Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2673 (ALL)

Manoj Yadav v. State of U. P.

2009-07-27

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT: Vijay Kumar Verma, J. The applicant Manoj Yadav, who is the husband of Smt. Archana @ Pinki (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) has sought bail by means of this application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in case crime no. 695 of 2008 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad. 2. The marriage of Smt. Archana was solemnized with applicant on 07.12.2005. She committed suicide in the intervening night of 10/11-05-2008 in the house of her father, situated in Shivalik Tower, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. An FIR was lodged by Roop Singh, father of the deceased, on 11.05.2008 at P.S. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, where a case under section 306 IPC was registered at crime no. 695 of 2008 against Manoj (applicant herein), his mother Smt. Prema Kumari and his younger brother Anuj Yadav. The allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that the accused persons were causing harassment of deceased making demand of car and cash and they also caused marpeet with her on 06.08.2006. It is also alleged in the FIR that when the demand of dowry of accused persons was not fulfilled, they ousted the deceased from their house, due to which she came to her maika and since she was being continuously tortured by the accused persons making demand of dowry, hence she committed suicide by hanging in the intervening night of 10/11-05-2008. After investigation, chargesheet under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and ¾ D. P. Act has been filed. 3. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sr. G. S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Azat Shatru Pandey Advocate, appearing for the applicant, Sri G. S. Hajela and Sri Nitin Gupta, Advocates representing the complainant and AGA for the State. 4. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that the deceased had committed suicide in her maika, where she was living for more than two months, hence the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out in this case, because she was not subjected to cruelty for or in connection with dowry soon before death, which is essential element of section 304-B IPC. The contention of Mr. The contention of Mr. Chaturvedi was that since the deceased was living away from the accused persons for more than two months as per FIR version itself, hence there was no occasion for the accused persons for subjecting the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before death. 5. Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that the marriage of deceased with the applicant had taken place in December, 2005, whereas the deceased committed suicide in May 2008, hence the allegation of demanding car and cash during this long period is false and concocted and hence on this ground also, the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out, as for attracting section 304-B IPC, the harassment of the deceased woman must be for or in connection with the demand of dowry and if in any case, she is tortured or harassed for some other reason and she commits suicide due to that reason, then in such case, the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would not be made out. 6. It was also submitted by learned counsel that marpeet was caused with the applicant Manoj Yadav on 30.03.2007 by Rahul, brother of the deceased and two unknown persons and after commission of suicide by deceased, false story of causing harassment of the deceased for dowry has been concocted. For this submission, attention of the Court was drawn towards the applications (Annexure-3, Annexure-5 and Paper No. 28 to 32) and injury report of applicant (Annexure 4). 7. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased did not want to live with the applicant and she herself had gone away to her maika, where she committed suicide for the reason best known to her and hence the applicant cannot be held responsible for committing suicide by deceased, because he had not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The contention of learned counsel was that applicant was not present in the maika of deceased at the time of her committing suicide and hence, it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide due to abetment of applicant and hence, no offence against the applicant is made out. 8. The contention of learned counsel was that applicant was not present in the maika of deceased at the time of her committing suicide and hence, it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide due to abetment of applicant and hence, no offence against the applicant is made out. 8. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case was committed for trial to the Court of Session on 08.12.2008, but the charge has not yet been framed in S.T. No. 1571 of 2008, which is pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad and hence the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 16.07.2008, is entitled to be released on bail on the basis of long incarceration in jail, because due to delay in trial his Fundamental Right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being infringed. 9. The bail application was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the complainant and AGA contending that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons making demand of car and cash and since this demand was continued upto 10.05.2008 and the deceased committed suicide in the intervening night on 10/11-5-2008 due to the harassment caused by the applicant and other accused persons, hence the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC is clearly made out in this case, notwithstanding that the deceased had committed suicide in her maika. The contention of Mr. Hajela, learned counsel for the complainant, was that for attracting section 304-B IPC, it is not essential that unnatural death of married woman must be in the house of her in-laws and if the death of married woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage at any place 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 of dowry, then in such case the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC would be clearly made out. 10. 10. Drawing my attention towards the statement of witnesses Yatinder Singh (Annexure-4), Smt. Beena (Annexure 5), Jagvir Singh (Annexure-6), K. K. Sharma (Annexure 7), Smt. Veena Yadav @ Samay Yadav (Annexure 9) and Ravinder Singh (Annexure-11), filed with counter affidavit dated 14.01.2009, it was submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that on the basis of these statements, it is fully established that the applicant Manoj Yadav and other accused persons were causing harassment of the deceased making demand of dowry. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the complainant on the statement of Ravinder Singh Yadav (Annexure-11 to the counter affidavit) and it was submitted that this witness had talks with the applicant and his mother Smt. Prema Devi on 09.05.2008 at his residence at Aligarh with a view to solve the dispute between the applicant and deceased, but at that time also, the applicant and his mother had repeated their demand of dowry and since the result of talks was conveyed by this witness to the deceased on 10.05.2008 on telephone, due to which the deceased became disturbed and for this reason, she committed suicide in the same night, hence the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC is clearly made out in present case, because cruelty and harassment of the deceased was continued till her committing suicide. It was also submitted by learned counsel in this context that the witness Ravinder Singh is the husband of cousin sister of deceased and he had talks with the applicant and his mother on being persuaded by the deceased, as she wanted to live with her husband, but when she could not succeed in her attempts and her harassment for the demand of dowry was continued, she ended her life by committing suicide in the intervening night of 10/11-05-2008. My attention was also drawn towards Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit containing paper no. 12 to 24, which are photostat-copies of the extracts of diary written by the deceased and it was submitted by learned counsel that from these extracts of the diary also, it is fully established that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with the demand of dowry. 12 to 24, which are photostat-copies of the extracts of diary written by the deceased and it was submitted by learned counsel that from these extracts of the diary also, it is fully established that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for or in connection with the demand of dowry. Special attention of the court was drawn towards the extract of diary of deceased of 28.06.2007 on paper No. 21 of the counter affidavit, in which the deceased has expressed the plights of her life in following words:- "Aaj ek sal ho gaya mujhe is makan par. ye 24 May ke gaye hain par aaj tak ye ghar nahin aaye aur na hi inka koi phone hi aya. ye bhagwan kabhi mere ghar mein bhi khushi aayegi ya aise hi ek din tadap tadap kar maut aa jayegi. agar ye shadi hoti hai to bhagwan kisi ladki ki shadi na ho" 11. Next submission made by learned counsel for the complainant was that marpeet was caused by the accused persons with deceased on 06.08.2006. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit and injury report of deceased Smt. Archana, who was medically examined in District Hospital, Ghaziabad on 06.08.2006 at 6.30 p.m. 12. I have carefully gone through the entire material in the record of bail application and counter/supplementary affidavits. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to show that the applicant and other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with the demand of car and Rs. 3 lac in dowry, till her suicidal death in the intervening night of 10/11-5-2008. It is settled law that suicidal death also is covered under section 304-B IPC, if other conditions are satisfied. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having taken into consideration entire material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, in this heinous anti-social crime, the applicant does not deserve bail. 13. In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicants can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. 13. In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicants 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. 14. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the bail application is hereby rejected. 15. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicants within a period of six months applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 16. 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. 17. 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.