Sunder vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri Rajul Bhargawa, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri P. N. Dwivedi learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case a F.I.R. was lodged u/s 302, I.P.C. with the allegation that Smt. Sushila alias Mayawati, wife of the applicant was murdered on 26.2.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. Its F.I.R. was lodged on 18.3.2005 at about 6.45 p.m. by father of the deceased in case Crime No. 63 of 2005 P.S. Kosi Kalan, district Mathura but the offence was converted u/s 306, I.P.C. during investigation.

According to the prosecution version, the deceased was beaten by the applicant and other co-accued persons and she was locked in a room. She was caught hold by the co-accused Kesharia, Mani Ram then accused Parshu Ram and Smt. Banso poured kerosene oil on the deceased and she was set on fire by the applicant. The deceased received burn injuries. The applicant is husband of the deceased. The applicant and other co-accused ran away from their house. The deceased in a injured condition was brought to D.P.L. Nursing Home by the other villagers. From there, she was shifted to Shafdarganj Hospital, Delhi where she died.

In the present case, a dying declaration was recorded by the Inspector Balvir Singh of Police Station Sarojni Nagar, Delhi. There is specific allegation against the applicant as alleged in the F.I.R.

The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the first informant and the witness Smt. Lajjawati but on the basis of the statement of some villagers namely Sukhram, Smt. Vaishwati, Smt. Bijali, Farm Singh, Km. Shashi, the daughter of the deceased and Rakesh, the case was converted u/s 306, I.P.C. According to their statement, the deceased committed suicide. In the present case, neither the applicant nor any person of his family provided any medical aid to the deceased, whereas they were present at the place of occurrence.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly this bail application is rejected at this stage.