Delhi High Court
Smt. Rani And Another
State on 12 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996 CriLJ 1026
Bench: J Mehra
1. The benefaction petition has been filed by dual petitioners, namely, Rani, mom of Mohan Lal and Mohan Lal, who are a sister-in-law and father of a sister-in-law respectively of a deceased, severe a sequence framing of a charges opposite a petitioners upheld by a schooled Additional Sessions Judge on 15-1-1994. The charges framed review as underneath :-
“That in between 26-11-92 to 5-5-93 during Flat No. 896/18 Baba Kadak Singh Marg within a office of P. S. Parliament Street in avail of common goal of we all caused cruelty and nuisance to Smt. Lakshmi for direct of dowry and thereby committed an corruption punishable underneath S. 498A review with Section 34 IPC within my cognizance.
Secondly, that on a aforesaid date, time and place in avail of common goal of we all we Ganesh Kumar, being husband, Rani. Sister-in-law, Mohan Lal being brother-in-law and Munni Devi being mother-in-law of a defunct Lakshmi caused such cruelty and nuisance for direct of dowry as a outcome of that she committed self-murder and died on 5-5-93 within 7 years of her matrimony and other than normalcy resources and thereby committed corruption u/S. 304B review with Section 34 IPC within my cognizance.”
2. The facts, quickly stated, are as underneath :-
That a deceased, Smt. Laxmi was married to Ganesh, one of a indicted on 26-11-1992. Laxmi committed self-murder by unresolved herself on 5-5-1993 in her possess father’s house. A day before a hanging, Ganesh, indicted suspecting a fealty of his wife, kick Laxmi badly and also taunted her for dowry and left her during her father’s place. On a fatal day, i.e. 5-5-1993. Laxmi admittedly left a self-murder note before committing suicide. The self-murder note was recovered from a room where a defunct committed self-murder by unresolved herself. They interpretation of a self-murder note reads as underneath :-
“Ganesh currently we have suspected me but any reason as no act of cave is wrong. Papa we can't live but him as he had incited me out of his chateau today. If something happens to me my passed physique be sent to his house. My final wish is that we be cremated usually by my husband. A failing chairman never tells a lie. Till a final moment. we contend that there is no error of mine. we am withdrawal this universe but doing any wrong. My final wish should be honoured. we wish to God that if we am reborn, we should be his mom nonetheless he has distressed me much. we am indignant usually since he has suspected me but any basis. There is in my heart no physique solely him – there was nothing before and nor will there be any in future. we am also distressed that Ganesh has taunted me currently for a dowry. Today Ganesh has beaten me badly for a initial time. Papa your hapless daughter Laxmi.
3. In a self-murder note, that is taken to be a failing declaration, there is no discuss of any in-laws creation any direct for dowry or subjecting a defunct to cruelty or nuisance for any tie with any direct for dowry. It appears from a failing stipulation in a self-murder note that a father had taunted her for dowry on that day usually and had beaten her badly for a initial time. The pronounced failing stipulation opens with a difference “Ganesh currently we have suspected me but any reason as no act of cave is wrong”….. “I am indignant usually since he has suspected me but any basis. There is in my heart no physique solely him. There was nothing before and nor will there be any in future.” This shows that a reason for maltreatment was guess in a mind of father about wife’s fidelity. The serve difference in a pronounced note review that “I am also pained, that Ganesh has taunted me currently for a dowry. Ganesh has beaten me badly for a initial time.” This shows that violence and derisive for dowry took place on that day for a initial time. A plain reading of a failing stipulation would uncover that a categorical claim that harm a defunct most, was a guess by a father about her impression and she has attempted to indicate out that there was no other chairman in her life solely a husband. From a failing declaration, it also becomes transparent that Ganesh had beaten her badly for a initial time and had also taunted her for dowry on that date. There is no story of any direct for dowry or claim of such a direct by a father or from any of a family of a deceased. It is usually in a march of a review that a Aunt and a mom of a defunct settled that a defunct had progressing been also taunted by a in-laws or their family for dowry and that she had come on progressing occasions also and had suggested a fact of such taunts for dowry to her aunt. It is on a basement of those allegations that a record were initiated. The schooled ASJ after going into a contribution of a box has disclosed in a news underneath Section 173 that “but whenever daughter used to come to her parent’s house, she used to divulge to her mom and aunt that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and her father used to provoke her for dowry. They used to tell her that she has not brought scooter or colour radio and Ganesh, during