AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
22/03/2007 framing charge against him for having committed an
offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, Section 304B IPC and
in the alternative Section 306 IPC. The learned Court of Sessions
has highlighted two aspects while framing the charge. First is the
statement made by Mukesh Agrawal, brother of the deceased and
the second being a F.S.L. Report. The F.S.L. Report opines that
Kerosene residue was detected in the burnt clothes of the
deceased.
The petitioner was married with Indu on 21/05/1994.
On 29/02/2000, just about when the night had set in, Indu
suffered the burn injuries. The petitioner rushed her to the
hospital. Even the petitioner had more than superficial burn
injuries on his face and his fore-arms, which as per the petitioner
were suffered by him when he responded to Indu''s cries of
anguish when she accidentally caught fire while working in the
kitchen and had lit the stove.
The SHO PS Mahila Thana, Ajmer reached the hospital
on information given by the duty constable at the hospital that a
lady was brought to the hospital in a burn condition. At 2.20 am of
01/03/2000 the SHO recorded the statement of Indu in which she
stated that she was married with the petitioner and was residing
in her matrimonial house in Ajmer. She informed that she was
working as an Assistant Clerk with the LIC. Her husband was a
Station Master. That while she was preparing food in the kitchen,
her husband was watching television. Due to malfunction of the
valve there was a sudden burst of fire due to which her clothes
caught fire. She yelled. Her husband rushed. She was married six
years back and the couple were blessed with the children. She was
never troubled by her in-laws. Her in-laws did not reside with her.
Information was given to the Judicial Magistrate who
recorded Indu''s statement in the afternoon of 01/03/2000. The
statement is in question-answer form. Indu once again told the
learned Magistrate that she caught fire accidentally. She had no
grievance against her in-laws. She was treated well by the family
of her in-laws.
Indu died on 05/03/2000. Inquest Report was prepared
by the investigating officer in the presence of Indu''s father
Shambhu Dayal. Even in the Inquest Report, nothing has been
mentioned regarding Indu being set on fire or that Indu
committed suicide by setting herself on fire.
Before Indu died, police recorded statement of Mukesh
Agrawal, brother of Indu on 01/03/2000. Even in the said
statement, Mukesh Agrawal did not speak a single word about his
sister being harassed for dowry otherwise by her husband or her
in-laws.
Suddenly, four days after Indu''s death, on 09/03/2000
Mukesh made a statement to the investigating officer. The
statement was a typed written report given by him as per which
he accused the in-laws of his sister to demand dowry and because
of which she was tense.
Thereafter, investigating officer claims to have seized
the burnt clothes from the house. It needs to be highlighted that
the seizure is more than nine days after the unfortunate day when
Indu caught fire.
The impugned-order has overlooked nine days gap in
the seizure of the burnt clothes of Indu. The learned Judge has
prima-facie opined that in view of the statement made by Indu''s
brother on 09/03/2000 the charge had to be framed.
In my opinion, the impugned-order needs to be set-
aside for the reason it has overlooked two consistent dying
declarations made by Indu which were filed along with the charge-
sheet. The two dying declarations are consistent. Whilst it may be
true that the first dying declaration was made when Indu''s
husband was present in the hospital and thus, a suspicion of
tutoring, but by the time when the second dying declaration was
made her parents and her brother had reached the hospital. Her
husband was admitted for treatment and was not present when
the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded Indu''s second dying
declaration. The second dying declaration is consistent with the
first. Mukesh also made an exculpatory statement regarding
petitioner on 05/03/2000. It was later on after four days that he
gave the incriminating statement. In the said statement, he gave
no explanation as to why he did not say so at the first opportunity.
The recovery of the burnt clothes, as noted above is after nine
days of the incident.
The petition is allowed. Impugned-order dated
22/03/2007 framing the charge against the petitioner is quashed.
The petitioner is acquitted of the offence alleged against him.