Delhi High Court
Ranjit Singh Rana & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998VIAD(DELHI)139, II(1998)DMC556, 1999(48)DRJ49
Author: J.B.Goel
Bench: J.B. Goel
ORDER J.B.Goel, J.
1. Petitioners Ranjit Singh Rana, Paramjit Singh Rana, Smt. Kuljit Kaur, Amarpal Singh Rana and Smt. Renu Rana, father-in-law, husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and latter's wife respectively, of the deceased Arvin Rana ( for short 'Arvin') have been charged for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Ranjit Singh Rana has also been separately charged under Section 302 IPC.
2. The petitioners challenge the legality, propriety and validity of the order framing charges against them.
3. Briefly the facts are that the deceased Arvin was married to accused Paramjit Singh on 21.4.1984. Her parents are living at Bombay whereas her in-laws are living at Delhi. A male child was born to her on 26.8.1987. She died on 23.11.1988 at her matrimonial house at A-102, New Friends Colony, New Delhi an unnatural death. It has been alleged that she was being harassed by her in laws on account of inadequate dowry and in connection with the demand of dowry and she died a homicidal death; whereas her in-laws allege that she died a suicidal death by hanging herself with a ceiling fan.
4. On receipt of information about the death of the deceased at Bombay at about 7.15 p.m. on 23.11.1988 Shri Narinder Singh, father of the deceased had informed one B.S. Ahuja, resident of C-53, New Friends Colony on telephone about the death of her daughter and Shri B.S. Ahuja in turn gave information to the police on PCR on his telephone NO. 616926 on the basis of which DD No. 88 A was recorded by PCR at 20.07 Hrs. and another DD No. 19 was recorded at P.S. Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi at 8.05 p.m. on 23.11.1988. ASI Pat Ram along with Const. Jagdish reached the spot. SI Anil Kumar also reached there. Inquest report was recorded and from the scene of occurrence one cut out piece of red colour chunni having a knot, one wooden stool (lying on the floor), one knife alleged to be used for cutting the chunni, one ceiling fan with a piece of chunni tied on it and one diary of the deceased were seized against a seizure memo. The post-mortem was conducted during 1200 Hrs. to 1.00 p.m. at AIIMS on 24.11.1988 The approximate time since death was opined to be 20 hrs. After receipt of report on viscera opinion about the cause of death was given to be "asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging".
5. Father of the deceased reached Delhi by the next morning flight and lodged a report on 24.11.1988 with the police alleging that the in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in marriage as the dowry given was below their expectations; his daughter used to be harassed by her in-laws, even given beatings by her husband; the son-in-law had also insulted him when they had met at the time of marriage of one Rammi in Delhi; efforts were made by him with her in-laws for her proper settlement in the matrimonial home after the marriage; demand of car was being made through the deceased for which also the deceased was being continuously harassed; the deceased used to tell him that she could not live in the matrimonial home and she apprehended danger to her life at the hands of her in laws and had asked him to take her along with him to Bombay, when he along with his wife had come to Delhi Ranjit Singh had asked him to take their daughter but he avoided on the ground that he had to go to Amritsar on the following day for operation of his wife. At the time of birth of her male child on 26.8.87, his wife alone had looked after her in the Hospital in New Delhi when no one from her in-laws side had visited her. At that occasion, he had given gifts and presents including Onida TV, jewellery and cash worth Rs. 60/70 thousand. In September, 1988 the deceased with her husband had visited him in Bombay where also the husband had repeated his demand for a car, when he had told him that he will fulfilll his promise of giving a Fiat or a Maruti car, but the son-in-law had demanded the Tata mobile car which he had earlier booked, or in the alternative had asked to pay him in cash as they required it for repair of their house. He did not meet this demand and the son-in-law in anger had left his house for Delhi on 2.10.88. He had thereafter visited his daughter at her in laws house where he had noticed further great change in their behaviour and they were annoyed with him for not meeting their demand of a car. The deceased had talked to him on telephone on last Sunday before her death when she was very much perturbed on account of repeated demands of a car and she had asked him to give soon either a car or cash as they liked. After his daughter had died, Ranjit Singh Rana had told him that the deceased had met with an accident whereas he later came to know that she had already died at the matrimonial home itself. On coming to Delhi by next morning flight he had lodged a report and suspected the petitioners' hand in her death on account of their greed for dowry and harassment on that account. On his information, FIR No. 393/88 under Sections 498A/306 IPC was registered.
