Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 201 (CHH)

SAHODARI BALKANOJE v. STATE OF C. G.

2007-03-09

S.K.SINHA

body2007
ORDER As per Hon 'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. This order shall dispose of the above 2 bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of crime No. 265/2006 registered at Police Station-Palari, District-Raipur (CG) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased namely-Shatrupa Bai was named to applicant-Santosh in the year 1998. She was having 2 children, out of which, one has recently died. The deceased died on 25.3.2006, at about 9.00 pm in her in-laws place. Her last rituals were performed on the next day and the dead body was burnt according to Hindu Customs. Later on, on 30.3.2006, brother of the deceased namely-Santosh Kumar made a report for commission of some offence by these applicants on account of demand of dowry. In the said report, he has mentioned that he had given Rs.50,000/-, 30,000/- and 20,000/- on 3 earlier occasions to the husband of the deceased and he expressed that since the death of the deceased has occurred in unnatural circumstances and the information regarding death was not given to him immediately, all leads to suspicion against all the accused persons and some action should be taken against them. During the course of investigation, a written report dated 25.8.2005, said to have been lodged by the deceased to the police was also seized, in which, it is mentioned that she was being treated With cruelty by the husband and other family members in her in-laws place and they were also saying her for taking money from her brother. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence under Section 304(B) IPC would not be made out as the death has not occurred within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage. Secondly, he argues that neither in the report lodged by the brother nor in the report earlier lodged by the deceased herself there is any demand of dowry. Rather, it comes in the report that the money was given for the purpose of purchasing some landed property to the husband of the deceased. Secondly, he argues that neither in the report lodged by the brother nor in the report earlier lodged by the deceased herself there is any demand of dowry. Rather, it comes in the report that the money was given for the purpose of purchasing some landed property to the husband of the deceased. He also argues that it is mentioned in the written report of the brother of the deceased that the information of death was sent to them on the next day. He further argues that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no medical evidence as the postmortem on, the body was not conducted and even from other angle also, no offence is made out against tile applicants. He prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail, who are in jail since 22.9.2006. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications. He reads the Contents of the earlier report said to have been lodged by the deceased and he also reads the Contents of the report lodged by the brother of the deceased. However, he has not disputed that as per the information collected in the case diary, the marriage of the deceased had taken place in the year 1998. He draws the attention of this Court that in the written report lodged by the deceased it has been stated that the marriage had taken place in the year 1997. Section 304-B deals with the mailer of dowry death. It has been provided by sub-Section (I) that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In the present case on basis of written report lodged by the deceased as also on the basis of report lodged by the brother of the deceased, the marriage was performed either in the year 1997 or in the year 1998. It is unfortunate that the prosecution has not enquired about the actual date of marriage of the deceased. In the present case on basis of written report lodged by the deceased as also on the basis of report lodged by the brother of the deceased, the marriage was performed either in the year 1997 or in the year 1998. It is unfortunate that the prosecution has not enquired about the actual date of marriage of the deceased. Secondly, the evidence regarding treating the deceased with cruelty, and regarding demand of dowry is also vague, as it has not come in the statement of the witnesses that any amount was demanded by the accused persons as dowry from the deceased or her family members. Rather, it comes in the written report of the brother of the deceased that the amount was taken/paid by them on account of purchase of certain landed property by the husband of the deceased. Even there is no medical evidence in this case as admittedly the postmortem was not conducted as according to the accused persons, the death was natural and after informing the family members of the deceased, the last rituals were performed on the very next day. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of allegations made against the applicants and the nature of evidence collected by the Prosecution in this regard, I am of the considered opinion that Present are the fit cases, in which, these applicants should be released on regular bill. Their applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed. It is directed that these applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on each date of hearing till the disposal of the trial. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on merits of the case and the merits shall be considered on the facts and circumstances available before the concerned Court. Certified copy as per rules. Bail Granted.