Delhi High Court: An application was filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking a grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., refuses bail to the applicant because the allegations are grave and serious in nature, the charges are yet to be framed and the material witnesses are yet to be examined.
The present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant who had stated that her daughter had died on the intervening night of 23.09.2023 due to demands of dowry and pressure created by her husband and in-laws. It was stated that the applicant and his other family members used to subject his wife to mental and physical torment, due to demand for dowry, ultimately leading to her suicide. It has been alleged by the complainant, who is the father of the deceased, that the accused and his family pressured the deceased for additional dowry and financial demands, causing significant distress. It has also been alleged by the complainant that the deceased was taunted and mistreated for giving birth to a girl child.
A perusal of the chargesheet revealed that the mother of the deceased had leveled allegations against the present applicant/accused that she had provided a sum of approximately Rs. 30 lakhs as dowry, in marriage but soon after the marriage of the deceased, her in–laws and husband began harassing her for insufficient dowry. Further, the present applicant had mocked the gifted Maruti Swift as an “iron box,” and his parents criticized the dowry amount. Despite the deceased’s financial constraints, they pressurized her to bring Rs 10 lakh, intensifying the harassment. During her pregnancy, the deceased faced isolation during medical check-ups and later gave birth to two daughters. It was further stated that the harassment escalated after the birth of the second child of the deceased, in 2022. The deceased often used to sought refuge in the house of her parents, citing her in-laws’ coercion and constant taunts. During investigation, the statement of one neighbour of the deceased in the past was recorded, which is in line with the allegations.
The Court noted that it is disturbing to witness a scenario where the intentions of parents, seeking the well-being of their child and her comfort as she leaves her original home of birth and goes to another home called her matrimonial home which in itself at times, for a woman needs time to adjust to the new lifestyle and at times, the different cultural values that the new family may hold. When instead of providing comfort, space, love, affection and support, the new bride is met with unrelenting greed and harassment from the very individuals who she and her family have put their faith in, the adverse consequences of such unexpected consequences extend beyond the immediate victims, affecting the deceased’s parental family inflicting profound emotional trauma. The trauma is multiplied and becomes lifelong when the victim of a matrimonial dowry related offence gives up her life due to constant torture and harassment, especially when the two children she has procreated and loved who are her daughters also become a ground to nag, harass and traumatizing her, as if, she is solely responsible for giving birth to daughters.
The Court remarked that “the genetic science in this regard is totally ignored according to which, the genetic determination of the gender of the unborn child when the child is conceived, involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing two X chromosomes (XX) and males having one X and one Y chromosome (XY). According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the outcome of fertilization depends on whether an unfertilized egg fuses with a sperm carrying an X or Y chromosome, resulting in the birth of a girl or boy, respectively.” Such people need to be educated that it is their son and not their daughter-in-law whose chromosomes through union of a married couple will decide the birth of a daughter or a son. Even if, this judgment becomes the birthplace of such enlightenment, it will go a long way to change the mindsets of perpetrators of such crimes and save lives of innocent married women, by use of principles of science through principles of law.
The Court held that since the allegations against the present applicant are grave and serious in nature, the charges are yet to be framed and the material witnesses are yet to be examined, thus, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail.
[Hardesh Kumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 111, decided on 08-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Kapil Gupta and Ms. Neha Tiwari, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State with Inspector Jaspal Singh, P.S. Burari, Delhi. Mr. Shannu Baghel, Advocate for complainant along with son of complainant.