6. His supplementary statements and also statements of his wife as well as of some friends and relatives were also recorded who also stated that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry and was not loved and cared properly and was neglected lot in her matrimonial home.
7. On being committed to sessions, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties, and after considering the material on record by a detailed order dated 15.5.95 found a prima facie case and charged the petitioners as aforesaid.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the letters were written by the deceased to her husband which are in loving and affectionate language show quite cordial and normal relations between the deceased and her husband and there is nothing in the letters that she had any grievance against her in-laws as well. In letters written by her to her parents also there is no mention of demand of dowry or harassment in connection with demand or inadequate dowry by her husband or other in-laws. Their contention is that these letters have not been considered by the Trial Court while framing the charge. There is also no material to show that there was any such demand "soon before" her death and the circumstances as well as medical report show that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging and on the material available, no case is made out for proceeding under Section 498A and/or 304B IPC against the five accused or under Section 302 IPC against Ranjit Singh Rana and that the learned trial court has acted illegally in charging the petitioners for these offences. Reliance has been placed on Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. and State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. .
9. Whereas learned Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State has very vehemently opposed these contentions and has supported the impugned order. He has contended that there is sufficient material on record for proceeding and the charges have been properly framed and there is no illegality or error committed by the Trial court; also that this court in exercise of revisional power would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court which is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable or unjustified. He has also relied on some case law.
10. After the case is committed Sections 226, 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the 'Code') come into operation. The trial court is to pass an order under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing" under section 227. And if on the other hand "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presumption that the accused has committed an offence triable by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused" as provided under Section 228. Before taking a decision under Section 227 or 228 the Court is required to consider the documents submitted by the Police and to hear the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf.
11. The scope of Sections 227 and 228 has been considered by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 SCC (Cri.) 533, wherein it was laid down that :
"Reading the two provisions together (i.e. Sections 227 and 228) in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defense of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording the finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. 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 find 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 guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage 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 cross-examination or rebutted by the defense evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial....... If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227 of the Code."
12. It was further held that the test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
13. The scope of this provision was again considered in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal where it was held that :
1. The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges u/s 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 had been made out;
2. Where the material placed before the Court discloses 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;
4. The Judge 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. He would not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting the trial.
14. The scope has again been considered in Stree Atyachar Viordhi Parishad Vs. Dilip nathumal Chordia 1989 SCC (Cri) 285 and following the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases, it has been reiterated as under :
"... The 'ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the materials. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be inquired into."
In State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy, relied on behalf of the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held that in the exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Regarding the scope of Section 227 after referring to Vadilal Panchal Vs. D.D. Ghadigaonkar and Century Spinning and Mfg. Company Vs. State of Maharashtra , it was held that the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said to be reasonably possible." On facts, agreeing with the view of the High Court it was held that the material available is wholly inadequate to sustain the charge of assault on the complainant.
15. In Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Ors. , inter alia Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) have been referred to and it was held that:
"If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial. Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code."
16. Both these cases do not lay down any different principle. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. It would primarily depend upon the material before the court and the nature of such material. At the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by Court is not required (Radhey Shyam Vs. Kunj Behari & Others ).
17. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court before coming to the conclusion that the material justify the framing of charges has not considered the letters written by the deceased to her parents and also those written by her to her husband which are on record as according to them in none of those letters allegations of demand of dowry or harassment in connection therewith with or dowry being insufficient or below the expectation of the in-laws at the time of marriage have been made against the in-laws.
18. These letters cannot be seen in isolation and would be viewed in the light of other material available on the record.
19. The first letter dated 28th November 1984, written after about 7 months of the marriage to her father, she has complained about her pathetic and miserable condition in her matrimonial home. She appears to be a harassed and disgusted lot.
