Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:194731
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39824 of 2025
Sunil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 79 (Sl.NO. 26)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the Additinal Session Judge (FTC) Court No. 1, Bijnor in S.T. No. 1552 of 2022 (State vs. Sunil Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 426 of 2022, under Section 498-A, 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the wife of the applicant herein had committed suicide on 07.07.2022 after about ten years of marriage. The intimation of this incident was given to the opposite party no.2. He came to the spot and lodged an FIR for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC against the applicant and other family members, who were not even residing along with the applicant herein. The matter was duly investigated by the investigating agency and after recording the statement of the informant as well as other neighbours etc. The investigating agency came to conclusion that no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out as it was not the case of homicide but that of suicide. Accordingly the charge under Section 302 IPC was deleted and the charge sheet was filed under Section 498-A and 306 IPC against the applicant alone. Thereafter the charges were framed against the applicant, trial proceeded and the statement of P.W.1, the informant herein was recorded before the trial court. Thereupon the, opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the other co-accused persons also in the instant trial. However, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 30.08.2025 at this stage. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2 had also moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. on 07.05.2025 for alteration of charge against the applicant herein for the offence under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. Vide separate impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2025, the trial court has allowed the said application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. after considering the entire material available on record and thereupon altered the charges from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC against the applicant herein alone. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant application has been moved by the applicant herein seeking quashing of the said order dated 30.08.2025 passed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the submission of charge sheet, it is only the examination-in-chief of the opposite party no.2, the P.W.1, the informant, which has been recorded during the trial. There is no material available to conclude at this stage that it is a case of homicide not that of suicide. As the doctor's evidence has not yet been recorded to conclude anything in this regard. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, the same is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that even in the FIR in the instant case, there is a categorical averment on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that soon before the death of the deceased, the applicant had assaulted her and the deceased had told him that the applicant herein who is the habitual drunker had tried to strangulate her and subsequent thereto when the opposite party no.2 reached on the spot, he found that the deceased had been hanged with a ceiling fan after strangulation. However, the matter was investigated and during the investigation, the investigating agency treated the case as that of suicide and therefore, submitted the charge sheet under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. After framing of the charge and during his deposition, the opposite party no.2 has categorically deposed before the trial court he has taken the photograph of the deceased while she was hanging with the ceiling fan. Her knees were bent on the bed. The photographs have been produced by him before the Court. After considering the entire material, the trial court has prima facie taken a view that it appears the case of homicide not that of suicide. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is antemortem hanging. There is sufficient material available on record to conclude that it was a case of homicide and not that of suicide. Therefore, the trial court has rightly converted the charge under Section 306 IPC to 302 IPC. Thus learned AGA submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 and he seeks dismissal of the instant application.
5. Having heard the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that in the instant case, there is a categorical averment in the FIR itself by the opposite party no.2 that it was a case of antemortem hanging and according to the opposite party no.2, the deceased was strangulated and thereafter hanged to the fan to give a colour that the death is a suicide. The postmortem report in the instant case also supports the case of the prosecution that it is a case of antemortem hanging. The opposite party no.2 has also placed on record the photcgraph of the deceased before the trial court which was taken by him while she hanging with the ceiling fan, from which it is apparent that her knees are bent and her ankle touching on her heaps. The dead body was in sitting position kept on the bed. Thus the trial court has concluded that the applicant herein had killed the deceased having persistently being subjected to dowry demand and therefore, to give the colour of suicide, the dead body was tied to the ceiling fan by her neck in a sitting position by the applicant herein. The postmortem report also supports the case of the opposite party no.2 that it was an antemortem hanging. Thus, there appears to be prima facie cse of homicide. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 converting the charge that from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC in the instant case.
6. The instant application has no merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. 7. However, since, the trial in the instant case is still in progress, it is made clear that any observation made in the instant order shall not influence the trial court while pronouncing the final judgment in the instant case, on the basis of evidence lead during the trial.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) November 4, 2025 Ashish Pd.
