The post-mortem report does not, prima facie, show that there was the involvement of any other person or it was murder: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89321 Arising out of PS. Case No. 261 Year 2020 Thana SITAMARHI District Sitamarhi Vinod Ram aged about 38 years Male Son of Yogendra Ram Resident of Village Mehsaul Ward no. 3 P. S. Sitamarhi District Sitamarhi The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Uday Kumar Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha APP Date : 17 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioner on 09.08.2021 which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. Uday Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State. 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sitamarhi PS Case No. 2620 dated 25.05.2020 instituted under Sections 304(B) 34 of the Indian Penal Code 5. The allegation against the petitioner who is the brother of the husband of the deceased and others is of killing her due to non fulfilment of demand of motorcycle as dowry Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89321 dt.17 08 2021 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was his brother who is the husband of the deceased who had informed the informant who is the brother of the deceased on 24.05.2020 at 6 PM in the evening that the deceased had run away from the house and thereafter when the informant reached the matrimonial home upon search next morning at 6 AM body of the deceased was found in a pond on which there was scratch on the right eye and above the left eye there was swelling. It was submitted that only on suspicion the present case has been lodged as there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand a motorcycle as it could have been used only by the husband of the deceased Further it was submitted that the marriage had taken place about two years prior to the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the fact is that that the informant himself accepts that the husband of the deceased had called to inform that the deceased had gone away which indicates that there was some difference between the couple due to which she had run away and the petitioner had no role and further that the deceased had either committed suicide or could have met with an accident for the injuries indicate that it could result from a fall also. Learned counsel submitted that the post mortem discloses cardio respiratory failure without any other injury found on the body except for what has been stated in the FIR as has been noted in the order of the learned Additional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89321 dt.17 08 2021 Sessions Judge IV Sitamarhi in order dated 18.08.2020 in ABP No. 6620 by which the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected. It was submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent 7. Learned APP submitted that the death occurred within two years of marriage when the deceased was in the matrimonial home and thus there is a presumption in law of foul play. Further it was submitted that the petitioner being the brother of the husband of the deceased cannot shirk from the responsibility of the deceased being killed by his brother due to non fulfilment of demand for a motorcycle. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the fact that husband of the deceased had informed the informant about the deceased having run away indicates that there may have been some issue between the couple and further that the body being recovered the next morning from the pond only with one scratch on the right eye and one lump above the left eye does not prima facie show that there was involvement of any other person or it was murder as it could have resulted from fall also. Thus taking an overall view of the matter the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89321 dt.17 08 2021 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sitamarhi in Sitamarhi PS Case No. 2620 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall co operate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under Section 304-B IPC, “Dowry death, where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or har­assment by her husband or any relative of her husband”, section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This present petition is in connection with Sitamarhi PS Case No. 261 of 2020 dated 25.05.2020. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgment was given by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17th of August 2021 in the case of Vinod Ram versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.8930 of 2021, Mr. Uday Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was accused of being party to the killing of his sister-in-law (brother’s wife) due to nonfulfillment of demand of motorcycle as dowry. The counsel representing the petitioner held that according to the FIR the brother was the one who informed the informant who is the brother of the deceased on the 24th of May 2020 at 6 PM in the evening that the deceased had run away from her matrimonial home and when they searched for her, she was found dead in a pond the next morning having a scratch on the right eye and swelling above her left eye. It was held that this case has been lodged merely on suspicion and there has been no event where the petitioner has demanded a motorcycle as he is only the brother. The marriage took place only two years back. It was later transpired that the husband himself called the informant regarding the same proves that the petitioner had no role in the same and the injuries resulted due to the fall in the pond and therefore the deceased had either committed suicide or met with an accident the same is also proved in the post-mortem report where no injury on the body was found. Further, the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The additional public prosecutor held that the death took place just two years after the marriage which falls within seven years according to the law. therefore, is a presumption in the law of foul play. Just because the petitioner is only the brother of the husband of the deceased, he cannot shirk from the accusation of dowry death. After considering  the facts and circumstances of the case the court held that “the fact that husband of the deceased had informed the informant about the deceased having run away indicates that there may have been some issue between the couple and further that the body being recovered the next morning from the pond only with one scratch on the right eye and one lump above the left eye, does not, prima facie, show that there was the involvement of any other person or it was murder, as it could have resulted from fall also.” The court concluded that “the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 to the Judicial Magistrate, in connection to PS Case No. 261 of 2020, under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 1973  (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.” Click here to read the judgment