# Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1142
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 8645 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/viresh-kumar-viresh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52523
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Criminal Law Code of Criminal Procedure -
Sections
227-Applicant
is
husband
of
deceased- cognizance taken and Applicant
summoned -discharge application filed stating
that she died in a natural circumstance- has
suffered
myocardial
infraction-rejectedimpugned- more than prima-facie evidences
against the applicant.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,844 of 42,749. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39844 for what follows._

1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Research Associate, attached with me in
drafting this judgment and finding out case
laws applicable in the present case.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8645 of 2021
&
Application U/S 482 No. 6045 of 2020
With
 Application U/S 482 No. 16035 of 2021

Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Uma Datta Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Pathak, G.A., Shashi Kant Shukla

Criminal Law Code of Criminal Procedure -
Sections
227-Applicant
is
husband
of
deceased- cognizance taken and Applicant
summoned -discharge application filed stating
that she died in a natural circumstance- has
suffered
myocardial
infraction-rejectedimpugned- more than prima-facie evidences
against the applicant.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. K.VS Prakash Babu Vs St. of Karn. 2016 (12)
SCALE 280
2. Wazir Chand Vs St. of Har. AIR 1989
Supreme Court 378

3. Rumi Dhar Vs St. of W. B., (2009) 6 SCC
364

4. High Court of M. P. at Indore in Misc. Criminal
Case No. 10385 of 2021

5. St. of T.N. Vs N Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC
709

6. Vishnu Kumar Shukla & anr. Vs St. of UP
2013 INSC 1026

7. St. of Bihar Vs Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC
39

8. U.O.I. Vs Prafulla K Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4

9. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs Dilip N
Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715

10. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punj.i Vs
Jitendra B Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76

11. Dilawar B Kurane Vs St. of Mah., (2002) 2
SCC 135

12. Chitresh K Chopra Vs St. (Government of
NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605

13. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460

14. Dinesh Tiwari Vs St. of U.P., (2014) 13 SCC
137

15. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs St. of
Guj., (2019) 16 SCC 547

16. St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Charan Bansal,
(2020) 2 SCC 290

17. K P Raghavan Vs M H Abbas, AIR 1967 SC
740
18. Almohan Das Vs St. of W.B., (1969) 2 SCR
520

19. Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I., (2010) 9 SCC 368

20. St. of Gujarat Vs Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao,
2023 INSC 894, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294

21. St. of Mah. Vs Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4
SCC 659
9 All. Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1143
22. St. of M.P. Vs Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC
338

23. C.B.I. Vs Aryan Singh & ors., 2023 SCC
Online SC 379

24. Ram Prakash Chadha Vs The St. of U.P.
2024 INSC 522

25. Om Parkash Sharma Vs C.B.I.(2000) 5 SCC
679

26. Kaushalya Devi Vs St. of M.P. 2003 SCC
OnLine M.P. 672

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Viresh Kumar, in person
(Applicant in Application at Serial Nos. 1
& 2 and opposite party no. 2 in Application
at Serial No. 3), Mr. Anurag Pathak,
learned counsel
for (Complainant in
Application at Serial Nos. 1 & 2 and
Applicant in Application at Serial No. 3)
and learned A.G.A for State.

2. The applicant (Viresh Kumar
alias Viresh Singh), before this Court is
husband of deceased, whose dead body was
found, when allegedly applicant returned
back after 2 days, from a room of his
house, locked from inside. The door was
forced open. It was found that door of
balcony was also open and fan was running
and deceased was found sitting on a sofa
having her one leg on centre table.

3. During preparation of inquest
report, statement of witness (Ravi Kumar a
medicine delivery boy) to the inquest report
was recorded that on 17.04.2017 he was
asked to supply medicines to applicant's
place by the applicant and on same day he
supplied also.

4. Postmortem of dead body was
conducted on 20.4.2017 and it was opined
that death was occurred about 2 to 3 days
prior. Cause and manner of death could not
be ascertained, therefore viscera was
preserved for chemical analysis.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, the
complainant i.e. father of deceased lodged
an FIR against the applicant and three coaccused persons that they have committed
murder of his daughter. Relevant part of the
complaint is being reproduced hereinafter:-

