Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 795 (ALL)

Leela Vishwash and Another v. State of U. P.

2011-03-29

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2011
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA and have taken through the record. Admit, Summon the lower court's record. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge ( Court No.1) District Pilibhit vide Sessions Trial No.313 of 2010 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-each for the offence under section 306 IPC . In default, the appellants had to undergo three months further imprisonment. At the very inception, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is only praying for grant of the bail in respect of the appellant no.1 Smt. Leela Viswas who is the mother in law of the victim. The prayer for grant of bail in respect of the appellant no.2 Bhupati Vishwash who is the husband of the victim will be argued separately . The prosecution case in a short conspectus is that there was constant demand from the side of the appellants for fetching more and more dowry . The victim could not fetch the desired dowry from her parents therefore, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. The victim could not bear the brunt of her in laws hence she died in a very mysterious circumstances. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that initially the first information report was lodged under sections 498A/304B/34 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act .During trial the court below did not find any credible and clinching evidence therefore, the appellants were only convicted under section 306 IPC Act and were acquitted from the charges of sections 498A/304B IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. therefore, the appellant no.1 may be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal as there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in future. The appellant no.1 was throughout in jail during trial. On the other hand learned AGA opposed the bail prayer of the appellant and contended that the incident was narrated in a natural manner. There was no embellishment on the part of the complainant in narrating the prosecution story. The acquittal of the appellant no.1 under sections 498A/304B IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act would not absolve the appellant no.1 from all the charges . There was no embellishment on the part of the complainant in narrating the prosecution story. The acquittal of the appellant no.1 under sections 498A/304B IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act would not absolve the appellant no.1 from all the charges . Slight aberration in the prosecution version does not topple down the entire prosecution case and the appellant no.1 being the mother in law of the victim had played pivotal role on account of which the victim could not enjoy her congenial marital life rather died in mysterious circumstances . Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that the appellant no.1 Smt. Leela Vishwash convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No.313 of 2010 under section 306 IPC be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond & two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned