Chandra Pal and Others vs State of U.P.

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned AGA and have taken through the record.

Admit,

Summon the lower court''s record.

The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 15.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1 Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2010 under Sections 306 IPC whereby the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- against each. The Appellants were further convicted and sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- against each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the marriage of Nirmnala Devi, the complainant''s sister was performed with the Appellant No. 1 ten months before the incident. The Appellants who are husband, brother in law and father in law were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and had done to death to the sister of the complainant by strangulation.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the Appellants u/s 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, the Appellants were acquitted of the aforesaid charges. There was no demand of dowry on the part of the Appellants. There is no evidence of abetment on the part of the Appellants. The post mortem report does not support the prosecution version. There is great inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses. The victim had committed suicide in a mysterious circumstances. The trial court had dealt with in detail the evidence led by the parties whereby the Appellants were acquitted of the charges u/s 304B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Appellants were on bail during trial.

Per contra learned AGA opposed the bail prayer of the Appellants and contended that the Appellants had committed murder of the victim by strangulation on account of not fetching the desired dowry. The minor aberration in the prosecution version will not belie the entire prosecution case. The incident was narrated in the natural manner. There is no embellishment in the prosecution story. The victim was having foetus of seven months and was done to death in very gruesome and inhuman manner by strangulation.

Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Appellants.

Let the Appellants Chandra Pal, Dharm Pal and Dhakan Lal convicted and sentenced vide order dated 15.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1 Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2010 under Sections 306 and 498A IPC be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concern.