Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1470 (RAJ)

Kampoori Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-13

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 3.5.2013 passed by the Trial Court, whereby, she was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 302, 304B, 498A, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'). 2. Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, 304B I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees five thousand under Section 302 I.P.C. and would undergo three months rigorous imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498A I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand and in default of payment of fine, appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand and in default of payment of fine, appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that Chinta got married to Babulal on 27.04.2009. Father of Chinta had died about ten years prior to her marriage. At the time of marriage of Chinta, gold and silver jewellery was given and Rupees fifty one thousand in cash were given. However, after marriage, in-laws family of Chinta raised a demand of a motorcycle and Rupees one lac in cash. Chinta was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. After about twelve months of her marriage, Chinta was burnt alive by her in-laws family by pouring kerosene oil on her. The body was cremated by the in-laws family of Chinta without informing the parental family of Chinta. Harkesh, uncle of the deceased approached the police on 3.7.2010. On the basis of his statement, formal FIR No.479 dated 3.7.2010 was registered at Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa under Section 304B, 201 I.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against accused Kampoori Devi under Section 302, 304B, 498A and 201 I.P.C. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302, 304B, 498A and 201 I.P.C. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein, she prayed that she had been falsely involved in this case. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein, she prayed that she had been falsely involved in this case. They had neither raised any demand of dowry from Chinta nor they had burnt her alive. In-fact, family members of Chinta had attended the funeral ceremony and had thereafter, demanded money from them. When the said demand could not be met, they had falsely involved her in this case. Appellant did not examine any witness in her defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution had failed to prove its case. There was no material on record to establish that the death of the deceased was an unnatural death. In-fact, deceased had died a natural death and her family members had attended the funeral of the deceased. Parental family of the deceased had demanded money from the appellant and her co-accused in a Panchayat convened by them. When the said demand raised by the parental family of the deceased could not be met by the appellant and her family members, they had been falsely involved in this case. 8. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the deceased had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. Deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. 9. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. In his cross-examination, he deposed that information of the murder of Chinta had been given to him by Sitaram and Tej Singh after ten/twelve days of the occurrence. Statement of the complainant has been corroborated by PW-2 Kailashi (mother of the deceased), PW-3 Murarilal, PW-4 Rampati, PW-5 Ramesh and PW-6 Vishram. 10. PW-7 Sitaram, PW-8 Ramavtar, PW-9 Kamlesh, PW-10 Tej Singh, PW-11 Manohari @ Manohar, PW-12 Aklesh and PW-13 Rajendra, have not supported the prosecution case, during trial and were declared hostile. 11. PW-15 Dharmendra, Investigating Officer has deposed that FIR was registered on 3.7.2010 and thereafter, he had prepared the site plan Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4. Ashes and bones of the deceased where she was cremated were taken in possession vide Exhibit-P13 and the same were sent for chemical examination. 11. PW-15 Dharmendra, Investigating Officer has deposed that FIR was registered on 3.7.2010 and thereafter, he had prepared the site plan Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4. Ashes and bones of the deceased where she was cremated were taken in possession vide Exhibit-P13 and the same were sent for chemical examination. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when he had inspected the room where Chinta had been allegedly burnt, he found that the room was not black. Doors were also not burnt. There was no smell of kerosene oil. 12. In the present case, charges have been framed against the appellant under Section 302 as well as 304B I.P.C. 13. In order to establish that the deceased had been murdered by the accused, prosecution was required to lead evidence to the effect that the death of the deceased was not a natural death, but she had been murdered by the accused. 14. In order to establish that it was a case of dowry death, prosecution is required to establish that the deceased had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage and there were allegations of cruelty or harassment meted out to her by her in-laws family in connection with demand of dowry. 15. Thus, first and foremost thing that is required to be proved by the prosecution is that the deceased has died an unnatural death. In this regard, cause of death of the deceased would be a relevant factor. However, there is no postmortem examination report on record to establish the cause of death of the deceased. Thus, in the present case, there is no positive evidence on record that the deceased has died an unnatural death. The first ingredient to establish that it was a case of murder or dowry death is, thus, missing in the present case. Prosecution has not examined any witness in whose presence the crime had been committed. In a murder case resting on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to prove chain of circumstances which lead to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e., the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances should be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and should lead to the conclusion that the only possibility was that the accused has committed the crime. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances should be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and should lead to the conclusion that the only possibility was that the accused has committed the crime. The chain of circumstances should negate the innocence of the accused. 16. Let us examine the present case as to whether it can be said to be a case of murder of deceased Chinta resting on circumstantial evidence or it is a case of dowry death. 17. Complainant as well as other relatives of the deceased have stated that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry by her in-laws family. It is further their case that they came to know about the crime after twelve/thirteen days of the incident. As per the complainant, he had been informed by Sitaram and Tej Singh that Chinta had died. However, witnesses Sitaram and Tej Singh have not corroborated the statement of complainant, during trial. 18. It is the prosecution story that the deceased was set on fire in her matrimonial home, but from the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that when he prepared the site plan, he did not find that the room where the deceased had been set on fire was black or the doors were burnt. He also did not find any smell of kerosene oil in the room. 19. As per the FIR, village of the complainant Balahera is attached to Police Station Bandikui and the village of the accused i.e. Dhand Husaino Ka Bas is also attached to Police Station Bandikui. Thus, it can be said that the villages of the complainant as well as the accused are close-by as they fall within the jurisdiction of the same police station. Hence, the story put forth by the complainant that they came to know about the death of Chinta after ten/twelve days, does not inspire confidence. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in lodging the FIR gains significance and the possibility that the delay in lodging the FIR has been used to put up a concocted story by the complainant party against the accused to falsely involve them in this case cannot be ruled out. 20. There is no postmortem report on record to establish that the deceased had died an unnatural death. 20. There is no postmortem report on record to establish that the deceased had died an unnatural death. Under normal circumstances, in case, the deceased had been burnt by the accused as alleged by the complainant, then villagers would have protested. Rather the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case to the effect that the deceased had been set on fire by the accused. Independent witness Sitaram had stated that the deceased had died a natural death. He had not seen the deceased in a burnt condition nor she had been taken to the hospital. The said witness had deposed that the information was given to the complainant with regard to the death of the deceased and twenty/thirty persons had come from her parental family to attend her cremation. 21. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory has also not been proved on record to strengthen the prosecution case. 22. It is a settled preposition of law that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt against the accused. In case, there is any doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. 23. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The prosecution story is rendered doubtful as there is no postmortem examination on record to establish that the deceased had died an unnatural death. FIR has been lodged after a delay of about fifteen days. However, there is no satisfactory explanation on record with regard to the said delay. 24. Since, the prosecution had failed to establish the first ingredient that the deceased had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, hence, presumption cannot be drawn that it is a case of a dowry death. 25. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish that the deceased had been murdered or that it was a case of dowry death. 26. Accordingly, appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against her by giving her benefit of doubt. 27. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Judgment/order of the trial court dated 3.5.2013 are set aside. Conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant-Smt. Kampoori Devi W/o Shri Bharat Lal Meena is set aside and she is acquitted of the charges framed against her under Sections 302, 304B 498A and 201 of the I.P.C.