AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C . has
been preferred by the appellant State of Rajasthan being
aggrieved with the judgment dated 19.08.1993 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as
''the trial Court'') in Sessions Case No. 198/1992 whereby, the
learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused/respondents for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
As per the prosecution story, in the intervening night of
19th/20th July, 1992, PW-12 Bhanwar Singh has submitted a
written report (Ex.P/18) at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur
stated therein that his sister (Indira) is married with Gopal Singh
and both of them are having one son out of the said wedlock. It is
also alleged that after marriage of his sister (Indira) with Gopal
Singh, his parents have separated him as he was unemployed. It
is also alleged that the father-in-law (Girdhari Singh) and mother-
in-law (Smt. Kiran Kanwar) of his sister were annoyed while
saying that at the time of marriage, the guests were not served
properly and for this reason, they used to harass her and also
used to beat her. It is further alleged that before some time, he
brought his sister (Indira) to their house but later on, with the
intervention of the relatives, she was again sent to her in-laws''
house. It is stated that on 19th July, 2992, he went to meet Indira
at his in-laws'' house and at that time she was very much sad.
Later on at about 12 pm, he came to know that his sister (Indira)
is admitted in the hospital on account of burn injuries then, he
along with his mother PW-13 Uchchhab Kanwar went to the
hospital where, Indira told that her husband (Gopal Singh), father-
in-law (Girdhari Singh) and mother-in-law (Smt. Kiran Kanwar)
used to harass her and, therefore, she has burnt herself by
pouring the kerosene.
On receiving this report, the Police has registered an FIR for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC. At about 1:07
pm on 20th July, 1992, police statement of Indira was recorded as
Exhibit-10. Thereafter, in the day on 20 th July, 1992, dying
declaration of Indira was recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.4, Jodhpur as Exhibit-15. Police statement of Indira
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was again recorded as Exhibit-P/11. On
21st July, 1992, again, the statement of Indira was recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police as Exhibit-P/7. Again on 22 nd
July, 1992, dying declaration of Indira was recorded by the Judicial
Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur as Exhibit-P/17. During pendency of the
investigation, Indira died on 25th July, 1992.
The Police, after concluding the investigation into the
allegations levelled against the accused/respondents, has filed
charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 304-B IPC. The trial Court has also framed charges against
the accused/respondents for the aforesaid charges.
During the course of trial, the prosecution has produced as
many as 15 witnesses and has also got exhibited several
documents. The statements of the accused/respondents were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and some documents were
produced in defence. However, no witness has been produced by
the defence.
The learned trial Court after concluding the trial and after
taking into consideration the prosecution evidence has acquitted
all the accused/respondents for the offences for which they have
been charged. Hence, this appeal.
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant
State of Rajasthan has argued that the prosecution has proved all
the charges levelled against the accused/respondents beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court, without appreciating
the evidence produced by the prosecution in right perspective, has
acquitted all the accused/respondents for the charges for which
they have been charged. Learned Public Prosecutor has invited
attention of the Court towards the statement of PW-12 Bhanwar
Singh, the first informant, PW-13 Uchchhab Kanwar (mother of
the deceased Indira) and PW-15 Kalu Singh (father of the
deceased Indira) and has argued that from the evidence of all the
above witnesses, the charges levelled against the
accused/respondents for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC have been fully proved.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
accused/respondents have harassed the deceased (Indira) for
dowry and her husband has forced her to bring money by selling
the plot. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the sister
of the complainant PW-12 Bhanwar Singh and daughter of PW-13
Uchchhab Kanwar and PW-15 Kalu Singh died within seven years
of her marriage and ample evidence is available on record to
prove that the accused/respondents have harassed her for dowry
and she died on that account and, therefore, the charges levelled
against the accused/respondents for dowry death and cruelty are
fully proved against them and, therefore, this appeal may kindly
be allowed while setting aside the impugned judgment and the
accused/ respondents are liable to be convicted for the offences
for which they have been charged and are liable to be suitably
sentenced.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused/
respondents have argued that the prosecution has failed to prove
the charges levelled against the accused/respondents and the
learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting all
the accused/respondents vide impugned judgment.
