SUBHAN ALI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shahin (for short, 'the deceased'), wife of the petitioners' son Zarif Ahmed, i.e. daughter-in-law of the petitioners, allegedly committed suicide by hanging on 31.3.2006 while she was in the house of her in-laws. She had married Zarif Ahmed on 8.5.2005 and at the time of committing suicide, she was pregnant by four months. The father of the deceased lodged FIR No. 182/2006 on 1.4.2006 blaming her in-laws for the suicide of his daughter. Allegations, in nutshell, in the said FIR are that the in-laws were not happy with the insufficient dowry brought by the deceased at the time of marriage and were making further demands; the deceased was harassed, humiliated and tortured and because of that she committed suicide. It is in view of these allegations that FIR is registered under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Both the petitioners were arrested and they are in judicial custody since 2.4.2006. They, along with their son, applied for bail before the learned ASJ, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 3.5.2006. In these circumstances, the two petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.).

(2.) Perusal of the FIR would show that after the marriage, when the deceased went to her matrimonial home, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad and brother-in-law complained that she had not brought a washing machine in the marriage and they demanded washing machine in dowry. She told this to her parents when she came back to her house after one day. Thereafter, when in-laws came to his house for taking her i.e. gauna, the complainant pleaded that he was not in a position to give washing machine, upon which they said that it was OK and they took the deceased with them. Subsequently, there was a demand of Rs.1 lakh and when the deceased said that her parents won't be able to meet this demand, allegations of theft were levelled against her. It is alleged that because of the behaviour of the petitioners, tension developed in her mind but she was not given proper treatment and was treated in some inferior hospital. She was also assaulted. She had been coming to her parents' house and going back in regular intervals. About the incident of 31.3.2006, the complainant has stated in the FIR as under :-

(3.) Case set-up by the petitioners is that the deceased was a mentally challenged patient and was getting regular treatment. It is for this reason that she lived most of the time at her parents' house at Bijnaur and did not wish to live in Delhi. It was only for 10 days preceding this alleged incident that she lived in her matrimonial home and herself took the drastic step to end her life by committing suicide. All the allegations of demand of dowry or maltreatment are denied. Along with the petition, medical prescriptions and report of the mental hospitals are filed to demonstrate that the deceased was suffering from mania with psychic disease, which is recorded by the Investigating Officer also in his report dated 15.4.2006, and the statement was also recorded by the learned trial court on 22.4.2006 of Dr. Sourav from the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) in this behalf. It is pointed out that on 26.4.2006, the learned ASJ had issued direction to the Investigating Officer to examine the panchayat people as to whether the allegations as to demand of dowry were correct or not and the Investigating Officer was directed to be present on 3.5.2006. However, on that date another ASJ, without considering the earlier order passed by his predecessor, and without looking into the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and statement of the doctor recorded earlier, dismissed the application of the petitioners treating the allegations contained in the FIR as gospel truth.