Delhi District Court
State vs . Parveen Kumar & Ors. on 24 July, 2014
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:
SC No. 35/14
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri
24.07.2014
Present: Shri Yogendra Adari, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
assisted by Shri Varun Rai Sharma Ld. Counsel for the
complainant alongwith complainant in person.
Accused Manjri Bhatt, Shobha Rani Bhatt and Ram
Kishan Bhatt on bail.
Other accused persons are produced from J.C.
Shri Rajiv Bakshi, Ld. Counsel for accused Parveen
Kumar, Devender Kumar, Shyamla Bhatt, Rakesh
Mohan Bhatt and Manjri Bhatt
Shri Bijender S.Dhull, Ld. Counsel for accused Shobha
Rani and Ram Kishan Bhatt.
Arguments on charge have already been heard.
Matter is listed today for orders on charge.
:O R D E R:
1.In the present case, accusation against the accused persons is that on the night intervening 10/11.06.2013, a DD No. Page No. 1/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri 6A was recorded and the information of which was given to Insp. Satvir Singh and on receipt of the abovesaid DD, SI Mukesh alongwith one constable reached at Mata Channan Devi Hospital and collected the MLC of Smt. Anuradha, W/o Shri Praveen Kumar (accused) vide which she was declared dead. Accused Praveen Kumar was also present in the hospital who stated that he got married with the deceased Anuradha on 27.01.2012 and he further stated that on 10.06.2013 at about 11.30 p.m. when he returned from bathroom he found the door of his room locked and he knocked several times but on finding no response from the other side, he broke the glass of window and opened the door and found his wife hanging on the ceiling fan. He then called his family members and removed Anuradha to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where Anuradha was declared dead. In the meantime, Insp. Satvir Singh informed the family members of deceased and to the SDM also and conducted further investigation.
2. On reaching the family members of deceased to Delhi, SDM recorded the statement of father of deceased who stated that he got married his daughter with deceased on 27.01.2012 and all the demands of accused Praveen Kumar were fulfilled which were including cash, ornaments, electronic gadgets etc. and a sum of Rs.67 Lacs was also deposited in the account of accused Praveen Page No. 2/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri Kumar (husband) and accused Devender Kumar Bhatt (fatherin law). He further stated that after the two months of marriage he came to know that his daughter was being harassed and beaten up by her inlaws for want of dowry and due to that she (deceased) had an abortion eight months prior to her death also. He further stated that his daughter was being harassed continuously for want of dowry by her inlaws including her husband Praveen Kumar, parentsinlaw namely Devender Kumar and Shaymla Bhatt, sister inlaw namely Manjari Bhatt, brotherinlaw namely Rakesh Mohan and even uncle & aunt of accused Praveen Kumar namely Ram Kishan Bhatt and Shobha Rani Bhatt. On the basis of statement of father of deceased, the present case was registered. In investigation, I.O. recorded statement of parents and brother of deceased and other witnesses and after completion of investigation, he has filed chargesheet against all the accused in respect to offences under Section 498A/304B/302/34 IPC.
3. It is stated by Ld. Defence Counsel that prima facie there is no sufficient material to frame any charge against the accused persons no. 4 to 7 as there is no dowry demand by them soon before death. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that deceased had committed suicide, hence, no case is made against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Page No. 3/16 24.07.2014
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri
4. On the other hand, it stated by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State assisted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that prima facie there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused persons under Section 498A/304B/302/34 IPC. It is further submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P. that there is specific allegation of family members of deceased that pregnancy of deceased was aborted due to beatings of accused persons, hence, offence under Section 313 IPC is also made out.
5. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under: "227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing."
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused Page No. 4/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Page No. 5/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 : (AIR 1977 SC 2018), wherein it has been observed as follows:
"....... Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion 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. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in crossexamination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial......."
Page No. 6/16 24.07.2014
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri
Hon'ble Supreme Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the Trial Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused.
In a subsequent decision i.e., in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : (AIR 1979 SC 366), Hon'ble Supreme Court after adverting to the conditions enumerated in Section 227 of the Code and other decision of this court, enunciated the following principles: "(1) That the judge while considering the question of framing the charge 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) Whether the material place 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 the Page No. 7/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri 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 son. 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 conducted a trial."
6. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C Smt. Usha Rai, mother of deceased, has stated about marriage of her daughter and articles given in her marriage. She had further stated that till two months from the date of marriage, all was well but, thereafter, her daughter was physically and mentally tortured by Page No. 8/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw that she was not beautiful. She has further stated that her fatherinlaw was having access in the bed room of Anuradha and she was asked to wash clothes till 3.00 a.m. (in the night). She has further stated that her daughter was being harassed by her parentsinlaw and sister inlaw Manjri Bhatt, whenever she (deceased) used to be with her husband. She has further stated that accused Praveen Kumar and Shyamla Bhatt (motherinlaw) used to quarrel with her deceased daughter for bringing the vehicle. She has further stated that the entire money of husband of deceased used to be taken by his mother and father and if by chance she (deceased) took Rs. 6,000/ to 7,000/, then they used to get her beaten by her husband by sitting on her chest and gagging her mouth. She has further stated that all these facts were told to her by Anuradha (deceased) over phone. She has further stated that whenever Anuradha used to come in her parental home, she told these facts to her. She has further stated that pregnancy of deceased was terminated due to miscarriage because of the torture given by her inlaws.
7. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 11.06.2013, Deepak Kumar,brother of deceased has stated that Anuradha (deceased) told him 34 days ago that her inlaws were Page No. 9/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri abusing her on very small things. He has further stated that he talked to Anuradha for the last time at 11.15 p.m. on 10.06.2013 while she was crying and he also heard the shouts and abuses of Anuradha's motherinlaw from background and on asking, Anuradha had told him that on a small issue of engaging a maid servant, all the family members have gathered against her and were scolding her. He further stated that Anuradha had requested him to make her motherinlaw understand and he further stated that Anuradha was frightened at that moment so he assured her for the settlement of the disputes peacefully. He further stated that on the same night of 11.06.2013 at about 1.15 a.m., his cousin brother (chachera bhai) informed him about the death of his sister Anuradha. He further stated that the information of death of her sister was not given by her inlaws but by his relatives. He further stated that the right arm of deceased Anuradha was operated twice and the bone of her wrist was also changed, therefore, she could neither bent her arm nor she could tie a knot, hence it is difficult to understand that his sister Anuradha has committed suicide.
8. Shri Deepak Kumar, brother of deceased, in his statement given to Executive Magistrate, has stated that her sister Anuradha told him that her husband and inlaws used to demand cash and Page No. 10/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri car. He has further stated that his sister Anuradha told him on phone that her husband Praveen, fatherinlaw Devender Kumar Bhatt, motherinlaw, brotherinlaw, sisterinlaw Manjri, uncle Ram Kishan Bhatt and aunt used to beat her often.
9. Present case involving dowry death is not based on any suicide note or eyewitness. Witnesses have made their statements to the Executive Magistrate and police about the acts alleged to be committed by accused persons with deceased Anuradha during her life time. At this stage of framing of charge, this Court cannot appreciate and evaluate the evidences brought on record by police during investigation but I am of the opinion that this Court can consider the only statement of the witnesses which have been heard by them from the mouth of deceased Anuradha, which are covered under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. In his statement given to the I.O., Daya Shankar Rai, father of deceased, has nowhere stated that alleged statements of acts of accused persons committed with deceased were told to him by his deceased daughter. In so far as brother and sister of deceased are concerned, they have specifically stated that the certain facts stated by them were told to them by deceased Anuradha.
10. In Raghubiri Devi Vs. State, Crl. A. 320/1999, dated Page No. 11/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri 25.11.2013, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"Whenever a case relating to unnatural death of a young bride within seven years of marriage is reported, it causes ripples not only in the pool of the conscience of the society at large but also throws an open challenge to the judicial system to speak deterrent language so that confidence of common man in the efficacy of law is not undermined. Such type of barbaric crimes against the bride by the husband or inlaws are a slur on the face of humanity in any civilized society.
However, experience shows, of which we cannot lose sight of, that there is growing tendency to give such death, colour of 'murder' or 'dowry death', even though the death may be accidental. There is no dearth of cases when on death of a bride in matrimonial home, taking advantage of stringent legal provisions applicable to cases of cruelty and dowry death, every effort is made by the family of the deceased bring to rope in not only the husband but his entire family including minor/young schoolcollege going unmarried 'devar' and 'nanad'. Stories are concocted in such a manner that even bail eludes."
