The Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgment, rejected the discharge application of Viresh Kumar alias Viresh Singh, accused in the dowry death case of his wife, Munisha. The court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, found that there was enough evidence to suggest that the death of the applicant’s wife was not natural, citing the presence of organo-chloro insecticide in her body. The decision emphasizes the need for a full trial to explore the circumstances surrounding her death.
Background of the Case:
The case revolves around the death of Munisha, wife of Viresh Kumar, whose body was discovered in a suspicious condition at their residence in Ghaziabad. According to the initial investigation, Munisha was found sitting on a sofa in a locked room with one leg on a center table. The room’s balcony door was open, and the ceiling fan was running. The death reportedly occurred two days before her body was discovered on April 20, 2017.
Munisha’s father, Neeraj Singh, filed a complaint alleging that his daughter had been murdered by Viresh Kumar and his co-accused, who he claimed had been harassing her for dowry. The complainant stated that Viresh and his accomplices subjected Munisha to cruelty, leading to her death under suspicious circumstances.
Key Evidence and Legal Issues:
– Presence of Poison: A viscera report dated May 9, 2017, revealed the presence of organo-chloro insecticide in Munisha’s stomach, intestine, liver, kidney, and spleen, suggesting ingestion of the poison. This became a critical piece of evidence in establishing the unnatural cause of death.
– Discrepancy in Medical Reports: While the defense argued that Munisha died due to myocardial infarction, subsequent medical reports were contradictory. The forensic reports failed to conclusively prove death by heart attack, leading the court to rule out a natural cause of death.
– Arguments for Discharge: Viresh Kumar, representing himself in two cases and through his counsel in another, argued that there was no evidence to support the charge of abetment to suicide. He contended that his wife’s death was natural, due to myocardial infarction, and that the presence of insecticide could have been due to environmental exposure rather than intentional poisoning.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, in his judgment, emphasized that there was sufficient material to proceed with the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide. The court noted:
“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 the death of the wife of the applicant was not natural.”
The court further highlighted that, at this stage, the jurisdiction is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed with the trial. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidance, Justice Shamshery remarked:
“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.’”
The court also found the defense’s argument about the natural death lacking, as no material evidence was presented to support the claim that Munisha was exposed to areas with significant use of insecticides.
Lawyers and Parties Involved:
– Applicant (Accused): Viresh Kumar alias Viresh Singh, represented by himself and advocates Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Uma Datta Tripathi.
– Opposite Party (State): State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by advocates Anurag Pathak, Shashi Kant Shukla, and the Government Advocate.
– Complainant: Neeraj Singh, father of the deceased, represented by advocate Anurag Pathak.
