Patna High Court

Chandra Kant Shukla vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2021

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31745 of 2020

     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2019 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj
======================================================

Chandra Kant Shukla, Male, aged about 35 years, Son of Satendra Shukla,

Resident of Village-Dewapur, PS-Barauli, District-Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. P K Shahi, Senior Advocate with
                                 Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.3, Advocate
For the State            :       Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant        :       Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate with
                                 Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No. 3, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State and Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel

along with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa, learned counsel for

the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

Barauli PS Case No. 283 of 2019 dated 10.08.2019, instituted

under Sections 304B and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

4. The petitioner, along with other family members, is

accused of killing his wife.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

present is a very unfortunate case, especially for the petitioner. It

was submitted that the petitioner had married the deceased just

three months prior to her death. It was submitted that the same

was a love marriage with opposition from the families of both

the sides and thereafter the couple had visited various places and

also gone on a honeymoon trip all over India and the deceased

was taken to her parents' house by the petitioner, but the

reception was lukewarm and that is why she returned to the

matrimonial home. It was submitted that the petitioner was in

employment in a firm at the project site at Hapur-Moradabad

and, thus, had to leave and the deceased was in the matrimonial

home on the fateful day.

6. It was submitted that the deceased had committed

suicide and he fairly stated that he has taken direct instructions

from the petitioner with regard to there being some explanation

as to why the death occurred, for the presumption in law would Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

be naturally against the petitioner, who is the husband, as death

has occurred in the matrimonial home within seven years of

marriage, and thus, there have to be circumstances to show that

there was no foul play. He submitted that even the petitioner is

unable to understand and explain as to what was the reason why

the deceased had taken her life, for he had married the deceased

out of love and had a very happy conjugal life for 2-3 months

where they had gone on a honeymoon trip also, and suddenly

this incident occurring has left him shattered.

7. It was submitted that though one of the stands taken

before the Court below is that the deceased had some illicit

relationship with another person which was seen by the family

members of the petitioner, but the petitioner has filed a

supplementary affidavit in which a categorical statement has

been made that it is not the stand of the petitioner as he has

absolutely no reason to believe the same and would not raise a

claim of infidelity against the deceased.

8. Further, on merits, learned counsel submitted that

on the fateful day viz. 10th August, 2019, the petitioner was at

the project site at Hapur-Moradabad with regard to which the

Human Resources Department of the firm in which he was

working has given him a certificate, copy of which is Annexure-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

2 to the petition. Learned counsel further drew the attention of

the Court to copy of the post-mortem report, Annexure-3, and

submitted that upon external examination, only a ligature mark

on upper part of neck 1.5" broad running all around the neck and

deficient behind left ear has been noted, without any other mark

or injury on the body. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the

same is a clear indication that there was no foul play for the

simple reason that had there been any forced strangulation by

any other person, the deceased being a young lady, would not

have been passive and there would have been an attempt to

resist which would have shown in some way or the other,

leaving some mark on the body, which has not been recorded by

the doctor in the course of post-mortem examination.

9. Learned counsel submitted that even in the

investigation by the police relating to the Call Detail Record

(hereinafter referred to as 'CDR'), it has been found that on 10 th

August, 2019, the tower location of the petitioner was near the

site where he was working, which is very far away from the

place of occurrence, and there is no possibility of the petitioner

committing the offence and then again reaching his place of

posting. Learned counsel submitted that from the same, which is

an independent finding by the police based on scientific Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

investigation, at least, it is not in dispute that the petitioner could

not have been involved in the physical act of killing the

deceased, even assuming, only for the sake of argument, that she

was killed, as he was not at the place of occurrence and rather

hundreds of kilometres away, on the said day. It was submitted

that the CDR also discloses that the petitioner, within half an

hour of the deceased having been declared dead in the hospital,

had rung up the informant's side, which was to inform them

about the death. Learned counsel submitted that this also points

out to the fact that there was no good relationship between the

family members of the two sides as it was the petitioner who

informed the family of the deceased about the incident.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the other allegation

that this was the result of demand of dowry is also falsified for

the reason that once it was a love marriage, there cannot be any

question of any demand of dowry and further if it is presumed,

for the sake of argument alone, that there was demand of dowry,

then also it is totally unbelievable that the petitioner and his

family members would be so impatient so as to kill the deceased

within three months, without giving sufficient time for

fulfilment of the demand. Learned counsel submitted that

though the petitioner is totally ignorant about the reason why the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

deceased would have taken such an extreme step, but he can

hazard a guess to the extent that it has come in the CDR that the

deceased had tried to call the petitioner from 8:00 AM to 5:00

PM on the said day and 21 calls were made, which were not

answered, and, thus, this may have had some very deep

disturbing effect on the mind of the deceased which resulted in

her in committing suicide. It was submitted that the said calls

were also made to the number of another person and not the

petitioner and it was not deliberately not answered by the

petitioner, as he was unaware of such calls.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the post-mortem

report is itself a pointer that it was not strangulation caused by

any other person for the reason that in strangulation, the mark

would be all around the neck and there would be no

gap/deficiency anywhere, but in the present case, the ligature

mark is deficient behind left ear which clearly indicates that the

death was due to hanging which has not resulted in a mark at

that place, where there is likelihood of the knot being present.

