Dismissed

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2022/9620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a bail application under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court rejected the plea regarding the death of the deceased by poison. The court held that the prosecution prima facie established unnatural death within seven years of marriage due to dowry cruelty, and defense submissions were unsatisfactory.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; lower court directed to decide case on merits.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9620 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Savita Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.

¶6

1. The case is called out in virtual hearing.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant, Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Vishnu Dev Shukla, Advocate are present through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.

¶8

3. The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accusedapplicant, Manoj who is involved in Case Crime No.43/2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station- Bhira, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

4. The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri vide order dated 5.10.2020.

¶10

5. The prosecution case emerged from the contents of the First Information Report lodged by the complainant (father of the deceased Gangotri) and the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer that deceased, Gangotri was married on 6.5.2018 with the present accused applicant, Manoj. At the time of marriage ritually the complainant gave dowry in his capacity but the son-in-law Manoj, his mother, sister and elder brother were not satisfied, therefore, just after marriage they started harassing and embarrassing the deceased in connection with their demand of dowry of Rs.70,000/- cash and a fridge. The complainant sought sometime to fulfill their demand but the aforesaid persons were not ready to wait, they continued subjecting the deceased to cruelty by beating her. Ultimately, on 4.1.2019 they administered poison to the deceased, Gangotri and committed her death. It is further stated by the father of the deceased that his daughter Gangotri in the night of incident told on telephone that 'if you want to see me then come immediately, otherwise I will not survive anymore as the in-laws have administered me poison' . When the complainant pursuant to her telephonic conversation reached at his

¶11

¶12

daughter's in-laws house, he was told the dead body of her daughter is lying in the District Hospital Lakhimpur Kheri. The inquest report made annexure to the affidavit of the bail application reveals that the information as to the death of the deceased Gangotri of administering poison was informed to the Police Station by ward boy of District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri. Police came on the spot i.e., Mortuary of the District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri. The present accusedapplicant, Manoj (husband of the deceased, Gangotri) was also present at the time of inquest as he has been made witness to the inquest proceeding. The inquest proceeding further noted that there was no injuries on the person of the deceased. In the opinion of witnesses, the death of the deceased was caused by taking poison then also for the purpose of ascertaining the actual cause of death the body was referred for the post mortem examination. Post mortem examination was also done on the same day at about 5:15 p.m. in the evening and the doctors who done the autopsy opined in postmortem report that death might have been caused on 4.1.2019 at about 10:45 a.m. and the cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, Viscera was preserved for forensic examination. A report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow revealed that an insecticide poison namely 'Organo Phosphorus' is identified and present in the viscera of the deceased.

¶13

6. As such, the prosecution has successfully established the unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage by reason of administering poison in her in-laws house. So far as the other essential ingredients relating to the constitution of offence under Section 304-B read with Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, the prosecution has relied on the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. The statement of Mewa Lal, father of the deceased who is complainant of the case revealed to the Investigating Officer that present accused applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and just after one month from the marriage the present accused applicant forced the deceased, Gangotri to ask her father (complainant) Rs.2,000/- for him to start a shop. Again after 10 days the deceased daughter of the complainant was further forced to ask Rs.3,000/- from father for installing a water tap in the house. After one and a half month again when the complainant visited the in-laws' house of his daughter the accused applicant's mother asked Rs.7,000/- for redeeming her field from pledge but since the father of the deceased was not financially competent to give such a huge amount therefore, he requested to give

¶14

¶15

some time so he may collect the payment of sugarcane and to pay the said money. Annoyed therefrom the in-laws of the deceased began to beat her. One day at about 1:00 a.m. in the night, the nephew of the present accused-applicant, Manoj came with the deceased daughter Gangotri to the complainant's house who was unconscious and there was an injury on her cheeks. About 8 days the deceased daughter Gangotri was under treatment. After Deepawali the present accusedapplicant Manoj telephonically threatened the deceased Gongotri that he will not be taking her to the matrimonial house, if she wants to come, she may do on her own. Hearing this the deceased daughter alongwith her daughter Chandni left the father's house for going to the matrimonial home, thereafter, on 4.1.2019 her daughter Gangotri telephonically informed that she is administered poison by the inlaws, if somebody want to see her, must come immediately, otherwise she will not survive. Hearing this immediately the father of the deceased alongwith family left his home and reached at the in-laws house, where the in-laws when contacted on phone informed that they are going to the hospital at Lakhimpur Kheri, on reaching where the complainant found her daughter dead.

