High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vikas Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 December, 2008
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.




                                           Criminal Misc.15998-M of 2008

                            DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 10, 2008




VIKAS KUMAR                                          ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                                     .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana.
         Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the complainant.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure,

seeks bail in FIR No.10 dated 12.1.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 304-B,

302, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Barwala, District Hisar.

The facts, in brief, as have been brought out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was married with Poonam

on 30.1.2005. There was an issue – a son; namely, Modak. Modak was

suffering from a serious eye ailment requiring cornea transplantation of

which the success rate is 60%. It has been contended that Poonam was
Criminal Misc.15998-M of 2008 2

under tremendous mental tension on account of ailment of her son.

` On 10.1.2008, Poonam left the matrimonial home with the

child during early hours. Intimation was given in regard to this to Rajesh

Chugh, cousin of Poonam. It seems that Rajesh Chugh gave an

application, which was entered as DDR No.17 in Police Station, Barwala,

and has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

It is the specific case set up on behalf of the petitioner that

Poonam left a suicide note. The suicide note was brought to the notice of

Rajesh Chugh, however, no reference was made in his statement. Be that

as it may, the document (Annexure P-2) indicates that there was no

allegation as against the petitioner or his other family members in regard

to demand of dowry.

It has also been brought out that the dead body was recovered

on 12.1.2008 from Rajli Canal. The FIR was lodged on the same day with

allegations not only against the petitioner and his mother but also against

his maternal uncle, sister and her husband-Rajesh.

Guided by the contents of the suicide note, a search was made

around the canal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that

no proper investigation was conducted and the suicide note was not

investigated. Be that as it may, the suicide note was taken into account for

grant of bail to Ishwar Devi alias Ishwari Devi, mother in law of the

deceased. In this regard, reference has been made to order (Annexure P-

5).

Supplementary statement of Munish, brother of the deceased,

was recorded on 18.1.2008, wherein again, a reference to the suicide note
Criminal Misc.15998-M of 2008 3

has been made. Munish has admitted the suicide note, however, has tried

to explain it by saying that the accused might have connived and forced

his deceased-sister to write the note to defend themselves. The

investigation file reveals that on 19.1.2008, the suicide note was handed

over by Ishwar Devi alias Ishwari Devi at the time of her arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the

petitioner has been in custody since 18.1.2008. An application has been

filed under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, for summoning the

three relatives, referred to above as additional accused. Even a criminal

complaint has been filed in which the petitioner and other family members

are being prosecuted.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

therefore, is that a doubt has been created on account of ignorance of the

suicide note by the Investigating Agency. When the defence is brought

out, the suicide note would be established. The suicide note establishes

innocence of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, to whom assistance

has been given by the learned counsel for the complainant, states that

there have been as many as three deaths in so much as Poonam was

pregnant at the time when she died. The body of Modak is yet to be

recovered and Modak might be alive and in the custody of the accused

side.

I have considered the issue. The material placed before the

court is required to be considered only in the context of the prayer for bail.

A perusal of the document (Annexure P-1) that has been
Criminal Misc.15998-M of 2008 4

termed as a suicide note/dying declaration, indicates that the deceased

declared that she was in depression due to eye problem of her child. The

success rate of cornea transplantation is 60%. If the operation is not

successful, more damage could be caused to the eyes of the child. Under

these circumstances, a decision had been taken by the deceased to jump in

a river and commit suicide. The note further states that there is no fault of

any one in the matter. The action of suicide is in relation to the child and

the deceased only. The parents or the in-laws are not at fault. Be that as it

may, for reasons best known to the Investigating Agency, the suicide note

has not been brought on the record of the investigation file although,

admittedly, it has been referred to in the statement of the witness. No

investigation in regard to the note, however, has been conducted.

It seems that an application for further investigation was

made from the side of the accused which, however, was declined. A

petition was carried to this court also in the same context, which was

withdrawn.

I have also referred to order (Annexure P-5) passed by the

Sessions Judge, Hisar, wherein, in para-8, it has been recorded “The

police has not investigated the matter in the light of the suicidal note of

the victim”.

I have also taken note of the fact that although on 18.1.2008,

Munish, brother of the deceased, had referred to the suicide note,

however, the suicide note had been taken possession of on 19.1.2008,

purportedly at the time of effecting the arrest of Ishwar Devi alias Ishwari

Devi, mother of the petitioner.

Criminal Misc.15998-M of 2008 5

Consideration of the facts show that, indeed, son of the

petitioner and the deceased; namely, Modak, suffered from a serious eye

ailment. The suicide note was brought to the notice of the Investigating

Agency, however, no investigation in that regard has been conducted.

Contents of the suicide note absolve the petitioner as the same indicate

depressive mental state of the deceased on account of her son’s eye

ailment. The note has been mentioned even in the statements of witnesses

i.e. relatives of the deceased. While allowing bail to Ishwar Devi alias

Ishwari Devi, the suicide note was taken into account. Allegations in the

FIR against Ishwar Devi alias Ishwari Devi and the petitioner are

somewhat similar. Three of the persons implicated by the complainant

have been found innocent by the Investigating Agency as no incriminating

material could be collected against them during investigation. The

investigation has been concluded and the petitioner is in custody since

18.1.2008.

I have also considered that the trial is likely to take

considerable time as an application under Section 319, Code of Criminal

Procedure, is pending adjudication and if the same is allowed, de-novo

trial would follow.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court, Hisar.

December 10, 2008                                            ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                                 JUDGE