KRISHNA DEVI Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the mother in law of the deceased Ms. Sangita Sharma, who was married with Pushpender on 29.6.2006. Ms. Sangeeta had committed suicide on 21.7.2011 while she was staying at her matrimonial house. The MLC declared, " H/O hanging and patient declared brought dead in the casualty". Since she had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage, the SDM was informed and inquest proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C were conducted. The SDM recorded the statement of father and mother and brother of the deceased. In their statements they allegedly stated that the deceased was tortured for bringing less dowry and this led to her committing suicide. An FIR No.498/304B/34 IPC was registered against the husband, mother in law(petitioner herein) and others. Various allegations of demand of dowry and resultant torture were made by the father of the deceased in his complaint made to the police. Some of those demands were narrated specifically. One such was payment of Rs.2 lac to Pradeep (husband of the deceased) in the presence of mother in law (petitioner herein) of the deceased at their residence. One suicide note was also found in the note book which was recovered from the room of the deceased.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner took me through the order dated 27.9.2011 passed by learned Special Judge wherein it was stated that "in the last month of 2010, he has also given Rs.2 lac to Pushpender in the presence of his mother Krishna, at their residence". Referring to this part of the order passed by learned Special Judge, the learned senior counsel stated that in the month of November, 2010 the petitioner had gone to Mumbai and remained there till December 2010 and so it could not be said that the father of the deceased had given Rs.2 lac to the petitioner in the presence of his mother i.e. petitioner herein. Similar submission was made before the Special Judge and he dealt with this submission reasoning that the death occurred when the petitioner was very much present at home and in any case the cruelties were being inflicted from time to time. With these reasoning, he recorded that the allegation of demand of dowry on that count cannot be said to be false.

(3.) Taking what is stated by learned senior counsel to be correct that the petitioner was away to Mumbai from 14.11.2010 to December 2010. In addition to the reasoning given by learned Special Judge, there are more relevant facts and circumstances to reject this contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. I have looked at the statement made by the father of the deceased to the police on which the FIR came to be registered. It may be seen that what he had stated was that in the month of December 2010 Sangeeta had come to their house in Bareli and told his wife that her in laws were demanding Rs.5 lac and he then told her that he could give only Rs.2 lac and that he gave Rs.2 lac to Pushpender in front of his mother (petitioner). Nowhere he stated as to the date of his having made the payment to Pushpender in the presence of his mother in December 2010. This appears to be a wrong interpretation of the statement made by the father of the deceased, by learned Special Judge in the manner as quoted above. The complainant also made supplementary statement which could not be outrightly discarded at this stage. In his supplementary statement, he also stated about the source of his arranging money for making the payment to the petitioner and to the in laws of her daughter. The said amount was stated to have been withdrawn by his son from the bank account. He very categorically stated in his answer to the question raised by the IO that it was in last days of February, 2011 that he had gone to take his daughter Sangeeta and he gave Rs.2 lac to Pushpender in the presence of her mother in law. This supplementary statement could not be outrightly discarded and was worth consideration.