Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1885 (MAD)

V. Bhaskar Rao v. The District Collector & Others

2003-11-19

D.MURUGESAN

body2003
Judgment :- V. Bhaskar Rao, the father of the unfortunate deceased, who allegedly came to be roasted alive by her husband and in laws, is before this Court. This writ petition is an example as to how the functionary of the State not only miserably failed in discharging his statutory obligations, but also had taken sides with the offender to shield them by sealing the complaint of the petitioner over the death of his daughter. 2. Mrs.V.Sharada @ Sanjana is the only daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to Anjaneya Camp Post and Taluk, Maavi District, Raichur, Karnataka State. His daughter was given in marriage to one M.Ramesh, a resident of Tiruvottiyur, Chennai on 28.6.2002. The marriage was solemnized at the village of the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. Though the petitioner offered to give 120 grams of gold jewels at the time of marriage, bridegroom and his family members demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner in fact gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the marriage to the said Ramesh. The bridegroom further insisted the petitioner to execute an agreement for due payment of the balance dowry amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, failing which the marriage would not take place. He would also insist a sale agreement to be executed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper by the grandmother of the bride as though the said Ramesh has paid Rs.1,50,000/- as advance for purchasing 1 acre 25 cents of agricultural land belonging to the grandmother for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-, though value of the land was higher. Only after execution of the sale agreement, the marriage was solemnized on the next day i.e., 28.6.2002. Immediately after the marriage, the said Ramesh and his family members started harassing the daughter of the petitioner to get the balance amount of dowry. The couple came to Chennai on 5.7.2002. Since the balance amount of dowry was not paid, the petitioner was not even allowed to speak to his daughter except once. On 20.7.2002, the petitioner received a phone call from the said Ramesh informing him that his daughter met with a fire accident due to leakage in the gas cylinder while she was preparing tea. The petitioner arrived at Chennai immediately on receipt of the said message on 21.7.2002 along with his family members. Neither the petitioner nor his family members were allowed to see the girl. The petitioner arrived at Chennai immediately on receipt of the said message on 21.7.2002 along with his family members. Neither the petitioner nor his family members were allowed to see the girl. The petitioner suspected the death of his daughter. The petitioner and his family members stayed in Thusali Maligai lodge, but they were closely monitored by some unidentified persons and their movements were restricted by them. With great difficulty the petitioner managed to contact his lawyer and a telegraphic complaint dated 23.7.2002 was sent to the Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai complaining that his daughter was murdered for dowry and the death was not due to accident. The petitioner and his wife were taken to the office of Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk by one K.Ramsekar Rao and his wife Mrs.Baby Sarojini stating that they should collect the body after post-mortem and they should sign some papers. Only then they came to know that factually the daughter of the petitioner died in the early hours on 25.7.2002. The petitioner and his wife were asked to sign only for handing over the dead body. They were not enquired by the Tahsildar before any signature was taken and the Tahsildar even did not see the petitioner or his wife. After the post-mortem, the body was straightaway taken to Tiruvottiyur burial ground. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife were forcibly taken to the lodge and were forced to sign four written papers by the said K.Ramsekar Rao and B.Bhaskar Rao and some others. Thereafter, the petitioner went to his native place with his family members and became seriously ill and was in fact hospitalized for a fortnight. He preferred a written complaint on 26.8.2002 to the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), H8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station, and the copies of the complaint were also sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The petitioner was not informed of any action taken in this regard. Since the death was within a period of one month, the Tahsildar, Tondiarpet or Ponneri ought to have conducted an enquiry as per G.O.Ms.488 Home (Courts-IA) Department dated 28.4.98. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk on several occasions, but of no avail. The petitioner sent a representation to the District Collector, Chennai dated 29.8.2002. Even then no action was taken. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk on several occasions, but of no avail. The petitioner sent a representation to the District Collector, Chennai dated 29.8.2002. Even then no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents viz., the District Collector, Chennai, Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range, Chennai and the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), H8, Tiruvottiyur Police Station, Chennai to perform their statutory duties in the manner known to law without any further delay to conduct proper and fair enquiry into the circumstances that had led to the death of the petitioner's only daughter. 3. Though all the respondents were served and Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader represents them, the first respondent, the District Collector and the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range alone have filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent it is stated that on receipt of information as to the incident, a case in F.I.R. No.1198 of 2002 was registered on 20.7.2002 at H8 Tiruvottiyur Police Station. The injured was taken to Apollo Hospital, Tondiarpet and a statement narrating the incident was recorded. No harassment meted out to the daughter of the petitioner was revealed in the statement. Further the enquiry was conducted on 25.7.2002. Since the death took place within a period of seven years from the date of marriage, the matter was referred to the Tahsildar, Tondiarpet for enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Tahsildar conducted enquiry and found the death was due to fire accident. The report was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District within whose jurisdiction the deceased family lastly resided. Since no officer is posted as Revenue Divisional Officer the matter could not be proceeded with. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, has also narrated the above but added that the matter was referred to the District Collector, the first respondent, but the message was received by the Personal Assistant to the District Collector and thereafter the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet was directed to conduct enquiry. Since the report was not received, the investigation was not completed. 