a instance of her brother-in-law, sister and mother, used to misbehave with her concerning taunts.” The Sessions Judge has also remarkable that “on a day of a marriage, a brother-in-law of Ganesh and other family abused after holding wine and also quarreled with them.” In this quarrel, there is no discuss of dowry. The Sessions Judge has, however, poorly remarkable in a sequence that in a self-murder note, it was serve mentioned that her father has again teased her for dowry. There is no discuss of a word again in a self-murder note and it appears that this word has been inadvertently granted by a Sessions Judge. On a doubt of violence also, a self-murder note clearly mentions that she has been beaten by Ganesh badly for a initial time. This clearly discounts any progressing beating. Again in para-4 of a impugned order, a schooled Sessions Judge has totally misconstrued a self-murder note by provision a difference and by a in-laws”. The word “and by a in-laws” do not seem in a self-murder note. The schooled Sessions Judge has celebrated that as per a self-murder note. She has been beaten and teased for dowry and has also been treated with cruelty by a father and by a in-laws since we find that a categorical importance of a self-murder note is no husband’s guess about her fidelity. In any event, we am not deliberation or examining a sequence of framing a assign opposite a father or any one other than a benefaction petitioners, who are a sister of a father and her husband.
4. Another fact to be beheld is that while a father and a defunct were vital in Madangir area, a sister of a father was vital with her father during Rajpur Road and there is a substantial stretch to be commuted from Rajpur Road to strech Madangir and it is not accessible to invert that stretch really frequently. All a allegations opposite a benefaction petitioners leveled by a mom and aunt are utterly deceptive and do not give any date or a inlet of any direct for dowry. The requirement of a supplies of law is that a defunct should have been subjected to such cruelty and harrassment for direct for dowry before her genocide and not a deceptive wandering taunt for bringing reduction dowry. A taunt for not bringing dowry is utterly graphic from direct for dowry. There is no discuss of direct for dowry by a petitioners in a failing declaration. There is no element on record opposite a petitioners about direct for dowry. we am of a opinion that when there are dual versions available, one is exegesis from a defunct on what happened to her, and a other is a chronicle of aunt and mother, that was available in a march of review successive to a death. The chronicle contained in a failing stipulation can't be relegated to a place defective to that of aunt and mother, during slightest during this early theatre of a case. Cause for genocide is self-murder admittedly and means for self-murder has been disclosed in a failing declaration, wherein usually a father Ganesh has been mentioned and there is no discuss therein of any purpose carrying been played by a benefaction petitioners. The genocide had taken place during a chateau of a deceased’s parents. The probability of a mom and aunt exaggerating a contribution in their chronicle can't be ruled out. Their chronicle is deceptive and lacks any specific particulars. For these reasons, their chronicle does not consequence any welfare over a failing declaration.
5. In a light of a above discussion, it is not probable to reason that there is any clever guess opposite a benefaction petitioners many reduction a probability of any self-assurance ensuing on a basement of element on record if it is not rebutted. There is also no claim on record opposite a benefaction petitioners of their carrying demanded dowry.
6. In a box of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy , a Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down “In a practice of a rational power, a High Court is entitled to stifle a move if it comes to a end that permitting a move to continue would be an abuse of a routine of a Court or that a ends of probity need that a move ought to be quashed.” After certain discussion, a Hon’ble Supreme Court has serve observed. “These decisions uncover that for a purpose of last either there is sufficient belligerent for move opposite an indicted a probity possesses a partially wider option in a practice of that it can establish a question, either a element on a record, if unrebutted, is such on a basement of that a self-assurance can be pronounced pretty to be possible.” Applying a above tests, we am confident on both counts, i.e., powers of this Court to meddle in a resources referred above and that a element before a Court even if unrebutted, is not such on a basement of that a self-assurance can be pronounced reasonable to be probable and that a continuation of a record would usually volume to an abuse of routine of a Court and, therefore, a ends of probity need that a record opposite a benefaction petitioners ought to be quashed. The outcome of a above contention is that a impugned sequence in so distant as it is germane to a benefaction petitioners, is quashed and a pronounced petitioners are discharged.
7. Order accordingly.