# Mansa Ram @ Mansa Lal @ Sonoo (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-12-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3189 of 2014
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mansa-ram-mansa-lal-sonoo-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44343
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri R.A. Misra, Sri Siddarth Misra.

A. The detention period alone cannot serve
as a legitimate basis to release accused on
bail in a matter where the allegation
pertains to killing wife by setting her
ablaze
particularly
when
evidence
is
sufficient,
and
unimpeachable
dying
declaration is on record. Onus to prove
circumstances of death lies entirely on
accused. (Para 5)

(Order in criminal Misc short term bail (Parole)
application no- 34208 of 2015). (Para 6)

Bail application rejected (E-2)

## Text

334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
premeditation on the part of the accused
persons to commit the offence and it
started when the standing crop of the
accused appellant was damaged by the
blue bulls and he made allegation against
the deceased and the complainant party
that on account of removing fencing by
them, his crop is being damaged. The
evidence also reflects that both the parties
had altercation with each other. They
abused each other and thus, it can safely
be held that it was a sudden fight and in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
single injury was caused to the deceased
resulting his death. Appellant has not
taken any undue advantage or acted in a
cruel
or
unusual
manner
while
committing the offence. Case of the
appellant
would,
thus,
fall
under
Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC and it
can be safely held that the appellant is
liable to be convicted for committing
'culpable homicide not amounting to
murder'.

27. Taking the cumulative effect of the
evidence and the nature of injury, we are of
the view that the appellant is liable to be
convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

28. Now the another important
question is as to what would be the
appropriate sentence to be imposed upon
the appellant.

29. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that appellant is willing
to pay suitable compensation to the
deceased family and, therefore, minimum
jail sentence be imposed upon him.

30. Considering the cumulative
effect of the evidence and the fact that the
incident occurred about 32 years back and
at present the appellant is aged about 65
years, we are of the view that jail sentence
of 5 years would meet the ends of justice.
Order accordingly.

31. Further considering the provisions of
Section 357 of Cr.PC and the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad
v State of Maharashtra; (2013) 6 SCC 770,
it is directed that the appellant shall also be
liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(two lakhs) to the wife of the deceased. He is
directed to deposit the said amount within two
years before the trial court. In the eventuality
of depositing the said amount by the appellant
before the trial Court, it would be the duty of
the trial Court to disburse the said amount in
favour of wife of the deceased. In case, the
appellant fails to deposit the said amount, he
shall further undergo Jail sentence of one year
and the court below shall proceed against him
in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in
Kumaran Vs. State of Kerala and another;
(2017) 7 SCC 471.

32. The appellant is reported to be
on bail. He be taken into custody
forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.

33. The appeal is partly allowed.

34. A copy of this order be
transmitted to the court concerned for
necessary compliance.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 334

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2018
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3189 of 2014
2 All. Mansa Ram @ Mansa Lal @Sonoo Vs State of U.P.
335
Mansa Ram @ Mansa Lal @ Sonoo
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Harendra Prakash Dwivedi, Sri Vikas
Singh.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri R.A. Misra, Sri Siddarth Misra.

A. The detention period alone cannot serve
as a legitimate basis to release accused on
bail in a matter where the allegation
pertains to killing wife by setting her
ablaze
particularly
when
evidence
is
sufficient,
and
unimpeachable
dying
declaration is on record. Onus to prove
circumstances of death lies entirely on
accused. (Para 5)

(Order in criminal Misc short term bail (Parole)
application no- 34208 of 2015). (Para 6)

Bail application rejected (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J. &
Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

(Order in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.276258 of 2014)

1. List has been revised. Learned
counsel for appellant is present. None has
appeared on behalf of complainant despite
repeated calls. Learned A.G.A. is present.

2. This bail application has been
moved in aforesaid appeal on behalf of
appellant Mansha Ram @ Mansha Lal @
Sonoo seeking his release on bail, who
has been convicted and sentenced for
offences u/s 302 I.P.C. in Session Trial
No.550 of 2011 (State vs. Mansha Ram @
Mansha Lal @ Sonoo) arising out of Case
Crime No.32 of 2011, Police StationTharwai, District-Allahabad.

