Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State on the bail application in pending appeal.

2. This is the first bail application of the present appellant/ applicant- Smt. Khunni Devi in Sessions Trial No.399 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.285 of 2019, Police Station- Lonar, District- Hardoi wherein the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

3. At the very outset, Ms. Smriti has stated that the present appellant/ applicant is an old aged ailing lady, aged about 66 years. She is mother- in-law of the deceased with whom her relations were cordial. Even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, the present appellant/ applicant could have not demanded the motorcycle. There might be some dispute between husband and wife but she is absolutely unaware about such dispute. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but the learned Trial Court acquitted the present appellant/ applicant in all the aforesaid sections. However, the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for the reason that cause of death of the deceased 2 CRLA No. 2159 of 2024 was strangulation under mysterious circumstances and the present appellant/ applicant as well as her son, who is husband of the deceased, could not explain their bonafide, therefore, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned Trial Court inferred presumption against them that they must be instrumental in committing the crime in question. Ms. Smriti has further stated that all the fact/relevant/star witnesses have turned hostile inasmuch as PW-1 Jahar Singh (father of the deceased), PW-2 Vishwajeet (brother of the deceased), PW-4 Ranjeet Singh (uncle of the deceased) and PW-5 Seema Devi (aunt of the deceased) have turned hostile by not supporting the prosecution version and their earlier statements. Ms. Smriti has stated that since case of the prosecution was so weak and there was no proper material/ evidence in support of the allegation, therefore, the present appellant/ applicant was granted bail during course of the trial and she remained on bail during course of the trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail. After conviction order dated 27.06.2024, she is in jail. Therefore, about one and half years' period has passed since she is in jail. Son of the present appellant/ applicant, who is husband of the deceased, is in jail.

4. Ms. Smriti has submitted with vehemence that if the present appellant/ applicant has been acquitted under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, then she could have not been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC inasmuch as the motive would be missing, which is an essential link to convict the accused person in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Further, if there is no demand of dowry or cruelty pursuant to the demand of dowry and death of the deceased was not dowry death, then what would be motive of the present appellant/applicant to commit the offence in question and this relevant fact has not been considered by the learned Trial Court properly. The aforesaid submission of Ms. Smriti has been supported by the fact that all relevant/fact/star witnesses have turned hostile. Ms. Smriti has further stated that paper-book has not been prepared and she undertakes that as and when the appeal is next listed for final disposal, she will argue the appeal on merit.

5. Per contra, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA, has stated that learned Trial Court has passed a justifiable order inasmuch as since the 3 CRLA No. 2159 of 2024 prosecution could not establish the allegations of Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, so the present appellant/ applicant has been acquitted in those sections. Since death of the deceased was mysterious inasmuch as she died in the premises of her in-laws and cause of death is strangulation, which could not be explained by any of the accused, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, inference has been drawn against the present appellant/ applicant to the effect that the present appellant/ applicant and her son (husband of the deceased) must have committed the crime in question. He has further submitted that if the substantial evidence is supporting the prosecution case and the accused person fails to discharge burden of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, even if the fact/ relevant witnesses have turned hostile, benefit thereof would have not been given to the accused persons. He has also submitted that direction may be issued to prepare the paper-book and the appeal may be heard finally.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal; considering the fact that the present appellant/ applicant is a lady, aged about 66 years; she was on bail during the course of trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail; all relevant/fact/star witnesses have turned hostile; she has been acquitted under those sections wherein primarily the FIR was lodged i.e. Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC but for convicting any person under Section 302/34 IPC, motive must be there, which is prima facie missing in the present case as there is no demand of dowry or cruelty pursuant to the demand of dowry and death of the deceased was not dowry death as all relevant/fact/star witnesses have turned hostile and this relevant fact has not been considered by the learned Trial Court properly and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that she will argue the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed for final disposal, we find it appropriate to release the appellant/ applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of. 4 CRLA No. 2159 of 2024

8. Let appellant/ applicant- Smt. Khunni Devi convict of the aforesaid sessions trial be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. 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.

10. It is further made clear that during bail, if the appellant-applicant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

11. Entire fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and she shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. (Order on Criminal Appeal)

12. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book, if not already prepared, and provide a copy of the same to the learned counsels for the parties, as per Rules.

13. List the appeal in the week commencing 12.01.2026. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November 15, 2025 RBS/-

1. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State on the bail application in pending appeal.

