The judgment establishes the principle that a fair and just investigation is essential for a fair trial, and the defective investigation cannot be a ground for discharge. It emphasizes the obligation of the court to ensure proper investigation and cites the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - CRL.M.A. No. 9130/2018

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 79 days in filing the present case is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 415/2018

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No. 458/2017. By the order impugned herein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discharged respondent Nos.4 and 5 for offences under Sections 306/34 IPC. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased, Aanchal Bakshi. The deceased was married to the respondent No.3 on 26.04.2012. It was an arranged marriage. Out of the wedlock, a child (baby boy) was born on 19.02.2013. On 24.10.2014, i.e. within two and a half years of marriage, the deceased was found hanging by neck from the ceiling fan in her matrimonial house. The Post Mortem was conducted on 25.10.2014 and as per the Post Mortem report the cause of death was "Asphyxia as a result of ligature hanging" and the manner of death was found to be suicide. The statements of the petitioners were recorded before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short "the SDM") on 25.10.2014. In her statement, petitioner No.1, the mother of the deceased, said that the deceased was not happy in her matrimonial house and her Mother-in-Law i.e. respondent No.4 and Sister-in-Law i.e. respondent No.5 were responsible for the suicide of the deceased. The petitioner No.2 i.e. the father of the deceased said that he does not have any grievances or any complaints against any person and that no one is responsible for the death of the deceased. No FIR was registered even though there are allegations against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

2. The material on record shows that the brother of the deceased, i.e. the son of the petitioners herein, wrote an email on 10.04.2015 to the Commissioner of Police stating that no action had been taken even after five months of the death of the deceased. On 02.07.2015, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 gave statements before the SDM stating that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have inflicted cruelty on the deceased by taunting her that she has brought less dowry and were responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. The petitioner No.2 stated that the earlier statement was given in a hurry. The SDM wrote a letter dated 14.07.2015, to SHO, Tilak Nagar, sending the statements of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 dated 02.07.2015, for taking appropriate action and to register FIR. It was mentioned in the said letter that the SHO and the Executive Magistrate have failed to follow rules.

3. On 29.07.2015, after about ten months of the death of the deceased, FIR No.1119/2015 was registered under Sections 306/34 IPC. After investigation, on 09.02.2017, a closure report was filed. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were kept in column No.12. Despite the closure report, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, West, on 19.07.2017 found that prima facie offences punishable under Section 306/34 IPC are made out against the accused and committed the case to the Sessions Court.

4. On committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the order impugned herein found that the subsequent statements of the parents dated 02.07.2015, before the SDM, are not a part of the charge-sheet. It was also held that the subsequent statement of the parents dated 02.07.2015, purportedly recorded before the SDM, does not bear the stamp and that they are also not signed by the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that prima facie there was no material to proceed against the accused persons for charges under Sections 306/34 IPC and discharged the accused. The learned Additional Session Judge further held that there are investigational lapses which requires due probe and directed that a copy of the order dated 13.11.2017 be sent to the Screening Committee for appropriate action in respect of the investigational lapses. It is this ord