Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Cross examination shatters 498a 304B case- U-turn by deceased’s(wife) parents who deny their own allegations- Aquittal of husband and family members

IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.146/09
FIR No.39/07
U/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC
PS C.R.Park
State
Vs.
1. Sandeep Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
2. Sonika Chopra w/o Sanjay Chopra
3. Chaman Lal Chopra s/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal Chopra
4. Sanjay Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
5. Vipin Chopra s/o Chaman Lal Chopra
6. Ekta Chopra w/o Vipin Chopra
7. Sudesh Chopra w/o Chaman Lal Chopra (Since expired)
............Accused
Challan filed on : 10.05.07
Received by Fast Track Court on:30.11.09
Reserved for Order on : 27.08.2010
Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2010
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on
09.02.07 on receipt of DD no.13A regarding hanging of one lady at D-
720 CR Park, Delhi, SI Tika Ram alongwith Ct. Azad reached at the spot
and found one Shefali W/o Sandeep hanging with dupatta with ceiling
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 1 of 36fan. Crime team was summoned at the spot and HC Giriraj took some
photographs. The Executive Magistrate was informed and he also
reached at the spot and dead body was removed from the ceiling fan
after cutting the dupatta. The Executive Magistrate recorded the
statements of parents of deceased. The statement of Smt. Anita Bhatia is
Ex.PW2/A in which she has alleged that the engagement ceremony of
her daughter Shefali was solemnized with Sandeep Chopra on
10.02.2006 and they spent about Rs.10.00 in the engagement ceremony
and they spent about Rs.30.00 lacs on the marriage of her daughter
Shefali. After marriage Sandeep came to their residence and stated asked
as to why they have not called his friend Raju and uttered that he is
everything for him. After that Sandeep started quarreling with their
daughter. He is a drunker and also a gambler. They were under the
impression that Sandeep will improve after birth of child. On 18th
Jan.
2007, a male baby has been born out of the wedlock and on that
occasion, Sandeep demanded Skoda Car from them. In the marriage they
had given Accent Car of red colour bearing no. HR 29P 4907 to accused
Sandeep but he had passed on this car to his sister. They went to the
matrimonial house of their daughter and urged the parents of Sandeep to
make him understand but they also paid no heed and inturn started
uttering to Shefali that she should perform her work properly. Sandeep
had a fight with his own brothers because of Raju. He used to utter that
he will not leave Raju but he can leave Shefali. Whenever they visited
the matrimonial house of Shefali, her father in law, mother in law,
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 2 of 36Sandeep and his brothers used to given them a long list of items and ask
them that they have to give those items otherwise it will not be in their
interest. Sandeep uttered to them that if their demands will not be
fulfilled and they did not take care of his friend Raju, he will leave
Shefali at her parents house. He used to come to home after 11 p.m after
consuming liquor and he used unparliamentary language to Shefali. He
used to beat her by giving leg blows during pregnancy. All the accused
persons Chaman Lal Chopra, Sandeep Chopra, Raju, his wife Neetu,
Sonika Chopra, Vipin Chopra, Ekta Chopra and Anju Chopra have killed
her daughter and thereafter hanged her with fan and it was informed to
them at about 9.15 p.m that Shefali has committed suicide. On this
statement SDM has directed the SHO PS C.R Park to register the case
u/s 498A/304B/406/34 IPC. The case was registered and investigation
was done. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of
investigation challan was filed.
2. Being the case of the category exclusively triable by the court
of Sessions, after committal proceedings, it was assigned to the court of
sessions and charge against accused persons u/s 304B/498A/406/34 IPC
has been framed on 22.02.08 against accused Sandeep Chopra, Chaman
Lal, Sudesh Chopra(Since deceased), Vipin Chopra, Ekta Chopra,
Sanjay Chopra and Sonika Chopra to which all the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 3 of 363. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused persons
has  examined in all 16 witnesses.
4. The incriminating evidence against the accused persons were
put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they
have denied each and every allegation and stated that they have been
falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter the case was fixed for final
arguments.
5. I have heard Sh Inder Kumar Ld. APP for the State as well as
Sh Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate for the accused persons.
6. In view of the submissions made by Ld.Counsel for defence
as well as Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the documents and
testimonies of each witness carefully. During the course of arguments
Ld. counsels for the accused persons have drawn the attention of the
court on the testimonies of each witness and stated that the statements
given by the relatives of the deceased are contradicting to each other and
they have made glaring improvements in their testimonies. It has further
been stated that no demand for dowry was ever made by the accused
persons and the deceased was never harassed for dowry. Ld. counsel has
drawn the attention on the testimonies of each and every witnesses and
stated that  no case is made out against the accused persons and they may
kindly be acquitted.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 4 of 367. On the other hand Ld.APP for the State has stated that no
improvement have been made by the PWs because they has stated as per
the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the statement recorded by the
SDM. The relatives of the deceased have made specific allegations
against the accused persons for demand of dowry and harassment due to
which Shefali committed suicide. It has been further submitted that
accused persons may kindly be punished in accordance with law.
8. In view of the submissions made by the Ld.defence counsels
as well as Ld.APP for the State, I have also perused the testimonies of
witnesses.
9. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased Shefali. He has
stated that SDM has recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He
identified the dead body of his daughter vide staetment Ex.PW1/B and
received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He handed over the list
of dowry to the police which is Ex.PW1/D and photographs which are
Ex.PW1/E & F.
10. PW2 Anita Bhatia is the complainant and mother of
deceased Shefali. She has stated that SDM has recorded her statement
which is Ex.PW2/A. She has stated that accused persons demanded
Skoda from her at the time when her daughter gave birth to a male baby.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 5 of 3611. PW3 Dr. Akhilesh has stated that Dr. MG Jai and Dr.
Raghvender had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shefali.
the post mortem report is Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal uncle of deceased Shefali
and he has stated that Raju demanded skoda car from Anita Bhatia and
Kuldeep Bhatia. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
13. PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased Shefali and he
has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared
hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the
State but in vain.
14. PW6 Ct. Azad Singh reached at the spot with SI Tika Ram
and he has stated that they found one lady hanging with ceiling fan with
the help of chuni. The executive Magistrate came there and he recorded
the statements of the parents of deceased. The dead body was sent to
Mortuary. IO prepared the rukka and got the case registered through him.
He further deposed about seizure of articles from the spot vide memo
Ex.PW5/A,B and C. He further deposed that accused Sandeep was
arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/A and his personal search was conducted
vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed about arrest of accused
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 6 of 36Chaman Lal on 10.2.07 vide memo Ex.PW6/C and conducting of his
personal search vide memo Ex.PW6/D. He recorded the disclosure
statement of accused Sandeep Chopra which is Ex.PW6/E. He identified
the chappal, key with chhalla as Ex.Pw6/Article1 and Ex.PW6/article2.
15. PW7 Ct. Gopal Prasad has deposed that on 9.2.07 he reached
at the spot with SI Tika Ram. He was sent by SI Tika Ram with dead
body to mortuary of AIIMS. He handed over the pulland given to him in
the hospital to IO which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A.
16. PW8 HC Sarjeet Singh has deposed that he was posted in
control Room, PHQ on 9.2.07 and he received telephone call from no.
9811111118 from Vipin Chopra that his sister in law has killed herself
and he recorded the same in form which is Ex.PW8/A.
17. PW9 HC Giriraj is the witness from crime team and he took
photographs which are Ex.PW9/A6 to A10 and negatives are
Ex.PW9/A1 to A5.
18. PW10 HC Rajeev has recorded the FIR of this present case.
The copy of FIR is Ex.PW10/A.
19. PW11 SI Naveen Kumar has deposed that on 9.2.07 he was
posted in crime team and after inspecting the spot he prepared his report
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 7 of 36which is Ex.PW11/A.
20. PW12 Ct.Tejpal has deposed that he delivered the copies of
FIR to Joint CP, ACP and area ACP on 9.10.07 (should be 09.02.07).
21. PW13 SI Tika Ram is the first IO and he reached at the spot
with Ct. Azad where they found one lady Shefali hanging from Ceiling
fan with dupatta. He called Executive Magistrate and crime team. He has
stated that Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of the parents of
the deceased on the basis of which he got the case registered. He seized
the articles lying at the spot vide memo Ex.PW5/A, B and C. He
prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B. He arrested accused Sandeep,
conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. He
got conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shefali and after post
mortem handed over the dead body to her father and brother vide memo
Ex.PW1/C. He arrested accused Chaman Lal and conducted his personal
search. He got prepared the scaled site plan. He identified the case
property.
22. PW14 Sh. RK Saini is the Executive Magistrate who
recorded the statements of Kuldeep Bhatia and Anita Bhatia Ex.PW1/A
and Ex.PW2/A and he has instructed the SHO to take legal action vide
endorsement Ex.PW14/A.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 8 of 3623 PW15 SI Mahesh has prepared the scaled site plan which is
Ex.PW15/A.
24. PW16 Insp. Jogender Kumar is the second IO and he
formally arrest accused Raj Kumar vide memo Ex.PW16/C. He seized
the photographs and marriage invitation card vide memo Ex.PW16/D.