¶16

7. Prosecution case have prima facie established from the statement of the father of the deceased and other witnesses that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. Her telephonic conversation with father about her having been administered poison by the in-laws also makes a dying declaration as to cause of her death.

¶17

8. Against the said prosecution case, learned counsel for the bail applicant submitted that it was the in-laws who brought the deceased in hospital at Lakhimpur Kheri, whereas deceased herself has taken the poison and she was admitted in the hospital at about 10:20 a.m. on 4.1.2019 and died at 10:45 a.m. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the prosecution story itself states that there was no injury on the person of the deceased, Gangotri was found at the time of inquest as detailed in the post mortem report under the head of antemortem injury. Learned counsel for the applicant took the plea that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant to implicate the accused-applicant in the said offence and the prosecution could not established the case against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt.

¶18

9. In para-8 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application the plea has taken has taken as follows:-

¶19

¶20

"That applicant has no concern with the said occurrence, applicant is husband of the deceased, applicant had cordial relation with the deceased, and he had nothing to do with the said occurrence."

¶21

10. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that all the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C for raising a presumption of committing offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. against the present accused-applicant and his family members with regard to the dowry death of the deceased, Gangotri are prima facie established as death by administering poison is occasioned in the in-laws house within seven years from the date of marriage and there have been a chain of cruelty committed with the deceased Gangotri soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry.

¶22

11. The F.I.R. version of the complainant and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the investigating officer both consistently proved the demand of dowry and commission of cruelty with the deceased in connection therewith is prima facie established.

¶23

12. The question is whether the prima facie case of prosecution against the present accused applicant of committing dowry death established, an important fact in issue would be that whether the poison was administered by the deceased herself or was administered to her forcibly and tactfully. In both cases the nature of unnatural death is not altered because either the poison was taken by the deceased herself under compulsion in the in-laws house or she was administered poison by the in-laws forcibly and tactfully the death is unnaturally occasioned within seven years from the date of marriage in the in-laws house in connection with the demand of dowry.

¶24

13. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant remained unsuccessful in showing the fact whether the deceased was brought dead in the hospital or she was died in the course of treatment after admitting her, no admission paper in the hospital nor treatment given to her nor any certificate as to the death in the course of treatment is submitted by him. Moreover, there is no explanation in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that under which circumstance and why the poison like Organo Phosphorus Insecticide was taken by the deceased, Gangotri. This is also not pleaded in the affidavit that poison has taken accidentally by the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record of the bail application a compromise and memo of delivering the articles of deceased Gangotri by her in-laws, where 16 items were handed over to the complainant on 5.1.2019 just after one day of the incident. It is interpolated in between the inventory of

¶25

¶26

articles which were delivered to the complainant, Meva Lal, by adding the statement of Meva Lal to the effect that his daughter Gangotri, wife of Manoj was suffered from mental ailment by reason of which she took poison and during the treatment her death was occasioned, he and his family did not want to take any action, this statement is clearly and obviously an interpolation between the admission of getting receipt of 16 articles from the in-laws of the deceased, Gangotri which is rightly introduced in writing in correct order. Thus, the aforesaid statement becomes doubtful being an interpolation in the aforesaid memo of compromise with regard to the receiving of articles given as dowry at the time of marriage.

¶27

14. As such, the conduct of the accused applicant is clearly implicit of instinct to attempt adversely affect the witnesses of the case or to win over the witnesses by threat. Offence is not only heinous but disgusting also for the reason of committing death of a young girl in connection with demand of dowry.

¶28

15. With these observations, the present bail application is rejected .

¶29

16. The learned lower court shall proceed to decide the case on merit and not to be swayed with the observation made in the order as the same is done prima facie on considering the prosecution evidences.

¶30

Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Gaurav/-

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Devansh Agarwaldetenue Thru. Deepti Goel and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Aash Khan @ Ashu @ Mahafooz Ui Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Amit Upadhyay @ Sonu @ Baba Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Katiyar Vs State of U.P.

Mratunjay Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh Patel @ Utkarsh @ Uttu @ Raj Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.