Back
High Court Of Delhi
SUBHASH CHANDER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 111 of 1991
Decided On : 12/16/1991
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 306 IPC - SECTION 227 CRPC - SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDS FOR PROCEEDING - DEMAND OF DOWRY - HARASSMENT - BURDEN OF PROOF - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 113A - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Subhash Chander and his mother Smt. Krishna Wanti, were charged with abetment of suicide of Kanchan Rani, the wife of Subhash Chander, under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charge was framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, after considering the evidence produced by the complainant, Smt. Satya Rani Chadha, the mother of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC. The court found that the deceased had sustained burn injuries inside the kitchen which was broken open, that kerosene oil was found in her scalp and on the stove, and that the lid of the stove was found open. The court also found that there was evidence of demand for dowry and harassment by the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which deals with the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman, could be applied retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence produced by the complainant, including the statements of witnesses and the post-mortem report, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners. The court found that the deceased had sustained burn injuries inside the kitchen which was broken open, that kerosene oil was found in her scalp and on the stove, and that the lid of the stove was found open. The court also found that there was evidence of demand for dowry and harassment by the petitioners. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which deals with the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman, could be applied retrospectively. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Ors., which held that Section 113A did not create any new offence but was merely a matter of procedure of evidence and, therefore, could be applied retrospectively.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing the charge against them.
( 1 ) THIS order is to dispose of the criminal revision filed by Subhash Chander and his mother Smt. Krishna Wanti thereby challenging the order dated 8th January, 1991 directing the framing of the charge under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code against them and the charge framed against them on the same day.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:
( 3 ) SMT. Shashi Bala @ Kanchan Rani was the daughter of Smt. Satya Rani Chadha and Suraj Parkash Chadha. Smt. Kunan Devi and Shri S. S. Kohli are the mother and brother respectively of Satya Rani Chadha.
( 4 ) SHASHI Bala @ Kanchan Rani was married to Subhash Chander on 4th May, 1978 and thereafter she started residing with her in-laws. Subhash Chander petitioner is the husband and Smt. Krishnawanti is the mother-in law of Kanchan Rani. Naresh is the brother while Chanchal and Aruna are the sisters of Subhash Chander.
( 5 ) ON 17th March, 1979 Smt. Kanchan Rani died at the house of her in-laws of burn injuries. Information in this regard was conveyed to police and also to Smt. Satya Rani Chadha. Case FIR No. 443 was recorded in P. S. Gandhi Nagar on 17. 3. 1979 under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. on the basis of statement of Smt. Satya Rani Chadha.
( 6 ) IT was, inter alia, stated by her that there was no demand of dowry when the marriage was settled but a few days prior to the marriage there was a demand of fridge,t. V. , Scooter and ornaments. It was also stated that they could give a fridge and Rs. 500. 00 in lieu of TV and that the husband In-laws continued harassing her. It was also stated that on 15th March, 1979, Smt. Kanchan Rani came to the house of her parents while accompanied by Subhash Chander and a demand of scooter was repeated when Subhash was informed that the said demand could not be fultfilled at that time but a scooter would be given at the time of birth of achild since Kanchan Rani was carrying six months pregnancy.
( 7 ) THE matter was investigated by the local police, Crime Branch as also the CBI. However, the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency was that no case was made out and a proposal was made for cancellation of the case.
( 8 ) SMT. Satya Rani filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Court for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. An enquiry was made and 11 witnesses were examined.
( 9 ) AFTER hearing Counsel for Smt. Satya Rani Chadha Subhash Chander and Smt. Krishna wanti were summoned for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC while no case was found against Naresh, Chanchal and Aruna by Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara vide order dated 10th January, 1985.
( 10 ) AFTER furnishing relevant copies to the petitioners the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial by Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara vide order dated 3rd December, 1989.
( 11 ) THE matter came up before Shri S. M. Aggarwal,addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara who vide impugned order found a prima facie case under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and so charge was framed against them accordingly.
( 12 ) SMT. Satya Rani Chadha made an application being Criminal Misc. 242 of 1991 praying that she may be impleaded as a respondent and granted an opportunity of addressing arguments a final hearing. Vide order dated 1st August, 1991 the applicant was not joined as a party but permission was granted to her Counsel to address the Court at the time of hearing.
( 13 ) I have heard Bawa Shiv Charan Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. K. Dev learned Counsel for Smt. Satya Rani Chadha. No one has appeared for respondent No. 1.
( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order was challenged by the petitioners on two counts, namely, that Sec. 113a of the Evidence Act came into force much after the incident and this provision could be applicable to the facts of the present case and secondly that even if
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
