Allahabad High Court
Mansa Ram @ Mansa Lal @ Sonoo vs State Of U.P. on 17 December, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3189 of 2014
Appellant :- Mansa Ram @ Mansa Lal @ Sonoo
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Harendra Prakash Dwivedi,Vikas Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,R.A.Misra,Siddharth Misra
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
(Order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.276258 of 2014)
List has been revised. Learned counsel for appellant is present. None has appeared on behalf of complainant despite repeated calls. Learned A.G.A. is present.
This bail application has been moved in aforesaid appeal on behalf of appellant Mansha Ram @ Mansha Lal @ Sonoo seeking his release on bail, who has been convicted and sentenced for offences u/s 302 I.P.C. in Session Trial No.550 of 2011 (State vs. Mansha Ram @ Mansha Lal @ Sonoo) arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2011, Police Station-Tharwai, District-Allahabad.
Heard learned counsel for appellant-applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
Submission of counsel for appellant is that though there is a dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate but the doctor who has given the certificate of fitness before recording of dying declaration has gone to state during the course of his deposition that he cannot vouchsafe about the conscious condition of the deceased at the time when she was brought in the hospital. Further submission is that with this kind of statement made in the court it cannot be said for certain that when the dying declaration was recorded the patient had actually gained consciousness. That would go to render the dying declaration suspect, and therefore, the accused should be released on bail. The period of detention was also pointed out. It has been also submitted that the deceased incurred injuries during the course of cooking accidentally and nobody can be blamed for that.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been pointed out that this is a case in which the death of the deceased took place as a result of bodily burns within three years of marriage and there are clear allegations made against the appellant for having not only demanded the dowry but also for having committed cruelty upon her consistently. She was beaten up time and again and attempts to cause her death were made ever earlier. In fact record also shows the allegation that before the incident the appellant had gone to the house of the parents of deceased where she was at that time and came back with the deceased only when Rs.50,000/- were given to him. Emphasis was laid by learned A.G.A. on the dying declaration of the deceased which has been recorded by the Magistrate who has been produced as P.W.-3 in the court and who has duly proved the dying declaration as was given by the deceased. The doctor who had given the fitness certificate has also been examined in the court as P.W.-6. Both these witnesses are of independent source and no reason has been shown as to why they would go to depose falsely in the court. The dying declaration made by the deceased is also unambiguously categorical, according to which on the fateful day it was appellant who had set the deceased ablaze after having physically assaulted her on a trifling issue. It has also been argued that the state of consciousness at the time of admission and the state of consciousness at the time when the dying declaration was recorded should not necessarily be the same and when the doctor, who gave the fitness certificate at the time of recording of the dying declaration, was asked the question about the mental condition of the deceased regarding the time when she was brought in the hospital, the only answer which a honest witness could give was in negative as he was not a witness of that fact and was not in a position to depose about the same, and therefore, the argument of the defence in this regard is specious and untenable both. It was also submitted that in fact the line of defence as has been adopted on behalf of the accused is also mutually inconsistent and contradictory. At one point of time it appears that the accused had tried to plead that the deceased died after incurring accidental burns during the course of cooking but the defence witnesses, as have been produced on behalf of accused in the court, have tried to show that when they reached the spot the room where the incident took place was found bolted from inside and had to be broken open before anybody could enter into it. This shows that the line of defence adopted appears to be that of commission of suicide by the deceased. Submission is that the accused-appellant being the husband of the deceased had the first responsibility to ensure welfare of his wife but instead of proving to be the protector he has proved himself to be the eliminator of his wife, as is amply borne out and shown by the dying declaration, to disbelieve which there is no good reason available on record at this stage. The submissions that have been raised on behalf of accused relate to detailed intricacies of appreciation of evidence and can be heard or appreciated only at the time of final hearing. At this stage there is conclusive, categorical and incriminating evidence available on record and the impugned judgment cannot be castigated on any valid ground and the accused has simply failed to establish even a prima facie case in his favour. Submission is that in a matter like this where the husband has killed his wife by setting her ablaze, the detention period alone cannot serve as a legitimate basis to release him on bail on that ground alone, especially in the wake of sufficiency of evidence which include the unimpeachable dying declaration available on record. It has also been submitted that in matters like this the onus to prove the circumstances of the death was entirely upon the accused who alone could have shed light in this regard as the incident took place within the precincts of his own house within three years of marriage. But instead of coming out with clean hands, mutually incompatible lines of defence have been pleaded at different stages which only go to explode the falsity of the defence and can be read even as an additional circumstance against the accused. Learned A.G.A. contends that the Court therefore for these reasons should not take liberal view in the matter.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
The court is open and is feeling inclined to hear the appeal finally. If the appellant or his counsel has any inclination to argue the case finally, he can always take steps to expedite the hearing of the appeal.
(Order in Criminal Misc. Short Term Bail (Parole) Application No.34208 of 2015)
We have already heard the regular bail application of the appellant and did not find it a fit case where the accused could be released on bail, and therefore, we rejected the same. We also do not find any good ground to release of the appellant on parole, and therefore, same also stands rejected.
Order Date :- 17.12.2018
M. Kumar
