Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 126 (ALL)

Satendra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2022-01-31

VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The case is called out through video conferencing. 2. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant, Sri Rama Pati Shukla, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are connected through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case. 3. The present bail-application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant-Satendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.356 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Mishrikh, District Sitapur. 4. The occasion of present bail-application has arisen on rejection of bail-plea of the accused-applicant by learned Sessions Judge, District Sitapur vide order dated 04.12.2019. 5. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged between the contesting parties to the case, as such, the case is ripe for hearing. 6. Reading over the first information report, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submits, the prosecution case as emerging from the first information report is, the informant’s sister was recurrently being subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of the dowry just after few days from marriage by her in-laws namely husband-Satendra Kumar (the present accused-applicant), father-in-law, Babu Ram, mother-in-law i.e. wife of Babu Ram and brother-in-law, Yatendra Kumar. They used to abuse and beat her badly in connection with demand of the dowry. On the date of incident, all of them, after beating badly, committed her death by hanging. 7. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant in this connection argued, after registering first information report, police started investigation and recorded the statements of complainant and witnesses with which prosecution finds no support. It is further submitted that the relations between the husband i.e. the present accused-applicant and the wife i.e. the deceased were very sweet and the alleged allegation is totally false. It is also submitted that the deceased has herself committed suicide. 8. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the bail-applicant seeks benefit of parity on the basis of order of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.12.2019 granting bail to the brother-in-law, namely, Yatendra Kumar and prayed to grant bail to the present accused-applicant, the husband of the deceased also. 9. Protesting the bail plea as argued by learned counsel for the bail-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the present accused-applicant is a person of mischievous character. 9. Protesting the bail plea as argued by learned counsel for the bail-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the present accused-applicant is a person of mischievous character. On the basis of instructions received to him, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State have the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid statement (annexure no.5) in very clear unambiguous words the complainant has stated her sister deceased-Kalpana Kamle married with the present accused-applicant and just after the marriage the in-laws started demanding dowry. In connection therewith the deceased was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty by them. 10. Learned A.G.A. further argued, admittedly death of the deceased occurred unnaturally in the matrimonial home within a short span of five months from the date of marriage and as there is allegations as to the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to the cruelty by the in-laws in connection therewith soon before her death, the bail-applicant cannot take plea of his innocence on the ground that he himself has not done any cruelty against the presumption of dowry death under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. with the aid of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and consequently for dowry death under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. The unnatural death of wife in the matrimonial home itself is implicit of cruelty done alongwith wife though this is a matter of trial to see whether the death was suicidal or homicidal. 11. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the circumstances are distinguishably enough to dis-entitle the present accused-applicant, from benefit of parity as well as grant of bail at this stage. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the bail applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 13. Obviously, the case in hand is of dowry death as the sister of complainant, namely, Kalpana Kamle (deceased), who was married with the present accused-applicant, Satendra Kumar on 09.03.2019 was died on 15/16.07.2019 unnaturally in the matrimonial home. Just after the marriage, the present accused-applicant, Satendra Kumar (husband of the deceased) started demanding pressingly additional dowry with other in-laws in the form of material domestic equipments like fridge, colour L.E.D. T.V., expensive motor cycle and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. Just after the marriage, the present accused-applicant, Satendra Kumar (husband of the deceased) started demanding pressingly additional dowry with other in-laws in the form of material domestic equipments like fridge, colour L.E.D. T.V., expensive motor cycle and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the deceased and her family members expressed their inability to fulfill their demand of additional dowry, they used to beat severally the deceased with