INDRESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the lower court record.

(2.) THE appellant Indresh Yadav @ Indu moved this bail application in the appeal which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 13.2.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 52 of 2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC whereas he has been acquitted fort he offence punishable under sections 498 -A,304 -B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P. and perusing the lower court record it reveals that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Mool Chandra Yadav on 21.9.2010 at 3.30 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred during the period from 10.9.2010 to 21.09.2010. The FIR was lodged under sections 498a, 304 -B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act. The appellant and three other co -accused were named in the FIR by alleging that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant, on account of non fulfilment the demand of motorcycle the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her in -laws. She was expelled from the house on 19.9.2009 at about 9.00 P.M. This case was pending in the court since then the deceased was living at the house of her father. The appellant given a telephonic message to the deceased on which the deceased expressed her desire to go to her in -law house. On 28.08.2010 the deceased came to her in -laws house, on 17.09.2010 the first informant received information that his daughter was not feeling well, when he came to her in -laws house, he came to know that the deceased was admitted in Singh Research Hospital, Varanasi. The first informant came to hospital on 18.09.2010 and saw the deceased who was admitted there. On 21.09.2010 the first informant enquired about the health of the deceased, it was informed by the appellant that the deceased was died and dead body was taken to the house. Thereafter the first informant along with the family members came to the house of appellant where he came to know that on account of non fulfilment of demand of motorcycle the deceased was badly beaten on 10.9.2010, when he had gone to see her daughter in the hospital, he saw the injuries on the person of the deceased and knee was plastered. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained two ante mortem injuries in which injury No. 1 was multiple traumatic abraded contusion on the right side back on upper part and injury No. 2 was contusion on the mid and left parietal region, there was under lying bone with 100 ml blood clot present in side brain. The cause of death was due to comma as a result of ante mortem head injuries.