconstrued the
suicide note by supplying the words "and by the inlaws".
The word and by the in-laws" do not appear in the suicide
note. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that as per
the suicide note, she has been beaten and teased for
dowry and has also been treated with cruelty by the
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 6 of 15
husband and by he in-laws whereas I find that the main
emphasis of the suicide note is on husband's suspicion
about her fidelity. In any event, I am not considering or
examining the order of framing the charge against the
husband or any one other than the present petitioners,
who are the sister of the husband and her husband."
7. Counsel for accused persons further relied on a
case Sarbans Singh & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi
2005 [1] JCC 255 wherein it was held by the Delhi High
Court that:
"The translated version of suicide note is extracted below
for a complete understanding of state of mind that is
revealed by the note:
"I was married on 26th March, 2000. Ever since that
day, I am not feeling normal. I do not know the reason. In
spite of being a woman, I am not able to fulfill the
responsibilities of a woman. I do not know what has
come over me. I am committing suicide. Because
my mind tells me to do this. The members of this
house are very good. But I am not feeling as if I am a
woman. My husband is a very nice man. But I am not upto
him. I do not want that after my death, anybody should
trouble the members of this house. I simply sit idle the
whole day. I am left with no emotions or feelings. There is
neither any happiness within me nor any grief. I cannot
live like this. I am not able to take care of my husband nor
anyone else. My heart as well as my mind is not able to
accept this change. Maybe it is natural that immediately
after marriage, a woman is able to adjust to her
matrimonial home but I am not able to do it. I have
become shameless. If I go to my parents home at
Jabalpur, still there won't be any solution. I have not
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 7 of 15
suffered anything at the hands of my in-laws.
Therefore, no one should trouble them and this
should be considered as a suicide. My real name is
Sahanubhooti (Sannu) but I am known here as
Sarabjeet. Please don't trouble the family
members."
Apart from this suicide note there is another letter
addressed by her to her parents dated 19.05.2000 which
translated into English stands as under:
"Dearest Mummyji and Daddyji
I am committing suicide. Because I am not
able to follow your footsteps. I know you and Daddyji
would feel very sad. But I do not have any other option. I
do not want to live. I am not able to fulfill my duties.
Therefore, I am dying."
The first thing that this judgment gives us is an
assurance that the court has the power to sift and weigh
the evidence although for the limited purpose of finding
out whether a prima facie case against the accused has
been made out. What is a prima facie case, the judgment
again says, would naturally depend upon the facts of each
case and then it proceeds to say that if two views are
equally possible and the judges are satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but does not raise grave suspicion against the
accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the
accused. If these two principles are put to work in this
case, then the decision has to go in favour of the accused.
The fact of sifting and weighing of evidence has been done
in paragraph 12 above. The prima facie case has emerged
in favour of the accused rather than in favour of the
prosecution. This case is better than the two equally
possible views. I am not able to persuade myself with the
plea of the prosecution that it gives rise to grave suspicion
against the accused, although in view of the statement of
the mother of the deceased some suspicion can arise.
Finally, the judgment says that the Court is not merely a
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 8 of 15
post office or mouth-peace of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities before the court, any basic
infirmity appearing in the case and so on. The guidelines
given by the Supreme Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar
(Supra) requires that the petitioners to be discharged.
Accordingly, I allow the revision petition and set aside the
order framing charge and discharge the petitioner."
8. Counsel for accused persons further relied on a
case U.T. Chandigarh vs. Sunil Dutt 2002(1) RCR
(Criminal) wherein, it was held by the Delhi High Court
that:
"While considering the question of charge, learned
Sessions Judge found that it was a case where dying
declaration has since been recorded by Shri Ashwani
Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh, on the very day
when the deceased Madhu Sharma got fire injuries and
ultimately died on 04.06.1994. The said dying declaration,
as mentioned above, recorded by the Executive Magistrate
has been mentioned in the order, which reads thus:-
"In that statement, she gave the version to the effect
that she was living with her husband, their 10 months old
child and his parents were also residing with them and on
that night her husband came late from the office. Her
husband called her when she became free after seeing a
serial on T.V. saying that he will tell her why he comes late
but she lost temper and poured kerosene oil over her body
and tried to set herself on fire out of fun and her husband
did not know that she had poured the kerosene oil and that
she had done so just to show off, thinking that her husband
will persuade her with love. She never thought that her
cloths would catch fire. Her clothes caught fire and her
husband tried to put out the same by putting a blanket and
raised hue and cry and people gathered and put out the
FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 9 of 15
fire. She did not want to die. Her husband and Daddy and
others loved her very much."
2. The FIR, however, came to be recorded on the
statement of father of deceased Madhu Sharma, which was
made before the concerned police officer on 04.06.1994.
3. After taking into consideration the statement of the
father of deceased and other relevant factors, learned
Sessions Judge held that no case would be made out
against the respondent under Section 304-B, 306 or 498-A
IPC.
This Court after hearing learned counsel representing the petitioner as also perusing the order passed by learned sessions Judge is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned Sessions Judge."
9. Counsel for accused persons further relied on a case Dharam Pal vs. State 1997 JCC 350 wherein it was held by the Delhi High Court that:
"This brings me to the question as to whether the petitioners could be summoned even under Section 304-B of the IPC. To attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, it must be shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. There is not even a single averment made by the complainant or any other witness before the police that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with the demand of dowry. When learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant was specifically asked whether there was any evidence before the court to form an opinion about the involvement of petitioners in the commission of offence under Section 304-B of the IPC."FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 10 of 15
10. On the other hand Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argued that their is sufficient incriminating evidence on record against both the accused to frame charge for the offences punishable u/s 496A/304B/34 IPC.
11. My attention goes to a case reported as Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC 366 (1) wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceedings with the trial. (3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 11 of 15 senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
12. Thus, the court at the time of framing of charge as provided under Section 227 of the Cr PC, has to see the material to enable it to decide prima facie whether Court should proceed with trial or not. At this stage, the Court is not to scan evidence as if it is to acquit or convict the accused. Truth, veracity and effect of evidence are not to be judged at the stage contemplated by section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Absence of ground for proceeding against the accused means absence of a prima facie case, the Court may sift evidence to see whether ingredients of the alleged offences are in existence or not? Where there is a strong suspicion existing at the initial stage which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Thus, it is crystal clear that at the time of forming an opinion on the point of charge, the Court has to form a prima facie opinion of the FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 12 of 15 matter. No meticulous assessment of evidence is permissible at that juncture.
13. Turning to the case in hand, I find that there is sufficient evidence on record for framing the charge against both the accused persons. The language of suicide note "Aap khush rehna aur apni mummy ki sari baat maan lena. Samagh rahe ho na ki main kya kehna chahti hoon. Accha ab bas." is itself incriminatory as it is not a simple sentence but a statement in ironical language. Smt. Ramwati and Sh. Tara Chand Gupta in their complaint/statements/supplementary statements leveled specific allegation of demand of dowry and harassment of Ms. Sobha for the dowry in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Smt. Ramwati stated before the I.O. that brother in law of deceased Shobha namely Amit used to beat her to pressurize her to bring dowry. He once demanded Rs.1 lac and asked deceased Shobha to bring the same from her parent's house. Her mother in law also used to harass and maltreat deceased Shobha to pressurize her to bring dowry including cash. Sh. T.C. Gupta, father of deceased Shobha stated before the police that mother in law and brother in law Amit Gupta used to FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 13 of 15 maltreat and harass deceased Shobha to pressurize her to bring dowry articles and cash from her parent's house. Sh. Ankur Gupta, Brother of deceased Ms. Sobha also leveled allegations of harassment of deceased Ms. Sobha and subjecting her to cruelty for demand of dowry by the accused persons. He stated before the police that on the occasion of Rakhi festival in the month of August, 2007, mother in law demanded CBZ Motorcycle, chain, a ring from her deceased sister Shobha. In-laws of deceased Shobha used to maltreat and pressurize her to bring dowry. The date of marriage of deceased Sobha with Sumit Gupta on 12.05.2006 is not in dispute. Admittedly, she died on 23.10.2007 i.e. within 2 years from the date of their marriage.
14. The arguments of Ld. Defence counsel regarding discharge of both the accused persons are not convincing for the reasons, firstly, there is sufficient incriminating evidence, as mentioned above against both the accused persons establishing grave suspicion that they might have committed alleged offences in furtherance of their common intention. Secondly, the principles of law laid down in cases Smt. Rani & Another vs. The State, supra, FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 14 of 15 Sarbans Singh & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi, supra, U.T. Chandigarh vs. Sunil Dutt, supra & Dharam Pal vs. State, are not attracted because the facts and evidence of the present case are distinguishable from the above mentioned cases.
15. In view of the above reasons and discussions and the material and incriminating allegations/evidence against both the accused Raj Rani and Amit, I am of the view that there is a prima-facie case against the accused persons for framing of charge against them for their trial for the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Therefore, charge against both the accused persons be framed accordingly.
Announced in the Open Court Dated:-27.07.2011 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No.379/07 State Vs. Raj Rani etc. Page 15 of 15