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.