" नकल तहिीि भहन्दी वादी सेवा में श्रीमान
र्थानाध्यक्ष महोदय सेक्र्ि-7 इन्दिापुिम गाभर्याबाद
महोदय भनवेदन है भक प्रार्थी नीिर् भसंह पुत्र िामवीि भसंह
भन० 50 पुरूषोिम बाग दयाल बाग आगिा मैने अपनी
बभहन की शादी मुनीशा िानी पत्नी वीिेश भसंह भन०
नगला बली भर्ला भफिोर्ाबाद (नर्दीक अवागढ़) के
सार्थ शादी हुई र्थी हाल में गाभर्याबाद में भनवास किता
है शादी को आर् 8 साल हो गयी है मेिी बहन मुनीशा
के कोई सन्तान नहीं है इस कािण उसकी पभत वीिेश
औि उसका िाई िाकेश औि िान्र्ा र्ो भक गाभर्याबाद
में ही भनवास किता है आिती को बहन बताकि अपने
सार्थ िखता र्था यह लोग मेिी बभहन को पिेशान किते र्थे
हम लोगों ने कई बाि समझाया लेभकन वो नहीं माने मेिी
बहन को औि ज्यादा पिेशान किने लगे औि कहते र्थे
भक हम तुझे माि देंगे औि आिती के सार्थ शादी कि
लूाँगा यह बात हमािी बहन ने हमें बताई र्थी क्योंभक
आिती से वीिेश से नार्ायर् सम्बन्ध र्थे महोदय उक्त
चािों लोग वीिेश, िाकेश, सन्र्ू औि आिती ने भमलकि
मेिी बहन की हत्या कि दी औि घि से िाग गये सूचना
पि मै आया इन चािों के भखलाफ हत्या का मुकदमा
किने की कृपा किें प्रार्थी एस०डी० अंिेर्ी नीिर् भसंह
पुत्र श्री िार्वीि भसंह भन० 50 पुरूषोिम बाग दयाल
बाग आगिा मो० 7060205542 भदनांक
20.04.2017 नोर् मै एच०सी० 265 मोहि भसंह
प्रमाभणत किता ह ाँ भक िो० आम कायमी मेिे द्वािा भकया
गया तर्था नकल तहिीि मुताभबक असल कम्प्यूर्ि पि
सीसी 404 िार्ीव के द्वािा अंभकत किायी गयी। "
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. In the Viscera report, dated
09.05.17, organo-chloro insecticide poison
was found in stomach, intestine, liver,
kidney and spleen of deceased. The
Investigating
Officer,
conducted
investigation and statements of witnesses
were recorded. All witnesses have stated
that applicant has illicit relationship with a
co-accused and they have committed
cruelty for demand of dowry and caused
death of deceased in a planned manner .

7. In reply to a query of the
Investigating Officer, the Vidhi Vigyan
Prayogshala, Ghaziabad, submitted a reply
dated
25.8.2017
that
organo-chloro
insecticide is available in the market as
pesticides. The Investigating Officer there
after filed a charge sheet dated 18.9.2017,
only under Section 306 I.P.C., against
present
applicant
only
and
further
investigation was kept pending against coaccused 'Aarti'. For reference brief facts of
the case as mentioned in the charge-sheet
are reproduced here in after:-

"श्रीमानर्ी मुकदमा उपिोक्त वादी की
तहिीि के आधाि पि अभि०गण वीिेश कुमाि, आिती,
िाकेश, संर्ू के भवरूद्ध धािा 302 िा०दं०भव०
पंर्ीकृत किाया गया तर्था वादी की बहन मृतका मुनीशा
का पोस्र्मार्टम किाया गया पोस्र्मार्टम में डाक्र्ि द्वािा
कोई मृत्यु का कािण न पाये र्ाने के कािण भवशिा
सुिभक्षत िखा गया र्था भबशिा र्ााँच रिपोर्ट में कीर्नाशक
पदार्थट का होना पाये र्ाने के कािण भववेचना में धािा
328 िा०द०भव० की बढोतिी की गयी र्थी दौिाने
भववेचना बयान वादी बयान गवाहान भनिीक्षण
घर्नास्र्थल व अभि० िाकेश व सन्र्ू की मोबाईल
लोकेशन व गवाहान के आधाि पि नामर्दगी गलत
पायी गयी तर्था मृतका मुनीशा के घऱ में अकेले होने व
घि के मुख्य दिवार्े की कुन्डी अन्दि से बन्द होने पि
FSL र्ीम द्वािा दिवार्े को बाहि से खींचकि तोडते
हुए खोलकि अन्दि प्रवेश भकये र्ाने तर्था नामर्द
अभि० वीिेश कुमाि व आिती को भदनांक
17.04.17 को घऱ से र्ाने के बाद मृतका को गवाह
िभव कुमाि के द्वािा भर्न्दा देखा र्ाना आभद तमाम
साक्ष्य के आधाि पि अभियुक्तगण के भवरूद्ध धािा
302 व 328 िा०द०भव० के स्र्थआन पि धािा 306
िा०द०भव० का होना पाया गया पयाटप्त साक्ष्य के आधाि
पि अभियुक्त वीिेश कुमाि पुत्र शंकि भसंह भनवासी
नंगला बली र्थाना एका भर्ला भफिोर्ाबाद हाल पता
872 भद्वतीय तल सैक्र्ि 1 वसुन्धिा र्थाना इभन्दिापुिम
गाभर्याबाद का चालान धािा 306 िा०द०भव० में
र्रिये आिोप पत्र माननीय न्यायालय भकया र्ाता है
मदोय से अनुिोध है भक आिोप पत्र स्वीकाि किते हुये
सबूत तलब कि दभडडत किने की कृपा किें तर्था शेष
अभियुक्ता आिती के भवरूद्ध भववेचना प्रचभलत है। "

8. The learned Trial Court took
cognizance of the offence and summoned
the
applicant.
In
the
aforesaid
circumstances,
the
applicant
filed
a
discharge
application
on
3.10.2019
disclosing various documents including
expert reports and their opinions. The
application was filed mainly on a ground
that his wife had died under normal
circumstances. She has suffered myocardial
infraction. So far as presence of organochloro insecticide was concerned, it could
be due to exposure to such areas, where it
was normally used as pesticides.

