Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1484 (RAJ)

Dharam Pal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-08-29

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant complainant against the judgment dated 10.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 8/2012, whereby the respondents No. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed a complaint against the respondents No. 2 to 6 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gharsana on 8.12.2010. He alleged that the complainant's younger brother Naurang Lal got married with Saroj respondent No. 3 herein on 5.5.2009. He further alleged that his mother Kalawati and father Omprakash lived with Naurang Lal at Village Chak 13KD(B). He further alleged that Hari Ram is the father-in-law of Naurang Lal whilst Mukesh and Shakti Kumar were his brother-in-laws and Kaushalya Devi was his mother-in-law. He alleged that Saroj used to treat Smt. Kalawati and Sh. Omprakash with cruelty. Saroj's parents had assaulted the first informant's parents on not less than 3 to 4 occasions. Sarjo feigned to have consumed spray on 14.10.2010 and got his father too make an unnecessary expenditure of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, his parents were abused and were threatened that they would be killed or their lives would be made miserable. They were forced to fall at the feet of the accused. On 18.10.2010 his parents left the village on a motorcycle on the pretext of bringing medicines. He further averred in the complaint that at about 5.45 P.M. the complainant's father Omprakash called him on his phone and told him that henceforth he should take care of the family as both of them were committing suicide by jumping in the canal near Kapuli. The complainant was also told by the deceased that he was leaving the motorcycle, mobile, shoes etc., near the canal. The complainant was allegedly informed by Sh. Omprakash that the deceased declared that he and Smt. Kalawati had been forced to take this drastic step of ending their lives because of the cruelty committed by Saroj, Hari Ram and his wife. The complainant was also told that the deceased had written a suicide note. After taking the call, the complainant immediately proceeded to the canal near Kapuli. The motorcycle, shoes and the mobile phone of his father were seen scattered near the canal. The complainant was also told that the deceased had written a suicide note. After taking the call, the complainant immediately proceeded to the canal near Kapuli. The motorcycle, shoes and the mobile phone of his father were seen scattered near the canal. His father's dead body was recovered on 20.10.2010 near Chak 13K whilst his mother's dead body was recovered from 3 ND canal. The complainant alleged that on searching the house, a suicide note written by his father was unearthed. Ultimately, it was alleged that his parents had been abetted to commit suicide due to the cruel conduct of the accused. The complainant alleged that he filed an application in the Police Station Anoopgarh for registration of the case on 20.10.2010. The Police however, simply registered a mrig report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The complainant took various respectable persons of the society to the house of the accused by way of a Panchayat. There the accused threatened that they had played their part and that the Panchayat should go away or else another case would be registered by Saroj against them. 3. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Ravla, District Sriganganagar where F.I.R. No. 7/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 120-B of the I.P.C. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents No. 2 to 6 for the aforesaid offences. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the allegations. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they pleaded innocence. They however, did not lead any defence. Learned trial Court at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to acquit the respondents No. 2 to 6 by the judgment dated 10.4.2012. The complainant victim has now approached this Court by way of this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal as recorded by the learned trial Judge. The appeal is belated by 275 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the trial Judge committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents from the charge under Sections 306, 120-B I.P.C. He contended that the deceased Omprakash wrote a dying declaration before jumping into the canal with his wife. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the trial Judge committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents from the charge under Sections 306, 120-B I.P.C. He contended that the deceased Omprakash wrote a dying declaration before jumping into the canal with his wife. The dying declaration specifically refers to the cruel conduct of the accused due to which the deceased were left with no other option but to end their lives. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the first informant Dharampal was sufficient to convict the respondents. He submits that there is a distinct evidence on the record to show that the deceased jumped into the canal and ended their lives as a result of the conduct of the accused, which is squarely covered under the definition of abetment. He thus prays that the appeal deserves to be admitted. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the judgment impugned and the record. 6. The crux of the prosecution story is that PW-2 Naurang Lal was married to Saroj in the year 2009. As per the allegations levelled by the first informant, a marital rift arose between Saroj and Naurang Lal and as a result thereof, Saroj and her parents were threatening the deceased and the other family members of dire consequences. Significant it is to note that Naurang Lal did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. The first informant appellant Dharmapal also deposing a the trial did not make any such statement in this examination-in-chief from which it can be gathered that the respondents herein abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He rather turned hostile and stated that he did not receive any information that his parents were forced by the accused to commit suicide. He denied the suggestions given by the Public Prosecutor in the cross-examination. Thus, the sole evidence, which remained in existence against the accused would be the suicide note purported to have been written by the deceased Omprakash. The suicide note was allegedly recovered whilst inspecting the dead body of the deceased as per the seizure memo prepared by the Police Officer of the Police Station Anoopgarh. Thus, the sole evidence, which remained in existence against the accused would be the suicide note purported to have been written by the deceased Omprakash. The suicide note was allegedly recovered whilst inspecting the dead body of the deceased as per the seizure memo prepared by the Police Officer of the Police Station Anoopgarh. Significant it is to note that on a perusal of the record it is evidence that the suicide note was not proved on record by any witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a copy of the suicide note and the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 8.1.2013 on the record along with the appeal but it is evident that the document was not brought on the record of the trial Court. The witness, who as per Ex.P-7 seizure memo discovered the suicide note was the Inspector Krishna Kumar Pareek but he was not examined at the trial. In this view of the matter, this Court is of he opinion that the trial Judge committed no error, illegality or perversity in acquitting the respondents from the charges under Sections 306 and 120-B I.P.C. The prosecution failed to lead any evidence whatsoever by which the accused could be held guilty of having abetted the suicide committed by Kalawati and Omprakash. The prime evidence in the form of the alleged suicide note was not proved. That apart, from a careful perusal of the suicide note too, it is not possible to reach to a conclusion that the deceased were instigated by the accused for committing suicide. The note at best indicates that the deceased Omprakash and Kalawati were highly perturbed due to the matrimonial differences between Nauranglal and Saroj and the unrelenting attitude of the accused. However, the note does not recite about any recent conduct, act or omission of the accused by which it can be assumed that the deceased were instigated to end their lives. All the witnesses including the first informant turned hostile at the trial. Thus, no fault is found in the judgment impugned whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges. Dharampal has preferred the instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. after a delay of nearly 275 days and no justification is shown on the record for explaining this undue delay. Thus, no fault is found in the judgment impugned whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges. Dharampal has preferred the instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. after a delay of nearly 275 days and no justification is shown on the record for explaining this undue delay. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed both on merits as well as being grossly barred by limitation. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are dismissed. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.Appeal and Application dismissed. *******