Mohit Yadav v. State

3. On 23.12.2016 police received an information, vide DD No.38, from Mata Chandan Devi Hospital that one Chavi Yadav/deceased aged 28 years old had died during the course of treatment, after falling from a height. The victim was married for 8 months. It is alleged by the complainant/mother of the deceased that after engagement with her daughter and soon before solemnization of marriage the petitioner repeatedly demanded Rs.5/6 lakhs from her. Keeping in view her daughter's happiness, the complainant has stated to have taken a loan of Rs.2.[5] lakhs and given the said amount to the petitioner. It is further alleged in the FIR that after one and a half month of marriage, the father of the petitioner gave beatings to her daughter and also the mother of the petitioner taunted her for bringing less dowry. It is stated that after the above said incidents the petitioner sent his wife/victim to her maternal home and refused to take her back to Thansi where he lived with his parents as his parents would again raise disputes on the issue of dowry. Thereafter, the victim is stated to be taken to Delhi by her husband where they both lived with petitioner's aunt for few days and afterward shifted to a rented house.

4 Further, it is stated by the complainant that her daughter visited her two days prior to Karwachauth and on 19.10.2016 the petitioner also joined them. It is further stated that on 20.10.2016 the petitioner returned to Delhi on being called by his uncle and asked the complainant's daughter to return after two days on which, the complainant's daughter left for Delhi on 22.10.2016. On the same BAJL.APPLN. 1010/2017 day i.e. 22.10.2016 the complainant alleged to have received a call from the petitioner who informed her that her daughter had fallen down and had sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated by the complainant that subsequent to the petitioner's call, her elder daughter called and informed her that Chavi/victim had died. The present petitioner has previously filed three application for seeking bail, which were dismissed vide orders dated 09.12.2016, 16.01.2017 and 03.04.2017 respectively. Hence, the instant bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that nothing substantial has come forth against the petitioner from the supplementary chargesheet placed on record; that no dowry was ever demanded at the time of marriage; that the relations between the petitioner and the deceased were quite peaceful and cordial as three days before the alleged incident, the petitioner had stayed at his in-laws house with the deceased on the occasion of Karvachauth; that no explanation has come forth from the complainant for 24 hours of delay in lodging the said complaint; that the death of the deceased is purely suicidal in nature; that the petitioner was not present at the place of incident; that the petitioner himself took his injured wife to the hospital for treatment. It is further contended that the petitioner has been victimized and all the allegations are false and baseless and that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation as and when required. BAIL.APPLN. 1010/2017 Mr. Akshai Malik learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the marriage of deceased did not last even for 8 months and there are specific allegations of demand of Rs.516 lakhs by the petitioner; that the in-laws of the deceased harassed her on account of dowry and specific allegations of beating are also levelled against the petitioner and his father; that the post mortem report categorically states that "manner of death thrusting cannot be ruled out" and therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the bail application filed by the petitioner be rejected. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Point for determination from the evidence and incriminating material brought by the prosecution in this case would be whether there is a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident resulting into death of Chavildeceased in other than normal circumstances in her matrimonial home on account of demand for dowry death as defined under Section 304B IPC. For the said determination, ingredients of dowry death as provided under Section 304B IPC are enumerated as under:- "i) death of a woman occurs because of burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; ('i) such a death takes place within seven years of her marriage; 'iii) it is shown and established that soon before death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband, BAIL.APPLN. 1010/2017 Page4of[7]

(iv) and such cruelty or harassment was in connection with any demandfor dow?y.

In the present case, the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner took place on 04.02.2016 and the deceased expired on 22.10.2016. The cause of death as opined by the doctor is due to multiple injuries involving multiple vital organs. It is also stated in the Post Mortem Report that "manner of death thrusting. cannot be ruled out". The death of deceased has hence taken place in suspicious circumstances within a short span of eight months of marriage. There are specific allegations in the FIR of mental and physical harassment of deceased by the petitioner and his parents. The complainant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that soon before the incident her deceased daughter had called her sister/Chinki and informed that the petitioner is fighting with her and gave her beating also. This fact is further confirmed by the statement of Chinki recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the CDR of mobile phone of the deceased which clearly suggests that the deceased had called her sister just before the incident. Also in his statement the independent witness/neighbour of the petitioner namely Nakul Kumar has stated that he heard noise of quarrel between the applicant and the deceased on the night of incident and some time after that he saw the petitioner hurrying down the stairs and thereafter came to know that the deceased had jumped from the roof. 11 12. Subjection of the deceased to harassment by the petitioner further BA!L.APPLN. 1010/2017 Page 5 017 emerges from the statement of petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced hereunder:- Therefore on the advice of my family I made the plan that on making different excuses and on giving her beatings will make her so much helpless that she will take divo rce from me but despite ofgetting beatings from me and my parents also neither she has given the divorce nor gave rest of 2.[5] lac rupees and big car. That I on the advice of my father and fufa made plan to keep her separately at Delhi and after staying for few days at the house of my fufa I took aforesaid house on rent and started staying there. When Chavi went to her parents house to celebrate karwachauth then I in making complete plan went at my in laws house on 19.10.16 and has complete drama of celebrating k.arwachauth and afterwards on receiving the phone call offufa ji came to Delhi on 20.10.16 and did not brought Chavi. That on 22.10.2016 Chavi by herself in monitoring, I came by train. I went to bring her from station also so that she should not have any doubt. That she raised the quarrel that why she was not brought along. That I said that what you parents have given that we should tolerate your tantrums. You would have stayed at the place of your family and sister jaji, that on this she started crying then I gave her two-four slaps in anger. Then I called my bua and fufa also who are staying at some distance from my room. But Chavi went on roof while crossing from room. I also went upstairs and Chavi started giving threat to jump froth the roof in anger. I also wanted to get rid of her and I said to her to jump from the roof and she jumped from the roof That I took her Mata Chanan Devi Hospital along with my fufa where she died. I did not gave the information about the same to police. That I am coming in the talks of my family members and relatives in the greed of dowry on harassing my wife Chavi making her helpless to jump from roof and committed heinous crime. I have BAIL.APPLN. 1010/2017 d (0 committed wrong, I should be pardoned." Therefore in light of the above and after careful scrutiny of other aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and while perusing the complaint of the complainant and the charge sheet, wherein the complainant has specifically made allegations against the present petitioner and other factors including severity of the punishment prescribed in law, I find no sufficient ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 4, 2017 //gr HGAL, J