Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 1690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Hari Gopal Wadhwa & Anr. .......Petitioners
VERSUS
State .......Respondents
Bail Application No.1239/2007
Decided On : 20-08-2007
Mr.R.N.Mittal, Mr.V.Shekhar, Sr.Advocates with Mr.Puneet Mittal, Mr.Pawan K. Mittal Mr.Pradeep Kr. Dubey, Mr.Sudhir K. Sajwan,Advocates
Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for State
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of distinguishing between dowry harassment and other matrimonial issues, and the caution against falsely implicating all relatives in cases of dowry death.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Law - [Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a woman, and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides for presumption as to dowry death. The court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between dowry harassment and other matrimonial issues, and cautioned against falsely implicating all relatives in cases of dowry death.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Manisha, was allegedly harassed for dowry and died an unnatural death, suspected to be suicide. The petitioners, her in-laws, were accused of demanding dowry and ill-treating her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements made by the deceased's family indicated harassment due to physical features rather than dowry demands. It noted the petitioners' efforts to stay clear of involvement and granted them bail.
Issues: The main issue was to determine whether the deceased was harassed for dowry or due to other reasons, and whether the petitioners were involved in her death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to distinguish between dowry harassment and other matrimonial issues, and cautioned against falsely implicating all relatives in cases of dowry death. It considered the petitioners' actions and the statements made by the deceased's family to assess their involvement.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioners, directing them to furnish a personal bond and surrender their passports, with a warning not to threaten or contact any prosecution witnesses.
1. Petitioners are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased Manisha. She was married to Amit, son of the petitioners on 10.12.2001. She died an unnatural death on 26.3.2007. It has been opined to be a case of suicide.
2. FIR has been registered on basis of statement made before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by Devender Pal, father of the deceased.
3. In his statement before the learned SDM, Devender Pal Singh stated that his daughter was being continuously harassed for dowry. That his daughter came under mental stress due to persistent harassment. That his daughter used to be beaten.
4. The statement is in question answer form. It reads as under :- “Q. What is your name?
Ans. Devender Pal Singh.
Q. Whats your relation with deceased Manisha?
Ans. She was my elder daughter.
Q. When was Manisha married?
Ans. She was married on 10.12.2000. Manisha has a daughter aged about 3 years.
Q. Was the marriage of Anil and Manisha arranged or love marriage?
Ans. It was an arranged marriage which took place with the approval of both the families.
Q. How and when you received the information of this incident?
Ans. Today evening at about 3.30 p.m we all went to Ram Mandir near our house when my son-in-law Amit called my son Gaurav on mobile and found that Manisha is no more and that you should come.
Q. What happened later on?
Ans. Within 8-10 minutes of said call we reached the house of her in-laws. Till that time police had also reached. Manisha was lying on bed in the bedroom and she was dead. Manishas in-laws were also present in the house at that time in other room.
Q. Were Manishas in-laws used to harass her for dowry?
Ans. Yes, they used to demand cash every time and we used to give according to our competence. About 10-15 days ago, Rs.5 lakhs was demanded, which we could not pay. These people used to harass her in every manner and used to threaten that we will turn you out of the home.
Q. Were they used to fight and beat her?
Ans. Yes, they used to beat Manisha every time. About 20-22 days ago, next day to Holi, Manishas husband slapped her, which was reported to police also. Besides, this information was given to police which should be in the records of Local Police.
Q. Do you think that Manisha committed suicide?
Ans: Manisha was a brave girl. Therfore I think that she had not committed suicide but was killed.
Q. Who do you think were involved in the said incident?
Ans. I am suspicious that Manishas husband (Amit Wadhwa), Father-in-law (Hari Gopal Wadhwa), Mother-in-law (Beena Wadhwa), Paternal grand mother (do not know the name), Uncle (nick name is Pappu who resides in A-Block Munirka), sister-in-law (Geeta Kar), Brother-in-law (Nandoi, Amit Kar), Paternal Aunt (Shashi), Another Paternal Aunt (I do not know the name), Aunti (I do not know the name, she also resides in A-Block Munirka), Smt. Malhotra who is Amit Wadhwas neighbour. All these people in collusion with each other have killed Manisha.
Q. Do you want any action?
Ans. Yes I want that strict action be taken against them.
Q. Do you want to say anything?
Ans. Manisha was kept in immense mental pressure due to which she used to suffer paralytic attack. I do not want to say any thing.”
5. Supplementary statement of Devender Pal Singh was recorded on 26.4.2007. On said date statement of the brother of the deceased as also her mother was recorded by the police.
6. As per the version put forth by the petitioners it is stated that their son married Manisha as the two had decided to get married. That the petitioners had no objection to the marriage. That immediately after marriage, Manisha started compelling her husband to reside separately from his parents. That she started demanding partition of the family property so that she and her husband could separate. That she and their son shifted out to an independent flat after 3 months of the marriage. That after 10-11 months the couple came back and apologized for leaving the petitioners. Bu
