Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 185 (RAJ)

Shyambihari v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-22

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
ORDER This criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 22-2-2011, passed by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Kota in Sessions Case No. 51/2006, whereby the accused-respondent No.2, Suresh Kumar, has been acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Kota on 5-6-2006 with regard to an incident of 27-5-2006 by Shyambihari (PW.2) stating therein that the marriage of his daughter, Radha Bai, was solemnized with the accused-respondent No. 2, Suresh Kumar on 15-5-2005 during a community marriage ceremony at Sesswali according to Hindu rites. It was stated that at the time of marriage, various ornaments and articles, as detailed in the report, were given in dowry. It was also alleged that after the marriage of his daughter she used to state when visiting her maternal home that her sister-in-law (Jethani) Savitri Bai used to have trances and while under a trance received divine messages that for the peace and well being of the family human sacrifice was required. According to complainant, the deceased told her mother that the human sacrifice sought was that of 5-6 months yet unborn child in Radhabai's womb. It was alleged that owing to apprehension about safety of her unborn child, Radhabai was apprehensive of returning to her matrimonial home, but was persuaded to go by her parents. It was stated that on 13-3-2006 the marriage of his younger daughter Rukmani was solemnised in community marriage. It was submitted that the in-laws of Radhabai were piqued at Radhabai being given a lesser dowry than the dowry given to her younger sister Rukmani. It was stated that on 27-5-2006, the complainant received a telephone call informing him that his daughter Radhabai had died. The complainant then rushed to Radhabai's matrimonial home and was told on reaching that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with her sasree. On the report so lodged FIR No. 115/2006 was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, namely Suresh Kumar, Banwari Lal, Chanda Bai under Sections 304B, 120B IPC. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Kota. Statements of witnesses were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, namely Suresh Kumar, Banwari Lal, Chanda Bai under Sections 304B, 120B IPC. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Kota. At the stage of framing of charge, accused Banwari Lal and Champabai were discharged of the alleged offences u/Ss. 304B and 120B IPC. The accused respondents Suresh Kumar was however charged for an offence u/S. 304B IPC. He denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C., the appellant claimed innocence and denied all charges. No witness in defence was however examined. The learned trial Judge taking evidence as submitted and on hearing final submissions acquitted the accused respondent of the charge u/S. 304B IPC. Hence, this appeal by the complainant challenging the acquittal of accused respondent. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondent and perused the impugned judgment dated 22-2-2011. 4. The trial Court while acquitting the accused respondent has taken into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the complaint initially lodged contained no allegation of demand of dowry but was limited to the deceased being under apprehension owing to her perception that she would be required to sacrifice her child when born for the well being, prosperity and happiness of the matrimonial family. The trial Court considered the fact that neighbours of deceased's matrimonial home did not support the allegations for demand of dowry. The trial Court also noted the fact that the prosecution after first finding the causation for the suicide in the apprehension of deceased in the alleged pressure to sacrifice the yet unborn child for the welfare and happiness of matrimonial family, had subsequently introduced the demand for dowry as a causation of suicide by the deceased. The trial Court also noted the fact that the prosecution after first finding the causation for the suicide in the apprehension of deceased in the alleged pressure to sacrifice the yet unborn child for the welfare and happiness of matrimonial family, had subsequently introduced the demand for dowry as a causation of suicide by the deceased. The trial Court found that prosecution witnesses Jagdish (PW.3) and Rajendra Kumar (PW.4) had stated that initially the family of the deceased had made no complaint whatsoever about the demand for dowry to the SDM, who visited the place of incident immediately after the suicide the family of the deceased had instead stated that deceased Radhabai had been well kept at her matrimonial home. The trial Court also took note of the fact that from the evidence of independent witnesses it appeared that the deceased Radhabai herself was unhappy at her perceived discrimination by her parents vis-a-vis her younger sister Rukmani who had been given a better dowry at the time of her marriage than the dowry she had been earlier given. The trial Court further found that even from the evidence of father, mother, uncle as also sister of the deceased Radhbai there was no consistent evidence with regard to demand of dowry soon before the death of Radhabai. The trial Court held that the allegations of demand of dowry were vague, non-specific at times contradictory and even false. Holding so, the trial Court concluded that in the overall facts of the case particularly with reference to the complaint (Ex. D-2) and the enquiry report (Ex. D-7) no case under Section 304-B IPC was made out beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and hence acquitted him. 5. In my considered opinion, the reasonings of the trial Court, and its appreciation of evidence before it do not call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction against an order of acquittal. It is not disputed that the FIR was belatedly lodged, and no allegation of demand of dowry was made initially. Subsequent allegations of demand of dowry were vitiated by inconsistencies and improvements by the prosecution witnesses. Initially the FIR was lodged against 8 persons, implicating all family members of the husband of the deceased, yet the police filed challan only against three persons i.e. husband accused respondent Suresh Kumar, father-in-law Bhanwar Lal, and mother-in-law Champabai. Subsequent allegations of demand of dowry were vitiated by inconsistencies and improvements by the prosecution witnesses. Initially the FIR was lodged against 8 persons, implicating all family members of the husband of the deceased, yet the police filed challan only against three persons i.e. husband accused respondent Suresh Kumar, father-in-law Bhanwar Lal, and mother-in-law Champabai. However, Bhanwar Lal and Champabai were discharged by the trial Court, and only accused respondent Suresh Kumar was put to trial. Fundamentally, the falsity of a case is evident where eight persons were named in the FIR, and only one accused was put to trial. It is not disputed that deceased Radhabai was married in a community marriage ceremony and admittedly no dowry was demanded. The independent witnesses Jagdish (PW.3) Rajendra Kumar (PW.4) have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution initially set up a causation for the suicide by the deceased with reference to her apprehension of her yet unborn child being sacrificed. Subsequently, the issue of demand of dowry was introduced, as the causation of suicide, which the trial Court found unbelievable in the facts of the case. 6. The scope of interference by the appellate Court against an order of acquittal has been well considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Prakashan v. P. K. Surendran ( (2008) 1 SCC 258 ) it has been held that only when the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or suffered from any legal infirmity or the trial Judge failed to consider the evidence brought on record and/or mis-appreciated the same, appellate Court can interfere. It was further held that if even two views of the evidence are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible to be taken. The appellate Court's jurisdiction to interfere is limited. The judgment of the trial Court is neither perverse nor based on misapplication of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no substantial and compelling reason has been advanced by the complainant to allow the appeal against the judgment dated 22-2-2011 in Sessions Case No. 51/2006 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Kota. 7. I therefore find no force in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.