9. The application for discharge,
filed under section 227 Cr.P.C., was
considered and rejected by Additional
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Relevant part
of same is mentioned hereinafter:-

" सुना तर्था पत्रावली का अवलोकन
भकया।
पत्रावली के अवलोकन से भवभदत होता है
भक वादी मुकदमा नीिर् भसह की ओि से र्थाना हार्ा पि
इस आशय से प्रर्थम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ट किायी गयी भक
उसकी बहन मुनीशा िानी की शादी वीिेश भसंह के सार्थ
हुयी र्थी। शादी को किीब 8 वषट हो गये है। उसकी बहन
मुनीशा के कोई संतान नहीं है। इस कािण उसका पभत
वीिेश औि उसका िाई िाकेश औि िांर्ा सन्र्ू र्ोभक
गाभर्याबाद मे ही भनवास किते है औि आिती को बहन
9 All. Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1145
बताकि अपने सार्थ िखता र्था औि यह लोग उसकी
बहन को पिेशान किते र्थे। वादी ने उन्हें कई बाि
समझाया, लेभकन वह नहीं माने औि बहन को ज्यादा
पिेशान किने लगे औि कहते र्थे भक हम तुझे माि देगे
औि आिती के सार्थ शादी कि लूंगा। यह बात वादी की
बहन ने उसे बतायी र्थी, क्योभक आिती से वीिेश के
नार्ायर् सम्बन्ध र्थे। उक्त तीनो ने वादी की बहन की
हत्या कि दी औि घि से िाग गये। उक्त कर्थनो के
आधाि पि अभियुक्तगण वीिेश भसंह, िाकेश, संर्ू व
आिती के भवरुद्ध अन्तगटत धािा 302 िा०दं० सं० में
प्रर्थम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ट की गयी।
भववेचक के द्वािा मृतका के भपता िामवीि
भसंह का बयान अन्तगटत धािा 161 द०प्र०सं० अंभकत
भकया गया तो उक्त गवाह ने अपने बयानों में अभियुक्त
बीिेश व सह अभियुक्तगण के द्वािा मृतका को दहेर् के
भलये प्रताभडत किना, पिेशान किना एवं दहेर् में दस
लाख रूपये की मांग फलैर् / मकान खिीदने के भलये
किना औि आिती नाम की लडकी के सार्थ अभियुक्त
के अवैध सम्बन्ध होने का कर्थन भकया गया हैं औि
अभियुक्त के द्वािा अभतरिक्त दहेर् मांगने के कािण वषट
2012-13 में स्वयं के सेवाभनवृि होने पि अभियुक्त
को पांच लाख रूपये देने का कर्थन भकया है। तत्पश्चात
िी दहेर् की पूभतट न होने पि मृतका की मृत्यु कारित
किना कहा गया है। मृतका की माता व वादी मुकदमा के
द्वािा अपने बयान धािा 161 द०प्र०सं० में गवाह
िामवीि भसंह के बयानो का समर्थटन भकया है। गवाह शेि
भसंह के द्वािा अपने बयान धािा 161 द०प्र०सं० में
अभियुक्त के द्वािा मृतका को दहेर् के भलये प्रताभडत
किना, दहेर् में दस लाख रूपये की मांग किना औि
भदनांक 19-04-2017 को अचानक मृतका की मृत्यु
की सूचना भमलने का कर्थन भकया गया है। गवाह निेश
के द्वािा िी उपिोक्त गवाहो के बयानो का समर्थटन किते
हुए मृतका को अभियुक्त के द्वािा दहेर् के भलये प्रताभडत
भकया र्ाना, मािपीर् भकया र्ाना एवं दहेर् की पूभतट न
होने पि उसकी हत्या भकये र्ाने का कर्थन भकया गया है।
गवाह सफीक अहमद एफ०एस०एल० प्रिािी के द्वािा
अपने बयान धािा 161 द०प्र०सं० में सीभढयो से फलोि
घि तक खून व पानी र्ैसा भमला हुआ पदार्थट पडा होने
का कर्थन भकया है। पोस्र्मार्टम किने वाले डाक्र्ि के
द्वािा अपने बयान धािा 161 द०प्र०सं० में पोस्र्मार्टम
किने में मृत्यु का सही कािण न भमलना व भबसिा
सुिभक्षत िखे र्ाने का कर्थन भकया गया है। भववेचक के
द्वािा घर्ना स्र्थल का मौका मुआयना किके नक्शा नर्िी
तैयाि भकया गया औि बाद भववेचना अभियुक्त वीिेश
भसह के भवरुद्ध अन्तगटत धािा 306 िा०द०सं० का
पयाटप्त साक्ष्य पाते हुए आिोपपत्र न्यायालय प्रेभषत भकया
गया।
अभियुक्त के द्वािा धािा 227 द०प्र०सं० के
अन्तगटत उन्मोचन प्रार्थटनापत्र प्रस्तुत किते हुए स्वयं के
भवरूद्ध कोई अपिाध न गभठत होने के कािण उन्मोभचत
भकये र्ाने की याचना की गयी।
धािा 227 द०प्र०सं० में यह वभणटत भकया
गया है भक
"यभद मामले के अभिलेख औि उसके सार्थ
दी गयी दस्तावेर्ो पि भवचाि कि लेने पि, औि इस
भनभमि अभियुक्त औि अभियोर्न के भनवेदन की
सुनवाई कि लेने के पश्चात न्यायाधीश यह समझता है
भक अभियुक्त के भवरूद्ध कोई कायटवाही किने के भलये
पयाटप्त आधाि नहीं हैं तो वह अभियुक्त को उन्मोभचत
कि देगा औि ऐसा किने के अपने कािणो को लेखबद्ध
किेगा।"
इस प्रकाि धािा 227 के उपिोक्त प्रावधानो
के अवलोकन से यह स्पि है भक भववेचना में अभियुक्त
के भवरूद्ध एकत्र की गयी साक्ष्य एवं उसके सार्थ भदये
गये दस्तावेर्ो पि न्यायालय को भवचाि किना है भक
क्या अभियुक्त के भवरुद्ध कायटवाही भकये र्ाने का पयाटप्त
आधाि नहीं हैं। अर्थाटत यहां पि अभियुक्त की
