Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Jardari Wakude & Others on 12 August, 2014
State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 01/13
ID No. 02401R0513072011
FIR No. : 50/2010
Police Station : Nabi Karim
Under Section :498A/304B/302/34 IPC
State
Versus
Mukesh Jardari Wakude
S/o Jardari Dharampal Wakude
..........Accused No.1
Jardari Dharampal Wakude
S/o Dharampal Wakude ..........Accused No.2
Lokesh Jardari Wakude
s/o Jardari Dharampal Wakude ..........Accused No.3
Renuka Lokesh Wakude
w/o Lokesh Jardari Wakude ..........Accused No.4
Kumari Kalpana Wakude
D/o Jardari Dharampal Wakude ..........Accused No.5
All resident of :
C-56, Chinnot Basti, Multani Dhanda
Nabi Karim, Delhi
SC No. 01/13 Page 1 of 20
State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
Date of order reserved on : 22.07.2014
Date of order : 12.08.2014
Present: Mr. Rajiv Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Mr. Sudhir Mehendidatta Advocate counsel for the
complainant
Ms. Seema Gulati Advocate, counsel for the all accused
ORDER ON THE POINT OF CHARGE:-
1.By this order, I shall dispose of the contentions raised by counsel for accused persons that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused persons particularly against accused no. 3 to 5 to make out a prima-facie case.
2. Initially SHO PS Nabi Karim had filed a charge-sheet against all accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302/304B/498A/34 IPC with the allegations that:-
(i) Mother of the deceased and accused Jardari Dharampal Wakude (A-2 in short) are real sister and brother. Deceased Kiran was married with son of A-2 i.e. Mukesh Jardari Wakude (A-1 in short) on December 2, 2009. After marriage, couple had shifted to Delhi and started residing at C-56 Gali No.10, Multanti Dhanda, Nabi Karim, Delhi along with other accused persons. Accused Lokesh Jardari Wakude (A-3 in short) and Kumari Kalpana (A-5 in short) are real brother and sister of A-1 and accused Renuka Lokesh Wakude is the wife of A-3.SC No. 01/13 Page 2 of 20
State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
(ii) On April 23, 2010 at about 7.05 AM an information was received from RML Hospital that Kiran (since deceased) had got been admitted by her husband Mukesh Jardari (A-1) in burnt condition. Said information was recorded vide DD No. 9A at PS Nabi Karim and investigation was assigned to SI Kishan Chand, who along with constable Sajjan left for the hospital.
(iii) On reaching hospital, he had collected MLC of the injured whereupon the alleged history was recorded as: Burn due to bursting of stove as told by the patient. Since, the incident had taken place within seven years of marriage. Intimation was given to the SDM. Intimation was also sent to the parents of deceased, who were residing in Mumbai at that time. Her parents reached Delhi on the very same day and they got recorded their statement to the SDM on the next day wherein they did not levy any allegation against any of the accused persons. However, investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence and spot was got photographed and exhibits were lifted from the spot. On the same day i.e April 23, 2010 at about 7.05 PM victim succumbed to her injuries.
(iv) On May 15, 2010 parents of deceased again visited Delhi and got recorded their statements to the SDM wherein they first time made certain allegations against the accused persons including that accused persons considered their daughter Kiran as ill-omen as her mother-in-law died just before marriage on November 27, 2009. Due to this, accused persons used to curse her and torture her mentally and physically and also harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Accordingly, an FIR under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
SC No. 01/13 Page 3 of 20State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
(v) Thereafter, parents and other family members of deceased made multiple supplementary statements and they on each occasion added some new allegations against the accused persons such as the marriage between the deceased and A-1 could not be cohabited and in order to save the honour of their family, they had killed the deceased. It was also alleged that since accused persons used to demand dowry, it was another reason to kill her. At last, on July 3, 2010 mother of deceased alleged that deceased had made a dying declaration to her in the RML hospital. She alleged that since victim's family members failed to fulfil the demands of dowry of accused persons, they used to beat her and on that day also they quarrelled with the victim and attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil upon her. In order to save her life, she rushed to kitchen at third floor but accused persons bolted the door from outside and thereafter they threw 5-6 ignited match sticks from the jarokha on her clothes and in this way she was set on fire.
