Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2594 (ALL)

Jeetan v. State of U. P.

2009-07-17

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT: Vijay Kumar Verma, J. Prayer for bail in this bail application has been made on behalf of the applicant Jeetan s/o Surendra Sharma in case crime no. 464 of 2007 under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and ¾ D.P. Act P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. 2. The applicant is the husband of deceased Smt. Madhu Sharma, who died within seven years of her marriage due to unnatural death. An FIR was lodged by Mool Chandra Sharma, father of the deceased, on 29.07.2007 at P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, where a case under section 304-B and ¾ D.P. Act was registered at case crime no. 464 of 2007 against Jeetan (applicant herein), Surendra Kumar Sharma and Sharda Devi. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that after marriage of Smt. Madhu Sharma with accused Jeetan on 28.11.2004, she was being harassed by her husband and her in-laws making demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the complainant paid Rs.50000/- to the accused persons so that they may be satisfied, but thereafter they started to make demand of Santro car. Further case of the prosecution is that when the complainant could not satisfy the demand of accused persons, they committed murder of Smt. Madhu Sharma on 29.07.2007. It is further alleged in the FIR that when on getting information the complainant reached the house of the accused persons, her daughter was lying dead on floor of the house and there was wire in her neck and injuries were also there on her body. 4. I have heard arguments of Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, Sri Ram Babu Sharma, counsel for the complainant and AGA for the State. 5. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that it is a case of suicidal death and since allegation of causing harassment to the deceased has been made against three persons named in the FIR, hence it cannot be said that applicant alone has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and hence on this ground, the applicant deserves bail. The contention of learned counsel was that general role of making demand of dowry has been attributed to the applicant and his parents and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant. 6. The contention of learned counsel was that general role of making demand of dowry has been attributed to the applicant and his parents and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant. 6. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2007 and due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated. 7. Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that ante-mortem injury no. 1, which is contusion, was likely to be caused in the process of hanging. 8. It was also submitted that information about committing suicide by the deceased was given by the applicant himself at police station concerned and on the basis of his information, inquest proceedings on the dead body was conducted on 29.07.2007. 9. Further submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that after her marriage in the year 2004, the deceased could not deliver any child and due to this frustration, she committed suicide and hence, the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out in present case. 10. The bail application was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the complainant and AGA contending that it is not the case of suicide and after committing murder of the deceased, her dead body was hanged to give a shape of suicide. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant in this context that at the time of postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased, in addition to one contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on left side of chin, her nails and lips were cynosed, which indicates that the deceased was murdered and she did not commit suicide, because in case of suicide, the nails and lips would not be cynosed. 11. 11. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that ligature mark of 29 cm in length and 1 cm in width was found on the neck of deceased at the time of postmortem examination, which shows that murder of deceased was committed by wire or rope, but a dupatta was found tied in jungla, which also shows that after committing murder of deceased by rope or wire, a false defence was created by tying the dupatta in the jungla, whereas ligature mark, which was found on the neck of deceased at the time of postmortem examination is not possible to be caused by dupatta. 12. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that when the complainant had reached the house of accused persons, they had fled away from there and no person of the family was present at the time of inquest proceedings and on this basis, an inference can be drawn that after committing the murder of deceased, the accused persons gave false information at police station concerned about committing suicide and fled away from their house. 13. About committing suicide by the deceased due to frustration of not giving birth to any child, it was submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that no such plea has been taken in the affidavit, which was filed in support of the bail application. 14. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record. There is prima facie evidence that the applicant Jeetan and his parents were causing harassment of deceased Smt. Madhu Sharma making demand of santro car in dowry. The deceased had died due to unnatural death within a period of seven years of her marriage. In addition to ligature mark of 29 cm in length and 1 cm in width, one ante-mortem contusion 3cm x 1 cm was found on the person of deceased at the time of postmortem examination as per postmortem report (Annexure-3). It is nowhere averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that suicide was committed by the deceased due to frustration of not giving birth to any child. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merit, in this heinous ante social crime, the applicant does not deserve bail. 15. It is nowhere averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that suicide was committed by the deceased due to frustration of not giving birth to any child. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merit, in this heinous ante social crime, the applicant does not deserve bail. 15. In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the bail application of the applicant Jeetan is hereby rejected. 17. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 18. The S.S.P. Ghaziabad is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the trial court concerned and it must be ensured that the witnesses are produced in the trial court for evidence without causing any delay. 19. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and S.S.P. Ghaziabad for necessary action.