DHANPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is third bail application on behalf of the petitioner Dhanpat Singh, who is facing trial for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, earlier two bail applications were rejected on 16-8-96 and 9-1-97 by detailed orders.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Soon after the incident, the relatives of the deceased were informed by the petitioner and members of the family. The postmortem and cremation was performed in the presence of the relatives of the deceased but they did not level any allegations against the petitioner. There is unexplained delay in making the F.I.R. after six days. There is no evidence to establish that the petitioner in any manner abetted the commission of the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. The petitioner and the parents of the petitioner never made demand for dowry or money from the parents of the deceased. The deceased died of drowning and it shows that she herself brought end to her life out of frustration due to ill-health and inferiority complex. The petitioner was at the shop at the relevant time. The letters and other communications sent by the petitioner go to show the cordial relations between them and even some money was deposited in the name of the deceased, which was in her custody. The petitioner's parents and brother have already been released on bail and their case is not different from the petitioner's case. The same allegations have been levelled against them about demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased. At the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner's father and mother were present in the house. Therefore, whatever has happened is only in the knowledge of the petitioner's parents. There is no evidence to show the possibility of poisoning or inflicting injuries on the deceased. The first bail application was rejected at the stage of investigation and the second petition was rejected after the filing of the charge-sheet. Now statement of P.W.1 Ranjeet Kundaliya the brother of the deceased has been recorded on 5-6-97 and it does not show any cogent grounds or ingredients for the alleged offence under Section 306, I.P.C. The offence may at the most fall within the purview of Section 498A, I.P.C. The petitioner is already behind the bars for almost 14 months and the trial is likely to take time because in all there are 33 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution and only one witness has been examined so far. The petitioner's presence in the house is also necessary to look after his children moreso after the death of his wife i.e. deceased Prabha.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and argued that it has been rejected twice and there are no change in the circumstances or new grounds for enlarging the petitioner on bail. According to him, the allegations against the petitioner are further substantiated by the statement of Ranjeet Kundaliya (P.W.1). There are other witnesses also yet to be examined who will clearly depose about demand of dowry and harassment by the petitioner to the deceased thereby committing the offence of abetment to suicide. All the contentions have been considered in the detailed orders while disposing of the previous two bail applications. Shri Ranjeet Kundaliya (P.W.1) has clearly deposed in his statement about demand of dowry and the payment of money time to time to the petitioner and his parents. He has also explained about the delay in lodging the report and the action he took in reporting the matter to the higher authorities. The case of other accused persons is different from the petitioner because Raju Devi was released on being woman and father and brother have been released because the fact came on record that the petitioner and the deceased had started living separately from the family prior to the incident. Injuries were also noticed on the person of the deceased and it is impossible that she will commit suicide by falling in the tank the opening of which is only 15 inch. There are number of witnesses who have stated in the statements recorded during investigation that the petitioner committed cruelty with the deceased for the demand of money and dowry and she was driven to commit suicide. Therefore, there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner for committing the serious offence under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged incident has happend after 9 years of the marriage and therefore the charge has been levelled under Section 306, I.P.C. otherwise he would have been implicated for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C., if the incident would have taken place within 7 years of the marriage.