Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1742
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Mahender Singh Chhabra
Versus
Jaspal Singh Narula & Others
CRL.A. No. 608 of 2014
Decided on : 21-07-2014
For the Appellant :R.S. Juneja, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Aashaa Tiwari, APP, with Inspector Arun Chauhan, P.S. Geeta Colony, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in proving guilt and highlights the need for thorough and impartial police investigations.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Law - IPC 498A, IPC 302, IPC 34 - The judgment discusses the evidence related to the death of the deceased, allegations of dowry harassment, and the conduct of the investigation. The court acquitted the accused of the charge of murder and found no evidence of dowry harassment.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead in her matrimonial house with a solitary injury in the right eye. The prosecution alleged dowry harassment and murder by the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused of the murder charge and found no evidence of dowry harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for murder or dowry harassment. It also criticized the deficiencies in the police investigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of the deceased's death, allegations of dowry harassment, and the adequacy of the police investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence and criticized the deficiencies in the police investigation. It found no proof of dowry harassment based on the presented evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the father of the deceased was dismissed, and the trial court's verdict of not guilty was upheld.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The deceased, late Smt. Manjit Kaur was married to accused No.1-Jaspal Singh Narula in the year 1982. Accused No.2-Amrik Singh and accused No.3-Varryam Kaur are the parents of Jaspal Singh Narula.
2. Manjit Kaur was found dead in her matrimonial house on October 07, 1994. She had a solitary injury in the right eye. The post mortem report Ex.PW-3/A of the deceased conducted by Dr. B.N. Acharya PW-3 records that the cranial bone was intact. As a rod entered the right eye, it fractured the orbital plate of right frontal bone and pierced to the right frontal lobe of the left parietal area. This caused subdural haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage clot over the brain surface. The cause of death was coma resulting from the brain injury.
3. The daughter of the deceased Harpreet DW-1, then aged about 12 years, was present in the house. Her cousin Jitinder DW-2, then aged around 21 years, was also present in the house.
4. They told the Investigating Officer that no accused was present in the house when Manjit Kaur was injured. As per them Manjit Kaur was in the stairs and was shifting malba from the stairs. Jitender claims to be in the company of Manjit. They were cleaning the malba lying on the newly constructed staircase when she heard a cry. She saw Manjit with an injury in her eye. As per Harpreet, the shout of Jitender that her mother was injured made her rush towards her mother. As per both of them neighbours gathered and took Manjit to the hospital.
5. The parents of Manjit alleged that Manjit was harassed for dowry and that she had been murdered by the accused.
6. FIR for offence punishable under Sections 498A/302 IPC was registered. After concluding investigation, the police filed a cancellation report which was not accepted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. On August 04, 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed that a further investigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of ACP. The result was the same.
7. Five times cancellation reports were filed. The parents of the deceased approached this Court praying for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which request was declined. Vide order dated December 15, 2004 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while condoning the delay in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC summoned the three accused. The father of the deceased was not satisfied. He preferred a petition before this Court which was disposed of directing the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to look into all the facts.
8. Virtually compelled, learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated April 10, 2008 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and summoned all the accused. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 498A/302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty.
9. At the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses. None was an eye witness.
10. Material for the purposes of the appeal would be to note the fact that Dr. B.N. Acharya PW-3 who conducted post mortem of the deceased proved his report Ex.PW-3/A, being the post mortem report, and Ex.PW-3/B, the opinion given by him subsequently concerning the injury and a saria picked up from the place where the deceased was injured and Dr. Rajender Singh PW-6, Director, CFSL, CBI, proved his report Ex.PW-6/A which he authored after he examined the scene of occurrence and reconstructed the scene of the crime. As per the report the iron rod (saria) was sufficiently long, thin and strong enough to pierce the right eye if the same hit the eye on being pulled from inside the debris lying on the top of the staircase.
11. Needless to state, Harpreet Kaur DW-1 and her cousin Jitender Kaur- DW-2 deposed facts which they told the Investigating Officer during investigation and as noted by us herein above.
12. In view of the defence evidence, the reports of the doctor who conducted t
