Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1557 (RAJ)

Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-17

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been preferred by appellant Shyam Singh being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Woman Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 17/2008, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as below:- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 323 IPC Simple imprisonment for three months Section 325 IPC Simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for a term of life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one year All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 3. Smt. Anchi Devi, Banshi Singh and Mangu Singh, the parents and brother of Smt. Paras Devi (deceased), submitted a complaint (Ex.P/6) to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara on 04.01.2008 alleging inter alia that Smt. Paras Devi had been married to Shyam Singh (appellant herein) about 15 years ago. Two children were born from the wedlock. Paras Devi was regularly being harassed, humiliated and tortured in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. On 30.12.2007, her husband Shyam Singh poured kerosene on her body and set her to fire and tried to kill her. Before getting the lady admitted to the hospital, she was threatened that she should give a statement that she accidentally caught fire owing to falling of a burning Chimney. The complainants alleged in the complaint that Smt. Paras wanted to give a correct statement before the Magistrate so that justice could be done and appropriate action could be taken against her matrimonial relatives. The report was forwarded to the Police Station Shambhoogarh, District Bhilwara, where an FIR No. 1/2008 (Ex.P/16) was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 IPC. 4. A few facts preceding this set of events need to be taken note of. Smt. Paras Devi was admitted at the Government Hospital, Bhilwara in a burnt condition on 30.12.2007. Information of this incident was sent to the Police Station, Shambhoogarh. 4. A few facts preceding this set of events need to be taken note of. Smt. Paras Devi was admitted at the Government Hospital, Bhilwara in a burnt condition on 30.12.2007. Information of this incident was sent to the Police Station, Shambhoogarh. The SHO Shri Harshraj Singh went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Smt. Paras Devi on 31.12.2007, wherein Smt. Paras Devi divulged that she was sleeping in her room at 10’o clock in the night. A chimney was burning on the sill above, which fell down accidentally, due to which, she got burnt. It is also relevant to mention here that while the lady was being admitted in the Government Hospital, Bhilwara, the following noting was made in the bed-head ticket : "History of burn by kerosine oil chimney. Smell of kerosine." 5. After lodging of the report aforesaid by the matrimonial relatives of the deceased and registration of the FIR, the statement of Smt. Paras Devi was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Shri Manoj Kumar Goyal at the M.G.H., Bhilwara under Section 164 CrPC after ascertaining her physical and mental capability. In the said statement, Smt. Paras alleged that she had been married to Shyam Singh about 20 years ago. Her husband was a habitual drunkard. In the night of 30.12.2007 at 10’o clock, he came home in a drunk condition. Her children had gone to sleep. Her husband poured kerosene on her person, set her to fire and thereafter he ran away. Her sister-in-law Seeta came and she and her son poured water and tried to douse the fire. She further alleged that first her husband quarrelled with her under the influence of liquor and thereafter, he poured kerosene on her person from a jerrycan of 5 litres. 6. The appellant herein was also admitted in the hospital on 06.01.2008. He was having burn injuries on both the hands and the neck. Mahendra Singh, 7 years old son of the deceased and the appellant, also sustained a few burn injuries. Smt. Paras Devi passed away on 16.01.2008 in the morning at about 8.40 a.m. Her dead body was subjected to postmortem at the M.G.H., Bhilwara. The doctor conducting the postmortem issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/17) opining that the cause of death of Smt. Paras Devi was septicemia caused by excessive burns. 7. Smt. Paras Devi passed away on 16.01.2008 in the morning at about 8.40 a.m. Her dead body was subjected to postmortem at the M.G.H., Bhilwara. The doctor conducting the postmortem issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/17) opining that the cause of death of Smt. Paras Devi was septicemia caused by excessive burns. 7. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 325 and 323 IPC. Since the offences were triable by Sessions, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Woman Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, who framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 304-B, 325 and 323 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents in support of its case. 8. Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the appellant claimed that Smt. Paras Devi had been tutored by her parents to give a false statement against him. She accidentally caught fire as the burning chimney fell on her. He tried to save her and himself got burnt in the process. The accused got himself and his elder brother Mahaveer Singh examined in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict the appellant as above vide judgment dated 22.11.2012. Hence, this appeal. 9. Shri Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. The dying declaration (Ex.P/9) of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate Shri Manoj Kumar Goyal does not inspire confidence and does not disclose a truthful version of the incident. The deceased, as a matter of fact, was tutored by her parents to give a false statement implicating the accused owing to ill-will. The child Mahendra was taken into custody by the parents of the deceased and they tutored him as well to give a false statement against the appellant. The deceased, as a matter of fact, was tutored by her parents to give a false statement implicating the accused owing to ill-will. The child Mahendra was taken into custody by the parents of the deceased and they tutored him as well to give a false statement against the appellant. He urged that the fact that in the first statement of the deceased, she categorically mentioned that she received the burn injuries accidentally as the burning chimney fell on her, as reproduced in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/15), and the fact that the complaint came to be lodged after a delay of 5 days, is sufficient to discard the subsequent statement (Dying declaration, Ex.P/9) of the deceased recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which obviously was a tutored version. He further urged that the appellant himself received 25 to 30 percent burns on his hands and neck in the very same incident and thus, it is manifest that he was trying to save the deceased when he himself got burnt and thus, the belated theory of intentional assault is falsified. As per learned counsel, the factum of injuries noticed on the body of the accused provides ample proof regarding his innocence. He also urged that the trial court has disbelieved the prosecution charge of the accused having harassed the deceased on account of demand of dowry and acquitted him of the charge under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. He, thus, craved acceptance of the appeal imploring the court to set aside the impugned judgment. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that the prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence, which has to be treated sufficient to satisfy the court that the deceased was burnt to death and that the appellant is the perpetrator of the offence. He urged that the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, which is the house of the accused on 05.01.2008 and prepared a site plan (Ex.P/5). In this site plan, no sill of any kind is shown on which the so-called chimney was lying. Even the chimney was nowhere to be seen. He urged that the fictitious defence of the accused that his wife Smt. Paras caught fire because of a burning chimney falling on top of her is absolutely untenable. In this site plan, no sill of any kind is shown on which the so-called chimney was lying. Even the chimney was nowhere to be seen. He urged that the fictitious defence of the accused that his wife Smt. Paras caught fire because of a burning chimney falling on top of her is absolutely untenable. Initially Smt. Paras Devi was threatened by the accused that she would face dire consequences, if she told the truth and the lady buckled down to the pressure exerted on her by the accused and gave the statement of receiving the burn injuries in an accident. However, as per him, the fact regarding presence of smell of kerosene on the body of Smt. Paras Devi, when she was admitted to the hospital, completely rules out the possibility of her having received these burns by a burning chimney falling on her. He further urged that the child witness Mahendra (P.W.7) has given clinching evidence against the appellant, his own father, stating that he demanded money to purchase liquor from his mother. She was not having any money, whereupon, the accused first beat her up and then set her to fire after pouring kerosene on her body. Learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the evidence of the defence witnesses is totally unconvincing. The accused appears to have set fire to the deceased in a fit of rage because he was denied money for buying liquor. Thereafter realizing the consequences of his act, he made a futile attempt of saving her and received trivial burn injuries in this process. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, merely because the accused tried to save his wife after setting her to fire, by itself would not dilute the gravity of the charge. On these grounds, he implored the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar, minutely sifted through the record and threadbare re-appreciated the evidence available on the record. 