Burhan vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Burhan s/o Imran in Case Crime No. 85 of 2006, u/s 304B, I.P.C. P.S. Behat, district Saharanpur.

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

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that his first bail application has been rejected in absence of learned Counsel for the applicant. No order has been passed regarding merit of the case.

It is further contended that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased Smt. Shaeena on 19.5.2006 but unfortunate for the applicant that she was suffering from highest depression and imbalance mental situation, because of the fact, she had been borned child of earlier wife of complainant/her father, who subsequently brought her step mother and has borned out 16 children, out of which 10 are female child/girls. In such circumstances, parents of the deceased could not fulfil the demand of dowry as the condition of her parents was also poor having 16 children. False allegation made against him. It is further contended that he had gone to nearest town Behat and was involved in the daily activities, in the field outside the house and Smt. Shaeena because of her mental sickness having found her alone in the house, committed suicide by hanging in the house of the applicant and as soon as nearest neighbours and other villagers saw her dead and then the message was communicated to the applicant and his other family members immediately. Thereafter, a telephonic message was also sent to the parents of the deceased. It is further contended that parents of the deceased was present at the time of preparing inquest report, which was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar Behat Sri Mangeram under the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Behat. No complaint was made regarding the case of dowry death.

It is further contended that she committed suicide. Complainant started blackmailing the accused applicant and his family maliciously, and demanding Rs. 1 lakh with the collusion of police authority, and on being failure on the part of the accused applicant, the informant got lodged the F.I.R. anti-timed, manipulating/making necessary correction/modification over-writing of the case crime number. No case u/s 304B, I.P.C. is made out.

It is further contended that the applicant is agricultural labourer living below poverty line. In such circumstances, he could not demand any dowry from the deceased as well as her parents.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application by submitting that case of dowry death is made out.

According to the F.I.R. and statement of prosecution witnesses, the marriage in between the deceased and present applicant was solemnised according to Muslim Usage on 19.5.2005. She died on 13.4.2006 within 11 months of her marriage. Cause of death has been shown Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. It comes within the purview of unnatural death. Therefore, it appears that the deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage as unnatural death at the house of her husband, who is the applicant. It has been specifically stated in the F.I.R. and statement of the prosecution witnesses that four months ago of the alleged occurrence she was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000 cash and one motorcycle and such demand could not be fulfilled. Therefore, she subjected to cruelty. Consequently, she died as unnatural death at the house of her husband. It is worthwhile to mention here that no any information was given by the present applicant or his family members to the parents of the deceased regarding her death. No any information was also given in the concerned police station regarding her death by present applicant, who was custodian of his wife. Therefore, conduct of the present applicant is also unnatural. It is worthwhile to mention here that it cannot be inferred that poor person cannot demand of dowry and dowry cannot be demanded from poor person. It is more probable that daughter of poor person is harassed due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry as the informant was unable to fulfil such demand dowry. Thereafter, she subjected to cruelty. Consequently, she committed suicide at the house of the applicant. Therefore, offence of dowry death is prima facie case, is made out. It is worthwhile to mention here that there is no documentary evidence on behalf of the applicant on record that the deceased was suffering from any disease before her death. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 13.6.2006 at 3.05 p.m. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant.

Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant is rejected.