Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 630/2010
FARIYAD ALI & ORS ..... Petitioner
CRL.REV.P. 630/2010
FARIYAD ALI & ORS ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS Model Town.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
19.05.2011 Crl. Rev.P. 630/2010 & Crl.
M.A. No. 15408-15409/2010
By this revision petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 21st July, 2010 directing framing of charge against the Petitioners under Sections
498A/304B/34 IPC.
Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 13th July, 2008 one Simran Ali was admitted in JPN Hospital. On the Sub-Inspector Janki Prasad reaching the hospital, doctor declared her to be fit for making statement. Smt. Simran Ali stated that she was married about two years ago and had a one year old child. She stated that on the date of incident at about 8:40 P.M., the electricity was not there and she lit a candle. She poured kerosene oil in the stove and while she was pouring the kerosene oil from one hand and in the
2011:DHC:13496 r-- ( other hand holding the candle, she hit the stove which was kept on the slab of the bathroom, due to which the kerosene oil spill on her clothes. When she lighted the match-stick, her clothes caught fire. At that time, her husband had gone outside to take mille On seeing her burning, he put blanket on her and brought her to the hospital. The SDM was called who recorded the statement of Gulam Mohd. , the father of Simran Ali. As per the statement of
Gulam Mohd., Simran was his eldest daughter and was married to Fariyad
Ali on 28th October, 2006. His wife used to tell that the in-laws of their daughter were demanding dowry. He had given an amount of~15,000/- on two or three occasions. Though the in-laws never directly demanded money from him but his wife told him that there were regular fights between their daughter, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law in relation to demand of dowry and he suspects that his daughter's mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband have burnt her.
Smt. Shahijahan Begum, the mother of deceased in her statement has stated that after the marriage of deceased with Fariyad Ali, her daughter was sent to her parental home by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to get dowry. At one occasion, she had given ~10,000/- and ~2,000/- on two /three occasions to them through the deceased without the knowledge of her husband i.e the father of deceased. She has further stated that the deceased used to tell her on phone about being harassed for dowry. She had told her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to throw her out of house and used to tell her to bring more dowry. Fariyad Ali never used to say anything to stop them and supported them saying whatever his mother and sister say is correct. She felt that her daughter's mother-in-law and sister-in-law killed her daughter by setting her ablaze using kerosene oil.
On the basis of the statement of the father, abovementioned FIR was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioners were charged as above.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that dying declaration given by the deceased, exonerates the Petitioners. Even on the MLC, the history of the patient is recorded as 'accidental bum by burst of kerosene oil stove at home'. Similarly, in the death summary, the same facts are recorded. It is contended that in view of the dying declaration, no charge
( against the Petitioners could have been framed under Section 304B IPC.
Moreover, even as per the allegations set out by the Complainant, there is no allegation that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry. It is fmiher contended that there are contradictions between the statements of farber and mother of the deceased and thus it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the Petitioners
~ I be discharged.
Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the statement ofthe father ofthe deceased clearly shows that due to the demand of in-law, he had paid ~15,000/- in two and three installments to the
Petitioners. At this stage, this Court will not evaluate whether the dying declaration should be believed or the statements of the witnesses. This exercise has to be done after adducing the evidence during trial and hence this petition be dismissed being devoid ofmerit.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, the dying declaration exonerates the Petitioners. However, whether reliance should be placed on the dying declaration or not in view of the improbabilities therein is an issue to be decided by the learned Trial Court during trial. The parents of the deceased have clearly alleged that they gave dowry beyond their capacity but after the marriage ofthe deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing insufficient dowry. The deceased died on 14th July, 2008 i.e. within less than two years of the marriage. The death was not natural. Further in a case of continuous harassment, there is no need for the prosecution to prove solitary incidents soon before the death.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soma Chakravathy (2007) 5 SCC 403 has held that at the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the
• material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are in the realm of appreciation of evidence which cannot be evaluated at this stage. The scope of revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court is a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the misconception of law or irregularity ofprocedure committed by the subordinate Courts. It does not confer unfettered jurisdiction on this Court for re-appraise the evidence. The revisional power of this Court is to be exercised to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisdiction, vested in it under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Accordingly, I find no merit in the present petition.
