- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. Applicant Anwar Ali, son of Mohammed Ali has applied for II in case crime No. 198 of 2006, under Sections 498- A, 304-B, I. P. C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat.
(2.) BRIEFLY prosecution case according to F. I. R. is that marriage of Smt. Zareena, daughter of Shabir, first informant was solemnized Waris, son of Anwar about one year ago of the alleged occurrence. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. After one of the marriage, present applicant Anwar, father in law, band waris, Salma mother in law and nanad Shahnaz named in the F. I. R. had demanded a motor cycle as a dowry which was not fulfilled by her parents. Consequently all the above noted accused persons to beat her. It was informed by her to the first informant regarding such demand and such marpeet. On 8- 7-2006, any person sent a telephonic message about 4. 30 p. m. that Zareena has been burnt by pouring kerosene oil upon her body, thereafter they fled away from thereafter locking the house, on which he alongwith Sattar, Ram Babu, Ram Kishore, Babu Lal and Raju Singh reached at the house of her in laws and found that she lying upon chabutara in burnt condition outside the house. Therefore,she was killed by accused persons. The F. I. R. was lodged on 8-7-2006 against four persons. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that relation of the applicant with the deceased Zareena was very cordial they were enjoying every moment of their matrimonial life and she was very much pleased with her husband namely Waris, the applicant. It is further contended that on 8-7-2006 at about 1 p. m. , when the deceased namely Smt. Zareena was cooking a midday meal. Then the fire caught hold the cottage and due to that reason the deceased namely Smt. Zareena received burn injuries and when it was seen by the applicant including other villagers, then they tried their best but they could not succeed and she was carried out to the hospital where she died in the way. Therefore, it is a case of accidental death. It is further contended that information regarding her was given to her parents and they came at the house of applicant and had put a demand for Rs. 50,000/ -. The poor applicant being helpless could not fulfill the said demand. Thereafter false F. I. R. was lodged by the father of deceased against the applicant and his family members. It is further contended that he and his family is a labour class and their living standard is below the poverty line They had not demanded any further more dowry after the marriage. She was also never tortured by them either mentally or physically, therefore, no case of dowry death is made out against the accused-applicant
(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. has opposed the prayer for bail. There is no dispute that marriage in between the deceased and husband was solemnized for about one year's ago from the alleged occurrence. It has been specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. as well as Statement of prosecution witnesses that the present applicant was also demanding Rs. 50,000/- and such demand could not be fulfilled, therefore, she was subjected to cruelty by beating also just before her death. She died due to burn injuries at the house of applicant. It has been specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. as well as the post-mortem report of the deceased that she sustained burn injuries as anti- mortem injuries and smell of kerosene oil was found on the dead-body of the deceased which shows that kerosene oil was sprinkled upon her body, thereafter she was set on fire. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that she sustained burn injuries at the time of cooking food. She died within 7 years of her marriage at the house of present applicant by burn injuries, which comes within the purview of unnatural death. Therefore, all accused persons including the present applicant is responsible for her unnatural death. It is worthwhile to mention here that he also did not give any information to the first informant regarding it after occurrence and he has also not given any information to the police regarding it. Not only that, he was also not found present at his house when the first informant alongwith others reached there. Only his daughter Zareena was found in injured condition outside the house. He including other co-accused persons fled away from there after alleged occurrence after locking their house. It is worthwhile to mention here that the F. I. R. was lodged by the informant on the same day at 9. 30 p. m. and inquest report was prepared, even then he was also not present there. Consequently he was not made witness in the inquest report;