RITIKA vs MANAKLAL

(1) Appellant-State has preferred this appeal being

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order of acquittal dated 8.3.2000 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge Sabalgarh, District Morena

in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1997, whereby the

respondents have been acquitted of the charges

under Sections 498A and 304B of the I.P.C.

(2) The prosecution case as emerged out before the

trial Court during the trial, in nut shell, is as under:-

(2.1) On 27.4.1997 Dr. F.C.Bansal (PW1), the

Assistant Surgeon Primary Health Centre, Kailaras

informed in writing vide letter Ex.P/3 to the S.H.O.

Police Station Kailaras that Mamta W/o Kalyan Chand

had been brought to the hospital for treatment in a

burn condition. She had 60% burn injuries. She was

to be referred to the District hospital, Morena for

further treatment.

(2.2) On 27.4.1997 Dr. S.C.Agrawal (PW2), the

Assistant Surgeon District Hospital Morena, informed

in writing vide letter Ex.P/6 to the S.H.O. Kailaras,

Morena that injured Mamta succumbed to burn

injuries in the course of treatment.

(2.3) On 27.4.1997, B.L.Ahirwar (not

examined), the sub Divisional Police Officer Morena,

held an inquest inquiry in the presence of the public

witnesses on the dead body of deceased Mamta and

prepared inquest report Ex.P/8.

(2.4) On 28.04.1997, Rameshwar Dayal (PW5),

the father of deceased Mamta, lodged a written report

Ex.P/9A at Police Station Kailaras stating therein that

deceased Mamta got married to respondent Kalyan

Chand near about one year before her death on

27.4.1997. Respondent Kedar and Kamla Bai are her

in-laws. During the period of one year of her marital

life, deceased Mamta came to her native town Ambah

four to six times. She used to tell him and his family

members that the respondents would taunts her that

her parents looted them. Had respondent Kalyan

Chand been married in another family, they would

have got dowry as per their demands. They would

torture and harass her physically and mentally forcing

her to bring 40,000/- (forty thousand) rupees in cash

and other articles as per their demands in dowry from

her parents. Thereupon, he gave them one gold

ornament. However, he could not fulfill their

remaining demands because he has to marry his one

more daughter. As a result, deceased Mamta had to

suffer often torture and harassment at their hands.

He doubts that deceased Mamta died of burn injuries

under abnormal circumstances. On 28.4.1997, the

police of Police Station Kailaras recorded the F.I.R

Ex.P/9 and registered a case at Crime No.96 of 1997

against the respondents under Section 304B I.P.C.

(2.5) S.A.Khan (PW7), the Sub Divisional Police

Officer Kailaras, investigated the case. On 28.4.1997,

he visited the place of occurrence and upon his

instructions, Head Constable Chand Kumar Singh

(PW10) prepared spot map Ex.P/12. He recorded case

diary statements of Rameshwar Dayal Ex.D/3,

Angoori Bai (PW4) Ex.D/1, the mother of deceased

Mamta, Chhotelal (PW3) Ex.P/7, the Maternal

Grandfather of deceased Mamta, and Meena (PW6)

Ex.P/10, the real elder sister of deceased Mamta,

arrested the respondents and sent the seized articles

for forensic examination to FSL Sagar which gave the

report Ex.P/18 and P/19.

(2.6) Upon completion of the investigation of

the case, the police filed a charge-sheet against the

respondents for their prosecution under Section 304B

I.P.C in the court of J.M.F.C Sabalgarh. On 4.8.1997,

the learned J.M.F.C passed the committal order.

Thereafter, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.232 of 1997 and was made over to the Additional

Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh.

(3) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed

the charges against the respondents under Sections

498A and 304B I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the

charges. Thereupon, they were put to trial. In the

statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied all

the incriminating evidence and circumstances

appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.

Respondent Kalyan Chand took the defence that he

would sell the chaat (spicy preparations) on a

handcart. On the fateful morning of the day of

incident, deceased Mamta was boiling potatoes, which

is a staple part of the chaat, on kerosene stove. At

that time, she came accidentally into contact of

flames of the stove, and she sustained burn injuries.

He made an attempt to douse the fire. In the course

of which, he got burn injuries on his hands and feet.

In the meantime, his neighbour Gendalal (DW1) came

to his house. Thereafter, he, his parents and Gendalal

took her to local government hospital Kailaras for

treatment and thereafter to the District Hospital

Morena, where she died of burn injuries. Respondents

Kedar and Kamla Bai took the defence that they live

separately from their son/respondent Kalyan Chand

and deceased Mamta, and they have been falsely

implicated in the case.

