Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 325 (ALL)

Satish Kumar v. State Of UP

2024-01-31

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vikram D. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 9.4.2023 framed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.2765 of 2023 (State Vs. Lalman and another), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 302/34 IPC (alternative charge), P.S. Debai, District Bulandshahr as well as order dated 18.8.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandhahr whereby he refused to discharge the applicants. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the First Information Report was lodged on 20.1.2023 with the allegation that daughter of the informant was subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry as a result of same, she was strangulated. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court to the post mortem report, which is at page 52 of the paper book, to submit that following anti mortem injuries have been found: "1. multiple contusions of sizes 2 x 1 cm to 1 x 1 cm present at Rt. upper arm inner aspect. 2. old scar mark healed sizes 1 x 1 cm present at Rt. thigh lateral aspect. Except this no any other external or internal injury seen at the time of p.m. examination hence viscera preserved for chemical and his to pathological examination." 3-A. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that doctor could not ascertain the cause of death of deceased and as a result of same, viscera sample was preserved and in viscera report, which is at page 88 of the paper book, no poisonous substance was found. He submits that the marriage took place on 27.11.2022 and he does not dispute the fact that the informant and other witnesses made statements against applicants, however, he submits that medical evidence and the forensic science evidence do not indicate that death of deceased was caused by applicants. He submits that for an offence against applicants, it has to be shown that applicants were instrumental in death of deceased and deceased died unnatural death. He submits that the discharge application was preferred by applicants, which has been rejected by order dated 18.8.2023. He submits that for an offence against applicants, it has to be shown that applicants were instrumental in death of deceased and deceased died unnatural death. He submits that the discharge application was preferred by applicants, which has been rejected by order dated 18.8.2023. 3-B. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the present case, trial court has rejected the discharge application on the ground that minute examination of prosecution evidence is not permissible at this stage. He submits that even though prima facie view of the prosecution evidence would not disclose that applicants were involved in any criminal activity. According to learned counsel for the applicants, wife died out of fever and while she was being taken to hospital. He submits that basic ingredients for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act are not present in the present case. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submits that at the stage discharge only prima facie case is to be looked into. He submits that deceased has died within seven years of marriage and there are allegation in the FIR and the prosecution evidence that deceased was subjected to dowry death and cruelty. He further submits that deceased has not died natural death, as there are injuries on the body of deceased as per post mortem report. He further submits that in the present case, mini trial cannot be permitted at the stage of discharge. 5. It is to be seen that in the present case, initially FIR was lodged on 20.1.2023 in respect of an offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that as per FIR, there was demand of dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The similar statement made by informant and has also supported the case. The deceased has died within seven years of marriage and the only explanation offered by learned counsel for the applicants is that deceased was suffering fever. There is no statement of doctor. As per post mortem report, there are multiple contusions in right upper arm inner aspect. There is old scar mark healed size 1 x 1 cm present at right thigh lateral aspect. Except aforesaid, there are no injuries. There is no statement of doctor. As per post mortem report, there are multiple contusions in right upper arm inner aspect. There is old scar mark healed size 1 x 1 cm present at right thigh lateral aspect. Except aforesaid, there are no injuries. In the viscera report also, no poisonous substance was found. The presumption under Section 113-B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 comes to play as there is a presumption as to dowry death once there is allegation of cruelty. The rebuttal of presumption by accused is permissible at the stage of trial. A summary trial at this stage cannot be permitted in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the present case, ocular statements of witnesses supported the prosecution case. However, medical evidence may not be in consonance with the prosecution case. Such a contradiction is required to be adjudged at the time of trial. This Court cannot examine the evidence and come to a conclusion by interpreting the evidence at the summary stage. 6. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be looked into and once the deceased has died unnatural death and the applicant has not been able to substantiate that the deceased has died natural death, trial has to be proceeded with. The trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 18.8.2023 and the application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.