Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Suraj Malik – Appellant
Versus
The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3475 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - CrPC - IPC 498A, 306, 34 - The court discussed the dying declaration of the deceased, the allegations of demand of dowry, and the charges framed against the applicant and his mother under Sections 498A, 304B, 306, and 34 of the IPC. The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the need for prosecution to prove the allegations during trial.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 498A, 306, 34 of the IPC, related to the death of his wife due to burn injuries. The prosecution alleged harassment, dowry demands, and abetment to suicide against the applicant and his mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the dying declaration of the deceased, discrepancies in statements, and the framing of charges. It found that the dying declaration did not mention dowry demands by the applicant, emphasizing the need for evidence to prove the allegations.
Issues: Discrepancies in statements, allegations of dowry demands, abetment to suicide, and the importance of evidence in proving the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of evidence and the need for prosecution to prove the allegations during trial, especially in cases involving serious charges like dowry harassment and abetment to suicide.
Final Decision: The court granted the applicant bail, considering the lack of material to substantiate the prosecution's plea and the applicant's custody since the incident. The bail was subject to specific terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J. Present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC.) seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 591/2022 under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC.), registered at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
i. On 27.06.2022, a PCR call was received at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi, stating that one patient, namely Shefali (deceased), has been admitted on account of burn injuries. Subsequently, the deceased was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment.
ii.On reaching the hospital, it was revealed that the victim/Shefali got married on 23.11.2021, which was less than seven years and therefore, SDM Punjabi Bagh was informed about the same. On receipt of information, SDM Punjabi Bagh reached Safdarjung Hospital and recorded the statement of the patient, namely Shefali Malik (deceased), wherein she stated:
esjk uke 'ksQkyh efyd gSA esjs ifr dk uke lwjt efyd gSA esjh 'kknh lwjt efyd ls 23@11@2021 dks gqbZ FkhA esjh mez 28 o"kZ gSA eSa 35 if'pe ,UDyso] if'pe fogkj vius llqjky dsa Fkh vktA eSa isVB*ksy ykbZ [kqn vkSj eSaus vius mij isVB*ksy Mky dj vkx yxk yh D;ksafd eS thuk ugha pkgrhA esjh lkl eq>s cgqr ijs'kku djrh Fkh ngst ugha ekaxrh Fkh ij ckr ckr ij lqukrh FkhA ifr Hkh cgqr xkyh xyksp djrs FksA llqj ugha gSaA uun gSA mlls eq>s dqN f'kdk;r ughaA og dq> ugha dgrh Fkh esjh lkl us gh eq>s cgqr ijs'kku fd;k ftlds dkj.k eSa thuk ugha pkgrhA**
The English translation of the said statement is as under:
"My name is Shefali Malik. My Husband's name is Suraj Malik. I got married to Suraj Malik on 23.11.2021. My age is 28 years. I was at 35, Paschim Enclave, Pashchim Vihar, at my matrimonial home today and I got petrol and poured the same on myself and set myself on fire because I do not want to live. My mother-in-law harasses me. She does not demand dowry but she constantly taunts me. My husband, Suraj Malik, abuses me. Father-in-law is not there. Sister-in-law is there. I do not have any complaint against her as she does not say anything. My mother-in-law harasses me because of which I do not want to live."
iii. Consequently, FIR 591/2022 under Sections 498/306/34 of the IPC was registered and investigation was taken up.
iv. During the course of the investigation, statement of parents of the deceased, i.e., Sh. Krishan Kumar Khanna and Smt. Ranjana Khanna was recorded by the SDM, Punjabi Bagh, in which they alleged that husband and mother-in-law of the deceased harassed their daughter and demanded dowry. They alleged that the present applicant and his mother, i.e., Smt. Sunita Malik, burned their daughter Shefali.
v. In the statement, the father of the deceased also mentioned that it was deceased and applicant's second marriage, which they conducted with great pomp and show on 23.11.2021, by spending approximately Rs.20,00,000/-.
vi. It is further stated that in February 2022, the deceased told her parents that her in-laws are demanding Rs.25,00,000/- and therefore, they had given cash in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the deceased.
vii. It is also stated that the deceased got pregnant in April but her in-laws gave her medicine and got her aborted as the applicant, who already has a son from his previous marriage, did not want to have another child.
viii. It is further stated that on 26.06.2022, the deceased received her pregnancy report, which was positive, and she informed about the same to her parents on the next morning.
ix. It is also alleged that on the applicant being informed about the pregnancy, he stopped talking to the deceased and despite her not being well, fought with her.
x. It is further alleged that the applicant started demanding Rs.15,00,000/- which were pending, on the night of 26.06.2022.
xi. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, and vide order dated 21.01.2023, the learned trial Court framed charges against the present applicant
The significance of evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases involving serious charges like dowry harassment and abetment to suicide.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of allegations of dowry demand, mental cruelty, and the impact of supplementary statements on a bail application.
The timing and specificity of allegations, completion of investigation, and framing of charges are crucial factors in considering bail applications in cases involving dowry demands and harassment.
The absence of specific allegations of demand of dowry or harassment soon before the death, coupled with prolonged custody and parental responsibilities, can be grounds for granting bail in cases inv....
The court emphasized the necessity of a proximate nexus between dowry-related harassment and the death of the deceased for invoking Section 304B IPC.
The presumption of a 'dowry death' under Section 304B IPC should be tested in trial and is meant to act as a deterrent to the demand of dowry.
The court considered the proximity of alleged cruelty to the death and lack of specific allegations regarding dowry demands in granting bail to the petitioner.
The court affirmed that bail should be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused poses no flight risk, emphasizing the non-punitive purpose of pre-trial detention.
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
