Pushpa Kashyap vs State (U.T.Chandigarh)

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Both these applications (Cr.M. Nos. 8269M and 9182M of 1999) for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arise from the same F.I.R. i.e. F.I.R. No. 166 dated 11.10.1998 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh under Sections 304B, 498A and 120B I.P.C. This F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Man Chand Katoch regarding the death of his daughter Anita and the allegations therein are as follows :

Anita was married on 19.7.1998 with Deepak Kashyap and she had gone to her marital home. On 14.8.1999, since according to their custom, it was a black month, Anita was left at her parental home by her brotherinlaw Pardeep Kumar (Ist petitioner in Cr.M. 9182M/99). Since Anita was found to be mentally disturbed, she was asked about it and she informed that her motherinlaw Pushpa Kashyap (petitioner in Cr. M. 8269M/99), her husband Deepak Kashyap and her brothersinlaw Pardeep Kumar and Vinod Kumar (Petitioners in Cr.M. 9182M/99) are all demanding a new car and jewellery and that whenever her sistersinlaw namely, Madhu Chandel and Indu Sharma came to her marital home along with their respective husbands, they made sarcastic remarks that she had come from a starved family, that she had brought less dowry and that a new car should come from her parents. Anita stayed at her parental home for about a month, but nobody came from her marital home to see her.

On 21.9.1998, Rakesh, the son of the complainant, left Anita at her marital home. Anita was also given certain jewellery and gifts at that time. On 21.8.1998, the complainant and his wife and left for Himachal Pradesh for their village. On 10.10.1998, they were informed that Anita had died. On 11.10.1998, the complainant and his wife reached Chandigarh and saw the dead body of Anita. According to the complaint, she had died because of the torture and demand for dowry made by Pushpa Kashyap, her sons Deepak Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Pardeep Kumar and daughters Madhu Chandel and Indu Sharma and their respective husbands.

