JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the applicant had got married to the deceased around 10 years back and the deceased was never subjected to any cruelty. He further submitted that the present FIR was lodged on the basis of concocted story on the allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members as she was unable to bear a child. He further submitted that the entire prosecution story is based on suspicion. It is further submitted that in fact the deceased was suffering from acute diarrhea, as such, she was admitted to primary health centre and later in view of the serious conditions of the deceased, she was referred by the primary health centre to higher health centre/District Hospital. It was further submitted that despite the best treatment given by the applicant's side, the deceased expired on 21.10.2010. While referring to the call details, it was further submitted that information with regard to ailment of the deceased was given from time to time to the complainant's side but they did not care to meet or talk to them.

(3.) It was further submitted that as a precautionary measure, an information with regard to the death of the deceased was given to the police station on 22.10.2010 by the father of the applicant requesting the police to send the body of the deceased for postmortem. This fact was recorded by the police in GD forming part of the record of the case diary. Pursuant to the information given by the father of the applicant, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted by the police and Panchayatnama memo of the dead body was also prepared. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report, no ante mortem injury was found and the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved. He further submitted that till date the viscera report has not been sent by the chemical analyst. He further submitted that there is absolutely no cogent evidence to suggest that the applicant or any of his family members have ever harassed or ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that frivolous story has been set up by the prosecution at the instance of the complainant's side in order to extract money from the applicant. He further submitted that had the applicant been guilty of committing an offence he would never have informed to the police regarding death of the victim requesting them to conduct the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.