SUNIL KUMAR SETH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of the accused Sunil Kumar Seth who is involved and detained in Case Crime No.260/2008 State Vs. Kamal Nath and eight others under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi. Heard Shri Sushil Chandra Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Kumar and Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

(2.) IN brief, prosecution case as is revealing from the record is that complainant Rajesh Kumar had married his daugther Suman Devi with the applicant Shri Sunil Kumar Seth on 11.7.2008. It is alleged that husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased Smt. Suman Devi, were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they used to harass and ill treat Smt. Suman Devi on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is alleged that even though the father of Suman had sent Rs.30, 000/- but in-laws of Suman pressed for more amount of money and motorcycle etc. and continued harassment of Suman Devi. It is further alleged that on 13.10.2008, Suman Devi informed her father Rajesh Kumar through telephone that he should reach her matrimonial house immediately otherwise her in-laws will kill her. That when the complainant and his family members were about to leave their house, they received information regarding the death of Smt. Suman, on which they rushed to the matrimonial house of Smt. Suman, and saw dead body of Suman lying there with ligature mark around her neck and her in-laws could not give satisfactory explanation of the injuries. The report of the said incident was lodged by Rajesh Kumar on the same day at 8.45 p.m. at police station Jaitpura, District Varanasi which was about one kilometre away from the matrimonial house of Suman.

(3.) BAIL has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant by supporting the prosecution version as has been narrated earlier. It has been contended that it is wrong to allege that there was no demand of dowry from the side of the in-laws of Smt. Suman Devi and in fact the applicant alongwith his family members used to harass Suman Devi for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry before her death. It was further submitted that death of Suman Devi had occurred in about three months from the date of her marriage at the house of her in-laws and soon before her death, there was demand of dowry and consistent harassment of the deceased. It was further submitted that in the post mortem report, the cause of death was found as 'Asphyxia' as a result of strangulation and not suicide by hanging and it is not necessary that in strangulation, fracture of hyoid bone should always be there. It was further submitted that Suman Devi soon before her death, had informed her father on telephone to come immediately otherwise her in-laws will kill her and it amounts to dying declaration. It was further submitted that deceased was not found pregnant as per post mortem examination report and the story of ultrasound examination has been cooked up just to make the false defence. It was further submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and his case cannot be said to be at par with the other accused persons as he was responsible for proper up-keeping of his wife and the burden lies on him to prove that it was not dowry death and the presumption in law is against him and it is a clear cut case of dowry death which is a serious offence and as such the applicant does not deserve bail.