The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of dying declaration and physical evidence in determining false implication and granting anticipatory bail in a dowry harassment case.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Dowry Harassment - IPC 498-A, 304-B, Dowry Prohibition Act - [Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act] - The court considered the dying declaration, burn injuries sustained by the deceased and the applicant, and the informant's involvement in the inquest proceedings. The court found it to be a case of false implication and granted anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant was accused of subjecting his wife to cruelty for dowry, leading to her death due to burn injuries. The applicant claimed innocence and highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including a delayed FIR and the victim's dying declaration stating accidental burn injuries.
Finding of the Court:

The court found it to be a case of false implication and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, considering the dying declaration, the burn injuries sustained by the deceased and the applicant, and the informant's involvement in the inquest proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of the prosecution's case, including the delayed FIR, the victim's dying declaration, and the informant's role in the inquest proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the dying declaration, the burn injuries sustained by the deceased and the applicant, and the informant's involvement in the inquest proceedings, leading to the conclusion of false implication and granting of anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the trial and non-interference with the evidence and witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 1053 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station -Prem Nagar, District -Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:-

4. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites on 10.12.2005. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry. It is also alleged in the FIR that the electronic shop of the applicant got closed due to loss, as such, he is stated to have demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/-for business as dowry. The inability of the informant to provide them with Rs.50,000/-again impelled them to start committing cruelty to her and are even stated to have threatened the deceased that they shall kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil over her.

5. On 10.04.2007 at about 06:00 PM, the applicant and other family members are stated to have set the daughter of the informant afire whereby she sustained 85 per cent burn injuries and was admitted at Medical College in a serious condition. The applicant and other family members did not inform the informant about the incident. Somehow on 17.04.2007, he was informed telephonically by an anonymous neighbour regarding the incident. The informant reached the Medical College and was told by his daughter that she has been set afire by sprinkling kerosene over her by the applicant and his family members. The FIR of the informant could not be instituted at Prem Nagar, Jhansi on 19.04.2007. The same day, the victim started bleeding and she gave birth to a pre-mature four months old child who was also disposed of by her mother-in-law by burning him. The victim succumbed to her injuries the same day at about 05:00 PM.

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:-

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the dying declaration was recorded the same day of incident i.e. on 10.04.2007 itself whereby she has stated that she sustained burn injuries by accident while cooking food. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant himself had sustained about 8 per cent burn injuries in an attempt to save the victim (his wife) and the said medical report of the victim and the applicant have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed along with anticipatory bail application. It is next stated that the inquest proceedings of the deceased person was taken up on 20.04.2007 itself and the informant herein is panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings. Had the applicant or any other person committed the said offence, the name of the applicant would have come up at the stage of recording of inquest proceedings itself.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the concerned Magistrate on 23.04.2007 which itself is delayed. Learned counsel has further stated that despite knowing the fact that in the dying declaration, the victim has not levelled any charge of causing her death to the applicant, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted against him by the Investigating Officer which is unfair.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate vide order dated 17.09.2010 and the same along with another order dated 21.10.2013 challenged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document