Smt. Sunita Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4869 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved 
 

 
Criminal  Misc. Bail Application No. 18796 of 2011
 

 
Smt. Sunita Yadav                                       ...... Applicant 
 

 
Versus 
 
State of U.P.                                                         .  ...  Opp.Party
 
*****
 
Hon'ble  Ravindra Singh, J.

Heard Sri A.N.Mishra, Sri Neeraj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the applicant Smt. Sunita Yadav with a prayer that she may be released on bail in case crime no. 183 of 2011 under sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur.

The facts, in brief, of this case are that FIR of this case has been lodged by Jagat Singh on 14.3.2011 at 10.30 A.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 14.3.2011 at unknown time. The FIR has been lodged against the unknown miscreants. It is alleged that on 14.3.2011, the first informant came to know that outside the village, in the field of Sheetal one dead body was lying, then the first informant, who is brother of the deceased, came to the house of the applicant and asked about his brother, who disclosed that he had gone at about 5.00 A.M. to attend the call of nature, thereafter the applicant along with his family members and other came there and found the dead body of the deceased Prem Singh lying in a field. He had sustained one injury on his person and one iron saang was embedded in the chest, the clothes of the deceased were torn, his hands were tied, it appears that after committing the murder of the deceased, his dead body was thrown in the field.

According to the post mortem examination report, both the hands and neck of the deceased were tied by Nylon Cord, the knot placed at front of middle part of the neck. He had sustained 8 ante mortem injuries, in which injury no.1 was lacerated wound on right side of the chest, it was penetrating wound, injury no.2 was lacerated wound on Umbilicus, injury no.3 was lacerated wound on middle of abdomen, injury no.4 was lacerated wound on the right side of abdomen, injury no. 5 was lacerated wound on the right side of abdomen, Injury no. 6 was lacerated wound on middle of abdomen, injury no.7 was lacerated wound on right abdomen and injury no. 8 was lacerated wound on right side of abdomen. The cause of death was as a result of ante mortem injuries. According to post mortem examination report, right pleura was ruptured, left lung was also ruptured and right heart was also ruptured. During investigation, the name of the applicant, who is wife of the deceased, also came to light.

The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, who rejected the same on 3.5.2011.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is wife of the deceased, according to the FIR, the dead body of the deceased was found in the field outside the village abadi, the applicant is not named in FIR, even nobody is named as accused, according to the FIR, nobody has seen the alleged incident, the applicant was having no enmity with the deceased or motive to commit the alleged offence. It is a case of circumstantial evidence, the FIR has been lodged, thereafter the police came at the place of occurrence, but nobody made any allegation against the applicant. The inquest report was prepared, according to the inquest report, the deceased was wearing chaddhi ( underwear), the witnesses of the inquest report are Bhagirath, Jagat Singh, Ram Singh, Prahlad Singh, Jaipal Singh, both the hands and neck of the deceased were tied by a Nylon cord and iron saria, which was embedded in the chest, was also taken out, thereafter the post mortem examination report was done on 15.3.2011. The statement of the first informant Jagat Singh was recorded, who disclosed that his father Bhagirath and Paras Yadav told him that on hearing the noise in the night, he had gone to the house of the deceased where the applicant, her younger brother Chhote Babua @ Chandrajeet and one other person were there, who were asking the deceased in case his sister was again beaten, he would have faced the dire consequences, the first informant came to know that the deceased has been killed by his wife and wife's brother, they were seen by the villagers , in the night at about 1.00 or 2.00 A.M. when they were taking to the deceased, he was not having the complete information but after knowing the complete information, he shall give another statement. He also stated that the applicant's brother Chhota Babua and other relative came to the house of the deceased in the fateful night and they returned in the morning. Thereafter the statement of Bhagirath, father in law of the deceased, was recorded, who also supported the version of Jagat Singh but he stated that at about 1.00 or 2.00 , the witnesses Ram Singh, Supan Singh had seen the applicant and other co-accused persons when they were taking the deceased at about 1.00 or 2.00 A.M. in the said night. Thereafter, the statement of of Saku Lal was recorded on 14.3.2011, on the same day of lodging the FIR. He also stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons were catching hold the deceased and they were taking on a canal road, he thought that the deceased was ailing, he also stated that his sister in law Km. Priyanka may also be interrogated on the same day. The statement of Km.Priyanka, daughter of the applicant, was recorded by the I.O., she clearly stated that she was present at her house on 13.3.2011, at about 9.00 P.M.her maternal uncle, co-accused Chhote Babua alias Indrjeet and co-accused Banti son of her maternal uncle came to her house and they asked the deceased as to why the applicant was beaten, the deceased was hating the applicant and he was doing the marpeet with her, the deceased has beaten the witness Km.Priyanka also. She stated that she was also being scolded by her father about 5 - 6 days prior to the alleged incident, the deceased had caused the head injury to her maternal grand father, about 4 or 5 years prior to alleged the incident, the deceased had caused injuries on the person of her maternal uncle Veer Singh by using barchhi blows, thereafter her mother had left the village about one month prior to the alleged incident, the deceased had called her and her mother to the house and again did the marpeet, about 5 or 6 days prior to the alleged incident, the applicant was badly beaten by the deceased on making resistance by her, she was also beaten, its message was given by the applicant to the co-accused Chhota Babua alias Chandra jeet at telephone and he was called on the fateful night, the co-accused Chhota Babua alias Chandra jeet came to her house at about 9.00 P.M., on that date also, the abuses were hurled between the deceased and the applicant, on that hurling her maternal grand father Bhagirath came to the house in the night, he was lying on the first floor of the house, the applicant, deceased and other co-accused were on the ground floor, at about 1.00 or 2.00 A.M. some quarrel had taken place, she saw that the deceased was beating to her maternal uncle, thereafter, some quarrel had taken place, then the applicant and other co-accused persons went towards the canal, she thought that her mother was going to send the co-accused persons but after a considerable period, the applicant came back, in the morning, she came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found in a field , she also stated that due to fear , she did not disclose the name immediately on 15.3.2011. The statement of one Prahalad was recorded, who stated that in the night of 13.3.2011 the co-accused Chhota Babua alias Chandra jeet and Banti had come to the house of the deceased and after committing the murder, they had fled away.

