Amandeep Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 March, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Amandeep Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 March, 2023

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the complainant/informant – Neeraj Katare, the father of the deceased - Aarju/Aarjoo Gupta, who has filed an application for impleadment, which is allowed. Complainant/informant – Neeraj Katare is impleaded as respondent no. 2.

Appellant - Amandeep Gupta has been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which arises from the First Information Report (FIR) No. 1134 of 2020, dated 27.12.2020 registered at Police Station Naubasta, District - Kanpur City, Uttar Pradesh. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BABITA PANDEY

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant - Date: 2023.03.17 16:31:13 IST Reason: Amandeep Gupta submits that initially, the death was treated as accidental, but the FIR registered after the post-mortem 2 report had indicated the cause of death as asphyxia, due to ante-mortem smothering.

Contesting the post-mortem report, our attention is drawn to the deposition of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi (PW-2). It is submitted that there is discrepancy in the post-mortem report and the photographs of the deceased - Aarju/Aarjoo Gupta taken at the scene/place of the death, which do not show any injury on the face and mouth. The post-mortem-report on the other hand mentions superficial injuries on the cheeks, lips, and forehead of the deceased - Aarju/Aarjoo Gupta. As per Dr. Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi (PW-2), photograph 8A/7 shows petichial marks on the chest and neck of the deceased. The post-mortem report is also challenged as Dr. Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi (PW-2) in the cross examination has accepted the no pressure marks or bleeding were found.

Dr. Praveen Kumar Srivastav (PW-3), had visited the place of occurrence, taken photographs, inspected and conducted forensic examination and submitted report dated 08.01.2021 (FSL Report). In his cross-examination, he has accepted that there was a great chance/possibility that the accident had taken place from the LPG leak, which was the cause of death. An LPG geyser was found in the bathroom, where the deceased - Aarju/Aarjoo Gupta had died. The bathroom was not well ventilated as there was no window, though there was a 3 ventilator fan. Further there was absence of air passage upto the height of the LPG cylinder.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant submits that as per the FSL Report of Dr. Praveen Kumar Srivastav (PW-3), traces of blood at different locations were found on benzadin examination. Further had there been an LPG leak, deceased- Aarju/Aarjoo Gupta would have come out of the bathroom and saved herself.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant - Amandeep Gupta, submits that Dr. Praveen Kumar Srivastav (PW-3), had visited the site/place where the death took place on 28.12.20201, immediately after information about the death was received. He has deposed that the room and bathroom were found to be in locked or closed condition. As per the husband and in-laws, the deceased was undergoing menstrual period. No indication or marks of struggle or physical violence were noticed. Dr. Praveen Kumar Srivastav (PW-3) has testified that due gas leakage, the bathroom being a closed chamber, a person sitting there could die due to suffocation.

Appellant - Amandeep Gupta has suffered incarceration for more than twenty six months. Seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, but many more are to be examined.

Without making detailed observations, we feel that the 1 Dr.Praveen Kumar Srivastav (PW-3)had also visited the place of death for forensic examination on 29.12.2020 and 01.01.2021.

appellant - Amandeep Gupta should be released on bail during pendency of the trial, on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

Recording the aforesaid, the impugned judgement is set aside and appeal is allowed in the above terms. We however clarify that the submissions and observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. They would not influence the proceedings before the trial court.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J. (SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 15, 2023.

ITEM NO.11                 COURT NO.7                 SECTION II

                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)      No(s).   5847/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-05-2022 in CRMBA No. 49727/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) AMANDEEP GUPTA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. IA No. 87110/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 126954/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 87109/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 126950/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 15-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ayush Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Krishnam Mishra, AOR Mr. Param Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Ms. Priyanka, Adv.

For Complainant Mr. Manish Shankar Srivastava, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       (BABITA PANDEY)                         (R.S. NARAYANAN)
      COURT MASTER (SH)                       COURT MASTER (NSH)
               (Signed order is placed on the file)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders