State v. Sanjeet and others, arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard Sri Karuna Kant Gupta holding brief of Sri Nitin Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel.

2. This is first bail application of the present appellants-applicants, Smt. Vinod Kumari @ Roop Rani and Ram Lakhan s/o Balram Singh in Session Trial No. 480 of 2017, State Vs. Sanjeet and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2017, P.S. Reusa, District Sitapur wherein the appellant/applicant has been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for maximum punishment of life imprisonment with fine stipulations.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants has stated that the present appellant no. 1 is mother-in-law and appellant no. 2 is father-in-law of the deceased. Both are in jail since 19.3.2024 pursuant to the conviction order. However, both the aforesaid appellant remained on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Both the appellants are old aged person. He has further stated that both the appellants had nothing to do with the family affairs of their son or his wife (since deceased) and for all practical purposes they were living separately. Attention has been drawn towards para 34(9) of the conviction order showing the testimony of D.W.-1 (Raghuraj Singh) who has categorically deposed that prior to one day of the incident in question, the wife of the said witness died on account of 2 CRLA No. 1407 of 2024 prolonged illness and since Ram Lakhan Singh and Smt. Vinod Kumari, the appellants hereto had come to see her but after the death of wife they stayed for one more day in the house of the said witness. The present appellants are Samdhi and Samdhan of Raghuraj Singh. Therefore, learned counsel has stated that when the alleged unfortunate incident had taken place both the present appellants were not present in the house. Since the case in hand is a case of brutal murder of their daughter-in-law by sharp edged weapon (Kulhadi), therefore, if they were not present in the house on the date of incident the alleged offence could have not been committed by them. They are absolutely unaware as to how the aforesaid unfortunate incident took place. Further attention has been drawn towards the deposition of Shyam Sundar s/o Bharat Singh, P.W.-2 who is uncle of the deceased and has categorically stated that one day prior to the incident the wife of Raghuraj Singh died. Since Raghuraj Singh was his maternal uncle, the the said witness has gone to attend his last rites of his maternal aunt. On being asked from him as to whether on the date of cremation the present appellants were present, the P.W.-2 Shyam Sundar has stated that he is not aware as to whether present appellants were present in the last rites or not as he did not see them.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the perusal of the aforesaid deposition of P.W.-2 makes it crystal clear that such witness P.W.- 2 has not denied the presence of the present appellant in the last rites of wife of Raghuraj Singh as he had stated that they might be present or might not be present as he had not seen them in the last rites. Therefore, learned counsel has stated that since D.W.-1 Raghuraj Singh had deposed that both the parents were present in the last rites of his wife, the aforesaid story may not be disbelieved. However, the learned trial court while convicting the present appellants has taken the recourse of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, by observing that the present appellants could not discharge the burden to explain the mysterious death of the daughter-in-law of the present appellant. Learned counsel has stated that except the fact that they could not discharge the burden as per satisfaction of the court, there was no incriminating material or evidence against the present appellants. There was no eye witness account or last seen evidence. The paper-book is not ready. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that as and when the paper- book is ready and case is listed for final hearing he shall argue the appeal on 3 CRLA No. 1407 of 2024 merits and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

5. Per contra, Sri Bipul Singh, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that both the aforesaid appellants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. The daughter-in-law was killed brutally and the present appellants could not discharge their burden to explain the mysterious death of their daughter-in- law, therefore, both appellants have been rightly convicted invoking the provisions of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The responsibility of the father-in-law and mother-in-law is equal and parallel with the husband of the victim (since deceased).

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; the material available on record and without entering into the merits of the appeal; considering the fact that the present appellants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased; she remained on bail during the trial; she did not misuse the liberty of bail; she was not charge-sheeted but summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C.; prima-facie there are no incriminating material or evidence against her; she has been convicted invoking section 106 of Indian Evidence Act; she was not present in the house when the alleged incident took place; paper-book is not ready and her undertaking that she shall not misuse the liberty of bail; we are hereby convinced that she may be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

8. Let the appellants- Smt. Vinod Kumari @ Roop Rani and Ram Lakhan s/o Balram Singh, convicts of the aforesaid sessions trial, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which, the bail granted to the appellants shall stand cancelled. However, the remaining 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed.

10. It is made clear that during bail, if the appellants commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. 4 CRLA No. 1407 of 2024

11. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

12. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book of the case, if not already prepared and supply a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the parties as per rules.

