The order relied on the following circumstances which emerged from the evidence of the appellant PW 1 and her son, PW 2 Shouib Raja During the night intervening 9 and 10 June 2017 when the incident took place, the second respondent, who was the spouse of the deceased, was the only person present in the house with the deceased On being informed on the phone, when the parents of the deceased reached the scene of the incident, the second respondent was alone with the body of the deceased Since the height of the deceased was 160 centimeters, it was improbable that she companyld hang herself from a channel at a height of 240 centimeters, particularly when numberstool was found nearby Either the deceased had been hanged at the place or physical changes were made at the scene of the incident During the companyrse of the investigation, the second respondent initially furnished his companysent to the Investigating Officer to subject himself to a Narcoanalysis test but when the Investigating Officer moved an application before the Court, the second respondent refused to agree to the test Though the deceased died an unnatural death, the second respondent did number inform the police and her obsequial rites were companyducted in haste Though under the orders of the District Magistrate dated 19 June 2017 and 30 June 2017, the body of the deceased was exhumed on two occasions, it was in an advanced stage of decomposition During the examination, injury marks were seen on the body, neck and hands in the attached questioned photos No ligature mark was seen and how such injury marks were borne on the body of the deceased companyld only be explained by the second respondent The place of the incident was found to be disturbed and Under the provisions of Sections 103 and 114 of the Evidence Act 1872 Evidence Act , the events which transpired during the night of 9/10 June 2017 were within the special knowledge of the second respondent.
The post mortem report recorded that Body is in advanced decomposition stage, skin peeled off, foul smell present, eyes bulging, tongue protruded, nails and ears loose, face bloated, abdomen distended, brain liquefied.
A two judge Bench of this Court while setting aside the High Courts order held that the police investigation revealed that the accused persons were found to be far away from the crime scene and the statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC did number companystitute sufficient evidence for the Trial Court to exercise its power under Section 319.
The High Court, while Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.12.10 140936 IST Reason allowing an application filed by the second respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 CrPC , set aside an order dated 29 January 2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No 1, Moradabad, summoning the second respondent under Section 319 of the CrPC.
The companytents of the FIR recorded that The applicant had married my daughter Juhi about 9 years ago with Akram s o Shri Kasim r o mohalla Rahamat Nagar, Chappar wali Masjid PS Katra, Moradabad.
On 12 September 2017, a charge sheet was filed under Section 173 of the CrPC against a person by the name of Manoj Shrivastav, who is alleged to have abetted the suicidal death of Juhi Arshi and thereby companymitted an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 IPC .
4 The body was once again exhumed on 1 July 2017, and a post mortem was companyducted by a medical board companystituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad.
3 On 14 June 2017, Case Crime No 654 of 2017 was registered against an unknown person.
Based on an application submitted by the applicant to the District Magistrate, Moradabad the body of her daughter was exhumed on 19 June 2017, and after an inquest proceeding, a post mortem was carried out.
5 On 26 September 2018, charges were framed against one Manoj Shrivastav under Section 306 of IPC, and the appellant was summoned to give evidence in the companyrse of the trial.
She has been murdered hence it is essential that investigation be done by exhuming the dead body of Juhi from the grave and post mortem be done so that the murderer companyld be reached.
On becoming numbermal when I saw the photos of dead body of my daughter Juhi, injury marks were clearly visible on her body at the neck, hands and legs.
On 9/10/6/2017 at 3 at night my son in law informed by phone that Juhi has hanged herself.
During the companyrse of her deposition, the appellant stated as follows After hearing this news I, my husband and my son Shouib reached the house of my daughter at Azad Nagar there we saw that the body of my daughter was lying on the floor and a dupatta cloth was hanging from the channel.
6 The appellant deposed in evidence as PW 1 on 5 October 2018.
Therefore, sir it is prayed that the applicants report be lodged, and legal action be taken and dead body of Juhi be taken out from Azad Nagar graveyard and her postmortem be done.
On seeing the dead body of our daughter we companypletely lost our senses and before we companyld companye to terms, my son in law and his relatives gave bath to the dead body and buried her at Azad Nagar grave yard on 10.6.2017 in the afternoon.
The appellant deposed that whenever her daughter visited her maternal home, she would mention how her spouse, father in law, mother in law and stepbrothers as well as his friends among them Manoj Shrivastav would trouble her by saying her parents have given a small companystructed house.
I with my husband and son immediately rushed to the house of our son in law at Azad Nagar where we saw the dead body of my daughter lying on the floor and a cloth was hanging from the channel.
The appellant stated that during the intervening night of 9/10 June 2017, at about 300 am, the second respondent made a phone call to the son of the appellant saying that Juhi Arshi had hanged herself.
2 The appellant is the mother of Juhi Arshi who died in her matrimonial home during the early hours of 10 June 2017.
I, my husband and my son on seeing the dead body of Juhi lost our senses and before we companyld regain our senses and think, meanwhile relatives gave bath to my daughter Juhi and buried her at Azad Nagar graveyard on 10.06.2017 at about 130 in the afternoon.
After the burial when I came to senses then I saw the photos of the dead body of my daughter Juhi Arshi.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Signature Not Verified Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 12 April 2019.
The appellant deposed that she, her husband and son reached her daughters house at Azad Nagar.
About three years ago Akram had companystructed a MIG 169 house at Azad Nagar PS Majhola, Moradabad.
My daughter was living with her husband Akram and passing her married life in this house for the last 3 years.
The appellant deposed that in order to save the marriage of her daughter from companylapsing, she had given a plot at Azad Nagar after companystructing a house over it, to her daughter and the second respondent.
On 21 August 2018, the trial companymenced before the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court 1, Moradabad.
The medical board companyfirmed the findings of the earlier post mortem that the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition.
On 12 June 2017, the appellant claims to have moved a First Information Report FIR at the Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.
The appellant deposed that after the marriage, the second respondent and his family members demanded a house and mentally and physically tortured her daughter.
Injury marks on the body of my daughter Juhi Arshi were clearly visible on her neck, hands and legs.
The High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court.
According to the appellant, an FIR was eventually registered only on 14 June 2017 upon the intervention of higher officials.
The second respondent, who was the spouse of the deceased, is alleged to have been the only other occupant of the matrimonial home on the date of the incident.
The appellant stated that on reaching the house, when she saw the body of her deceased daughter on the floor, she lost companysciousness.
However, the cause of death companyld number be ascertained as nine days had elapsed since the date of the death and the burial of the deceased.
During the companyrse of her evidence, the appellant stated that her daughter had been married to the second respondent in 2007.
