PHOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner no.1 is the unfortunate father of a daughter named Sushma and grand-father of a tiny girl Tanu while the petitioner no.2 is the brother of Sushma and uncle of Tanu, both of whom had got burnt on 2nd December, 2004, which happened to be the day of fifth wedding anniversary of Sushma who was married to respondent no.2 herein. THE incident in which the mother and daughter had got burnt and which incident had taken the lives of both of them had taken place inside the matrimonial home of Sushma in village Tauru in District Gurgaon. Since the petitioners had felt that the deceased Sushma had been killed by her in-laws to satisfy their greed for dowry they had complained to the police and a criminal case was registered for murder and dowry death and due course the respondents 2-4 herein were initially tried for these offences by a Sessions Court in Gurgaon but subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the trial to Delhi on being approached by the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners feel deeply hurt, firstly, because they have lost two very dear ones because of their inability to fulfill the dowry demands of respondents 2-4 and their other family members who have not even been arrested by the police, secondly, by the denial of justice to them by the Sessions Court in Delhi which has refused to examine them as prosecution witnesses and, thirdly, by the trial Court hastily acquitting all the accused-respondents 2-4 during the pendency of this revision petition which was filed by them to challenge that order of the trial Court by which their request for affording them the opportunity to have their statements recorded was rejected.

(3.) THE case was then entrusted to an Additional Sessions Judge( Fast Track Court) in Gurgaon where the Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 19th July,2005 framed charges against all the three accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/304-B/498- A/34 IPC and since the accused persons had pleaded not guilty the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. However, before any witness could be examined the complainant, petitioner no.1 herein, informed the trial Court that he intended moving some petition for the transfer of the trial from Gurgaon Sessions Division since the public prosecutor had colluded with accused Pawan Kumar who was an advocate practising there. It was also being claimed by the petitioners that the doctor who had initially medically examined the deceased Sushma when she was brought to Primes Health Centre in burnt condition on the day of the incident had also colluded with the accused which was evident from the fact that he had produced after twenty days of his examining Sushma a document purporting to be her statement recorded by him on 2nd December,2004 showing that she had claimed that she had committed suicide since her husband had declined to go out on the night of their wedding anniversary.