Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3776 (ALL)

Munni v. State of U. P.

2009-12-16

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT: Ravindra Singh, J. Heard Sri V.M.Zaidi, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S.M.Asghar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and perused the record. This bail application has been moved by the applicant Smt. Munni with a prayer that she may be released on bail in case crime No. 247 of 2005 under sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Harpal Singh on 14.10.2005 at 5.00 a.m.in respect of the incident which had occurred on 13.10.2005. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Munesh was solemnized on 30.6.2001 with the co-accused Mukesh, from their wedlock, a female child was born, on the day of incident, she was aged about 3 years. The in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage, they were demanding a car, on account of non-fulfilment of the dowry, the deceased was expelled from her house, she resided at the house of the first informant for many months, thereafter, a panchayat was arranged in which the applicant and other co-accused persons asked to fulfil the demand of dowry, any how, they were pressurised to keep the deceased at their house,thereafter, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. On 13.10.2005 at about 2.00 p.m., the uncle of the first informant namely Bijendra Singh, Raj Singh and Anil went to meet the deceased at her residence, they saw that the deceased was lying on her bed in a bad condition, she disclosed that poison was forcibly administered to her by her husband Mukesh, co-accused Veer Singh, applicant Munni and co-accused Shimla, she asked to bring the hospital, thereafter, she was taken to Naveen Hospital, Greater Noida from where she was referred to Fortes Hospital where she died during treatment. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained 3 ante mortem injuries, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The applicant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, the same was rejected on 7.9.2009. 3. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained 3 ante mortem injuries, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The applicant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, the same was rejected on 7.9.2009. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is jethani of the deceased, she was having no concern with the demand of dowry and she was having no concern with the family affairs of the deceased, the allegation regarding demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to the cruelty is absolutely false and baseless, the husband of the deceased is a class -1 officer, he is Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, he was posted at Moradabad, the applicant along with her minor daughter was living with her husband at Moradabad, she was living separately with the deceased and her husband, she was not living at Noida where the alleged occurrence had taken place. The matter initially investigated by the local police, who collected the evidence of separate living, it was found that on the day of alleged incident, she was in Assam but the investigation was transferred to CB-CID who recorded the statement of Dr. Amit Saxena of Naveen Hospital who stated that the deceased was brought by Nitin Bhati in the hospital where she admitted on 13.10.2005 at 2.45 p.m. it was told by Nitin Bhati that the deceased had taken white powder at that time no injury was seen on her person. At that time she was conscious, she was referred to the Fortis Hospital, Noida, the viscera was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination, the report dated 16.4.2006 shows that poison was not found in the viscera. There is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The parents of the applicant are resident of Assam State, the applicant visited the house of her parent on the eve of Durga Pooja, the husband of the applicant has also applied for station leave and casual leave to visit Assam on 7.10.2005, they travelled on 8.10.2005 in North East Express from Aligarh to Rangia Station ( Assam) where she lived upto 16.10.2005 at her parental house. The husband of the applicant get the information regarding the death of the deceased on 13.10.2009. The husband of the applicant get the information regarding the death of the deceased on 13.10.2009. On 14.10.2005, the applicant came to know that she had been the main accused in the present case, the I.O. has collected the evidence regarding plea of alibi taken by husband of the applicant Veer Singh, the calls detail have also been collected by the I.O. showing that the applicant and her husband were in Assam. Thereafter, the final report dated 23.10.2006 was submitted by the I.O. mentioning therein that the applicant and other co-accused were falsely implicated whereas the deceased had committed suicide but the final report submitted by the I.O. was protested by the first informant. Considering the same, the learned magistrate concerned rejected the final report and directed for further investigation. After further investigation also, the final report was submitted but the learned magistrate concerned has rejected the final report without any proper reason and summoned the applicant to face the trial. The applicant is in jail since 3.9.2009, she is an innocent lady, she may be released on bail. 4. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf the complainant that in this case,the deceased has been killed by the applicant and other co-accused persons by administering the poison forcibly. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had sustained 3 ante mortem injuries in which injury no. 1 was abrasion on the left arm, injury no.2 was contusion over the left side neck and injury no.3 was radish contusion on chest. It shows that the force was used in administering the poison. On the same day she was admitted in Naveen Hospital, the statement of Dr. Amit Saxena was recorded, who stated that the deceased had taken white powder. In final diagnosis of Naveen Hospital, the case of poisoning has been clearly mentioned. The husband of the applicant is very powerful person, he is Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax since very beginning, he was influencing the investigation, he successfully obtained the report of Public Analyst that no poison was found in the viscera, the same was objected, the remaining part of the viscera was again sent to Vidhi Vigyan Prayog Shala, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow but the report dated 10.5.2007 of Joint Director shows that in the said sample, no tissue was sent, only 5 mg. dirty liquid was sent. dirty liquid was sent. It shows that the influence of the husband of the applicant was working every where. It is also surprising that in this case due to influence of the applicant and her family members , the I.O. submitted the final report, the same was rejected by learned Magistrate concerned and order for further investigation was passed, even then the final report was submitted, after further investigation, the same has been rejected by the learned CJM Gautam Budh Nagar on 23.10.2007 and summoned the applicant and other co-accused to face the trial. The order of the trial court dated 23.10.2007 has been challenged by the applicant and other co-accused Veer Singh, Smt. Shimla before this court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1887 of 2008, the order dated 23.10.2007 was affirmed by this Court and application filed by the applicant and other co-accused persons was disposed of. So far as the plea of alibi is concerned, the same may be taken at the time of the trial. In this case the death of the deceased has occurred within 7 years of marriage of the deceased, the death was unnatural, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that it is case in which without doing the proper investigation, the final report was submitted by the I.O., the same has been rejected by the learned Magistrate concerned, the death of the deceased has taken place within 7 years of her marriage, it was unnatural death, the deceased has sustained 3 ante mortem injuries, to ensure the fair trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.