Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., while setting aside the conclusion of the Metropolitan Magistrate and upholding the intervention by Sessions Court expressed that, injuries were found on the person of the deceased who was more than 6 months pregnant during her residence with her husband, hence the onus will be on him under Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to offer an explanation.
Further, the Court also remarked that,
“…shifting of the focus only to the injection pricks and the damage to the ribs caused by attempts to resuscitate the deceased, was a complete non-application of mind, bordering on perversity.”
A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by an accused in FIR under Section 498A of the Penal Code, 1860.
When the petitioner’s wife conceived and was carrying twins, she was allegedly given an injection for iron due to which she developed complications and died.
Respondent 2, father of the petitioner’s wife registered an FIR for an offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner, who was arrested and subsequently granted bail. While hearing the arguments, MM concluded stating that no prima facie case had been made out for framing of charge against the petitioner.
On being aggrieved with the above, the State preferred a revision before the ASJ who considered the matter and was of the view that the documents of the accused could not have been considered at the time of arguments on the point of charge as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.
Analysis and Decision
High Court noted that the MM usurped the powers of the Sessions Court and concluded that the charge under Section 304B IPC could not be made out “by any stretch of imagination”, relying only on the first statements made to the SDM by the parents of the deceased and the observations in the postmortem report that in all probability the cause of death was natural due to some pathological state related to pregnancy rather than an unnatural external event. Hence, the Sessions Court rightly intervened to set aside the said conclusions.
The Bench observed that Section 304B IPC is attracted in cases where a woman dies under circumstances otherwise than normal, within 7 years of marriage, and was subjected, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment.
With respect to the present matter, Court stated that the injuries were found on the person of the deceased who was more than 6 months pregnant with twins, during her residence with petitioner, and the onus will be on him under Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to offer an explanation.
In Court’s opinion, the conclusion drawn by the MM were wrong and the same had been corrected by the ASJ by a very well-reasoned order.
Hence, no perversity or miscarriage of justice was evident from the impugned order.[Jaikishan Datwani v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1380, decided on 9-5-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner:
Mr Hitendra Kumar Nahata, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
Mr G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI Inder Veer Singh. Respondent No.2 in person.
