Manjeet Singh vs State of N.C.T of Delhi

Anil Kumar, J.—This is a petition u/s 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner who had been arrested by the police P.S. Hari Nagar on 4th March, 2007 and is in judicial custody. The petitioner contended that charge sheet has been filed and charges have already been framed against the petitioner and his father and mother, co- accused have already been granted bail.

It is pleaded that petitioner was married with deceased Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur on 12th September, 2002. It was an arranged marriage and there is one issue namely Ekamdeep Singh who is studying in one of the prestigious schools in Delhi and who is about 4 years.

According to the petitioner the marriage was going smoothly and there were no complaints regarding any dowry demand, harassment and domestic violence etc.

The parents of the deceased were to come to Delhi on 1st March, 2007 but they could not come on 1st March, 2007 and they came to the house of the petitioner on 3rd March, 2007 at about 12.30 PM or 1 PM. It is stated that at about 1.45 PM when the mother of the deceased went to her room she found the deceased hanging. It is contended that a suicide note was found. Thereafter, police came and an SDM came and the body was sent for autopsy.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that there should have been an inquest as contemplated u/s 176 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is asserted that statements of the father and mother of the deceased were not recorded on 3rd March, 2007 and their statements were recorded after more than 24 hours on 4th March, 2007 when the first allegation came after cremation. It is also asserted that the allegations made by the father and the sister of the deceased are on the instigation of certain relatives who arrived from Punjab for the cremation. It is also stated that on the date of the incident on 3rd March, 2007 the body of the deceased kept on hanging for half an hour till the father of the petitioner and other relatives came. It is contended that a suicide note was found and police and the SDM had both enquired from the parents of the deceased but they did not suspect any foul play for any reason. The learned Counsel has further contended that even on consideration of the allegations made in FIR it is apparent that no cruelty can be inferred. There are no specific allegations of demand of dowry soon before the incident and as such the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are missing and the said offense is not made out against the petitioner. The demand for furniture was made 9-10 months after the marriage. The other allegation of 4/5 months ago was on account of money being demanded for the petitioner on the ground that he was not working whereas the purchases and ongoing expenses of the family reflect that there was no financial difficulty and family business was going on well.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first instance contended that the handwriting on the suicide note was not disputed and what is disputed is only the signature by the sister of the deceased. However, perusal of the alleged suicide note and the statement of the sister of the deceased reveal that handwriting of the deceased on alleged suicide note is also disputed. It has been very emphatically contended on behalf of the petitioner that the bail cannot be denied to him as there is nothing to demonstrate that the suicide note is not in her handwriting. It is also contended that the prosecution did not ask the parents of the deceased for her handwriting so as to establish the authenticity of the suicide note.

The release of the petitioner on bail is also sought on the ground that he cannot tamper with the evidence and since the co-accused have already been released on bail and there is one minor son aged about 4 years from the marriage who is dependant on his father, the petitioner, it will be just and appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. It is also contended that the alleged illicit relationship will also not raise a presumption of dowry.

The learned Counsel has also contended that on 3rd June, 2008 the matter was listed for prosecution evidence and the exemption was sought on behalf of one of the witnesses, father of the deceased, however, the other witnesses were not examined and the matter has been adjourned for 10th September, 2008. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Deputy Rai Bhasin v. State 1993 JCC 352; Kailash Kumar v. State 1997 JCC 399; Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (1) Crimes 110 (SC); Raj Kumar @ Khem Raj Vs. State of H.P., and Hira Lal and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi 2003 (3) Crimes 186 (SC) to contend that the petitioner is entitled for bail

The bail petition is strongly opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is contended that the father of the deceased made a categorical statement that though he had given the dowry according to his capacity, the petitioner and his parents were not happy. Though the parents of the petitioner did not demand the dowry directly, they used to harass the deceased through their son, petitioner. It is stated that the deceased had told her father that the petitioner along with other in-laws were demanding furniture and that she was harassed for not bringing the furniture as per their demand. The deceased is also alleged to have been beaten up by the petitioner who is alleged to have told the deceased either to bring her share of property or else she would be eliminated. It is stated that four or five months prior to the incident, the harassment had increased as the petitioner was not working and all these incidents about the harassment were told by her to her father on the phone. It was also disclosed that the petitioner is having relation with some other woman. The father of the petitioner also stated that on 2nd March, 2007 a call was received from his deceased daughter in which she told that she is being harassed and beaten up and the father should come and take her from the in-laws house and when the father with mother of the deceased went to the house of the petitioner, the mother found her daughter hanging from the fan by chunni.