He also seized the accent car vide memo Ex.PW16/E.
25. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the PWS it is
revealed that PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased, PW2 Anita
Bhatia is the mother of deceased, PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal
uncle of deceased and PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased
Shefali. PW2 Smt. Anita Bhatia is the complainant and mother of the
deceased. These witnesses including PW14 Sh RK Saini, the then
Executive Magistrate are the main star witnesses of the prosecution.
PW1,2,4 & 5 are the near relatives of the deceased.
26. To bring the guilt of the accused persons u/s 498A/ 304 B
IPC it is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions. Section 304B
relates to dowry death. The same was introduced in the Indian Penal
Code and it reads as under:-
304 B (1)
Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 9 of 36injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for or in connection with any demands for dowry such death
shall be called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed
to have caused her death.
For the purpose of this sub section dowry shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the dowry prohibition Act 1961.
'Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life'.
And if the ingredients of section 304B have been completed
then the presumption u/s 113 B in the Indian Evidence Act is required.
Section 113 B
Presumption as to dowry death - when the question whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that
soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry,
the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
In a case of dowry death cruelty on part of husband towards
his wife by prosecution has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
section 113 B of Evidence Act does not alter this requirement of stick
proof.
And section 498 A IPC reads as under:-
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 10 of 36'Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her
to cruelty – Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband or
a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be
liable to fine'.
27. There is explanation for the purpose of this section cruelty
means:-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life ,limb
or health (whether mental or physical ) of the woman or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
28. In the normal circumstances though cruelty at any time after
marriage may cause depression in the mind of the victim, the cruelty and
harassment envisaged by section 304B is to be seen before the death of
a woman and it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence
carefully because cases are not rare in which occasionally there is
demand and then the atmosphere becomes calm and quiet and then
again there is demand. Where a wife dies in the house of the husband
within the short span of seven years of her marriage, it is of considerable
difficulty to assess the precise circumstances in which the incident
occurred because ordinarily independent witnesses are not available as
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 11 of 36the torture and harassment is confined in the four walls of the house.
However, the courts are to be vigilant to scrutinize the evidence
regarding the harassment and torture carefully if the witnesses are
relatives of the deceased and relations between them and her in laws are
strained for any reason whatsoever it might be.
29. Urge for living is a natural phenomenon in mankind. A
person would not embrace death unless there is some psychological
trouble or mental agony or such circumstances that the person
committing suicide may think that the life he or she is living is more
miserable than the pangs and agony of death. The power of tolerance
would vary from person to person. Some persons try to make the life
easy by tolerance while others even on petty points bring an end to their
life. 
30. Reverting back to the testimonies of witnesses firstly I would
consider the testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution
who are related to deceased Shefali. PW4 Rajan Bhatia is the maternal
uncle of deceased and he has stated that Shefali was got married to
Sandeep on 6.3.06 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and Accent car was
given to him in the dowry alongwith other gold and silver jewellery. His
brother in Law spent Rs.15 to 20 lac on the marriage of Shefali. One
friend named Raju @ Raj Kumar of accused Sandeep Chopra used to
demand more dowry from his brother in law Kuldeep Bhatia and
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 12 of 36whenever complaint has been made to Sandeep Chopra, he used to say
that whatever Raju says that is final. His niece was not kept well in the
house. Shefali told her that she is not happy in her in laws house. He has
further stated that at the time of delivery of first child Raju demanded
Skoda car from Kuldeep Bhatia. On receiving the message regarding
death of Shefali he reached in Chitranjan Park and found Shefali hanging
with fan. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he has admitted
that the accent car which was gifted in the dowry, the same was further
gifted to the sister in law nanad/sister in law named Gitanjali. He denied
that when his jija Kuldeep and his family reached at the house of accused
persons, some hot exchange took place between them and then accused
persons went away from their house. He denied that the half portion of
the dupatta which was cut down from the neck of Shefali was taken in
police custody alongwith two pair of lady's chappal and key with
chhalla. He did not state to the police that Shefali committed suicide due
to harassment and demand of dowry by the accused persons and she
expired due to harassment for demand of dowry. He cannot identify the
exhibits which were lifted by the police. I have also considered the cross
examination wherein he has admitted that he has never been to the house
of his sister after or prior to the marriage of his niece Shefali. When he
has not visited the house of his sister, it is not understandable as to how
he came to know that there was some demand for dowry from the side of
accused persons. He has further stated that once only his deceased niece
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 13 of 36disclosed him regarding the harassment otherwise his sister used to tell
him regarding the harassment by accused persons. Sandeep used to meet
him socially in normal way. It is correct that Sandeep never gave beating
to Shefali at the instance of Raju in his presence. In view of his statement
he has alleged that one Raju has demanded more dowry and even that he
demanded skoda car at the time when Shefali gave birth to first child. He
has not levelled allegations against any of the accused persons facing
trial before this court. Raju has already been discharged by the court
vide order dated 22.02.08. Considering the cross examination conducted
by the Ld. APP for the State, nothing incriminating could come out
against the accused persons. In cross examination he has admitted that
accused Sandeep never gave beating to Shefali at the instance of Raju in
his presence.
31. PW5 Sahil Bhatia is the brother of deceased Shefali and he
has stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized on 6.3.06 with
Sandeep Chopra and they present one accent car in the marriage. His
mother used to tell him about the harassment of his sister Shefali by her
in laws. As and when he used to visit the in laws house of Shefali, after
seeing her face he understand her problem but he did not involve in any
affair to avoid future relations. Thereafter he has stated about receiving
of information regarding death of his sister by hanging herself with
fan.During life time his sister was not happy in her in laws house. He has
been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 14 of 36APP for the State wherein he has stated that police did not record his
statement Ex.PW5/A. He has been confronted with his statement by the
Ld. APP for the State but he denied having made such statement to the
police. However, he admitted that on 10.2.07 he identified the dead
body of his sister in mortuary of AIIMS Hospital and he received the
dead body. In view of his statement he has stated that his mother used to
tell him about the harassment of his sister. He has deposed on hearsay
because it was told to him by his mother and not by his sister Shefali.
Secondly, he has not stated as to how the accused person caused
harassment to Shefali and what they used to utter and what they used to
demand. By conducting cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State,
nothing incriminating could come against the accused persons. PW5 has
not made any allegation that accused persons has ever demanded more
dowry or skoda car from his father. He has also not stated that Shefali
has ever told him about the harassment caused to her by her husband as
well as in-laws. 
32. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia is the father of deceased Shefali and he
has staetd that he gave hyundai Accent car in dowry. As soon as his
daughter reached her matrimonial house her mother in law took all
jewellery from her and told that she will return as and when she would
require. After days Raju friend of Sandeep told his daughter that they
had to purchase one plot for Sandeep and they asked for Rs.5.00 lac. He
was shocked to know this fact. He was surprised that when he has spent
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 15 of 36so much money on marriage why they are asking for more money. He
told that he is unable to pay Rs.5.00 lac. His daughter was not allowed to
talk on phone and when his daughter prayed them to talk she was told
'bill kya tera baap bharega'. Seeing this, in August 2006 he gave her one
mobile phone. He has further stated that his daughter was not provided
proper food and accused her that from the day she had come, their
business had collapsed. When they received instruction from the side of
Sandeep “Raju mere bhai se bharkar hai aur jo cheez tum mujhey doge
tum Raju ko bhi doge'. Sandeep used to return back home at 11 p.m in
drunken condition. They pressurized for Rs.5.00 lac. In June 2006 he
gave Rs.2.00 lac to Sandeep Chopra in the presence of Raju and parents
of Sandeep Chopra and requested them with folded hand that he cannot
afford more money. Sandeep, Raju and his family members never liked
the food cooked by his daughter and they used to tell 'teri maa ne tujhe
kya sikhya'. In the presence of all the family members and Sandeep, Raju
slapped his daughter uttering the words 'tere ko khana banana nahi aata'.
In the same night Sandeep and Raju returned home after taking drinks
and went in the bedroom where his daughter was sleeping and Raju
started molesting his daughter. He has further stated that Shefali got
pregnant and during pregnancy she was beaten mercilessly. They used to
tell her that after birth of child everything will be settled down. On
18.1.07 Shefali gave birth to a son and at that time Sandeep asked him to
give him Skoda Car. He told the parents of Sandeep about this and they
told 'theek hai jo yeh kah raha hai puri kar do'. He was shocked to know
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 16 of 36that Sandeep has handed over the car Accent to Anjali Lekhi. He has
further stated that on 8.2.07 Sandeep, Raju and parents of Sandeep came
to their house and demanded Skoda Car and used filthy language. After
requesting them, they went back and thereafter Shefali made a call and
told 'mai bahut pareshan ho rahi hoo apki inse kya baat hui'. On 9.2.07
Sandeep, Raju and parents of Sandeep again came to their house and told
'hamari yeh demand puri kartey ho to theek hai nahin to apni ladki se
haath dho baithogey'. They told them 'agar aap police me galti se bhi
chaley gaye hum apko fasa denge kyunki hamari bahut unchi pahunch
hai'. On 9.2.07 at 1 p.m Shefali had a talk with her mother on telephone
and she told her mother -'Mami dil bahut ghabra raha hai samajh mai
nahi aa raha'. On the same day at about 9.15 p.m his wife received call
from Sandeep that Shefali had hanged herself. He alongwith his wife
reached at the house of Shefali and saw the body of Shefali hanging with
ceiling fan. Her feet were touching the ground. There was no stool near
the dead body one which she might have climbed. He was shocked that a
girl who was married only 11 months back having 22 days child would
never commit suicide. His daughter had not committed suicide as she
had 22 days son, in fact she had been killed by the accused persons.
