Kuldeep Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNSS’) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter „Cr.PC‟) on behalf of the applicant, seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 176/2021, registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 302/304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter „IPC‟).

2. Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.06.2021, a PCR Call vide GD No.16-A was received at PS Maidan Garhi regarding the murder of a woman. The call was entrusted to ASI Rajesh Kumar, who alongwith Constable Sunil had reached at the spot, and found that one female dead body was lying on the bed in one room situated at the ground floor of the concerned property. The deceased was identified as Ms. Bharti, daughter of Sh. Heera Singh. The caller Sh. Bhopal Singh, i.e. maternal uncle of the victim, had informed that the victim had got married to the applicant herein in April, 2021. He also informed that the applicant had beaten and murdered her by strangulation, and had run away from the spot. Since the unnatural death of the victim had occurred within seven years of the marriage, the matter was reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saket, who sent Sh. Yogender Singh, Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Sub-Division Saket, Delhi at the spot, for inspection and further necessary action. The body of the victim was shifted to the Mortuary of AIIMS, Delhi, for post-mortem. The parents of victim were informed about the death of their daughter. The Tehsildar, Saket had thereafter recorded the statements of the parents of the victim, and on the basis of statement of father of the victim, the present FIR was registered. The father of the victim had disclosed that since the victim had got married to the applicant, he and his parents had constantly demanded dowry whereas the father of the victim had already provided all the possible household articles at the time of marriage. However, the accused persons had kept on harassing and abusing her daughter. During the course of the investigation, the post-mortem of the victim was conducted at AIIMS, Delhi which revealed that there were 33 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the victim. Accordingly, all the accused persons were arrested in the case on 18.06.2021.

4. The present bail application has been preferred by the husband of the victim.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the present accused/applicant argues that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.06.2021 i.e. for more than 3½ years, whereas all the co-accused persons have been granted bail. It is contended that all the material witnesses, including the parents of the victim have already been examined before the learned Trial Court, and since there are total 34 witnesses in this case, recording of statement of remaining witnesses and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. He also points out that there are material contradictions and improvements in the statement of witnesses.

6. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the present bail application, and submits that there are no contradictions or improvements in the statements of the witnesses. He draws the attention of this Court to the contents of the chargesheet, and post-mortem report of the victim.

7. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, though vehemently argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated in this case, at the same time, he conceded that the applicant was heavily drunk and in a drunken condition, at the spur of a moment, had killed the victim. He stated that this is also a defence of the present applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the victim and the applicant had visited the parental home of the victim and had stayed there very happily for two days, which shows that the allegations leveled by the family of the victim are afterthought and therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail.

8. The learned APP for the State, in response to this argument, submitted that the aforesaid argument, at this stage, sufficiently reveals that the present applicant had committed murder of the victim, though now he is taking a defence that he was heavily drunk. The learned APP for the State further draws this Court‟s attention to the statement of the witnesses, and states that the statements pointed out as to how within two months of the marriage, the victim was not only consistently harassed, abused and tortured for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Therefore, he prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

9. This Court has heard arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and has also gone through the material placed on record.

10. Having perused the case file, this Court notes that the chargesheet in this case has been filed, inter alia, for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304B of IPC, since the applicant herein, who is the husband of the victim, had allegedly committed murder of his wife after about two months of solemnization of their marriage. The record reveals that there are specific allegations against the accused herein regarding demand of dowry as well as threatening, abusing and harassing the victim.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the victim had last resided together at her parental home with the deceased happily is prima facie belied by the statement of the father of the deceased recorded in this case wherein he states that on 09.06.2021, the accused and the victim had come to his village and he had given a gold mangalsutra to his daughter but the present accused had again asked him to sell his land and give money to him. Since the father of the victim had refused to meet his demand, on 16.06.2021, the accused along with the victim had returned to Delhi as he was not happy. The statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the police during investigation of the present case also reveal that the parental family of the victim were aware about the harassment undergone by the victim at the hands of the accused. Therefore, at this stage, the argument that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused regarding the motive or demand of dowry being the cause behind death of the victim is unmerited.

12. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant herein was heavily drunk and at the spur of the moment, since an altercation had taken place between him and the victim, he had killed her, in itself shocks the conscience of this Court. What adds to the seriousness of the offence and is distressing is also the fact borne out from the post-mortem report of the victim, which shows as to how brutally the victim was murdered. The post-mortem report in this case opined that “Asphyxia due to manual smothering and strangulation and shock due to multiple injuries sustained to the head and trunk, which are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All Injuries are antemortem In nature and fresh in duration. Injury Nos.2-4 are due to smothering. Injuries Nos.8-11 are due to manual strangulation. Injuries Nos.1, 5-7 and 12-33 are due to blunt force impact”.

13. Thus, the post-mortem report categorically enlists 33 ante-mortem injuries and details of manual strangulation and smothering of the victim, which reflects as to how the victim had suffered a traumatic end of her life. To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment, had killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking. The fact that present accused is the husband of the victim, and has allegedly killed her, in a drunken state and allegedly at the spur of the moment, in this Court‟s opinion does not mitigate the seriousness of the offence but rather multiplies it. In this Court‟s opinion, the victim, being his wife, could not have thought that the person she had been married to, will kill her brutally after consuming liquor, just because her parents did not agree to sell their land - a land which was theirs, and not of the accused, which he was demanding as a matter of right.

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant also argued that the parties were hardly married for two months and there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that there were demands of dowry or harassment by the accused. In this regard, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the testimonies of the parents of the victim before the learned Trial Court suggest as to what had infuriated the accused a day before, i.e. on 16.06.2021, when the accused and the victim had visited the parental home of the victim where he had again raised his demands and was annoyed that her family was unwilling to fulfill the same. One notable fact is that the applicant had on 16.06.2021, while leaving the parental home of the victim, told her parents (as per the testimony of the mother of the victim) that they will not see their daughter again. The victim was killed in the early hours of 17.06.2021, or probably late hours of 16.06.2021 itself, however, the accused did not even bother to inform the parents of the victim, who had given birth to her and had got her married to him, that she had died.

15. While the argument that bail being the rule and jail being the exception and the present accused being in custody for more than 3 years has also been projected as one of the arguments in the bail application, the Court while considering so cannot, at any point of time, be oblivious of the actions and allegations qua an accused, while applying the said principle.