Atma Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Another

G.L. Gupta, J.—The above-mentioned cross-petitions have been preferred by the parties to Cr. Case No. 188/94 - State v. Atma Ram, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. They are being disposed of by this common order.

The facts. Deceased-Vijay Laxmi was married to Atma Ram on 18-11-1991. She met untimely death on 15-8-1993. Mahendra Singh (father of the deceased) lodged first information report with the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 30-8-1993, on which a case u/s 304-B, I.P.C. was registered. After the completion of the investigation the police gave final report. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 9-12-1994 refused to accept the final report and took cognizance against Atma Ram, husband of the deceased Under Sections 498-A and 323, IPC. In the first information report the allegations had been made against the parents of Atma Ram also but the Magistrate did not take cognizance against them. The order dt.9-12-1994was challenged by both the parties before the Addl. Sessions Judge. Mahendra Singh''s case before the Addl. Sessions Judge was that cognizance ought to have been taken against Shiv Lal and Asi Bai also and against Atma Ram u/s 304-B, IPC. Atma Ram in his revision pleaded that cognizance ought not to have been taken against him: The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dt. 1-12-1997 dismissed the revision preferred by Atma Ram but allowed the revision of Mahendra and directed the Magistrate to hold further enquiry in respect of the offence u/s 304-B, IPC. Thereupon the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 15-1 -1998 took cognizance against Atma Ram u/s 304-B, IPC. Mahendra Singh has preferred Revision Petition No. 281 /98 praying that cognizance ought to have been taken against Shivlal and Asi Bai also. Atma Ram has preferred Misc. Petition No. 51/98 to call in question the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directing the Magistrate to hold further enquiry. He has preferred Criminal Revision No. 126/98 against the order dt. 15-1 -1998 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Mr. Shishodia, learned Sr. Advocate contended that there is no material on record on which cognizance for the offence u/s 304-B, IPC could be taken against Atma Ram. He pointed out that in the enquiry u/s 174, Cr. P.C. held by the S.D.M., Mahendra Singh had clearly admitted he did not suspect foul play in the death of his daughter as she had not complained against her husband and in-laws. His submission was that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought not to have sent back the case to the Magistrate for further enquiry.

On the other hand, Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the first informant, contended that Mahendra Singh had not given statement in the enquiry u/s 174, Cr. P.C. as he had become almost unconscious and his signatures were obtained with the help of Ram Singh, who being equally related to the accused, had joined hands with them. He submitted that cognizance ought to have been taken against Shivlal and Asi Bai also and the order of cognizance dt. 15-1-1998 should not be interfered with.

The circumstances appearing on record are dealt with hereunder :-

(A) Letter No. 12-8-1993 written by Vijay Laxmi (deceased) to Mahendra Singh which was received by him on 29-8-1993 in which she stated that she was being harassed and it was possible that she would be killed before he reached there.

Mr. Shishodia contended that by the opinion of the F.S.L. it is not borne out that the letter was written by the deceased. In my opinion, at this stage, on the basis of the report of the F.S.L. it cannot be accepted that the letter in which the allegation of cruelty soon before the death of Vijay Laxmi is mentioned, was not written by the accused. There is also the report of handwriting expert Shri Anil Kumar Gupta on record. It is a detailed report containing various points. It has been opined that the writing of the letter tallied with the specimen writings of the deceased. It is obvious, there are two opposite opinions on record; one favouring the accused and the other against him. As the report of Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta contains reasonings and there are no reasons given in the report of F.S.L., at this stage, the report of Anil Kumar Gupta has to be preferred. Mahendra Singh also says that the letter dt. 12-8-1993 was written by his daughter. That being so, on the basis of the report of the F.S.L. at this stage, it cannot be said that the letter dt. 12-8-1993 was not written by the deceased.

(B) When the deceased was admitted in Mahavir Nursing Home for treatment on 14-8-1993 she uttered certain words indicating that Atma Ram had attempted to kill her.

At Mahavir Nursing Home where Vijay Laxmi was admitted Ajay Sharma was the treating doctor. He states in his statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. that in the night Vijay Laxmi had regained some consciousness and she had uttered the following words:

^^esjs cPps dk D;k gksxk A vkRek eq>s cpk ys && ekj er A**

This part of the statement of Dr. Ajay Sharma shows that the deceased had conveyed that Atma Ram was responsible for her condition.

(C) There is evidence in the statements of various witnesses that Atma Ram is of bad character and the deceased used to object to his activities and even at times she was beaten by Atma Ram.

There are statements of Rajesh, Gopi Ram, Amar Singh and Phusa Ram in which it has come that the character of Atma Ram had not been good. Some of the witnesses state that he used to beat his wife when she objected to his activities.

(D) Injuries were found on the person of the deceased by the Medical Officer who performed autopsy on her body.

The post-mortem report shows that there were abrasions and contusions on the person of the deceased. This is a circumstance relevant to the allegation of cruelty.

(E) It is in the statement of Mahendra Singh, Smt. Laj wanti and Smt. Kailash that the deceased had complained to them that she was being harassed for dowry.

It is true that in the statement of Mahendra Singh recorded in enquiry u/s 174, Cr. P.C. it was not stated that the accused used to cause cruelty to the deceased for the demand of dowry and Ram Singh, brother-in-law of Mahendra Singh, in his statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. states that after the accused refused to transfer the property in the name of Mahendra Singh, the report containing allegations of cruelty was lodged by him, which fact he had not told him earlier. However, there are reasons for not accepting the version of Ram Singh as the last word. Ram Singh is related to both the parties, as he is also the brother-in-law of Sriram, brother ofaccused-Atmaram. Ram Singh has thus cause to help the accused. Mahendra Singh in his statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. states that he did not give any statement to the officer but his signature were obtained by Ram Singh on some papers. Looking to the interest of Ram Singh in the accused much importance cannot be given to the statement of Mahendra Singh recorded during enquiry u/s 174, Cr. P.C. at this stage.

In view of the above circumstances on record, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any error in taking cognizance against petitioner-Atmaram Under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 323, I.P.C. The case of Meka Ramaswamy Vs. Dasari Mohan and Others, does not help the accused at the stage of taking cognizance.

The next question to be considered is whether cognizance ought to have been taken against Shivlal and Asi Bai. In the letter dt. 12-8-1993 it was not stated that the father-in-law or mother-in-law of the deceased were also harassing the deceased. The word used in the letter is ''-'' which indicates that Vijay Laxmi had complained against her husband. In her statement in the night of 14-8-1993 also she held responsible only Atma Ram for her condition. The other material on record also shows that the deceased was being harassed by her husband only. Of course, in the statements u/s 161, Cr. P.C. of Mahendra Singh (father), Lajvanti (mother), Smt. Kailash (aunt) it has come that the deceased used to complain against her father-in-law and mother-in-law also but as in the letter written by the deceased on 12-8-1993 and also in her statement in the hospital she did not tell anything against them, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly not taken cognizance against them.

I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge when he directed further enquiry in the matter with regard to offence u/s 304-B, IPC on the basis of the material on record.

Consequently, there is no merit in the Revision Petition No. 126/98 and Misc. Petition No. 51 /98 filed by Atma Ram and they are hereby dismissed. The Revision Petition No. 281/98 preferred by Mahendra Singh is also dismissed.