LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-170

SUNIL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On April 24, 2007
SUNIL BANSAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These present Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the Petitioners against the charges framed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 498 A/ 304B Indian Penal Code (IPC) by his order dated 6.11.2006

(2.) The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that one Neelam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was found hanging on 25.9.2004 in her matrimonial house. She was declared dead in the hospital. She had died an unnatural death. The deceased was married to Sunil Bansal (hereinafter referred to as "the husband", he is the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 928/2006) on 2.4.1998. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The other revision petitioner is brother in law of the deceased. The statement of the deceased's parents and brother were recorded by the police on the day of the death. Those statements were that the deceased was living happily in the matrimonial home since the inception of marriage, and there were no disputes regarding any issue. The deceased was ill, according to them, as she was suffering from epilepsy/ giddiness since a couple of months. They also stated that no body could be blamed for her death.

(3.) It is alleged that on the next day i.e. 26.9.2004 the father of the deceased made a contrary statement. On the basis of this statement an FIR was lodged by the police against the Petitioners. Certain allegations were made with regard to harassment, beatings given to the deceased by her in-laws and dowry demands right from the eighth month of the marriage. The allegations were general in nature; the Petitioners allege that the deceased's said relatives did not mention as to when such harassment was caused to her. The deceased's father had also stated that she had made a phone call to him on 24.9.2004 and complained that she was beaten by her in-laws for many days and was not given anything to eat and drink. On the basis of these statements, the trial court charged the Petitioners for committing offences under sections 498A/304B IPC.