दोषमुभक्त/दोषभसद्ध को नहीं देखा र्ाना है, मात्र
कायटवाही भकये र्ाने के साक्ष्य पि भवचाि किना है।
अभियुक्त के द्वािा यह कर्थन भकया गया है
भक घर्ना के समय वह अपने िाई के मुकदमें के
भसलभसले में र्नपद एर्ा गया र्था, इस सम्बन्ध में छाया
प्रभत शपर्थपत्र िी प्रस्तुत की गयी है। यह स्वीकृत है भक
मृतका की मृत्यु अभियुक्त के घि पि अर्थाटत अभियुक्त
के सार्थ िहने के दौिान हुयी हैं। अभियुक्त घर्ना स्र्थल
पि मौर्ूद र्था या अन्यत्र र्गह उपभस्र्थत र्था, यह तथ्य
साक्ष्य से साभबत होना है औि अन्यत्र उपभस्र्थभत का तकट
िी अभियुक्त आिोप भविचन के स्वि पि नहीं उठा
सकता। इस तकट को अभियुक्त बचाव साक्ष्य के दौिान
उठा सकता है अर्थवा बचाव पक्ष में साक्ष्य पेश कि
सकता है।
प्रस्तुत मामले में अभियुक्त के भवरूद्ध धािा
306 िा०द०सं० के अन्तगटत आिोपपत्र प्रेभषत भकया
गया है। धािा 306 िा०द०सं० के अनुसाि भकसी
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
व्यभक्त को आत्महत्या भकये र्ाने के भलये दुष्प्रेरित किना
वभणटत भकया गया है।
दुष्प्रेिण के भवषय में िाितीय दडड संभहता
के अध्याय-5 में धािा 107 से 120 तक प्रावधाभनत
भकया गया है औि दुष्प्रेिण के भलये यह आवश्यक नहीं
है भक दुष्प्रेरित व्यभक्त घर्ना स्र्थल पि ही उपभस्र्थत हो।
इस प्रकाि अभियुक्त की घर्ना स्र्थल से
अन्यत्र उपभस्र्थभत का तकट इस स्ति पि बलहीन है।
र्हां तक अभियुक्त के द्वािा भचभकत्सीय
आख्या के आधाि पि मृतका की प्राकृभतक मृत्यु होने
का कर्थन भकया गया है औि इस सम्बन्ध में
Science Dossier व अन्य वैज्ञाभनक भकताबों की
छाया प्रभत प्रस्तुत की गयी है औि यह स्पि किने का
प्रयास भकया गया है भक मृतका की मृत्यु ऐसे भकसी
पदार्थट से नहीं हुयी है र्ो उसे बाहि से भदया गया हो।
अभियुक्त के ये सिी तकट बचाव साक्ष्य के दौिान ही
देखे र्ाने हैं। इस स्ति पि अभियुक्त को उक्त तकट से कोई
लाि नहीं भमलता भदखायी देता है।
र्हां तक अभियुक्त के इस तकट का प्रश्न है
भक मृतका की मृत्यु MI (Myocardial
Infarction) के कािण हुयी है औि इस सम्बन्ध में
एफ०एस०एल० लखनऊ की आख्या कागर् सं० 47
की छाया प्रभत प्रस्तुत की गयी है। उक्त एफ०एस०एल०
लखनऊ की आख्या कागर् सं० 47 के अवलोकन से
स्पि है भक उक्त आख्या में यह वभणटत भकया है भक No
color change observed exclude MI
(Myocardial Infarction) इस प्रकाि उपिोक्त
एफ०एस०एल० लखनऊ की आख्या में MI
(Myocardial Infarction) के द्वािा मृतका
की मृत्यु होना अभिकभर्थत नहीं है। ऐसी दशा में
अभियुक्ता का उपिोक्त तकट बलहीन है।
इस प्रकाि उपिोक्त भववेचना एवं पत्रावली
पि उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से यह स्पि होता है भक वादी
मुकदमा, मृतका के माता भपता के बयान धािा 161
द०प्र०सं० व अन्य तथ्य के गवाहान शेि भसंह, निेश
भसंह के बयान धािा 161 द०प्र०सं० से अभियुक्त के
द्वािा मृतका से दहेर् मांगना, उसे प्रताभडत किना, दहेर्
में पांच लाख रूपये भदया र्ाना औि अचानक भदनांक
19-04-2017 को मृतका की मृत्यु की सूचना
भमलना, इस तथ्य की ओि से इशािा किता है भक
मृतका को तंग, पिेशान भकया गया व दहेर् के भलये
प्रताभडत भकया गया हैं। पोस्र्मार्टम किने वाले डाक्र्ि के
द्वािा पोस्र्मार्टम के दौिान मृतका की मृत्यु का कोई स्पि
कािण न भमलना एवं उसका भबसिा सुिभक्षत िखना,
मृतका की मृत्यु प्राकृभतक मृत्यु की ओि इशािा न किके
अप्राकृभतक मृत्यु होना अभिकभर्थत किता है। र्ैसा भक
एफ०एस०एल० गाभर्याबाद की आख्या में िी अंभकत
हैं भक मृतका के शिीि में आिगेनोक्लोिो इन्सैक्र्ीसाईड
भवष पाया गया हैं। र्हां तक अभियुक्त के द्वािा वैज्ञाभनक
तथ्यो के भवश्लेषण के तकों का प्रश्न हैं, यह आिोप
भविचन के भबन्दु पि महत्वपूणट नहीं होता है औि ऐसे
तकट को अभियुक्त अपने बचाव पक्ष की साक्ष्य के दौिान
उठा सकता हैं।
इस प्रकाि उपिोक्त तथ्यों एवं परिभस्र्थभतयों
के आधाि पि अभियुक्त के भवरूद्ध प्रर्थम दृिया आिोप
भविभचत भकये र्ाने का पयाटप्त आधाि हैं। तदनुसाि
अभियुक्त की ओि से प्रस्तुत प्रार्थटनापत्र भदनांभकत 0310-2019 व अभतरिक्त प्रार्थटनापत्र भदनांभकत 0212-2019 भनिस्त भकये र्ाने योग्य है।
आदेि
अभियुक्त की ओि से प्रस्तुत उन्मोचन
प्रार्थटनापत्र भदनांभकत 03-10-2019 व अभतरिक्त
प्रार्थटनापत्र भदनांभकत 02-12-2019 भनिस्त भकये
र्ाते हैं। अभियुक्त के भवरूद्ध आिोप भविभचत भकये र्ाने
हेतु पत्रावली भदनांक 10-02-2020 को पेश हो।
अभियुक्त भनयत भतभर्थ पि व्यभक्तगत रूप से उपभस्र्थत
हो।"