20. She has even complained that she is not being given proper food and her position was worse than their domestic servant in this matter. The husband had even taken away Rs.14,000/- from her which perhaps were to be given to some one else. This does not show that the deceased was enjoying the love and affection in her matrimonial home even in the beginning. In another letter started on 7.11.1988 was completed on 21.11.1988, also she has complained about her depressions, sad, sorrowful and helpless condition in the house of her in-laws. She was given a broken bed and had to borrow even a bed for her and for her son from a friend of her father which also speaks volumes about her existence in the matrimonial house. It appears that she was not even provided warm clothings for ensuing winter and she had to demand from and depend on her mother for the clothes of her child and for herself. She was not given any money for her personal needs and had to depend on her parents for money. She writes "Ma I do not know whether I should be writing this or not....... but you were saying on the phone the other day that you were giving to me some Inderprashta papers (perhaps meaning Indra Patra) for me ..... Well don't ...Give me cash instead as we are not getting any money from daddy. I am fed up of taking out Juni's money. I don't know "Kab tak mein aise besharam ho ke aap se paise leti rahungee...sigh!!" (Juni is her infant son).
21. She was an educated girl born and brought up in Bombay and married in Delhi. She was entitled to proper respect.
22. The end of the girl came on 23.11.1988 after two days of this letter.
23. Before this, she had talked with her father on telephone last Sunday, (which is on 20.11.1988) when also she had complained about harassment being meted out to her by her in-laws. The three letters dated 8.9.1988, 17.9.1988 and 19.9.1988 written by the deceased to her husband apparently during her stay with her parents do not apparently contain anything showing rancour or illwill towards anyone. These show how considerate she was towards her husband and in-laws. She had been living with the husband for over 4 years and she would not have made any complaint to him, when he was also responsible for harassment to her along with others as alleged. These letters could be considered and evaluated along with other material that may be brought on record during trial. These cannot be considered in isolation. And the other material available on record could not be ignored at this stage.
24. As such, on the basis of the material available, it cannot be said that the trial court has acted illegally or improperly in proceeding against the petitioners. There is no error or infirmity to this extent.
25. Now the question is, what offence is made out?
26. Explanation to Section 498A IPC provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty. Such wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury or damage to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman) would also amount to cruelty. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also constitute cruelty. On the material available on record, the trial court was justified in framing a charge u/s 498A against all the accused persons.
27. The deceased had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. Question whether unnatural death was homicidal or suicidal is irrelevant for the purpose of applicability of Section 304B as held in the case of Smt. Shanti & Another Vs. State of Haryana . Also as held in this case the meaning of the words "cruelty or harassment" u/s 304B is the same as given in explanation of Section 498A IPC. As already no-
ticed, there is material on record to show prima facie that not only there was demand for dowry articles, for a car, cash etc. but the deceased was also subjected to cruelty and harassment for meeting their demand of dowry or a car or cash and also for inadequate dowry brought by her at the time of marriage. Apparently, this harassment and cruelty was continuous, unabated, persistent and had continued till her death. She had died in the matrimonial home. The last straw, if she had committed suicide, of burden on the harassed lady, that had driven her to commit suicide is within the special knowledge of the petitioners. She had a son for whom apparently she had great love, affection and attachment. She would not have abandoned him so cruelly if she was enjoying love, affection, respect and was cared for in her matrimonial house.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no material to show that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. The words "soon before" would not mean "immediately at the time of the death". Unabated and continuous ill treatment of the husband and his relatives in connection with demand of dowry would certainly attract Section 340-B. It is well established that relevant inference from the facts and circumstances is permissible and the Court can raise presumptions on the basis of the materials available on the record.
29. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana . In that case, there was dispute between the parties regarding the dowry and the wife was sent back to her parent's home but she was again taken back to nuptial home after Panchayat was held/dispute was resolved. No evidence however was led that she was treated with cruelty or harassed with demand for dowry after being taken back to the matrimonial home till her tragic end. On the facts of that case it was held that presumption of dowry death could not be raised in the absence of proof of harassment soon before the death. The facts are not similar to the present case and the finding was after trial. That case is of no relevance on facts. Moreover each case will depend upon its own facts. In this case as noticed above, it appears that the harassment is continuous and unabated. In the circumstances, on a prima facie view charge under Section 304B IPC has also been rightly framed by the trial court.