SDM recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. He identified the dead
body his daughter and received the same. He handed over the list of
dowry articles to police which is Ex.PW1/D, photographs Ex.PW1/E and
F and photocopy of marriage card Ex.PW1/G. He has further stated that
Sandeep Chopra, entire family and Raju are responsible for the incident
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 17 of 36with his daughter. In view of the above statement of PW1 he has made
certain allegations against the accused persons. So, first I have perused
the cross examined of this witness conducted by the Ld. defence counsel.
He has stated in cross examination that it is correct that he has not stated
in his statement Ex.PW1/A that the parents of Sandeep had asked that
the marriage should be performed as per their status and accordingly he
raised his budget by taking loan and financial assistance from his
relatives and friends. It is correct that he had gifted Accent Car in the
marriage with his own free will. So,the accent car has been given by
PW1 to accused Sandeep with his own free will in the dowry and it
cannot be terms as demand for dowry. He has further stated that it is
correct that he had not stated to the SDM that parents of Sandeep and his
friend told his daughter that they had to purchase one plot for Sandeep
and they asked for Rs.5.00 lac of that this fact was told by his daughter
to his wife. It is correct that his daughter did not told him directly for
demand of Rs.5.00 lacs. He admitted that no accused present in the court
made any demand of any nature directly from him at any time after the
marriage of his daughter Shefali. PW1 is the father of deceased Shefali
but he has clearly stated in his cross examination that no demand of any
nature has been made from him at any time after the marriage of his
daughter Shefali by the accused persons. Since he has admitted about no
demand by the accused persons, allegation made by him in the
examination in chief seems to be doubtful because he has not made
consistent statement in this respect. It seems that no demand for Rs.5.00
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 18 of 36lacs has been made by the accused persons. Further, PW1 has admitted
in cross examination that he has not stated to Magistrate that their
daughter was not allowed to use telephone and on request of his daughter
that she be allowed to use phone and she was told 'bill kya tera baap
bharega' on which he gave her a mobile phone. He admitted that he did
not stated to the Magistrate that she was not provided food and used to
be harassed for preparing food and that accused used to curse her that
from the day she has come, their business has collapsed.He admitted that
when he used to meet Sandeep and other accused, they used to meet
normally and in cordial manner as relative meets and respect each other.
He admitted that he has not stated that he was pressurized for Rs.5.00 lac
and Rs.2.00 lac was given by him to the mother of Sandeep in the
presence of Raju. He admitted that he did not state to the SDM in
statement Ex.PW1/A that family members of Sandeep never liked food
cooked by his daughter or that Sandeep slapped his daughter by saying
tere ko khana banana hain aata or that Sandeep and Raju returned home
after drink and Raju attempted to molest her daughter. He has not stated
to the SDM that Shefali was pregnant and she was mercilessly beaten.
Sandeep had not demanded Skoda car from him. IN examination in chief
he has alleged that skoda car was demanded from him but in cross
examination he has stated that it was not demanded from him by accused
Sandeep. However, he has stated that it was demanded by Raju (already
discharged). He further stated that it is correct that he has not stated in
his statement to Magistrate that he told the parents of Sandeep that Raju
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 19 of 36was demanding a skoda car and that they told 'theek hai jo yeh keh raha
hai puri kar do'. He has further stated that he has not stated to the SDM
that the car which was given by him has been given to Anjali Lekhi by
Sandeep. He had not stated in his statement that on 8.2.07 Sandeep and
his parents came to their house and demanded Skoda car and used filthy
language and thereafter Shefali called them and said 'mai bahut pareshan
ho rahi hu inse kaya baat hui'. He has further stated that he has not stated
in his statement that on 9.2.07 Sandeep and his parents again came to
their house and claimed that their demand may be fulfilled. He has not
stated that on 9.2.07 at 1 p.m Shefali had a talk with her mother on
telephone and she said 'mummy dil bahut ghabra raha hai samaj mai
nahin aa raha'. He has not stated that when he saw his daughter hanging
her feet were touching the ground and there was not stool nearby. He
made the statement Ex.PW1/A to the SDM in a very perplexed situation
as some of the relatives got it dictated and he just signed. He has further
stated that it is correct that Sandeep has a habit of consuming liquor and
beyond that they have no grievance against him or the accused present in
the court. From the deposition of PW1 who is father of deceased it is
revealed that he has made allegations against the accused persons in his
examination in chief but when he was put through cross examination his
testimony has been completely shattered by the Ld. defence counsel. He
has not been re-examined by the Ld. APP for the State when he denied
the allegations in cross examination. On perusal of his cross examination
it is revealed that the accent car has been given by him on his own free
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 20 of 36will. She has further stated that accused persons have made no demand
from him. So, his version that Rs.5.00 lacs and Skoda Car were demand
cannot be believed.
33. PW2 Anita Bhatia is the mother of the deceased and
complainant in this case. She has also stated in her examination in chief
that they had given hyundai accent car in dowry. She has stated that
after 3-4 days of marriage of his daughter , accused Sandeep told her
daughter that he has to purchase a plot for which he told her daughter to
demand Rs.5.00 lac from them. It was told to her in April 2006. He told
Sandeep that they cannot afford Rs.5.00 lac. They brought it to the notice
of parents of Sandeep who told that whatsoever Sandeep demanding,
they will have to give him. Thereafter they started harassing their
daughter. Her mother in law told to her daughter 'tumhari maa nai ghar
ka kaam nahi sikhya hai' and both bhabies and Sandeep used to take
entire household work from Shefali and used to torture her. Her daughter
used to weep bitterly whenever she called her up. Considering her
grievance they gave Rs.2.00 lacs on 28.6.06. On 10th
August Sandeep
took Rs.11,000/- from them. They were not allowed to meet their
daughter in the hospital and they were asked to bring Skoda car. Anjali
instigated Sandeep and told to give car and she took the car which was
given by them in the marriage. On 8.2.07 Sandeep Raju and parents of
Raju came to their house and demanded skoda car. They requested them
that they cannot give the same but their request was not accpeted. They
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 21 of 36tortured Shefali after reaching house. On 9.2.07 Sandeep, Raju and
parents of Sandeep came to their house and told that if she want to meet
her daughter and want to see her happy she should give skoda car. At
about 1 p.m she received call from her daughter and she was weeping
bitterly and told that Sandeep had not given anything to eat. At about
9.15 p.m Sandeep telephoned her that Shefali has committed suicide.
They had gone there and saw Shefali hanging from ceiling fan. He
further stated that no mother can commit suicide leaving her 20 days
child. Like PW1 father of deceased Shefali, PW2 Anita Bhatia has also
levelled allegation for demand of Rs.5.00 lac and Skoda car from the
accused persons. So, I have also perused her cross examination
conducted on behalf of the accused persons. She has stated in cross
examination that she has not stated in her statement that on the demand
of accused persons they have given accent car. She has not stated in her
statement Ex.PW2/A that Sandeep told her daughter to demand Rs.5.00
lacs for purchasing the plot. She has admitted that she has not stated in
her statement that she has stated that her mother in law told her daughter
'tumhari maa ne ghar ka kaam nahi sikhaya'. He further stated that it is
correct that she has not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A that whenever
she called her daughter she wept bitterly and considering her grievances,
Rs.2.00 lac was given to Sandeep in the presence of his mother on
28.6.06. She has not stated that Rs.11,000/- was taken by Sandeep for
purchase of mobile. She has also admitted that she has not stated in her
statement that Raju and Sandeep met them at the gate of the hospital and
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 22 of 36did not allow to meet Shefali after birth of male child and asked them to
bring skoda car first. She has not stated in her statement that Sandeep's
sister Anjali instigated Sandeep and told to give her car and she took the
car which was given in marriage. It is correct that she had not stated in
her statement Ex.PW2/A that on 8.2.07 at 6 p.m Sandeep, Raju and
parents of Sandeep came to his house and demanded skoda car and
abused despite their request with folded hands but they did not accept
their request and left their house or that they tortured Shefali after
reaching the house and she wept bitterly on phone. She has not stated in
her statement that she saw her daughter hanging with thin chuni and her
feet were touching the ground. It is correct that she had not stated in her
statement Ex.PW2/A that she beg to submit that no mother can commit
suicide leaving her 20 days old child. She has further stated that it is
correct that Sandeep had never demanded any money or dowry directly
from her or in her presence. Sometime mother of Sandeep used to taunt
Shefali in her presence regarding lack of dowry. It is correct that she has
not stated in her statement that her daughter Shefali was engaged with
Sandeep on 10.2.06. It is correct that she has not stated in her statement
Ex.PW2/A that her son in law used to fight with his brother because of
Raju. She has not stated that the family members of Sandeep gave a list
of articles that were to be given by her if she want to see her daughter
safe and happy. She has not stated in her statement that Sandeep used to
drink everyday and come back at home at 11 p.m and after coming home
he used to abuse and beat with legs during pregnancy. She denied that
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 23 of 36she was told by Shefali that Sandeep is in the habit of consuming liquor
vol. but in her presence he never took liquor. It is correct that Shefali
was a very sensitive girl. She admitted that all the accused persons have
never harassed Shefali in her presence nor demanded any money or
dowry. She admitted that Shefali has never complaint to her about any
harassment. She admitted that sister of Shefali has not taken Accent Car
in her presence. She admitted that accused persons have never demanded
any skoda car at the time of chuchak vol. it was demanded by Raju. PW2
Smt. Anita Bhatia has been re-examined by the Ld. APP for the state
wherein she has stated that she has stated the same whatever she was told
by the police on 25.8.08. In view of the statement of PW2 mother of
deceased and complainant she has also made allegation in her
examination in chief but in cross examination her testimony has been
shattered by the Ld. defence counsel. Considering her cross examination
the allegations made by her in examination in chief cannot be believed.
