Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 9 (UTT)

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-01-05

ALOK SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. 1. This is the 1st bail application seeking regular bail in F.I.R. Case Crime No. 321 of 2015, under Section 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Manglore, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. CCTV footage/pan drive was produced in sealed cover by Shri P.K. Chauhan, Deputy S.P./Circle Officer. Seal was open by Mr. Narendra Dutt, Registrar (Judicial) in my presence. After watching CCTV footage, same is kept in sealed packet under the signature of Mr. Narendra Dutt, Registrar (Judicial) and Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Circle Officer and is handed over to Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Circle Officer. 3. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, submits that son of the applicant, namely, Sudhashu Tyagi was got married with deceased Vandana in the year 2011; Vandana was suffering from sever stomach ache, therefore, she was taken to various doctors and hospitals for treatment; on 7th August, 2015, Vandana was taken to Salar Hospital, Roorkee in a car by the applicant and her husband; she herself came out from the car and sat on the stretcher and, thereafter, her treatment was started in the noon, on the fateful day, however, her condition deteriorated and ultimately she was rushed to I.C.U. where C.P.R. was provided, however, she could not be saved and died. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel further contends that injuries near chin might have been received by the deceased while providing C.P.R. on her mouth. 4. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, have taken me to the case diary and while referring the statements of Dr. Praveen Salar and Dr. Seema Salar and Km. Arti, Staff Nurse of the Hospital recorded under Section 161 of the Code, have argued that although she was taken to the hospital in the noon of 07.08.2015 and she was administered pain killer and other treatment. As per the statement of Km. Arti, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., after both the doctors left the room wherein Vandana was admitted, her husband and father-in-law, remained present in the same room. No injury marks were noticed around the neck by the doctors of Salar Hospital. However, after her death, injuries marks were observed on her cheek and neck during the post mortem. Arti, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., after both the doctors left the room wherein Vandana was admitted, her husband and father-in-law, remained present in the same room. No injury marks were noticed around the neck by the doctors of Salar Hospital. However, after her death, injuries marks were observed on her cheek and neck during the post mortem. Therefore, it can be safely said that both of them have pushed / covered her mouth and nose with the help of pillow and have strangulated her resulting into her death. 5. As per post mortem report as well as statement of Dr. P.K. Agarwal, who has conducted the post mortem, six injuries were observed on her mouth, cheek as well as her neck. Therefore, It is for the applicant to prove as to how she could receive injuries during the period when both of them remained present in the hospital room alongwith deceased Vandana in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As per the averments in the F.I.R., she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and she herself has moved one application before Faridabad Hospital that she was beaten and she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Deceased died within seven years of her marriage and cause of death as per the post mortem report was due to asphyxia as a result of anti mortem smothering. 6. At this stage, post mortem report should not be dis-believed in view of statement of Km.Arti, Hospital Attendant that when both the doctors left the room, she remained alone in the company of her husband and present applicant/father-in-law. Therefore, submission of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel cannot be ruled out completely. 7. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 7. Bail application is rejected.