VEER PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that he has been falsely implicated in this case for dowry death of his wife; that the F.I.R. has been lodged with inordinate delay of about two weeks; that the applicant neither made any demand of dowry from his wife nor treated her with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry nor caused her dowry death; that the wife of applicant accidentally sustained burn injuries during his absence; that on 19.12.2014, F.I.R. was lodged by father-in-law of applicant against the applicant and others with false allegations under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and D.P. Act; that after completion of investigation, the offence under sections 304-B IPC was not found to be made out, as in dying declaration, the deceased has stated to have sustained burn injuries accidentally and has no complaint against any person of her sasural; that so the charge sheet has been filed only against applicant husband under section 498-A IPC and D.P. Act; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 19.1.2015.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. and Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the deceased was being treated with cruelty in connection with non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and her death has taken place due to burn injuries otherwise than under normal circumstances within five years of marriage and there is presumption of dowry death against the applicant husband under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act; that there is evidence on record that the applicant used to demand Rs.1,00,000/- and gold chain and for non fulfillment of above demands of dowry, she was earlier beaten and ousted from the house; that after marriage, the deceased was beaten with bricks during pregnancy and was ousted from home in respect with which incident, an application was given to S.O. concerned and when no action was taken, she moved an application to S.P., Pilibhit on 3.9.2011; that due to atrocities of applicant, the deceased had suffered miscarriage of preganancy and later on with intervention of certain persons some compromise took place and the deceased was fetched by applicant; that thereafter mother-in-law of the deceased was elected village pradhan upon which, the frequency and degree of cruelty were enhanced; that the deceased had filed complaint case no.840 of 2012 against the applicant in which vide order dated 22.4.2013, the applicant and others were summoned for trial under sections 498-A IPC and D.P. Act; that the applicant was not taking care of deceased so she was also compelled to file Maintenance Petition No.59 of 2013 in the Family Courts, Pilibhit for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.; that the applicant is a very shrewed person and about ten months before the incident of dowry death, he entered into a compromise with the deceased before the Court regarding reconciliation of marriage and agreement to live together; that above compromise was accepted by Family Court, Pilibhit vide order dated 12.4.2014; that inspite of compromise before the Court on 12.4.2014 though the deceased was fetched by applicant but he and his family members continued the same behavior of demanding dowry and treating her with cruelty; that on 5.12.2014, the applicant in a planned manner poured kerosene oil over the deceased, put her on fire, and did not give any information of burn injuries sustained by deceased to first informant, police or anybody else; that the applicant did not take any step or care to provide medical aid/treatment to the deceased and she was got admitted in District Hospital, Pilibhit by her father-in-law; that Annexure No.2, page 29 shows that the deceased was brought to District Hospital with 100% burns caused by kerosene oil, as mentioned in the medical papers of District Hospital, Pilibhit; that in such a bad condition, the deceased was not and could not have been in a position to speak or give any statement and the dying declaration of deceased Sunita Devi alleged to be recorded at 5:40 p.m. on the same day of incident i.e. on 5.12.2014 is false and concocted and is not admissible in evidence; that the deceased sustained with 100% burn injuries on 5.12.2014 and her treatment continued upto 17.12.2014 i.e. for about 12 days; that during the above period of 12 days, the condition of deceased could not improve to an extent that she could have made any statement and for that reason no statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the deceased was recorded by Investigating Officer; that the dying declaration is false on the face of its record and is in contradiction with the medical evidence on record, because as per dying declaration the deceased sustained burn injuries at the time of boiling milk on gas, while the medical papers of District Hospital, Pilibhit specifically states that the deceased had 100% burns caused by kerosene oil and due to burn injuries her general condition was very very low and even the mark of identification was not traceable; that it shows the deceased was not in a position to give any statement and the dying declaration has been prepared falsely for the benefit of accused; that the investigation of the case has been done under the influence of the accused-applicant and the Investigating Officer in connivance with the applicant has submitted charge sheet only under sections 498-A IPC and D.P. Act ignoring the fact of dowry death; that the allegations of demand of dowry and treating the deceased have been found correct by Investigating Officer and since the death of deceased has taken place due to burn injuries in other than normal circumstances within seven years of marriage there is presumption of dowry death against husband, the applicant within the provisions of section 113-B of Evidence Act; that there is evidence of cruelty soon before her death as after long litigation she was fetched by applicant under the garb of compromise in planned manner for causing her dowry death; that in the circumstances irrespective of the fact that charge sheet has been submitted under sections 498-A IPC and D.P. Act, since the F.I.R. was lodged also under section 304-B, the applicant is not entitled for bail in this case of dowry death.