34. In view of the above discussions I would like to mention
here some case laws for the just decision of this case. In case law Sunil
Bajaj Vs. State of MP, 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 262 it is stated in head note:-
'Section 304B- It is pleaded that last letter of deceased did
not mention any allegation of dowry demand – The letter
of deceased does not speak of any demand of dowry and
there is totally absence of demand of dowry and so
sec.498A of IPC is not at all attracted – Thus the
necessary ingredients of the offence of sec.304B of IPC is
absence and so the conviction and sentence of the
appellant cannot sustain and so the appellant is acquitted
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 24 of 36of the conviction us/ 304B IPC. It is further stated that :
Both the courts below concurrently committed the
appellant – But out of so many witnesses of the neighbour
none could say that there was a dowry death and the
deceased was soon before her death was subjected to
demand of dowry which was necessary ingredient of the
offence u/s 498A of IPC committed by the husband or by
any of the family members or near relatives'.
In case law Baljeet Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) JCC
627 it is stated in headnote that :
'Evidence Act. 1872 – Sec.113B- Presumption- Dowry
death – Against accused persons to be drawn provided
the prosecution establishes that soon before her death if
the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
within 7 years of marriage'.
'Dowry death – Onus of proof- Preliminary facts – Proof
of – Onus lies upon the prosecution – High Court
erroneously shifted the burden upon the accused – About
the date of marriage – Prosecution is required to prove
that death occurred within 7 days of marriage – PW4
father of the deceased was not creditworthy – So were
other related PW5 – Prosecution failed to discharge its
initial onus of proof – PW5/ the mother stated that the
deceased was depressed – This indicated that woman
committed suicide in a state of depression – Hence
conviction is set aside and appeal is allowed'.
In case Law Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) JCC 1840 it
is stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sec. 113B – Dowry
Death – No incidence of demand of dowry or cruelty or
harassment 'soon before death' – Letter relied on shows
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 25 of 36demand of articles by her parents by her own and not on
the behalf of appellant – Improvements in the statements
of prosecution witnesses – Prosecution squarely failed to
establish accusations against appellant – Appeal allowed
– Conviction set aside'.
In case law Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463 it is
stated in head note that :
'Sec. 304B – Dowry death – soon before the death,
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband for or in connection with demand of dowry –
Once this is established, a legal fiction is created under
section 304B IPC whereby such death would be called
dowry death – On facts held, ingredients of Sec.304B
IPC r/ sec. 113 B Evidnce Act not satisfied'.
In case law Appasaheb & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(1)
Crimes 110(SC) it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.304B – Dowry death- appellant convict under –
Deceased died as a result of insecticide poisoning –
Evidence of mother and father of deceased that when
deceased visited her parents she used to narrate all
treatment and beating for bringing money from her
parents – Conviction by Trial court and upheld in appeal
by High Court – Appeal – Both witnesses deposed that
deceased was receiving ill treatment as a result of
“domestic cause” as regards domestic cause they
explained that there was a demand for money to meet
expenses for mature and other domestic expenses –
Evidence did not show that any demand for dowry was
made – Essential ingredient of dowry death i.e. demand
for dowry was not established – Conviction could not be
sustained.
One Important point has been stated that :
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 26 of 36'A demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry and
conviction for dowry death on such demand could not be
sustained'.
In case law Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,
2009 (3) JCC 1622  it is stated in head note that :
'Sec.498A- Demand of dowry – The facts that husband
of deceased owned a truck which need heavy repairs –
The amount given for the purpose does not amount to
demand of dowry'.
In case law Tarsen Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) JCC 372 it is
stated in head note that:-
'One of the essential ingredients amongst others, is that
the woman must have been 'soon before her death'
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with the demand for dowry – Nothing on record to show
that any demand of dowry was made soon before her
death- The cause of action appears to be an ego problem
on the part of the appellant, namely the deceased had not
been coming to her matrimonial home – Conviction u/s
304B not proved'.
'Cruelty or harassment – When the name of the
appellant/husband and his parents were material in the
FIR – It is clear that all of them had been ill treating
deceased for non bringing of sufficient dowry and not
bearing a child- Not correct to contend that FIR does not
contain any statement of cruelty or harassment of the
deceased especially when death occurred within 7 years
of marriage and dead body was found in matrimonial
home'.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 27 of 36It is stated in case Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(1) JCC (SC
341 that:-
'Sec.302, 304B and 498A – deceased wife died of burn
injuries – No independent and reliable witness –
prosecution case based on evidence of interest witnesses
and members of the family of deceased and also on the
basis of dying declaration made to the mother of
deceased. Deceased remained at the house and could not
be admitted to hospital – parents of deceased informed –
Oral dying declaration made at home and not in presence
of any doctor or any other independent witness – Courts
below acquitting other family members of the
appellant/husband – Dying declaration not tained on
basis of such dying declaration – No clearcut evidence of
dowry demand on record- no doctor's evidence – Benefit
of doubt extended to appellant'.
It is stated in case Sabar Bhatti & Ors. Vs. State, 2009(v) AD (Cr)
(DHC) 209 that :-
'Improvements of material nature in depositions of
parents of M – No Particulars of dates when dowry
demands made and amounts paid, given – Conviction of
Z, Mother in law, and S u/s 498A, set aside'.
In case law Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995(1) Crimes 611 it is
stated in head note:
'Sec.304B & 498A – Deceased, Wife of appellant, was
married to appellant two and half year prior to incident –
cause of death as per post mortem was asphyxia due to
organo phosphorus poisoning – Evidence of father of
deceased that deceased used to complain that her in laws
maltreated and harassed her and taunted for insufficient
dowry – Significant omission in FIR and statement
before police regarding demand of motor cycle by
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 28 of 36appellant – Evidence regarding cruelty and maltreatment,
quite vague, inconsistent and untrustworthy –
Independent two witnesses, neighbours not produced –
Co-accused acquitted by trial court on same evidence –
Conviction of appellant is unsustainable'.
In case Law Kalyan & Ors. Vs. State of UP, 2001(2) JCC (SC) 203 it
is stated in head note that :
'Appreciation of evidence -Incident stated in FIR, being
the first version of the occurrence has to be given due
weightage – The case of the prosecution, as sought to be
proved at the trial, appears to be different than the one as
narrated in the FIR – view taken by trial court in
acquitting the appellants herein is justified'.
'Prosecution setting out a new case in evidence, which is
in contradiction to the version stated in FIR – Witnesses
are partisan witnesses and also inimical towards one
accused – Conflict in oral evidence as against medical
evidence-Was High Court right in disturbing the order of
acquittal – Held (NO)'.
In case law Babita Vs. State, 2009(2) JCC 1247 it is stated in head note
that :
'Sec.304B and 498A- no specific demand have been
made except the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- which
according to the father of deceased was made at the time
of marriage – Cannot make out a case of harassment soon
before the death – No dying declaration of deceased was
recorded – Not a single instance of harassment by
petitioner who is sister in law of deceased soon before
her death – No basis to frame charge against petition'.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 29 of 3635. Ld. APP for the state has relied up case law titled Alamgir
Vs. State of Assam, 2003(3) SRJ 461 it is stated in head note that :
'IPC 1860 Sec 304B -Indian Evidence Act 1872 –
Sec.113B- Dowry Death- Injuries not self inflicted –
Deceased was with appellant in the bedroom –
Deceased wife was in bathroom for a long time and
appellant showed no anxiety – Some witnesses are
independent witnesses and some are the friends of both
family – Held – No reason to disbelieve the witnesses –
Death having taken place within 7 years of marriage –
Sufficient evidence of demand of dowry – Presumption
u/s 113B of Evidence Act get invoked'.  
Ld. APP for the State has also relied upon case law Pawan
Kumar & ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 1998(2) CC Cases 12 (SC).
