Tag: #family

–Report by Harshit Yadav

In the case of Raj Kumar Versus. The State, National Capital Territory Of Delhi, the petitioner/applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, has been accused of pushing his sister-in-law off the terrace of her matrimonial house, resulting in grievous injuries. The victim has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for dowry and was restrained from communicating with her parents and husband. The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the victim had jumped off the terrace herself. The court has dismissed the applicant’s previous bail applications, and the present application is being heard.

FACTS:

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi. The FIR was registered on June 21, 2022, after a PCR call was received at PS Ranhola, Delhi regarding a lady (complainant) falling from the roof of her matrimonial house. Upon receiving information, the SDM Punjabi Bagh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. The victim alleged that she had married Mr. Ram Kumar and Rs. 2.5 lakhs were paid as dowry. After her marriage, she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry as well as restrained from communicating and or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim has alleged that on June 21, 2022, by reason of her request to meet her mother, the present applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh (brother-in-law) along with other accused persons namely, Nempal Singh (father-in-law), Mamta (mother-in-law), & Monica (sister-in-law) dragged her to the terrace and pushed her from there. During the course of investigation, the statement of an eyewitness, Ms. Babita was recorded, she stated that the complainant herself jumped from the roof. However, during the further course of the investigation, the said eyewitness retracted her previous statement. During the investigation, Call Detail Records were obtained & analyzed as well as a supplementary statement of the complainant was also recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. After the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The present applicant had filed two bail applications, which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-09. The present application seeks grant of regular bail.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the petitioner/applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail under Sections 439 and 482 of the CrPC in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the IPC.

Whether the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons are true or false.

Whether the complainant jumped from the terrace of her matrimonial home or was pushed by the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the eyewitness, Ms. Babita, retracted from her previous statement due to any pressure or influence from the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 of CrPC and the call records support the allegations made against the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to Ms. Monica, the wife of the petitioner/applicant, is relevant to the present case.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The applicant’s counsel has contended that the allegations are false and no specific allegations have been made against the present applicant. They have argued that the complainant herself jumped off the terrace, and this has been corroborated by an eye witness. They have also pointed out that the complainant’s husband has not been accused in the case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The prosecution, on the other hand, has argued that there is sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the present applicant in the crime. They have presented the complainant’s statement alleging cruelty and dowry demands by the accused, corroborated by the supplementary statement of an eye witness. They have also cited the recovery of three handwritten slips thrown by the complainant, requesting help from her relatives, and the admission of the complainant in her additional statement that she communicated with her family through the accused’s phone.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, the petitioner/applicant has sought regular bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi. The petitioner is accused of pushing his sister-in-law from the terrace of her matrimonial home, among other charges.

The court has considered the facts of the case, including the statement of the victim, who alleges that she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry, and was restrained from communicating or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim has also alleged that the present applicant, along with other accused persons, dragged her to the terrace and pushed her from there.

During the course of the investigation, an eye witness initially stated that the complainant had jumped from the roof, but later retracted her statement and stated that the complainant was hanging from the roof and fell down due to a loosening of her grip. The complainant admitted to communicating with her mother, brother, and husband through the phone of the present applicant and his wife, and stated that her relatives witnessed her being abused and misbehaved at the hands of the present applicant and his family. She further stated that the present applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, threw her from the terrace after she expressed a desire to leave her matrimonial home.

The court has also considered the fact that the present applicant’s wife, Ms. Monica, was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-09, Tis Hazari Courts.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature and require further investigation. The court further notes that the applicant’s previous bail applications have been dismissed by the competent courts.

The court, therefore, finds no ground to grant regular bail to the present applicant at this stage. The application is dismissed

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JMlYDP

-Report by Atharva Dixit

The judgement relates to a writ petition filed by Smt. Kowsalya runs the Sankar Social Justice Trust in memory of her husband who was killed in an incident of honor killing. The trust works for achieving a caste discrimination-free society. They planned a meeting to be held for the dissemination of information against honor killing and the promotion of inter-caste marriage but the permission for the same was rejected by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udulamaipet Sub Division, Tiruppur District. She filed a petition in front of the Madras High Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of DSP as illegal.

Facts :

The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community and she married Sankar, who belonged to Scheduled Caste. On account of this inter-caste marriage, caste fanatics killed Sankar. On the second death anniversary of Sankar, the petitioner started this trust for promoting casteless society. She submitted a representation dated 15.02.2023 seeking permission to conduct a meeting in honour of the deceased Sankar and promote inter-caste marriage. However, that representation was rejected by the DSP citing the possibility of a law and order issue. The respondent’s counsel also admitted that the brother of Sankar and 500 villagers opposed this meeting.

Petitioner’s Contention :

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the founder of Sankar Social Justice Trust. She belongs to Most Backward Community and she married Sankar, who belonged to Scheduled Caste. On Account of this inter-caste marriage, caste fanatics assaulted Sankar with deadly weapons on 13.03.2016 at the instigation of her parents and he was killed. On the second death anniversary of Sankar, the petitioner started this trust for creating awareness of inter-caste marriage and for promoting the same in society in order to achieve a casteless society. She submitted a representation dated 15.02.2023 seeking permission to conduct the 7th memorial meeting in honour of the deceased Sankar and promote inter-caste marriage. However, that representation was rejected by the respondent in the proceedings.

Respondent’s Contention :

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) opposed this petition on the ground that, if the proposed meeting is permitted, there is a possibility of a law and order issue coming up. There is a ban against meetings and other assemblies passed under Section 30(2) of TN City Police Act, 1888 from 01.03.2023 to 15.03.2023. He further submitted that the brother of the deceased and more than 550 villagers are opposing this meeting. Thus, stating the aforesaid grounds, he prayed in front of the court to dismiss the petition.

Judgement :

The Honorable Justice G. Chandrasekharan expressed concern over incidents of honour killing while holding that no authority can prohibit or prevent any meeting being held against such problems, he held that; “The offence of honour killing takes place every now and then. It is not as though there is no honour killing taking place in Tamil Nadu and it is totally eradicated. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a victim to honour killing, that her husband was murdered for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Caste. Now, the scope of starting Sankar Social Justice Trust and organizing a present meeting is to disseminate information against honour killing and also to promote inter-caste marriage. It is a laudable object and we cannot prevent/prohibit the meeting to be organized by Sankar Social Justice Trust on 12.03.2023 at 5 P.M. at the venue nearby Kumaralingam Bus Stop, for the above said reasons.” Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3lffLXB