10. The applicant, appearing in
person,
has
reiterated
submissions
mentioned in discharge application that his
wife died under natural circumstances.
There are reports on record that she died
due to myocardial infarction and that there
was no evidence that she consumed
poisonous
substance
given
by
him.
Applicant-in-person has referred a Report
dated
25.10.2017
(Forensic
Science
Laboratory, U.P.) and a Report dated
26.08.2019 of State Medico Legal Cell,
Lucknow). Both reports are subsequent to
filing of charge-sheet. He further submitted
that no evidence was collected in regard to
offence of abatement of suicide and has
placed reliance on judgement passed by
9 All. Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1147
Supreme Court in the cases of K.V.
Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka
2016 (12) SCALE 280 and Wazir Chand
Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1989 Supreme
Court 378 and a judgement passed by
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10385
of 2021.

11. The aforesaid submissions are
vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A who
has supported the impugned order, on basis
of material available, that there was more
than a prima-facie case against the
applicant that he has committed an offence
of abatement of suicide, and that there was
no legal error in order whereby discharge
application was rejected.

12. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of complainant submitted that it was
a case of murder and investigation was not
conducted
fairly
and
has
filed
an
Application U/S 482 No. 16035 of 2021,
which is connected with present matter, in
which he has prayed that the charges be
modified from Section 306 I.P.C. to 302
I.P.C, however, he fairly submitted that no
such objection was filed during the course
of hearing of discharge application or at the
time of framing of charge as well as that in
terms of section 216 Cr.P.C., the charge
could be altered anytime before the
judgement is passed, on basis of material
available

13. Heard counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

14. The applicant before this Court
is husband of deceased whose dead body
was found from a room of his house,
locked from inside, in a sitting posture.
According to postmortem report death was
caused about 1 to 2 days prior and cause of
death could not be ascertained, therefore,
viscera was preserved and according to the
viscera report organo-cholor insecticide
was found.

15. There are subsequent reports in
regard to Nitro BT Powder Test, whether
heart of deceased has suffered myocardial
infarction or not. The discharge application
of the applicant was rejected by a reasoned
impugned order, as all arguments raised
before the Court were considered and
rejected.
The
applicant-in-person,
has
argued that cause of death was only due to
myocardial
infarction,
there
was
no
evidence that victim has taken any
poisonous substance and presence of
organo-choloro insecticide would not be
sufficient to presume that she has taken
insecticide before death. In case death was
natural then no offence of abatement of
suicide was made out. In support of his
submissions he has placed reliance on some
reports taken from the websites as well as
above referred judgements.