3. Vide order dated September 3, 2013, matter was sent for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Accordingly, matter was investigated by Insp. Prem Singh under the supervision of ACP Pahar Ganj and filed the supplementary challan for the offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC with the following conclusions:-
"The incident was of year 2010 and after lapse of more than three years it was not possible to collect the minutely evidence on each and every aspect, however efforts were made to clarify all the doubts raised by this Hon`ble Court in order dated September 3, 2013. By the investigation it SC No. 01/13 Page 4 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others is confirmed that this death was not an accidental death rather the circumstances indicates that the deceased Kiran has committed suicide. No evidence could come on record to substantiate the case for the offence of murder or any type of homicidal death. The commission of suicide can attract two separate offences i.e. (i) offence made punishable U/s 306 IPC and (ii) the offence made punishable U/s 304-B IPC. Death in this case has occurred within seven years of her marriage before the death. The evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty has also come on record because this death occurred within five months of marriage. The couple started living in Delhi only in 1 st week of April and within 15 to 20 days the victim committed suicide. The broken pieces of bangles recovered from the spot are suggesting the scuffle. It is matter on record that on that floor accused Mukesh and deceased Kiran were residing. As per the allegations levelled by the parents and brother of deceased she was being taunted by saying ill omen because soon before the marriage accused Mukesh lost his mother. There is also allegations of demand of dowry behind this cruelty. In these circumstances, the supplementary charge-sheet have been prepared for the offences U/s 498- A/304-B/306/34 IPC against the accused persons who are facing the trial before the Hon`ble Court and submitted please. Accused persons are running on bail."
5. Thereafter, again matter was sent for further investigation vide order dated April 16, 2014. Accordingly, further supplementary challan was filed with the report that accused Mukesh Jardari Wakude is capable of performing sexual intercourse.
6. During the course of arguments, counsel appearing for the SC No. 01/13 Page 5 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others accused persons conceded that there are some material qua accused Mukesh Jardari Wakude (accused No.1) and Jardari Dharampal Wakude (accused no.2) to make out a prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC but vigorously argued that there is no scintilla of admissible evidence against accused no. 3 to accused 5 to make out a prima-facie case even for the offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC. It was sagaciously contended that the unfortunate incident had taken place on April 23, 2010. Consequently, intimation was given to the parents of deceased, who rushed to Delhi on the same day and made their statement before SDM Girish Pandey on April 24, 2010 wherein they categorically stated that their daughter had never made any complaint against her in-laws; nor they (accused persons) made any demand and further disclosed that deceased was married to the son of her maternal uncle and further stated that they could not make any comment about the incident. However, her parents again appeared before the SDM Girish Pandey on May 15, 2010 and made another set of statements wherein they made certain vague allegations against the accused persons including accused no. 3 to 5. It was alleged that in their statements it was alleged that since mother of accused no. 1 had expired on November 27, 2009 i.e. prior to solemnization of marriage of deceased i.e. December 2, 2009, accused persons along with others namely Rachna, Jitender, Diksha Rameshwar started taunting their daughter (since deceased) that the mother of accused no. 1 had died due to deceased and also taunted her by saying 'ते र ा पाँव अच्छा नही है ।'. It was further alleged that they used to beat their daughter, harassed her mentally by stating that deceased had come from the house of फकीर (beggars) and she wanted to live like a रानी (queen) and also harassed the deceased for the purpose of dowry. In their statements they further alleged that accused persons resided in Mumbai for about one SC No. 01/13 Page 6 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others month and during the said period they also visited the matrimonial house of their daughter and at that time accused no. 2 abused them and asked to take deceased. It was submitted as per allegations, accused persons shifted to Delhi in April 2010 and further alleged that their son-in-law i.e. accused no. 1 used to consider deceased as ill-omen and used to torture her by passing comments. It was further stated that as per the allegations though deceased was a brave girl and used to say that she would look after her family but they had surprised that their daughter had been killed by burning by their son-in-law i.e. accused no.1 and other accused persons also involved in her death. It was submitted that thereafter, the parents of deceased and her brother had made several statements to the police officials wherein they made some improvements on each and every stage but they did not make any specific allegation against accused no. 3 to 5. It was alleged that the mere allegations against accused no. 3 to 5 are that they used to consider the deceased as ill-omen and they used to torture the deceased. It was submitted that all the allegations are