Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decided a bail matter wherein the husband suspicioned to have instigated the wife to commit suicide.
In the instant petition, the petitioner sought bail under Sections 304B, 498A, 34 Penal Code, 1860 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Petitioner’s counsel contended that in the FIR and even in the statements recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and 164, of the father of the deceased, who was the complainant and maker of the FIR, allegations if any have been levelled against the mother and sister of the petitioner and not against the petitioner.
Both the mother and sister were granted anticipatory bail.
Further, merely because just before the death, the petitioner and the deceased spoke on the mobile phone, it cannot be said to raise a suspicion that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
There was no material to show that soon before the death of the deceased, the petitioner subjected the deceased to cruelty for the demand of dowry.
APP for the State submitted that, the conduct of the petitioner by making a phone call to the deceased soon before she committed suicide itself shows the conflict going on between the petitioner and the deceased which instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
On perusal of the Complainant’s allegations even in the statement under Section 161 CrPC which was recorded after 17 days of the death of the deceased noted the demand of dowry at the time of marriage, however thereafter the principal allegations were that in-laws retained jewellry and articles given in shagun and did not return the same, that brother-in law of the deceased used to ask the deceased to vacate the house and the mother-in law used to ask for the rent from the deceased.
Prosecution claimed that the last call from the petitioner to the deceased instigated her to commit suicide, for which there was no evidence. It could be to persuade not to take any extreme step, because immediately thereafter the petitioner made a call to the complainant informing him that she has locked from inside.
In respect of the allegation that the petitioner and his family members used to harass her for dowry due to which, she was compelled to commit suicide, no specific allegation has been stated as to what was the demand of dowry after marriage except what was demanded at the time of marriage.
In view of the evidence collected against the petitioner, Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the petition was disposed of. [Amit Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4120, decided on 24-8-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For the petitioner: Pradeep Teotia, Advocate
For the Respondent: Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State.
Ravi Shankar Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
” Learned Counsel for Petitioner averted that” There was no material to show that soon before the death of the deceased, the petitioner subjected the deceased to cruelty for the demand of dowry.”
However Honorable Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana ,2021, in this case guidelines drafted for Dowry Death Trials,
Honorable Apex Court said “it is safe to deduce that when the legislature
used the words, “soon before” they did not mean “immediately
before”. Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the
courts.”
This Judgment was delivered few months before Delhi HC granted bail in Amit Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
So statement of learned counsel for petitioner need to be addressed in a sense whether he assumes “soon before” as ” immediately before”?