Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 266 (UTT)

Rajendra Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

2010-05-04

DHARAM VEER

body2010
Judgment Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri A.K. Sah, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record. 2. In brief, the prosecution story is that complainant Vijay Singh lodged a report before Tehsildar Tehsil Koshiya Katoli, District Nainital on 18.8.2009 stating that his daughter Prabha Devi was married with the applicant/ accused Rajendra Singh four years before. Soon after the marriage, mother-in-law of his daughter Smt. Radhuli Devi and the present applicant Rajendra Singh started committing mental and physical harassment of his daughter for dowry thereby demanding Rs.50,000/- in dowry from her. Due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, she was sent to her parental house at a number of times. On 11.8.2009 at 7 PM the applicant/accused and the co-accused poured kerosene oil on his daughter and set her at fire. His daughter was got admitted at Sushila Tewari Hospital, Haldwani. On receiving the information, he went to hospital and found his daughter lying in burnt condition. 3. She told him that the applicant/accused and co-accused have burnt her by pouring kerosene oil upon her. On 16.8.2009 in the night, his daughter succumbed to her burn injuries. 4. The State has filed its counter affidavit along with which the statement of Vijay Singh, complainant and father of the deceased, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, aunt of the deceased and Smt. Ambuli Devi, mother of the deceased, have been annexed, who have fully corroborated the version as stated in the FIR. The post-mortem report of the deceased is also annexed with the counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that the deceased has died due to extensive ante-mortem thermal burns leading to cardio respiratory failure. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that the present applicant is the husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. Contrary to this learned Addl. GA for the State has vehemently opposed the bail of the applicant/accused and stated that the applicant/accused is named in the FIR and specific role has been assigned to him. Further, ample evidence have been collected by the I.O. against the applicant/accused to prove his involvement in the said crime. Contrary to this learned Addl. GA for the State has vehemently opposed the bail of the applicant/accused and stated that the applicant/accused is named in the FIR and specific role has been assigned to him. Further, ample evidence have been collected by the I.O. against the applicant/accused to prove his involvement in the said crime. He further submitted that the deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage and just before her death, she was mentally and physically tortured for the payment of dowry and the specific allegation has been made against the applicant. The deceased had died in the house of the applicant in unnatural circumstances and being a husband, he is liable for the offence committed by him. 6. On a careful perusal of the contents of the FIR; post-mortem report and the statement of witnesses, namely, Vijay Singh, Bhagwati Devi and Ambuli Devi and other papers available on record, prima facie it reveals that soon 7. after the marriage the deceased was mentally and physically harassed by the accused/applicant for the demand of dowry and on 11.8.2009 at 7 PM, she was set at fire due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, as a result of which she died in the night of 16.8.2009. The deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of her husband due to demand of dowry and soon before her death she was being harassed by the applicant/accused for the demand of dowry. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and looking to the gravity of offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail. 8. Bail application is rejected accordingly.