Allahabad High Court
Satesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 21 May, 2024
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92066
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3297 of 2024
Appellant :- Satesh Kumar
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Ranveer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Order on Appeal
Admit.
Trial court record be summoned.
A reminder for summoning the trial court be sent to the magistrate concerned.
List on 10.07.2024.
Order on Bail
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application has been preferred by the appellant to release him on bail in Session Trial No.1286 of 2017 (State Vs. Satesh Kumar), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Pakbara, District Muradabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in this case, the appellant is husband of the deceased, who was married in the year 2015. She died of injuries sustained by her by falling on the ground. There was no any marpeet between the deceased and the appellant. There is false allegation of demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased by the appellant. It is further submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry has not been supported by the prosecution witnesses during the course of their examination in the trial court. It is also submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of six years and 8 months, out of 7 years sentence. It is also submitted that the injuries on the person of the deceased were not caused by the appellant. It is further submitted that hearing of appeal is also not likely to be completed in near future, therefore, request to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and contended that during postmortem, three injuries were found on the person of the deceased and frontal bone was found to be fracture, which shows that she was beaten by the appellant himself and cause of death was found to be coma, as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The learned trial court has sentenced the appellant for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment, which is too less, though it was a case of murder and burden of proof was lying on the appellant to show as to how deceased sustained such bodily injury and died in his house which he could not discharge in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act.
From the perusal of record, it appears that the ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased and the death was caused at the house of the appellant. There were several injuries on her person including fracture of frontal bone, as a result of which, deceased had gone into coma and died regarding, which no any satisfactory explanation was given by the appellant.
Learned Trial Court has also mentioned in para 68, 84 & 85 of the judgment that the injuries were proved to be caused by the appellant regarding which there was no satisfactory explanation on his part, even though, acquitted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C., but convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him for a period of seven years imprisonment only.
In the aforesaid situation, there appears no ground to grant bail in favour of the appellant but liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, rejected.
Let explanation be called from the learned trial Judge through the Sessions Judge concerned as to why he did not convict the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him for a period of 7 years imprisonment, showing unjust leniency in favour of the appellant till the next date of listing. .
Order Date :- 21.5.2024
T.S.
