High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ganga Saran v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3263 of 2006  RD-AH 12593 (23 July 2007)
Court No. 49
Criminal Appeal No. 3263 of 2006
Ganga Saran Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Appellant Ganga Saran has prayed for release on bail in criminal appeal no. 3263 filed by him against the judgement and order dated 12.4.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C. Court No. 17, Bulandshahr in S. T. No. 223 of 2004 whereby he has been found guilty and convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.ACt and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine has also been imposed on him with default stipulation.
Heard Sri S.P.S.RAghav, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Raj Rani daughter of the informant Malkhan Singh was married with appellant Ganga Saran on 3.12.2001 according to Hindu rites and dowry was given at that time but it could not satisfy the accused and additional dowry in the shape of fridge and RS. 20,000/- was being demanded and when it could not be fulfilled she was ill-treated and harassed and was finally killed on 23.11.2003. One Trilok Singh of Kanakpur informed Malkhan Singh at about 6 p.m. on 23.11.2003 that his daughter had died and then he along with his wife and son and some villagers came to village Kanakpur and found that her daughter was lying dead. According to first information report the accused and his family members had beaten her and given some poisonous substance. Informant gave an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr on 24.11.2003 and on that application case was registered. Post mortem report shows that deceased had (i) contused traumatic swelling 6 cm X 4 cm X on left occipital region of head 8 cm behind the left ear pinna, (ii) abrasion 3 cm X 1-1/2 cm on back of right wrist joint extending to inner part, (iii) abrasion 2-1/2 cm X 1 cm on right great toe. Cause of death has been mentioned as comma as a result of anti mortem injury.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased was not killed by the accused persons but she was ill and was being taken on motorcycle by the accused and when he was going on Sikandara, Delhi road suddenly a speed breaker came and deceased fell down from the motorcycle and received the injuries.
According to defense case, she was taken to clinic of Doctor Solanki but he did not treat her and referred her for treatment to Delhi and on way she died. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no demand of any dowry and that the accused examined defense witnesses but the learned Trial Court has not considered there defense evidence in proper perspective although according to him defense witnesses also stand on the same footing as the prosecution witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. has contended that there is no dispute about the legal position that the defense witnesses and the prosecution witnesses stand at the same footing. But according to him defense witnesses produced by the accused were not not reliable at all. He also contended that the defense theory that the deceased fell down from motorcycle and received injuries is not made out even from the injuries as were received by the deceased. Learned A.G.A. has also contended that it has not come in defense case as to with what disease she was suffering and where she was being taken for treatment. Prosecution witnesses have denied the suggestion and that she was suffering from any illness and she received injuries on account of any fall from the motorcycle.
In this case accused examined two witnesses namely Pintoo D.W.-1 and Naushad, D.W.-2 who have stated that they were present on the road when the wife of the accused fell down from the motorcycle and received injuries as they were going on a scooter towards Sikandarabad from Fatewa. But the perusal of the statements of these two witnesses shows that there are material contradiction in the testimony and further shows that they have come to depose only to assist the accused. Even the statement of doctor Bharatpal Singh D.W.-3 to whom the deceased was allegedly taken for treatment states that he did not treat her because of her serious condition and immediately referred her to Delhi or Bulandshahr. He specifically stated that he did not give treatment of any kind. However, he contends that he had written some medicines on a letter pad. Photocopy of the prescription has been filed but it has not been proved by this witness. Further contention of learned A.G.A. is that learned Trial Court considered the defense evidence and was right in not accepting it and that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the defense evidence has not been properly appreciated, is not correct.
Injuries as received by the deceased show that they could not have been caused due to a fall from moving motorcycle. She received injury on the back of her head and also two small abrasions on back of right wrist joint and on right great toe. If a person falls from a moving motorcycle injuries must be on the other parts of the body also. The fatal injury is on the left occipital region whereas other two injuries are on the right side and it also shows that they could not have been caused by one fall.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, accused is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Prayer for bail is hereby refused.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.