BHAGWANTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition u/ss. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Criminal Procedure Code.') is directed against the order dated 10/9/1997 framing charges u/ss. 304-B/498-A r/w Section 34Indian Penal Code passed by the court of Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, against the petitioner (mother-in-law of the deceased), in the case FIR No. 112/90 u/ss. 498-A/304-BIndian Penal Code P.S.Hazrat Nizamuddin.

(2.) Prosecution allegations in brief are: on 27/9/1984 Rajni (deceased) was married to Dharampal Dhamija. On 18/4/1990 she committed suicide by hanging. On the same day, statement of Balram Singh Anand, father of the deceased, was recorded by the SDM, who stated that Dharampal Dhamija (husband), had been torturing his daughter as he was having illicit relations with his cousin Sunita Gandhi. whenever, there was dispute between husband and wife, she used to come to her parents' house and he would send her back after consoling her; that on 10/2/1989 in the marriage of his younger daughter, he had given scooter, on which his son-in-law Dharampal Dhamija taunted him, thereafter he had given a fridge to Dharampal so that they can live happily. About two months prior to the incident, her daughter came and told him that she would not go back because her husband abuses her; despite that, he along with his wife and brother-in-law Sabharwal and Mrs.Sabharwal took her back, and made her apologise so that they can live together. On 13/4/1990, when the deceased came again she told them that she had been asked to bring Rs.20,000.00 because her husband was constructing a house- She was advised to request Dharmpal Dhamija, to ask the money himself, and that on 18/4/1990 at about 8.15 P.M. he received information that his daughter has committed suicide. On his statement, above noted case was registered by the police. The matter was investigated. After investigations challan was filed. By impugned order dated 10/9/1997, learned trial court found that there is sufficient material for framing charge against Dharampal Dhamija (husband of the deceased) and against the petitioner (mother-in-law).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the essential ingredients of the offence for dowry death are not made out. It was argued that death in the present case is not attributable to the cruelty emanating from demand of dowry; as per the allegations deceased committed suicide as she suspected that her husband was having illicit relations with his cousin even after the marriage and not on account of demand of dowry; that from the request for loan for improvement/addition to house, demand of dowry cannot be inferred; and that the vague allegations contained in the subsequent statements u/S. 161 Criminal Procedure Code. are liable to be rejected. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Miss Archana Aggarwal Vs. State, 1993 JCC, 400. Learned APP for the State argued to the contrary.