High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5215 of 2022 Revisionist :- Bharat Grover @ Kaku @ Tarzan @ Topiwala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akashi Agrawal,Vidit Agarwal Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J. Heard Mr. Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Vidit Agarwal learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.3 Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No.1372 of 2021 crime no.162 of 2021 U/s 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 and 120B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionist U/s 227 Cr.P.C. and has framed charges against the revisionist accused.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that first information report was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 20.11.2021 alleging therein that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 09.02.2019 with Suryavansh Kharbanda and after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty for demand of Rs.70 lacs and on 19.11.2021 she was found hanged. The accused persons are responsible for her death. The postmortem was conducted on 20.11.2021 and cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. Only one ante mortem injury has been found on the body of the deceased. The statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she developed the prosecution version but not specified the role of revisionist and only levelled general allegations against the revisionist. The statement of Radhika and Kiran (the maids), Ram Pratap Singh and Satish Chandra Vishwakarma (Chaukidars) were also recorded in which no allegations was levelled against the revisionist and no specific role has been assigned. The statement of brother of the deceased namely Akshay Gover was also recorded in which nothing was disclosed that the revisionist was torturing the deceased or made any attempt for demand of dowry. The Investigation Officer endorsed and attached the suicide note written by the deceased in CD No.5 dated 24.11.2021 in which she has written that accused persons were torturing the deceased by denying money, bills etc restricted me to go outside (of house), if I dare to go out, he would not let me in, his mother abuses me all time, every night he is out of the house. From the perusal of the suicide note, it appears that the words are used for the husband of the deceased and his mother denotes to mother-in-law only. The suicide note does reflect any role of the revisionist in the present offence.
Legal Reasoning
The written statement of Smt. Reena Grover the mother of the deceased, Pawan Grover the first informant, Arun Grover the brother of the first informant, Smt. Reeta Grover the wife of Arun Grover and Rajeev Madan Mausa of the deceased Jitendra Bhalla, mama of the deceased were recorded in which nothing is available to establish the specific role of revisionist. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist also. The revisionist further contended that in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses, no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. There is nothing on record to establish that the revisionist ever abeted to commit suicide of the deceased. The revisionist is father-in-law (phuphia sasur) of the deceased and he resides separately, he has no concern with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. He cannot be a beneficiary of the dowry. It is also contended that from the material available on record, it is clear that the present matter is a case of suicide committed by the deceased under extra ordinary circumstances. The deceased has not been done to death for demand of dowry. The learned trial court without considering the grounds of the discharge application has illegally rejected it and framed charges against the revisionist. The learned trial court has neither discussed the complicity of the revisionist in the present offence and cannot show any indulgence towards the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court. The learned trial court without considering the facts and evidences collected during the course of investigation, illegally rejected the discharge application. There is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the revisionist and there is no sufficient matter to show the involvement of revisionist in the alleged offence. The allegations made against the revisionist are general, omnibus cryptic and ambiguous. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the case of Mirza Iqbal alias Golu and another vs. State of U.P and another passed by the Apex Court in criminal appeal No.1628 of 2021 decided on 14.12.2021. Learned counsels for opposite parties contended that the revisionist is named in the FIR. There are allegations against him that he was also involved in the demand of dowry and torture resulting the suicidal death of the deceased. The deceased was a married lady and she has committed suicide within seven years of marriage. Her death is unnatural, hence provision of section 304 B IPC is attracted. It is further contended that the complainant and other witnesses in their statements recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. has given specific role to the revisionist and has made allegations that he was also involved in torturing the deceased for demand of dowry. The deceased in her suicide note has also specifically taken the name of the revisionist. So there is sufficient evidence on record against the revisionist. There is no illegality in the impugned order. This facts are not disputed that the deceased is the wife of Suryavansh Kharbanda and she has died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. There are allegations of demand of dowry and torture against all the named accused including the revisionist. Although it is a case of suicide but as the allegations are that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and was tortured, her death have occurred in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage; the ingredients of Section 304 B IPC is complete. The contention of the revisionist is that no role has been assigned to the revisionist for abetment of the deceased to commit suicide becomes irrelevant. The complainant and other witnesses in their statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. have corroborated the allegations of the FIR and have assigned the role of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry to the revisionist also. A suicide not has also been found which also implicates the revisionist, his name is mentioned in the suicide note and there are allegations that he is responsible for the death of the deceased. It is also settled principal of law that at the stage of framing of charge only prima-facie case is seen. So there is sufficient evidence on record to frame charge against the revisionist accused. The case law of Mirza Iqbal alias Golu (supra) cited by learned counsel for the revisionist is not applicable in the present set of facts because in that case there was no suicide note implicating the accused while in the case in hand the name of the revisionist accused is in the suicide note.
Decision
The impugned order is not cryptic. It is detailed and reasoned order. The learned trial court has narrated the entire facts. The grounds taken by the revisionist accused, the legal provisions and after analyzing all the facts and material on record has come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to discharge the revisionist accused. So there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly the revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 1.5.2023 C. MANI Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad