Haneef and Ors. vs State of U.P.

A. Mateen, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate.

I have gone through the judgment of the Court below and evidence led by the prosecution during the course of trial.

It is case where the deceasedArmana died after receiving burn injuries. Accusedappellant No. 1 is said to be the husband of the deceased, who while saving his wife received 18% burn injuries.

Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that this aspect that the appellant has also received burn injuries was not dealt with by the Court below to prove the accusedappellant innocence and his complicity with respect to the commission of crime under the aforesaid offence for which he has been convicted. He further submits that the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and had not misused the liberty of bail so granted to him.

I have also gone through the statement of Dr. S.K. Hasan, who had medically checked up the appellant and stated that the appellant had received burn injuries upon his body.

Looking to the totality of the circumstances, I hereby direct that appellant Haneef convict of Sessions Trial No. 495 of 2003 under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act of P.S. Gosaiganj, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below. The realization of half of the fine is stayed and the remaining half of the fine be deposited by the above named appellant within one month from the date of his release on bail.