Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2580 (ALL)

Anil @ Jai Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-07-26

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.130 of 2014, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sahawar, District-Kasganj. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that actually the deceased was pregnant and because of the death of child in her womb the infection spread over the body and she died. Further submission is that the deceased died natural death due to biological reasons having nothing to do with any kind of atrocity committed on her and it is not a case of dowry death. Counsel has also submitted that the deceased was taken to the hospital by applicant and the doctor was also examined by the Investigating Officer who has also stated that the the infection had spread over the body and when the deceased was brought she was virtually dead and the child in the womb had already died. According to the doctor the infection was because of the dead child in her womb. Submission is that even Dr. Sanjay Bhargav had admitted that the child in the womb of the deceased had already died and because of death of child the infection had spread over the body and it is possible that because of the infection the body organs of the deceased might have failed. The allegations of demand of dowry have also been denied by the counsel. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has pointed out that the death of the deceased took place within one year of her marriage. Much emphasis was laid by learned A.G.A. on the post-mortem-report which indicates multiple injuries on the person of the deceased. Submission is that the presence of several injuries on the person of the deceased is a sufficient proof to demonstrate that she was subjected to violence soon before her death. Even in the opinion of the doctor, who did the post-mortem, the death of the deceased occurred as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. It has been further emphasized by learned A.G.A. that when Dr. Even in the opinion of the doctor, who did the post-mortem, the death of the deceased occurred as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. It has been further emphasized by learned A.G.A. that when Dr. Sanjay Bhargav was examined by the Investigating Officer it was stated by him that when the deceased was brought to him, the child in the womb had already died and all vital organs of the body of deceased like liver, kidney and brain had already stopped functioning. It was also stated by doctor that even the heart had failed. Submission is that this statement is sufficient to indicate that the deceased had already died when she was taken to the hospital. It was also stated by the doctor that her trachea was cut and the ventilator was inserted into it and the deceased was kept on ventilator for some time and was taken away from the same with the consent of the family members after some time. Further submission is that the violence to which the deceased was subjected is sufficient to indicate that in all probability the child died as a result of the same and all the infection of the body which took the toll of the poor deceased was not because of any natural death of the embryo in ordinary circumstances or under normal background. The septic or infection spilling all over the body had a direct nexus with the violence influenced upon deceased, otherwise there was no question for the doctor to describe the cause of death due to ante-mortem injuries. The deceased did not catch or contract infection from the air or any extraneous source. To the contrary the infection spread in her body because of the injuries that were inflicted upon her and became the cause of her death as has been opined by the doctor. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that there are allegations made by the first informant, who is the father, that the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and were insisting upon the additional demands and because the same remained unfilfilled she was subjected to cruel treatment by the applicant and other family members. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that there are allegations made by the first informant, who is the father, that the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and were insisting upon the additional demands and because the same remained unfilfilled she was subjected to cruel treatment by the applicant and other family members. It was also stated by the first informant that the deceased herself had narrated her woeful story to the first informant and had complained about the ill-treatment which was meted out to her. Contention is that the presence of multiple injuries on the person of the deceased, her death within a year of the marriage, coupled with the allegations of demand of additional dowry and ill-treatment which was meted out to her sufficiently prove that it is nothing but a case of dowry death and the applicant, who being husband had the prime responsibility to secure the welfare and safety of his wife has utterly failed to do so and has also utterly failed to explain the death of deceased under abnormal circumstances and the presence of the injuries on her person even though he had the principal onus to explain the same. 6. 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. 8. However, if the trial of the applicant has already commenced, the court below shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the conclusion of the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party.