2. This is the first bail application of the present appellant/ applicant- Smt. Khunni Devi in Sessions Trial No.399 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.285 of 2019, Police Station- Lonar, District- Hardoi wherein the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

3. At the very outset, Ms. Smriti has stated that the present appellant/ applicant is an old aged ailing lady, aged about 66 years. She is mother- in-law of the deceased with whom her relations were cordial. Even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, the present appellant/ applicant could have not demanded the motorcycle. There might be some dispute between husband and wife but she is absolutely unaware about such dispute. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but the learned Trial Court acquitted the present appellant/ applicant in all the aforesaid sections. However, the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for the reason that cause of death of the deceased 2 CRLA No. 2159 of 2024 was strangulation under mysterious circumstances and the present appellant/ applicant as well as her son, who is husband of the deceased, could not explain their bonafide, therefore, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned Trial Court inferred presumption against them that they must be instrumental in committing the crime in question. Ms. Smriti has further stated that all the fact/relevant/star witnesses have turned hostile inasmuch as PW-1 Jahar Singh (father of the deceased), PW-2 Vishwajeet (brother of the deceased), PW-4 Ranjeet Singh (uncle of the deceased) and PW-5 Seema Devi (aunt of the deceased) have turned hostile by not supporting the prosecution version and their earlier statements. Ms. Smriti has stated that since case of the prosecution was so weak and there was no proper material/ evidence in support of the allegation, therefore, the present appellant/ applicant was granted bail during course of the trial and she remained on bail during course of the trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail. After conviction order dated 27.06.2024, she is in jail. Therefore, about one and half years' period has passed since she is in jail. Son of the present appellant/ applicant, who is husband of the deceased, is in jail.

4. Ms. Smriti has submitted with vehemence that if the present appellant/ applicant has been acquitted under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, then she could have not been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC inasmuch as the motive would be missing, which is an essential link to convict the accused person in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Further, if there is no demand of dowry or cruelty pursuant to the demand of dowry and death of the deceased was not dowry death, then what would be motive of the present appellant/applicant to commit the offence in question and this relevant fact has not been considered by the learned Trial Court properly. The aforesaid submission of Ms. Smriti has been supported by the fact that all relevant/fact/star witnesses have turned hostile. Ms. Smriti has further stated that paper-book has not been prepared and she undertakes that as and when the appeal is next listed for final disposal, she will argue the appeal on merit.

5. Per contra, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA, has stated that learned Trial Court has passed a justifiable order inasmuch as since the 3 CRLA No. 2159 of 2024 prosecution could not establish the allegations of Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, so the present appellant/ applicant has been acquitted in those sections. Since death of the deceased was mysterious inasmuch as she died in the premises of her in-laws and cause of death is strangulation, which could not be explained by any of the accused, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, inference has been drawn against the present appellant/ applicant to the effect that the present appellant/ applicant and her son (husband of the deceased) must have committed the crime in question. He has further submitted that if the substantial evidence is supporting the prosecution case and the accused person fails to discharge burden of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, even if the fact/ relevant witnesses have turned hostile, benefit thereof would have not been given to the accused persons. He has also submitted that direction may be issued to prepare the paper-book and the appeal may be heard finally.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal; considering the fact that the present appellant/ applicant is a lady, aged about 66 years; she was on bail during the course of trial and she did not misuse the liberty of bail; all relevant/fact/star witnesses have turned hostile; she has been acquitted under those sections wherein primarily the FIR was lodged i.e. Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC but for convicting any person under Section 302/34 IPC, motive must be there, which is prima facie missing in the present case as there is no demand of dowry or cruelty pursuant to the demand of dowry and death of the deceased was not dowry death as all relevant/fact/star witnesses have turned hostile and this relevant fact has not been considered by the learned Trial Court properly and undertaking of learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that she will argue the appeal on merits as and when it is next listed for final disposal, we find it appropriate to release the appellant/ applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of. 4 CRLA No. 2159 of 2024

8. Let appellant/ applicant- Smt. Khunni Devi convict of the aforesaid sessions trial be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9. 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.

10. It is further made clear that during bail, if the appellant-applicant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

11. Entire fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and she shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. (Order on Criminal Appeal)

12. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book, if not already prepared, and provide a copy of the same to the learned counsels for the parties, as per Rules.

13. List the appeal in the week commencing 12.01.2026. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November 15, 2025 RBS/-