Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2288 (ALL)

Sudhir v. State of U. P.

2015-08-07

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 22 of 2012, (S.T. No. 615 of 2012), under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Babri, District Prabudh Nagar/Muzaffar Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that it is admitted to the prosecution that the deceased was living with her parents soon before the incident in question, as there was matrimonial dispute in between the applicant and his wife. Therefore, how and under what circumstances she met with her death, it is not possible for the applicant to disclose or explain. Further submission is that there is some discrepancy in the age of the deceased as has been shown in the postmortem report and her actual age which makes the identity of the deceased doubtful. It was also submitted that the applicant never subjected his wife to any ill treatment. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of the witnesses Ramesh Chandra and Praveen Kumar which were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to which, on 2.3.2012 when the witnesses were going to some place, the deceased was seen along with her husband (applicant) and both were seen sitting on the motorcycle. As these witnesses knew the deceased and the accused since long time, they had no difficulty in recognizing them. It was also submitted that even according to the version of the first informant, the deceased had left the house of her father after telling that she was going on being called by the father of Kannu. This Kannu is the daughter of the applicant and the deceased. Submission is that it is very clear by this evidence that the applicant had called the deceased and she had gone along with him on his call and was also seen by the aforesaid witnesses on her way along with the applicant. Later on, on the same day, her dead body was found. Submission is that it is very clear by this evidence that the applicant had called the deceased and she had gone along with him on his call and was also seen by the aforesaid witnesses on her way along with the applicant. Later on, on the same day, her dead body was found. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that she was being ill treated by the applicant and the applicant had been insisting on extra demand of dowry and just because of this about one month before the incident, the applicant had left the deceased and who was therefore living in the house of her parents. Submission is that as there is sufficient evidence regarding demand of dowry and ill treatment and there is also sufficient evidence that the deceased was last seen going along with the applicant and it was not long thereafter that her dead body was found showing firearm wounds inflicted on her. Learned A.G.A. has also argued that there is no such material or circumstance on the basis of which the prosecution evidence with regard to the fact that soon before the death, the deceased on the same day was called by her husband and was also seen going along with the applicant (husband) may be doubted or discredited. There is absolutely no explanation good, bad or indifferent furnished by the applicant as to how and under what circumstances, applicant's wife met with her unnatural homicidal death. It has been contended that it would have been an altogether different situation if there would not have been any evidence to show that the deceased was called from her parental house by her husband and was also seen by witnesses going on a motorcycle along with him. The applicant might have then in that situation hid himself behind the cover of his inability to explain the whereabouts of his wife or the circumstances which led to her murder. But as the evidence with regard to the deceased having been last seen with the applicant is very much available on record, the applicant cannot absolve himself from the onus of explaining the circumstances leading to her death which is nothing except murder committed by firearm. But as the evidence with regard to the deceased having been last seen with the applicant is very much available on record, the applicant cannot absolve himself from the onus of explaining the circumstances leading to her death which is nothing except murder committed by firearm. With the background of curt and strained relations of deceased with the applicant, the history of demand of dowry, the deceased being called by the applicant and then having been seen with him also, and then her murdered body being discovered not long thereafter, are such circumstances that the Court should draw a presumption of guilt against the applicant under Section 114 of Evidence Act. Learned A.G.A. has also contended that the failure of applicant to explain the circumstances of her death is a failure to discharge the legal onus created by Section 106 of Evidence Act also as the facts relating to the disappearance or the murder of the deceased must be presumed to be the facts within the especial knowledge of the applicant. Submission is that there remains no doubt that the applicant is the killer of his wife. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn the attention of the Court to the postmortem report showing firearm wound inflicted on the deceased. Lastly, it was submitted by learned A.G.A. that the period of detention of the applicant is also not so long drawn out which may by itself constitute some ground sometimes to release an accused on bail in a given case. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made at the Bar and looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.