High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5400 of 2024 Appellant :- Anup Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Istyak Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. Order on appeal 1. Admit. 2. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. 3. Summon the L.C.R. forthwith. Upon receipt of record, office to prepare paper book. 4. List this appeal for hearing in due course. Order on Bail Application: 1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant Anup against the conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 25.4.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 271 of 2015 under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Sachendi, District- Kanpur Nagar, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him under Section 306 I.P.C. for 7 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine two months additional simple imprisonment. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State. 3. By means of the bail application, the appellant-applicant seeks suspension of sentence / grant of bail. 4. The deceased Rajeshwari, sister of the informant, was molestated by the present applicant along with other co-accused persons in this case and when it was protested from the informant side, the accused persons came to his house carrying deadly weapons like lathi, danda and axe and also threatened for life which led the deceased to commit suicide in her house by hanging herself. FIR was lodged on the same day and after initiation of prosecution the accused applicant was convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. along with fine as default sentenced as mentioned herein above. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant- applicant that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It has been further submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is against the weight of evidence on record. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and convicted the appellant. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. It is further submitted that the prosecution is miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the point that the essential ingredients to establish the guilt under Section 306 I.P.C. are completely missing in this case. There is no evidence absolutely on record to show that the present applicant instigated or abetted in any way to the deceased and compelled her to commit suicide. It is further submitted that no FIR for the alleged incident of threatening and abusing was lodged by the informant for the reasons best known to the prosecution. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible as one lady has also been implicated in this case for the charge of molestation with the deceased. It is further submitted that during course of trial the accused applicant was on bail and the said liberty was never misused by him. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Since there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, the appellant may be released on bail pending appeal. Besides the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to touch upon at length the circumstances which led to the false implication of accused - appellant. 7. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence awarded to the appellant, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial court thereon, appellant was on bail during trial but no instance of misuse of the bail has been brought to the notice of the Court and the fact that the appeal may take some time for its final disposal, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 10. In Ude Singh and Others Versus State of Haryana, (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 301, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that - "16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC.............................However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide." 11. Let the above named accused-appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned. 12. On acceptance of bail bond and personal bonds, the trial court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record. 13. However, during pendency of the appeal, the execution of sentence / order appealed against shall remain suspended but fine amount, as imposed by the trial Court, shall be deposited by the accused-appellant within a period of one month from the date of release. Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Fhd