Krishan Kumar Sachar vs State of Punjab

Ajai Lamba, J.—Petitioner No. 1, Krishan KumarSachar (aged 60 years), father-in-law of deceasedSaina; Petitioner No. 2, Smt. Sudha Sachar,mother-in-law; and Petitioner No. 3, Nidhi Sachar,sister-in-law, of deceased (Saina Sachar) haveapproached this Court in petition filed underSection 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 117 dated 12.3.2010 underSection 304B IPC registered with Police Station,Civil Lines, Amritsar.

Husband of the Petitioner namelySunishchai Sachar has also approached this Courtby way of filing Criminal MiscellaneousNo. M-12550 of 2010 which petition, however, has been withdrawn.

The facts are not in dispute as the sequence of events as given below has beenadmitted by learned Counsel for the complainant who has addressed the Court.

Sunishchai Sachar (husband) gotmarried to Saina Sachar on 28.4.2008 at Gurgaon. Deceased (Saina) went to Amritsar on 23.2.2010and stayed there till the time of her death on12.3.2010. Death of Saina was caused by hangingin a suicidal act on 12.3.2010 at Amritsar in herparental home. The FIR has been lodged on thestatement of Dikshit Mehra, who is brother of thedeceased.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,while making a reference to the contents in theFIR, has highlighted that the FIR containsomnibus and vague allegations. Individual role of the accused (four in number) has not been given.FIR does not disclose the date of departure ofdeceased (Saina) from Gurgaon to Amritsar. Noconcrete demand at the instance of either of thePetitioners is reflected in the FIR. It has alsobeen highlighted that after allegations ofharassment immediately after marriage, FI Rstraightaway mentions the commission of suicideby Saina.

It has been vehemently argued, onthe strength of the documents placed on record,that the FIR is palpably and ex-facie false in somuch as Saina was not turned out of the house.

It has been brought out that at thetime of marriage in the year 2008, Saina was onlyBachelor of Arts (1st Year). Saina went toAmritsar during, approximately, the same periodin 2009 to take her examination of B.A. Part-II,which she passed.

Examinations in 2010 were to betaken by her and therefore, tickets in ShatabdiExpress were booked on 18.2.2010. The documentsindicate withdrawal of amount from the account ofPetitioner No. 2. The date for which ticket wasbooked, is 23.2.2010 when the deceased left Gurgaon for Amritsar while boarding train fromDelhi. On the strength of this fact, it has beenstated that the circumstance that Saina was totake examination for B.A. Part-III and thatticket had been booked on 18.2.2010 for 23.2.2010establishes that Saina was not turned out of thehouse, rather it was a voluntary and plannedvisit to Amritsar similar to earlier occasions inthe earlier years.

It has been contended thatrelations between the husband and wife wereharmonious. In this regard, reference has beenmade to photographs of the deceased. Particularattention of the Court has been drawn towards thephotographs taken during the birthday of Saina i.e. three months before the incident; birthdayof her son (Utkarsh) in January 2010; and ofLohri, to say that the photographs are in close proximity in time to Saina''s leaving for Amritsar. It indicates no strain in relations, rather healthy relations between husband and wife.

While referring to the pleadings,it has been contended that after marriage, Sainastarted showing odd behaviour, particularly during the period of pregnancy. Under the cirSaturday, November 03, 2012cumstances, Saina was got examined by herhusband in hospital in a medical facility inKalyanpuri Hospital Private Limited, Gurgaon. Various prescription slips/ diagnosis/ out doorpatient slips ranging from June 2009 till January2010 indicate that Saina was suffering from''Major Depressive Disorder''.

During the currency of theproceedings, the investigating agency was askedto verify the medical record. As per documentsavailable on the investigation file, theconcerned doctor has given a Certificate on29.7.2010 to the effect "Mrs. Saina Sachar wasunder my care at out-patient level from 24.6.2009to 25.1.2010. The certificate for the same wasissued by me on 13.3.2010. I don''t keep/have any duplicate record of the same. She was sufferingfrom Major depressive disorder. There was historyof poor drug compliance.

The certificate has been verifiedby the investigating officer (Sub InspectorTarsem Lal) who is present in Court. Statement isavailable on the investigation file. Variouscertificates placed on record indicate that the Petitioner was advised to take medication forMajor Depressive Disorder. The certificates alsoindicate that she had repeatedly stopped takingmedicine.

On the strength of the documents,learned Counsel for the Petitioners has arguedthat while the deceased was in Amritsar in herparental home, possibly she stopped takingmedicines, as had been noticed on earlieroccasions which caused the depression to over-take and resulted in her committing suicide.

Learned Counsel for the Petitionerhas also drawn the attention of the Court towardstwo Debit Card receipts which indicate that while in Amritsar, Saina withdrew Rs. 500/- on 26.2.2010 and another Rs. 500/- on 2.3.2010. It has thus been argued that even while Saina was in Amritsar, the husband of Saina was taking care of her needs and requirements.

