Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Kaushalya Devi - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.Rev. P. 330 of 2018 and Crl.Rev. P. 363 of 2018
Decided On : 19-10-2022
MURDER - CRIMINAL LAW - IPC 302, 304B, 498A - The judgment governs the disposal of CRL.REV.P. Nos. 330/2018 and 363/2018 arising out of common set of facts, contentions and prayer, filed by the original complainant and the State respectively, whereby both the petitions assail the impugned order dated 12.01.2018. The deceased was found dead 18 days after her marriage, and the police submitted charges under sections 498A/304B/302/120B/34 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court discharged respondent no. 2 to 6 on the ground that there was no direct evidence or motive to frame charges under section 302 IPC. The Trial Court also discharged respondent no. 3 to 6 of offences under section 498A/304B IPC as there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment against them soon before the death of the deceased. The Trial Court framed charges against respondent no. 2 under sections 498A/304B IPC based on the statement of the petitioner under section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead 18 days after her marriage, and the police submitted charges under sections 498A/304B/302/120B/34 of the IPC. The deceased was found hanging from a window that was located at a height of 6 feet whereas the height of the deceased was 5 feet 5 inches. According to the post-mortem report of the deceased, the manner of death was termed as 'homicidal'. The mouth of the deceased was gagged with a towel which was later revealed as one of the reasons for her death. No suicide note was found. The Trial Court discharged respondent no. 2 to 6 on the ground that there was no direct evidence or motive to frame charges under section 302 IPC. The Trial Court also discharged respondent no. 3 to 6 of offences under section 498A/304B IPC as there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment against them soon before the death of the deceased. The Trial Court framed charges against respondent no. 2 under sections 498A/304B IPC based on the statement of the petitioner under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court discharged respondent no. 2 to 6 on the ground that there was no direct evidence or motive to frame charges under section 302 IPC. The Trial Court also discharged respondent no. 3 to 6 of offences under section 498A/304B IPC as there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment against them soon before the death of the deceased. The Trial Court framed charges against respondent no. 2 under sections 498A/304B IPC based on the statement of the petitioner under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient ground to presume that the accused had committed the offence under section 302 IPC and whether there were allegations of cruelty or harassment against respondent no. 3 to 6 soon before the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court discharged respondent no. 2 to 6 on the ground that there was no direct evidence or motive to frame charges under section 302 IPC. The Trial Court also discharged respondent no. 3 to 6 of offences under section 498A/304B IPC as there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment against them soon before the death of the deceased. The Trial Court framed charges against respondent no. 2 under sections 498A/304B IPC based on the statement of the petitioner under section 161 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and disposed of the petition accordingly. The observations made by the Court are only for the purposes of deciding the present petitions against the order of discharge, and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
| S. No. | Particulars | Page No. |
| 1. | Factual Background | 3-7 |
| 2. | Submissions of learned counsels | 7-9 |
| 3. | Position of law | 9-24 |
| i. Framing of Charge and Discharge | 9-17 | |
| ii. Offence under Section 302, 304B and 498A IPC | 17-24 | |
| 4. | Observations and Findings | 24-28 |
1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of CRL.REV.P. Nos. 330/2018 and 363/2018 arising out of common set of facts, contentions and prayer, filed by the original complainant and the State respectively, whereby both the petitions assail the impugned order dated 12.01.2018. For the sake of uniformity, this judgment has been dictated from the perspective of the set of facts and contentions as raised in CRL.REV.P. No. 330/2018.
2. From the perusal of CRL.REV.P. No. 330/2018, it emerges that vide order dated 12.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in FIR bearing no.90/2017 under Sections 498A/304B/302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), Police Station Dabri, respondent no. 2 to 6 have been discharged of the commission of offences under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and respondent no. 3 to 6 have been discharged of the commission of offences under Sections 498A/304B IPC.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The brief facts pertinent to adjudication of the present matter are as under:
(i) The marriage between the deceased-victim & respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 01.02.2017. However, 18 days later i.e., on 19.02.2017, the deceased-victim was found dead, hanging from the grill of the ventilation window of bathroom.
(ii) FIR no. 90/2017 was registered on 20.02.2017 on the basis of statement of the petitioner Smt. Kaushalya Devi (mother of the deceased) under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C."). The petitioner in her statement revealed that post-marriage, the deceased used to call her and even paid visit to her house wanting to reveal something which she couldn't due to some reason. It was further stated that on 17.02.2017, the deceasedstarted weeping while talking to the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner questioned her son about such a condition of the deceased. The petitioner was informed by her son that respondent no. 2 had demanded a car after their marriage and had threatened the deceasedwith dire consequences if the said demand was not met. It was also stated by the petitioner that on 18.02.2017, the deceasedagain called her and she appeared normal during the whole conversation. However on 19.02.2017, the petitioner received the information of the passing away of her daughter. The petitioner stated that since her daughter was educated, she must not have committed suicide and that her death is a case of murder conspired by all the members present in the house at the time of her death as well as the respondent no. 2.
(iii) The police after investigation submitted the chargesheet under sections 498A/304B/302/120B/34 of the IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken against respondent no. 2 to 6 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. In the instant case, respondent no. 3 and 5 are the cousin brothers of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 4 and 6 are the wives of respondent no. 3 and 5, respectively.
(iv) The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 12.01.2018, discharged respondent no. 2 to 6 on the ground that there was no direct evidence or motive to frame charges under section 302 IPC. The observation of the Trial Court is as under:
1647576463. "11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid essential ingredients of offence of murder, it is to be note here that there is no direct evidence which may connect the accused persons with the alleged crime of murder of deceased Monica however, Prosecution has heavily relied upon following circumstantial evidence for showing the involvement of accused persons in the offence of murder:
(i) No one can commit suicide by inserting towel in his/her mouth.
(ii) There was motive of the accused Pankaj behind the murder of his wife Monika as he was having suspect over the charac
The court reaffirmed that at the charge framing stage, it is sufficient for the prosecution to show that prima facie evidence exists to warrant trial, without weighing the evidence as in a full trial....
The court emphasized that for charges under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish a prima facie case showing the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly befo....
Simultaneous convictions under IPC sections for dowry death and murder require clear evidence for the latter; presumption of dowry death applies if cruelty is established prior to death.
Omission to frame charge does not disable court from convicting accused for offence which is found to have been proved on evidence on record.
The court affirmed that a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC is established when a woman dies shortly after marriage due to cruelty for dowry demands, while simultaneous conviction un....
trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. It can evaluate the evidence for a limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try....
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
