Munne Khan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J—Samina daughter of appellant Munne Khan on 3.11.2007 was married with Salman Khan S/o. Ashfaq. Four years after the marriage on 9.10.2011, between 4.00-4.30 P.M. Samina had suffered burn injuries due to pouring of Kerosene oil. The Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur had tried Ashfaq, father-in-law, Smt. Iqbal Begum, mother-in-law, Salman, husband, and Samida, sister of father-in-law (Bhua Saas). The trial Judge had charged the above said four accused for offences under Sections 498A, 302 IPC, in alternate, for offence under Section 304B IPC.

The Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide impugned judgment dated 16.10.2004 convicted Salman for offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC. The said court, however, acquitted father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister of father-in-law for offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment, Munne Khan, father of the deceased, has filed the present appeal. He has questioned the acquittal of Ashfaq, father-in-law, Smt. Iqbal Begum, mother-in-law, and Samida, sister of father-in-law.

In the present case, FIR was registered on the statement made by deceased Samina before Narendra Kumar (P.W.19) then posted as SHO, Police Station Ramganj. In her statement leading to registration of FIR (Ex. P.14), Samina stated that on 9.10.2011 at about 4.00-4.30 PM she was present in her room when father-in-law Ashfaq, his sister Samida, mother-in-law Smt. Iqbal Begum and husband Salman suddenly came in room, they poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. In her statement (Ex. P.13) made to the investigating officer, she stated in categorical terms that she cannot tell as to who had poured kerosene oil and who had ignited the fire. She further stated that her elder sister Samshida brought her in a taxi to the hospital.

Dr. Anjan Banerjee (P.W.3) in court stated that on 9.10.2011 at about 6.00 PM Samina was admitted in Burns Unit at SMS Hospital. On 14.10.2011 at about 4.55 PM Samina died in the hospital. Her autopsy was conducted on 15.10.2011 at 12.20 PM. During admission in hospital, Lokesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.18) who was then posted as Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan on 9.10.2011 at 11.00 PM recorded dying declaration (Ex. P.16) of Samina.

Samina in her dying declaration stated that she had a quarrel with her husband. Her husband gave her beating. Thereafter, her husband had left the house and in-laws had put her on fire. Salman had also set her on fire. She further stated that since marriage her husband was having a quarrel and was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a vehicle. She further stated that mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister of father-in-law had poured kerosene oil and had set her on fire.

Prosecution in all examined twenty witnesses.

Mohd. Farooq (P.W.1) stated that he was residing in vicinity in which Salman and his wife Samina were residing. While sitting in his house, he heard cries of "Jal Gai, Jal Gai". He came outside the house. Meanwhile, Salman came. Salman went to upper story of his house. The door was bolted. Salman got the door opened. Samina was lying burned. He had poured water and placed a blanket upon her. The exact words stated by the witness are as under:--

This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.

Shahnaj (P.W.2) stated that Salman and Samina from last three/four months were staying in her house as a tenant. This witness stated that after hearing cries, she had gone on the third floor of the house. Samina was inside the room. The door was bolted from inside. The witness stated that she was staying on the second floor. This witness was cross-examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. However, nothing meaningful surfaced in her evidence.

Mohd. Zakir (P.W.4) also deposed in court that Salman is his neighbour. On 9.10.2011 nobody was in the house. Hearing the noise, he went to the house of Salman. The room was bolted from inside. This witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution.

Kamar Khan (P.W.5) also stated in court that after seeing flames of fire coming out from the room, he had gone to the house. Samina had opened the door of the room. At that time, Salman was not present in the house. This witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution.

Present appellant Munne Khan appeared as P.W.7. He had deposed regarding marriage, about dowry articles given in the marriage and the fact that the deceased was harassed by the accused.

Shamsida (P.W.8), sister of deceased Samina, stated that Samina was married four years before the occurrence. Samina was her younger sister. She was residing near to the house of the accused. On 9.10.2011 at 4.00 PM she heard cries coming out of the room. When she reached at the room, she saw Samina in burnt condition. Room was filled-up with smoke. A blanket was wrapped around Samina and she was brought to the SMS Hospital. This witness stated that she cannot tell as to how Samina caught fire.

Other relatives of the deceased have also deposed regarding cruelty caused by the husband of the deceased for demand of dowry.

The trial Judge considering that in the dying declaration (Ex. P.16) it is not stated as to who put the deceased on fire, relied upon the evidence of neighbours who stated that the room was bolted from inside and when Salman arrived, the said room was opened. The trial Judge further held that from the statement of Mohd. Farooq (P.W.1), Shahnaj (P.W.2), Mohd. Zakir (P.W.4) and Kamar Khan (P.W.5), it is apparent that the parents-in-laws were not staying with the deceased and her husband. The court further took into consideration admission made by Munne Khan (P.W.7) who admitted that except Salman and his daughter, nobody was staying in the house in which occurrence took place. We reproduce the following portion of the impugned judgment:--

Salma (P.W.12), mother of the deceased, had admitted that accused took Samina after giving assurance that he alongwith Samina will stay separately from the parents. She further admitted that Salman kept Samina in a rented accommodation. Salma (P.W.12) further admitted that Ashfaq, his wife and sister were not staying in the rented house.

We find that the reasoning given by the trial Judge to record acquittal of Ashfaq, father-in-law, Smt. Iqbal Begum, mother-in-law, and Samida, sister of father-in-law cannot held to be perverse. The trial Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of Munne Khan (P.W.7) and Salma (P.W.12), father and mother of the deceased, to arrive at a conclusion that deceased was staying separately with her husband Salman in a separate rented house. The reasoning given by the trial court to rely upon the neighbours and the landlord to the effect that the room in which Samina deceased had suffered burn injuries was bolted from inside and after arrival of Salman it was opened cannot be discarded on the strength of the dying declaration as independent witnesses very emphatically have deposed that nobody was in the room and the same was bolted from inside. Thus, acquittal of Ashfaq, father-in-law, Smt. Iqbal Begum, mother-in-law, and Samida, sister of father-in-law Ashfaq cannot be held to be bad in the eye of law.

We may notice here that the Hon''ble Apex Court had already put a word of caution in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2000 SC 2324 : (2000) CriLJ 2993 : (2000) 1 DMC 645 : (2000) 5 JT 223 : (2000) 3 SCALE 429 : (2000) 5 SCC 207 : (2000) AIRSCW 2093 : (2000) 3 Supreme 554 by observing as under:--

"For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

Hence, no interference is warranted in the present matter and the appeal is hereby, dismissed.