Allahabad High Court
Shiv Bachan Ram & 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2013
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3034 of 2013
Appellant :- Shiv Bachan Ram & 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sharad Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellants along with the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of Km. Anita, the appellant no.3., which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Admit.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant no.3 is 19 years old unmarried sister in law of the deceased, who has been falsely implicated in the case in respect of alleged demand of dowry, on account of non fulfillment thereof, she had also participated in the commission of death of Smt. Sinda Devi.
According to the prosecution case the marriage of the deceased Sinda Devi was performed with the son of the appellant no.1, Sunil Kumar in 2007. Soon after the marriage Sinda Devi was brutally assaulted by her in laws in respect of additional demand of dowry and was threatened that in case the demand is not fulfilled she will be done to death by pouring upon her kerosene oil or by giving some poison, and on 24.12.2009 she was done to death by giving some poisonous substance.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the father in law of the deceased has admitted her into the hospital. There is no mark of any injury on the person of the deceased. The appellants no.1 and 2 are the aged persons and they have been convicted for seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC. The appellants were on bail during trial and now they are in jail since the date of conviction i.e. 21.6.2013. There is no likelihood of early hearing of appeal in near future because there is dockets of pendency of old appeals, therefore the appellants may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. In case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has argued that the deceased was brutally meted to ill treatment and she was done to death by administering poison. The viscera was preserved and aluminium phosphide was found. The appellant no.1 got her admitted in hospital on 24.12.2009 at P.H.C. Ghazipur her condition was found serious, she was shifted to District Hospital. Thereafter she was got discharged by the appellant no.1, when she was recovering, as there was apprehension that she will tell the entire truth. She was got discharged without prior permission of the doctor who was attending her. All the appellants have been found guilty for causing the victim to death. The victim was done to death within three years of marriage and there is specific allegations with regard to the demand of dowry made by her husband and his other family members. The appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial court. Therefore the appellants do not deserve to get any leniency.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the prayer for bail of the appellant no.3, Kumari Anita is allowed.
So far as the prayer for bail of the appellants no.1, Shiv Bachan Ram and Smt. Bhagirathi is concerned, that shall be considered after the receipt of the record.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellant, namely, Kumari Anita, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.198 of 2010, State Vs. Sunil @ Guddu & others, arising out of case crime no.1315 of 2009, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jamania, District Ghazipur, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The photocopies of the bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record of the appeal.
It is made clear that the realization of fine is not stayed.
It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that in Criminal Appeal No.3035 of 2013, filed by the husband of the deceased, the date has already been fixed and the record has already been summoned.
Let this appeal be connected along with Criminal Appeal No.3035 of 2013 and list the same on the date fixed in the connected matter.
Order Date :- 15.7.2013
Mustaqeem.