11. The admitted facts as available on record clearly indicate that the deceased received extensive burn injuries in the night of 30.12.2007. She was got admitted in the hospital by her matrimonial relatives in the early hours of 31.12.2007. A clear note is made in the bed-head ticket that Smt. Paras Devi got burn injuries by falling of a burning injury. The admitted facts as available on record clearly indicate that the deceased received extensive burn injuries in the night of 30.12.2007. She was got admitted in the hospital by her matrimonial relatives in the early hours of 31.12.2007. A clear note is made in the bed-head ticket that Smt. Paras Devi got burn injuries by falling of a burning injury. The statement of Smt. Paras was recorded on the very same day by the SHO Shri Harshraj Singh (P.W.13) and was reproduced in the Roznamcha, in which Smt. Paras clearly stated that she received the burn injuries by accidental fall of a burning chimney on her. This statement was entered in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/15). A very significant fact, which elicited from the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) recorded by the Magistrate on 03.01.2008, is that in this statement there is no such allegation that she had been pressurized by her husband or any other matrimonial relative to give statement that she received the burns because a burning chimney fell on her accidentally. 12. P.W.1 Seeta is the sister-in-law of the accused appellant. She was declared hostile by the prosecution because she resiled from her police statement (Ex.D/1). She stated that she heard the cries of Parasi, on which, she rushed to her house. Shyam Singh had lifted Parsi in his arms and was taking her to water tank to douse the fire. She asked Parsi as to the cause of the burns, on which she replied that the burning chimney fell on her. The statement of Smt. Seeta is duly corroborated by the medico-legal report of Shyam Singh (Ex.P/11), which shows that he received 25 to 30% burns involving both his hands and neck. 13. Hardev Singh (P.W.2) and Bhopal Singh (P.W.3) were formal witnesses of seizure memo of burnt clothes and the site plan etc. The witnesses Bhopal Singh of course stated in his cross-examination that he himself saw the chimney falling on Smt. Paras Devi, but manifestly, this version of the witness is totally false and fabricated because even the accused has not taken any such plea that Bhopal Singh was present in his house when Parsi got burnt. 14. Banshi Singh (P.W.4) is the father of the deceased. In his evidence, he alleged that his son-in-law Shyam Singh used to beat and torment Paras Kanwar. 14. Banshi Singh (P.W.4) is the father of the deceased. In his evidence, he alleged that his son-in-law Shyam Singh used to beat and torment Paras Kanwar. He received an information on 31.12.2007 through his wife regarding Paras Kanwar having got burnt. He used to stay at Gujarat and reached Bhilwara on the third day. When he and his wife met Parsi, she confided in them that her husband told her to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- so that he could consume liquor. Parsi resisted, on which Shyam Singh poured kerosene on her person. He proved the complaint (Ex.P/6), on the basis whereof, the FIR came to be lodged. In cross-examination, the defence gave a suggestion to the witness that Paras Devi initially disclosed that she had received the burns by a chimney. The witness expressed in cross-examination that his daughter confided in him that she was pressurized and threatened that she would be cut to pieces, if she gave a statement of having been set to fire. The defence also tried to elicit from the witness that the two sons of the deceased had been taken away by him and that he was enjoying their earnings. However, the witness denied this suggestion. 15. Anchi Devi (P.W.5), being the mother of the deceased, also stated that Shyam Singh used to quarrel with Paras after consuming liquor. They received information regarding Paras Kanwar having got burnt, upon which, they came down to Bhilwara. At the hospital, Paras told her that her husband demanded money from her. When she refused, he poured kerosene on her body and set her to fire. In cross-examination, the witness was asked about the first statement of Paras, in which she had disclosed that she had received the burns accidentally. In reply to a question, the witness initially admitted that Paras had been tutored to give the statement, but then she changed her stance and stated that nothing of this sort was told to Paras. A suggestion was also given to the witness that Paras Kanwar got the injuries because of the burning chimney fell on her and that they demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the accused. However, the witness denied this suggestion. 16. Shri Manoj Goyal (P.W.6), posted as the Judicial Magistrate, Kotadi at the relevant point of time, proved that he recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) of Smt. Paras at the hospital. 1,00,000/- from the accused. However, the witness denied this suggestion. 16. Shri Manoj Goyal (P.W.6), posted as the Judicial Magistrate, Kotadi at the relevant point of time, proved that he recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) of Smt. Paras at the hospital. In cross-examination, the witness categorically stated that when he recorded the statement, nobody else was present in the room. 17. The most important witness of the prosecution is Mahendra (P.W.7), being the younger son of the appellant and the deceased. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on the fateful night, he was sleeping with his mother. His father (the appellant herein) came home at 10’o clock in the night and demanded money from his mother for consuming liquor. She was not having any money and thus, she refused. Thereafter, the accused kicked her and then set her to fire after pouring kerosene on her body. The kerosene was in a can. His father had lit the fire with a matchstick, which was lying in his pocket. The witness stated that he tried to douse the fire of his mother and he himself got burnt in this process. Thereafter, his uncle Mahaveer and aunt Seeta came around. His mother was admitted in hospital by his uncle and aunt. They called his maternal grandmother and then went away. His mother passed away 17 days later. In cross examination, he stated that his elder brother Durgesh was living with his maternal grandparents at Gujarat. He was doing a job there and would give his earnings to his grandparents. The witness denied that the statement of his mother was recorded by the police officers at Asind. He admitted that his mother told his maternal grandmother that initially she told the police officials that she had got burnt because the burning chimney fell on her as she had been told by Mahaveer and Seeta to say so. The witness was also given a suggestion that his father was intending to sell his field, to which his mother resisted and his maternal grandparents also opposed the sale. He stated that his father used to consume liquor and had taken a significant loan. He denied that his father was asked to transfer the land in his and his brothers names. The witness admitted that there was an electricity connection in their house, but when the power was cut, chimney was lit. He stated that his father used to consume liquor and had taken a significant loan. He denied that his father was asked to transfer the land in his and his brothers names. The witness admitted that there was an electricity connection in their house, but when the power was cut, chimney was lit. The witness denied that his mother had received burn injuries because the burning chimney fell on her. He also denied that his father received the burn injuries while trying to save his mother. 18. Dr. Sunil Upmanyu (P.W.16) was posted at the M.G.H., Bhilwara on 31.12.2007. He proved the bed-head ticket (Ex.D/3), whereby Paras Devi was admitted in the hospital at 4.44 a.m. Being a prosecution witness, the doctor clearly stated that the deceased told him that the burning chimney fell on her while cooking food. On perusal of the bed-head ticket (Ex.D/3), it is clear that it bears the remark "History of burn by kerosene oil chimney. Smell of kerosine". However, it is not mentioned in the bed-head ticket that the deceased told that she was cooking food when the chimney fell on her. 19. Jagdish Singh (P.W.8) is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He gave evidence akin to what was stated by Smt. Anchi Devi (P.W.5), Banshi Singh (P.W.4) and Mahendra (P.W.7). In cross-examination, he admitted that the police recorded the statement of Paras, but at that time, she was in shock and fear of her matrimonial relatives and therefore, she stated that she got burnt because the burning chimney fell on her. The witness further admitted that when the Magistrate recorded the statement of Paras, her parents and all other relatives were present in the hospital. 20. Durgesh (P.W.9), being the son of the deceased, also alleged in his statement that his father used to beat his mother and demanded money from her. He poured kerosene on his mother and set her to fire. However, he admitted that he was not present at the house when the incident took place. Manifestly, this witness must have reached the hospital after the incident had taken place. 21. Laxmi Narayan Sen (P.W.10) and Tejmal (P.W.11) are formal witnesses. 22. Dr. Ratan Prakash Nuwal (P.W.12) proved the injury reports of the accused Shyam Singh and the witness Mahendra Singh. 23. Mangu Singh (P.W.14) is the younger brother of Smt. Paras. Manifestly, this witness must have reached the hospital after the incident had taken place. 21. Laxmi Narayan Sen (P.W.10) and Tejmal (P.W.11) are formal witnesses. 22. Dr. Ratan Prakash Nuwal (P.W.12) proved the injury reports of the accused Shyam Singh and the witness Mahendra Singh. 23. Mangu Singh (P.W.14) is the younger brother of Smt. Paras. He too gave testimony on the same lines as deposed by Anchi Devi (P.W.5), Banshi Singh (P.W.4) and Mahendra (P.W.7). 24. Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta (P.W.15) is the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. In his cross examination, he admitted that the burn wounds got septic and that led to death of Smt. Paras. 25. Harshraj Singh (P.W.13) was posted as the SHO, Police Station Shambhoogarh. He gave evidence regarding the steps taken during investigation, which have already been narrated above. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on 31.12.2007, he received information from the Control Room, Bhilwara regarding Smt. Paras Devi having been admitted in the M.G.H., Bhilwara. He reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Paras Devi on the same day in presence of the doctor. The statement so recorded in which Smt. Paras Devi admitted having received burns accidentally by falling of a burning chimney was entered in the Roznamcha (Ex.P/15). He also admitted that Shyam Singh himself received injuries in this very incident and he was treated for his burns. 