It is also contended that there are five dying declarations of
the deceased Indira on record and in all those declarations, the
deceased has stated contradictory facts which have been taken
note by the learned trial Court and thereafter only, the learned
trial Court has gave a specific finding that in the dying
declarations or the police statements of the deceased, prior to
reaching of her father PW-15 Kalu Singh, the deceased has kept
saying that she committed suicide at her own and the
accused/respondents are not involved in the incident. However,
after reaching her father, for the first time, she has levelled
allegations against the accused/ respondents.
It is also argued that the trial Court has also taken into
consideration the statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh, who has
stated that his father was not satisfied with the earlier statements
of the deceased Indira, therefore, he has forced the Investigating
Agency to record her further statements because he wants to
involve/implicate the mother and father of the accused/
respondent Gopal Singh in the incident.
Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that there is no
evidence on record to suggest that prior to death of deceased
Indira, the accused/ respondents have harassed her for dowry.
Learned counsel for the respondents have, therefore, prayed that
there is no force in this appeal, therefore, the present appeal may
kindly be dismissed while maintaining the judgment of the trial
Court acquitting the accused/respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also
scrutinized the record of the case.
The learned trial Court has observed that in the complaint
(Ex.P/18) filed by the brother of the deceased, there is no
allegation that the accused/respondents have demanded dowry
after the marriage. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact
that PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased), PW-13
Uchchhab Kanwar (mother of the deceased) and PW-15 Kalu Singh
(father of the deceased) in their statements have stated that the
accused/respondents have demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry but
such facts have not been disclosed by them in their police
statements.
The learned trial Court has taken note of the fact that as per
the dying declarations of the deceased recorded, after reaching his
father at Jodhpur, the deceased has stated that at the time of
incident, the neighbours were gathered there and helped the
accused/respondents in taking her to the hospital but none of the
neighbours have been examined by the prosecution.
The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the
statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased)
recorded before the Court wherein, he has stated that his father
was not satisfied with the statements given by deceased in which
she has given statements against Gopal Singh (husband of the
deceased) only and his father wanted that all the accused should
be implicated and be charge sheeted in this case and, therefore,
PW-12 has given an application to the City Magistrate for
recording further statements of deceased Indira for the aforesaid
purpose.
The learned trial Court was of the opinion that from the
above statement of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the
deceased), it is clear that the father of the deceased wants to
implicate the mother and father of the accused/respondent Gopal
Singh and, therefore, only for this reason, the deceased Indira has
changed her statements time and again.
The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration the
fact that as many as 5 statements of the deceased were recorded
before her death, three by the police and 2 by the different
Magistrates. In all statements recorded prior to reaching of her
father at Jodhpur, she has not blamed any of the
accused/respondents for the incident but in her statements
recorded on 22.07.1992 (Ex.P/17) by the Magistrate, the
deceased has implicated all the accused/respondents for the
alleged incident and from the evidence of PW-12 Bhanwar Singh,
it is clear that the deceased was under pressure of her father.
The learned trial Court has also taken note of the fact that
PW-12 Bhanwar Singh (brother of the deceased) has also stated
that the further statements of the deceased were recorded by
another Magistrate on 24.07.1992 but no such statement has
been produced on record by the prosecution and from that it
appears that in her last dying declaration, the deceased has not
named the accused/respondents and, therefore, the said
statement has not been produced by the prosecution during the
course of trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
against the accused/respondents beyond reasonable doubt and
the learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire
evidence available on record, has not committed any illegality in
acquitting the accused/respondents from the charges for which
they have been charged.
In view of the above discussions, no case for interference in
the impugned judgment dated 19.08.1993 is made out. Hence,
the present criminal appeal preferred by the appellate State is
dismissed.