quite general and vague in nature. It was further submitted that on the one hand, parents of the deceased alleged that their daughter was brave and used to state them that she would look after her in-laws' family but on the other hand, they are trying to show that their daughter had committed suicide on the basis of said vague taunting. It was further contended that admittedly, the parents of the deceased were residing in Mumbai at the time of incident, thus they had no occasion to meet with the deceased. If there was any communication between deceased and her parents, it would be through phone or through some electronic mode or e-mail but during investigation, investigating officer failed to collect any evidence whatsoever in this regard. It was thus contended that there is no evidence on record to make out a prima-facie case against the accused no. 3 to 5. In support of her SC No. 01/13 Page 7 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others contentions, reliance is placed on certain judgments i.e. Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 HC 1782; Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010, HC 2839; Budhan Singh & others vs. State 2008 (2) JCC 1017; Harbans Singh & others vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2095, Crl. LJ 2625; Sunil Bansal vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (96) DRJ 9; Bhagwanti vs. State 94(2001) DLT 632; Durga Ram & others vs. State decided in Crl. Rev. Petition 666/2010 by High Court of Delhi on February 1, 2011, Raman Kumar and another vs. State of NCT Delhi decided on December 18, 2008 in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 149/2005 by High Court of Delhi, CBI vs. K. Naraina Rao, 2012 Crl LJ, 4610; Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2014, SC 331 and Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P, AIR 2007 SC 2457.
7. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State refuted the said contentions by arguing that there are sufficient evidence against accused no. 3 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 498A/306/34 IPC. It was contended that the deceased was married on December 2, 2009 and since then she was being tortured by accused no. 3 to 5 continuously by stating that she was an ill-omen as mother of accused no. 1 had died just before the marriage and in this way deceased was subjected to mental cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC. It was further contended that by the continuous and persistent taunting, they instigated the deceased to commit suicide, thus, accused no. 3 to 5 are liable for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/306/34 IPC. It was contended that though learned counsel appearing for the accused persons fairly conceded that prima-facie a case is made out against accused no. 1 and accused no.2, yet from the subsequent statement of the father of the victim recorded on May 24, 2005, it is clear that they had demanded 5-7 tola gold and some SC No. 01/13 Page 8 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others cash amount. It was argued that since the victim had died within four months of her marriage under suspicious circumstances, presumption lies in favour of the prosecution, thus, a case is made out against accused no. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC.
8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment Parveen Pradhan vs. State of UP, (2012) 9 SCC 734, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & another (2012) 9 SCC 460 and K. Prema S.Rao & another vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & others, AIR 2003 SC 11.
9. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
10. Before dealing with the contentions raised by counsel for both the parties, I prefer to refer the principles laid down by the Apex Court on the point of framing of charge in Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and reiterated by the High Court of Delhi in Aruna Chadha vs. State 2013 (6) LR C 306, Delhi. The principles are as under:
"(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 proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to 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 SC No. 01/13 Page 9 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others 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 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."
(emphasis supplied) 11 In Aruna Chadha case (supra) it was held:-
33. Thus, on the basis of the judgments relied upon by the parties and noting the language used in Sections 227 and 228 of the Code it can very well be stated that if on the basis of material placed before the Court the commission of offence appears to be probable, the Court shall be duty bound to frame the charge against the accused. To put it differently, if two views are possible and there is strong suspicion against the accused again the Court would be justified in framing the charge. As against this, if there is only a mere suspicion and two views are possible, the Court on the basis of mere suspicion should not proceed to frame the charge against an accused and should in the circumstances discharge him without making him undergo the ordeal of the trial.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Thus, it becomes clear that a charge will be framed only if prosecution succeeds either to show that collected material is sufficient to make out a prima-facie that offence has been committed or there is strong SC No. 01/13 Page 10 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others suspicion against the accused persons. But if prosecution is able to show mere suspicion, accused persons shall be entitled for discharge as prayed by learned defence counsel.