26. On over all appreciation of the evidence available on record, the following facts emerge. 27. That the deceased Smt. Paras Devi was married to the appellant Shyam Singh about 20 years ago. They had two children Mahendra (P.W.7) and Durgesh (P.W.9). Smt. Paras received the burn injuries on the night intervening 30.12.2007 and 31.12.2007. She was taken to the M.G.H., Hospital, Bhilwara and was admitted therein by her matrimonial relatives. Information was sent to the Police Station Shambhoogarh. Shri Harshraj Singh, posted as SHO, recorded the statement of Smt. Paras Devi and entered the same in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/15). In this statement Smt. Paras stated that she received the burns by an accidental fall of a burning chimney. Thereafter, the belated complaint (Ex.P/6) came to be filed by Anchi Devi (P.W.5), Banshi Singh (P.W.4) and Mahendra (P.W.7), parents and brother of the deceased respectively on 04.01.2008. In this statement Smt. Paras stated that she received the burns by an accidental fall of a burning chimney. Thereafter, the belated complaint (Ex.P/6) came to be filed by Anchi Devi (P.W.5), Banshi Singh (P.W.4) and Mahendra (P.W.7), parents and brother of the deceased respectively on 04.01.2008. Significantly enough, in this complaint, it is nowhere mentioned that Shyam Singh demanded money from the deceased to consume liquor and on refusal, he set her to fire. In pursuance of the complaint, the FIR was registered and the dying declaration of Smt. Paras Devi was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 03.01.2008 at 09.55 p.m., i.e. after four days of the incident. During intervening period, Smt. Paras Devi was in the company of her paternal relatives. The paternal relatives alleged that Shyam Singh used to harass and humiliate the deceased, but the causes of such harassment and humiliation as stated by them are contradictory. Paras Devi nowhere alleged in her dying declaration (Ex.P/9) that the accused ever harassed or humiliated her on account of demand of dowry or that he demanded money from her to consume liquor. Banshi Singh (P.W.4) stated that Shyam Singh used to harass and humiliate the deceased after consuming liquor. He also alleged that on the fateful night, he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased for consuming liquor. Ex facie, this aspersion is totally conjectural as it cannot be believed that the accused would demand a huge sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the deceased just for consuming liquor. Anchi Devi (P.W.5) also alleged that Shyam Singh used to quarrel with Smt. Paras Devi after consuming liquor. On the fateful night, Shyam Singh demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from Smt. Paras Devi. On refusal, she was set to fire. However, Paras Devi herself did not make any such allegation in her dying declaration (Ex.P/9) that the accused demanded money to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- from her. Mahendra (P.W.7) also alleged that his father came to home in the night at about 10 oclock and demanded money from his mother for consuming liquor. When she refused, she was beaten and then was set to fire. However, as we have noted above, Smt. Paras Devi herself did not state that the accused demanded money from her before setting her to fire. When she refused, she was beaten and then was set to fire. However, as we have noted above, Smt. Paras Devi herself did not state that the accused demanded money from her before setting her to fire. Clearly, thus, the prosecution evidence is totally contradictory and wavering on the aspect of cruelty meted by the accused to the deceased Smt. Paras. Since there is no such allegation in the highly belated dying declaration (Ex.P/9), we are not inclined to accept the theory as set out in the statements of the prosecution witnesses Banshi Singh (P.W.4), Anchi Devi (P.W.5), Mahendra (P.W.7), Jagdish Singh (P.W.8), Durgesh (P.W.9) and Mangu Singh (P.W.14) regarding the deceased having been harassed or humiliated in the matrimonial home by the accused appellant or that the appellant demanded money from her to consume liquor on the fateful night. Once the theory of cruelty is excluded, manifestly, the accused cannot be attributed any motive to kill his own wife, more so when their marriage was about 20 years old. The prosecution has tried to discredit the first version of the deceased Smt. Paras Devi as recorded in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/15), wherein, she admitted having received the burns accidentally by alleging that she was pressurized to give this statement. However, as noted above, all the material witnesses of the prosecution have given divergent and contradictory versions regarding the reasons why Smt. Paras gave the first statement of having received burns accidentally. In her own dying declaration (Ex.P/9), Paras did not state that she had been pressurized by anyone to give the statement of accidental burns. The father, mother and brother of the deceased reached the Government Hospital, Bhilwara on the third day of the incident, which would fall on 1st of January 2008. Manifestly, they would have talked to the