Page No. 12/16 24.07.2014
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri
11. In Chanedrkanta Lamba & Ors. Vs. Stage, Crl. Rev. Pet. 267/2008 dated 21.12.2009 AND Smt. Rani & Anr. Vs. State, 1996 Crl. L.J. 1026, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quashed the framing of charges under Section 498A IPC on the ground of vague and unspecified allegations given no any date for the nature of any demand of dowry.
12. In view of statement of Smt. Usha Rai, mother of deceased and Shri Deepak Kumar, brother of deceased, I find that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and harassment to deceased Anuradha by her husband Praveen Kumar, fatherinlaw Devender Kumar Bhatt and motherinlaw Shymla Bhatt. Hence, there is prima facie sufficient material to frame charges against them under Section 498A/304B IPC.
13. In so far as remaining accused persons are concerned, I find that the witnesses have made vague and generalized allegations regarding beating and demand of dowry against them. Mother of deceased had nowhere in her statement has stated that her deceased daughter told her that dowry was demanded by accused Rakesh Mohan (brotherinlaw), Manjri Bhatt (sisterin law), Ram Kishan Bhatt (uncle) and Shobha Rani Bhatt (aunt).
She has stated about accused Manjri that she used to harass Page No. 13/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri deceased Anuradha when she used to be with her husband. Deepak, brother of deceased has alleged that Manjri demanded dowry at the time of Tilak ceremony (before marriage). These allegations against Manjri are not sufficient to attract the Section 498A/304B IPC. I further find that mother of deceased has stated nothing specific about accused Rakesh Mohan, Shobha Rani Bhatt and Ram Kishan Bhatt. Deepak Kumar, brother of the deceased, in his first statement given to Executive Magistrate has stated nothing specific against accused Rakesh Mohan, Manjri Bhatt, Shobha Rani Bhatt and Ram Kishan Bhatt. In his first statement given to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated nothing specific against these accused persons. In his subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also he has not stated anything specific against accused Rakesh Mohan, Shobha Rani and Ram Kishan Bhatt but in the subsequent statement, he has made allegations against accused Manjri but has nothing stated about source of this allegation. Witnesses have alleged that these accused persons abused and beaten the deceased during quarrel on the point of observing karwa chauth and keeping maid in the house. In my opinion, these alleged acts do not attract the provision of Section 498A IPC.
14. In view of the abovesaid observations, I find no sufficient Page No. 14/16 24.07.2014 State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13PS: Dabri material for framing charge of any of the offence against accused Rakesh Mohan Bhatt, Manjri Bhatt, Shobha Rani Bhatt and Ram Kishan Bhatt. Hence, accused Rakesh Mohan Bhatt, Manjri Bhatt, Shobha Rani Bhatt and Ram Kishan Bhatt are discharged of all the alleged offences in the present case.
15. Ld. Addl. P.P. has submitted that in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Cri.) 23051/2010 , charge under Section 302 IPC is liable to be framed alongwith the charge under Section 304B IPC.
16. Keeping in view antemortem injuries found on the body of deceased, the allegations of the parents and brother of deceased that they were not informed regarding the death of deceased Anuradha by her husband or her inlaws and due to operation of her hand, deceased Anuradha was not in position to hand herself with ceiling fan and the fact that husband of deceased and her in laws were having access to the room where deceased Anuradha allegedly committed suicide and the condition of goods found in the room of deceased Anuradha, I am of the opinion that charge under Section 302 IPC is liable to be framed alongwith Section 304B IPC.
Page No. 15/16 24.07.2014
State Vs. Parveen Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 317/13
PS: Dabri
17. Ld. Addl. P.P has further submitted that as per the MLC of deceased Anuradha, the miscarriage happened due to harassment caused by husband of deceased and her inlaws. Hence, offence under Section 313 IPC is also made out.
18. I have gone through medical report of deceased Anuradha regarding her abortion. I find nothing in the report to show that the miscarriage of pregnancy was due to any beating or assault. Witnesses have made statement that pregnancy was miscarriage due to her husband and inlaws of deceased. I find nothing that this fact was told by the deceased to any witness. I find no sufficient material to frame charge under Section 313 IPC in this matter.
19. Accordingly, Charge under Section 498A/304 B/302/34 IPC is ordered to be framed against accused Praveen Kumar, Devender Kumar Bhatt and Shymla Bhatt.
Announced in the open Court On 24th Day of July 2014 (Anil Kumar) ASJ05/ Dwarka Courts Delhi/24.07.2014 Page No. 16/16 24.07.2014