Janki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

The instant criminal appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 25-11-2025 passed by learned Session Judge Barabanki in Session Case no. 1493/2022 "State vs Janki Devi & others" in Case Crime no. 171/2022 under Section 498A,304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act., Police Station Gunghter, District-Barabanki whereby the learned court below declared the appellants guilty and sentenced them for the offence under section 304-B IPC for seven year rigorous imprisonment each and offence under Section 498A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment along with the fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months and offence under section 4 D.P. Act for one year imprisonment each along with the fine of Rs. 5000/- each in

¶21

CRLA No. 4199 of 2025

¶22

2

¶23

default of payment of fine further to undergo one month additional imprisonment and all the sentences directed run concurrently.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the FIR, as many as five persons, namely: Bablu, husband of the deceased; Janki Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased; Mathura, father-in-law of the deceased; Rinki, sister-in-law of the deceased and Kaushal, brother-in-law of the deceased were implicated as accused. The allegations have been made against all the accused persons for the demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and consequent torture has been made and practicing cruelty due to nonfulfillment of the dowry. The Investigating Officer did not find the complicity of Mathura, Rinki, and Kaushal and dropped their names in the charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed against Janki Devi (appellant) and Bablu, who were put on trial and convicted for the charges under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant has been awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment for the charge undere Section 304-B along with co-accused.

¶25

He further submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and there was no allegation regarding misuse of liberty of bail during trial. The appellant is a homemaker and a village lady, therefore, there is no apprehension that she may abscond from the course of justice on being released on bail in the present case. No specific allegations are made against the appellant in the alleged offense. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused Bablu three years prior to the incident in which deceased died unfortunate death due to hanging.In the postmortem of the deceased Nishu, one injury in the nature of ligature mark measuring 33 x 3 cm was present around the neck from the above the thyroid and along the mandible . This ligature mark was 2.5 cm long on the right side of the neck and was 2.0 cm below the left ventricle and was located 6 inches below the right ear. In the opinion of the author of the postmortem report, PW- 7 Doctor Sushil Chandra, the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. No other injury except ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased. No physical torture to the victim prior to committing suicide could be ascertained. The defence witnesses, namely Lalji and Sahaj Ram, have stated in their statement before the trial court that there is no demand of dowry on the part of the accused persons. The deceased and her husband were living happily at the matrimonial home. The learned trial court has acquitted the appellant and co-accused from alternative charges under Section 302 IPC. The learned trial court has observed in the judgment that PW-1 Rajesh Kumar has stated that the deceased had committed suicide. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future due to heavy backlog. The appellant is held in jail custody since 25/11/25. The appellant undertakes that she shall be abide by the conditions as imposed by this Court, if she is granted liberty of bail.

¶26

Per contra, learned AG has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant and co-accused provided no explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act about the death of the deceased in unnatural circumstances.

¶27

CRLA No. 4199 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offenses, nature of allegations and the fact that the appellant is mother-in-law of the deceased and three accused persons, who are assigned similar role in the offences have been exonerated by the investigating officer and were not put on trial and the fact that the appeal is new one and it will take considerable time for hearing due to heavy backlog and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. However, it is clarified that the bail application of the appellant has been taken into consideration with respect to role of the appellant in connection with the death of deceased, Nishu and no parity will be claimed by the co-convict, Babloo with the bail granted to the appellant.

¶30

Let the appellant, namely, Janki, be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶31

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

¶32

The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶33

As regards fine, half of the amount of fine will be deposited by the appellant before his release from jail pursuant to present bail order, the remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency of the appeal.

¶34

January 14, 2026 dk/

¶35

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Janki v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

Janki v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hafij Shah vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ateen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sunita Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Bablu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow

Vijendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhruv Pratap Singh vs State of U.P