Ravinder Kumar vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Babita (deceased) was married to Ravinder Kumar in the year 1991 according to the Hindu rites. She gave birth to a son and a daughter from the loins of Ravinder Kumar.

On 23.10.1995 between 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. quarrel arose between Ravinder Kumar and his wife on account of demand for dowry made by Ravinder Kumar upon Babita having remained unsatisfied. Ravinder Kumar and the other members of his family were raising demand for dowry upon Babita every now and then. Babita was in the kitchen. Her husband Ravinder Kumar lost temper and he started beating and abusing her and her parents saying that she had not brought money. Ravinder Kumar picked up kerosene stove, opened the knob and doused kerosene on her and lit match stick and set her ablaze. Her clothes caught fire and she stated crying for help. She ran out of the house for help ''Bachao Bachao, Mere Aag Laga Dee.'' Ravinder Kumar ran away. In the meantime, neighbours put quilt (rajai) on her and put off the fire. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital by the her husband. Her husband and motherinlaw Smt. Bhagwani Devi joined on the way to Government Hospital, Mohindergarh. As her condition became precarious, she was transferred to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital, New Delhi. She was threatened by her husband and motherinlaw and she was told by Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate and her husband to make statement before the Magistrate and the police that she had caught fire accidentally and if she did not make statement that way, she and her children would suffer inconvenience. She was also threatened not to disclose the true facts to her parents and that way she was not able to reveal the truth before the police or the SubDivisional Magistrate. It may be mentioned that the Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded her dying declaration which formed basis of the First Information Report on 23.10.1996. Her husband left her in the hospital. Soon after, her mother and brother reached there. Her husband never came to see her after 26.10.1995. In the hospital, she was attended by her mother, brother, aunt and uncle. She packed up courage to speak the truth after she had been assured by her father, mother and brother that they would stand by her in exposing the perpetrators of this atrocity on her. She swore an affidavit to this effect on 7.11.1995.

In the beginning on 23.10.1995, when fire had engulfed her, her statement was recorded by Sh. O.P. Sharma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohindergarh, according to which she had sprinkled kerosene on her and set herself on fire. She had taken this extreme step because the feeling of her husband was that she was no match to him. Initially, it was case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Mohindergarh vide FIR No. 318 dated 23.10.1995. After 34 days of arrest, Ravinder Kumar was allowed bail when Babita was still alive. Now, since Babita has expired and the aforesaid affidavit has surfaced on the record, offence has been converted into under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Prayer of Ravinder Kumar for releasing him on anticipatory bail was refused by Sh. M.L. Sharma Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 8.2.1996. He has reiterated his prayer for prearrest bail through this Criminal Misc. No. 3487M of 1996 before this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is an Advocate. He was married to Babita. She gave birth to a son and a daughter. There was absolutely no demand for dowry by him or any other family members of the family upon her. It was a case of suicide because she had suspicion against Ravinder Kumar that he was not faithful to the marital bed and that he was carrying on with a maid servant. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been purchasing shares in his name and in the name of his wife.

Ravinder Kumar had opened account in her name in the bank. If there had been any differences bad blood between them, he would not have opened account in her name. He would not have purchased shares in his name and in the name of his wife. He arranged blood at Delhi for providing her treatment. If he had not been interested in saving her life, he would have run away and not arranged blood for her. It has been next submitted that in his effort to save his wife, he himself suffered burn injury.

Smt. Babita was a young woman. She was married only 4 years ago. Her death took place within four years of her marriage and that too at her husband''s house and rather under unsavoury circumstances. If she had burnt herself, she would not have sworn affidavit on 7.11.1995 insinuating her husband that it was he who set her on fire. Husband cannot be allowed anticipatory bail in this case. While refusing anticipatory bail to the husband, I am taking into account the gravity and the seriousness which has been attached to such deaths by the legislature which enacted Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 113A and 113B of Evidence Act. Section 113A of the Evidence Act deals with the circumstances when presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman can be raised against the accused. Section 113B deals with the circumstances in which presumption can be raised as to dowry death. Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act have been designed to whittle down the effect of the presumption of innocence appearing in favour of the accused.

For the reasons aforesaid, this criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is declined.