Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1723 (RAJ)

RAMBETI W/O PRATAP SINGH DHOBI v. SATISH

2017-08-03

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J Rambeti the mother of Rajkumari is aggrieved by her son-in-law and his mother being acquitted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. 2. It is settled law that every accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and if post trial an accused is acquitted, the presumption gets reinforced. It is equally settled law that exercising revisional power this Court would only look into evidence to see whether the appreciation thereof by the learned trial Judge is on recognised principles of law. If the view taken is a possible view, the revisional court cannot interfere. 3. With this background, relevant would it be to note that the deceased committed suicide by hanging on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd of February, 2005. Information of said fact was conveyed by the accused to the parents of the deceased who immediately reached her matrimonial house. The dead-body of the deceased was identified at the post-mortem and during inquest proceedings by the father and the mother of the deceased. They interacted with the police officers and till when on their statement FIR was registered five days later on 28/02/2005, they did not utter any word that soon before her death the deceased was beaten. They never said that any person in the neighbourhood where their daughter had a matrimonial house told them so. 4. Five days later the parents made statements to the police that their daughter was harassed for dowry and on said account she committed suicide. 5. With reference to the testimony of the father and the mother of the unfortunate girl, who appeared as PW1 and PW4, the learned trial Judge has noted that in their testimony both of them has deposed that when they received information of their daughter having committed suicide they simultaneously learnt that she was beaten in the house of her in-laws. The learned trial Judge has held that this testimony of both is contrary to their conduct, inasmuch as during inquest proceedings they interacted with the police officers and never made any such complaint. Thus, the cause of death being physical assault upon the deceased soon before she committed suicide has been negated by the learned trial Judge. 6. The learned trial Judge has held that this testimony of both is contrary to their conduct, inasmuch as during inquest proceedings they interacted with the police officers and never made any such complaint. Thus, the cause of death being physical assault upon the deceased soon before she committed suicide has been negated by the learned trial Judge. 6. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge has focused on the testimony regarding dowry demands to see whether the same were proximity to the date when the deceased committed suicide for the reason law requires dowry harassment soon before the death to link the death to dowry demand. 7. The discussion starts from paragraph 38 in the impugned judgment. The learned Judge has highlighted that whereas according to the mother the daughter told her two or three months after the marriage that she was being harassed for dowry but PW2 Hakim Singh deposed that dowry demands started after about four months of the marriage. The learned Judge has thereafter noted the testimony of Pratap Singh PW4, the father of the deceased, as per whom for one year after the marriage there was no dowry demand and on the contrary his daughter was looked after well by her in-laws in the matrimonial home. PW5 Phal Singh has deposed the dowry demands started after a year and a half of the marriage. Bahadur Singh PW6 has deposed that dowry demands started after one month of the marriage. The learned Judge has highlighted the latter two being the brothers of the deceased. 8. The learned Judge has found contradictions in the testimony of the brothers, the father and the mother of the victim as regards the date after the marriage when dowry demands were made. 9. The learned Judge has highlighted this to bring home the point that the witnesses could not be believed. The conclusion arrived at is that the link of proximity require by law is not established. 10. I find no perversions in the appreciation of the evidence in so far as the acquittal relates to the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. 11. The conclusion arrived at is that the link of proximity require by law is not established. 10. I find no perversions in the appreciation of the evidence in so far as the acquittal relates to the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. 11. As regards the acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, the testimony of the witnesses being conflicting regarding dates of demand of dowry, the nature of the demand, I concur with the view taken that the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt pertaining to the offence relating to Section 498A IPC. 12. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.