Learned Counsel for the Petitionershas drawn the attention of the Court towards SM Ssexchanged between Saina and her husband duringthe period February 2010 and March 2010 i.e.before the incident which indicate that husbandand wife were on very good terms and exchanging pleasantry etc., which would not indicate anytruth in the allegations made in the FIR. Thelast call made by the husband to Saina isrecorded on 12.3.2010 at 2.00 PM.

Learned Counsel has further arguedthat there is no documentary evidence by way ofletter etc. from the deceased to indicate thatSaina was at any point in time harassed formoney.

Concluding the arguments, learnedcounsel for the Petitioners has argued thatlocker was in the name of Saina who operated iton 22.2.2010 i.e. one day before she left for Amritsar. No articles were found in the lockerwhich indicate that all the jewellery articleswere taken away by her before she left forAmritsar. In the same context, learned Counsel contends that list of articles recovered areavailable on the record of the investigatingagency which shows that no useful purpose would be served by in car ceration of the Petitioners. Investigation process would not be supported orenhanced by taking the Petitioners in custody.

On the legal issue, learned Counselhas argued that admittedly it is a case of suicide after the deceased had stayed in herpaternal home for about three weeks. During theentire period, neither the Petitioners nor eventhe husband met the deceased and therefore, therewas no occasion for them to cause harassment, asalleged in the FIR.

It has been argued that abetment to suicide for dowry invites provisions of Section 306 IPC read with Section 113A of the EvidenceAct and Section 498A IPC. The prosecution,however, has invoked Section 304B IPC i.e. dowry death viz. death of a woman caused otherwise thanunder normal circumstances within seven years ofher marriage and when it is shown that soonbefore her marriage, she was subjected to crueltyor harassment by her husband or any relative ofher husband. In the case in hand, neither Section 306 IPC is attracted nor even provisions ofSection 304B IPC are attracted. The deceased wasliving in her parental home and had gone to takeher exam for B.A. final year. She was not forcedout of the house and she had travelledvoluntarily for her purpose.

In the backdrop of medical record,there is not even an iota of material that can be translated into legal evidence to show commissionof offence, as alleged. In case the Petitionershad any intention to cause dowry death, Sainawould not have been sent to Amritsar where shewas in a conducive and protective environment. Inthe conclusion, it has been argued that it is theloss of the husband who has lost her wife leavingbehind one son. During the entire period ofmarriage, the husband has shown love, care andaffection for the wife, as is made evident fromthe documents accompanying the petition.

Learned Counsel for the complainanthas specifically contended that existence ofdocuments is not denied and not disputed.

Learned Counsel for the complainantand Prosecution contend that FIR need not be anencyclopaedia. The ingredients of offence underSection 304B IPC are made out. It has furtherbeen argued that supplementary statement wasgiven by the complainant indicating demand of dowry by the husband and payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the husband.

On a pointed query of the Court,however, the prosecution has not been able toshow any document to indicate withdrawal of amount or payment of the amount by thecomplainant. Be that as it may, the allegation isin relation to non applicant.

It has been argued that harassmentwas caused by the husband who gave a call to thewife in Amritsar immediately whereafter she(Saina) locked herself in bathroom and committedsuicide. It has been argued that depressionoccurred only after marriage on account of the circumstances created by the family of thehusband. It has been contended that Saina was abright girl which is shown from the fact that shewas pursuing her studies through correspondenceeven after marriage.

I have considered the contentionsof learned Counsel for the parties and have gonethrough the record in detail.

It remains the admitted positionthat deceased was in her parental home from23.2.2010 till 12.3.2010. The tickets for travelto Amritsar were booked on 18.2.2010 from theaccount of Petitioner No. 2. It is further anadmitted fact that Saina went to her parentalhome in Amritsar to take her examinations of B.A. Part-III, having earlier taken exams after marriage in the year 2009 for B.A. Part-II in correspondence course.

Individual role of the accused hasnot been given in the FIR, rather insupplementary statement, there is specificallegation against the husband non-applicantregarding demand of dowry and payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the husband. Husband is not the Petitioner in this petition and has undertaken to surrender.

The medical history of Saina isalso an admitted fact by the prosecution in viewof certificate endorsed by the investigationofficer on the investigation file.

During the period when the petitionwas pending, an objection was raised on behalf ofthe complainant that a child has been born,however, the Petitioners are not taking custodyof the child. The Petitioners offered to take thechild with the plea that they were always askingthe complainant to give the custody of the childto the Petitioners. Under the circumstances,custody of child (Utkarsh) aged 1 1/2 years wasgiven to the Petitioners on 27.10.2010. Under the circumstances, the child is with the Petitioners who are the only persons to take care of the child while the husband would be in custody.

Petitioner No. 3 is unmarried sister in law of the deceased.

Considering the overall facts andcircumstances of the case and without commentingon the merits of the case, the petition isallowed.

It is directed that in the event ofarrest, the Petitioners shall be enlarged on bailon furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfactionof the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subjectto the following conditions:

(i) The Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required;

(ii) The Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ac-quainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) The Petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

This order shall enure till 15 days after thefiling of final report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure within which period, the Petitioners shall be re-quired to seek regular bail.