* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19th March 2020
+ CRL.REV.P. 83/2017
GAJENDER SINGH ….. Petitioner
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar with Mr. Harsimrat Randhawa,
For the Respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State.
SI Naeem Ali, PS Bhajan Pura.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Crl.M.A.1317/2017 (stay),
Crl.M.A.3866/2017 (for clarification of order dated 23.01.2017)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.10.2016, whereby, the Trial
Court has discharged respondent No.2 Smt. Savitri of all charges.
2. Deceased – Ms. Manisha was married on 29.04.2015 to one
Akash son of Respondent No. 2. In the intervening night of
12.02.2016 and 13.02.2016, she committed suicide by hanging herself
from a ceiling fan. Respondent No.2 is the mother-in-law of the
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Page 1 of 6
3. Incident was reported to the Police Station Bhajan Pura on
13.02.2016 and inquest proceedings were conducted by the Executive
Magistrate and as per the post mortem, the cause of death was
asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
4. FIR was registered under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC, Police
Station Bhajanpura. Husband of the deceased – Akash, Brother-in-law
of the deceased – Vikash and mother-in-law – respondent No.2 Smt.
Savitri Devi were arrayed as accused.
5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Akash,
Vikash, Neelam – wife of Vikash and Smt. Savitri Devi.
6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has discharged Akash,
Vikash, Neelam and Respondent No. 2 – Smt. Savitri Devi for the
offences under Section 498A and 304B. However, charge has been
framed against Akash under Section 306 IPC.
7. Subject petition has been filed by the father of the deceased
impugning the order – on – charge in so far as Respondent No. 2 –
Smt. Savitri Devi is concerned and contending that there was
sufficient material against respondent No.2 – Savitri Devi for framing
8. It is contended that the Trial Court has erred in not noticing the
statements of Ms. Anita – cousin sister of the deceased, Mrs. Renu –
sister-in-law of the deceased, who are alleged to have made
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Page 2 of 6
statements which show commission of offence under Sections
9. It is contended that in their statements both Anita and Renu
have stated that Smt. Savitri Devi – her mother-in-law used to ask her
to bring a four wheeled vehicle and she was being harassed for not
bringing a four wheeled vehicle.
10. Trial Court in the impugned judgment has noticed the
provisions of Section 304B IPC and held that to bring home the guilt
under Section 304B IPC, prosecution must prove that:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
(ii) Such a death must have occurred within seven years of
(iii) Soon before death, she must have been subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection
with demand of dowry; and
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted
out to the woman soon before her death.
11. Trial Court has also noticed that the provisions of Section 113-
B of the Indian Evidence Act as also the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Baljinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab: 2015  JCC 473 and M.
Srinivasulu vs. State of A.P.: (2007) 12 SCC 443 wherein the Supreme
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Page 3 of 6
Court has enumerated the conditions for drawing presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
12. Trial Court has thereafter considered that the crucial question is
whether there was material on record to prima facie show that the
deceased was subject to cruelty or harassment by the accused and
whether such cruelty or harassment was for, and in connection with
any demand for dowry.
13. Trial Court has noticed that the prosecution has relied on the
statement of the complainant Gajender Singh, i.e., the father of the
deceased. On perusal of the statement of Gajender Singh, the Trial
Court has observed that he had not made any allegation that the
accused and his family had subjected the deceased to any kind of
cruelty or harassment. He had not made any allegation of dowry
demand particularly that there was no allegation against respondent
No.2. The only allegation in his statement were that the husband
Akash used to threaten to divorce her.
14. Trial Court has also referred to the statement of Smt. Usha Devi
– the mother of the deceased and also noticed that she had not made
any allegation that the deceased was subjected to harassment or
cruelty and there was no allegation against the respondent No.2 – Smt.
Savitri. The Trial Court has noticed that there was no material in her
statement also to the extent that the respondent No.2 had subjected her
to harassment or cruelty for, or in connection with any demand for
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Page 4 of 6
15. With regard to the statement of Smt. Renu, the Trial Court has
noticed that in her statement she had stated that the deceased had told
her that her husband Akash had relation with his sister-in-law. She
stated that the deceased had told her that her mother-in-law (Smt.
Savitri) used to ask her to bring a vehicle. However, she did not state
as to when the deceased told her about the demand of car made by
Smt. Savitri or that Smt. Savitri was subjecting her to harassment or
cruelty so as to force her to bring a car.
16. With regard to the statement of Smt. Amit in regard to the role
of the respondent No.2, Smt. Anita had stated that the deceased told
her that her mother-in-law used to comment that her son was getting a
four wheeled vehicle in marriage and they expected that the deceased
would bring a car but she brought a motor cycle. She did not give any
details about when such a statement was made.
17. On perusal of the statements relied on by the prosecution, the
Trial Court has returned a finding that there was no material inter alia
against respondent No.2 for proceeding against her under Section
498A and Section 304 IPC.
18. Before this court also Petitioner has not been able to show any
material to suggest that the findings returned by the Trial Court are
not substantiated by record.
19. For framing of a charge against the accused, not only suspicion
but grave suspicion that the accused is likely to have committed the
offence is required.
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Page 5 of 6
20. As noticed by the Trial Court and on perusal of the statement of
the witnesses recorded by the prosecution, it is apparent that the there
are no specific allegations made against respondent No.2 – Smt.
Savitri for either harassing the deceased or treating her with cruelty
for, and in connection with any demand for dowry.
21. Perusal of the record does not show that grave suspicion arises
against respondent No.2, of having committed the offence under
Sections 498A or 304B IPC.
22. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material and returned a
finding that grave suspicion does not arise in the facts and
circumstances of the case inter alia against the respondent No.2.
23. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court in
holding that no charge under Section 498A and Section 304B IPC is
liable to be framed against respondent No.2.
24. I find no merit in the petition. The Petition is, accordingly,
25. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 19, 2020/st
CRL.REV.P. 83/2017 Page 6 of 6