Karun vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.

The applicant is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2009, under Sections 315 and 506, I.P.C., police station Majhola, district Moradabad.

The allegations in the F.I.R. were that there were illicit relations between the applicant Karun and the informant Shafi Ahmad''s daughter Momina. On 26.12.2008, the applicant deceptively called Momina to his house and gave her an injection because of which a child was immediately born and then Karun strangulated, the baby and threw the dead body near a pond. On 27.12.2008, the dead body was recovered, which was identified to be Momina''s child.

The post-mortem report showed that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling and there was a contusion 8 cm. x 2 cm. in front of both sides of neck. On dissection a blood clot was present under neck skin.

The sheet anchor of the applicant''s contention was that the information of the dead body was given on 26.12.2008 at 2.20 p.m. on the basis of which the inquest was conducted at 5 p.m. in which the informant himself was present. Whereas according to the F.I.R. and statement of the witnesses the incident took place at 7.00 p.m. on 26.12.2008 and, therefore, the inquest which was conducted did not relate to the child at all, but to some other child, who was found strangulated under similar conditions. We are not at all impressed by this argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant.

The complainant and others are illiterate persons, who may be confused about the date and time when the incident took place. It is also apparent from the fact that the F.I.R. mentioned that the child was recovered on 26.12.2008, whereas the inquest was also conducted on 26.12.2008 and the documents and the evidence show that the incident took place one day earlier.

I also find no ground whatsoever why this story has been concocted against the applicant if he had no concern with the matter.

There is also no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the informant has borrowed Rs. 10,000 from the applicant, which he was not returning and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case.

I can also not give too much importance to the facts that the applicant had a wife and four children and placenta was found on the dead body of the child.

An argument has also raised that the F.I.R. was lodged after 18 days. The F.I.R. itself mentions that the informant was ashamed after the incident and after persuasion by the villagers, he gathered courage and lodged the report. Because of the delayed lodging of the F.I.R., there may also have been some confusion about the date of incident.

On these allegations, I think that the case would not only be one u/s 315, I.P.C., but could also fall u/s 302, I.P.C.

In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly rejected.

It is made clear that the detailed reasons mentioned hereinabove have only been given because of the lengthy submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the same should not prejudice the Investigating Officer and the trial Judge from exercising their own minds independently.