30. Ranjit Singh Rana has also been charged u/s 302 IPC.
31. The postmortem doctor has opined that the death was due to asphyxia caused by ante-mortem hanging. The time since death is opined to be 20 hours. The postmortem was conducted at 12.00 noon on 24.11.1988. According to this, the death would have taken place at about 4.00 P.M. on 23.11.1988. Learned counsel for the accused has contended that in view of the postmortem report, no case u/s 302 IPC is made out and the learned trial court was not justified in framing the charge in the absence of any material in support of it. Whereas learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that all the circumstances have to be considered and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order in this respect. The circumstances relied by him are:-
1. that the deceased was a young lady of about 26 years, intelligent, educated and had a male child 15 months old for whom she had great love and affection and she would not have committed suicide and leave the child at the mercy of her in-laws. Suicide in the circumstances would be against common course of normal human conduct;
2. Conduct of accused :
(a) Harbans Singh had telephoned at 7.00 P.M. to wish the deceased on the occasion of the birthday of Guru Nanak Dev on 23.11.1988, the call was attended by Ranjit Singh Rana who did not tell him that the deceased had already died but he had stated that she had gone to Gurudwara;
(b) the accused informed the father of the deceased long after her death at 7.15 P.M. that the deceased had met with an accident;
(c) the accused had not called the doctor at about the time of the death of the deceased;
(d) The accused did not inform the police about the unnatural death and it was B.S.Ahuja who had given information of it at about 8.05 P.M. on PCR.
3. The condition of the deceased as noticed by the postmortem doctor does not exclude the possibility of homicidal death by strangulation or hanging after postmortem.
32. He has referred to certain texts on Medical Jurisprudence. According to him, inter alia as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence 21st Edition page 203, in case of hanging, neck is stretched and elongated, saliva comes out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. In this case, the autopsy doctor has not noticed these conditions in his report.
33. The deceased had died an unnatural death is not in dispute.
34. There could be three possibilities, (1) suicide by hanging; (2) homicidal death by strangulation; and (3) murder and then hanging, making it appear as the case of death by hanging. These are the questions which could be matter for decision at the trial. As held in State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (supra), at the stage of framing the charge, copious reference to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and judging the postmortem report of a doctor who performed the autopsy over the dead body meticulously would not be justified. The defense that may be set up also cannot be gone into at this stage. The circumstances pointed out by the learned Prosecutor do raise strong suspicion against this accused.
35. Ranjit Singh Rana in his statement to the police had stated that he had got entry into the room where the deceased was found hanging by breaking open the door of the attached bath-toilet room. In the first zimni recorded on 24.11.1988, the IO has not noticed this circumstance nor he had taken into possession the broken latch, bolt etc. and the door nor that spot appears to have been photographed.
36. In this zimni, the height of ceiling fan from floor of the room, and height of stool lying in the room have been recorded. But the length of the chunni between its two knots on both ends and the possible length of that chunni while suspended between the bottom of the fan and the neck at the time of hanging has not been given. These would be relevant consideration to know what space, if any, would be available between the bed and the feet of the deceased at the time of hanging and in understanding the nature of impact operating at the time of alleged hanging and the resultant impact on the neck and other parts of the body of the deceased. These are relevant circumstances and could be gone into during the trial. The answer to the question when and why she died is within the special knowledge of Ranjit Singh who was present at the house at the time of death. As held in Ram Bilas & Ors. Vs. State alternative charge under Section 302 and 304-B is not barred.
37. For these reasons and in view of the legal position discussed earlier, the impugned order to this extent also cannot be said to be bad or illegal calling for interference by this Court.
38. This revision petition thus has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
39. The records of the case be sent back to the trial court forthwith.
40. The occurrence had taken place ten years ago and the trial has yet to start. The trial court is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and shall make all possible endeavour to complete the trial within six months. All the accused are on bail. It is a matter of common knowledge that in such circumstances even attempt is made to delay the trial. In case the accused or any of them absents or attempts to delay the trial without strong and valid grounds, the trial court would proceed to cancel the bail of the accused who may be found so responsible.
Trial court shall submit progress report to this Court every three months. First such report shall be submitted by 10th January, 1999.