Full Text
Translation output
Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 41/2007
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor State
CRL.REV.P. 41/2007
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor State
VERSUS
FIRDOS BEGUM & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Karan Burman & Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Advocates
Through: Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Karan Burman & Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Advocates
CRL.REV.P. 936/2006
MOHD. AHSAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D.Mehra, Advocate
MOHD. AHSAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D.Mehra, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Karan Burman & Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Advocates for respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Karan Burman & Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Advocates for respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 12.04.2013
Since above-captioned petitions arise out of common impugned order, so they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2013:DHC:1885 Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 2
Impugned order of 13th November, 2006 framing charge for the offence of dowry death proceeds to call upon respondent-accused to face the trial for abetment of suicide and for subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner draws attention of this Court to the statement of father of deceased recorded by the concerned SDM to point out 10 days prior to this incident, deceased had come to her parental house and asked for a sum of `4 lac for her husband to purchase one shop in Laxmi Nagar but father of deceased had refused to give it as he was not having money and for the last 03 days deceased was subjected to beating by her husband. Attention of this
Court was also drawn to the supplementary statement of deceased which reads as under:
"Supplementary statement of Smt. Ruksana w/o Mohd. Nasir, R/o 1451 A, Chatta Nawab Sahab, Farash Khanna, Delhi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. aged 27 years.
Stated that I corroborate my previous statement and further stated that the statement given before the Doctor is correct and she stated that she gave later statement that her life becomes worst, if she died, the life of her daughter would become worst, that's why I alleged my Mother-in-Law (Saas) for pouring the Kerosene and set her ablaze but I did so due to torture of her husband and mother-in-law because my husband demanded Rs.4lacs from my father for purchasing the shop.
But my father was unable to meet this demand. After that she was tortured and harassed by her husband and Mother-in-law and for many more things.
SI Sombir Singh PS HQ Dt.25.12.2004" Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 3
According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner-
State, in view of aforesaid supplementary statement respondent-accused ought to be called upon to face the trial for dowry death but, they are facing trial for lesser offence i.e. abetment of suicide.
Learned counsel for respondent-accused draws attention of this
Court to the impugned order which takes note of Section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act to conclude that the alleged demand of `4 lac for purchase of shop cannot be termed as a dowry demand and so absolves respondent-accused for the offence of dowry death. Learned counsel for respondent-accused had placed reliance upon decisions in Hans Raj
Sharma & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2010 (2) JCC 972, Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2007(1) Scale 50, State of
Punjab v. Daljit Singh 1992 (2)CC Cases HC 71 & Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Haryana 1993(3) RCR (Crl.) 433 to contend that where demand is not referable to marriage, it would not constitute dowry demand to attract Section 304B of I.P.C.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the decisions relied upon on behalf of respondent-accused were rendered after contest and their ratio cannot be applied at the stage of charge as it is settled law that detailed appreciation of evidence is not to be undertaken at the stage of charge and only a prima facie view is to be taken of material on record.
So there is no basis to discard the supplementary statement of deceased at this stage which infact can be treated as dying declaration. That is to say
Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 4 that evidentiary value of aforesaid supplementary statement cannot be gone into at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned order discharging respondent- accused for the offence of dowry death is hereby set aside and trial court is directed to frame a charge for the offence of dowry death also and in the alternative for the offence of abetment of suicide. It would be open to respondent-accused to seek recall of the witnesses already examined for further cross examination in view of the alteration in the charge.
Both these petitions are disposed of without commenting upon evidentiary value or veracity of the material on record lest it may prejudice respondent-accused at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge APRIL 12, 2013 vn
Since above-captioned petitions arise out of common impugned order, so they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2013:DHC:1885 Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 2
Impugned order of 13th November, 2006 framing charge for the offence of dowry death proceeds to call upon respondent-accused to face the trial for abetment of suicide and for subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner draws attention of this Court to the statement of father of deceased recorded by the concerned SDM to point out 10 days prior to this incident, deceased had come to her parental house and asked for a sum of `4 lac for her husband to purchase one shop in Laxmi Nagar but father of deceased had refused to give it as he was not having money and for the last 03 days deceased was subjected to beating by her husband. Attention of this
Court was also drawn to the supplementary statement of deceased which reads as under:
"Supplementary statement of Smt. Ruksana w/o Mohd. Nasir, R/o 1451 A, Chatta Nawab Sahab, Farash Khanna, Delhi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. aged 27 years.
Stated that I corroborate my previous statement and further stated that the statement given before the Doctor is correct and she stated that she gave later statement that her life becomes worst, if she died, the life of her daughter would become worst, that's why I alleged my Mother-in-Law (Saas) for pouring the Kerosene and set her ablaze but I did so due to torture of her husband and mother-in-law because my husband demanded Rs.4lacs from my father for purchasing the shop.
But my father was unable to meet this demand. After that she was tortured and harassed by her husband and Mother-in-law and for many more things.
SI Sombir Singh PS HQ Dt.25.12.2004" Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 3
According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor for petitioner-
State, in view of aforesaid supplementary statement respondent-accused ought to be called upon to face the trial for dowry death but, they are facing trial for lesser offence i.e. abetment of suicide.
Learned counsel for respondent-accused draws attention of this
Court to the impugned order which takes note of Section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act to conclude that the alleged demand of `4 lac for purchase of shop cannot be termed as a dowry demand and so absolves respondent-accused for the offence of dowry death. Learned counsel for respondent-accused had placed reliance upon decisions in Hans Raj
Sharma & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2010 (2) JCC 972, Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2007(1) Scale 50, State of
Punjab v. Daljit Singh 1992 (2)CC Cases HC 71 & Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Haryana 1993(3) RCR (Crl.) 433 to contend that where demand is not referable to marriage, it would not constitute dowry demand to attract Section 304B of I.P.C.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the decisions relied upon on behalf of respondent-accused were rendered after contest and their ratio cannot be applied at the stage of charge as it is settled law that detailed appreciation of evidence is not to be undertaken at the stage of charge and only a prima facie view is to be taken of material on record.
So there is no basis to discard the supplementary statement of deceased at this stage which infact can be treated as dying declaration. That is to say
Crl.Rev.P Nos. 41/07 & 936/06 Page 4 that evidentiary value of aforesaid supplementary statement cannot be gone into at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, impugned order discharging respondent- accused for the offence of dowry death is hereby set aside and trial court is directed to frame a charge for the offence of dowry death also and in the alternative for the offence of abetment of suicide. It would be open to respondent-accused to seek recall of the witnesses already examined for further cross examination in view of the alteration in the charge.
Both these petitions are disposed of without commenting upon evidentiary value or veracity of the material on record lest it may prejudice respondent-accused at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge APRIL 12, 2013 vn
JUDGMENT