- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Inder Gupta v. State (Delhi Administration) .
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking grant of bail. A case was registered against the petitioner under sections 302, 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on allegations that the deceased, Smt. Chandra, was set ablaze after kerosene was poured on her by her husband, her brother-in-law (the petitioner) and her father-in-law. The deceased was allegedly burnt on 7 March 1993. In her initial statements (one recorded by the Investigating Officer and one by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 7 March 1993) she stated the burning was accidental; in a subsequent statement recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 8 March 1993 she attributed the act to her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under section 439 CrPC in light of alleged contradictions in the deceased's statements (initial statements describing an accidental fire and a later statement attributing the burning to named relatives).
- Whether the explanation given in the second dying declaration (that earlier statements were not truthful due to threats by in-laws) affects the admissibility or weight of the later statement for the purposes of bail.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The deceased's second dying declaration (8 March 1993) is an afterthought and was given at the instance of her parents because it contradicts her earlier statements that the burning was accidental.
- Because of these contradictory statements, the petitioner should be released on bail. The petitioner relied on three decisions of this Court: Bhanwar Pal Singh… v. State (Delhi Admn.)…., 1992 JCC 146; Bhoorey v. State - Cr.M(M) 932/92 decided on 19th January, 1993; and Smt Kailash Rani and another v. State (Delhi Administration) - Cr.M(M) 2631/91, decided on 13th January, 1993.
State's Arguments
- About a month prior to the occurrence the deceased had filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi, against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and the brother-in-law (the petitioner).
- The second dying declaration explains the inconsistency: the deceased stated that she had not blamed her in-laws earlier because they had threatened to kidnap and take revenge through her brother and sister; in view of this explanation the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
- The State placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment Kundula Bala Subrahmanyan & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1993 (2) SC 559.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bhanwar Pal Singh… v. State (Delhi Admn.)….), 1992 JCC 146 | Relied upon by petitioner to support the contention that contradictory statements / an alleged afterthought dying declaration should weigh against denial of bail. | The court found this judgment (as relied upon by the petitioner) to have no relevance to the facts of the present case and did not accept it as a basis for granting bail. |
| Bhoorey v. State - Cr.M(M) 932/92 decided on 19th January, 1993 | Relied upon by petitioner to argue that contradictions in the deceased's statements justify bail. | The court held that this precedent was not relevant to the facts before it and did not consider it sufficient to warrant bail. |
| Smt Kailash Rani and another v. State (Delhi Administration) - Cr.M(M) 2631/91, decided on 13th January, 1993 | Relied upon by petitioner in support of the submission that the later dying declaration was an afterthought and bail should be granted. | The court concluded this authority was not relevant to the facts of the case and did not alter the decision to refuse bail. |
| Kundula Bala Subrahmanyan & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1993 (2) SC 559 | Placed reliance upon by the State in opposing bail (specific principle from the judgment was not elaborated in the opinion beyond the State's reliance). | The court noted the State's reliance on this Supreme Court judgment and, in light of the deceased's explanation in the second dying declaration and other facts, concluded the petitioner was not entitled to bail. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the submissions of both sides. It took into account the chronological facts: the alleged burning on 7 March 1993; the deceased's first statements to the Investigating Officer and to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 7 March 1993 describing the fire as accidental; and the subsequent statement to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 8 March 1993 attributing the act to her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law.
The court gave weight to the fact that about a month before the occurrence the deceased had filed a complaint with the Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi, against members of her in-law family including the petitioner. The court also relied on the explanation contained in the deceased's second dying declaration, in which she stated that earlier she had not blamed her in-laws because they had threatened to kidnap her siblings and take revenge.
On this basis the court concluded that the contradictions between the early statements and the second dying declaration were explained by the threats recounted in the latter statement, and therefore the authorities cited by the petitioner were not relevant to the facts of this case. Applying these findings, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
Direct effect: The petition for bail under section 439 CrPC was dismissed and the petitioner was not granted bail.
Broader implication: The opinion records that the observations made will have no bearing on the merits of the case; the judgment does not purport to lay down any new precedent beyond the application of the facts and authorities to the bail question in this matter.
Sat Pal, J.:— This is a petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procdure Code (for short called ‘the Code’) for grant of bail.
2. Briefly stated, a case was registered against the petitioner under section 302/307/498-A IPC, on the allegations that deceased Smt. Chandra was set ablaze after pouring kerosene oil by her husband, the brother-in-law (Devar), (the petitioner in this case) and herfather-in-law.
3. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in the present case the deceased is alleged to have been burnt on 7th March, 1993 and in her first statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, she stated that she was burnt due to accidental fire. In her first statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 7th March, 1993 she repeated the same thing. However, in her second statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 8th March, 1993, she stated that her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law have set her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her person. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the second dying declaration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate was an afterthought and has been given by the deceased at the instance of her parents. He, therefore, contended that in view of the contradictory statement of the deceased in her various statements, the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the three judgments of this Court Bhanwar Pal Singh… v. State (Delhi Admn.)….), 1992 JCC 146, Bhoorey v. State - Cr.M(M) 932/92 decided on 19th January, 1993 and Smt Kailash Rani and another v. State (Delhi Administration) - Cr.M(M) 2631/91, decided on 13th January, 1993.
4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that just a month before the date of occurrance the deceased filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, who is the petitioner. He further drew my attention to the second dying declaration wherein the deceased has stated that in her earlier statement she had not blamed anyone as her in-laws had forced her saying that in case she would make any statement against them, they would get her brother and sister kidnapped and would take revenge. He, therefore, contended that keeping in view of the explanation given by the deceased in her second dying declaration before the Sub Divisoinal Magistrate, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. In suport of his contention he placed reliacne on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyan & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1993 (2) SC 559.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case a young lady is alleged to have been burnt and even a month before the date of occurrance she had filed a complaint before Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi against her in-laws including the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also have no relevance to the facts of the present case, keeping in view the explanation given by the deceased in her second dying declaration recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate that due to threat given by her in-laws she had not stated the true facts in the earlier statement, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
7. The observations given hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Alert