Lovkush vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 3526 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1502 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Lovkush
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Naveen Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

(Order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.94510 of 2017.)

Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and learned A.G.A.

Perused the record.

Submission of the counsel is that allegations with regard to demand of dowry and committing cruelty upon the deceased are wholly false. The fact was that because of the disparity of the status between the parental family of the deceased and the appellant and because of the mental ailments with which the appellant suffered the deceased had developed an acute sense of frustration as a result of which she committed suicide. Counsel in this regard has tried to draw the attention of the court to the defence witnesses examined on behalf of appellant and has sought to argue that statements of D.W.1 Dr. V.K. Singh and D.W.2 Dr. Kshitij Srivastava would go to show that the appellant was treated by them being a psychiatric patient of psychosis. All these circumstances were to the utter frustration of the deceased who had never expected to have and lead such an untoward marital life. It was emphasized by the counsel that as and when she attempted to set herself ablaze no further time was wasted and she was rushed to the hospital to give her medical succour and this is an admitted case of prosecution that she was carried to the hospital by the appellant. Attention was also drawn to the statement of P.W.1 which finds its place on internal page 22 of the judgement containing the admission in this regard made by the prosecution witnesses. The incident took place on 24.7.2014 but despite full-fledged treatment provided to her she could not survive and eventually succumbed to burn injuries and died. Due information in this regard was also given to her parents and it is admitted case of the prosecution that a number of family members had also arrived at the hospital much before the death of the deceased took place. Submission is that later on after she died the inquest proceedings had taken place in which the witnesses of inquest made by the police were all those persons who were the family members of the deceased from the parental side. It has been pointed out that inquest witness Ram Ratan is the father of the deceased, inquest witness Ashok Kumar is cousin brother of the deceased and even the rest of them are all family members. Inquest proceeding took place on 25.7.2014 but no report against the appellant was lodged even on that day. Argument is that this was only because of the reason that there was absolutely no truth in the allegations made against the appellant with regard to either demanding the dowry or with regard to committing cruelty upon her for reasons of its non-fulfillment. In fact the attempt of the prosecution to introduce an oral dying declaration also gets completely exposed and truthfulness of the same stands exploded completely for the same reason of unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police. Had there been even a grain of truth in the prosecution's assertion that the deceased while she was alive had divulged to her family members the complicity of the appellant in the crime, there was absolutely no scope for sitting tight and maintaining complete reticence over the matter and not reporting the incident of murder to the police. The parental side people however are said to have gone back to their home after the cremation of the deceased took place. It was only on 27.07.2014 that they decided to initiate action against accused and lodge the report. The contention is that this is an inordinate delay without any adequate or convincing explanation for the same and the procrastination in this regard goes to the root of the matter which so very adversely hits at the credibility of the prosecution case and would go to give a complete rebuff to the allegations of cruelty committed upon the deceased before her death. The post incident conduct of the accused in providing earliest treatment to the deceased is compatible with his clean conscience and innocence both. It is also completely inconsistent with the hypothesis of guilt which the prosecution side has sought to establish against him. In fact, according to the counsel the delayed decision to bring action against the accused is in consonance with the appellant's innocence rather than his suggested guilt. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the appellant have also been touched upon at length. It has also been assured on behalf of appellant that he is ready to co-operate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has been pointed out that the appellant was on bail during the course of trial which was never misused by him. It has also been submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2017 and there is no likelihood of this appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court. Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place.

Learner A.G.A. as well as counsel appearing for the complainant side has tried to show that so far as the medical treatment of the appellant is concerned it cannot be said that the medical prescriptions actually related to the appellant as no such procedure of proper identification of the patient is done at the time when the medical prescriptions are written. It was also sought to be argued that if the appellant was a psychic patient it would have been he himself to commit suicide and it is unexplained why the wife would go to commit suicide. This defense plea alleging the suicide does not inspire confidence. The counsel has also tried to explain the delay in lodging the FIR by submitting that after the death of the deceased the parents were quite upset and therefore they took their own time and decided to report the murder only after sometime.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone and the unlikelihood of early conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Let the appellant- Lovkush, convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 191 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.304 of 2014, under sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Sarai Aquil, District- Kaushambi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

It may be clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order must not be construed to have any reflection upon the ultimate merits of the case and they are confined only for the purposes of deciding the present bail application.

(Order on Appeal)

List this appeal in due course for hearing before appropriate bench after preparing the paper book.

Order Date :- 2.11.2018

shiv