The sister of the deceased also stated in her statement that her sister was harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry and she was occasionally beaten up. She also disclosed in her statement that the petitioner was having relations with another girl and for this reason also he used to harass the deceased and used to force the deceased to bring the money and used to threaten her that she will be eliminated. It is stated that the deceased was M.A, M.Com and on 2nd March, 2007 one day before the incident she had phoned and had communicated that she is being harassed and she should be taken from the matrimonial home. The sister categorically stated that the handwriting on the alleged suicide note is not of the deceased and that the deceased never signed in Hindi whereas the alleged suicide note is signed in Hindi.

The learned public prosecutor has relied on AIR 2003 SC 2108; Gajanand Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa and Another, ; Raja Lal Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand, ; Arun Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, to contend that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner had emphasized regarding the inquest not being done by the SDM in compliance with the provisions of Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The SDM in his statement has disclosed that the father of the deceased had disclosed on 3rd March, 2007 that he is not in a state to give statement on account of the death of her daughter and therefore, the statement of the father of the deceased and the mother of the deceased were recorded on 4th March, 2007. The petitioner is not entitled for bail on the ground that the SDM had not carried out the inquest in accordance with the provision of Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned SDM has stated that the parents of the deceased were not in a position to give statement on 3rd March, 2007 and, therefore, the statement was recorded on 4th March, 2007. In the circumstances the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted nor this will be a ground to grant bail to the petitioner.

Regarding not comparing the handwriting of the deceased with the handwriting specimen given by the family of the petitioner, it is contended that the prosecution had tried to obtain the admitted handwriting and signatures of the deceased from the colleges and other places, however, the handwriting and the signatures of the deceased were not available and the alleged specimen handwriting given by the petitioner is not admitted, therefore, they were not sent for the comparison. Therefore, on account of this the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed by him.

The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that in almost every case of the death, it is being incorporated in the FIRs that the deceased had called her parents one day before the death about the harassment on account of dowry and that she should be taken away from the matrimonial home and so no reliance can be placed on such an allegation. On account of such facts in other cases of dowry death also, the allegation made by the father of the deceased that the deceased had called one day before and had intimated him and other family members that she is being harassed and beaten up and she should be taken away from the matrimonial home cannot be disbelieved at this stage nor can be ignored in the facts and circumstances.

The statement of the parents of the deceased and other witnesses have not been recorded. There can be every likelihood of the petitioner trying to influence the witnesses. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the parents of the deceased and other will not be influenced since their daughter has died is also not acceptable in the facts and circumstances.