Petition and pending application are dismissed.
~~ MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 19, 2011
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS Model Town.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
19.05.2011 Crl. Rev.P. 630/2010 & Crl.
M.A. No. 15408-15409/2010
By this revision petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 21st July, 2010 directing framing of charge against the Petitioners under Sections
498A/304B/34 IPC.
Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 13th July, 2008 one Simran Ali was admitted in JPN Hospital. On the Sub-Inspector Janki Prasad reaching the hospital, doctor declared her to be fit for making statement. Smt. Simran Ali stated that she was married about two years ago and had a one year old child. She stated that on the date of incident at about 8:40 P.M., the electricity was not there and she lit a candle. She poured kerosene oil in the stove and while she was pouring the kerosene oil from one hand and in the
2011:DHC:13496 r-- ( other hand holding the candle, she hit the stove which was kept on the slab of the bathroom, due to which the kerosene oil spill on her clothes. When she lighted the match-stick, her clothes caught fire. At that time, her husband had gone outside to take mille On seeing her burning, he put blanket on her and brought her to the hospital. The SDM was called who recorded the statement of Gulam Mohd. , the father of Simran Ali. As per the statement of
Gulam Mohd., Simran was his eldest daughter and was married to Fariyad
Ali on 28th October, 2006. His wife used to tell that the in-laws of their daughter were demanding dowry. He had given an amount of~15,000/- on two or three occasions. Though the in-laws never directly demanded money from him but his wife told him that there were regular fights between their daughter, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law in relation to demand of dowry and he suspects that his daughter's mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband have burnt her.
Smt. Shahijahan Begum, the mother of deceased in her statement has stated that after the marriage of deceased with Fariyad Ali, her daughter was sent to her parental home by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to get dowry. At one occasion, she had given ~10,000/- and ~2,000/- on two /three occasions to them through the deceased without the knowledge of her husband i.e the father of deceased. She has further stated that the deceased used to tell her on phone about being harassed for dowry. She had told her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to throw her out of house and used to tell her to bring more dowry. Fariyad Ali never used to say anything to stop them and supported them saying whatever his mother and sister say is correct. She felt that her daughter's mother-in-law and sister-in-law killed her daughter by setting her ablaze using kerosene oil.
On the basis of the statement of the father, abovementioned FIR was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioners were charged as above.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that dying declaration given by the deceased, exonerates the Petitioners. Even on the MLC, the history of the patient is recorded as 'accidental bum by burst of kerosene oil stove at home'. Similarly, in the death summary, the same facts are recorded. It is contended that in view of the dying declaration, no charge
( against the Petitioners could have been framed under Section 304B IPC.
Moreover, even as per the allegations set out by the Complainant, there is no allegation that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry. It is fmiher contended that there are contradictions between the statements of farber and mother of the deceased and thus it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the Petitioners
~ I be discharged.
Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the statement ofthe father ofthe deceased clearly shows that due to the demand of in-law, he had paid ~15,000/- in two and three installments to the
Petitioners. At this stage, this Court will not evaluate whether the dying declaration should be believed or the statements of the witnesses. This exercise has to be done after adducing the evidence during trial and hence this petition be dismissed being devoid ofmerit.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, the dying declaration exonerates the Petitioners. However, whether reliance should be placed on the dying declaration or not in view of the improbabilities therein is an issue to be decided by the learned Trial Court during trial. The parents of the deceased have clearly alleged that they gave dowry beyond their capacity but after the marriage ofthe deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing insufficient dowry. The deceased died on 14th July, 2008 i.e. within less than two years of the marriage. The death was not natural. Further in a case of continuous harassment, there is no need for the prosecution to prove solitary incidents soon before the death.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soma Chakravathy (2007) 5 SCC 403 has held that at the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the
• material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are in the realm of appreciation of evidence which cannot be evaluated at this stage. The scope of revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court is a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the misconception of law or irregularity ofprocedure committed by the subordinate Courts. It does not confer unfettered jurisdiction on this Court for re-appraise the evidence. The revisional power of this Court is to be exercised to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisdiction, vested in it under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Accordingly, I find no merit in the present petition.
Petition and pending application are dismissed.
~~ MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 19, 2011
JUDGMENT