VIMLESH @ KAMLESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks regular bail in FIR case being FIR No. 183/2012, registered under Section 498A/304B/34 of IPC, at Police Station Karawal Nagar, New Delhi. Arguing counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and she is not a previous convict. Learned counsel also submits that applicant is the mother in law of the deceased and she is an innocent law abiding citizen of this country. Learned counsel also submits that all the prosecution witnesses examined by the State had turned hostile except the complainant but even in his testimony he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant in his cross -examination clearly stated that he never made any complaint regarding the harassment and demand of dowry against these accused persons prior to the death of his daughter. He has also admitted the fact that there was a cordial relationship between the two families who used to visit each other often. He also deposed in his cross -examination that whenever his in -laws and his son -in -law visited his house, they used to bring fruits for the children. He also admitted that his sister was living in the same vicinity and never made any complaint against the accused persons. He also admitted that on the evening of 28th May 2012 he had stayed at the matrimonial house of his daughter for about two hours and even then he took fruits and other eatable items at their house. Counsel also argued that even in the FSL Report, no poisonous substance could be detected. The said FSL report would clearly show that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of the offences. Counsel also argued that the instance is a plain and simple incident of a train accident. Counsel also argued that on the morning of 29th May 2012, the complainant had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and his son -in -law had told him that his daughter has already left.

(2.) BAIL application of the applicant is strongly opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State raising contentions that the complainant has fully supported the averments made by him in his first complaint, on the basis of which this FIR was lodged. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State also submits that even the sole testimony of the said witness, who is a prime witness, can result in a conviction of the petitioner. It is also contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State that the complainant in his examination -in -chief clearly deposed that his daughter was being subjected to harassment at the hands of the petitioner for the demand of dowry who usually used to say that "apne dahej kam diya hai, apne baap se aur dahej laa". Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State further submits that complainant has mortgaged his agricultural land to marry his daughter so as to give sufficient dowry articles but his daughter informed him that her in -laws used to beat her and harass her for the demand of dowry.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits that in the post -mortem report some anti -mortem injuries have been shown and these injuries have yet to be explained by the doctor as his examination has not yet been started.