INDERJIT KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These two applications for anticipatory bail are on behalf of the mother- in-law (Inderjit Kaur) and father-in-law (Charanjit Singh) of the deceased. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the FIR registered under Section 498A, 304B and 34 IPC. Under the same FIR there are three accused persons ?" the petitioners herein and their son Baljit Singh, who is the husband of the deceased. The said Baljit Singh is in judicial custody since 3rd September, 2003. He has moved a separate bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the same shall be dealt with separately.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the offence has been registered, inter alia, under Section 304B, the ingredients of the said offence are not made out even if the contents of the FIR, which has been recorded on the basis of the statement of the deceased (Harvinder Kaur's) father, are taken to be true. According to him, the two essential aspects of Section 304B are that ?othere must have been a demand for dowry ? and that ?othe same must have been made soon before the death of the wife. ? In this case, he submitted that the petitioner's son Baljit Singh and the deceased Harvinder Kaur were married on 19th January, 2000. She committed suicide on 3rd September, 2003. The postmortem report, according to the learned counsel Mr Sethi, who appeared for the petitioner, discloses that the deceased Harvinder Kaur, in the opinion of the doctor who conducted the postmortem report, died possibly due to organo phosphorous insectide poisoning. He also mentioned that the postmortem report clearly indicates that there were no external injuries found on the body of the deceased. This factum of the postmortem report giving this cause of death and that no external injuries were found on the body is confirmed by the learned counsel for the State after having examined the postmortem report.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on the fateful day when the deceased committed suicide, she had gone to her parents' home in the morning and within fifteen minutes of her return from the parental home in the evening, she consumed the poison as a result of which ultimately she lost her life. The learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the entire FIR and a reading of which disclosed that the matrimonial home and the parental home of the deceased were nearby: only about half a Km. apart. The FIR also disclosed that the deceased, on occasions when she visited her parental home used to cry and narrate the incidents of beating at the hands of her husband and of taunting and trouble making at the instances of the present petitioners. The FIR, however, does not disclose that the petitioners ever made any demand for dowry. On the contrary, there are indications that the marriage took place without demand for dowry and whatever the parents of the deceased gave at the time of marriage was of their free will. The FIR, however, discloses certain allegations of cruelty and beating at the hands of the husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner also took me through the statement of the deceased's mother (Prabhjit Kaur) which is virtually identical to the statement of the deceased's father which forms the basis of the FIR. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the deceased's mother are taking at face value and are taken to be true and correct, no offence under Section 304-B is made out, at least, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The only allegation against them is that they taunted her and teased her and troubled her. There is no allegation of beating or of demand of dowry on the part of the present petitioners.