Allahabad High Court
Jagram Yadav & Others vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010
Author: Amar Saran
Bench: Amar Saran
Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 243 of 2009 Petitioner :- Jagram Yadav & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Maqsood Ahmad,Parvez Alam Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Maqsood Ahmad, learned Advocate, who appeared to press the bail application moved on behalf of Jagram Yadav, Bhullan Yadav and Smt. Phool Kali, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2009. Learned Additional Government Advocate is also heard on behalf of the State.
All the three appellants, above named, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections so mentioned in the judgment and they are to serve out the sentence so provided.
Submission is that it is not a case where any of the applicants have committed any offence as a report was given by the husband about the death of the lady and at the time when the death might have taken place, the husband was away from the house and the parents were also working in the field and thus, it is difficult to prove that how and in what manner the death has taken place. It is not disputed that at the time of marriage there was any demand and that there was any torture or any kind of harassment for the demand of dowry. It is not a case where the offence is said to be covered under the section in which the conviction is there.
Learned Government side submits that it is a case where the applicants have not only committed the murder of the lady rather it is a case where the applicants tried to give a different colour to the death of the lady and if the different colour is tried to be given where the lady has not committed suicide, then this aspect is completely ruled out.
Submission is that this being the situation the lady having died in the house of the applicants and if the theory of suicide is ruled out and all the three applicants claim the absence from the house then it is presumed that the applicants were there and they committed the murder of the lady. Thus, in such circumstances, the appellants do not deserve leniency at this stage. There is no dispute about the lodging of the first information report. On the medical examination report the factor of suicide as a cause of death has not found to be proved as on date. There is absolutely no doubt of any kind, besides this having been clear in the medical report there are six anti mortem injuries, which are found on the body of the deceased. There is no dispute about the fact that absence was claimed by the appellants at the time of alleged incident. The marriage has taken place between two years. The fact remains that this being the situation the argument that some outsiders came and committed the murder, can be a matter of consideration at the time of final hearing.
At this stage, this Court finds difficult in accepting the arguments regarding innocence of the appellants. The family members after coming to the house found the dead body in an unusual manner.
The F.I.R. is anti time and the motive as suggested and the manner in which the incident took place makes the entire prosecution version unbelievable, can be matter of probe at the time of hearing.
On the facts and totality of the circumstances, this Court is not satisfied with the submission of the counsel for the appellants.
This Court is of the considered view that none of the appellants are entitled to be released on bail The prayer for bail of the appellants is rejected.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 Ak/