Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.
- 38776 of 2020 Applicant :- Daroga Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and wants to address the Court on merits of the case.
Heard Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
The applicant, who is the husband, is facing prosecution in Case Crime No.118 of 2019, u/s 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Kaushambi, District-Kaushambi.He is in jail since 03.02.2020.
The long and short of the prosecution case is that the informant Balram Nishad, father of the deceased through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has lodged the F.I.R. on 23.12.2019 referring to the incident dated 13.5.2019. When the informant failed to get the F.I.R. registered then he has taken the legal recourse by filing an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 01.6.2019 naming Daroga Nishad (Husband), Mohan @ Langad (Mamiya Sasur), Arvind @ Tuntun (Mamiya Sasur) and Gorki w/o Mohan @ Langad (Mamiya Sas), with the prosecution story that the informant's daughter Rama Devi got married with the applicant Daroga Nishad in the year 2013. This was a love marriage in between them and after solemnizing the marriage, the couple came before this Court way back in the year 2013 by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.27775 of 2013 and another Bench of this Court has disposed of that petition by granting liberty to the petitioners (Daroga Nishad and Rama Devi) to approach the concerned S.S.P. with a copy of that order so that the petitioners may not be threatened or tortured by any person including their respective parent against the law.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in fact the applicant Daroga Nishad and the deceased Rama Devi are distantly related cousins to each other and this marriage was strongly opposed by the parent of the deceased Rama Devi, but ignoring all the resistance they have performed their marriage. It is argued by learned counsel that since the foundation and basis of this marriage was a love affair and tender relationship towards each other, thus, there was no question of any dowry at the time of marriage.
However, it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that after the marriage, the couple were blessed with two kids and later on after coming to the hard ground reality of the life, the husband and his other relatives started harassing the deceased for the dowry in the shape of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle. During this period, some Panchayat was also convened in order to make good sense prevail upon them, but all efforts to pacify the situation gone in vain and eventually on 12.05.2019 the informant received a call from his daughter informing him that the accused persons have maltreated and brutally assaulted her and has extended threats to the effect that she must arrange the desired amount and one motorcycle within next two days and on the very next date i.e. on 13.05.2019 the informant received the message that his daughter was killed by her neck. Her Panchayatnama was conducted on the same date i.e. on 13.05.2019 and the postmortem report too, was also conducted on that very date. There was a singular ligature mark, obliquely placed around her neck, admeasuring 24 c.m. x 2 c.m. with a gap of 6 c.m. back, suggestive of the fact that the deceased died on account of Asphyxia as a result of hanging. There is no other mark of injury over her person.
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has informed the police on the same day of the incident by giving information that he went to attend the dinner in response to an invitation, leaving behind his wife at the residence and around the midnight he came back and slept outside. In the morning about 6.00, his elder son Jamuna informed him that his mother has died. Immediately he rushed into the home and saw that the dead body of his wife was hanging from the Khaprail. On this, it has been contended by learned counsel that it is the applicant who has informed the police about the incident. It is further contended by learned counsel that the police during investigation recorded the statement of mother of the deceased Smt. Samariya @ Chhagiya, who in no uncertain terms has admitted that her daughter has got married with the applicants against their wishes and desires through court marriage and during the marriage they have not given any dowry or gift to her. She further stated that the deceased's Mamiya Sasur and Mamiya Sas started interfering in her domestic life and all of them have jointly started demanding Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle and on that account the relationship between them has become sour and she died under unnatural, mysterious circumstances at the residence of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further mentioned that in the statement of Balram Nishad, father of the deceased, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, he almost reiterated the version of the F.I.R. with the addition that the applicant's parent are no more and the remaining co-accused persons are hobnobbing in the domestic life of the applicant and the applicant too, instead of taking the side of his wife, has started supporting the co-accused persons for alleged demand of Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the certain embellishments in the postmortem report and the statement of the informant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. but these embellishments would not going to dilute the guilt and the offence of the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has died within seven years of her marriage under mysterious and unnatural circumstances at the residence of the applicant and in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the wife was insisting that she does not want to reside jointly with applicant's mother but wants to live separately and this could be one of the reason for taking this extreme step.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since there was a love marriage and after six years of the marriage there was no reason or occasion for the applicant to demand Rs.1 lac and a motorcycle.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application by mentioning that the applicant is the husband of the deceased who died at the residence of the applicant within seven years of the marriage in a mysterious and under unnatural circumstances leaving behind two small kids. No prudent lady would take such extreme step when she was having the responsibility of two small children, unless and until she is put behind the walls and she has no other option but to commit suicide.
After hearing the rival submissions, I am of the view that the defence pleas taken by the applicant's counsel do not hold much substance to be bailed out. There is no straight jacket formula whereby it could be said with certainty that where the marriage was solemnized after love affair, there is no chance of demand of dowry. After coming to the hard bitter ground realities of the life, coupled with the fact that the applicant is facing the responsibility of two small kids, he must have sought of demanding money (a deferred dowry) at this stage. So far as the insistence of separate living is concerned, it can not be the good reason to take this ultimate step of committing suicide. Moreover, there is presumption of law under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act against the husband and the learned counsel for the applicant has been unable to wash out those presumptions against the applicant and thus do not deserve any sympathy.
Under circumstances, bail application of the applicant stands rejected.
However, the court below is directed to gear up the trial and make all necessary endeavours to conclude the same within a period of one and a half year from the production of certified copy of this order, provided the applicant would render fullest co-operation in concluding the trial.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Sumit S/M. Kumar