Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Sec.482 Cr.P.C.where No Evidence Of Unnatrural Death Charge U/s 304-B IPC To Be Probed.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Smt. Vimla Devi & Another Vs. State Of U.P. & Another. On 13/10/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 610 OF 2006
CORAM : Hon'ble Raghunath Kishore Rastogi,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

RESERVED.
Crl. Misc. Application No. 610 Of 2006

Smt. Vimla Devi And Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicants.
Versus
State Of U.P .and Another . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Parties.
----
Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

This Is An Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For Quashing The Proceedings Of Case Crime No.95 Of 2005 Under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. And U/s ¾, Dowry Prohibition Act Of Police Station Sarpatahan District Jaunpur.

The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Application Are That On 23.6.2005 A F.I.R. Was Lodged By Bechan Ram O.P. No.2 At Police Station Sarpatahan District Jaunpur With These Allegations That Marriage Of His Daughter Suman Devi Had Taken Place With Accused Sunil About Four Years Ago. Sunil And His Brother Mohan, Father Tarsu, Mother Smt. Prabhawati Devi And Bimla Devi Wife Of Mohan Ram Were Not Satisfied With The Dowry And They Were Demanding A Golden Chain. He Could Not Meet The Demand. On 27.6.2005 The Accused Started To Beat Suman Devi And Thereafter He Committed Her Murder By Strangulation. They Were Taking The Dead Body For Burning It But He Received An Information About It, So He Went To That Place Along With Other Residents Of The Village And Saw The Dead Body Of His Daughter At Patti Narendrapur. The Accused Ran Away On Seeing The Informant Leaving The Dead Body There. Then He Carried The Dead Body To The Police Station And Prayed That Action Be Taken In The Matter.

On The Basis Of This Report Police Registered A Case Under Section 498-A & 304-B, I.P.C. And Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Against The Accused Persons. Post-mortem Of The Dead Body Was Performed. In The Post-mortem Report No Injury Of Any Sort Was Found On The Dead Body And Cause Of Death Could Not Be Ascertained, Hence, Viscera Was Preserved And Was Sent For Chemical Examination. However, Before The Report Could Be Received, The Police Submitted A Charge Sheet Against The Accused Persons On 3.9.2005. Subsequently Viscera Report Dated 1.10.2005 Was Received And According To That Report No Poison Of Any Sort Was Found In The Viscera Sent For Examination.

The Applicants Have Filed This Application To Quash The Charge Sheet.
I Have Hear Miss Swati Agrawal, Learned Counsel For The Applicants And Learned A.G.A, As Well As Sri Diwakar Tiwari For The Opposite Parties.

The Learned Counsel For The Applicants Submitted That According To The F.I.R. Version The Accused Had Committed Murder Of Suman Devi By Strangulation But In The Post-mortem Report No Mark Of Any Injury Was Found Upon The Dead Body. According To The Post-mortem Report The Doctor Could Not Ascertain The Cause Of Death, Hence, Viscera Was Preserved. She Further Submitted That According To Viscera Report No Poison Was Found In The Viscera. She Submitted That In This Way It Is A Clear Cut Case Of Natural Death And So No Offence Under Section 304-B I.P.C. Was Made Out. I Agree With This Contention. When No Mark Of Any Injury Was Found On The Dead Body And It Was Also Not A Case Of Poisoning, Death Of Suman Devi Shall Be Considered To Be A Case Of Natural Death, Though It Had Taken Place Within The Period Of Seven Years From The Date Of Her Marriage And There Is Evidence To This Effect Also In The Case Diary That She Was Being Subjected To Cruelty In Connection With Demand Of Dowry, But Since Her Death Was Natural, No Case Under Section 304-B I.P.C. Is Made Out Against The Accused Persons And The Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Deserves To Be Allowed To The Extent Of Deletion Of The Charge Under Section 304-B I.P.C.
As Regards The Charges Under Section 498-A I.P.C. And U/s ¾, Dowry Prohibition Act, There Is Evidence To This Effect That Suman Devi Was Being Subjected To Cruelty In Connection With Demand Of Dowry, So Submission Of The Charge Sheet For The Offences Under Sections 498-A I.P.C. And U/s ¾, Dowry Prohibition Act Cannot Be Said To Be Unjustified.

The Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Is, Therefore, Partly Allowed To The Extent Of Deletion Of The Charge Under Section 304-B I.P.C. Against The Accused Persons. The Case Shall Proceed Against The Accused Persons Under Section 498-A I.P.C. And U/s ¾, Dowry Prohibition Act And Prayer For Quashing The Charge Sheet In Respect Of These Offences Is Rejected. The Accused-applicants Are, However, Allowed One Month's Time To Appear Before The Court Concerned Where The Case Is Pending. The Bail Application Of The Applicants Shall Be Heard And Decided By The Court Concerned Expeditiously, If Possible On The Same Day, Taking Into Consideration The Observations Of This Court Made In 'Smt. Amarawati And Another Vs. State Of U.P.' Reported In 2004(57) A.L.R. Page 390

Go to Navigation