Smt. Ram Sumirini vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Ram Sumirini with a prayer that she may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 268 of 2006, under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D. P. Act, P.S. Barra, district Kanpur Nagar.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Shiv Narain Agarwal on 4.9.2006 at about 9.45 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 3.9.2006. The applicant and three other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Vibha Agarwal was solemnized with co-accused Rajesh Agarwal, the son of the applicant on 18.5.2003 but her in-laws were not satisfied with gifts given to them in the marriage and they were demanding Rs. One lac from the deceased, its information was given to the first informant by the deceased, on that information the first informant, his son and his brother-in-law Ram Gopal came to the house of the applicant and they tried their best to persuade the in-laws of the deceased. But thereafter the deceased was subjected to cruelty continuously to fulfill the demand of dowry, then the first informant arranged Rs. 25,000 and the same was given to the co-accused Rajesh Agarwal, but after few days the deceased was subjected to cruelty to give some more dowry. On 3.9.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. somebody gave on telephonic message to the first informant that his daughter had died, on that information the first informant alongwith his wife came to the house of the applicant and saw the deceased has been killed by way of hanging and the nerves of her both wrists were cut down. The dead body of the deceased were lying there. Thereafter first informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had received multiple incised wounds on the both wrists and fore arms in area of 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. The incised wound were superfluous too deep in nature and she had received an oblique ligature mark on the neck. The cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, she is too old lady aged about 73 years and she was living with her daughter Dr. Vibha Agarwal, Associate Professor, IIT, Gauhati, she is widow, she is ailing, being an old and ailing moment she is dependent of her daughter and residing permanently at the residence of her daughter in Gauhati where she was under medical treatment. The applicant is mother of four children who are well educated and well placed persons. The deceased was also well educated woman, she was appearing in competitive examinations but she could not get success in any of the examination, therefore, she became too much frustrated, under the frustration and depression she committed suicide. There was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry. The allegation regarding demand of dowry and the cruelty are false and frivolous. The allegation made in the F.I.R. are of general in nature, there is no specific allegation against the applicant. The special allegation is made against the husband of the deceased as he had accepted Rs. 25,000 given by the first informant. But during investigation a robe was recovered showing that the deceased has committed suicide. On the day of the alleged occurrence the applicant was not present at the Kanpur, she got the information at Gauhati about the death of the deceased, thereafter she proceeded from Gauhati to Kanpur by a hired Maruti Van on 3.9.2006. The receipt of the amount given by the applicant to Manoj Kumar Prasad as a fare of the taxi has also been filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. The applicant is old women, she is having no criminal antecedent, in case she is detained in jail for a longer period, her life will be in danger, therefore, she may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, her death was unnatural, she has not committed suicide but she has been killed by the applicant and other co-accused persons because her nerves of both the wrists were also cut down, there had been a profused bleeding which was found at one place. On the day of the alleged occurrence, the deceased was not present at her residence at Kanpur, she is hale and hearty woman. The deceased was hanged by the applicant and other co-accused because the suicide was not possible as alleged by the prosecution because the height of the side of the window is 6.5 feet from the ground level. The broken bangles and hairs of the deceased were found at the place of occurrence which shows that she had made the protest. The receipt of the fare of Maruti Van filed by the applicant is not genuine because if the applicant was old and from the ailing moment, it was not possible for her to travel from Gauhati to Kanpur by Maruti Van. The deceased has been murdered only because demand of dowry was not fulfilled and the deceased was not living under depression. The applicant being the mother-in-law of the deceased was more responsible person to protect the interest of her daughter-in-law. Therefore, she is not entitled for bail.

Considering the fact, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the gravity of the offence and evidence collected by the I.O. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.