16.
Presently
the
Court
is
considering the case only at the stage of
discharge application. Law in regard to
consideration of discharge application is
being considered by the Supreme Court in
the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla and
another vs State of UP 2013 INSC 1026
and relevant part thereof is mentioned
hereinafter:-

"19. In Rumi Dhar v. State
of West Bengal, (2009) 6 SCC 364,
this Court held that the Judge
concerned with an application
under Section 239, CrPC has to '...
go into the details of the allegations
made against each of the accused
persons so as to form an opinion as
to whether any case at all has been
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made out or not as a strong
suspicion in regard thereto shall
subserve the requirements of law.'
20. In State of Tamil Nadu
v. N Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC
709,
it
was
observed
notwithstanding the difference in
language of Sections 227 and 239,
CrPC, the approach of the Court
concerned is to be common under
both provisions. The principles
holding the field under Sections
227 and 228, CrPC are wellsettled, courtesy, inter alia, State of
Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4
SCC 39; Union of India v. Prafulla
K Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Stree
Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip
N Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715;
Niranjan
Singh
Karam
Singh
Punjabi v. Jitendra B Bijjaya,
(1990) 4 SCC 76; Dilawar B
Kurane v. State of Maharashtra,
(2002) 2 SCC 135; Chitresh K
Chopra v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605;
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460; Dinesh Tiwari
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13
SCC
137;
Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of
Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547; and
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv
Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290.
We need only refer to some,
starting with Prafulla K Samal
(supra), where, after considering
Ramesh
Singh
(supra),
K
P
Raghavan v. M H Abbas, AIR 1967
SC 740 and Almohan Das v. State
of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 520,
it was laid down as under:
'10.
Thus,
on
a
consideration of the authorities
mentioned above, the following
principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while
considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 of
the Code has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made
out.
(2) Where the materials
placed before the Court disclose
grave
suspicion
against
the
accused
which
has
not
been
properly explained the Court will
be fully justified in framing a
charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(3) The test to determine a
prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case
and it is difficult to lay down a rule
of universal application. By and
large however if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced
before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he
will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his
jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the
present Code is a senior and
experienced
court
cannot
act
merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but
has
to
consider
the
broad
probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the
Court,
any
basic
infirmities
appearing in the case and so on.
9 All. Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1149
This however does not mean that
the Judge should make a roving
enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence
as if he was conducting a trial.'
(emphasis supplied)
21.
In
Niranjan
Singh
Karam Singh Punjabi (supra), this
Court was alive to reality, stating
that '... it cannot be expected even
at the initial stage to accept all that
the prosecution states as gospel
truth even if it is opposed to
common
sense
or
the
broad
probabilities of the case.' If a view
gives rise to suspicion, as opposed
to grave suspicion, the Court
concerned
is
empowered
to
discharge the accused, as pointed
out in Sajjan Kumar v. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9
SCC 368. The Court, in Dinesh
Tiwari (supra) had reasoned that if
the Court concerned opines that
there is ground to presume the
accused has committed an offence,
it is competent to frame a charge
even
if
such
offence
is
not
mentioned in the Charge Sheet. As
to what is 'strong suspicion',
reference
to
Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel (supra) is
warranted, where it was explained
that it is '... the suspicion which is
premised on some material which
commends itself to the court as
sufficient to entertain the prima
facie view that the accused has
committed the offence.'
22. In a recent judgment
viz. State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 894,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294. this
Court held:
'7. It is trite law
that application of judicial
mind being necessary to
determine whether a case
has been made out by the
prosecution for proceeding
with trial and it would not
be necessary to dwell into
the pros and cons of the
matter by examining the
defence of the accused
when an application for
discharge is filed. At that
stage, the trial judge has to
merely
examine
the
evidence placed by the
prosecution in order to
determine whether or not
the grounds are sufficient
to proceed against the
accused on basis of charge
sheet material. The nature
of the evidence recorded or
collected
by
the
investigating agency or the
documents
produced
in
which prima facie it reveals
that there are suspicious
circumstances against the
accused, so as to frame a
charge would suffice and
such material would be
taken into account for the
purposes of framing the
charge. If there is no
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused necessarily, the
accused
would
be
discharged, but if the court
is of the opinion, after such
consideration
of
the
material there are grounds
for presuming that accused
has committed the offence
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which
is
triable,
then
necessarily charge has to
be framed.
8. At the time of
framing of the charge and
taking
cognizance
the
accused has no right to
produce any material and
call upon the court to
examine
the
same.
No
provision
in
the
Code
grants any right to the
accused to file any material
or document at the stage of
framing of charge. The trial
court has to apply its
judicial mind to the facts of
the
case
as
may
be
necessary
to
determine
whether a case has been
made
out
by
the
prosecution for trial on the
basis
of
charge-sheet
material only.
9. If the accused is
able to demonstrate from
the charge-sheet material
at the stage of framing the
charge
which
might
drastically affect the very
sustainability of the case, it
is unfair to suggest that
such material should not be
considered or ignored by
the court at that stage. The
main intention of granting
a chance to the accused of
making
submissions
as
envisaged under Section
227 of the Cr. P.C. is to
assist
the
court
to
determine whether it is
required to proceed to
conduct the trial. Nothing
in the Code limits the ambit
of such hearing, to oral
hearing
and
oral
arguments
only
and
therefore, the trial court
can consider the material
produced by the accused
before the I.O.
10. It is settled
principle of law that at the
stage of considering an
application for discharge
the court must proceed on
an assumption that the
material which has been
brought on record by the
prosecution is true and
evaluate said material in
order to determine whether
the facts emerging from the
material taken on its face
value,
disclose
the
existence of the ingredients
necessary of the offence
alleged. ...
xxx
11. The defence of
the accused is not to be
looked into at the stage
when the accused seeks to
be
discharged.
The
expression "the record of
the case" used in Section
227 Cr. P.C. is to be
understood
as
the
documents and articles, if
any,
produced
by
the
prosecution. The Code does
not give any right to the
accused to produce any
document at the stage of
framing of the charge. The
submission of the accused
is to be confined to the
material produced by the
investigating agency.
9 All. Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1151
12. The primary
consideration at the stage
of framing of charge is the
test of existence of a primafacie case, and at this
stage, the probative value
of materials on record need
not be gone into. This
Court by referring to its
earlier decisions in the
State of Maharashtra v.
Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4
SCC 659 and the State of
MP v. Mohan Lal Soni,
(2000) 6 SCC 338 has held
the nature of evaluation to
be made by the court at the
stage of framing of the
charge
is
to
test
the
existence of prima-facie
case. It is also held at the
stage of framing of charge,
the court has to form a
presumptive opinion to the
existence
of
factual
ingredients constituting the
offence alleged and it is not
expected to go deep into
probative
value
of
the
material on record and to
check whether the material
on record would certainly
lead to conviction at the
conclusion of trial.'
(emphasis
supplied)"

