Allahabad High Court
Monu @ Shrawan vs State Of U.P. on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 229 of 2022
Applicant :- Monu @ Shrawan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Sinha,Lallu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mrs. Satya Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Ram Pal Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist representing the State.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant- Monu @ Shrawan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 246 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Husainganj, District- Fatehpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was registered on 12.12.2020, through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 15.10.2020 against the present applicant- Monu @ Shrawan, Shivbaran, Meghia, Sonu, Pintu and Daya Devi with the allegations inter-alia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 16.08.2019 with the applicant. In the marriage, he had spent about Rs. 2 lac in dowry etc, but after the marriage, the applicant and his family members started harassing and torturing his daughter because of bringing insufficient dowry by making additional demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a TVS Sports motorcycle in dowry. Accused persons kept the victim locked in the room for several days and also deprived her of food. On non-fulfillment of their demands of dowry, his daughter was assaulted by kick, fists and leather belt. When the complainant made a complaint before the respected persons of village, a Phanchayat was also held in which accused persons were also present and assured that they will not harass his daughter. Thereafter on 26.02.2020, they took his daughter to her matrimonial home and again started making demands. On 05.04.2020, his daughter was done to death by the accused persons.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that marriage of the applicant with the deceased was a love marriage without any dowry. The applicant is a very poor person and has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. was registered after 8 months and 7 days of the incident on false and fabricated facts. In fact deceased died due to illness during pandemic Covid-19. During investigation, when the investigating officer enquired from the persons of the vicinity, they told him that they heard that deceased died of illness.
Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Major Singh and Others v. State of Panjab, reported in 2015, Volume 5 SCC, 201, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that to attract the conviction under section 304B I.P.C., the prosecution should adduce evidence to show that "soon before her death", deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. There must always be proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The allegations of demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased is false. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.08.2021, having no criminal history to his credit.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that daughter of the informant was done to death in her matrimonial home and dead body of the deceased was cremated without giving information to her parents. During investigation, informant as well as other witnesses namely Sandeep, Ganesh and Dhirendra, who are father, maternal uncle, uncle and maternal uncle (Mausa) respectively of the deceased supported the F.I.R. version. It is also pointed out that before the Trial Court, informant-Prakash and Ganesh have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 on 01.09.2022 and 13.10.2022 respectively and they have supported the prosecution case. So far as delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it is submitted that information about the said incident dated 05.04.2020 was given to S.H.O. concerned by the informant, who assured that action will be taken, but in vain. Thereafter on 26.05.2020, again information was given to S.H.O. concerned, but when no action was taken, the complainant sent applications on 23.09.2020 and 07.10.2020 by registered Post to Superintendent of Police, even then F.I.R. of the informant was not lodged. Therefore, informant moved an application dated 15.10.2020 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which F.I.R. was registered on 12.12.2020. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that delay in registering the F.I.R. has been explained by the informant. The deceased died in her matrimonial home within a short span of seven months and twenty days of her marriage and there is serious allegation of harassment and torture of the deceased for dowry soon before the death. It is well settled that no time limit can be fixed for the expression "soon before the death". It depends upon the facts of each case. Under the facts of the case in hand, presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act shall be drawn against the applicant. On perusal of statement of PW-1- Prakash and PW-2- Ganesh, I also find that they have supported the prosecution case. PW-2 has denied the death of the deceased by illness during pandemic Covid-19. There is no material on record to presume that deceased died due to illness. There is nothing is on record to indicate that any information about the death of the deceased was given to the parents of the deceased by the applicant before cremation of her dead body. PW-2 has also stated inter-alia that the accused persons disposed of/cremated the dead body of the deceased behind their back. Such conduct of the accused is contrary to the human nature. I am also of the view that conclusion shall be drawn considering the statement of the prosecution witnesses in toto and not in isolation. Since two prosecution witnesses have been examined and trial is proceeding, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court in exercise of power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to examine and evaluate the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 in detail. Hence, further details relating to the incident need not be referred to herein since the allegations and the defence thereto are still open to be urged by the parties in the Trial Court. So far as judgment in the case of Major Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same is distinguishable on the facts of this case. In the said case appeal was filed by father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased against their conviction and Apex Court apart from other facts recorded the finding that there was no evidence as to demand of dowry or cruelty. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect of the matter.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, prima-facie I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
Trial Court shall make all efforts to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
Kashifa
