SHEELA ALIAS SUSHILA CHHABRA Vs. STATE
LAWS(DLH)-1999-12-61
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 09,1999

SHILA,SUSHILA CHHABRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M.S.A.Siddiqui,J. - (1.)The deceased Madhubala and the respondent No. 3 were married on 17.11.1992. Respondent No. 1 is the mother-in-law and the respondent No. 4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Respondent No. 5 is the wife of the respondent No. 4. From the very beginning, the deceased had an unhappy married life because she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by the respondent Nos.2 to5 in connection with the demand of dowry. On 19.7.1996, while in office, the deceased's father Hari Chand Chhabra received the information about her death in her matrimonial home. On Receiving the said information, he rushed to the house of his son-in-law and found her daughter lying dead with several injuries on her person. This aroused his suspicion and he, therefore, made a statement before the police about murder of his daughter by the respondents on the basis of which, the FIR No. 396/96 was registered at the Police Station, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge sheet under Sections 302/201/304-B/498-A/506, Indian Penal Code against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. On perusal of the materials on the record and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charges u/Secs. 302/120-B/506, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons are groundless. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge the materials on the record make out a prima facie case under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and a case under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code against the accused Vinnet Suri and Smt. Darshana Suri. Consequently, he discharged the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/506, Indian Penal Code and framed the impugned charges against the respondents No. 2 to 5, vide orders dated 10.10.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the deceased's mother (petitioner) has come up in revision before this Court.
(2.)At the outset, I must make it clear that at this stage elaborate documentation on merits is to be avoided as I am anxious not to prejudge or prejudice the case of either side. According to the prosecution case, on the day in question, the deceased Madhubala was murdered whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge took it a case of suicide. There is no direct evidence on the said point and the prosecution case solely hinges on circumstantial evidence. One of the staggering circumstances against the accused persons is the presence of 17 injuries on the dead body. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, has opined that in view of the said ante mortem injuries on the dead body the homicidal hanging cannot be excluded as these injuries could not be self-inflicted. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ignored the large number of external ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body. When these injuries are counted in association with the findings regarding the internal organs, they all would cumulatively lead to a prima facie conclusion in favour of the theory of murder. In view of such external injuries, a conclusion that the deceased would have committed suicide is a preposterous inference.
(3.)The materials collected by the prosecuting agency clearly suggest that the motive for the alleged crime was demand of dowry by the accused persons. Case diary statement of Dr. Harpreet Singh Cheema shows that immediately after the alleged incident, he was called by the accused persons. According to this witness, when he reached the house of the accused persons, he found the deceased dead and the accused persons sought his help to save them. That apart, none of the accused persons informed the police about the alleged incident. The aforesaid conduct of the accused has relevance in the analysis of the whole circumstances against them. It is well settled that at the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.