5. I have heard in detail Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. Since the report was not received, the investigation was not completed. 5. I have heard in detail Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. When the writ petition was heard on 22.9.2002, considering the serious allegations on the District Collector, Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, I directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur to conduct an enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner as to the cause of the death of his daughter and submit a report to pass further orders in the writ petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur after examining the husband of the deceased, father-in-law, mother-in-law of the deceased, petitioner and his wife, Panchayatdars, Chief Medical Officer who treated the deceased, Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur Police Station and the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem has submitted his report dated 30.10.2003. Finally, the Revenue Divisional Officer concluded that the death of the petitioner's daughter is not due to fire accident, but it is a suspicious death. 7. On the above factual background, the grievance of the petitioner requires consideration. The marriage had taken place on 28.6.2002. The deceased died on 25.7.2002 that too, within a period of one month. In the circumstances, enquiry at the level of a Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 174(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been conducted. However, such power is delegated to the Tahsildar in Chennai city vide G.O.Ms.No.488 Home (Courts-IA) Department dated 28.4.98. Coming to the allegation against the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range, it appears that on receipt of information as to the accident an FIR was filed on the same day by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tondiarpet Police Station and the same was forwarded to the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, instead of the District Collector by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range. Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police on the bona fide belief had forwarded the complaint for further action and enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector only, but the matter was addressed to the Personal Assistant, who is in the rank of R.D.O., as the matter concerns about the death of a woman within one month of marriage under suspicious circumstances. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the action of the third respondent in forwarding the complaint to the Personal Assistant to District Collector was not intentional but only a lapse. The submission of the learned Special Government Pleader merits acceptance as the third respondent has taken prompt action in addressing the office of the District Collector through the Personal Assistant on the date of death itself viz., on 25.7.2002. He could have been more attentive in forwarding the complaint to the proper authority. The further explanation for not proceeding with the investigation for want of report is also acceptable. 8. Insofar as the action taken by the District Collector, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector it is stated that on receipt of information from the third respondent, the matter was referred to the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk for conducting enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. This direction by the District Collector is in conformity with the powers delegated on the Tahsildar in Chennai city to conduct enquiry as per G.O.Ms.No.488 dated 28.4.98. Hence, I find no error in the said direction of the District Collector in directing the enquiry by the Tahsildar in the case of death of a married woman within the period of seven years. 9. Insofar as the second respondent, the then Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet by name C.Nagarajan, the petitioner has alleged that he and his wife were forced to sign blank papers for handing over the body of the deceased. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the very same Tahsildar did not even meet the petitioner or his family members when they were taken to the office, but were forced to sign papers. The very same Tahsildar only claims to have submitted a report in Na.Ka.A3/28124/02 dated 20.12.2002 and that too, only on the basis of the inquest conducted without any separate enquiry stating that the death was due to accident. It is further shocking that though the Tahsildar claims to have forwarded the said inquest report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, it is the specific case of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri that till 19.9.2003, he has not received any such report from the Tahsildar. This fact is further fortified from the files produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. This fact is further fortified from the files produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. On perusal of the files it is seen that though an endorsement is made by the Tahsildar for having forwarded the report dated 20.12.2002 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, I do not find any further material to hold that factually the Tahsildar had forwarded the report. Moreover, in the communication dated 17.9.2003, which was received in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri on 19.9.2003, it is seen that the report dated 20.12.2002 was forwarded by the subsequent Tahsildar by name R.Sundaram only and not by the second respondent Tahsildar by name C.Nagarajan. Further the report of the second respondent Tahsildar refers only the inquest and not any subsequent enquiry. There is also no reference as to the communication of the said report at any earlier point of time. This report was not also forwarded to the police officer who registered the criminal case. Even though the second respondent has allegedly marked a copy of the report to the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, nothing is mentioned by the District Collector in his counter affidavit as to receipt of the report by his office. In view of the above, the only presumption that could be drawn is that the Tahsildar has never conducted enquiry and forwarded the report till his communication was sent on 17.9.2003 and the same was acknowledged by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri on 19.9.2003 and that too, only after the pendency of the writ petition was communicated to the Tahsildar. This Court could therefore draw inference that though a report was made, it was not even forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri as claimed by the Tahsildar, Tondiarpet Taluk for the reasons best known to him. Only in the said circumstance, this Court was compelled to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur to submit a report since the post is vacant. From the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur, it is revealed that there is suspicion in the death. 10. "Dowry" is a deep rooted social evil appears to be the cause of ever so many unfortunate death of young ladies. It is an offence brutal and barbaric. It is generally committed inside the house and more often with a circumstance to give an impression that it was a suicidal death. 