36. In view of the testimonies of PW1,2,4 & 5,it is revealed that
PW4 Rajan Bhatia and PW5 Sahil Bhatia who are maternal uncle and
brother of deceased Shefali have not made any allegation against any of
the accused persons. PW5 has also been declared hostile by the
prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia, father of deceased and PW2 Anita Bhatia, mother
of deceased and complainant in this case, both have made main
allegations that accused persons have demanded Rs.5.00 lacs and Skoda
car and they also harassed & tortured Shefali by uttering different
words. But in cross examination both PW1 and PW2 have admitted that
they have not stated about these allegation to the Magistrate in their
statements Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A. All the above PWS have made
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 30 of 36inconsistent statements in this case. So, their versions cannot be
believed. It is held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Raj Kumar
Vs. State 1997(2) CC Cases HC 291 that:-
'Where the PW has been absolutely inconsistent and has
been changing his stand from time to time, he cannot
be regarded as reliable and trust-worthy witness of the
occurrence'
It is also held by Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. Delhi Admn.
1997 Criminal Law Journal 108(SC) CC Cases that :-
'When the prosecution witness gives two different
statements in their testimonies either at one or two suggest,
therefore the testimony become unreliable and unworthy of
credit and in the absence of any circumstances no
conviction could be made therein'.
37. Considering the above discussion, to prove the case u/s 304B
IPC three ingredients have to be proved (i) unnatural death (ii) within 7
years of marriage and (iii) soon before death she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband (iv) such cruelty
must be in connection with demand of dowry (v) such cruelty is shown
to have been meted to the woman soon before her death. In this case the
death of Shefali was unnatural death and it was within 7 years of
marriage. Now it is necessary to find out as to whether the deceased was
being harassed soon before her death by subjecting her to cruelty and
demand of dowry. In this case only PW1&2 Kuldeep Bhatia and Anita
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 31 of 36Bhatia who are father and mother of deceased have stated that deceased
Shefali made call to them on 9.2.07 i.e. the alleged day of incident and
she was weeping bitterly and stated that family members of Sandeep had
not given anything to eat and thereafter the phone was disconnected. It
has not been stated by them as to what the accused persons were saying
at that time. Allegedly the call for hanging of Shefali was made at 9.15
p.m by Sandeep on 9.2.07. But in cross examination PW2 mother of the
deceased has stated that she has not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/A
that at about 1 p.m she received call from deceased Shefali and at that
time she was weeping bitterly and told her that family members of
Sandeep had not given her food to eat and thereafter the phone was
disconnected. PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia who is the father of deceased has
also stated the version of PW2 in this respect. Further both the witnesses
in cross examination have stated that accused persons had never
demanded any money or dowry directly from them. It has been stated
that sometime Sandeep used to taunt Shefali. But they have not stated as
to how the accused persons have caused taunt to Shefali. Even PW2 who
is complainant in this case has admitted that Shefali has never complaint
to her about any harassment meted to her by the accused persons. So, in
my view there is no evidence available on file in this case that deceased
Shefali was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of demand of
dowry soon before her death. Hence, ingredients of Sec.304B IPC are
not complete in this case.
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 32 of 3638. In this case at the first blush I found that there was force in
the testimonies of PW1 & 2 (father and mother of deceased) but on
perusal of their cross examinations, I am astonished to see their changed
version. Both these witnesses have deposed entirely different in their
cross examination than from their examination in chief. So, I am of the
view that their contentions deposed in examination in chief are not
reliable.
39. I have also perused the testimony of other witnesses. PW3
Dr. Akhilesh has been examined by the prosecution to prove the post
mortem report which is Ex.PW3/A. This report has been prepared by Dr.
Raghvender Kumar and Dr. MG Jai. The cause of death has been opined
as asphyxia due to anti mortem hanging by ligature. The doctor who
prepared the Post Mortem Report has not been produced by the
prosecution. PW3 has only identified the hand writing of doctors who
prepared the post mortem report. PW8 HC Surjeet is the formal witness
who recorded the information in form Ex.PW8/A regarding hanging of a
lady. PW9 HC Giriraj is the photographer who clicked photographs
Ex.PW9/A6 to A10 at the spot and PW11 SI Naveen from Crime team
has inspected the spot and gave report which is Ex.PW11/A. PW10 HC
Rajeev has recorded the FIR of this case copy of which is ex.PW10/A
and PW12 Ct. Tejpal delivered the copies of FIR to Sr. Police officials.
PW15 SI Mahesh has prepared the scaled site plan which is
Ex.PW15/A and he is also a formal witness. PW14 Sh RK Saini, SDM
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 33 of 36visited the spot and recorded the statements of parents of deceased and
conducted inquest proceedings. In cross examination he has stated that
he does not recollect which police official recorded the statement of
Anita Bhatia and Kuldeep Bhatia vol. same was recorded by the police
officer on his direction. Both the statements are in different hand
writings. From this version of PW14 it seems that he has not recorded
the statement of Anil Bhatia (complainant) and Kuldeep Bhatia, parents
of deceased at the spot with his own handwriting and it was recorded by
some police officer there. He could not tell the name of the police
officers who recorded the statements of both Anita Bhatia and Kuldeep
Bhatia. As per version of PW14 the statements Ex.PW1/A and
Ex.PW2/A were recorded on his direction. It seems that he was not
aware as to what was recorded in the statements because he has not
stated that he was recorded under his dictation. So, it create doubt in the
case of the prosecution. PW16 Insp. Jogender Kumar is the second IO
and he arrested accused Raju (since discharged) and Nitu (set free). He
seized the list of articles, photographs and marriage card and also seized
the car. PW6 Ct. Azad, PW7 Ct. Gopal Prasad and PW13 SI Tika Ram
reached at the spot together and found a lady Shefali hanging from the
ceiling fan. PW7 has been sent to mortuary with the dead body and
PW13 got recorded the case through PW6 Ct. Azad. But PW6 Ct. Azad,
in cross examination has stated that he did not take rukka to PS. PW13
has seized the articles lying at the spot and arrested the accused persons.
Both PW6 and PW13 have deposed about the investigation carried out
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 34 of 36by PW13 at the spot. It is well settled principle of law that result of
investigation can never be a legal evidence. 
40. In view of the above overall analysis of the testimonies of the
witnesses and in brief the allegations levelled by complainant Anita
Bhatia (PW2) and PW1 Kuldeep Bhatia cannot be believed considering
the deposition made by them in cross examination because both the
witnesses have stated that the accused persons have not made any
demand of dowry from them. They have not levelled any allegation for
demand of any household items. PW2 has also stated that she did not
state to the Magistrate that Shefali called her up on 9.2.07 at 1 p.m and
at that time she was weeping bitterly and told her that family members of
Sandeep had not given her food to eat and thereafter the phone was
disconnected. She has not stated as to what they were uttering to her at
that time. There is no evidence for demand of dowry or harassment
considering the cross examination of both the witness during the period
6.3.06 to 9.2.07. So, in this case soon before death is also absent and
there is no allegation for soon before death of harassing for demand of
dowry of deceased Shefali. Even there is no evidence on file about
beatings given by the accused persons to deceased Shefali. So, I am of
the opinion that Shefali was not maltreated soon before death or even at
any time after marriage by the accused persons. 
41. In view of my above discussions and considering the case
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 35 of 36laws discussed above, this case does not fall under the category of
section 304B IPC and no presumption can be taken against the accused
persons u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused  u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
42. In over all analysis of the testimonies of the witnesses this
case does not fall under the category of 304B IPC and I also did not find
any evidence against the accused persons u/s 498A IPC keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case and cross examination of
PW1&2. So, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case against the accused persons. In such circumstances, the
accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. I therefore
give the benefit of doubt to accused Sandeep Chopra, Chaman Lal,
Vipin Chopra,Sanjay Chopra, Sonika Chopra and Ekta Chopra and I
therefore, hereby acquit all these accused persons from the charges
levelled against them u/s 304B/498A/406/34 IPC. All the accused
persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 31.08.2010.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN)
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
      (Fast Track Court-New Delhi and South East District)
       NEW DELHI
State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 36 of 36State Vs.Sandeep Chopra  etc.
FIR no.39/07                                                                                  Page No. 37 of 36

 

SOURCE - http://judis.nic.in/dist_judis/pdf_retrieval_main.asp

 

------------------------------

Suggested reading

Delhi HC on mentality of wife’s parent in 304B 498a to rope in all members of husband’s  family and MISUSE of 304B @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/del-hc-misuse-of-304-b-dowry-death.html

SC -Reasons for judgment must – 15 points outlined for reasoning

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._____ OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007)
M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Appellant(s)
Versus
Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others ..Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO._____ OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO.12766 OF 2008)
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These   two   appeals,   one   at   the   instance   of   the
builder   and   the   other   at   the   instance   of   the
Corporation   Bank,   have   been   filed   impugning   the
Order   of   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission (hereinafter, the said Commission).
13. In the case of the builder, the said Commission has
not   given   any   reason   and   dismissed   the   revision
petition by passing a cryptic order dated 31.8.2007
which reads as under:
“Heard.
In view of the concurrent findings of the
State   Commission,   we   do   not   find   any
force in this revision petition.
The revision Petition is dismissed.”
