Ali Waris vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is the first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, Ali Waris son of Suleman in Case Crime No. 966 of 2006 under Sections 304B and 498A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act police station Bachraun district J.P. Nagar.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the deceased Kulsum had no issue and she was living in depression. She caught fire while she was cooking food. The elder brother of the husband of the deceased had tried to save her but he was not succeeded in his attempt and he has himself sustained burn injuries in the alleged incident. It is further contended that she was admitted in upgraded primary health centre Dhanaura by her jeth (Aslam) on 24.10.2006 at 1.30 p.m. which is enough to show innocence of the accused persons. It is further contended that the husband of the deceased himself had informed to the father of the deceased and they were present at the primary health centre Dhanaura. They were also present at Moradabad hospital. It is contended that the father of the deceased had demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac after the death of deceased and when he expressed his inability to do so, this false and fabricated F.I.R. was registered only to harras and humiliate the applicant and his family members. It is further contended that there is no dying declaration of the deceased. It is further contended that no any demand was made at the time of marriage and after the marriage. However, a false case has been concocted against the accused persons due to non-fulfilment of the illegal demand of Rs. 1 lac.

On the other hand, it is submitted that this is a case of dowry death and supported by the post-mortem report of the deceased. There is no dispute that the marriage (nikah) was solemnized about three years ago in between the applicant and Kulsum (deceased). She died due to 90 per cent burn injury at the house of the applicant who is the husband and custodian of the deceased on 23/24.10.2006. It is immaterial whether she committed suicide or was killed by the applicant by setting her on fire. Therefore, it is liable to be deemed that she has died unnatural death due to burn injuries within 7 years of her marriage at the house of her husband.

It has been specifically mentioned in the first information report as well as statement of the prosecution witnesses that sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but the applicant was not satisfied with the dowry therefore, she was beaten several times by her husband and she was also turned down from the house. She made complaints, in this regard, several times to her parents but she was sent to her in-laws'' house after pacifying the matter. There was demand of dowry of one buffalo, a colour T.V. and a refrigerator alongwith a sum of Rs. 50,000 in cash. Persistent demand could not be fulfilled by the parents of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty due to non fulfilment of the demand. It is important to note here that she got burn injuries in mid-night on 23-24.10.06 but she was got admitted by her jeth on 24.10.2006 at 1.30 p.m. for her treatment. According to the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that she got burn injuries on 23.10.2006 at 8.00 p.m. while she was cooking food. However, she was taken to the hospital by her jeth after 17 hours. No any sufficient reason had been given for this inordinate delay. This shows an unnatural conduct of the applicant who is the husband of the deceased. It is also worthwhile to mention here that no any utensil was taken in custody by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence which can support the contention of the applicant in respect of cooking food. It is also worthwhile to mention here that jeth of the deceased received burn injuries and she was got admitted by him on 24.10.2006. His burn injury was also noted on the same day, i.e., 24.10.2006. He was medically examined on 26.10.2006 at 4.00 p.m. The duration of injuries has been shown after two days. It is also worthwhile to mention here that husband of the deceased, applicant should have present at his house in the night of incident. He did not come forward to save her life. In such circumstances, he should have also received burn injuries. It is also important to note here that the applicant has also not discharged his duties in not giving information to the parents of the deceased or police station regarding her death. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant was also unnatural. The first information report was also lodged on same day against the applicant on that basis the inquest report was prepared. Superficial deep burn injury was found all over the body. Cause of death has been shown due to ante-mortem burn injuries. In such circumstances, it is liable to be deemed that first information report was lodged promptly against the present applicant and she died due to burn injuries at the house of the applicant who is the husband and custodian of the deceased and he has not discharged his duty properly. There was persistent demand of dowry and same could not be fulfilled, hence soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty. She died within 7 years of her marriage as unnatural death.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the applicant has no force and the bail application of the present applicant is not liable to be allowed. Consequently, bail of the present applicant is hereby rejected.