deceased immediately after reaching the hospital and thus, the delay in lodging of the FIR to the Superintendent of Police assumes significance. Clearly, some hot talks must have taken place between the parties because the lady had received burn injuries at the matrimonial home. Manifestly, they would have talked to the deceased immediately after reaching the hospital and thus, the delay in lodging of the FIR to the Superintendent of Police assumes significance. Clearly, some hot talks must have taken place between the parties because the lady had received burn injuries at the matrimonial home. The maternal relatives of the deceased undoubtedly had the opportunity to tutor her for two days and it seems that they decided to teach a lesson to the accused and in furtherance of this design, the belated complaint (Ex.P/6) came to be submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara on 03.01.2008, wherein the theory of Smt. Paras being burnt after pouring kerosene was set out while implicating the accused. The statement of Mahendra, the son of the appellant and the deceased, is falsified when we consider the fact that he totally denied the defence suggestion that his father, the appellant herein, also received burn injuries while trying to save his wife. The fact that the accused also received 25 to 30% injuries in this incident was admitted by the Investigating Officer and is duly established by the medical report (Ex.P/7), which was proved by the Dr. Ratan Prakash Nuwal (P.W.12). The one-fourth part of the right hand, 10 in. x 4 in. area of the left hand and a part of the neck of the accused were burnt. These injuries could definitely be caused, if the accused had tried to save his wife after she received burn injuries. The fact that the kerosene chimney was available in the house of the accused was admitted by Mahendra (P.W.7), who stated that though there was an electricity connection existing in their house, but when the power was cut, the chimney would be lit. All the material prosecution witnesses including Smt. Anchi Devi (P.W.5), Banshi Singh (P.W.4), Mahendra (P.W.7) and Jagdish Singh (P.W.8) were given a pertinent suggestion that they tutored the deceased to give statement against the accused. At one point of time, Anchi Devi admitted in her cross-examination that they had prompted Smt. Paras to give statement in a particular manner. Thereafter, she tried to correct herself and refuted this suggestion. At one point of time, Anchi Devi admitted in her cross-examination that they had prompted Smt. Paras to give statement in a particular manner. Thereafter, she tried to correct herself and refuted this suggestion. However, the delay in lodging of the complaint and the presence of the paternal relatives nearby the deceased for two days, does give rise to a suspicion that the time might have been utilized to tutor the deceased to give a statement against the accused. Mahaveer Singh (D.W.2), being the brother of the accused appellant, was examined in defence as D.W.2. In his evidence, he categorically stated that after the statements of Durgesh and Mahendra had been recorded in the court, both the children were turned out by their maternal relatives and presently, they were living with him. The prosecution did not dispute this version as deposed by Mahaveer Singh. All these facts elicited in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and from the defence evidence are sufficient to convince us that the first version of the deceased Smt. Paras Devi as recorded in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/15) depicting the true and correct picture of the incident and that the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) is nothing but a tutored bundle of lies, as the same was got recorded in that particular manner after the paternal relatives had ample opportunity to influence Smt. Paras Devi. Thus, we are not inclined to place reliance on the dying declaration (Ex.P/9) of Smt. Paras Devi recorded by the Magistrate. Furthermore, it is clear that Mahendra (P.W.7), who was also a child witness, was also tutored by his maternal grandparents for giving false evidence against the appellant. It is clear from the evidence of the defence witnesses that after the two boys had testified against the accused, they have been kicked out by the complainant and are presently living with his uncle. Thus, we are not persuaded to rely upon the testimony of Mahendra (P.W.7) because he too seems to have been tutored to give false evidence against the appellant. 28. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we feel that the trial court committed grave error while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner stated above. The appellant deserves to be acquitted while extending him the benefit of doubt. 29. As an upshot, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we feel that the trial court committed grave error while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner stated above. The appellant deserves to be acquitted while extending him the benefit of doubt. 29. As an upshot, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Woman Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 17/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 30. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.