Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3022 (ALL)

Sonu v. State of U. P.

2015-09-22

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.136 of 2013, u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Palimukimpur, District- Aligarh. 2. Counter affidavit filed, taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 4. Perused the record. 5. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness account of murder available in this case and the charge sheet against the applicant is nothing except a conjectural inference of the investigating Officer without any sure basis. The applicant himself had lodged the first information report about the occurrence which according to the counsel speaks about the clean conscience of the applicant. The submission of the counsel is that actually the deceased had committed suicide out of shame and fear of social humiliation. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is a case of honour killing. The deceased was sister of the first informant and as she had been seen along with one Subhash in some objectionable position or compromising position, she was taken back home by her brother and then she was strangulated to death. Further submission is that the most incriminating circumstance against the applicant is that though it was a case of murder, but while giving the information to the police station the applicant reported the incident showing it to be a case of suicide. Learned A.G.A. has drawn the attention of the Court to the post mortem examination report of the deceased which shows that not only the froth was coming out from the nostrils and the eyes as well as the face were found congested, the hyoid bone was also found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor also the death was the result of strangulation and not hanging. The submission is that it was not a case of suicide at all as was shown or projected by the applicant and the same misinformation has been completely disproved by the medical evidence. The deceased had died within the precincts of her home and how and under what circumstances she met with her homicidal death are matters certainly within the 'especial knowledge' of the applicant as contemplated u/s 106 Evidence Act. The deceased had died within the precincts of her home and how and under what circumstances she met with her homicidal death are matters certainly within the 'especial knowledge' of the applicant as contemplated u/s 106 Evidence Act. It was the onus of the applicant to explain the circumstances as to how did she meet with her end. The explanation offered by the applicant with regard to her death is not only inadequate but has been exposed to be false. The submission is that whatever might have been the conservative social values of the applicant and however much objection the applicant might have had against the relationship or the meeting of the deceased with any other boy, the extreme punitive step taken by the family members of the deceased is absolutely unpardonable. A helpless girl who aught to have been protected by the applicant being his sister was brutally done to death and then in order to preserve his ownself from the accusation of murder an entirely false suicide story was reported to the police department as a camouflage but which got exploded completely by the investigation. The mischievously calculating attempt to bluff the authorities and misleading the police with the aim to make it draw wrong conclusions is an additional incriminating circumstance to be reckoned with against the applicant. This post-crime conduct of the applicant bears an eloquent testimony to his guilty mind. A.G.A. has also drawn the attention of the court to certain statements which were given by certain witnesses in which extra judicial confession is said to have been made by the applicant admitting his guilt. 7. After adverting to the record of the case in the light of the rival submissions made at the bar the court is once again reminded of the old saying that "The living do not speak the truth with the candour of the dead." However much the applicant might have tried to suppress the truth, the deceased, who spoke from her death through the autopsy of her cadaver was candid enough to spill the beans and unveil the truth.The accused has lied but the deceased did not, nor did the circumstances of the case. But what adds to the poignancy of the murder is to see that the blood has taken the blood of its own and that too for a reason which was so unreasonable, so irrational and so unjustifiable. But what adds to the poignancy of the murder is to see that the blood has taken the blood of its own and that too for a reason which was so unreasonable, so irrational and so unjustifiable. To speak the least, the indefensible and morbid conservatism of the applicant who treated the adolescent love as a culpable offence and that too punishable with death, makes the murder all the more foul and despicable. The courts of law can not brook with such crimes which have all the trappings of primitive orthodox savagery. 8. 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. 9. 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.