JUDGMENT
S.K. Agarwal, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
1. A curious question has been fostered very compassionately by learned Counsel for the applicants in this case. The question is that can the defence side be blunted at a premature stage of its defence taken during the investigation stage by the investigating agency.
2. Few facts are necessary to remove the incongruity in the submission. In this case at the stage of investigation, Under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. the defence has come outwith the plea that Javitri Devi is wife of Lal Bahadur though shrewdly by implication. This was not said directly. The case of the prosecution as set up in the First Information Report was that Nanhi Devi @ Oma Devi was married to accused Lai Bahadur s/o Tej Narain Gangwar on 14.3.1996. the invitation card submitted by the accused-applicants in their defence before the Investigating Officer gave out the name of the wife of the said Lal Bahadur as Javitri Devi. The date of marriage disclosed is 6.4.1994. The attempt gradually was to take away the case from the purview of the Section 304, I.P.C. because the death ought to be within seven years from the date of marriage. During the investigation it was worked out that this Lai Bahadur has a brother known as Mahendra Kumar and his wife was known as Javitri Devi though in the voter list both Javitri Devi and Nanhi Devi were known as Geeta Devi and Savitri Devi. This clearly indicates that the names of two women were changed before their names occurred in the voter list.
3. In our society this is quite frequently happening if any person is there in the family of the same name and enjoying a better status then the name of new incumbent is always changed. The statement of Javitri Devi was recorded by the Investigating Officer and she disclosed herself to be the wife of Mahendra Kumar, brother of accused Lal Bahadur. Thus there remains no dispute that Nanhi Devi @ Oma Devi was wife of Lal Bahadur. She was given a new name in her in-law’s house i.e. Savitri Devi. The correct name as available from the invitation card filed by the informant and the statement of the printer of the card the name of wife of Lal Bahadur originally was Nanhi Devi @ Oma Devi. These are the circumstances in which the contention is to be determined.
4. The above glaring facts indicate that there was undoubtedly an attempt on the part of the accused persons to hoodwink the investigating agency by producing the evidence of marriage of other son introducing his wife as the wife of Lal Bahadur in the card. The invitation card given to the Investigating Officer by the defence, therefore, certainly was manipulated or got printed a new. The urgence of shutting of the defence during investigation by police, in my opinion, has no legs to stand. Since the conduct of the accused party in his case is unpalatable they cannot take shelter behind this incongruity. The submission is most ingenious. As the facts brought out above in all probability they would not dare to take the defence during trial. The conduct of the police in working out their defence cannot be said in any manner unethical or against the provisions of law. It is always desirable that if the accused came out with some defence during the investigation that must also be investigated side by side to satisfy itself by the Investigator of its correctness. This is in utmost fairness and propriety and natural justice demands it from him. The purpose of the investigation is to un-earth the truth besides collection of evidence on the jotted lines of the FIR. The correctness of the First Information Report allegations may always be verified from independent sources by every Investigator before embarking upon the arrest of accused person. Investigation of defence of an accused is a step in this direction. The result of investigation in this case was submitted against these persons. The offence against these applicants was that they have also filed their affidavits in support of the plea taken by the defence that the marriage was solemnised in 1994 and not in 1996 and the wife of Lal Bahadur was a different woman. As a matter of fact it was an ingenious attempt towards denial of the marriage.
5. In view of the above discussion I am of the firm opinion that this does not amount to blunting their defence. If the applicants are sure of the correctness of the defence they are not precluded from taking it in the trial. The genuineness of prosecution case Under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. is borne out from the failure of their defence. This trial may also be conducted by the same Court who is trying the principal case. Since this would be their defence or after the principal case is concluded it may be proceeded with by the Court competent to try it, it is advised.
6. If the applicants appear before the Courts below and make an application for their bail in Case No. 1137/2003 Under Sections 420/467/468, I.P.C P.S. Jahanabad, District Pilibhit their prayer for bail shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and if possible on the same day.
7. With the above observation this application is disposed of.