Som Parkash Mehta and ors. vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

This case was registered vide First Information Report No. 32 dated 12.8.1987, Police Station Lalru, District Patiala under Sections 498A and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, on an application made by Vijay Kumar Sharma brother of Shrimati Saroj (deceased), addressed to the Director General of Police Punjab.

In this case learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 21.9.1987 and notice was issued to the AdvocateGeneral, Punjab for 1.10.1987 on which date the learned counsel for the State sougth an adjournment and the case was posted for 13.10.1987. On that date also the learned State counsel sought adjournment to produce the papers to show the steps taken by the complainant after 4.3.1987 till 11.3.1987. This time was given to enable him to find out if any complaint was made immediately after the death of Smt. Saroj. On that date it was represented on behalf of the State that the present complainant had been making allegations against the petitioner right from the date of death of Smt. Saroj and complaint made by him on 11.3.1987 was not the first complaint.

The learned State counsel has produced a photostat copy of the application filed by the complainant on 5.3.1987 to the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantonment, seeking copy of the historysheet of Smt. Saroj (deceased). What for the historysheet was required is not mentioned therein. A photostat copy of another application dated 6.3.1987 filed by the complainant to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala shows that the complainant wanted the historysheet of the bedhead ticket of Smt. Saroj (deceased). Still no allegation against the petitioner is made in this application. Another application was made by the complainant on 9.3.1987 in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, Ambala Cantt., wherein also truecopy of the historysheet of Smt. Saroj (deceased) was demanded and no other allegation was made against any body. A phootstat copy of another applicaton made on 10.3.1987, addressed to the District Magistrte, Ambala shows that a direction was sought to be given to Dr. (Mrs.) Satya Wati Loomba for copy of historysheet. Of course, in his application dated 9.3.1987, one sentence reads as under :

"That the applicant is the real brother of deceased and he believes that the death was not natural."

meaning thereby that he had no personal information till then. Again, it is worth mentioning that in the applicaton dated 6.3.1987, the complainant expressed the desire to get registered First Information Report against the inlaws of Smt. Saroj (deceased). This part of the application does not disclose as to what part was played by the inlaws of the deceased.

The basis of the First Information Report is quite lengthy and the facts in detail have been given. The date of likely birth of a child is said to have been given by Ranbir Mehta, husband of Smt. Saroj (deceased) when he came to the house of the complainant on 15.2.1987.

The learned State counsel has cited Samunder Singh''s case, AIR 1987 SC 737 and has urged that in dowry death cases, it is not prudent for the trial Court to grant anticipatory bail. In the judgment of the Supreme Court case, facts are not given. Their Lrodships of the Supreme Court, of course, have expressed their opinion that the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. From the judgment, it is not known when the complainant learnt about the death of the person concerned, the circumstances in which the complaint was filed, the name/names of the accused party came to be known and what was the delay caused in reporting the matter to the Police. It is also not mentioned therein if there were any allegations of maltreatment or creulty or of demand of dowry, attracting the provisions of Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code or Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

In the circumstances of the case, it is to be seen as to whether it is a case where the above mentioned dictum by their Lordship of the Supreme Court can be applied. The complainant has been making efforts to collect evidence so as to make out some probable story after going through the evidence thus collected by him. This case is not of the type covered by the judgment quoted above.

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are fatherinlaw and motherinlaw respectively of the deceased. Petitioner No. 3 is brother of petitioner No. 4 who was married with the deceased on 18.11.1984. Petitioner No. 5 is the sister of petitioner No. 4 and is married at Kurali (District Ropar) at a distance of 45/50 miles from Ambala. The deceased had ultimately conceived a child and was likely to deliver it on or around 16.2.1987 which date was made know to the complainat by no other person than petitioner No. 4 himself when he came to attend the marriage of the complainant himself. On coming to know this fact, Anil Kumar and Smt. Devi Chhaya, brother and mother respectively of the complainant, are said to hve gone to the petitioners'' place of residence only on 27.2.1987 when they could not have a complete talk with Smt. Saroj (deceased) due to coming nearer of petitioner No. 5 and other inlaw of the deceased. Even some time earlier, not specified, the complainant, along with his other family members, happened to drop at Handsara on their way back from Sonepat to Chandigarh and heard a taunting remarks of petitioner No. 2.

The complaint dated 11.3.1987 on which ultimately the FIR was registered on 12.8.1987 further shows that Smt. Saroj (deceased), along with the child, expired at 7.05 a.m. on 4.3.1987 in Civil Hospital Ambala Cantt. and dead bodies were allowed to be taken by her inlaws and this news came to the family of the complainant through some one (name is not disclosed and version of the petitioners is that a message was sent) at 11 a.m., the same day. Cremation took place on that day when the complainant and others were present but no body raised a little finger and the present version came to light only on 11.3.1987 through the present complaint.

Copies of entires in the Register of Birth Control Programme for the year 198687 (Annexure P3) show that treatment to Smt. Saroj was given on 15.7.1986, 7.10.1986, 5.11.1986, 3.12.1986 and 7.1.1987. Annexure P4 shows that Smt. Saroj was taken to Aggarwal Hospital and Maternity Home, which is run by Dr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and Dr. Madhuri Aggarwal, and examined on 26.12.1986, declaring the pregnancy as 7monthold and again on 10.1.1987 Smt. Saroj was advised to be brought after one month. Again, Smt. Saroj was admittedly examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Satyawati Loomba who is obstetrician and gynaecologist, on 24.2.1987. Thereafter, on the advice of said Dr. (Mrs.) Loomba, Smt. Saroj was shifted to Civil Hospital Ambala Cantt. by petitioners No. 2 and 4 and got admitted there and died at 7.05 a.m. on 4.3.1987. This history excludes any foul play prima facie.

This background has to be kept in mind especially when after cremation on 4.3.1987, there is no spontaneous report with any version whatsoever till 11.3.1987. The Court is also duty bound to take into consideration that in some cases, attempt by parental side of girls of involve almost all their inlaws in made. It also cannot be lost sight that there was no such allegation before 11.3.1987 and there was enough time to come with the present version.

In consequence of the above observations, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners, vide my order dated 21.9.1987, is confirmed. The application is disposed of accordingly.

The observations made herein till not be relevant at the time of trial. The trial Court will be at liberty to arrive at any conclusion after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence.