Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 119 (RAJ)

Dilip v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2024
ORDER : 1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No. 113/2023, registered at Police Station Delwara, District Rajsamand for the offences under sections 498A, 406 & 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant before this Court is the husband of the deceased and there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by the applicant, for which it can be said that the deceased was constrained to commit suicide. 3. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the contents of the FIR and statement of the complainant-father of the deceased recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submitted that he has mechanically repeated the version, which was given in the written complaint, whereas Smt. Kamli Bai (mother of the deceased) has not made any whisper about demand of dowry. 4. Learned counsel also took the Court through the statements of Prakash Chandra (brother of the deceased) and neighbours Smt. Santosh Bai; Smt. Lali Devi and Dharmendra etc. and highlighted that the brother had made mention of demand of dowry but that too is against all the in-laws of the deceased, without there being a specific allegation indicating demand of dowry by the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that as against the father and brother, all the neighbours-independent witnesses have accepted the factum of matrimonial discord between the applicant and the deceased but have clearly stated that the same was on account of behavioural reasons and not for demand of dowry. 5. Having invited Court's attention towards the above mentioned statements, learned counsel for the applicant argued that firstly, the case as against the applicant, so far as demand of dowry is concerned, is not proved and secondly, even if on the basis of the statement of father of the deceased, it is assumed that there was some demand of dowry by the applicant, such demand has no proximity or nexus with the death of the deceased, which nexus is the main ingredient for punishment for the offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that there is enough evidence pointing towards the demand of dowry by the applicant. 7. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that there is enough evidence pointing towards the demand of dowry by the applicant. 7. He submitted that the father so also the brother of the deceased, in no ambiguous terms, have alleged that the applicant used to make demands for dowry. 8. In this regard, learned Public Prosecutor navigated the Court through the statements of father, brother and mother of the deceased and argued that if these statements are read in their entirety, it is apparent that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment due to demand of dowry by the applicant. 9. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 10. Analysing the statements of family members of the deceased, namely father vis-a-vis statement of mother, this Court finds that though the father has accused the applicant for demand of dowry, but the mother of the deceased is completely silent on the aspect of demand of dowry. 11. Smt. Kamli Bai (mother) though has levelled allegation of dominating attitude of the applicant but has not made any allegation for demand of dowry. While parting with the statement, she has mentioned that she has a doubt that her daughter was being harassed by the applicant and her in-laws in the name of dowry, due to which she has committed suicide. 12. Similarly, Prakash Chandra (brother of the deceased) has also expressed his doubt about the reason of the death of the deceased, while also levelling omnibus allegations upon all the in-laws, when it comes to dowry. 13. If the statement of independent witnesses namely neighbours are read carefully, it transpires that though all of them in unison, have deposed about the factum of discordial relation between the applicant and the deceased, but have clearly denied any knowledge of demand of dowry. 14. That apart, in the concluding part of the charge-sheet, after analysis of the call details report of the deceased, the Investigating Officer has recorded a finding that there was no call between the deceased and her parents for 21 days from 12.09.2023 to 03.10.2023 (the date of deceased's death). 15. 14. That apart, in the concluding part of the charge-sheet, after analysis of the call details report of the deceased, the Investigating Officer has recorded a finding that there was no call between the deceased and her parents for 21 days from 12.09.2023 to 03.10.2023 (the date of deceased's death). 15. It is to be noted that as per the statements given by the father and mother of the deceased, on 09.09.2023, the father had brought the deceased to her maternal house when she complained that her husband (the present applicant) and her in-laws have beaten her. 16. It is also not in dispute that after remaining in her maternal house, the deceased had returned back to her matrimonial house on 18.09.2023. Neither the father nor the mother nor any witness has alleged that there was a demand of dowry. Moreso, when there was no telephonic conversation between the deceased and her parents, it cannot be presumed that they have any information/knowledge about harassment in the name of demand of dowry by the present applicant, due to which she was forced to commit suicide. 17. This Court is reminded of the principle enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 633 . The relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “It is not enough that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a demand for dowry at some time, if Section 304B is to be invoked. But it should have happened “soon before her death.” The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. But the proximity to her death is the pivot indicated by that expression. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words “soon before her death” is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words “soon before her death” is to emphasise the idea that her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. If the interval elapsed between the infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her death is wide the court would be in a position to gauge that in all probabilities the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death.” 18. In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court is of the view that the applicant, who is behind the bars since 29.11.2023, cannot be kept behind the bars till indefinite period, as the trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time; charge-sheet has been filed; neither any investigation nor any recovery is to be made. 19. Consequently, the bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Dilip S/o Bherulal, arrested in connection with FIR No. 113/2023, registered at Police Station Delwara, District Rajsamand, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 20. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 21. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.