(4) The learned Additional Sessions Judge after

analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record in

the impugned judgment, has held that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt. On the basis thereof, he acquitted

the respondents of the charges under Sections 498A

and 304B I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned

judgment of acquittal, the appellant/State has filed

this appeal under Section 378 (2) of the Cr.P.C .

(5) Learned Panel Lawyer for the Appellant-State

submitted that deceased Mamta''s parents namely

Rameshwar and Angoori Bai have testified that

deceased Mamta was subjected to dowry related

cruelties at the hands of the respondents and she

died of burn injuries in abnormal circumstances in her

matrimonial home. But, the learned A.S.J. has

disbelieved their testimonies on minor contradictions

and inconsistencies. Thus, the learned A.S.J has

gravely erred in acquitting the respondents of the

charges under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C, whereas

all the ingredients of the aforesaid Sections have been

proved by the prosecution. Thus, the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal is based upon

erroneous appreciation of evidence. Therefore, it is

liable to be set-aside and the respondents be

punished suitably for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C.

(6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the learned Additional

Sessions Judge has disbelieved the testimonies of the

deceased''s parents upon just and proper appreciation

of evidence. Therefore, no interference with the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal by this

court is called for and this appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

(7) We have earnestly considered the rival

submissions made at the Bar and perused the

impugned judgment and the material on record.

(8) Before considering the evidence of present case,

it would be pertinent to refer to some illuminating

judgments as to when the appellate court ought to

interfere with the order of acquittal.

(9) In Chandppa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

(2007) 4 SCC 415, the apex court has culled out the

general principles regarding powers of an appellate

court while dealing with an appeal against the order

of acquittal on the basis of its earlier

pronouncements, which are as under:-

(i) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(ii) The code of criminal procedure 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on question of fact and of law.

(iii) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in a case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(iv) If, two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

(10) Almost similar legal principles were propounded

by the Supreme Court in the recent decisions in

Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. 2013

Cri.L.J. 4618, Jagadevappa and Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka, 2013 Cri.L.J., 2658, Anjanappa Vs. State

of Karnataka, 2014 Cri.L.J. 368, and Sadhu Saran

Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 4

SCC 357.

(11) On the basis of the aforestated principles of

law, we shall proceed to decide this appeal.

(12) Upon the perusal of evidence on record, it

appears to us that following are the uncontroverted

and admitted facts of the case :

(I). Deceased Mamta died of burn injuries in a year''s time after her marriage in her matrimonial home;

(ii). Deceased Mamta''s husband/ respondent Kalyan Chand sustained burn injuries.

(iii). Deceased Mamta died of burn injuries on the following day of the incident in the course of treatment in the District Hospital Morena where postmortem on her dead body was conducted.

(13) In order to bring home the charges against

the respondents, the prosecution has examined

deceased Mamta''s father Rameshwar Dayal (PW5),

mother Angoori Bai (PW4), Nana (maternal

grandfather) Chhotelal (PW3) and elder sister Meena

(PW6). Chhotelal and Meena have not supported the

prosecution case. Thereupon the prosecution

declared them hostile and confronted them with their

case diary statements Ex.P/7 and P/10 respectively

and also subjected them to gruelling cross-

examination. But the prosecution has had failed to

elicit even an iota of evidence in support of its case.

As such, the prosecution case rests with the evidence

of deceased Mamta''s parents Rameshwar Dayal and

Angoori Bai. Since deceased Mamta''s maternal

grandfather Chhotelal and elder sister Meena have not

supported the prosecution case despite having blood

relations with them, we have to meticulously analyze

and appreciate the evidence of her parents in order to

know how far their testimonies are truthful, reliable

and trustworthy.

(14) Upon the perusal of examinations-in-chief of

deceased Mamta''s parents Rameshwar Dayal (PW5)

and Angoori Bai (PW4), we hold that they have given

vague and omnibus statements by saying that the

respondents used to torture, harass and taunt

deceased Mamta with an objective to force her to

bring 30,000/- to 40,000/- rupees in dowry from

them and whenever deceased Mamta visited them,

she would tell them about the cruelties being

committed upon her by the respondents.

(15) Rameshwar Dayal and Angoori Bai in para 5

of their cross-examinations have admitted that at the

time of engagement of deceased Mamta with

respondent Kalyan Chand, the respondents had not

demanded any dowry nor had they demanded any

dowry at the time of her marriage. Both the witnesses

have also admitted that the marriage of deceased

Mamta was performed in the "mass marriage

function" of his caste. They have also admitted that

respondent Kalyan Chand would earn his livelihood by

selling chaat on a handcart. Angoori Bai has stated in

para 8 of her cross-examination that her

husband/Rameshwar would sell gur (jaggery), rice

and cooking oil as a street vendor and her family is

poor. From the aforesaid admissions and facts, we

strongly entertain a suspicion that the respondents

would harass and torture deceased Mamta demanding

dowry. In the cross-examinations, Rameshwar and

Angoori Bai could not satisfactorily reply as to why

they have not lodged the police report during the life

time of deceased Mamta or called panchayat of their

caste regarding the dowry harassment meted out to

deceased Mamta at the hands of the respondents.