4. In so far as the case of the builder is concerned,
this   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   the   said
Commission   cannot,   considering   the   way   it   is
structured,   dismiss   the   revision   petition   by
refusing to give any reasons and by just affirming
the order of the State Commission.
5. The said Commission has been defined under Section
2(k)   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986
(hereinafter CP Act) as follows:
“2(k)   “National   Commission”   means   the
National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission   established   under   clause   (c)
of Section 9;”
6. Under section 9(c) of CP Act, the said Commission
has been established by the Central Government by a
notification.
27. The   composition   of   the   said   Commission   has   been
provided   under   Section   20   of   the   CP   Act   and
wherefrom it is clear that the said Commission is a
high-powered adjudicating forum headed by a sitting
or a retired judge of the Supreme Court.
8. Section   21   of   the   CP   Act   provides   for   the
jurisdiction of the said Commission.
9. In   order   to   appreciate   the   questions   involved   in
this case, the provision relating to jurisdiction of
the said Commission is set out hereunder:
“21.   Jurisdiction   of   the   National
Commission.-   Subject   to   the   other
provisions   of   this   Act,   the   National
Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i)  complaints   where   the   value
of   the   goods   or   services
and   compensation,   if   any,
claimed exceeds [rupees one
crore]; and
(ii)   appeals   against   the   orders
of   any   State   Commission;
and
(b) to call for the records and pass
appropriate   orders   in   any   consumer
dispute   which   is   pending   before   or
has   been   decided   by   any   State
Commission   where   it   appears   to   the
National Commission that such State
Commission   has   exercised   a
jurisdiction   not   vested   in   it   by
law,   or   has   failed   to   exercise   a
3jurisdiction so vested, or has acted
in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally   or   with   material
irregularity.”
10. Under Section 23 of the CP Act, an appeal would lie
against the order of the said Commission passed in
exercise of its powers under Section 21(1)(a), to
this Court, within 30 days, subject to extension of
time by this Court on sufficient cause being shown.
Under   Section   21(1)(b),   the   said   Commission
exercises   revisional   power   over   orders   of   State
Commission.
11. The   power   and   procedure   applicable   to   the   said
Commission has been provided under Section 22 of the
CP Act. A perusal of Section 22(1) would show that
Sections 12, 13 and 14 of CP Act, with necessary
modification, are applicable to the decision making
process by the said Commission. Under Section 13 of
the CP Act, the District Forum has been vested, in
certain matters, with the powers of a Civil Court
while   trying   a   suit.   Section   13(4)   of   CP   Act   is
applicable to the said Commission in view of Section
22(1)   thereof.   Similarly,   Sections   13(5),   (6)   and
4(7) will also apply to the said Commission in view
of Section 22(1).
12. On a perusal of Sections 13(4), (5), (6) and (7) of
the CP Act, it is clear that the said Commission has
been   vested   with   some   of   the   powers   of   a   Civil
Court. The following powers have been vested on the
said Commission:
“13(4) For the purposes of this section,
the   District   Forum   shall   have   the   same
powers   as   are   vested   in   a   civil   court
under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) while trying a suit in respect of
the following matters, namely:-
(i) the   summoning   and   enforcing
the   attendance   of   any
defendant   or   witness   and
examining   the   witness   on
oath,
(ii) the discovery and production
of   any   document   or   other
material object producible as
evidence,
(iii) the reception of evidence on
affidavits,
(iv) the   requisitioning   of   the
report   of   the   concerned
analysis   or   test   from   the
appropriate   laboratory   or
from   any   other   relevant
source,
(v) issuing of any commission for
the   examination   of   any
witness, and
(vi) any other matter which may be
prescribed.
513. Under Section 13(5) of CP Act, every proceeding of
the said Commission will be deemed to be a judicial
proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and
228   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   and   the   said
Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for
the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
14. The   above   provisions   make   it   clear   that   the   said
Commission has the trappings of a Civil Court and is
a high-powered quasi-judicial forum for deciding lis
between the parties.
15. The   necessity   of   giving   reason   by   a   body   or
authority   in   support   of   its   decision   came   up   for
consideration   before   this   Court   in   several   cases.
Initially   this   Court   recognized   a   sort   of
demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-
judicial   orders   but   with   the   passage   of   time   the
distinction between the two got blurred and thinned
out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the
judgment of this Court in  A.K. Kraipak and others
vs.  Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970
SC 150.
616. In  Kesava Mills Co. Ltd. and another  vs.  Union of
India and others  reported in AIR 1973 SC 389, this
Court approvingly referred to the opinion of Lord
Denning in  Rigina  vs.  Gaming Board Ex parte Benaim
[(1970) 2 WLR 1009] and quoted him as saying “that
heresy was scotched in Ridge and Boldwin, 1964 AC
40”.
17. The expression ‘speaking order’ was first coined by
Lord   Chancellor   Earl   Cairns   in   a   rather   strange
context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the
ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with
errors on the face of the record and pointed out
that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking
order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of
the report)
18. This Court always opined that the face of an order
passed   by   a   quasi-judicial   authority   or   even   an
administrative   authority   affecting   the   rights   of
parties,   must   speak.   It   must   not   be   like   the
‘inscrutable face of a Sphinx’. 
719. In the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Shyam
Sunder Jhunjhunwala and others, AIR 1961 SC 1669,
the   question   of   recording   reasons   came   up   for
consideration   in   the   context   of   a   refusal   by
Harinagar   to   transfer,   without   giving   reasons,
shares   held   by   Shyam   Sunder.   Challenging   such
refusal,   the   transferee   moved   the   High   Court
contending,   inter   alia,   that   the   refusal   is   mala
fide,   arbitrary   and   capricious.   The   High   Court
rejected such pleas and the transferee was asked to
file a suit. The transferee filed an appeal to the
Central Government under Section 111 Clause (3) of
Indian   Companies   Act,   1956   which   was   dismissed.
Thereafter, the son of the original transferee filed
another application for transfer of his shares which
was similarly refused by the Company. On appeal, the
Central Government quashed the resolution passed by
the Company and directed the Company to register the
transfer.   However,   in   passing   the   said   order,
Government   did   not   give   any   reason.   The   company
challenged the said decision before this Court.
20. The other question which arose in Harinagar (supra)
was whether the Central Government, in passing the
8appellate order acted as a tribunal and is amenable
to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court.
21. Even though in  Harinagar  (supra) the decision was
administrative,   this   Court   insisted   on   the
requirement   of   recording   reason   and   further   held
that   in   exercising   appellate   powers,   the   Central
Government   acted   as   a   tribunal   in   exercising
judicial powers of the State and such exercise is
subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court.
Such powers, this Court held, cannot be effectively
exercised if reasons are not given by the Central
Government in support of the order (Para 23, page
1678-79).
22. Again in the case of Bhagat Raja vs. Union of India
and others, AIR 1967 SC 1606, the Constitution Bench
of   this   Court   examined   the   question   whether   the
Central   Government   was   bound   to   pass   a   speaking
order while dismissing a revision and confirming the
order   of   the   State   Government   in   the   context   of
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
1957, and having regard to the provision of Rule 55
of Mineral and Concessions Rules. The Constitution
9Bench held that in exercising its power of revision
under the aforesaid Rule the Central Government acts
in a quasi-judicial capacity (See para 8 page 1610).
Where the State Government gives a number of reasons
some of which are good and some are not, and the
Central Government merely endorses the order of the
State Government without specifying any reason, this
Court,   exercising   its   jurisdiction   under   Article
136, may find it difficult to ascertain which are
the grounds on which Central Government upheld the
order   of   the   State   Government   (See   para   9   page
1610).   Therefore,   this   Court   insisted   on   reasons
being given for the order.
23. In  M/s. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar  vs.  State of
U.P and others, AIR 1970 SC 1302, while dealing with
U.P.   Sugar   Dealers   License   Order   under   which   the
license was cancelled, this Court held that such an
order of cancellation is quasi-judicial and must be
a speaking one. This Court further held that merely
giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough and
further pointed out where the order is subject to
appeal,   the   necessity   to   record   reason   is   even
greater. The learned Judges held that the recording
10of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed
claim ensures that the decision is not a result of
caprice,   whim   or   fancy   but   was   arrived   at   after
considering the relevant law and that the decision
was just. (See para 7 page 1304).
24. In the case of M/s. Travancore Rayons Ltd.  vs. The
Union   of   India   and   others,   AIR   1971   SC   862,   the
Court, dealing with the revisional jurisdiction of
the Central Government under the then Section 36 of
the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, held that the
Central Government was actually exercising judicial
power of the State and in exercising judicial power
reasons in support of the order must be disclosed on
two grounds. The first is that the person aggrieved
gets an opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons
are erroneous and secondly, the obligation to record
reasons   operates   as   a   deterrent   against   possible
arbitrary action by the executive authority invested
with the judicial power (See para 11 page 865-866).
25. In  M/s. Woolcombers of India Ltd.  vs.  Woolcombers
Workers Union and another, AIR 1973 SC 2758, this
Court while considering an award under Section 11 of
11Industrial   Disputes   Act   insisted   on   the   need   of
giving   reasons   in   support   of   conclusions   in   the
Award. The Court held that the very requirement of
giving   reason   is   to   prevent   unfairness   or
arbitrariness   in   reaching   conclusions.   The   second
principle is based on the jurisprudential doctrine
that justice should not only be done, it should also
appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said
that   a   just   but   unreasoned   conclusion   does   not
appear   to   be   just   to   those   who   read   the   same.
Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will
also   have   the   appearance   of   justice.   The   third
ground is that such awards are subject to Article
136 jurisdiction of this Court and in the absence of
reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain
whether the decision is right or wrong (See para 5
page 2761).
26. In  Union of India  vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others,
AIR 1974 SC 87, this Court while dealing with the
question   of   selection   under   Indian   Administrative
Service/Indian   Police   Service   (Appointment   by
Promotion   Regulation)   held   that   the   expression
“reasons for the proposed supersession” should not
12be   mere   rubber   stamp   reasons.   Such   reasons   must
disclose how mind was applied to the subject matter
for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a
decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial.
This   Court   held   that   the   reasons   in   such   context
would   mean   the   link   between   materials   which   are
considered   and   the   conclusions   which   are   reached.
Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two
(See para 28 page 98).
27. In  Siemens   Engineering   and   Manufacturing   Co.   of
India Ltd. vs.  The Union of India and another, AIR
1976 SC 1785, this Court held that it is far too
well settled that an authority in making an order in
exercise of its quasi-judicial function, must record
reasons   in   support   of   the   order   it   makes.   The
learned Judges emphatically said that every quasi-
judicial   order   must   be   supported   by   reasons.   The
rule   requiring   reasons   in   support   of   a   quasi-
judicial   order   is,   this   Court   held,   as   basic   as
following the principles of natural justice. And the
rule must be observed in its proper spirit. A mere
pretence   of   compliance   would   not   satisfy   the
requirement of law (See para 6 page 1789).   
1328. In  Smt. Maneka Gandhi  vs. Union of India and Anr.,
AIR   1978   SC   597,   which   is   a   decision   of   great
jurisprudence   significance   in   our   Constitutional
law,   Chief   Justice   Beg,   in   a   concurring   but
different opinion held that an order impounding a
passport is a quasi-judicial decision (Para 34, page
612).  The learned Chief Justice also held when an
administrative action involving any deprivation of
or restriction on fundamental rights is taken, the
authorities must see that justice is not only done
but   manifestly   appears   to   be   done   as   well.   This
principle   would   obviously   demand   disclosure   of
reasons for the decision.
29. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud (as His Lordship then was)
in   a   concurring   but   a   separate   opinion   also   held
that refusal to disclose reasons for impounding a
passport is an exercise of an exceptional nature and
is to be done very sparingly and only when it is
fully   justified   by   the   exigencies   of   an   uncommon
situation.
1430. The   learned   Judge   further   held   that   law   cannot
permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep
the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing
so   is   to   keep   the   reasons   away   from   judicial
scrutiny. (See para 39 page 613).
31. In  Rama   Varma   Bharathan   Thampuran  vs.  State   of
Kerala   and   Ors.,   AIR   1979   SC   1918,   Justice   V.R.
Krishna Iyer speaking for a three-Judge Bench held
that the functioning of the Board was quasi-judicial
in   character.   One   of   the   attributes   of   quasi-
judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in
support of decisions taken and the other requirement
is   following   the   principles   of   natural   justice.
Learned   Judge   held   that   natural   justice   requires
reasons to be written for the conclusions made (See
para 14 page 1922).
32. In Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,
(1979) 2 SCC 368, this Court, dealing with a service
matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor (supra), held
that   “rubber-stamp   reason”   is   not   enough   and
virtually quoted the observation in  Capoor  (supra)
to the extent that reasons “are the links between
15the materials on which certain conclusions are based
and the actual conclusions.” (See para 18 page 377).
33. In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc.  vs.  The
Commissioner,   Hindu   Religious   and   Charitable
Endowments   Dept.   and   Ors.,   AIR   1980   SC   1,   while
giving   the   majority   judgment     Chief   Justice   Y.V.
Chandrachud referred to Broom’s Legal Maxims (1939
Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs
as follows:
“Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex”
34. The English version of the said principle given by
the Chief Justice is that:
“Reason is the soul of the law, and when the
reason of any particular law ceases, so does
the law itself.” (See para 29 page 11)
35. In M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of
India and Others, AIR 1984 SC 160, this Court held
that   while   disposing   of   applications   under
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act the
duty of the Government is to give reasons for its
order.  This court made it very clear that the faith
16of   the   people   in   administrative   tribunals   can   be
sustained   only   if   the   tribunals   act   fairly   and
dispose   of   the   matters   before   them   by   well
considered orders. In saying so, this Court relied
on   its   previous   decisions   in  Capoor  (supra)   and
Siemens Engineering (supra), discussed above.
36. In  Ram Chander  vs.  Union of India and others, AIR
1986   SC   1173,   this   Court   was   dealing   with   the
appellate   provisions   under   the   Railway   Servants
(Discipline   and   Appeal)   Rules,   1968   condemned   the
mechanical way of dismissal of appeal in the context
of requirement of Rule 22(2) of the aforesaid Rule.
This Court held that the word “consider” occurring
to the Rule 22(2) must mean the Railway Board shall
duly   apply   its   mind   and   give   reasons   for   its
decision. The learned Judges held that the duty to
give reason is an incident of the judicial process
and   emphasized   that   in   discharging   quasi-judicial
functions   the   appellate   authority   must   act   in
accordance with natural justice and give reasons for
its decision (Para 4, page 1176). 
1737. In  M/s.   Star   Enterprises   and   others  vs.  City   and
Industrial   Development   Corporation   of   Maharashtra
Ltd.   and   others,   (1990)   3   SCC   280,   a   three-Judge
Bench of this Court held that in the present day set
up   judicial   review   of   administrative   action   has
become expansive and is becoming wider day by day
and the State has to justify its action in various
field   of   public   law.     All   these   necessitate
recording of reason for executive actions including
the rejection of the highest offer. This Court held
that   disclosure   of   reasons   in   matters   of   such
rejection provides an opportunity for an objective
review both by superior administrative heads and for
judicial process and opined that such reasons should
be   communicated   unless   there   are   specific
justification for not doing so (see Para 10, page
284-285).
38. In  Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary   Education  vs.  K.S.   Gandhi   and   others,
(1991)   2   SCC   716,   this   Court   held   that   even   in
domestic   enquiry   if   the   facts   are   not   in   dispute
non-recording of reason may not be violative of the
principles of natural justice but where facts are
18disputed   necessarily   the   authority   or   the   enquiry
officer,   on   consideration   of   the   materials   on
record,   should   record   reasons   in   support   of   the
conclusion reached (see para 22, pages 738-739)
39. In the case of  M.L. Jaggi  vs.  Mahanagar Telephones
Nigam   Limited   and   others,   (1996)   3   SCC   119,   this
Court dealt with an award under Section 7 of the
Telegraph   Act   and   held   that   since   the   said   award
affects public interest, reasons must be recorded in
the award. It was also held that such reasons are to
be recorded so that it enables the High Court to
exercise   its   power   of   judicial   review   on   the
validity of the award. (see para 8, page 123).
40. In  Charan   Singh  vs.  Healing   Touch   Hospital   and
others,   AIR   2000   SC   3138,   a   three-Judge   Bench   of
this Court, dealing with a grievance under CP Act,
held   that   the   authorities   under   the   Act   exercise
quasi-judicial   powers   for   redressal   of   consumer
disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such
a   body   should   arrive   at   conclusions   based   on
reasons. This Court held that the said Act, being
one   of   the   benevolent   pieces   of   legislation,   is
19intended to protect a large body of consumers from
exploitation   as   the   said   Act   provides   for   an
alternative mode for consumer justice by the process
of a summary trial.  The powers which are exercised
are definitely quasi-judicial in nature and in such
a situation the conclusions must be based on reasons
and held that requirement of recording reasons is
“too   obvious   to   be   reiterated   and   needs   no
emphasizing”. (See Para 11, page 3141 of the report)
41. Only in cases of Court Martial, this Court struck a
different   note   in   two   of   its   Constitution   Bench
decisions, the first of which was rendered in the
case   of  Som   Datt   Datta  vs.  Union   of   India   and
others,   AIR   1969   SC   414,   Mr.   Justice   Ramaswami
delivering   the   judgment   for   the   unanimous
Constitution Bench held that provisions of Sections
164 and 165 of the Army Act do not require an order
confirming   proceedings   of   Court   Martial   to   be
supported by reasons.  The Court held that an order
confirming such proceedings does not become illegal
if it does not record reasons. (Para 10, page 421-
422 of the report).
2042. About   two   decades   thereafter,   a   similar   question
cropped up before this Court in the case of  S.N.
Mukherjee  vs.  Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984. A
unanimous   Constitution   Bench   speaking   through
Justice S.C. Agrawal confirmed its earlier decision
in Som Datt (supra) in para 47 at page 2000 of the
report   and   held   reasons   are   not   required   to   be
recorded   for   an   order   confirming   the   finding   and
sentence recorded by the Court Martial. 
