Suraj Singh alias Annoo vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant Sri J. S. Sengar, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

Briefly prosecution case according to F.I.R. is that the marriage of Suman had been solemnised with Suraj Singh alias Annoo on 6th July, 2003. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage, however, her in-laws were not satisfied and her husband including father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and nanad were demanding more dowry of Rs. 1 lakh for starting business for her husband. Such demand could not be fulfilled, therefore, she was subjected to cruelty by them. She had gone to her parents'' house at the Holi festival and made complaint to her parents regarding demand of dowry and such cruelty upon which the first informant, who is father of the deceased went to her house of present applicant on 15.4.05 and requested not to give torture to his daughter due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. On 20.4.05, his younger daughter Kiran had gone to house of the present applicant to meet her sister about 11/12 O''clock and she had seen that Smt. Suman was being beaten by all the accused persons including her husband. She had tried to save her elder sister and she was also beaten. The applicant Suraj Singh opened fire upon his wife to kill her in presence of Smt. Kiran at the exhortation of Ranveer Singh, Lata Devi, Neeru and Manoj. Thereafter they fled away from the house. She was taken by Smt. Kiran in injured condition to the hospital where she was got admitted and she gave information to her father, upon which the first informant reached straightly to the hospital and the F.I.R. was lodged against all the accused persons on 21.4.05 at 10 p.m. Later on, she died due to succumb injuries.

It is contended on behalf of applicant that prosecution case is that he caused fire arm injuries on the body of deceased. Injury report vide Annexure-1 was prepared by the doctor who found one fire arm wound of entry on left side of abdomen. The complaint was made by the first informant regarding medical examination again, therefore, Board was constituted and again she was medically examined on 23.4.05, in which these injuries are contusions and abrasions vide Annexure-2. Therefore, no any fire arm injury was found on the person of deceased by the Board, therefore, prosecution story becomes suspicious regarding causing fire arm injuries by the present applicant. It is further contended that due to carelessness, Smt. Suman got infected and died due to septicemia as a result of infected injuries. It is further contended that statement of Kiran, alleged injured witness and statement of Smt. Suman, deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein they have stated that the applicant had fired upon her chest. Consequently, she sustained fire arm injuries but this assertion became false by the team of doctors who examined Smt. Suman. It is further contended that the statement of first informant was again recorded by the Investigating Officer who has also repeated the same story as earlier of causing fire arm injuries from country-made pistol and in such circumstances, no case of dowry death has been made out as death of deceased was caused due to carelessness of her treatment.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

There are following ingredients to constitute offence u/s 304, I.P.C. read with Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act:

(a) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances ;

(b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage ;

(c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband ;

(d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry ; and

(e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.

In the present case, there is no dispute that Smt. Suman had died within 1 year and 10 months from her marriage, meaning thereby she has died within 7 years of her marriage. So far as cruelty is concerned, it has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as statement of prosecution witnesses that sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but accused persons were not satisfied and they were demanding more dowry as Rs. 1 lakh in cash for starting business of her husband and such demand could not be fulfilled by her parents and she complained regarding such demand to her father, mother and brother after reaching their house at Holi festival. After that the first informant who is father of deceased had gone to the house of applicant and requested to the accused persons not to harass his daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and after five days she was beaten in presence of her younger sister and the applicant caused fire arm injuries upon the body of deceased at the exhortation of other accused persons in the presence of Kiran. She has also tried to save her sister and she was also beaten by them.

It is worthwhile to mention that the presence of Kiran, younger sister of deceased cannot be doubted at the time of place of occurrence as she brought her sister in injured condition to the hospital and she was got admitted by her on 20.4.05 in the same night, therefore, she was subjected to cruelty by the present applicant also who is husband. The question arises whether her death is natural or unnatural, there is no case also on behalf of the applicant that she had died as natural. It has been specifically stated in the F.I.R. and the statement of first informant, Kiran eye-witnesses and deceased recorded u/s 161, Cr. P.C. which comes within the purview of dying declaration after her death that fire arm injuries were caused upon body of deceased by her husband. It is worthwhile to mention here that deceased in injured condition was taken by Kiran in the hospital where she was got admitted. Injury report vide Annexure-2 is on record which reveals that fire arm wounds of entry was found in her abdomen. It is also worthwhile to mention here that co-accused Ranveer, father-in-law of deceased gave written application to the I.G. Police, Kanpur regarding alleged occurrence, wherein it has been stated that his daughter-in-law Smt. Suman Kumari sustained fire arm injuries caused by the first informant and others after looting property from his house. On 21.4.05, one application was moved earlier to S.S.P., Farrukhabad by co-accused Ranveer by stating therein that the first informant and others had looted his property in which his daughter-in-law Smt. Suman got injured, therefore, there is no dispute also on behalf of applicant that deceased sustained fire arm injuries. Consequently applicant''s father moved an application firstly on 21.4.05 and secondly on 23.4.05 to the S.S.P., Farrukhabad and I.G. Police, Kanpur. Therefore, it is not liable to be deemed that the death of deceased was natural. According to the post-mortem report, her death has been shown by septicemia due to injuries, however, carelessness of treatment of doctor does not come within the purview of natural death.

Although one application on behalf of first informant was given to the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, wherein it was mentioned that her treatment has been started only to see gun shot wound. She sustained other injuries but the same has not been entered in the injury report of injured (deceased) upon which Board was constituted. Co-accused Ranveer Singh who is father-in-law of deceased retired as Hawaldar (Army). The Board has given different opinion regarding injuries of injured as lacerated wounds and abrasions not of fire arm injuries shown in the abdomen of the injured. The first injury report has not been mentioned in the second injury report and no explanation has been given by the Board that no any injury was found on such part as alleged as fire arm wounds of entry. However, there is no need to go into merit of the case whether injuries were caused by fire arm or caused by blunt object. It is only liable to be deemed that the deceased sustained injuries in the alleged occurrence at the house of present applicant. She was got admitted in the hospital later on and due to such injuries, she expired due to septicemia and it comes within the purview of unnatural death.

Conduct of applicant is that being husband of deceased, he did not take his wife in the injured condition to the hospital and he also did not inform the parents of the deceased but his father moved an application to the police authority that the first informant and others had looted property from his house and caused fire arm injuries on Smt. Suman. Not only that after causing injuries, he also fled away from his house and he was not found at his house at the time of inspection of place of occurrence. In such circumstances, the conduct of applicant who is husband of deceased supported the prosecution version.

In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the argument advanced on behalf of applicant. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.