STATE Vs. RUPINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the State seeking quashing of the order dated 4th May, 2006 passed by Sh. Talwant Singh, Addl. Session Judge, Delhi vide which he has discharged both the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that deceased Savita Rani was married to respondent No. 1 on 31st March, 2004 Respondent No. 2 is Jethani of deceased. On 29th June, 2005, Savita Rani committed suicide by hanging. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint made by Sh. Mahipal Singh, brother of the deceased who in his statement has stated that at the time of the marriage, no dowry was demanded, however, his sister was not happy in her matrimonial home since her husband used to come home drunk and beat her everyday and used to tell her that her parents had not given even a fridge in dowry and they were putting pressure on her to bring a fridge. Her husband had illicit relations with respondent No. 2, his Bhabhi and as such deceased used to remain upset due to their relations also. The father of the deceased has also given a similar statement.

(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the State that as per statement of brother of the deceased, there has been categorical allegations of demand of dowry as well as torture and the reasons mentioned in the suicide note by the deceased, cannot be described to be truth, as such a person has an abnormal mind and her statement cannot be relied upon blindly. There is sufficient material in the form of the statements of the brother and father of the deceased, levelling specific allegations of dowry, torture and demand and at the stage of charge, the trial court has not to sift the evidence and even grave suspicion against the accused is sufficient for framing charge. The suicide note was not handed over to the police immediately and it was not found near the dead body of the deceased nor at any conspicuous place, but the same was handed over to the police after 3-4 days by a maternal uncle of respondent No. 1. So, the recovery of suicide note, therefore, is suspicious and it appears that there is a trick has been played by the maternal uncle of respondent No. 1, in order to save him from the charge of abetment to suicide. It appears that this alleged suicide note, was got written from deceased by her husband and his maternal uncle and it does not bear any date, so it should not have been relied upon by the learned trial court.