10. "Dowry" is a deep rooted social evil appears to be the cause of ever so many unfortunate death of young ladies. It is an offence brutal and barbaric. It is generally committed inside the house and more often with a circumstance to give an impression that it was a suicidal death. There will be all found attempt to cover up such offence by the family members rather than to expose it. Dowry killing is a crime of its own kind where elimination of daughter-in-law becomes immediate necessity if she or her parents are no more able to satiate, the greed and avarice of her husband and their family members and to make the boy available, once again in the marriage market. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are serious violation of Human Rights and as such, are strictly condemned by law. The arms of inhuman persons shall not be allowed to spread over hapless women. Dowry harassment is a form of inhuman cruelty sprayed over innocent and hapless newly married women, not only by the inlaws and the husband but also those who are closer to them. 11. The Government therefore came forward with legislations from time to time to protect women and to punish those who commit atrocities on them. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was passed prohibiting the taking or giving dowry. By Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, Chapter XX-A was introduced in the Penal Code with Section 498-A creating a new offence of cruelty which provides for punishment to husband or his relatives if they harass a woman with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for property. Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also amended to secure post-mortem in case of suicide or death of a woman within seven years of her marriage. Section 113-A was introduced in the Evidence Act, 1872 raising presumption of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. There was an amendment to the Dowry Prohibition Act in the year 1984 viz., Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and a new offence called "Dowry death" was created and introduced in Section 304-B in the Penal Code. It raised presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto unknown to such jurisprudence. There was an amendment to the Dowry Prohibition Act in the year 1984 viz., Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and a new offence called "Dowry death" was created and introduced in Section 304-B in the Penal Code. It raised presumption of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto unknown to such jurisprudence. It provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns of bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Such death shall be called "dowry death". The said section also provides that such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death and shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment. Narration of the above provisions is only to emphasise that it is not enough if the legal order with sanction alone moves forward for protection of women and preservation of societal values. The criminal justice system must equally respond to the needs and notions of the society. The investigating agency or the officers empowered to act on a complaint of suspicious death must display a live concern and sharpen their wits. They must penetrate into every dark corner and collect all the evidence. 12. Facts of this case would undoubtedly establish that the widespread belief that "Dowry deaths" are even now treated with some casualness at all levels and the same seems to be well grounded. The first step to the ultimate justice is the honest and efficient investigation/enquiry at the level of revenue officials. If the agency faulters on the very first step, it is beyond doubtful whether it is possible to deliver justice. One common inference follow irresistibly from the material available viz., casual treatment of the complaint at the level of the Tahsildar, who is expected to act, was desultory and lackadaisical and showed want of appreciation of the emergent need to get the truth of the case. It can be fairly stated that the authority required in law to act did not display the promptitude and efficiency which the complaint required attention. 13. It can be fairly stated that the authority required in law to act did not display the promptitude and efficiency which the complaint required attention. 13. It appears that after the direction of the District Collector, the Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet did not conduct any separate enquiry as to the complaint of the petitioner. A persual of the report dated 20.12.2002 shows that the same was prepared only on the basis of the inquest conducted immediately after the death of the girl. The officer mandated to conduct an enquiry into the cause of death appears to have not examined the petitioner, the mother of the deceased or any of their family members separately for the purpose of submitting his report, except their statements recorded at the time of inquest. Thus the complaint of the petitioner has been treated in a very casual manner by the Tahsildar. Moreover, though he has drawn a report by concluding that the death is due to accident only, it appears that the report was not received by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri for further action. This report was also not forwarded to the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range for further action. This Court must disapprove such action of the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, as he has misused the office only to benefit the husband of the deceased and played an active role to cover up the suspicious death and consequent action on the same at the level of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range. For such action, he must face disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, I direct the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr.C.Nagarajan, Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk. 14. Coming to the relief to be granted, in view of the categorical report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur concluding that there is suspicion in the death, the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tiruvottiyur Range is directed to pursue the investigation based upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur and take further action in accordance with law by bringing the culprits before the Court of law. The third respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police is also directed to treat the allegation of the petitioner made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition against Mr.K.Ramsekar Rao, his wife Mrs.Baby Sarojini, Mr.B.Bhaskar Rao and others, as a complaint and investigate the same also. The third respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police is also directed to treat the allegation of the petitioner made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition against Mr.K.Ramsekar Rao, his wife Mrs.Baby Sarojini, Mr.B.Bhaskar Rao and others, as a complaint and investigate the same also. Such investigation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.59951 of 2002 is closed.