At the stage of framing charges, courts must determine if there is 'grave suspicion' of an offence. Cruelty under Section 498A includes independent harassment for dowry, while Section 304B requires a 'proximate and live link' between such harassment and the victim's death, which cannot be assumed.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present revision petitions, the petitioners, i.e. the State and the complainant, assail the order dated 09.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Sessions Court’] in a case arising out of FIR bearing no. 679/2022 registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 498A /304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’], whereby the respondent-husband had been discharged of all the aforesaid offences.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2022, a PCR call had been received at Police Station Bhajan Pura vide GD no. 59A, conveying that a lady had fallen from the roof near Gyandeep Public School, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, and had sustained injuries, pursuant to which she had been shifted to GTB Hospital. At the hospital, MLC no. BD/2233/10/22 had been prepared in respect of an unknown female, who was declared ‘brought dead’ by the attending doctor.

3. The present FIR had thereafter been registered on 12.12.2022 on the basis of the statement of the complainant, i.e. the father of the deceased, who stated that his daughter, Priya Chaudhary, had got married to the respondent-husband, Manoj Kumar Bainsla, on 20.02.2022. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the deceased had been subjected to harassment in connection with dowry demands by her in-laws, including her brothers-in-law and sister-in-law. It was further alleged that the father-in-law, Lakhi Chand, along with the brothers-in-law, including Om Pal and his younger brother, had also subjected the deceased to acts of molestation and continuous ill-treatment. It was further stated that on 12.12.2022 at about 12:00 noon, the complainant had received a telephonic call from the respondent-husband informing him that the deceased had fallen and asking him to reach GTB Hospital immediately. Upon reaching the hospital at about 12:30 PM, the complainant found that his daughter had already been declared dead. A supplementary statement of the complainant had thereafter been recorded on 18.12.2022, wherein he stated that he had incurred expenses of about ₹30–35 lakhs on the marriage and had also paid a sum of ₹6 lakhs in cash to the father of the respondent-husband towards the purchase of a car. It was further stated that the matrimonial life of the deceased had remained normal for about two months after the marriage; however, thereafter, the accused persons, i.e. the respondent-husband, Resham, Om Pal, Dr. Ashu, Neelam, and Lakhi Chand, had allegedly started taunting the deceased on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Such taunts included remarks that a bigger car had been promised but only an amount sufficient to purchase a smaller car had been given, and that the gold articles were also less than what had been assured. It was stated that the deceased used to inform the complainant of such incidents whenever she visited her parental home, and despite her reluctance, she would return to her matrimonial home upon persuasion by her family.

4. It was further alleged that the accused Om Pal, who was stated