High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Details
SATISH versus STATE OF U.P.
Case Law Search
Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation
Judgement
Satish v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3295 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5237 (7 November 2005)
|
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Accused applicant Satish son of Omkar Singh has prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 204 of 2004 under Sections 304 B, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC, and Section ¾ D. P. Act, P.S. Khanpur, District Bulandshahar.
Prosecution case is that Smt. Rajkumari @ Guria was married with the accused on 12.5.1998 according to hindu rites and dowry was given but the accused were not satisfied and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash and Herohonda Motorcycle, when these things could not be given she was ill-treated and harassed. In month of June, 2004, the complainant Viresh Kumar, who is brother of deceased was married and was given a motorcycle and thereafter the demand for motorcycle was further insisted by the accused persons. The deceased used to tell the complainant and other family members about the demands. The complainant came to village Jadaul and tried to explain to the accused persons that he was poor person but would arrange for motorcycle in the Deepawali. On 12.11.2004, the complainant and his cousin Rajkiran came to meet their sister on Deepawali and also brought some sweets. On seeing them, the accused and his parents started abusing their sister as to why they had not brought the motorcycle. However, the complainant and his cousin pacified them and went to bus stand. When they returned at about 4 p.m., they saw that Omkar and Indrawati parents of the accused applicant were pressing the hands and legs of the deceased and the accused applicant had pressed the neck of the deceased with rope. They tried to save and also raised alarm but the accused ran away threatening to kill them. At that time deceased had one son aged about four years and a daughter aged about one year. The complainant lodged the report same day at P.S. at 11.40 p.m.
The post mortem shows that the deceased died as a result of asphyxia on account of ante mortem hanging.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further contended that there is direct evidence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution and therefore no presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act would arise and that the accused is entitled to bail under Section 304 B IPC. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the case of Muthu Kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, T.N., 2005 SCC (Cri) 1202. In that case the accused were convicted under Section 304 B and 498 A IPC and in the appeal Hon'ble Apex Court held that when it was found that the accused were responsible for setting the deceased on fire and causing her death, Section 302 instead of Section 304 B was attracted. However in the case, it has also been held that the provisions contained in Section 304 B IPC and Section 113 B of the Evidence Act were incorporated on the anvil of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the main object of which is to curb the evil of dowry in the society and to make it severely punitive in nature and not to extricate husbands or their relatives from the clutches of Section 302 IPC if they directly cause death. Therefore if there is direct evidence available, the accused persons may be charged and tried under Section 302 IPC but it will not exonerate them of the offence. In this case death of the wife of the accused has taken place in the house of the accused and he has not given any explanation as to how she died. She had two children of tender age and there was no likelihood of her committing suicide.
The complainant and the cousin are the eye witnesses of the incident. The conduct of the accused in absconding from the place of occurrence and in not informing the Police is also material. In the circumstances, accused is not entitled to bail and application is liable to be rejected.
Bail application is hereby rejected.
Dated:7.11.2005
RKS/3295/05Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Accused applicant Satish son of Omkar Singh has prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 204 of 2004 under Sections 304 B, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC, and Section ¾ D. P. Act, P.S. Khanpur, District Bulandshahar.
Prosecution case is that Smt. Rajkumari @ Guria was married with the accused on 12.5.1998 according to hindu rites and dowry was given but the accused were not satisfied and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash and Herohonda Motorcycle, when these things could not be given she was ill-treated and harassed. In month of June, 2004, the complainant Viresh Kumar, who is brother of deceased was married and was given a motorcycle and thereafter the demand for motorcycle was further insisted by the accused persons. The deceased used to tell the complainant and other family members about the demands. The complainant came to village Jadaul and tried to explain to the accused persons that he was poor person but would arrange for motorcycle in the Deepawali. On 12.11.2004, the complainant and his cousin Rajkiran came to meet their sister on Deepawali and also brought some sweets. On seeing them, the accused and his parents started abusing their sister as to why they had not brought the motorcycle. However, the complainant and his cousin pacified them and went to bus stand. When they returned at about 4 p.m., they saw that Omkar and Indrawati parents of the accused applicant were pressing the hands and legs of the deceased and the accused applicant had pressed the neck of the deceased with rope. They tried to save and also raised alarm but the accused ran away threatening to kill them. At that time deceased had one son aged about four years and a daughter aged about one year. The complainant lodged the report same day at P.S. at 11.40 p.m.
The post mortem shows that the deceased died as a result of asphyxia on account of ante mortem hanging.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further contended that there is direct evidence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution and therefore no presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act would arise and that the accused is entitled to bail under Section 304 B IPC. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the case of Muthu Kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, T.N., 2005 SCC (Cri) 1202. In that case the accused were convicted under Section 304 B and 498 A IPC and in the appeal Hon'ble Apex Court held that when it was found that the accused were responsible for setting the deceased on fire and causing her death, Section 302 instead of Section 304 B was attracted. However in the case, it has also been held that the provisions contained in Section 304 B IPC and Section 113 B of the Evidence Act were incorporated on the anvil of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the main object of which is to curb the evil of dowry in the society and to make it severely punitive in nature and not to extricate husbands or their relatives from the clutches of Section 302 IPC if they directly cause death. Therefore if there is direct evidence available, the accused persons may be charged and tried under Section 302 IPC but it will not exonerate them of the offence. In this case death of the wife of the accused has taken place in the house of the accused and he has not given any explanation as to how she died. She had two children of tender age and there was no likelihood of her committing suicide.
The complainant and the cousin are the eye witnesses of the incident. The conduct of the accused in absconding from the place of occurrence and in not informing the Police is also material. In the circumstances, accused is not entitled to bail and application is liable to be rejected.
Bail application is hereby rejected.
Dated:7.11.2005
RKS/3295/05
Copyright
Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites
Advertisement
dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |
Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.
Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.