13. List with the connected criminal appeal. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December 9, 2025 Om

1. Heard Sri Karuna Kant Gupta holding brief of Sri Nitin Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel.

2. This is first bail application of the present appellants-applicants, Smt. Vinod Kumari @ Roop Rani and Ram Lakhan s/o Balram Singh in Session Trial No. 480 of 2017, State Vs. Sanjeet and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2017, P.S. Reusa, District Sitapur wherein the appellant/applicant has been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for maximum punishment of life imprisonment with fine stipulations.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants has stated that the present appellant no. 1 is mother-in-law and appellant no. 2 is father-in-law of the deceased. Both are in jail since 19.3.2024 pursuant to the conviction order. However, both the aforesaid appellant remained on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Both the appellants are old aged person. He has further stated that both the appellants had nothing to do with the family affairs of their son or his wife (since deceased) and for all practical purposes they were living separately. Attention has been drawn towards para 34(9) of the conviction order showing the testimony of D.W.-1 (Raghuraj Singh) who has categorically deposed that prior to one day of the incident in question, the wife of the said witness died on account of 2 CRLA No. 1407 of 2024 prolonged illness and since Ram Lakhan Singh and Smt. Vinod Kumari, the appellants hereto had come to see her but after the death of wife they stayed for one more day in the house of the said witness. The present appellants are Samdhi and Samdhan of Raghuraj Singh. Therefore, learned counsel has stated that when the alleged unfortunate incident had taken place both the present appellants were not present in the house. Since the case in hand is a case of brutal murder of their daughter-in-law by sharp edged weapon (Kulhadi), therefore, if they were not present in the house on the date of incident the alleged offence could have not been committed by them. They are absolutely unaware as to how the aforesaid unfortunate incident took place. Further attention has been drawn towards the deposition of Shyam Sundar s/o Bharat Singh, P.W.-2 who is uncle of the deceased and has categorically stated that one day prior to the incident the wife of Raghuraj Singh died. Since Raghuraj Singh was his maternal uncle, the the said witness has gone to attend his last rites of his maternal aunt. On being asked from him as to whether on the date of cremation the present appellants were present, the P.W.-2 Shyam Sundar has stated that he is not aware as to whether present appellants were present in the last rites or not as he did not see them.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the perusal of the aforesaid deposition of P.W.-2 makes it crystal clear that such witness P.W.- 2 has not denied the presence of the present appellant in the last rites of wife of Raghuraj Singh as he had stated that they might be present or might not be present as he had not seen them in the last rites. Therefore, learned counsel has stated that since D.W.-1 Raghuraj Singh had deposed that both the parents were present in the last rites of his wife, the aforesaid story may not be disbelieved. However, the learned trial court while convicting the present appellants has taken the recourse of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, by observing that the present appellants could not discharge the burden to explain the mysterious death of the daughter-in-law of the present appellant. Learned counsel has stated that except the fact that they could not discharge the burden as per satisfaction of the court, there was no incriminating material or evidence against the present appellants. There was no eye witness account or last seen evidence. The paper-book is not ready. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that as and when the paper- book is ready and case is listed for final hearing he shall argue the appeal on 3 CRLA No. 1407 of 2024 merits and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

5. Per contra, Sri Bipul Singh, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that both the aforesaid appellants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. The daughter-in-law was killed brutally and the present appellants could not discharge their burden to explain the mysterious death of their daughter-in- law, therefore, both appellants have been rightly convicted invoking the provisions of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The responsibility of the father-in-law and mother-in-law is equal and parallel with the husband of the victim (since deceased).

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; the material available on record and without entering into the merits of the appeal; considering the fact that the present appellants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased; she remained on bail during the trial; she did not misuse the liberty of bail; she was not charge-sheeted but summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C.; prima-facie there are no incriminating material or evidence against her; she has been convicted invoking section 106 of Indian Evidence Act; she was not present in the house when the alleged incident took place; paper-book is not ready and her undertaking that she shall not misuse the liberty of bail; we are hereby convinced that she may be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

8. Let the appellants- Smt. Vinod Kumari @ Roop Rani and Ram Lakhan s/o Balram Singh, convicts of the aforesaid sessions trial, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which, the bail granted to the appellants shall stand cancelled. However, the remaining 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed.

10. It is made clear that during bail, if the appellants commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. 4 CRLA No. 1407 of 2024

11. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

12. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book of the case, if not already prepared and supply a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the parties as per rules.

13. List with the connected criminal appeal. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December 9, 2025 Om