Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1640 (ALL)

Hariom v. State of U. P.

2022-10-11

SIDDHARTH

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ramanuj, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Hariom, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Naujheel, District- Mathura, during pendency of trial. 3. There is allegation in the missing report made by one Premveer Singh, uncle of the deceased, Kavita, on 14.01.2018 that on 09.01.2018, his nephew, Aman Kumar was taking his sister, Smt. Kavita to village-Mujguna, Police Station-Nawjheel, where her matrimonial home was situated. In the way at about 1 p.m., Smt. Kavita, asked her brother to purchase some sweets and fruits for her matrimonial home and he went to purchase the sweets and fruits but when he returned back, his sister, Smt. Kavita, was not found. Hence, the missing report was lodged by uncle of deceased unsuccessfully after searching her on 14.01.2018. On 16.01.2018, the dead body of Smt. Kavita was recovered from a canal at Police Station-Math, District-Mathura and then uncle of the deceased lodged the first information report dated 17.01.2018 against the applicant and six members of the matrimonial home of the deceased alleging the offences u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the postmortem report of the deceased, the death of the deceased was found to be as a result of asphyxia due to manual strangulation 4-5 days prior to the postmortem. The statements of the uncle, brother, mother and another uncle and one Mahipal Singh were recorded by the Investigating Officer and call details of the mobile phones of the applicant, co-accused, Kheemveer, and the deceased, Smt. Kavita, were collected and charge-sheet was submitted against four accused persons including the applicant. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased, Kavita and was posted as Rifleman in Rajputana Rifles in Punjab at the time of alleged occurrence. He was on leave for 09.01.2018 to 11.01.2018. The deceased was living with her parents since 24.12.2017 and while she was on her way back to her matrimonial home, she went missing on 09.01.2018. He was on leave for 09.01.2018 to 11.01.2018. The deceased was living with her parents since 24.12.2017 and while she was on her way back to her matrimonial home, she went missing on 09.01.2018. She was in touch with her brother and uncle before she went missing. In the missing report, there is no whisper about any harassment of the deceased Kavita for dowry. Only after her dead body was recovered, the allegation of demand of dowry was made in the first information report against the applicant and his other family members falsely. Neither the brother nor the father of the deceased lodged the first information report. It was lodged by her uncle. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2020 and has no criminal antecedents. 5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that it is a clear case of dowry death of Smt. Kavita caused by the applicant and other accused persons. He has next submitted that the deceased was married to applicant on 07.07.2016 after considerable expenditure of money but the family members of her matrimonial home were not happy and were demanding Rs.10,00,000/-and a Swift Dzire Car as additional dowry. The deceased left her matrimonial home on 24.12.2017 and came back to Rajawal Gonda, District-Aligarh since the family members of her matrimonial home were pressurizing her to bring more dowry. On 09.01.2018, co-accused Karani, mama of the applicant, intervened and went to the parental home of the deceased and requested her to return to her matrimonial home at Nawjheel so that her dispute with family members of her matrimonial home may be sorted out. Believing his words, Smt. Kavita left for her matrimonial home with her brother Aman (aged about 15 years) and they reached Nawjheel at about 1 p.m. On her asking, Aman went to purchase the sweets and fruits for being taken to the matrimonial home of the deceased and when he returned, she was not found and her dead body was recovered at a distance of 12 kms. from her matrimonial home in a canal in Mathura. 6. from her matrimonial home in a canal in Mathura. 6. Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that in the case diary, there is an entry made on 25.01.2018 which shows that the accused persons were trying to mislead the informant and he was searching the deceased at different places on their misleading directions. The father of the deceased in his statement recorded by the police stated about the manner in which the applicant and his brother, Kheemveer, pressurized and threatened the deceased for dowry. Two affidavits of Dharmveer and Sukhdei given to the Investigating Officer prove that the deceased was seen in the company of the co-accused, Kheemveer, just before her murder. The postmortem report dated 16.01.2018 shows that the deceased was murdered about 4-5 days ago which comes to 11/12.01.2018 which is corroborated by the missing report of the deceased. The applicant’s elder brother and co-accused, Kheemveer, was in touch with the deceased and it appears that he persuaded the deceased to accompany him to her husband’s place where the dispute between them would be sorted out and thereafter, the applicant and his elder brother and co-accused, Kheemveer, murdered the deceased and threw her dead body in the canal. He has submitted that it is a clear case of planned murder. He has submitted that it is clear from the C.D.R. details collected by the Investigating Officer that deceased was having regular telephonic conversations with the co-accused, Kheemveer and also with the applicant on her mobile phone. On 09.01.2018, conversations took place at 17.10, 17.14, 17.44, 17.52, 19.50, 19.53, 19.58 hours between Kheemveer and the deceased. The location of Kavita was at Hotel Taj Palace at 19.53 and 19.50 hours and location of Kheemveer was also near Hotel Taj Palace. The deceased Kavita was also having regular conversations with her husband, the applicant, and co-accused, Kheemveer, and her last location was on 09.01.2018 at 20.53 hours at Gopinath Bazaar near Delhi where Kheemveer was also present at 20.23 hours. The deceased Kavita was present at Delhi Cantt. on 10.01.2018 at 5.19 and 5.20 hours and Kheemveer was also there at 21.13 hours. As per C.D.R. report, location of Kheemveer on 13.01.2018 from 4 p.m. to 23.27 hours was in the area from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Location of applicant, Hariom, was also found in the same area at Delhi Cantt. on 10.01.2018 at 5.19 and 5.20 hours and Kheemveer was also there at 21.13 hours. As per C.D.R. report, location of Kheemveer on 13.01.2018 from 4 p.m. to 23.27 hours was in the area from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Location of applicant, Hariom, was also found in the same area at Delhi Cantt. on 12.01.2018 from where he went to Gopinath Bazaar, Delhi Cantt. and then to Dhaula Kuan, Hotel Taj Palace and then reached Mathura on 12.01.2018 at 12.55 hours through Yamuna Expressway. The applicant and his family members neither lodged any missing report nor first information report even after they came to know about Smt. Kavita going missing. The bail application of the co-accused, Kheemveer, was rejected on 25.02.2020 by the court below. Kheemveer purchased a second-hand car used in the murder of Smt. Kavita and after the incident, he returned the said car to Virendra Singh on 17.01.2018. He has submitted that it is a clear case of cold-blooded murder of Smt. Kavita by the accused persons. He has submitted that the father of the applicant was posted at Srinagar at the time of the incident and therefore, brother and uncle of the deceased lodged the first information report. The brother of the deceased was minor at the time of incident and hence, he did not lodged the first information report. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that from the conduct of the applicant and his family members of not making any missing report or lodging of first information report promptly regarding the deceased Kavita going missing, doubt is cast about their bonafides. This Court further finds that from the call details and locations collected by the Investigating Officer, the location of the applicant from 12.01.2018 shows that he was in touch with co-accused, Kheemveer. He has not been able to explain as to how his location and the location of Kheemveer were found at several places together and how the body of the deceased was recovered from the canal in Mathura. The call details show that the applicant and other family members of the deceased had full knowledge of the whereabouts of the deceased and therefore, they neither lodged any missing report nor first information report. The call details show that the applicant and other family members of the deceased had full knowledge of the whereabouts of the deceased and therefore, they neither lodged any missing report nor first information report. From the call details and the proximity of the accused-applicant found with the deceased, the Court may presume that the cause of death was within special knowledge of the applicant as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and he has failed to explain the same. It is not a fit case for granting bail to the applicant keeping in view the allegations on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The bail application is accordingly rejected. 9. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.