The State of Rajasthan vs Bhagirath son of Khimraj

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant - State being aggrieved with the judgment dated

26.10.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore (for short ''the

trial court'') in Sessions Case No.57/91, whereby the trial court has

acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable

under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written

report submitted by one Devilal Khatri on 2.7.1991, the Police

Station, Sanchore has registered a report and sent the same for

investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to the S.D.M., Bhinmal.

The S.D.M., Bhinmal namely Julfikar Beg Mirza (PW-1) has

submitted its report Ex.P/6 to the S.P., Jalore on 5.7.1991 while

concluding that it appears that the deceased had not committed

suicide and, therefore, FIR be registered and investigation be

conducted by the police.

On receiving the aforesaid report, the S.P., Jalore vide letter

dated 6.7.1991 (Ex.P/7) had directed the SHO, Police Station

Sanchore to register the FIR against the persons named therein

and on the basis of which, the Police Station Sanchore has

registered FIR No.98/91 for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC against the accused respondents

and one Khimraj Khatri.

After investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against

the accused respondents for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The trial court has framed charges

against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.

During the course of trial, to prove the charges against the

accused respondents, the prosecution has produced as many as

ten witnesses and also got exhibited several documents. The

statements of the accused respondents were recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no evidence was produced in

defence. The trial court after pondering over the evidence

produced by the prosecution has acquitted the accused

respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and

498-A IPC. Being aggrieved with this, the State has filed this

criminal appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution

has proved the charges against the accused respondents beyond

reasonable doubt, however, the trial court without appreciating the

said evidence in right perspective has illegally acquitted the

accused respondents for the offences, for which, they have been

charged.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that Jawari Devi

(PW-3) in her court statement has specifically stated that soon

before the incident, she was called by the accused respondent

Kalawati and asked her to pacify the deceased, however, when she

tried to pacify the deceased, she told her that the accused

respondents used to harass her by saying that she has brought

less dowry. It is further contended that Dayaram (PW-4), Devilal

(PW-9) and Mohan Lal (PW-10) have also stated in their

statements that the accused respondents used to harass the

deceased for less dowry and they had murdered her. Learned

Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has produced

sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused respondents

for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC,

but the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting them from the

aforesaid offences, therefore, the judgment passed by the trial

court is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents are

liable to be convicted and suitably punished for the offences, for

which, they have been charged by the trial court.

Heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned

judgment and carefully scrutinized the record.

It is not in dispute that the real brothers of the deceased

namely Devilal (PW-9) and Mohan Lal (PW-10) and the cousin

brother of the deceased Daya Ram (PW-4) and Jawari Devi (PW-

3), her aunt, have not filed any complaint about suspicious death

of the deceased. The FIR in the matter has been lodged on the

basis of the report of the S.D.M. concerned under Section 174

Cr.P.C.

The trial court has taken into consideration the evidence

available on record and has observed that the real brothers of the

deceased Devilal (PW-9) and Mohan Lal (PW-10) though in their

examination-in-chief have stated that after the marriage, the

accused respondents started harassing their sister, but during

their cross examination, they have failed to explain that the

accused respondents had demanded in dowry what. The trial court

has also taken into consideration the fact that during the course of

enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. conducted by the S.D.M.

concerned, Daya Ram (PW-4) was present, but he has not stated

anything to the Magistrate regarding the ill treatment given by the

accused respondents to the deceased. The trial court has observed

that Daya Ram (PW-4) has improved a lot in his court statement.

The most significant aspect taken into consideration by the

trial court is to the effect that Jawari Devi (PW-3) had met with

the deceased soon before her death only when accused

respondent Kalawati had asked her to pacify her because the

deceased was crying since morning. The trial court is of the

opinion that had the accused respondents any intention to kill the

deceased, they would not have called Jawari Devi (PW-3) to meet

or pacify the deceased, who happened to be her real aunt. The

trial court has observed that Jawari Devi (PW-3) in her court

statement has stated that when she met the deceased on the day

of the incident, she told her that her mother-in-law is saying that she will throw her out of the house. Jawari Devi (PW-3) in her

statement has nowhere stated that on the day of the incident,

when she met the deceased, then, she told her that the accused

respondents are demanding dowry. The trial court has also taken

into consideration the fact that the mother of the deceased has

not been produced as prosecution witness, though she could have

been one of the important witness because had there been any

demand of dowry from the accused respondents, then, the

deceased could have informed her mother in this regard.

The trial court has also taken into consideration the

explanation offered by the accused respondents while saying that

as the deceased wants to live separately along her husband

Bhagirath and she insisted for that but when her mother-in-law

accused respondent Kalawati had refused to separate them, then,

she committed suicide.

The trial court while taking into consideration the evidence of

Jawari Devi (PW-3) has observed that the explanation given by

the accused respondents might be true because Jawari Devi

(PW-3) has stated that she went to the house of the deceased on

asking of her mother-in-law, who told that the deceased is crying

since morning and that when she met the deceased, she told that

her mother-in-law is saying that she will throw her out of the

house.

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the

case and after carefully scrutinizing the record, this Court is of the

opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges

against the accused respondents, for which, they have been

charged beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the trial court

has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused

respondents from the charges levelled against them.

Resultantly, this criminal appeal being bereft of force is

hereby dismissed.