The State of H.P. vs Dalip Chand and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1995, acquitting the alleged accused under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to adjudicate the criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. According to the prosecution story, Smt. Pinki Devi was married with Shri Dalip Chand in the year 1993 and she was initially kept comfortably for about three months of her marriage. Thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry was made by Dalip Chand, the husband of the victim, who wanted to run some business and for that purpose he wanted funds. Smt. Meena Devi, the sister-in-law of the victim, Pinki Devi (the sister of the husband of the victim) and Smt. Gulabu Devi, mother-in-law of the victim, had been demanding money, however, as the parents of the victim were poor, they could not fulfill the requirement and demand of the husband as well as sister and mother of the husband of the victim.

On 22.06.1994, victim informed her parents about the cruelty and on their intervention, the matter was settled. But, on 24.06.1994, quarrel took place between the victim and accused No. 1 and on 24.06.1994 itself, Pinki Devi (deceased) accused No. 1 had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. The victim sustained burn injuries and was taken to Primary Health Center, Ladbarol, and from there she was referred to Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar. Thereafter, the victim was referred for expert treatment to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, where she was admitted and was medically examined by PW-17 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, I.G.M.C., Shimla. On 29.06.1994, the victim was examined by PW-11, Head Constable Dole Ram, in presence of PW-17, Dr. Vijay Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, I.G.M.C., Shimla. The victim, as per her statement, Ex. PW-11/A, informed that the accused No. 1 had poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. 60% burns were found on the body of the victim and in that respect FIR, Ex. PW-8/A, was lodged on 29.06.1994 and the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as seventeen witnesses, whereas, the accused-Respondents through their statements u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure have denied the prosecution case.

From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that it was first time on 22.06.1994, when the victim apprised her parents about the maltreatment, cruelty and demand of dowry then on the intervention of the parents of the victim on 23.06.1994, the matter was settled, but, on 24.06.1994, in the evening, PW-1, Sunder Lal, had been informed that the victim was set on fire. PW-4, Moni Ram, uncle of the accused No. 1(Dalip Chand), has stated that the wife of accused No. 1 had caught fire and when PW-4 rushed to the victim she informed PW-4 that she has accidentally caught fire.

In her statement, Ex. PW-11/A, the victim had attributed the injuries of fire on her person to the accused No. 1(Dalip Chand), the husband of the victim, however, in complaint, Ex. PA, PW-1 Sunder Lal has stated that his daughter had been interrogated by her brother and she stated that accused No. 1, Dalip Chand, had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. But, on 24.06.1994, the victim in conscious state has made a statement. When PW-6 had informed the Police Post, Ladbarol, about the arrival of a burnt patient and in response to application, Ex. PW-6/A, of PW-6 (Dr. Man Singh), PW-14 had rushed to Primary Health Center, Ladbarol, at that time no Investigating Officer was present at the Police Post and PW-14 had filed an application, Ex. PW-6/B, before PW-6. PW-6 had certified Smt. Pinki Devi (deceased) was fit for making statement, as per certificate, Ex. PW-6/C and PW-6 had endorsed the application, Ex. PW-6/B. In presence of PW-6 Dr. Man Singh, PW-14 LHC Safari Ram had recorded the statement, Ex. PW-6/D, of the victim, Pinki Devi (deceased) and such statement was duly attested by PW-6 and PW-14. In the said statement, Smt. Pinki Devi, the victim has stated that she had accidentally caught fire while lighting the fire at the fire place in the kitchen of the house. Such statement was made by Smt. Pinki Devi, the victim (deceased) in a conscious state at the first instance on 24.06.1994 when she was initially brought to the hospital in burnt condition. However, the victim succumbed to her injuries on 12.07.1994, as such, she remained under treatment for about 19 days and at the initial stage she made a statement in presence of PW-6 (Dr. Man Singh) to PW-14 LHC Safari Ram, where a different version was given by her, whereas on 29.06.1994 a different version was indicated by her. These contrary versions have made the prosecution case doubtful.

The prosecution has not brought sufficient material to indicate and prove that the victim had died by the repeated torture or repeated demands of dowry or repeated cruelty which could have created the cause, whereby the accused No. 1 had poured kerosene oil on her and the victim was burnt up to 60%.

The prosecution has not examined any independent witness of the locality or nearby area or house of the victim and it only relied upon the single statement of the victim made on 26.04.1994 and the same could not be said to be of such a high magnitude that a demand of dowry made by the accused- Respondents could have caused the victim to bring her life to an end. The prosecution witnesses are not inspiring confidence and in absence of any witness, who could have observed that Dalip Chand, the husband of the victim attempted to burn the victim, was not presented by the prosecution.

On analysis of the prosecution witness and material on record and having considered the apparent contradictions and improbabilities, we are of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-Respondents. There is no scope of interference in the judgment of the trial court and appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.