Further, it was submitted that the ligature mark is on the upper

part of the neck. He paused here to submit that the Court would

note that had it been a case of strangulation, the mark could not

have been on the upper part of the neck and rather somewhere in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

the middle and the mark being on the upper part of the neck

indicates that it was at the extreme end when the body was in an

upright position, which also clearly indicates that it was due to

hanging and not by the act of strangulation by any other person.

12. Learned counsel submitted that though in the

inquest report there may have been a reference of a scratch on

the left foot of the deceased but it is only a scratch which has

not even been noticed in the post-mortem report and thus, is of

no significance. Learned counsel submitted that the parents of

the petitioner who had taken the girl to the hospital where she

was declared dead, were arrested by police from the hospital

itself and later on have been released on bail. It was submitted

that the entire circumstances indicate that the petitioner is

innocent. However, he fairly submitted that even the petitioner

is unable to either fathom or come up with any explanation as to

why the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing

suicide. It was submitted that the petitioner has no other

criminal antecedent.

13. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that it

is a fact that in the CDR, tower location of the petitioner was at

the site where he claims to be on the said day and also that 21

calls have been made by the deceased to the petitioner, but were Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

not answered. It was also not controverted that the post-mortem

report discloses a ligature mark on upper part of neck 1.5" broad

running all around the neck and deficient behind left ear and

further that no other injury mark has been found on the body.

14. Learned senior counsel for the informant submitted

that the marriage was not a love marriage and was an arranged

marriage. Further, it was submitted that the occurrence took

place due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It was

contended that the ground taken by the petitioner himself before

the Court below as well as his parents before the Court below

while seeking bail, that the deceased had illicit relationship with

some other person which was seen by the petitioner's family,

would clearly indicate that this was the reason for them to kill

her. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the post-

mortem report discloses that there was a ligature mark running

all round the neck which shows that it was strangulation.

15. At this juncture, when the Court wanted learned

senior counsel to assist as to how the same was deficient behind

the left ear as the mark for strangulation to have been made by

some other person would have been all around and not deficient

anywhere, as deficiency is an indication that there was a knot,

learned counsel was not able to clarify the position. On a further Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

query as to the location of the petitioner, as revealed by the

CDR, which does not show the petitioner anywhere near the

place of occurrence, learned senior counsel again could not

controvert the fact. However, he submitted that the petitioner

being the husband, the presumption under Section 304B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 is against him and he has to explain the

circumstances of death, which has occurred within three months

of the marriage.

16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court, on an overall view of the matter, finds that the objective

and scientific investigation by the police with regard to the CDR

of the petitioner indicates that he was very far away from the

place of occurrence on the fateful day. Further, the post-mortem

report disclosing that the ligature mark was on the upper part of

the neck and deficient behind left ear, raises a strong

presumption that it may not be strangulation by some other

person and rather may be a case of self-hanging. Moreover, in

the tentative view of the Court, the argument of learned counsel

for the petitioner that even if there was demand of dowry, the

petitioner and his family members, in the natural course of

human behaviour, could not have been so impatient so as to kill Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

the deceased within three months without giving sufficient time

for fulfilment of the dowry by taking such extreme steps, is not

implausible. The Court is also conscious of the fact that both the

parties live in the same city and the petitioner and his family

could not have been so unaware that if the death occurred in the

matrimonial home, they would be the obvious suspects in the

eyes of law, and thus, would not have gone ahead and

committed such crime when the petitioner was away, at the risk

of jeopardizing their entire future. In such background, taking an

overall view, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-

arrest bail.

17. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate XIV, Gopalganj in Barauli PS Case No. 283

of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 2494 of 2019, subject to the

conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further: (i) that one of the bailors

shall be a close relative of the petitioner; (ii) that the petitioner

shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution, and;

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31745 of 2020 dt.06-08-2021

(iii) that the petitioner will deposit his passport with the Court

concerned, and; (iv) the petitioner shall not leave the country

without permission of the Court concerned. Any breach of

conditions (ii) and (iv) shall lead to cancellation of his bail

bonds.

18. It shall also be open for the prosecution and the

informant to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by

the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall

take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.