This non-explanation on their parts makes the

truthfulness of their statements doubtful.

(16) Rameshwar has stated in para 10 of his

cross-examination that they kept deceased Mamta

near about three months with them. Thereafter,

respondent Kalyan Chand took her from their house

at about 3 PM. On the same day at about 9 PM, he

left deceased Mamta in an unconscious state outside

of her house after beating her. He took her for

treatment and she regained consciousness in the late

night. Rameshwar has failed to explain why he had

not mentioned this fact in his F.I.R and case diary

statements and why he had not lodged the F.I.R

against respondent Kalyan Chand at the relevant time

of the said incident. He has stated in para 6 of his

cross-examination that deceased Mamta told her

about dowry related cruelties, torture and harassment

by the respondents in the presence of her maternal

grandfather Chhotelal. However, Chhotelal has not

supported the said statement of Rameshwar in para 3

of his evidence. On the other hand, he has stated that

deceased Mamta used to live in her in-laws house

happily, and she had never complained him about

outrageous behaviour of the respondents towards her.

Thus, non-corroboration of evidence of Ramesahwar

by Chhotelal makes the evidence of him totally

unreliable.

(17) Head constable Chand Kumar Singh

(PW10) has stated that on the date of incident i.e.

27.4.1997, he visited the place of occurrence. There,

he saw that potatoes were kept in a utensil over a

stove for boiling with water. He found the water was

warm. The capacity of tank of the stove was near

about four liters and it was filled to its capacity with

kerosene oil. Deceased Mamta''s mother Angoori Bai

has stated in paras 5 and 12 of her cross-examination

that her son-in-law/respondent Kalyan Chand would

sell chaat and deceased Mamta used to help him in

the preparation of chaat. It is an uncontroverted fact

that respondent Kalyan Chand sustained burn injuries.

If the aforesaid facts and evidence are weighed

meticulously, then it is highly probable that deceased

Mamta accidentally came into contact with the

flames of burning stove and got burn injuries.

Therefore, it may be stated that deceased Mamta died

of burn injures in a accident.

(18) Rameshwar has stated in para 6 of his

cross-examination that deceased Mamta had

education up to 12th standard and she wanted to pursue her further education to get a government job.

But the respondents did not allow her to pursue her

studies as respondent Kalyan Chand has education up

to 8th standard. In view of the aforesaid facts, there

is a strong possibility of the maladjustment and

incompatibility between respondent Kalyan Chand and

deceased Mamta and for the said reason, she might

committed suicide in depression and frustration.

(19) Meena (PW6) is the elder sister of

deceased Mamta. As per her deposition, she is a

married woman, and that she lives with her husband

in Ambah town where her parents Rameshwar and

Angoori Bai also live. They have stated that deceased

Mamta visited them at Ambah 4 to 6 times in a

period of one year of marriage and she used to

narrate them dowry related cruelties and harassment

being committed upon her by the respondents,

whereas Meena has stated that deceased Mamta

never met her after her marriage. It is very surprising

that deceased Mamta never met her despite Meena is

a resident of Ambah town itself. Thus, the non-

corroboration of evidence of Rameshwar and Angoori

Bai by Meena also makes dents into the veracity of

their testimonies.

(20) As per reports of FSL Sagar Ex.P/18 and

P/19, deceased Mamta got burn injuries due to

kerosene oil. Since it is an admitted fact, the reports

have no evidentiary value.

(21) Defence witness Gendalal (DW1) has stated

that he and respondent Kalyan Chand live on rent in

the same house in different-portions. At the time of

incident, deceased Mamta was boiling potatoes on

stove for the preparation of chaat. Upon shrieks of

deceased Mamta, he went to her house and saw

respondent Kalyan Chand extinguishing her fire in the

course of which he also got burn injuries. There is

nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his

evidence. Thus, from his evidence, it is also proved

that deceased Mamta got burn injuries accidentally.

(22) From the aforesaid meticulous examination of

evidence on record, we hold that the prosecution has

utterly failed to prove its case against the

respondents. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents of the

charges framed against them. Consequently, there

is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment

and order of acquittal.

(23) For the foregoing reasons and discussions,

we uphold the impugned judgment and the order of

acquittal and dismiss this appeal being devoid of

merits and substance. The bail-bonds furnished by

the respondents shall stand discharged.