17. I have also perused the
literature supplied by the applicant in
discharge application, which is part of
present proceedings also, that insecticides,
if consumed in any manner, may be a
reason for myocardial infraction. A theory
is put up by applicant that presence of
insecticide found in the viscera report could
be due to exposure of surrounding places,
but at this stage such argument could not be
accepted since there is no material before
this Court that the deceased was exposed to
any such places where there was extensive
use of insecticides.

18. According to the viscera report
organo-chloro insecticide was found in
stomach, intestine, liver, kidney and spleen
of deceased which could be found if there
was intake of such pesticide. The report
dated 25.10.2017 states that 'No colour
change observed exclude MI (Myocardial
Infarction)'. The subsequent report dated
26.08.2019 is from State Medico Legal
Cell which is self contrary as well, as it has
not perused above report dated 25.10.2017.
It also states that 'No colour change Heart
attack is excluded by this pattern',
otherwise also it would be subject of trial
only. It would not be safe to rely solely on
these reports at the stage of Discharge as it
would be contrary to Vishnu Kumar
Shukla (Supra). The applicant-in-person,
is not able to convince the Court that his
wife died under natural circumstances, due
to myocardial infarction and not due to
intake of insecticides. Therefore, the Court
is of the considered opinion that death of
wife of the applicant was not natural.

19.

The
next
question
for
consideration is that whether allegation of
Section 306 I.P.C. is made out or not. In
this
regard
Court
takes
note
of
circumstances under which dead body was
found. The Court also takes note that on
17.4.2017, on applicant's directions, some
medicine was handed over to his wife. The
Court also take note of the statements
recorded during investigation that it was a
consistent case of complainant and his
family members that the applicant has
illicit relationship with one co-accused
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'Arti'. Since the applicant got married with
deceased, he extended demand of dowry
and put deceased under such circumstances
that she was left with no other option but to
commit suicide.

20. At this stage the Court also
takes note of judgements placed by the
applicant-in-person. So far as Section 306
I.P.C. is concerned, judgements are mainly
after the stage of trial whereas, in present
case the trial has still not commenced.

21. At this stage it could not be
denied that there was proximity to positive
action of the applicant. The Court also
takes note of judgements passed by the
Supreme Court in Central Bureau of
Investigation vs Aryan Singh and others,
2023 SCC Online SC 379 and Ram
Prakash Chadha Vs. The State of U.P.
2024 INSC 522 in regard to invoking of
inherent powers and relevant paras of the
same
are
reproduced
respectively
hereinafter:-

Relevant paras of Central
Bureau
of
Investigation
Vs.
Aryan Singh (Supra):-

"10. From the impugned
common
judgment
and
order
passed by the High Court, it
appears that the High Court has
dealt with the proceedings before it,
as
if,
the
High
Court
was
conducting a mini trial and/or the
High Court was considering the
applications against the judgment
and order passed by the learned
Trial Court on conclusion of trial.
As per the cardinal principle of
law, at the stage of discharge
and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,
the Court is not required to conduct
the mini trial. The High Court in
the common impugned judgment
and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where
the
prosecution/investigating
agency is/are required to prove the
charges. The charges are required
to be proved during the trial on the
basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating
agency.
Therefore, the High Court has
materially erred in going in detail
in the allegations and the material
collected during the course of the
investigation against the accused,
at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.
P.C., the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to
consider "whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed
further against the accused for
which the accused is required to be
tried or not".
11. One another reason
pointed by the High Court is that
the initiation of the criminal
proceedings/proceedings
is
malicious. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that the
investigation was handed over to
the CBI pursuant to the directions
issued by the High Court. That
thereafter, on conclusion of the
investigation, the accused persons
have
been
chargesheeted.
Therefore, the High Court has
erred in observing at this stage that
the initiation of the criminal
proceedings/proceedings
is
malicious. Whether the criminal
9 All. Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1153
proceedings was/were malicious or
not,
is
not
required
to
be
considered at this stage. The same
is required to be considered at the
conclusion of the trial. In any case,
at this stage, what is required to be
considered is a prima facie case
and the material collected during
the course of the investigation,
which warranted the accused to be
tried."
Relevant paras of Ram
Prakash Chadha (Supra):-