On the basis of these allegations, the F.I.R. came to be registered. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Chandigarh for bail, but their applications were dismissed. Therefore, they have approached this Court.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and general without any details. He also contends that it is not stated that the petitioners demanded dowry at the time of marriage and, therefore, it is improbable that they demanded dowry subsequent to the marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that Anita had committed suicide not because of the demand for dowry or alleged torture by the petitioners, but because her mother had died even when she was six months old and her stepmother has been illtreating her. According to the counsel for the petitioners, Anita was being brought up by her paternal grandmother who had died about 4 years prior to the occurrence in question. According to the petitioners, Chabarka ceremony of the grand mother of Anita was to be performed on 7.10.1998, that Anita wanted to attend that function, but her stepmother did not permit her to do so and even abused Anita by stating that on her birth, she had swallowed her mother, that she had remained unmarried for 30 years, and even after marriage, she was not attached with them (accused party). According to the petitioners, Anita informed about this to her husband on her return from her parents'' house and had, therefore, committed suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that Pardeep Kumar is an agriculturalist and is residing at Village Chawal in District Solan of Himachal Pradesh and occasionally visits the house of her parents, while the other son Vinod Kumar is working as Senior Accounts Clerk drawing a salary of Rs. 6,049/ per month and that they are innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the motherinlaw Pushpa Kashyap is an old lady and has been suffering from spondylosis and abdominal pain etc. and has been taking treatment, and being a lady, she deserves lenient treatment in the matter of bail. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Mohri Devi v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) CLR 395, in support of his contention, wherein this Court held that the Criminal Procedure Code is partial towards women, and had allowed the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw of the deceased lady bail in a case arising under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C. But the Court has also observed that the Court should not release a person if there appear to be reasonable ground or grounds for believing that he has been guilty. The Court also took note of the fact that the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw concerned in that case were living separately while the deceased had set up her own house at Gurgaon with her husband. It was in these circumstances that the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw were granted bail taking into consideration the fact that they happened to be ladies also. But that is not the case here, since it is not stated that the motherinlaw has been living separately from the deceased and her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon another decision of this Court in Bimal Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 277 wherein also it was held that law is lenient towards women in the matter of bail. That was a case arising under Section 302 I.P.C. The Court found that he accused was involved on account of the extra judicial confession of the coaccused and there was no eyewitness. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner before the High Court was a lady, she was granted bail. This decision again will not help the case of the petitioner Pushpa Kashyap.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision in Ramesh v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR 19. That was case of death of a bride and it was found that there was no evidence that the deceased was treated cruelly or harassed soon before the death. It was held that the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be applied. It was also held that cruelty or harassment should be proved to have been inflicted soon before the death. This decision again will not help the petitioners because this decision was rendered in a criminal appeal where the entire evidence had come on record. At the stage of bail, naturally we do not have the entire evidence in the case. Further in this case on hand, the deceased was married on 19.7.1998. On 14.8.1998, she was left at her parental home, since according to their custom, it was felt to be a black month. She came back to her marital home on 21.9.1998 and she had died on 10.10.1998 itself. So, within about 20 days, she had died. It cannot at this stage be stated that the alleged cruelty was not soon before the death, because as to whether cruelty was soon before the death of the lady, has to depend upon the facts of each case and as pointed out already, the entire evidence has to come at the trial. Therefore, at this stage, it is too early to say on the facts and circumstances of the case that the alleged cruelty was not soon before death. Therefore, the decision will also not help the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR 85 for the same proposition. But this again is a judgment rendered in a criminal appeal by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and will not help the petitioners, in view of what I have stated above. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(4) RCR 869, wherein it was held that there was no evidence that the family was not having a colour TV, that in modern days it is not considered to be a costly item, which cannot be arranged by the family members, and that the demand for scooter could benefit only the husband. That was a decision rendered in a criminal appeal where conviction of the husband alone was upheld and others were acquitted. This decision also will not help the petitioners as the same was rendered in a criminal appeal where the entire evidence was before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision in Meka Ramaswamy v. Dasari Mohan, 1998(1) RCR 581. That was also a decision rendered in a criminal appeal by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that no demand was made at the time of marriage and it cannot be believed that the accused stated demanding scooter and fridge within seven days. This again being a judgment rendered in a criminal appeal, will not be of any help to the petitioners because the trial Court in that case after appreciating the evidence, had come to the conclusion that the evidence on the side of the prosecution was not consistent and did not inspire confidence as regards the demand for dowry and illtreatment. The High Court also after reappreciating the evidence, confirmed those findings. Then Hon''ble Supreme Court agreed with the findings. In those circumstances, it held was held that it is unbelievable that within seven days of the marriage, the accused should have made a demand of certain articles since there was no demand for dowry at the time of fixing the marriage. Therefore, until the evidence in this regard is forthcoming, it cannot at this stage be held that the petitioners could not have made any demand for new car, as alleged.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision in Kiran v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) RCR 97. In that case, it was held that it is improbable that the sisterinlaw who was 10 years old at the time of marriage, would have beaten her brother''s wife and it was found that the allegations against her and her brother were of general nature and with regard to them and therefore the F.I.R. itself was quashed. But again, this is not the case here in respect of the petitioners. Therefore, this decision will also not help the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon another decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar alias Goldy v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR 130. That was a case where the chargesheet had been filed only under Section 306 I.P.C. No role had been attributed to the petitioner, except the extent that he had been torturing the girl for getting inadequate dowry. Since the chargesheet itself was not filed under Section 304B I.P.C., bail was granted to the petitioner before the High Court. This decision again will not help the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioners herein face the F.I.R under Section 304B I.P.C. also.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that Pardeep Kumar, one of the petitioners is in Himachal Pradesh doing cultivation there. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitions has also produced annexure P4, copy of Jamabandi relating to the year 199091 wherein the petitioner Pardeep Kumar has been shown to be cultivating along with other members of the family. From this, it cannot be stated that he is living separately from the family. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners will not help the petitioners. So far as petitionerPushpa Kashyap, the motherinlaw is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that she is suffering from Spondylosis and abdominal pain and had taken treatment. In support of the same, he has produced certain prescriptions etc. But on this ground alone, the petitionerPushpa Kashyap, the motherin law, cannot be granted bail. If the petitioner Pushpa Kashyap needs any medical attendance and treatment, the concerned Superintendent of Jail will certainly take appropriate steps to give her treatment at the jail itself and, if necessary, by taking her to a competent hospital for examination and treatment.

As pointed out already, the girl Anita had died with about 3 months of her marriage by committing suicide. Even here, for about a month during these 3 months, she was at her parental home. Then she was left at her marital home on 21.9.1998 and she had committed suicide on 10.10.1998 itself. There is specific allegation that the petitioners herein demanded a car, and jewellery and that Anita had informed about this to the complainant after she was left at her parental home on 14.8.1998. The explanation given by the petitioners for her committing suicide is that Anita had lost her mother even while she was six months old and that she was being illtreated by her stepmother, that she was broughtup by her grandmother, who died 4 years prior to this occurrence, that Anita wanted to attend the ceremony which was to be held on 7.10.1998 relating to the death of her grandmother, but the stepmother not only refused to take her, but also abused her and, therefore, she committed suicide. This contention is wholly unacceptable. If the girl had not committed suicide for 30 years because of the alleged illtreatment by her stepmother, if there was one, it is improbable that she would have committed suicide after the marriage and that too, after coming to the house of her husband. Here again, the contention that she had committed suicide because she was not allowed to participate in the ceremony and was abused by her motherinlaw, appears to be too farfetched.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of bail prayed for.

Accordingly, both these petitions fail and are dismissed.

But the observations made herein should not be taken to be as an expression of final opinion on the merits of the case.

Since it is alleged that petitioner Pushpa Kashyap, the motherinlaw is ill, the concerned Superintendent of Jail where she is lodged, should take necessary steps to give her treatment and if necessary, take her to some competent hospital for examination and treatment. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail for necessary action in this regard.