Ram Saran vs State of U.P

Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.

Since both appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, they are being taken up together for the purpose of consideration of bail.

These appeals have been preferred by appellants, namely, Ram Saran, Manna Devi and Jiledar against Judgment and order dated 16.09.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, EC Act Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2005 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 498-A & 302/34 IPC and sentenced for a maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation. We have gone through the judgment of the court below, lower court record as well as the FIR.

The incident is said to have taken place in the night of 4/5th November, 2003 FIR of which was registered after the orders passed on the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant-father of the deceased. In the evidence it comes out that the deceased Dandana Devi has been done to death by the accused persons for the lust of dowry. Post mortem report of the deceased reveals that she has died due to asphyxia and the injuries received on her person. She had received two injuries; one in the shape of abrasion on the right side of chin (2.0 cm x 2.0 cm); and other in the shape of contusion on the left side of neck (5.0 cm x 1.0 cm).

Argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants is that the deceased Dandana Devi was married to Jiledar who was living separately. This plea was taken not only in the statements of accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but also in the statements of defence witness i.e. DW-1 & DW-2.

Although the case of separate living has not been accepted by the court below for the reason that nowhere it has been indicated either in the statements of accused persons or in the statements of defence witnesses as to where the convict-appellant Ram Saran and Manna Devi, who happens to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, were living and what was the house number. As per statements recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. Ram Saran is aged about 70 years and Smt. Manna Devi is aged about 65 years. Appellant Jiledar is husband of the deceased. It has also come in the prosecution story that when the complainant reached at the house of her daughter Dandana Devi he did not find any of the accused persons in the house. This goes to show their conduct, but nevertheless seeing the age of Ram Saran, who is aged about 70 years and Manna Devi, who is aged about 65 years, we hereby, on the ground of age only, come to the conclusion that they may be released on bail.

It has further been submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. It has also been submitted that the appeal will take considerable long time for reaching on its logical conclusion.

Taking into consideration the overall aspects of the matter and without commenting any further on merits of the case, we find it a fit case for bail.

Let appellants Ram Saran & Manna Devi, convicts of aforesaid session trial, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.

Realisation of half of the fine is stayed and remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of their release on bail.

The court below is directed to transmit to this Court forthwith photocopies of bond and sureties filed by appellants to be preserved in the record maintained here.

So far as prayer for bail of appellant-Jiledar is concerned, the same is hereby rejected.