Jitendra alias Manoj vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is the first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Jitendra alias Manoj son of late Sri Ramesh Chandra involved in Case Crime No. 311 of 2006, under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, district Aligarh.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. I have also perused the whole records.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased Smt. Mamta was suffering from thyroid problem and having no issue hence she was under depression and in the state of depression, she committed suicide even then the applicant took her to the hospital and information regarding it was sent through his relative to the family members of the deceased and when they reached at Malkhan Singh Hospital, then they saw that the applicant was present at the said hospital and this fact was stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed by Smt. Shaulini Devi wife of Shri Vijai Kumar (wife of first informant). In fact, no such incident had even taken place and there was no demand of dowry and the entire prosecution story is flimsy in nature. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story because cause of death has been shown in the post mortem report due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. However, according to the version of the first information report, six persons have strangulated the deceased and there was no fracture of hyoid bone or any other evidence of violence in the post mortem report. It is further submitted that the cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Naveen Kumar was also living with her at her matrimonial house. It also indicates about the respect and freedom of the deceased at her matrimonial house. In this regard, the ration card (Annexure-5) is on record, which supports the fact of living her cousin brother. It is further submitted that the marriage in question was solemnized without taking any dowry in any shape and nothing was ever demanded as dowry. On the contrary, the deceased was living happily at her matrimonial house. In this regard, large neighbourers had filed their affidavits before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, which are part of the case diary. Out of these affidavits, one affidavit filed by Kailash Chand is on record as Annexure-6.

It is further submitted that the deceased Smt. Mamta was suffering from thyroid and abdomen and, as such, she was medically treated under the surveillance of Kumar Nursing Home, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh in between 6.5.2005 and 16.5.2005. During the course of the aforesaid treatment, some bleeding was started to Smt. Mamta and on 19.5.2005, she was taken to the Shiv Nursing Home and Medical Centre, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, but she could not get any relief. Therefore, on the same day, i.e., 19.5.2005, the applicant took her to Dr. Kusum Saxena, a renowned Gynecologist of Aligarh to which the prescription is available on record. It is further submitted that Smt. Mamta deceased, was not getting relief from her Gynecological problems, as such, the applicant look her to Dr. Smt. Aruna Mittal, based at Ratan Hospital, G.T. Road, Aligarh, where she was medically treated from 22.8.2005 to 8.12.2005. The prescription in this regard is available on record. The above prescription would go to show that Smt. Mamta was suffering from severe thyroid and Gynecological problems and she met with sport abortion and she was not having any issue as a result of which under the state of depression, she committed suicide. She was also taken to the hospital by the applicant-husband and information in this regard was also sent by the applicant through his close relatives to the family members of the deceased whereupon they reached there and dispute arose on the point of returning of the belongings and ornaments. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased lodged the frivolous F.I.R. against applicant.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned A.G.A., has opposed the bail application by submitting that this a case of dowry death within 19 months of her marriage and the F.I.R. was also lodged on the same day.

There is no dispute that the marriage in between the applicant and deceased Smt. Mamta was solemnized on 5.2.2005 and she died on 11.9.2006 as unnatural death. The post mortem report of the deceased reveals that the death of the deceased has been shown due to the asphyxia as a result of hanging. No doubt, hanging always come within the purview of suicide. This is not the case of direct evidence. Therefore, it has been mentioned in the first information report that the accused-applicant and his family members killed the deceased. In dowry death ease, only one thing is important whether the deceased had died due to unnatural death either it may be homicide or suicide. Therefore, both types of death come within the purview of unnatural death for the purpose of offence of the dowry death. In such circumstances, it appears that the deceased had died within 19 months of her marriage as unnatural death. It is worthwhile to mention here that there is specific case of the prosecution that Rs. 1 lac was being demanded from the deceased when she came to her house after the marriage and such demand was being made persistently from her. She used to tell this fact to the first informant and her family members. As such demand could not be fulfilled, the applicant who is the husband of the deceased subjected her to cruelty. On 2.9.2006, the first informant, his elder brother in law Dinesh Kumar and his friend Naveen Kumar Gupta reached at her in-laws house and tried to pacify the matter of such demand of dowry from the applicant also but he did not change his attitude in not demanding the dowry from the deceased. Thereafter, one unknown person reached at the house of her parents and gave the information regarding her death. Therefore, it appears that there was persistent demand of dowry of Rs. 1 lac which could not be fulfilled and, as such, she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death on account of non-fulfilment of such demand of dowry.

It is also important to mention here that the applicant gave no information ; to the concerned police station regarding her unnatural death. The deceased was living at the house of applicant who is husband. He is the custodian of his wife. She died at his house by way of hanging. Therefore, he is also responsible for her unnatural death at his house. It is worthwhile to mention here that the medical prescriptions have been filed by way of supplementary-affidavit. This fact has been denied on behalf of the prosecution by submitting that those medical prescriptions could not be taken in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

It is also worthwhile to mention here that there is no medical prescription after 22.6.2006. The death of deceased had allegedly occurred on 11.9.2006. This also shows that she was not suffering from any disease after 22.6.2006 till her death. Therefore, it is not liable to be deemed at this stage that she committed suicide due to the above reasons. In such circumstances, the contention made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant regarding the disease of the deceased, has no force.

It is worthwhile to mention here that in the copy of the ration-card (Annexure-5) the name of the cousin brother of the deceased has also been mentioned alongwith the names of deceased and her husband. It appears that the name of the cousin brother of the deceased has been included for getting the sugar, kerosene oil, wheat etc. from the fair price shop. In fact, he was residing at his house at the time of the alleged occurrence otherwise he would be sent for giving the information regarding the death of the deceased to the first informant. Thus, an inference be drawn that the cousin brother of the deceased was not residing at the house of the applicant.

This is a case of dowry death within 19 months of her marriage due to unnatural death of demand of dowry of Rs. 1 lac. The first information report was also lodged promptly by the brother of the deceased on the same day of her death. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in any of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, this bail application has no force and is liable to be rejected.

Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.