On 16.3.2011, the statement of applicant was recorded, she made confessional statement before the police. Thereafter the statement of Ram Singh was recorded on 28.3.2011, he stated that he had seen the applicant and the co-accused persons when they were taking the deceased . The naming of the applicant is after thought , they were close relatives of the deceased, even they did not disclose the name of the above mentioned co-accused prior to lodging the FIR.

In the present case, Km.Priyanka, who is an eye witness of the alleged incident, was present inside the house, she has filed a supplementary affidavit disowning the prosecution story , she clearly stated that the FIR has been lodged so that the first informant and his family members may succeed in their evil design and dishonest purpose of grabbing about 10 bighas valuable land, a big house and other property of the applicant. In fact, the deceased was murdered by some other persons, nobody has witnessed the alleged incident, it appears that the complainant and his family members are interfering in the cultivation of the land and they are forcibly tress passing over the land and they have illegally sold out diesel engine of the deceased. The applicant is not previous convict, she has been falsely implicated by her family members, with ulterior motive, she is in jail since 16.3.2011, she may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A that it is a case in which dead body of the deceased was found in a field, before lodging the FIR under the shock or any other reason, the daughter of the applicant and other witnesses, could not narrate the story, the FIR has been lodged on 14.3.2011, on the same day, the witnesses have disclosed the name of the applicant, the statement of Km.Priyanka, the daughter of the applicant, has also been recorded on the same day, according to her statement, the co-accused persons had come to the house of the applicant, the quarrel had taken place between the deceased and accused persons, thereafter, the accused persons had taken to the deceased outside the house though the witnesses have stated that they have seen the deceased who was taken by the applicant and other co-accused persons, after committing the murder. It is a case in which the applicant, who is wife of the deceased, is actively involved in murder of her husband with the help of her brother and other, the filing of supplementary affidavit by Km. Priyanka at this stage has no relevance, therefore, applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for he applicant, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant is wife of the decease, Km.Priyanka, the daughter of the applicant had made the allegation against the applicant, according to the statement of Km.Priyanka and other witnesses,the applicant and other co-accused persons were actively involved in committing the murder of the deceased, according to the statement of the some of the witnesses, the deceased was taken by the applicant and other co-accused after committing the murder, the statement of the witness Km.Priyanka was immediately recorded after lodging the FIR and the gravity of the offence is too much 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, the bail application is rejected.

Dated :  September      27 ,     2011.
 
Su