KARAMVEER @ DABBAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Anil Malik, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Vivek Dhaaka, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the lower court record.

(2.) THE appellant Karamveer @ Dabbal, Ganga Saran, Smt. Sumantra and Smt. Sunita have moved their bail application, in the appeal, which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 29.7.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in S.T. No. 994 of 2008 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 201 IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act with a prayer that the appellants may be released on bail during pendency of the appeal

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the lower court record it revels that FIR of this case has been lodged by Mohan Lal on 30.10.2002 at 3.15 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 27.10.2002, in which all the appellants are named as accused alleging therein tht marriage of the deceased Smt. Kaushal, the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the appellant Karamveer @ Dabbal about two and half years prior the alleged incident. The dowry was given by the first informant according to his capacity but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. They were subjecting the deceased to mental and physical cruelty, they were demanding a colour T.V., scooter and Rs. 21,000/ -, but non fulfilment of demand they were committing the marpeet with the deceased. About 20 days prior the alleged incident the deceased has gone to her in -laws house but on 27.10.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. it was informed by Vijaynand that somebody resident of Singhpur had given a telephonic message that the deceased was killed by her husband and other in -laws by administering poison, on that information the first informant came to the in -laws house of the deceased and saw the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was blueish, it was appearing that she was done to death forcible. The appellants were making the preparation to cremate the dead body, they did not reply to the query as to why he was given the information about the death of the deceased, thereafter he went to the police station, Parikshitgarh where a report was scribed by some one on which he put his signature and it was given to the police personnel, the same was kept at the police station and o FIR was registered. He insisted to register the FIR but it was replied that he was having its carbon copy but the police along with the first informant proceeded to the place of the incident through jeep, but near the village Singhpur some persons riding on the motorcycle and scooter were seen coming towards his side, they given the indication for stopping the jeep then the police jeep was stopped and they remained in talking with the police personnel for an hour, thereafter he was taken back to the police station by the police by saying that first of all the police station's formalities shall be completed, he was detained at the police station for a considerable period, thereafter obtaining his signature on the blank paper and he was asked to leave the police station. Its information was given by him to the villagers them some of the villagers in his company came to the police station where he came to know that no action was taken by the police even the dead body of the deceased was not taken into possession and no post mortem report was conducted. The written report has been proved which has been marked as exhibit Ka -2. The another written report of the first informant of Mohan Lal has been proved which has been marked as exhibit Ka -1. It was addressed to the Officer Incharge of the police station, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut. In that report also the same allegation of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty and the manner in which the deceased has been killed have been mentioned. It appears that in the present case after completing the investigation one the final reported dated 10.11.2002 was submitted, the same was protested by the first informant, the protest petition was treated as a complaint, thereafter the statement under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded by learned Magistrate concerned. After considering the same the learned Magistrate concernedhas taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial. It is a case in which the dead body has been disposed of. From the side of prosecution four witnesses have been examined, in which P.W. 1 Mohan Lal has been recorded, he disposed that marriage of the decease was solemnized with appellant Karamveer in the year 1999, in that marriage, he had spent the amount Rs. 70,000/ -, but the in -laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage, they were demanding the colour T.V., scooter and Rs. 21,000/ -, due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry, they were subjecting the deceased to cruelty. On the information given by some person, he came to the place of the incident and saw the dead body, he went to the police station to lodge the FIR, his FIR was not registered and police did not tale any action even the dead body of the deceased was not taken into possession. The cremation of the dead body was done, at that time he was at the police station. The statement of Birjoo, mother of the deceased was recorded as P.W. 2, she also stated that on account of the dowry given in the marriage the in -laws of the deceased were not satisfied, they were demanding colour T.V., scooter and Rs. 21,000/ -, to fulfil the demand of dowry they were subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The marriage of the deceased was done about two and half years prior the alleged incident, at the time of cremation neither she nor her family members were present there. Statement of the appellants have been recorded under section 313 CR.P.C. but the explanation has been given by the appellants that the deceased has died on account of her illness but in support of this defence no evidence has been adduced. The death of the deceased has occurred within two and half years of her marriage. The allegation of demand of dowry is there for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty, there is no rebuttal of the presumption with regard to the dowry death and the cremation of the dead body has been done without giving information to the police station and parents of the deceased. But considering the old age of the appellant Ganga Saran, he disclosed his age about 70 years on 9.7.2013 and the appellant Smt. Sumantra who is mother -in -law of the deceased who also disclosed her age about 63 years on 9.7.2013 and considering the fact that the appellant Smt. Sunita is Nanad of the deceased, we feel it proper that they may be released on bail. But the appellant Karamveer @ Dabbal who is husband of the deceased is not entitled for bail. His prayer for bail is refused.