"19. In the light of the
decisions referred supra, it is thus
obvious that it will be within the
jurisdiction of the Court concerned
to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused concerned has
been made out. We are of the
considered view that a caution has
to be sounded for the reason that
the chances of going beyond the
permissible
jurisdiction
under
Section 227, Cr. P.C., and entering
into the scope of power under
Section 232, Cr. P.C., cannot be
ruled out as such instances are
aplenty. In this context, it is
relevant to refer to a decision of
this Court in Om Parkash Sharma
v. CBI (2000) 5 SCC 679. Taking
note of the language of Section
227, Cr. P.C., is in negative
terminology and that the language
in Section 232, Cr. P.C., is in the
positive
terminology
and
considering
this
distinction
between the two, this Court held
that it would not be open to the
Court
while
considering
an
application under Section 227, Cr.
P.C., to weigh the pros and cons of
the evidence alleged improbability
and then proceed to discharge the
accused holding that the statements
existing in the case therein are
unreliable. It is held that doing so
would be practically acting under
Section 232, Cr. P.C., even though
the said stage has not reached. In
short, though it is permissible to
sift and weigh the materials for the
limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case
is made out against the accused, on
appreciation of the admissibility
and the evidentiary value such
materials brought on record by the
prosecution is impermissible as it
would
amount
to
denial
of
opportunity to the prosecution to
prove them appropriately at the
appropriate
stage
besides
amounting to exercise of the power
coupled with obligation under
Section 232, Cr. P.C., available
only after taking the evidence for
the prosecution and examining the
accused.
20. Even after referring to
the aforesaid decisions, we think it
absolutely appropriate to refer to a
decision of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Kaushalya Devi v.
State of MP 2003 SCC OnLine MP
672. It was held in the said case
that if there is no legal evidence,
then framing of charge would be
groundless and compelling the
accused to face the trial is contrary
to the procedure offending Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
While agreeing with the view, we
make it clear that the expression
'legal evidence' has to be construed
only as evidence disclosing prima
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facie case, 'the record of the case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith'.
21. The stage of Section
227, Cr. P.C., is equally crucial and
determinative
to
both
the
prosecution and the accused, we
will dilate the issue further. In this
context, certain other aspects also
require consideration. It cannot be
said that Section 227, Cr. P.C., is
couched in negative terminology
without a purpose. Charge sheet is
a misnomer for the final report
filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.
P.C., which is not a negative report
and one that carries an accusation
against the accused concerned of
having committed the offence (s)
mentioned therein.
22. In cases, where it
appears that the said offence(s) is
one triable exclusively by the Court
of Session, the Magistrate shall
have to commit the case to the
Court
of
Session
concerned
following
the
prescribed
procedures under Cr. P.C. In such
cases,
though
it
carries
an
accusation as aforementioned still
legislature thought it appropriate to
provide an inviolable right as a
precious safeguard for the accused,
a
pre-battle
protection
under
Section 227, Cr. P.C. Though, this
provision is couched in negative it
obligated the court concerned to
unfailingly consider the record of
the case and document submitted
therewith and also to hear the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf to arrive
at a conclusion as to whether or
not
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused is
available thereunder. Certainly, if
the answer of such consideration is
in the negative, the court is bound
to discharge the accused and to
record
reasons
therefor.
The
corollary is that the question of
framing the charge would arise
only in a case where the court upon
such exercise satisfies itself about
the prima facie case revealing from
"the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith"
against the accused concerned. In
short, it can be said in that view of
the
matter
that
the
intention
embedded is to ensure that an
accused will be made to stand the
ordeal of trial only if 'the record of
the
case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith'
discloses
ground for proceeding against him.
When that be so, in a case where an
application is filed for discharge
under Section 227, Cr. P.C., it is an
irrecusable duty and obligation of
the Court to apply its mind and
answer to it regarding the existence
of or otherwise, of ground for
proceeding against the accused, by
confining such consideration based
only on the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith
and after hearing the submissions
of the accused and the prosecution
in that behalf. To wit, such
conclusion
on
existence
or
otherwise of ground to proceed
against the accused concerned
should not be and could not be
based on mere suppositions or
suspicions
or
conjectures,
especially
not
founded
upon
material
available
before
the
Court. We are not oblivious of the
fact that normally, the Court is to
9 All. Subhash Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1155
record
his
reasons
only
for
discharging an accused at the stage
of Section 227, Cr. P.C. However,
when an application for discharge
is filed under Section 227, Cr. P.C.,
the Court concerned is bound to
disclose the reason(s), though, not
in detail, for finding sufficient
ground for rejecting the application
or in other words, for finding prima
facie case, as it will enable the
superior Court to examine the
challenge against the order of
rejection."

22.