Prem Chandra Yadav vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is the first bail application moved on behalf of applicant Prem Chandra Yadav, son of Samai Lal in Case Crime No. 74/2006, under Sections 304B, 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act, Police Station Mau Aima, district Allahabad.

Briefly the prosecution case according to the F.I.R. is that Smt. Sanju, daughter of Shanker Lal Yadav, informant had been married with Prem Chandra Yadav applicant about two years ago of the alleged occurrence. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but her in-laws were not satisfied and they were demanding more dowry as coloured T.V., Freeze and Rs. 50,000 in cash from her parents and due to non-fulfilment of such demand of dowry, she was subjected to cruelty and due to this reason, she was killed by the accused persons on 29.5.2006. After receiving information, her father reached at the spot where his daughter was found dead. There were several injuries on her body. Only her mother-in-law was present in rest of accused persons. Her husband, father in law and both elder sister in-laws, wives of Satish Chandra and Deep Chand accused had fled away. Her mother in law told that she committed suicide due to hanging in circle iron rod (chula) and the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.5.2006 at 5.15 p.m.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that she had committed suicide in the absence of applicant. She did not want to live in the joint family as the applicant is small businessman who lives in Delhi in the house of his elder brothers and the deceased lives in village Jai Singhpur, Mau Aima, Allahabad alongwith her parents. She wanted to live with the company of her husband being actual married woman and in utter frustration, she committed suicide. It is further contended that parents of the applicant with villagers and relatives had broken down the door and got dead body brought down from ceiling of the roof and had immediately informed parents of the deceased and also lodged the F.I.R. in the concerned police station on 30.5.2006 and on that basis, inquest report was prepared, wherein the father of deceased was made witness of inquest. Post-mortem was conducted later on and false case was concocted by the informant by lodging the F.I.R. on 30.5.2006 at 5.15 p.m. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that when dead body of deceased was brought down, she had fallen down and had received injuries, so far as neck of the deceased was concerned, there is fracture of hyoid bone which can be caused by hanging. It is further contended that the parents and family members of the deceased had come and had asked for giving entire Istri Dhan and cash paid to them. Consequently parents of the applicant returned above articles and they had also pressurized parents of the applicant to get their son married with cousin sister and upon its refusal, the F.I.R. was lodged against parents, elder sister in-laws and applicant. It is further contended that father of the deceased and her three close relatives were present at the time of preparing inquest report. Nothing was disclosed regarding cruelty and demand of dowry to the concerned officer who was preparing inquest report. It is further contended that Investigating Officer had exonerated two accused persons who are nominated in the F.I.R. by filing a final report in their favour on the ground of alibi. He was also in Delhi on the date of alleged occurrence. When information regarding alleged occurrence was received to him in Delhi from applicant''s family members, he alongwith brother Deep Chand was coming to Allahabad by the train by ordinary ticket and because there was no place to sit in general compartment, they entered into reserve compartment and they were checked by T.T.E. and applicant and his brother were fined and penalty was imposed which was deposited by them. It is further contended that only swelling was found in her neck and pimples were found in her body but other injuries as mentioned by the doctor in the post mortem report which are not available at the time of preparing inquest report. In such circumstances, conduct of the applicant''s family was bona fide.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Deceased Smt. Sanju was legally married wife of the present applicant and she died within two years from her marriage at the house of present applicant. According to the post mortem report of the deceased, the following ante-mortem injuries were found on her dead body:

Skull on Rt. side having a big haematoma in plarietu occitrical margin 11 cm. x 12 cm. There is subdural haematoma in the same region as well. Brain getting liquefied.

Abraided contused wound in both the sides of anti.chest wall from midline Rt. Side 16 cm. x 7 cm.: Lt. 12 cm. x 4 cm. about 4 cm. from midline.

Rt. upper limb abraided contused wound on fler aspect of arm + forearm, 32 cm. x 14 cm. Lt. upper limb abraided contused wound on fler aspect 30 cm. x 5 cm. arm + forearm.

Lt. upper limb abraided contused wound on fler aspect 30 cm. x 5 cm. arm + forearm. Multiple abraided contused injuries present on ant. part of neck superficial to muscle deep 1 cm. x 2 cm. There is fracture of hyoid bone as well.

Abraided contused wound just in thoraces lumber region in right back 12 cm. x 24 cm. x skin deep.

Cause of death has been opined by the doctor as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Strangulation comes within the purview of homicide and not suicide. The above injuries reveal that firstly she was beaten, consequently she died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation, although homicide and suicide are unnatural death and unnatural death is sufficient for the purpose of offence of dowry death. Therefore, she died within two years of her marriage due to unnatural death. There was demand of dowry of one coloured T. V., Freeze and Rs. 50,000 in cash. It was complained by her to her parents and such demand could not be fulfilled, consequently she was killed at the house of her husband. Husband is custodian of his wife. In case of homicide at the house of her husband, he is responsible for such death of his wife. So far as the contention of the suicide is concerned, no any rope or piece of cloth was recovered at the place of occurrence by which she was allegedly committed suicide. Ante-mortem injuries do not corroborate version of the suicide. Doors of the alleged room was not found in broken condition according to the site plan. This shows that story has been concocted of suicide breaking the door where she was found and giving information to the police station regarding suicide is for only saving accused persons. It is also worthwhile to mention here that ante-mortem injuries could not be received by falling down dead body of the deceased brought down from the roof of the room. It is worthwhile to mention here that the informant in this case firstly had tried to get returned the articles which were given in her marriage and the same were received back and he also became witnesses of inquest which was prepared on 30.5.2006. Thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant also, therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was got registered on legal advice or afterthought. It does not mean that participation of the present applicant and others has become falsified.

So far as the contention of alibi of the present applicant is concerned regarding residing in Delhi with his elder brothers. It has been argued that he was present in Delhi at the time of alleged occurrence and had come with his brother through the train by giving punishment in reservation compartment. This alibi cannot be considered at this stage. It can be looked at the stage of trial.

Therefore, the deceased had died due to unnatural death as homicide within seven years of her marriage due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Being husband, he is responsible for unnatural death, therefore, prima facie case of dowry death has been made out. There is no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the applicant and decision in case of Hasnu and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1995 ACC, is not applicable due to different facts as evidence of cruelty with demand of dowry was only given by father of the deceased.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected.