RAM SARUP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased Smt. Rumali (M, Roopmati was thedaughter of Ram Sarup petitioner and she was married to Chhatarpal respondent no. 7 on 6.3.1987. As per custom prevailing in the petitioner's region aceremony called 'Gauna' takes place after the marriage and according tothat custom the bride is taken to the matrimonial home after the 'Gauna'ceremony. In the case of the deceased she was sent only for three daysto stay in her husband's house after the marriage and thereafter she wasbrought back to her parents' house in order that she could be sent to thematrimonial home ceremoniously after the Gauna. The Gauna ceremony tookplace on 19.4.1987 and it was after that ceremony that the deceased was takento the matrimonial home on that very day by her husband Chhatarpal around9.00 P.M. after the Gauna ceremony. The house of the husband being premisesNo. X-520, J.J. Colony, Mangolpuri, Delhi comprised only one room tenementof 25 sq. yds. and it comprised of one room with the small court-yard in frontof which the stairs led to the terrace. Under-neath the stairs there is a makeshift kitchen and adjoining the stairs, there is a bath room and a door leadingto the by-lane. In the early hours of the morning of the next day, i.e. on20.4.1987 at about 5.00 A.M. there was fire in the said room of this houseand on the opening of the door of the room from outside the deceased brideSmt. Rumali was found dead with fire bum injuries and she was at that timein a kneeling position when she was burning. In this room only the deceasedand her husband were there in the night intervening 19th and 20/04/1987whereas the remaining members including the in-laws of the deceased were onthe terrace.

(2.) Mrs. Jai Kumari is Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime againstWomen Cell) New Delhi. She is respondent no. 5 in this case and she hasdeposed to an affidavit wherein she has stated that she went to the spot on21.4.1987 and again on 6.5.1987 and recorded the statements of the followingpersons :-

(3.) In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaby the petitioner Ram Sarup father of the deceased, the petitioner has assertedthat on 24.3.1987 after the marriage of the deceased but before the Gaunaceremony, there was a fair (Budho Mata Ka Mela) in the same area where thedeceased was living along with her parents. Respondent No. 7 Chhatarpalhusband of the deceased came to the house of the petitioner and took thedeceased to the fair. Under the garb of merry making and enjoyment but infact he had the intention to convey that she should bring more dowry and he(Chhatarpal) asked the deceased in a very clear and uniquivocal terms thatshe must get a sofa-set, television and a ceiling fan more and in case she failedto bring the same, she would be killed. He has asserted that the mystery of thedeath of the deceased on the very next morning of the Gauna ceremony inthe matrimonial home with fire burns was very shocking and it was not a caseof suicide but was a case of murder and bride burning. He has also challengedthe omission of registering a case against the husband and the in-laws of thedeceased at illegal by asserting that there has been failure on the part ofrespondents 1 to 6 by refusing to exercise the power vested in them under thelaw. He has also asserted that the police has not only failed to comply withthe mandatory provision of law by not recording the FIR but instead theythreatened the petitioner who wanted to complain that if he went on insistinglike that he would be in trouble.