Inder Singh vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

According to the prosecution, Smt. Bhateri Devi was married to Satish son of Inder Singh, resident of Safidon on 16.4.1990. In the marriage quite adequate dowry was given. Three months after marriage there was expression of dissatisfaction regarding adequacy of dowry brought by Smt. Bhateri Devi by her husband Satish, husband''s brother Babu Ram, motherinlaw Kamla Devi and fatherinlaw Inder Singh. They started maltreating/illtreating/taunting Smt. Bhateri Devi. In that behalf Smt. Bhateri Devi got a case registered under sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 22 dated 13.1.1994 which was pending trial and the next date was 4.9.1997 for recording prosecution evidence in that case. On 4.9.1997, Smt. Bhateri Devi did not go to Karnal for attending the hearing of that case.

About two years ago Inder Singh petitioner No. 1 shifted his family from Safidon to Panipat. He started residing with his family in New Ramesh Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat in his house. Smt. Bhateri Devi had filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband. Satish Kumar was sent to jail on account of nonpayment of maintenance by him to Smt. Bhateri Devi. Baradri Panchayat gathered which brought about compromise. In the wake of that compromise Smt. Bhateri Devi started putting up with her husband and his family. She withdrew application for maintenance.

About 21/2 months prior to 5.9.1997 i.e. registration of the case in hand there arose differences between Smt. Bhateri Devi and her mother inlaw. Smt. Bhateri Devi and her husband tenanted a room in Bharat Nagar, Panipat and started putting up there. From this marriage, Smt. Bhateri Devi had three daughters aged five years, three years and three months respectively who were also putting up with their mother.

On 5.9.1997, Subash, who is Bhateri Devi''s brother, Zile Singh also went to see Smt. Bhateri Devi. She told them that her husband, motherinlaw, father inlaw and husband''s brother came to her in their room and threatened her that she would dissuade from appearing in case under sections 406, 498A of the Indian Penal Code (ibid) and if she deposed against them in that case the consequences would be disastrous. Subash and Zile Singh suggested Bhateri Devi that they would sort out the matter with them. In the meantime Satish came and told Subash that he had filed divorce case against Smt. Bhateri Devi at Karnal. They advised Subash also. Thereafter they returned to village Kutail i.e. the village of Subash.

On 6.9.1997 at about 10.00 A.M. somebody came to village Kutail and told Subash that Smt. Bhateri Devi had administered some poisonous insecticide to her three daughters and that she, too, had also taken that insecticide. As a result, his sister Bhateri Devi and her daughter Pooja had died at the spot and the other daughter Rinki had died in Civil Hospital, Panipat and the third daughter Sonia was struggling for life in the hospital. Thereupon Subash, his brother Mahavir and uncle Nand Lal went to Civil Hospital, Panipat. Sonia also died. Subash got the case FIR No. 843 registered at Police Station, Panipat under section 306/34 Indian Penal Code, on 6.9.1997 against Satish, his father, mother and brother. Inder Singh and Smt. Kamla Devi petitioners herein are his father and mother respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no offence was made out under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts projected in the first information report as it has to be found out at the trial whether Smt. Bhateri Devi was a hypersensitive woman or she was a woman of ordinary sense and temper. Further whether she was a weakling to be cowed down by any such pressure and the pressure of divorce case and the pressure that she should withdraw from the case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also to be a matter of evidence whether pressure being built up by them was sufficient enough as to drive her to liquidate her own life and the lives of her three infant daughters. Abetment is intentional aiding so that the act abetted is brought about or instigating any person to the doing of that thing so far as Inder Singh petitioner No. 1 and his wife Smt. Kamla Devi petitioner No. 2 are concerned.

It is not the stage where facts can be delved into deeply. It is suffice it to mention that bail should be allowed to the petitioners till the disposal of the case. So, bail to the petitioners to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panipat.