Satya Prakash Verma vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 3109 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30342 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Satya Prakash Verma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tandon
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Samit Gopal
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Samit Gopal, learned counsel for the informant and Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Perused the material on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Satya Prakash Verma with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mutthiganj, District-Allahabad during the pendency of the trial.

4. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Swati Soni on 6th December, 2014. Just after expiry of a period of four years and one month from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11th January, 2018, in which the wife of the applicant died as alleged to have committed suicide by hanging herself. A first information report dated 11th January, 2018 was lodged by the brother of the deceased, namely, Sumit Pal, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0391 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mutthiganj, District-Allahabad. In the aforesaid first information report, as many as five persons, namely Satya Prakash Verma-husband (applicant herein), Ram Kishun Verma-father-in-law, Geeta Devi-mother-in-law, Preeti Verma and Kirti Verma-sister-in-laws (Nanad) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused.

5. In the first information report it has been alleged that the marriage of the sister of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant on 6th December, 2018 and demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lacs was made by the accused persons and for not fulfillment of the same the sister of the first informant was being harassed and tortured and she was also being beaten by them. It has been further alleged that Rs. 1 lac was given by the first informant to her mother-in-law on 3rd January, 2018, but they were not satisfied with that amount and they did the said incident on 11th January, 2018 by killing her.

6 The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 11th January, 2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the first informant. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. It is the case of the applicant that just after the said incident, the applicant dialed 100 number for informing the Police. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was performed on 12th January, 2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The Doctor has further found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

"One ligature mark present all around upper part of neck except 10 c.m. Gape on left side neck in width 2 c.m. Ligature mark 4 c.m. below left ear. 6 c.m. below chin & 4 c.m. below left & cut the ligature mark white glistering and fresh present like appearance present."

7. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 27th February, 2018 against all the aforesaid named accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 27th February, 2018, the cognizance was taken by the court concerned and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by taking cognizance vide Order dated 16th March, 2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the order dated 16th March, 2018 taking cognizance has not been disclosed either by the learned counsel for the applicant or the learned A.G.A. at the time of hearing of the present bail application.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is a young man and is in jail since 13th January, 2018. On date the applicant has spent nearly one year and three months of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was a short tampered lady and she had taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Inviting the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report of the deceased, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that no other anti-mortem external injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark, which speaks of the bona fide of the present applicant. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the first information report regarding the demand of dowry. On the basis of the submission, as noted above, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the death of the deceased is suicidal and not on account of deliberate act of the present applicant and it was the deceased that she demanded money from the applicant for treatment of his father who was suffering from cancer as well as for marriage of her brother. When he refused to give the same, she has committed suicide by hanging herself. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. No other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the present application for bail by contending that the applicant is not only a named accused but is also a charge-sheeted accused. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that offence complained of against the applicant is under Section 304-B I.P.C., therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution as the death of the deceased was within seven years of her marriage. Consequently, the applicant is under heavy burden to explain as to in what circumstances, the incident in question has occurred. However, upto this stage, according to the learned A.G.A., the applicant has completely failed to discharge the said burden. The burden to proof regarding the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Sections 106 and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, remains undischarged, as the applicant has not been able to explain as to how occurrence has taken place, even when the occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant. It is further submitted that specific allegations of demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lacs out of which one lac being given by the first informant, have been made in the first information report as well as in the statement of the first informant. Therefore, the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for non-fulfilment of the alleged demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused including the present applicant, who is direct beneficiary of the said demand of dowry. It has also been submitted that the case of the bona fide of the applicant that just after the accident, he had dialed 100 number for informing the Police, is not made out because nobody was present at the time of inquest of the deceased, which started from 17:30 hours on 11th January, 2018 even if the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and all the family members were arrested at 06:35 a.m. on 13th January, 2018 is correct. It has further been submitted that the contention of the applicant that the deceased was a short tempered lady and it was she that she was demanding money from the applicant for treatment of his father and marriage of her brother is baseless and has no foundation, because in support of the same learned counsel for the applicant is unable to produce any documentary evidence. Even otherwise the ground taken before the court below disclosing the reason to commit suicide is pressurizing the applicant to live separately, hence the applicant cannot be given benefit of changing his defence. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that whatever be the circumstances, it was an unnatural death, but even if it is a case of suicide, then too it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B I.P.C. is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt. Dealing with the complicity of applicant-accused and in light of the material on record, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant vehementally submit that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.

10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicants but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, both the bail applications stand rejected.

11. However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.

12. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.

13. It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court 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.

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

Order Date :- 18.4.2019

Sushil/-