3. Heard learned counsel for
appellant-applicant and learned A.G.A.
and also perused the record.

4. Submission of counsel for
appellant is that though there is a dying
declaration recorded by the Magistrate but
the doctor who has given the certificate of
fitness
before
recording
of
dying
declaration has gone to state during the
course of his deposition that he cannot
vouchsafe about the conscious condition
of the deceased at the time when she was
brought
in
the
hospital.
Further
submission is that with this kind of
statement made in the court it cannot be
said for certain that when the dying
declaration was recorded the patient had
actually
gained
consciousness.
That
would go to render the dying declaration
suspect, and therefore, the accused should
be released on bail. The period of
detention was also pointed out. It has been
also submitted that the deceased incurred
injuries during the course of cooking
accidentally and nobody can be blamed
for that.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
prayer for bail and it has been pointed out
that this is a case in which the death of the
deceased took place as a result of bodily
burns within three years of marriage and
there are clear allegations made against
the appellant for having not only
demanded the dowry but also for having
committed cruelty upon her consistently.
She was beaten up time and again and
attempts to cause her death were made
ever earlier. In fact record also shows the
allegation that before the incident the
appellant had gone to the house of the
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parents of deceased where she was at that
time and came back with the deceased
only when Rs.50,000/- were given to him.
Emphasis was laid by learned A.G.A. on
the dying declaration of the deceased
which
has
been
recorded
by
the
Magistrate who has been produced as
P.W.-3 in the court and who has duly
proved the dying declaration as was given
by the deceased. The doctor who had
given the fitness certificate has also been
examined in the court as P.W.-6. Both
these witnesses are of independent source
and no reason has been shown as to why
they would go to depose falsely in the
court. The dying declaration made by the
deceased
is
also
unambiguously
categorical, according to which on the
fateful day it was appellant who had set
the
deceased
ablaze
after
having
physically assaulted her on a trifling
issue. It has also been argued that the state
of consciousness at the time of admission
and the state of consciousness at the time
when the dying declaration was recorded
should not necessarily be the same and
when the doctor, who gave the fitness
certificate at the time of recording of the
dying declaration, was asked the question
about the mental condition of the
deceased regarding the time when she was
brought in the hospital, the only answer
which a honest witness could give was in
negative as he was not a witness of that
fact and was not in a position to depose
about the same, and therefore, the
argument of the defence in this regard is
specious and untenable both. It was also
submitted that in fact the line of defence
as has been adopted on behalf of the
accused is also mutually inconsistent and
contradictory. At one point of time it
appears that the accused had tried to plead
that the deceased died after incurring
accidental burns during the course of
cooking but the defence witnesses, as
have been produced on behalf of accused
in the court, have tried to show that when
they reached the spot the room where the
incident took place was found bolted from
inside and had to be broken open before
anybody could enter into it. This shows
that the line of defence adopted appears to
be that of commission of suicide by the
deceased. Submission is that the accusedappellant being the husband of the
deceased had the first responsibility to
ensure welfare of his wife but instead of
proving to be the protector he has proved
himself to be the eliminator of his wife, as
is amply borne out and shown by the
dying declaration, to disbelieve which
there is no good reason available on
record at this stage. The submissions that
have been raised on behalf of accused
relate
to
detailed
intricacies
of
appreciation of evidence and can be heard
or appreciated only at the time of final
hearing. At this stage there is conclusive,
categorical and incriminating evidence
available on record and the impugned
judgment cannot be castigated on any
valid ground and the accused has simply
failed to establish even a prima facie case
in his favour. Submission is that in a
matter like this where the husband has
killed his wife by setting her ablaze, the
detention period alone cannot serve as a
legitimate basis to release him on bail on
that ground alone, especially in the wake
of sufficiency of evidence which include
the unimpeachable dying declaration
available on record. It has also been
submitted that in matters like this the onus
to prove the circumstances of the death
was entirely upon the accused who alone
could have shed light in this regard as the
incident took place within the precincts of
his own house within three years of
2 All. Bhagwan Deen Vs State
337
marriage. But instead of coming out with
clean hands, mutually incompatible lines
of defence have been pleaded at different
stages which only go to explode the
falsity of the defence and can be read
even as an additional circumstance
against the accused. Learned A.G.A.
contends that the Court therefore for these
reasons should not take liberal view in the
matter.

6. Looking to the nature of offence,
its gravity and the evidence in support of
it and the overall circumstances of this
case, this Court is of the view that the
appellant has not made out a case for bail.
Therefore, the prayer for bail of the
appellant is rejected.

7.

It
is
clarified
that
the
observations, if any, made in this order
are strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail application and must not be construed
to have any reflection on the ultimate
merits of the case.

8. The court is open and is feeling
inclined to hear the appeal finally. If the
appellant
or
his
counsel
has
any
inclination to argue the case finally, he
can always take steps to expedite the
hearing of the appeal.

(Order in Criminal Misc. Short
Term
Bail
(Parole)
Application
No.34208 of 2015)

9. We have already heard the regular
bail application of the appellant and did
not find it a fit case where the accused
could be released on bail, and therefore,
we rejected the same. We also do not find
any good ground to release of the
appellant on parole, and therefore, same
also stands rejected.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 337

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH. J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 1987

Bhagwan Deen ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vinay Saran, Sri P.K. Mishra.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Amit Sinha, A.G.A.

A. The FIR is vital and valuable price of
evidence. If there is delay in lodging FIR,
advantage of spontaity is lost and danger
of coloured version/concocted story as a
result
of
consultations/deliberations
creeps in. A promptly lodged FIR reflects
the firsthand account of the actual incident
and the accused. An inference as to
whether a FIR is ante timed can be drawn
only on basis the proper cross examination
of complainant and the police officer who
recorded the FIR. (Para 16)
Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-2)
List of cases cited: -
1. Jai Prakash Singh Vs St. of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379
2. Madru Singh Vs St. of M. P. & Ram
Sanjiwan Singh Vs St. of Bihar
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of
impugned judgment and order dated
29.4.1987 passed by VII Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat