Lalit vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Lalit with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1704 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 and 34, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekhra, district Baghpat.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Anil Kaushik at Police Station Khekhra on 22.8.2005 at 11.55 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 22.8.2005 at unknown time. The distance of the Police Station was 1/2 kl. mt. from the alleged place of the occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Seema was solemnized with the applicant in the beginning of the year 1999. The first informant has borne expenses of the marriage as about Rs. 3,50,000 but in-laws of the deceased were not happy. They were demanding some more dowry. Its information was given to the first informant and other family members about one year of the alleged occurrence. The deceased has given a telephonic call that she may not be saved because her inlaws were harassing her, then the first informant alongwith his maternal uncle went to the sasural of the deceased but they were not permitted to meet the deceased. They were saying to pay Rs. 2,00,000, thereafter they shall be permitted to meet the deceased. It was told that they were not having any relations with the first informant and others. The first informant has paid some amount in cash in so many occasions and on the day of Rakshabandahan, i.e. on 19.8.2005, the applicant brought the deceased to the house of the first informant and again made a demand to pay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000 and he was compelling to pay such an amount, then the first informant paid Rs. 60,000 to the applicant. On 22.8.2005, Mausa of the first informant gave a telephonic message to the first informant that the deceased has been murdered by her in-laws by way of putting her on fire. On that information, the first informant came to the house of the deceased and saw her dead body inside the house in a burnt condition. The tongue of the deceased was protruded out. The deceased has been murdered by her in-laws due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and the smell of the kerosene oil was coming out from the place of the occurrence and the container of the kerosene oil was kept in an almirah in front of the dead body. According to the post-mortem examination report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved but the dead body was having 100% burnt, the body was blackening, the tongue was protruded out between teeth and byrnet. There was no evidence of line of redness of vesication with the clues, base of burnt area was whitish. Hence the burning was post mortem injuries.

Heard Sri Viresh Misra, senior advocate, assisted by S/Sri Vikash Srivastava and Amit Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sikandar Bharat Kochar, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant:

(i) That the marriage of the deceased was not solemnised with the applicant in the beginning of 1999, in fact it was solemnised on 22.1.1998. The deceased medically examined at Indra Nursing Home and Maternity Centre, Shanti Nagar, Loni Road, Ghaziabad, U.P. She was admitted there on 25.11.1998 at 2.30 p.m. and discharged on 26.11.1998 at 4.10 p.m., as evident from the Discharge Card (Annexure-4 of the supplementary-affidavit) ;

(ii) That according to the prosecution version, the deceased had died on 22.8.2005, i.e., after seven years of her marriage, therefore no offence under Sections 304B and 498A, I.P.C. is made out ;

(iii) That according to the post-mortem examination report, no ante-mortem injury was seen, cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore viscera was preserved. According to the viscera report also, no poison was found. The viscera report has been filed as Annexure-S.A. 4 of the supplementary-affidavit) ;

(iv) That according to the F.I.R., the smell of kerosene oil was coming out from the place of the dead body but according to the post-mortem examination report, no smell of kerosene oil etc. was found ;

(v) That Investigating Officer recorded the statement of first informant, his father Hari Krishna, his mother Smt. Shyama Devi, his maternal uncle Surendra Kumar and Vishnu Dutt Sharma. There are material contradictions in their statements. It is further contended that in the present case, initially the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 and 34, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but later on by the order of the learned C.J.M., Baghpat, Section 302, I.P.C. was deleted ;

(vi) That there is no proof to show that any demand of dowry was made by the applicant and the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty to fulfil the demand of dowry ;

(vii) That there are two minor children (sons) namely Kunal aged about 4 years and Sumit aged about 2 years born from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased. There is no one to look after them ;

(viii) That the co-accused having the same allegations, i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased have been released on bail

That in reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the beginning of the year 1999 and the death of the deceased has occurred within seven years of her marriage. The plea of the defence is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 22.1.1998 and the deceased was admitted in Indra Nursing Home and Maternity Centre on 25.11.1998 and discharged on 26.11.1998 and the discharge slip is showing that the name of the applicant was mentioned as husband of the deceased which has been filed as Annexure-4 of the affidavit. The phone No. of the Nursing Home is 0120-03391. In this slip the number of the S.T.D. is mentioned as 012 whereas on 26.11.1998, this S.T.D. Code 0120 was not of Ghaziabad. Till the year 1999, the Ghaziabad had two S.T.D. Code numbers as 011-08 and 0575 which is evident from the telephone diary of year 1999 showing the important S.T.D. Code which has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit it shows that the discharge slip is not genuine document and the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 22.1.1999, there is specific allegations against the applicant in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The deceased had been murdered, thereafter she was set on fire inside the house. The deceased was having 100% burn injuries which was post-mortem injuries, if any person is dead due to natural death such dead body has not been put on fire inside the house. This lone circumstance shows that the death of the deceased was not natural. The dead body of the deceased was having seen 100% burnt and the viscera report, in which no poison was found, will not have been helpful to the accused because it is not a case of alleged poisoning, it is a case in which post-mortem injuries were found and dead body was found inside the house of the applicant. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C. In the said incident, the deceased would have tried to save her life and would have protested so the injuries on the face of the applicant was also caused. The applicant is husband of the deceased, therefore he is not entitled for bail.

Considering the allegations made against the applicant in respect of the demand of dowry, subjecting the deceased to cruelty, the post-mortem report showing the post-mortem burn injuries, other facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.