LALIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Lalit with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1704 of 2005, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, 34 I. P. C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekhra, District Baghpat.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Anil Kaushik at Police Station Khekhra on 22-8-2005 at 11. 55 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 22-8-2005 at unknown time. THE distance of the Police Station was 1/2 kl. mt. from the alleged place of the occurrence. THE F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Seema was selemnised with the applicant in the beginning of the year 1999. THE first informant has borne expenses of the marriage as about Rs. 3,50,000/-but in laws of the deceased were not happy. THEy were demanding some more dowry. Its information was given to the first informant and other family members about one year of the alleged occurrence. THE deceased has given a telephonic call that she may not be saved because her in laws were harassing her, then the first informant alongwith his maternal uncle went to the Sasural of the deceased but they were not permitted to meet the deceased. THEy were saying to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-, thereafter they shall be permitted to meet the deceased. It was told that they were not having any relations with the first informant and others. THE first informant has paid some amount in cash in so many occasions and on the day of Rakshabandhan i. e. on 19-8-2005 the applicant brought the deceased to the house of the first informant and again made a demand to pay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-and he was compelling to pay such an amount, then the first informant paid Rs. 60,000/-to the applicant. On 22-8-2005, Mausa of the first informant gave a telephonic massage to the first informant that the deceased has been murdered by her in laws by way of putting her on fire. On that information, the first informant came to the house of the deceased and saw her dead-body inside the house in a burnt condition. THE tongue of the deceased was protruded out. THE deceased has been murdered by her in laws due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and the small of the kerosene oil was coming out from the place of the occurrence and the container of the kerosene oil was kept in an almirah in front of the dead-body. According to the post-mortem examination report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved but the dead-body was having 100% burnt, the body was blackening, the tongue was protruded out between teeth and byrnet. THEre was no evidence of line of redness and vesication with the clues, base of burnt area was whitish. Hence the burning was post-mortem injuries.

(3.) THAT in reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised in the beginning of the year 1999 and the death of the deceased has occurred within seven years of her marriage. The plea of the defence is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised on 22-1-1998 and the deceased was admitted in Indra Nursing Home & Maternity Centre on 25-11-1998 and discharged on 26-11-1998 and the discharge slip is showing that the name of the applicant was mentioned as husband of the deceased which has been filed as Annexure-4 of the affidavit. The phone No. of the Nursing Home is 0120-03391. In this slip the number of the S. T. D. is mentioned as 012 where as on 26-11-1998 this S. T. D. Code-0120 was not of Ghaziabad. Till the year 1999, the Ghaziabad had two S. T. D. Code numbers as 011-08 and 0575 which is evident from the telephone diary of year 1999 showing the important S. T. D. Code which has been filed as Annexure C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit it shows that the discharge slip is not genuine document and the marriage of the deceased was solemnised on 22-1-1999, there is specific allegations against the applicant in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The deceased had been murdered, thereafter she was set on fire inside the house. The deceased was having 100% burn injuries which was post-mortem injuries, if any person is died due to natural death such dead-body has not been put on fire inside the house. This alone circumstances shows that the death of the deceased was not natural. The dead-body of the deceased was having seen 100% burnt and the Viscera report, in which no poison was found, will not have helpful to the accused because it is not a case of alleged poisoning, it is a case in which post-mortem injuries were found and dead-body was found inside the house of the applicant. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. In the said incident, the deceased would have tried to save her life and would have protested so the injuries on the face of the applicant was also caused. The applicant is husband of the deceased, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.