State of Rajasthan vs Bhagwati Devi

Sandeep Mehta, J.—1. The instant application has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(iii) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 28.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Act Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 49/2006 acquitting the respondent Bhagwati Devi from the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC while convicting her for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and extending the benefit of probation to her.

Facts in brief are that the complainant Banwari Lal Pareek submitted a written report (Ex. P/3) at the Police Station Shahpura on 27.03.2006 with the allegation that his sister Pinky was married to Durgesh son of Omprakash (resident of Shanti Nagar, Shahpura) on 16.01.2005. After the marriage, Durgesh and his family members were continuously treating his sister with cruelty, mental as well as physical, on account of demand of dowry. His sister, being a cultured Hindu lady, used to tolerate the ill behaviour meted out by her in-laws. On 17.03.2006, the complainant''s mother and friend Rishpal Jat went to his sister''s matrimonial home at Shahpura. Pinky cried in their presence and told them that her in-laws were demanding that she had to bring a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her paternals. She was threatened that if the demand was not met, then she would be killed. His mother pleaded with the in-laws that they were poor and could not arrange for this huge amount. Thereafter, she came back. On the very next day i.e. 18.03.2006, at about 09.00 am., Durgesh, his father Omprakash, his mother Bhagwati, sisters Nitu and Antima, caught hold of Pinky and set her to fire after pouring kerosene on her and locked her up in the bathroom. Thereafter, the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law went out of the home. Two sisters of Durgesh were left behind, who raised a hue and cry on which, the neighbours came there and brought the victim out of the bathroom. She was taken to the hospital. The first informant claims to have received the information of the incident from some unknown person. He reached the Bhilwara Hospital from where, his sister was referred to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur. She passed away on 22.03.2006. Her body was subjected to postmortem at Jaipur. Thereafter, the report was submitted by Banwari Lal alleging that his sister was murdered as she failed to meet the demands made by the accused. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 51/2006 was registered at the Police Station Shahpura for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304B IPC and investigation commenced.

It may be noted that after receiving the burns, Smt. Pinky was immediately taken to the Shahpura Hospital and then on to the M.G.H. Hospital, Bhilwara where her statement was recorded by Shri Ladu Lal Daroga (PW-18), the Head Constable posted at the Police Outpost, MGH Bhilwara, in presence of Dr. V.D. Sharma on 18.03.2006 at 02.50 pm. In such statement, Smt. Pinky stated that she was married to Durgesh on 16.01.2005. She was issueless. In the morning, she was washing clothes in the bathroom of her matrimonial home at Shahpura. The tube of the gas geyser burst due to which, she got burnt. Her sisters-in-law Savita @ Nitu and the neighbours Hariram Jangir and Ashish took her to the hospital for providing treatment. The investigating officer, while conducting the site inspection, noticed that a gas geyser was installed and a gas cylinder was also lying in the bathroom. The gas pipe for supplying gas to the geyser was severed. The floor and the walls of the bathroom were blackened by soot. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer against the respondent mother-in-law Smt. Bhagwati devi and the husband Durgesh. The case was committed and transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur for trial. The trial court framed charges against the husband Durgesh and the respondent mother-in-law Bhagwati Devi for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304B of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court examined Dr. V.D. Sharma who recorded the statement (Ex. D/1) given by the deceased at the Government Hospital, Bhilwara as a court witness. The accused took a defence that the deceased was taking bath in the bathroom. A gas geyser was fixed in the bathroom. The pipe of the gas geyser got severed due to which, flames spread in the bathroom and the deceased caught fire as a result thereof.

The trial court, upon conclusion of trial, convicted the accused respondent Bhagwati Devi for the offence under Section 498A IPC, however, she was acquitted from the charge for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. She was ordered to be released on probation by extending the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused Durgesh being the husband of the deceased Smt. Pinky was acquitted of both the charges. The State of Rajasthan has now approached this Court by way of this application for leave to appeal assailing the acquittal of the respondent Bhagwati from the charge under Section 304B of the IPC.

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the respondent and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record.

The prime evidence available on the record of the case is in the form of the statement of deceased Smt. Pinky (Ex. D/1) wherein, she stated that she was washing clothes in the bathroom. The pipe of the gas geyser fixed in the bathroom burst and she was engulfed in the flames. Her initial medical examination was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Gyan Prakash Maheshwari, the Medical Officer at the Satellite Hospital, Shahpura. He stated that the clothes of the deceased were wet at the time of examination. Scald marks caused by hot water were noticed on her body. Her hair was not singed. No smell of kerosene was noticed while conducting her medical examination. Smt. Pinky expired on 22.03.2006 at Jaipur and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken on the very same day. Her brother, the first informant Banwari Lal was also a signatory to the inquest proceedings. In the Panchnama, it has been specifically noted that the Panchas gave an opinion that the deceased caught fire because of leakage of gas from the gas pipe and no suspicious circumstance existed regarding her death. The deadbody was handed over to the husband Durgesh for cremation with the consent of the first informant. The FIR was filed after about 10 days of the alleged incident of burning and after 5 days of the death of Smt. Pinky. The statement of the independent neighbours who admittedly reached at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and took the lady to the hospital, clearly indicate that the deceased received burn injuries in the accident caused by bursting of the gas pipe. The witnesses PW-7 Hariram Jangir, PW-10 Suresh Kumar Suthar, PW-14 Priyavrat and PW-20 Avinash Sharma, emphatically stated in their evidence that they talked the deceased Pinky, who told them that she caught fire accidentally. These are all independent witnesses who met the deceased immediately after the accident. The complainant and his family members were admittedly not present at the place of occurrence when the incident occurred. The witnesses, who were admittedly present at the scene of occurrence, clearly bely the theory that the deceased was burnt to death after pouring kerosene on her. The medical evidence available on record also belies this theory.

From the evidence available on record, it was established beyond all manner of doubt that the deceased received burns in an accident. Thus, the trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the accused were not liable for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The allegations of harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry are almost common as against the husband Durgesh and the respondent mother-in-law Bhagwati Devi. The husband Durgesh was acquitted from both the charges whereas the mother-in-law Smt. Bhagwati was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC only. The State has not challenged the acquittal of the husband Durgesh in this application for leave to appeal.

In this background, this Court is of the opinion that no justifiable grounds are available so as to grant leave to the State for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Act Cases), Bhilwara does not suffer from any shortcomings irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.

The application for leave to appeal thus being devoid of any merit is rejected.