Shiv Shanker - (1.) -This is the first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Jitender Kumar alias Teetu son of Sri Bhojvir Singh Rana, involved in Case Crime No. 23 of 2006, under Sections 304B/201, I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kharkhauda, district Meerut.
(2.) HEARD Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri V. S Chaudhary and Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. I have also perused the whole records. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior advocate, has submitted that the dead body of the deceased Smt. Jayamala was found in hanging condition upon a Neem tree but not found in the house of the applicant and such place is situated one kilometer away from the house of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the cause of death of the deceased has been shown in the post mortem report due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is further submitted that the applicant, who is husband of the deceased, had informed the first informant regarding her death. This fact is not disputed. On receiving such information, he came there. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant is also not unnatural. The dead body of the deceased was not found at the house of the applicant and, therefore, the presumption of Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act will be applicable and the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the case against the present applicant. It is further submitted that this is a case of murder in an open place and, as such, this is not a case of dowry death. It is further submitted that the allegation made in the first information report is that Rs. 1,50,000 was being demanded for purchasing a new car, which will not also come within the demand of dowry. It is further submitted that one pair of golden ear ring, four golden bangles and one golden nose Keel, were found on the dead body of the deceased at the time of preparing the inquest report. If the applicant, in such circumstances, murdered such ornaments could not be left upon the body of the deceased in the jungle. It is further submitted that Smt. Jaymala (deceased) had gone towards the fields and it appears that she has been assaulted by someone, who was having evil eyes on her. The applicant had immediately informed his in-laws. It is further submitted that there was no demand of dowry from her in-laws at the time of marriage. As she was found in jungle in hanging condition, a case was concocted against the applicant who is the husband, to make out a case of dowry death. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the State, has urged that this is a case of dowry death. The present applicant is husband of the deceased and first of all, she was killed by pressing her neck and later on her dead body was taken to the jungle and hanged upon a tree for saving himself/themselves from the legal punishment.
(3.) THE cause of death of the deceased has been shown as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. THE following five ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Jayamala : 1. Ligature mark measuring 27.0 cm. x breadth varying from 2.0 cm. x 3.9 cm. almost horizontal in middle of neck, ligature mark is 6.0 cm. below chin 2.5 cm. below from left ear lobule and 4.0 cm below from right ear lobule, the base of groove is soft. Reddish on dissection. THE subcutaneous tissue undermark is ecchymosed. Much tissue also shows evidence of haemorrhage. 2. Linear abrasion measuring 4.0 cm. present, 2.0 cm. upper ligature mark. 3.Multiple abrasions measuring 2.0 cm. x 0.5 cm. to 3.0 cm. x 0.5 cm., present vertical aspect of left forearm arm wrist, 1.0 cm. above left wrist joint. 4.Multiple abrasion measuring 1.0 cm. x 0.5 cm. to 2.0 x 0.5 cm. on right wrist vertical aspect of forearm. 5.Two parallel abrasion (linear) 10.0 cm. x 7.0 cm. respectively on calf region right leg. Therefore, the above ante-mortem injuries and fracture of thyroid reveals that it is a case of strangulation which comes within the purview of homicide and not suicide. Although homicide and suicide both come within the purview of unnatural death for the purpose of dowry death case. There is no dispute the marriage in between the deceased Smt. Jaimala and the applicant Jitendra Kumar was solemnized on 12.3.2004 and she died by the unnatural death on 29/30.1.2006 meaning thereby she died as unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. According to the first information report, the applicant, who is husband of the deceased alongwith his family members were not satisfied with the dowry. However, sufficient dowry was given in her marriage. Therefore, she was subjected to cruelty. In such circumstances about eight months prior to the alleged occurrence, Rs. 7,000 was also given to the applicant. There was persistent demand of dowry of Rs. 1,50,000 from the deceased as well as from her parents. It has been specifically mentioned in the first information report that the present applicant (husband) has also contacted through the telephone to the brother of the first informant by saying to fulfil the demand of Rs. 1,50,000 as he is purchasing a new car. Such demand could not be fulfilled. Therefore, the present applicant gave telephonic message to the first informant, who is father of the deceased, on 30.4.2006 that Smt. Jaimala had disappeared from his house upon which the first informant alongwith his sons, Gram Pradhan and other villagers reached there and searched the deceased. Thereafter Smt. Jaimala was found in hanging condition upon a Neem tree whereupon her father lodged the first information report. On that basis, the inquest report was prepared after reaching the first informant alongwith others. The applicant, who is husband of the deceased or his family members were also not present at the time of preparing the inquest report of the deceased as none of his family members has been shown the witness of the inquest report and nothing has been mentioned in the inquest report why her husband and family members were not present at the time of preparing the inquest report.;