13. In the light of above settled proposition of law, facts of the case in hand will be analysed to ascertain as to whether there are sufficient evidence on record to raise strong suspicion qua accused no. 3 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 498A/306/34 IPC or not.
14. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was married to the son of her maternal uncle. It means that accused no.1 was cousin to the deceased and accused no.2 was maternal uncle of deceased. Accused no. 3 and accused 5 are also cousin of deceased being the son of accused no.2 and accused 4 was the bhabhi (भाभी ) of deceased being the wife of accused no.3. Thus, it is admitted fact that deceased was married in close relations, thus both the families must be aware about their conduct and financial & economic conditions.
15. It is undisputed fact that the alleged incident had taken place on April 23, 2010, consequently, parents of the deceased rushed to Delhi on the same day and on the next day they also appeared before SDM Girish Pandey and got recorded their statement. It is also undisputed fact that in their said statements they did not utter even a single word against any of the accused persons particularly against accused no. 3 to 5.
16. It is also admitted case of prosecution that thereafter, parents of deceased came to Delhi on May 15, 2010 and again they got recorded their statement to SDM Girish Pandey wherein they alleged that SC No. 01/13 Page 11 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others the mother of accused No.1 Mukesh Jardari had died on November 27, 2009 i.e. prior to solemnization of marriage which was solemnised on December 2, 2009 and after marriage deceased started living in her matrimonial house at village Kamla Pur, Maharashtra along with her in-laws namely all five accused persons and Kalpna, Rachna Jitender and Diksha. It was alleged that all the said persons told the deceased that her mother- in-law had died because of her and they also taunted her by saying ते र ा पाँव अच्छा नही है ।. Thereafter, they had given beating to the deceased and started harassing her mentally by saying that she had come from the house of फकीर (beggars) and she wanted to live like रानी (queen) and further alleged that the said persons also used to demand dowry and also harassed the deceased for dowry. Remaining all allegations pertain to the accused Mukesh only and at the last they further alleged that deceased had been burnt by their son-in-law i.e. Mukesh Jardari and other family persons helped him.
17. On May 18, 2010 parents of deceased made another statement to the police wherein they clarified that the above said facts were told to them by deceased on phone.
18. On May 21, 2010 brother of deceased made similar allegations against the accused persons including accused no. 3 to accused no. 5 and stated that her sister i.e. deceased used to tell the same when he visited her matrimonial house in Maharastra after marriage.
19. On May 24, 2010, father of deceased had made another statement to the police but in the said statement whatever allegations he had levelled, the same were against accused no. 1 and 2.
SC No. 01/13 Page 12 of 20State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
20. Thereafter, mother of victim had made another statement before the police on July 3, 2010 wherein mother of the deceased made an attempt to set up a new case that deceased had made a dying declaration to her in the hospital but during further investigation no reliance has been placed on the said version of mother of the victim, consequently prosecution had dropped the charges of murder from the charge-sheet against all the accused persons.
21. On February 3, 2011 another statement was recorded. In the said statement an attempt was made to set up a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder but on the said version prosecution is not placing any reliance as in supplementary challan it has been revealed that it was not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder, but victim had committed suicide after bolting the door of the kitchen from inside.
22. From the above, it becomes clear that the only allegations against accused no. 3 to 5 surfaced are that they had stated to the victim that her mother-in-law had died because of her and taunted her by saying तेरा पाँव अच्छा नही है । Besides that accused no. 3 to 5 along with others had given beating to the deceased, harassed her mentally by saying that she had come from the house of फकीर (beggars) and she wanted to live like रानी (queen) and they also started harassing the deceased for dowry. Now simple question arises as to whether these allegations are sufficient to make out a prima-facie case against the accused for the offence punishable 498A/306/34 IPC or not?
23. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to case Sunil Bansal vs. State of Delhi (supra). In the said case also parents of the deceased SC No. 01/13 Page 13 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others made contradictory statements. In the said case initially the parents of the victim did not make any allegation against the accused persons but thereafter, in subsequent statements they made a specific allegations that accused had demanded a maruti car and ` 2 lac in cash and due to that reason accused persons used to harass her, consequently, she committed suicide. After considering the evidence collected by the investigating agency, Hon`ble Court discharged the accused persons from all the charges and held as under:-
13. The evidence in this case about dowry harassment, which could have been the cause for death of the deceased, is at best sketchy and most certainly contradictory. Both sets of statements recorded by the relatives of the deceased point to dowry or other demands proximate to the marriage and birth of the two children which would go back to at least 3-4 years before the incident. In these circumstances, on exercise of sifting of materials and particularly keeping in mind the existence of two contradictory statements, it cannot be said that a grave suspicion exists about the commission of offence under Section 304-B, by the Petitioners. It is well-settled that if two views at charge framing stage exist, based upon the materials available, the view favoring the accused is to be preferred.
14. As far as the allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned I am of the opinion that in view of the un-safe and contradictory nature of the statements, that charge too cannot be framed. The statement of the deceased father, as observed in the preceding paragraph, did not mention anything about the first statement made on 24.9.2004 That previous statement had completely ruled out any complicity by the petitioners. Yet in the statement recorded by his son much later on 6.1.2005, some sort of explanation for the omission was sought to be given it was alleged that the first statement was recorded under duress. These statements in my considered opinion are not only contradictory but unsafe and the Court cannot be SC No. 01/13 Page 14 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others expected to prefer one version over the other. From the record it appears that the deceased's father is a businessman of some means. His son too is an adult. At that time he was 24 years. Therefore, the attempt at improving the case at each stage, in my opinion injects suspicion as to their veracity. Without any further comment it could be said that they do amount to bringing in two versions, which can be considered by the Court. In such an event the Court would be within its rights in concluding that the version supporting the discharge of the petitioner is to be preferred.
(emphasis supplied)
24. Similarly, in case Bhagwanti vs. State (supra) parents of the deceased made two contradictory statements. In first statement they did not make any allegation against the accused persons whereas in subsequent statement they made certain specific allegations. After considering the evidence collected by the investigating agency, Hon`ble Court discharged the accused holding that:-
"Now applying the above principles, in this case, deceased (Rajini), was married to Dharampal on 27.9.1984; she committed suicide on 18.4.1990, after six years of her marriage. The statements of the parents and brother of deceased were recorded before SDM on 18.4.1990 and 19.4.1990 respectively. In their statements, they did not make any allegations against the petitioner. Their case was that the deceased being harassed by her husband as he was having illicit relations with the cousin Sunita Gandhi. In the backdrop of these clear statements, considering broad probabilities and nature of the case, subsequent statements of the parents of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the police during investigation, containing vague allegations to the effect that petitioner used to taunt the deceased for inadequate dowry are liable to the rejected. These statements may give rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion. I would hasten to add that the situation may have been different if the statements of the parents and brother of the deceased SC No. 01/13 Page 15 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others before the SDM were not in detail or if in the subsequent statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C there were some specific instances. The focus of the allegations appear to be against the husband and not against the petitioner. In view of the above, no case for framing of charge against the petitioner is made out."
(emphasis supplied)
25. Similarly, in case Raman Kumar & another vs. State of Delhi (supra), the parents of the deceased made contradictory statements. After considering the evidence Hon`ble Court held:-
"Whatesle, has come out in the statements of parents of the deceased on 28th May, 1999, petitioner Raman Kumar made a telephone call to the parents of the deceased that Aarti (since deceased) was seriously ill and then after about one and a half hour later he again telephoned that Aaarti has since passed away. The question which comes for consideration is whether on such accusation, the petitioner should be put to trial. Evidence of this nature, even if goes unrebutted, would this kind of evidence be sufficient to convict these two petitioners. Merely because the petitioner Raman Kumar made a telephone call and that too from the hospital would certainly not constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A/304B IPC. In order to bring the petitioners in the arena of offences, prosecution has to allege much more i.e. the deceased was subjected to maltreatment and harassment for and in connection with demand of dowry and that the petitioners used to cause physical and mental harassment of that nature that they were instrumental in driving the deceased to put an end to her life. Whatelse further important is that the prosecution must collect some evidence to prove that the soon after her death she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment at the hands of the petitioners for or in connection with the demand of dowry."
