Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ravinder Jindal was residing with his parents i.e.Nathu Jindal and Smt. Sushila along with Naresh Jindal, Ramesh Jindal, who are his brothers and Sudha and Poonam, their wives, in one house with joint mess. Three brothers used to run Chemist shop. After few months of the marriage, all the above accused persons started taunting Sunita on account of bringing insufficient dowry as per their status in the society and that they were expecting a car and that such like articles as have been given even class IV employee do not give. They have been defamed and humiliated in the society. Taunts were put to Sunita that accused Nathu, who was a practising Advocate at Sonepat was ashamed on seeing the dowry articles. A male child namely 'Chhotu' was born on 5.9.1990. It was alleged that Sunita was sent back to Kalka for bringing cash for Chemist shop of accused Ravinder (husbabnd of Sunita) at Sonepat and parents of Sunita gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on different occasions to Ravinder Jindal so that Sunita could be kept happily, which did not satisfy them and they continued to harass and torture her. About 3½ months earlier to the occurrence Ravinder left Sunita with their minor son at Kalka asking her to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for running the Chemist shop and that she would be taken back after one month. Ravinder did not turn up for two months and then Sunil Singla (complainant) with his brother Ashok Singla, Atma Ram Gupta, their maternal uncle took Sunita to Sonepat along with Sunita Jindal expressing inability to give the amount at that time and sought two months' time to meet the demand. They also requested the accused persons not to harass and maltreat Sunita, but there was no change in their behaviour towards Sunita. Then on 16.8.1995 in the morning Sunil Singla (complainant) received message from Sonepat that his sister Sunita was admitted in hospital. His father Kabul Chand along with his uncle Radhey Sham and mother reached Sonepat at 1:00 P.M. Complainant received a call from his father at about 1:30 P.M. that Sunita had already expired due to poisoning. Sunil Singla along with his other relations reached Sonepat at about 8:00 P.M. The body of Sunita was cremated in haste and no satisfactory reasons for her death were given by the accused persons. Complainant Sunil Singla suspected foil play as earlier they had received letter regarding maltreatment, physical and mental torture at the hands of her husband and other relations. Kabul Chand and his uncle were in a perplexed condition at the relevant time and the Police obtained their signatures on some papers for identification of the dead body. Complainant Sunil Singla then went to Local Police to register a case but he told to the Police that his father and uncle did not have any grievance against the accused persons, thus, no report was lodged and the statements of his father and uncle were not voluntary. The accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to harass and ill- treat Sunita for bringing insufficient dowry and further making demand of dowry and that they have caused her death by administering some poisonous substance.

Challan was presented and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide order dated 25.11.1995 committed the case to the Court of Session and vide order dated 9.12.1995 all the challaned accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B, 120-B and 406 IPC.

On a transfer application filed by the complainant in the High Court i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 21390 of 1996, Sunil Singla vs. Ravinder Jindal and others, the case was transferred from Session Division Sonepat to Additional Sessions Judge (I), Panipat. When the case, on transfer in Panipat came up for hearing on a statement made by Sunil Singla (complainant) an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning accused Sudha and Poonam to stand trial, which was allowed vide order dated 15.9.1997. Thereafter vide order dated 6.11.1997 charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B,120-B and 406 IPC were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

That apart, coming to the part of demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment in connection thereto soon before her death, except oral statement of Sunil Singla, complainant, and Ashok Kumar that about 3½ months before the occurrence Ravinder Jindal had left Sunita and their son in the parental house with a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and had said that he would come after one month thereafter but did not turn up after two months also and then Sunil Singla along with his brother Ashok Kumar and his maternal uncle Atma Ram took Sunita and her minor son to matrimonial home at Sonepat with a further request that they could not arrange Rs. 10,000/- as demanded and they would meet the said demand within a period of two months and requested them not to harass Sunita. Ashok Kumar, PW-5 has supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, there is no other evidence on record, which would suggest demand of dowry by the accused. It was stated by Sunil Singla in his statement that his mother was maintaining the accounts concerning the account of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was given by them on different occasions to the accused for the Chemist shop after the marriage but she has not been examined as a witness. It has been admitted by him in his statement that the dowry articles (Istridhan) of his sister Sunita were handed over to them and it was taken in possession by them from the police. It has also been admitted by him that he along with his brother Ashok Kumar, father, mother and his uncle Radhey Sham, as also his maternal uncle Atma Ram were present, when the last rites of his sister were performed on 16.8.1995. It is also admitted that on 16.8.1995 at about 5.30 A.M. a telephone call from Sonepat was received by them about the admission of his sister Sunita in Civil Hospital, Sonepat and his father, mother and uncle left for Sonepat in the morning by bus and arrived there at about 1:00 P.M. It has also come on record in his cross- examination that after some time of the marriage of Sunita, Nathu Ram Jindal had purchased a Maruti Car.

The incident is of the night of 15-16.8.1995 and the complaint was submitted only in the evening of 19.8.1995. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that he did not make any complaint to the higher authorities on 17th and 18th August, 1995, after refusal of the police to register the case on 16.8.1995 in the night time. He denied the suggestion that the complaint Ex. PB was drafted by a Lawyer, however, he admits that he had gone to a Typist at Sonepat Courts, who had typed the application Ex., PB dated 18.08.1995, where the typist has mentioned the Sections of IPC in the complaint. He had just stated the facts to the Typist and he had typed the same. He also admitted that he did not dictate the contents of Ex.PB nor did he draft the application. Perusal of the application and the narration of facts therein enumerates that the ingredients of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Sections under which offences fall undoubtedly goes to show that this is a document which has come into existence after a lot of deliberation and consultation. His conduct of going to the Courts at Sonepat and then getting the complaint typed from there with all the details, as mentioned above, indicate that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant to involve the accused in the offences enumerated therein, which cast a doubt on the veracity of the allegations made in the same, specially in the light of what has come in evidence and has been discussed by me in the foregoing paragraphs.