lathi and danda and warned her if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled, they will done her to death. On 15/16.07.2019, they brutally beaten her in connection with their demand of dowry with lathi, danda and hanged her from the ceiling fan tied with saree in her neck. 14. The Statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also discloses the fact of demand of dowry and cruelty in connection therewith. The cruelty in itself soon before death of the deceased, Kalpana Kamle is evident from the anti mortem injuries reported in post mortem report, which is referred hereinbelow:- "A ligature mark 3.0 cm x 2.5 cm present on around the next, above thyroid cartilage. Infront of neck passing obliquely abraded & back alongwith line of mandible, with the gap 06 cm. present on lateral aspect of Rt. Side of neck, situated in below chin, 06 cm. below left ear and 0.5 cm. from Rt. Ear, on dissection subcudmacus tainis under the ligature mark white,k hard & gllasting. (2) Abrassion 2 cm. x 1.0 cm. present on midlib le on rt. Shoulder leg. Destome is 4.5 cm. (3) Contusion 2.5 cm. x 2.0 cm. present on Mead in aspect of left arm 10 cm. below from lyt. Shoulder joint. (4) Lacerated and on and aspect of cythand (Midregeon) size is 1.0 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep. (5) Contusion 4.5 cm. x 3.0 cm. present on Rt. Knee joint." 15. The complaint of the complainant with regard to causing death of the deceased, Kalpana Kamle by her in-laws beating her brutally from lathi and danda is thus well established from the prima facie evidence collected in the course of investigation. 16. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep. (5) Contusion 4.5 cm. x 3.0 cm. present on Rt. Knee joint." 15. The complaint of the complainant with regard to causing death of the deceased, Kalpana Kamle by her in-laws beating her brutally from lathi and danda is thus well established from the prima facie evidence collected in the course of investigation. 16. Another fact important for the culpable mind and guilty conduct of the in-laws is evident from the inquest report done before the inquest witnesses in which, none of the member of in-laws family is mentioned in the list of witnesses and even their presence is not noted at the time of inquest. They had fled from there house after the incident. 17. The marriage was solemnized on 09.03.2019 and the deceased was done to death in the night of 15/16.07.2019 in the manner stated hereinabove i.e. death was caused unnaturally within short span of time from the date of marriage i.e. within five months approximately. The deceased was a young lady of 22 years in age and was brutally murdered in connection with demand of dowry as established by the prima facie prosecution evidences. There is no explanation in the affidavit in support of the bail application as to the facts, circumstances and reason of brutality found on the person of the deceased as anti mortem injuries by the present accused-applicant. The applicant, who is husband of the deceased, entrusted with physical, mental and social security, comfort and welfare of his wife, does not deserves to be granted bail as the circumstances, character and behavior of the accused are peculiar. 18. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and another, 2001 (4) SCC 280 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held some parameters for grant of bail, which are being quoted hereunder:- “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. NCT, Delhi and another, 2001 (4) SCC 280 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held some parameters for grant of bail, which are being quoted hereunder:- “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 19. The personal liberty of the accused should always be weighed in the light of brutality, gravity and seriousness of offence. On the parameters discussed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and another (Supra), the accused-applicant against whom, the prima facie case of the prosecution is fully established cannot claim personal liberty as an innocent. Moreover, in the light of nature and instict of the accused-applicant and his family members, who dare even to kill a young lady for their selfishness and their self centered greed of dowry, they may reasonably be apprehended to adversely influence the witnesses against them so as to ensure their acquittal from a heinous charge. They are well aware with the severity of punishment and gravity of their offence, which may lead to their fleeing from the process of the Court. 20. They are well aware with the severity of punishment and gravity of their offence, which may lead to their fleeing from the process of the Court. 20. Keeping in view that the nature of offence under Section 498-A coupled with Section 304-B which bears a reverse burden of proof upon the present accused-applicant, as a husband, trusted by wife to have responsibility of protecting her from every risk of life and limb, allegedly committed the cruelty with wife in connection with demand of dowry and done her to death in the matrimonial home, his misdoings, as emerging from the statements of witness annexed with the counter affidavit are also sufficient together to show, he is capable of tampering the evidences and affect the witness adversely. 21. The trial court while deciding the case on merit, need not to sway with the observation made in this order and shall rely upon the facts proved in due course of examination during trial. 22. On the basis of above discussions, I find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant and the bail-application is rejected at this stage.