Allahabad High Court
Rohit Dhankar Jaat vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 20.04.2023
Delivered On:- 02.05.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6603 of 2022
Appellant :- Rohit Dhankar Jaat
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh Khokher
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for opposite no.2 and learned AGA for State.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 16.08.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by her in Case Crime No. 252 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 201 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Nauhjheel, District- Mathura.
3. There is allegation in the FIR that son of the informant, Ashish Kumar, aged about 25 years was posted as police constable at Mathura and on 30.06.2022 informant received information that he has committed suicide. He reached the room of his brother where he found that his brother has suffered injuries on various parts of his body and he was murdered. Few days ago the deceased informed his brother, Rajnish, that his room partner, Rohit (Jaat) is jealous to him and abuses him with caste related words and has also threatened him of murder. Hence, FIR was lodged against the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR has been lodged after two days of the incident without any explanation of delay. There was no enmity between the police and the deceased. The appellant was sleeping in separate room and deceased in the other room, where the incident took place. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that it is a case of hanging and not strangulation. He has placed before this Court the differences pointed out by Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology between the hanging and strangulation. In hanging fracture of hyoid bone is stated as rare while in strangulation fracture of hyoid bone is not rare. In throttling cases as in the present case hyoid bone of the deceased was fractured on the left side. The other signs like the position of ligature mark, presence of glistering like parchment below the ligature mark, situation of ligature mark above thyroid bone proves that it may be case of hanging but the other nine injuries on the dead body of the deceased on different parts of his body do not prove that it is clear case of hanging only.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon in paragraph 19 of the judgment in the case of Smt. Prema vs. State of U.P., Jail Appeal No. 5897 of 2017 of this Court wherein this Court has held that a lady cannot hanged the body of the deceased after strangulating him. This Court further held that in criminal trial suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof.
7. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the appeal of the appellant.
8. This Court after hearing rival contention, finds that even if the offence of strangulation is not made out then the nine injuries on the person of the deceased show that he was badly beaten by someone and he may have thereafter hanged himself to death after being unable to bear the pain or out of disgust and shame. Under the totality of facts, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the appellant at this stage.
9. The criminal appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
10. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 02.05.2023
Rohit
