Full Text
Translation output
Crl.Rev. P. 59/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 59/2013
SANGITA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Arjita, Advocate
CRL.REV.P. 59/2013
SANGITA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Arjita, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Pankaj Kumar PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Pankaj Kumar PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
CRL.REV.P. 60/2013
LAVESH ..... Petitioner Throug: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Arjita, Advocate
LAVESH ..... Petitioner Throug: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Arjita, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Pankaj Kumar PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Pankaj Kumar PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 13.09.2013
Petitioners in the above-captioned two petitions are sister-in-law
(nanad) and brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased and they seek discharge in FIR No. 259/2011 under Section 498-A/302/304B/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in which trial court vide impugned order of 18th December, 2012 has called upon petitioners to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. In the alternative, petitioners have been called upon to face the trial for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
2013:DHC:4653 Crl.Rev. P. 59/2013 Page 2 Learned counsel for petitioners assails impugned order of 18th December, 2012 while drawing the attention of this Court to the charge- sheet of this case and the statement of witnesses recorded to point out that the necessary ingredients of the offences of dowry death are not made out as there is no evidence that soon before the death deceased was subjected to cruelty. At the hearing, it was vehemently asserted by the learned counsel for petitioners that in a case of suicide, alternative charge under
Section 302 IPC cannot be framed and so, the impugned order is bad in law on this aspect as well. Reliance was placed upon decisions in
Crl.Rev. P. 141/2011 Sandhya Tripathi & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi decided on 9th May, 2012, Crl.Rev. P. 666/2010 Durga Ram & Ors. v.
State of Anr. decided on 1st February, 2011, Crl.Rev. P.385/2009
Prashant Bhaskar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided on 22nd September, 2009 and Harinder Singh & Ors. v. State 2007 (97) DRJ 370 in support of the above submissions to seek discharge in this FIR case.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the charge-sheet filed and the decisions cited, I find that the prosecution case is of deceased committing suicide. In the face of the charge-sheet filed and the material on record, framing of alternative charge under Section 302/34
IPC against petitioners is unwarranted and the alternative charge framed against petitioners for the offence of murder is set aside. However, as regards the charge against petitioners for the offence of dowry death and of petitioners subjecting deceased to cruelty is concerned, I find that the charge-sheet filed comprising of two supplementary statements of father of the deceased in which there are allegations which prima facie bring the offence within the ambit of dowry death against petitioners as well. The
Crl.Rev. P. 59/2013 Page 3 legal position as laid down in the decisions cited is not in dispute but the ratio of the decisions cited has no application to the facts of the instant case as within one year of the marriage, the deceased had died unnatural death. Indisputably, the supplementary statements of father of deceased cannot be excluded out of consideration at this initial stage. Such a view is being taken as at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen. Apt observations of Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 are as under:- "At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage."
Upon reading the charge-sheet filed in this case in its entirety, I find that prima facie case is made out against petitioners and so, impugned order framing charge for the aforesaid offences of dowry death and cruelty does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. However, alternative charge of murder framed vide impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside.
Both the petitions are disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioners at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 vn
Petitioners in the above-captioned two petitions are sister-in-law
(nanad) and brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased and they seek discharge in FIR No. 259/2011 under Section 498-A/302/304B/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in which trial court vide impugned order of 18th December, 2012 has called upon petitioners to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. In the alternative, petitioners have been called upon to face the trial for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
2013:DHC:4653 Crl.Rev. P. 59/2013 Page 2 Learned counsel for petitioners assails impugned order of 18th December, 2012 while drawing the attention of this Court to the charge- sheet of this case and the statement of witnesses recorded to point out that the necessary ingredients of the offences of dowry death are not made out as there is no evidence that soon before the death deceased was subjected to cruelty. At the hearing, it was vehemently asserted by the learned counsel for petitioners that in a case of suicide, alternative charge under
Section 302 IPC cannot be framed and so, the impugned order is bad in law on this aspect as well. Reliance was placed upon decisions in
Crl.Rev. P. 141/2011 Sandhya Tripathi & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi decided on 9th May, 2012, Crl.Rev. P. 666/2010 Durga Ram & Ors. v.
State of Anr. decided on 1st February, 2011, Crl.Rev. P.385/2009
Prashant Bhaskar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided on 22nd September, 2009 and Harinder Singh & Ors. v. State 2007 (97) DRJ 370 in support of the above submissions to seek discharge in this FIR case.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the charge-sheet filed and the decisions cited, I find that the prosecution case is of deceased committing suicide. In the face of the charge-sheet filed and the material on record, framing of alternative charge under Section 302/34
IPC against petitioners is unwarranted and the alternative charge framed against petitioners for the offence of murder is set aside. However, as regards the charge against petitioners for the offence of dowry death and of petitioners subjecting deceased to cruelty is concerned, I find that the charge-sheet filed comprising of two supplementary statements of father of the deceased in which there are allegations which prima facie bring the offence within the ambit of dowry death against petitioners as well. The
Crl.Rev. P. 59/2013 Page 3 legal position as laid down in the decisions cited is not in dispute but the ratio of the decisions cited has no application to the facts of the instant case as within one year of the marriage, the deceased had died unnatural death. Indisputably, the supplementary statements of father of deceased cannot be excluded out of consideration at this initial stage. Such a view is being taken as at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen. Apt observations of Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 are as under:- "At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage."
Upon reading the charge-sheet filed in this case in its entirety, I find that prima facie case is made out against petitioners and so, impugned order framing charge for the aforesaid offences of dowry death and cruelty does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. However, alternative charge of murder framed vide impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside.
Both the petitions are disposed of while not commenting upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioners at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 vn
JUDGMENT