SAHODARI BAI KANOJE Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above 2 bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of crime No. 265/2006, registered at Police Station-Palari, District-Raipur (CG) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased namely-Shatrupa Bai was married to applicant-Santosh in the year 1998. She was having 2 children, out of which, one has recently died. The deceased died on 25.3.2006, at about 9.00pm in her in-laws place. Her last rituals were performed on the next day and the dead body was burnt according to Hindu Customs. Later on, on 30.3.2006, brother of the deceased namely-Santosh Kumar made a report for commission of some offence by these applicants on account of demand of dowry. In the said report, he has mentioned that he had given Rs.50,000/-, 30,000/- and 20,000/- on 3 earlier occasions to the husband of the deceased and he expressed that since the death of the deceased has occurred in unnatural circumstances and the information regarding death was not given to him immediately, all leads to suspicion against all the accused persons and some action should be taken against them. During the course of investigation, a written report dated 25.8.2005, said to have been lodged by the deceased to the police was also seized, in which, it is mentioned that she was being treated with cruelty by the husband and other family members in her in-laws place and they were also saying her for taking money from her brother.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argues that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence under Section 304(B) IPC would not be made out as the death has hot occurred within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage. Secondly, he argues that neither in the report lodged by the brother nor in the report earlier lodged by the deceased herself there is any demand of dowry. Rather, it comes in the report that the money was given for the purpose of purchasing some landed property to the husband of the deceased. He also argues that it is mentioned in the written report of the brother of the deceased that the information of death was sent to them on the next day. He further argues that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no medical evidence as the postmortem on the body was not conducted and even from other angle also, no offence is made out against the applicants. He prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail, who are in jail since 22.9.2006.