43. It must be remembered in this connection that the
Court   Martial   as   a   proceeding   is  sui   generis  in
nature and the Court of Court Martial is different,
being called a Court of Honour and the proceeding
therein   are   slightly   different   from   other
proceedings.  About the nature of Court Martial and
its   proceedings   the   observations   of   Winthrop   in
Military Law and Precedents  are very pertinent and
are extracted herein below:
“Not belonging to the judicial branch of the
Government,   it   follows   that   courts-martial
must pertain to the executive department; and
they are in fact simply instrumentalities of
the executive power, provided by Congress for
the   President   as   Commander-in-Chief,   to   aid
him in properly commanding the Army and Navy
and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized
under his orders or those of his authorized
military representatives.”
2144. Our   Constitution   also   deals   with   Court   Martial
proceedings   differently   as   is   clear   from   Articles
33, 136(2) and 227(4) of the Constitution.
45. In England there was no common law duty of recording
of   reasons.     In  Marta   Stefan  vs.  General   Medical
Council, (1999) 1 WLR 1293, it has been held, “the
established position of the common law is that there
is no general duty imposed on our decision makers to
record reasons”.   It has been acknowledged in the
Justice Report, Administration Under Law (1971) at
page   23   that   “No   single   factor   has   inhibited   the
development   of   English   administrative   law   as
seriously as the absence of any general obligation
upon public authorities to give reasons for their
decisions”.
46. Even then in the case of R vs. Civil Service Appeal
Board, ex parte Cunningham reported in (1991) 4 All
ER 310, Lord Donaldson, Master of Rolls, opined very
strongly   in   favour   of   disclosing   of   reasons   in   a
case where the Court is acting in its discretion.
The learned Master of Rolls said:
22“..It   is   a   corollary   of   the   discretion
conferred upon the board that it is their duty
to set out their reasoning in sufficient form
to   show   the   principles   on   which   they   have
proceeded.     Adopting   Lord   Lane   CJ’s
observations   (in   R   vs.   Immigration   Appeal
Tribunal, ex p Khan (Mahmud) [1983] 2 All ER
420   at   423,   (1983)   QB   790   at   794-795),   the
reasons for the lower amount is not obvious.
Mr.   Cunningham   is   entitled   to   know,   either
expressly or inferentially stated, what it was
to which the board were addressing their mind
in arriving at their conclusion.   It must be
obvious to the board that Mr. Cunningham is
left with a burning sense of grievance.  They
should   be   sensitive   to   the   fact   that   he   is
left with a real feeling of injustice, that
having   been   found   to   have   been   unfairly
dismissed, he has been deprived of his just
desserts (as he sees them)”.
47. The   learned   Master   of   Rolls   further   clarified   by
saying:
“..thus, in the particular circumstances
of this case, and without wishing to establish
any   precedent   whatsoever,   I   am   prepared   to
spell out an obligation on this board to give
succinct reasons, if only to put the mind of
Mr.   Cunningham   at   rest.   I   would   therefore
allow this application.”
48. But, however, the present trend of the law has been
towards   an   increasing   recognition   of   the   duty   of
Court   to   give   reasons   (See  North   Range   Shipping
Limited vs. Seatrans Shipping Corporation, (2002) 1
WLR 2397).  It has been acknowledged that this trend
is consistent with the development towards openness
in Government and judicial administration. 
2349. In  English  vs.  Emery Reimbold and Strick Limited,
(2002) 1 WLR 2409, it has been held that justice
will   not   be   done   if   it   is   not   apparent   to   the
parties why one has won and the other has lost.  The
House of Lords in Cullen vs. Chief Constable of the
Royal Ulster Constabulary, (2003) 1 WLR 1763, Lord
Bingham   of   Cornhill   and   Lord   Steyn,   on   the
requirement of reason held, “First, they impose a
discipline … which may contribute to such decisions
being   considered   with   care.     Secondly,   reasons
encourage   transparency   …   Thirdly,   they   assist   the
Courts in performing their supervisory function if
judicial review proceedings are launched.” (Para 7,
page 1769 of the report)
50. The position in the United States has been indicated
by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) in paragraph
11 at page 1988 of the judgment. This Court held
that   in   the   United   States   the   Courts   have   always
insisted   on   the   recording   of   reasons   by
administrative   authorities   in   exercise   of   their
powers. It was further held that such recording of
reasons is required as “the Court cannot exercise
their duty of review unless they are advised of the
24considerations underlying the action under review”.
In  S.N. Mukherjee  (supra) this court relied on the
decisions   of   the   U.S.   Court   in  Securities   and
Exchange Commission  vs.  Chenery Corporation, (1942)
87   Law   Ed   626   and  John   T.   Dunlop  vs.  Walter
Bachowski,  (1975) 44 Law Ed 377 in support of its
opinion discussed above.
51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
a. In   India   the   judicial   trend   has   always   been   to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions,
if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence   on   recording   of   reasons   is   meant   to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice
must not only be done it must also appear to be
done as well.
d. Recording   of   reasons   also   operates   as   a   valid
restraint   on   any   possible   arbitrary   exercise   of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
25e. Reasons   reassure   that   discretion   has   been
exercised   by   the   decision   maker   on   relevant
grounds   and   by   disregarding   extraneous
considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component   of   a   decision   making   process   as
observing   principles   of   natural   justice   by
judicial,   quasi-judicial   and   even   by
administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review
by superior Courts.
h. The   ongoing   judicial   trend   in   all   countries
committed   to   rule   of   law   and   constitutional
governance   is   in   favour   of   reasoned   decisions
based   on   relevant   facts.   This   is   virtually   the
life blood of judicial decision making justifying
the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial   or   even   quasi-judicial   opinions   these
days   can   be   as   different   as   the   judges   and
authorities who deliver them. All these decisions
serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate
by   reason   that   the   relevant   factors   have   been
objectively   considered.   This   is   important   for
26sustaining   the   litigants’   faith   in   the   justice
delivery system. 
j. Insistence   on   reason   is   a   requirement   for   both
judicial accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid   enough   about   his/her   decision   making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person   deciding   is   faithful   to   the   doctrine   of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons   in   support   of   decisions   must   be   cogent,
clear   and   succinct.   A   pretence   of   reasons   or
‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a
valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only makes the
judges   and   decision   makers   less   prone   to   errors
but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor
(1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from   the   broad   doctrine   of   fairness   in   decision
making,   the   said   requirement   is   now   virtually   a
component of human rights and was considered part
27of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.   See (1994) 19 EHRR
553,   at   562   para   29   and  Anya  vs.  University   of
Oxford,   2001   EWCA   Civ   405,   wherein   the   Court
referred   to   Article   6   of   European   Convention   of
Human   Rights   which   requires,   “adequate   and
intelligent   reasons   must   be   given   for   judicial
decisions”.
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital   role   in   setting   up   precedents   for   the
future.     Therefore,   for   development   of   law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is
of   the   essence   and   is   virtually   a   part   of   “Due
Process”. 
52. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order of
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
and remand the matter to the said forum for deciding
the matter by passing a reasoned order in the light
of the observations made above. Since some time has
elapsed, this Court requests the forum to decide the
matter   as   early   as   possible,   preferably   within   a
period of six weeks from the date of service of this
order upon it.
2853. In   so   far   as   the   appeal   filed   by   the   Bank   is
concerned,   this   Court   finds   that   the   National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order
dated 4th  April 2008 has given some reasons in its
finding. The reasons, inter alia, are as under:
“We   have   gone   through   the   orders   of   the
District   Forum   and   the   State   Commission,
perused   the   record   placed   before   us   and
heard   the   parties   at   length.   The   State
Commission has rightly confirmed the order
of the District Forum after coming to the
conclusion   that   the   Petitioner   and   the
Builder   –   Respondents   No.3   and   4   have
colluded   with   each   other   and   hence,
directed them to compensate the complainant
for the harassment caused to them.”
54. From the order of the State Commission dated 26.7.07
in connection with the appeal filed by the Bank, we
do   not   find   that   the   State   Commission   has
independently   considered   Bank’s   appeal.   The   State
Commission   dismissed   the   Bank’s   appeal   for   the
reasons   given   in   its   order   dated   6.7.07   in
connection with the appeal of the builders.
55. This Court is of the view that since the Bank has
filed a separate appeal, it has a right to be heard
independently in support of its appeal. That right
has   been   denied   by   the   State   Commission.   In   that
view   of   the   matter,   this   Court   quashes   the   order
29dated 26.7.07 passed by the State Commission as also
the order of the National Commission dated 4th April
2008   which   has   affirmed   the   order   of   the   State
Commission.
56. This case is remanded to the State Commission for
hearing on merits as early as possible, preferably
within   a   period   of   six   weeks   from   the   date   of
service of this order to the State Commission.
57. It is expected that the State Commission will hear
out   the   matter   independently   and   give   adequate
reasons   for   its   conclusions.   We,   however,   do   not
make any observations on the merits of the case.
58. Both   these   appeals   are   allowed.     No   order   as   to
costs.
.....................J.
(G.S. SINGHVI)
.....................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
30New Delhi 
September 08, 2010
31

 

source - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp