Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 123 (UTT)

MANOJ NAINWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-03-09

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. Applicant Manoj Nainwal, who is in jail in connection with case crime no. 53 of 2014, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to Police Station, Lalkuan, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. It is an admitted fact that the victim died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances. The Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem, opined that it was a suspected case of death due to poisoning and, hence, viscera was preserved and report of Forensic Science Laboratory confirms the presence of poison. The burden, according to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is on the husband (present applicant). The Court was taken through various statements taken by the Investigating Officer during investigation by learned counsel for the parties. 4. The question, at present, is – whether the victim was administered poison by the applicant or she consumed poison on her own? According to FIR, on 08.06.2014, the victim alongwith the applicant went to attend a marriage ceremony on 08.06.2014. The victim was left there. When the complainant reached maternal home of her sister at 09:00 P.M. (probably with the victim, for there is no material to show that she came back to her maternal home on her own), she told her brother that she was administered poison by her husband and in-laws. Victim was, then, taken to Sushila Tiwari hospital where she was declared brought dead. 5. Undisputedly, it is a case of strained relationship between the husband (applicant) and the wife (deceased). The question is – where was the time for the applicant and his family members to administer poison to the victim? She went to attend a marriage during day hours and probably returned at 09:00 P.M. only at her maternal home. In the meantime, her brother, informant, came to victim’s matrimonial home. The victim gave the statement that her husband and in-laws have administered poison to her. It appears that she consumed poison on her own. In the postmortem report, no external visible mark of injury was seen. No internal injury mark was present either. In the meantime, her brother, informant, came to victim’s matrimonial home. The victim gave the statement that her husband and in-laws have administered poison to her. It appears that she consumed poison on her own. In the postmortem report, no external visible mark of injury was seen. No internal injury mark was present either. Although the dice is heavily loaded against the applicant (husband), but at present, it appears that he has been able to discharge some of his burden and, therefore, he (applicant), who is in jail since 12.06.2014 should be granted bail. 6. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.