Smt. Vimla Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings of Case Crime No. 95 of 2005 under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and u/s 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act of police station Sarpatahan district Jaunpur.

The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that on 23.6.2005, an F.I.R. was lodged by Bechan Ram O. P. No. 2 at police station Sarpatahan district Jaunpur with these allegations that marriage of his daughter Suman Devi had taken place with accused Sunil about four years ago. Sunil and his brother Mohan, father Tarsu, mother Smt. Prabhawati Devi and Bimla Devi wife of Mohan Ram were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding a golden chain. He could not meet the demand. On 27.6.2005, the accused started to beat Suman Devi and thereafter they committed her murder by strangulation. They were taking the dead body for burning it but he received information about it, so he went to that place along with other residents of the village and saw the dead body of his daughter at Patti Narendrapur. The accused ran away on seeing the informant leaving the dead body there. Then he carried the dead body to the police station and prayed that action be taken in the matter.

On the basis of this report police registered a case under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. Post-mortem of the dead body was performed. In the post-mortem report no injury of any sort was found on the dead body and cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, viscera was preserved and was sent for chemical examination. However, before the report could be received, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons on 3.9.2005. Subsequently viscera report dated 1.10.2005 was received and according to that report no poison of any sort was found in the viscera sent for examination.

The applicants have filed this application to quash the charge-sheet.

I have heard Miss Swati Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A., as well as Sri Diwakar Tiwari for the opposite parties.

The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that according to the F.I.R. version the accused had committed murder of Suman Devi by strangulation but in the post-mortem report no mark of any injury was found upon the dead body. According to the post-mortem report the doctors could not ascertain the cause of death. hence, viscera was preserved. She further submitted that according to viscera report no poison was found in the viscera. She submitted that in this way it is a clear cut case of natural death and so no offence u/s 304B, I.P.C. was made out. I agree with this contention. When no mark of any injury was found on the dead body and it was also not a case of poisoning, death of Suman Devi shall be considered to be a case of natural death, though it had taken place within the period of seven years from the date of her marriage and there is evidence to this effect also in the case diary that she was being subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, but since her death was natural, no case u/s 304B, I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons and the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. deserves to be allowed to the extent of deletion of the charge u/s 304B, I.P.C.

As regards the charges u/s 498A, I.P.C. and u/s 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, there is evidence to this effect that Suman Devi was being subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, so submission of the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 498A, I.P.C. and u/s 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be said to be unjustified.

The application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent of deletion of the charge u/s 304B, I.P.C. against the accused persons. The case shall proceed against the accused persons u/s 498A, I.P.C. and u/s 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act and prayer for quashing the charge-sheet in respect of these offences is rejected. The accused-applicants are, however, allowed one month''s time to appear before the Court concerned where the case is pending. The bail application of the applicants shall be heard and decided by the Court concerned expeditiously, if possible on the same day, taking into consideration the observations of this Court made in Smt. Amarawati and Anr. v. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 390 : 2004 (3) ACR 2888.