(emphasis supplied)
26. Since, Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently relied SC No. 01/13 Page 16 of 20 State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others upon the Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC, I deem it appropriate to deal with the same. Explanation (a) reads as under:-
"(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or"
(emphasis supplied)
27. It is settled law that the wilful conduct of accused persons should of such a nature which is likely to drive the victim either to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Assuming for the sake of arguments that if after marriage of deceased, accused persons had taunted the victim by saying her that her mother-in-law had died due to her or taunted her by saying that तेरा पाँव अच्छा नही है । or she had come from the house of फकीर (beggars) and she wanted to live like रानी (queen). But these taunts are not sufficient either to show that accused persons had any intention to drive the victim to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or that they had any intention or knowledge that their said conduct would drive the victim to commit suicide or to cause injury to herself. To my mind, the said allegations are not only quite vague and general in nature but it is also unbelievable that all the accused persons would simultaneously utter these words to the victim together. Admittedly, the parents and brother of deceased were not present at that time. They also failed to divulge before the investigating officer when these words were uttered and under what circumstances these words were being said. Even no efforts were made by the investigating officer to know these facts from the witnesses despite the fact that matter was sent for further investigation.
SC No. 01/13 Page 17 of 20State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
28. I have also gone through the citations relied upon by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. But to my mind, the same are not helpful to the prosecution case in any manner because the facts of both the cases were totally different from the facts of the case in hand. The proposition of law laid down in the said cases is not in dispute and the same is summarized as under:-
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading"
or 'urging forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction.....to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts."
(emphasis supplied)
29. Thus to attract the provisions of Section 107 IPC, there must be some evidence to show that accused persons had instigated , encourage the victim to commit the suicide. To my mind, the above said allegations are not sufficient in any manner to provoke the victim to commit suicide.
SC No. 01/13 Page 18 of 20State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
30. Further the statement of parents of the victim is quite paradox as on the one hand, they stated that their daughter was brave as she told them that she would manage herself and also look after her family and on the other hand, they want to say that their daughter had committed suicide because of these vague allegations. It is admitted case of prosecution that there is no allegation/evidence against accused no. 3 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. It is also admitted case of prosecution that deceased and her husband (A-1) were residing at separate floor. There are also allegations against accused no.1 & 2 for harassment for dowry and against accused no.1 that marriage could not be cohabited. In these circumstances, the possibilities that deceased had committed suicide due to non-cohabitation of marriage or harassment for dowry by A1 & A2 cannot be ruled out.
31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations qua accused no. 3 to 5 are not only general in nature but also quite vague. These allegations may be sufficient to investigate the matter but to my mind are totally insufficient to put the accused persons on trial. In my opinion the said vague allegations do not raise any grave suspicion qua accused no. 3 to 5 in any manner either for the offence punishable under Section 498A or 306 IPC, thus I hereby discharge accused no. 3 to 5 from the charges punishable under Section 498A/306/304B/34 IPC.
32. Now coming to the contentions relating to accused no. 1 and accused no2.
SC No. 01/13 Page 19 of 20State Vs. Mukesh Jardari Wakude & others
33. As already said that during the course of arguments counsel appearing for the accused persons candidly admitted that there are some material on record to make out a prima-facie case against accused no. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC. After going through the statement of parents of victim/deceased, I am also of the view that there are sufficient evidence on record to make out a prima- facie case against accused no. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court on this 12th day of August, 2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 CENTRAL/THC, DELHI/sv SC No. 01/13 Page 20 of 20