C P MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioners who have been charged for offences under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code and 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 14-3-98 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, (ASJ) New Delhi have challenged the correctness and legality of the order and the charges framed against them.

(2.) Briefly the facts as appear from the material on record are that Usha Malik (for short Usha), elder sister of the deceased Vaishali, was married to Sanjeev Malik (Petitioner No. 3) on 30.1.1990. Petitioners No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), and sister-in-law (Jethani). Usha has alleged that after her marriage for sometime she lived without trouble in the matrimonial home, but afterwards has been maltreated, beaten and harassed by the petitioners on account of inadequate dowry and demand of money which remained unfulfilled; she was being maltreated to compel her to bring money from her parents; against their demand of Rs. l,00,000.00 to start a business for her husband a sum of Rs. 50.000.00 was paid but they were not satisfied and still continued to harass her; the husband had also developed illicit relations with another lady, who also used to call her on telephone and gave threats at the instance of her husband; she was not being provided any money for meeting the house hold expenses or to meet her needs, and she had to earn her livelihood by stitching clothes for others. Her husband used to come home late and then used to maltreat and beat her. On the night of 16/17.1.1995 First she had received a threatening call from the aforesaid lady and her husband who came home late thereafter, also abused her and she was kicked out of the matrimonial home by the accused when she had to take shelter at the house of her parents late in the night. After some time in the night her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jethani also reached there and they started abusing her and others. The deceased Vaishali, who was sleeping, on hearing the noise woke up and she also reached there when the husband, both parent-in-law and Bhabhi of Usha started hurling abuse on Vaishali also and made false imputations against her about her character. Vaishali on this false imputation, closetted herself alone in a room without taking meals throughout the day and in the evening of 17.1.1995 consumed baygon spray and was found dead in the room. She was taken First to a private hospital and then to Safdarjung Hospital but was found to be brought dead. On intimation being given to the local police, a Sub-Inspector reached the hospital and found her dead. Post mortem was conducted on 18.1.1995. A report about the incident was lodged with the police by Shri B.K. Sheetak, brother of the deceased, on the basis of which FIR No. 41/95 was registered at P.S. R.K. Puram on 21.1.1995 under Sections 306/498-A IPC. Her viscera was preserved and CFSL report was obtained which found presence of carbamite, an active constituent of Baygon Spray insecticide. After receipt of this CFSL report, the post mortem doctor has opined that the death was due to Carbamite poisoning. During investigation statements of several witnesses including those of Balraj (brother), Darshan Lal (father), Smt. Avinash Rani (mother), Smt. Usha (sister) of the deceased were recorded. Usha, sister of the deceased had also lodged a report dated 27.1.1995 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi giving a detailed account about her unfortunate married life, her being harassed, beaten, humiliated and maltreated by her in-laws on account of dowry demand and otherwise. A charge sheet was submitted by the police against the petitioners and on being committed the learned Additional Sessions Judge found prima facie case and framed charges under Sections 498-A/34 and 306/34 Indian Penal Code against them all. The petitioners have come in revision here.

(3.) During arguments learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the order in so far as charge under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code against all the Five petitioners is concerned and he has confined his challenge so far as it relates to framing of charge under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.