The deceased not being in a normal frame of mind persuades the Court to allow pre-arrest bail to the petitioner held for dowry death.: High court of Patna

The petitioner was taken into custody 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 Bodhgaya PS Case No. 229 of 2020 dated 06.07.2020.

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 Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Singh versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37184 of 2020, Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar Upadhyay represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Smriti Prasad represented as the  Advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner is accused of killing his wife the informant’s sister because of non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

The counsel representing the petitioner held that the marriage took place in 2014, there has been no complaint about the demand for dowry before any authority ever since. In 2017 the petitioner purchased land in the name of his wife and mother which proves the misconception behind the case, there was no need for the petitioner to buy the plot in the name of his wife without taking money from the family of his wife. Further, the counsel held that the couple has a 5-year-old daughter which is another reason as to why the demand for dowry would have not taken place because parents focus on upbringing minor children with proper care and the presence of the mother is very vital so why would the husband commit such a crime? The deceased also worked as a teacher and made a living for herself. The deceased was going through depression as her certificate of B.Ed. from Rajasthan was found to be fake. And she was caught paying money to some agency for the fake certificate to continue her employment as a teacher. The counsel held that the petitioner has always supported his in-laws, he was taking care of the sister of the deceased a widow, and the informant’s son.

The counsel held that after investigation the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan and the post-mortem report shows no other injury on any part of her body, there is no such evidence to prove that she was forced to commit suicide and the report proves that she died by committing suicide which has also been supported by the witnesses.

The additional public prosecutor held that it is not controverted that the post-mortem report does not disclose any bodily injury and only a ligature marks around the neck. The counsel representing the informant also held that the petitioner is innocent and did not murder his wife and this case has been lodged on a misconception.

The court concluded that “The court finds that the post-mortem report simply disclosing death due to hanging without any other injury on the body, as also the fact that there is a five years old daughter and there being no complaint in the past and the deceased also working as a teacher bringing money to the family and most importantly, the informant himself filing a compromise stating that due to confusion and anger, the case was filed and there being material to indicate that a fake degree showing the deceased to have passed B.Ed. may also suggest of the deceased not being in a normal frame of mind, persuades the Court to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Bodhgaya PS Case No. 229 of 2020, under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 1973. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”

Click here to read the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *