Manoj Singh Kachhwah and Another vs State of U.P.

The appellant no.1 Manoj Singh Kachhwah has been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections - 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section - 4 D.P. Act and the maximum sentence awarded to him is ten years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant no.2 Tara Devi has been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections - 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section - 4 D.P. Act and the maximum sentence awarded to her is seven years rigorous imprisonment.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate evidence in correct perspective. Appellant no.1 is husband of deceased and appellant no.2 is mother-in-law of the deceased. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that prosecution version that marriage of

¶14

CRLA No. 6743 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

deceased took place six years prior to the incident is false and in fact the marriage of deceased with appellant no.1 has taken place about eight years prior to the incident and thus, Section - 304-B I.P.C. is not attracted. Learned counsel has referred statement of P.W.-1 / Informant - Amar Pal Singh and P.W.-3 Smt. Phoolmati and submitted that there are material contradictions in their statements. In postmortem report, except ligature mark, no other injury has been shown on body of deceased and cause of death is antemortem hanging. Learned counsel has referred statement of D.W.-1 Laxmi @ Kalyani Singh, who is daughter of deceased and appellant. In her statement, she has stated that her mother has died while she was a child and she was looked after and married by her father and grand parents and she has heard that her mother was not mentally stable and she has committed suicide. She has also stated that her father Manoj Kumar Kachhwa (appellant no.1) did not re-marry. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and statements of witnesses and submitted that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment of deceased levelled against appellants, are wholly false. The deceased has committed suicide. During trial appellants were on bail and now since 15.07.2025 they are in judicial custody. Lastly, it was submitted that due to huge pendency of cases there is no possibility of early hearing in appeal and thus, in view of aforesaid facts, the appellants may be granted bail during pendency of appeal.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is evidence that deceased was being harassed by the appellants on account of dowry and she has suffered death due to hanging. It was submitted that the marriage of deceased with appellant no.1 has taken place about six years prior to the incident. The period of detention of appellants is not much. The conviction of appellants is based on evidence and no case for suspension of

¶18

CRLA No. 6743 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

sentence is made out.

¶21

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶22

Perusal of record shows that appellant no.1 Manoj Singh Kachhwah is husband of deceased and as per prosecution version their marriage has taken place about six years prior to the incident. It appears from record that when informant and other witnesses have reached at the spot, none of the accused was present there. Appellant no.1 is stated in jail since 15.07.2025. Considering all relevant facts, so far appellant no.1 Manoj Singh Kachhwah is concerned, no case for suspension of sentence / bail is made out at this stage. Hence, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant no.1 Manoj Singh Kachhwah is hereby dismissed , at this stage.

¶23

So far appellant no. 2 Tara Devi is concerned, she is mother-in-law of the deceased and maximum sentence awarded to the appellant no.2 is seven years. Considering facts of the matter, so far appellant no.2 Tara Devi is concerned, a case for suspension of sentence is made out. Hence, the instant application for suspension of sentence / bail filed on behalf of appellant no.2 Tara Devi is hereby allowed .

¶24

Let the appellant no.2 Tara Devi, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No. 996 of 2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Tara Devi), arising out of Case Crime No. 352 of 2003, under Sections - 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section - 4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Vidhnu, District - Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should be of their family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶25

CRLA No. 6743 of 2025

¶26

4

¶27

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

¶28

Order on Memo of Appeal :-

¶29

List in due course.

¶30

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶31

January 6, 2026

¶32

S Rawat

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Singh Kachhwah and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh Kachhwah and Another v. State of U.P.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Surajmukhi vs State of U.P.

Monu Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Vishwanath Trading Company vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Raza vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Anuradha Kakkar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others