The cases relied on by the petitioner are distinguishable. In Deputy Rai Bhasin (supra) the deceased had left a suicide note to the effect that she did not want to live and was dying out of her own will and that nobody should be held responsible for her death. However, this suicide note was verified by the C.F.S.L. This is not the position in the present case. Here the signature and handwriting in the alleged suicide note, as per the sister of the deceased is not that of the deceased. In Kailash Kumar (supra) the deceased had made two dying declarations. In the first she did not implicate the husband at all and stated that she had accidently caught fire while in the kitchen. In the second declaration she expressed a doubt that her husband might have poured kerosene over her. In these circumstances bail was granted to the accused. The counsel has tried to equate the suicide note to a dying declaration. Leaving aside the merits of such a comparison, the above-said case does not forward the case of the petitioner because in the present case the authenticity of the alleged suicide note is contentious. In Appasaheb and Anr. (supra) the Apex Court had set aside the conviction by trial Court which was affirmed by the High Court. The court had held that ''In view of the definition of the word ''Dowry'' given in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, any property should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed''. In this case the father and mother of the deceased had deposed that the deceased was ill-treated as a result of ''domestic cause''. When asked to clarify what she meant by ''domestic cause'' the mother had stated that there was a demand for money for defraying expenses for manure etc. The mother had not mentioned in her statement under S-161 Cr.P.C that there was a demand for money and a consequential beating. There was also no other evidence of a demand for dowry having been made. The court held ''A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.'' In Raj Kumar (supra) The H.P High Court had observed ''...the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, though are of a grave nature, but mere gravity of the offence is no reason, by itself, to deny bail to the accused. This case too does not support the petitioner''s case. In the above-said case the bail application was resisted mainly on the ground of the gravity of the offence. It was in such a scenario that the Court had made the above said observation. The court had also noted that the prosecution has not contended that that accused will flee from justice or that he will tamper with the prosecution evidence if he is released on bail. In Hira Lal (supra) the Supreme Court had held, ''A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment''.The expression ''soon before'' is very relevant. The Apex Court had held that the term ''soon before'' in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and 304-B IPC - is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence''. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression ''soon before'' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be no consequence.'' In the present case the father of the deceased has stated that the day before the incident the deceased had called him up and told him that she is being harassed and beaten up for not meeting the demands for dowry and that he should come and take her from her in-laws house.

In Gajanand Aggarwal (supra) relied on by the respondent, the Apex Court held that merely because the family members of the deceased spoke about the alleged dowry demand and not others that cannot be certainly a ground to conclude that the same throws doubt on the alleged torture. In Alamgir Sani (supra) relied on by the learned prosecutor, the father of the deceased had initially told the police that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging in the bathroom. After the receipt of the post-mortem report he gave a second report alleging that her daughter had been murdered by her husband. The accused contended that the evidence for demand for dowry cannot be believed at all because if there had been a demand for dowry then the father of the deceased would never have given a report that he did not suspect any foul play. The Apex Court held that it cannot be laid down as a sound proposition that in all cases where immediately a statement about ill-treatment or beating or demand for various articles is not made, then such evidence cannot be accepted. ''Human nature is very complex. Different persons react differently under pressure or in times of sudden bereavement or grief. The shock suffered by a parent having seen his daughter dead an unnatural manner can in some cases prevent immediate outpouring of reasons. Each case would have to be tested on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf.'' In Raja Lal Singh (supra) the Apex Court held:-''the words ''soon before her death'' do not necessarily mean immediately before her death. This phrase is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before death of the deceased or within a few days or few weeks before death. In other words there should be a perceptible nexus between the death of the deceased and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. In this case it was proved in evidence that the deceased was subjected to harassment for dowry 10 to 15 days before her death. The court held that the ingredients of S-304-B were made out.

In Arun Garg (supra) relied by the respondent the issue before the court whether soon before the death the deceased was harassed and subjected to cruelty on account of demand for dowry. The Court perused the statements given by the prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that there was a harassment soon before the death on account for demand for dowry. The Court also observed that there was no substance in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the interested evidence of the parents of the deceased has not been supported by independent evidence or witness of the locality while the stand of the defence had been that the deceased was never harassed or tortured by the appellant or by any of his family members for demand of dowry. In Devi Lal (supra) the counsel for the appellant had contended that the father of the deceased (PW 1) in his disposition did not categorically state that the deceased was subjected to harassment for and in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death and therefore no case for convicting the appellant under S-304- B has been made out. The Apex Court had rather held: ''The deceased had all along been subjected to harassment only on the ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage. For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand for any particular item should have been made.''

It is no more res integra that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. In Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , the Supreme Court had held as under:

...There is always a peril in treating the words of judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusion in two cases.

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Kalu Shivram Jagtap and Others, it was observed as under:

The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without having regard to the fact situation and circumstances obtaining in two cases.

No other point has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances as the offence committed is heinous and taking into consideration other relevant factors, at this stage it will not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed at this stage. Anything stated hereinabove shall not be an expression of any opinion on the final merits of the case.