Sandeep Sharma (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected in absence of learned Counsel for the applicant.

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Sandeep Sharma, son of Ramesh Chandra Sharma in case crime No. 498/2005, under sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Naubasta, district Kanpur Nagar.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and Sri Prabodh Gaur, learned Counsel for the complainant as well as persued the material on record.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that no specific role of demand of dowry has been shown in the F.I.R. and it has not specified as to what was exactly demanded. It has also not been mentioned in the F.I.R. that there is any allegation of any evidence to the fact that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and tortured in pursuance of the demand of It is further contended that the first informant himself is coming forward with the theory of suicide as shown in the post mortem report also. It is further contended that immediately information was given to the first informant and his family upon the happening of the aforesaid incident as per prosecution case. It is further contended that no demand of dowry was made from the deceased. She was temperamental lady being the only child of her parents and even before her marriage she was extremely pampered and spoilt and used to make unreasonable demand. After her marriage, she has been pastering her husband (applicant ) to live separately from the rest of the family and to live with her parents and to set up business separately from the rest of the family. It is further contended that the applicant has an elder brother namely Sanjay who mentally retarded, therefore, the sole bread winner of the family is the applicant Sandeep who manages the shop which has been set up by co-accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma. This arrangement of the family was opposed by the deceased and she used to throw unnecessary tantrums and used to persistently stick to her demand of establishing a separate living away from the joint family. It is further contended that her temperamental nature was the cause of the friction within the family and allegation of demand of dowry etc. are totally false and have just been set up to falsely implicate the applicant and the other family members. It is a case of fit of emotion. She has taken this extreme step of ending her life as her persistent demands were strongly opposed by the rest of the family members and she was feeling helpless in the situation. It is further contended that co-accused Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Smt. Shobha Sharma against whom there are similar allegations, have already been enlarged on Bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that sufficient evidence are available on record against the applicant for committing offence of dowry death. The marriage in between the applicant Sandeep Sharma and deceased Sharda Devi was solemnized on 15.11.2002 and she died at the house of applicant on 22.12.05 in the night. The cause of death of deceased has been shown in the post mortem report as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. It also comes within the purview of unnatural death in dowry death case. It is not certain whether she committed suicide or she was killed. Both conditions come within the purview of unnatural death. Therefore, she died of unnatural death at the house of present applicant, husband and custodian of deceased within seven years of her marriage.

After perusal of record, it appears that she was subjected to V cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry just before her death. Consequently, she died at the house of applicant by way of burn injuries, which is also deemed as unnatural death.

Although information was given by the applicant regarding death of deceased to her parents. This shows that he gave information to her parents only for saving his life to be involved in the criminal case. No sufficient explanation has been given on behalf of applicant as to under what circumstances she committed suicide. It is also worthwhile to mention here that this incident had allegedly taken place in the night at his house. Therefore, his presence is liable to be deemed at the time of alleged occurrence but he did not try to save the deceased otherwise he should have been received injuries in the alleged occurrence. It is also worthwhile to mention here that none of family member of the applicant sustained injuries in saving the deceased. Therefore, this conduct of applicant is also against him, which is liable to be deemed as unnatural.

No any documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of applicant regarding any disease prior to alleged occurrence. The prosecution version is supported with the post mortem report of the deceased. There is no evidence on record on behalf of applicant that he made any complaint to the parents of the deceased that she wanted to live separately with the applicant from his joint family. Therefore, this contention of separate living has also no force. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, there is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.

In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant. Therefore, his bail application is not liable to be allowed.

Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected.