Whether the statement made by the father of the deceased with respect to the demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- by the applicant and his mother or whether Rs. 10,00,000/- cash was paid to the applicant is a matter of trial, which the prosecution need to prove by leading evidence in support thereof: Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN. 3475/2022
SURAJ MALIK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
The current application was under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which sought for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 591/2022 under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Matter before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
|Section 34||Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention|
|Section 306||Abetment of suicide.|
|Section 498 A||Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty|
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 27.06.2022, a PCR call was received at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi, stating that a patient by name Shefali Malik (now deceased), had been admitted on the account of burn injuries. Subsequently, for further treatment the victim was referred to Safdarjung Hospital.
On reaching the hospital, SDM Punjabi Bagh recorded the statement of the patient. Here it was revealed that the victim was married on 23.11.2021 and she at her matrimonial home on that day poured petrol on herself and set herself on fire because she do not want to live. Here, she states that the harassment from her mother-in-law prompted her to act in the above manner. She further mentioned that her mother-in-law di not demand dowry but she constantly taunted her.
FIR 591/2022 under Sections 498/306/34 of the IPC was registered and investigation was taken up.
During the course of the investigation, statement of the parents of the deceased (Shefali Malik), i.e., Sh. Krishan Kumar Khanna and Smt. Ranjana Khanna were recorded by the SDM, Punjabi Bagh, in which they alleged that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased harassed their daughter and demanded dowry. They alleged that the current applicant along with his mother, i.e., Smt. Sunita Malik, burned their daughter Shefali. Here, it was also revealed that it was deceased and applicant’s second marriage and was conducted with great pomp and show on 23.11.2021, by spending approximately Rs. 20,00,000/-.
In the statement of the parents of the deceased, it was further stated that in February 2022, the deceased had informed her parents that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 25,00,000/- . Therefore, they had given cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the deceased.
In the statement of the parents of the deceased, it is also stated that the deceased got pregnant in April but her in-laws gave her medicine and got her aborted as the applicant, who already has a son from his previous marriage, did not want to have another child.
On 26.06.2022, the deceased received her pregnancy report, which was positive, and she informed so to her parents on the next morning. It was alleged that on the applicant being informed about the pregnancy had stopped talking to the deceased and fought with her despite her not keeping well.
It is further alleged that on the night of 26.06.2022 the applicant had started demanding Rs.15,00,000/- which were pending.
After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the
Court of competent jurisdiction, and through order of 21.01.2023, the learned trial Court had framed charges against the applicant and his mother under Sections 498A/304B (Dowry death) /34 of the IPC and in the alternate charge under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
The court felt it relevant to mention that the dying declaration of the deceased as an important piece of evidence in the case.
The Court took notice that the dying declaration had categorically stated that there was no demand of dowry and the deceased while alleging that her mother-in-law harassed her, clarifies the same by saying that she does not demand dowry but continues to taunt her.
The Court also noticed the statement of the parents where they alleges that in-laws of their daughter had demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- out of which Rs.10,00,000/- have already been paid. The Court was of the opinion that this was a matter of trial.
The Applicant was in judicial custody since 28.06.2022 and the Court was of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody any further and thus, allowed the application.
The applicant was admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court. This was subject to the following conditions:
- In case of any change of address, the applicant was directed to inform the same to the learned Trial Court and the Investigating Officer.
- The applicant could not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
- The applicant was required to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times.
- The applicant should not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner.
- The applicant would be required to join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
- In case it was established that the applicant tried to tamper with the evidence, the bail granted to the applicant would be cancelled.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
Click here to view your judgement