Smt. Vidya Devi vs State (Delhi Administration)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother- in -law of the deceased Shakuntala. All the accused including the husband of Shakuntala, brother-in-law and father-in-law are in custody. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.08.2002 and she is aged over 60 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although there are allegations in the FIR pertaining to the present petitioner, however they relate to offences u/s 498A and not u/s 304B, at least, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. He drew my attention to the contents of the FIR to indicate that though there are general allegations that demands for dowry and other articles were made soon after the marriage of the petitioner''s son with the deceased Shakuntala and that these demands were made by all the accused persons, in point of fact the only incident which triggered the unfortunate death of the deceased (Shakuntala) was the event which took place on 11.8.2002. He submitted that prior to 10.8.2002, the husband of deceased (Shakuntala) had informed her parents that they may take her away when he returned from work. On 11.8.2002 deceased Shakuntala''s brother went to the home where she resided and without waiting for the return of the husband, took away Shakuntala and brought her back to her parental home. This apparently angered the family members as well as Shakuntala''s husband and they went to the parental home of Shakuntala and against her wishes took her back to the matrimonial home. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was the direct incident which resulted in Shakuntala taking her life on 12.08.2002.

The learned counsel for the State however, argued that the ingredients of Section 304B have been made out inasmuch as Shakuntala died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and there were demands for dowry and, Therefore, clearly this is a case of dowry death falling u/s 304B. He further submitted that the expression "soon before her death" was a relative term and as indicated by various decisions of the Supreme Court, the expression is to be seen from case to case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule as to what is the exact duration before which the demands have to be made.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that looking at the FIR itself and taking it to be correct, the allegations u/s 304B are not made out, at least so far as the present petitioner is concerned. According to him, there is no live and proximate link between the demand for dowry on the part of the petitioner and the death of the deceased Shakuntala. Taking a prima facie view of the matter, I would tend to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and direct that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. All observations made herein are only prima facie in nature.

The application stands disposed of.

dusty.