Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2029 (RAJ)

Dinesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-23

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant had faced trial qua offence punishable under Section 302, 304-B, 201 & 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') in FIR No. 97 dated 10.05.2012 registered at Police Station Ucchain, District Bharatpur. 2. Prosecution story in brief as per the FIR is that Meera sister of the complainant Sahab Singh was married to the appellant about six years and ten months prior to the incident. On 10.05.2012 at about 9.00 a.m., complainant received a phone-call from somebody that his sister and his two years old nephew had been set on fire with the help of kerosene oil and their dead bodies were being taken for cremation ceremony. When the complainant reached the spot, he found that the dead body of his sister had already been cremated. In-laws family of Meera used to harass her on account of demand of dowry. 3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No. 97 dated 10.05.2012 was registered at Police Station Ucchain, District Bharatpur under Section 302, 304-B, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant and his co-accused. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302, 304-B, 201 & 498-A IPC. So far as the remaining accused were concerned, charge against them was framed under Section 201 IPC. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty one witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), prayed that he was innocent. He stated that his wife and minor child had accidentally caught fire. In-fact, entire household articles had been burnt. 6. Appellant examined four witnesses in his defence. 7. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 20.12.2013 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304-B, 302, 201 & 498-A IPC. Co-accused of the appellant were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. In-fact, Meera wife of the appellant as well as minor child of the appellant had accidentally caught fire while Meera was preparing meals. 9. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-18 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 11. In-fact, Meera wife of the appellant as well as minor child of the appellant had accidentally caught fire while Meera was preparing meals. 9. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-18 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 11. PW-13 Lokhan Singh brother of the deceased, PW-14 Khem Singh uncle of the deceased, PW-15 Natha Singh uncle of the deceased and PW-19 Viri Singh uncle of the deceased have corroborated the statement of PW-18. 12. In the present case, there is no postmortem examination report on record to establish the cause of death of the deceased. However, appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted the fact that his wife Meera and minor child had died on account of burn injuries suffered by them. 13. Thus, the question that requires consideration is as to whether, it was a case of murder or a case falling under Section 304-B IPC or it was a case of an accidental death. 14. So far as the relatives of the deceased are concerned, they have deposed that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. It is the case of the complainant party that Meera and the minor child had been set on fire with the help of kerosene oil. However, recovery of any empty tin of kerosene oil has not been effected in the present case. 15. PW-21 Gulab Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. The cross-examination of this witness is very relevant. The said witness deposed that the incident was reported to the police at 3.00 p.m. Efforts had been made to extinguish the fire with the help of water. During investigation, it transpired that presence of water was found on the burnt articles. However, during investigation, it did not transpire as to what was the cause of fire. The family members of the deceased Meera had reached the spot within half an hour and report was lodged at 3.00 p.m. He could not explain the delay in lodging the report from 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. Although, in the FIR, it was alleged that the deceased had been set on fire with the help of kerosene oil, but the said fact was not established during his investigation. In his examinationin-chief, he deposed that on reaching the spot, site plan had been prepared. In his examinationin-chief, he deposed that on reaching the spot, site plan had been prepared. Hut which had been constructed with unpaved bricks was found in a burnt condition. The single bed was in a burnt condition. Clothes were also lying in half burnt condition. Fire had been extinguished with the help of water. The electricity board on the wall was burnt. The tap recorder lying at the spot was also in a burnt condition. A half burnt plastic table, fan, cooler were also found in a burnt condition. An iron was also lying in a burnt condition. There was no door attached to the hut. An iron weighing scale, gas cylinder were found in a burnt condition. A broken television and one suitcase were also found at the spot. In the water tank, one half burnt quilt was found. 16. Thus, from the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that efforts had been made to put extinguish the fire. In the fire accident wife and minor child of the appellant suffered burn injuries and household articles were also burnt. 17. PW-13 has admitted in his cross-examination that Meera was residing alongwith her husband/appellant and they were not living with other family members of appellant Dinesh. It is also evident from the cross-examination of the complainant that brother of Meera had got married about four-five days prior to the accident. The said marriage ceremony had been attended by Meera as well as by the appellant. He has also admitted that the appellant helped at the time of preparations with regard to the marriage function. He also admitted that the appellant Dinesh was doing labour work. He has also admitted that there was no complaint moved by Meera with regard to any demand of dowry. 18. It is a settled preposition of law that the prosecution has prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt against an accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. An accused presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Whenever, there is doubt in the prosecution story, benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. 19. In the present case, prosecution story is a doubtful one. An accused presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Whenever, there is doubt in the prosecution story, benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. 19. In the present case, prosecution story is a doubtful one. Prosecution has failed to establish beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, that the appellant had murdered his wife Meera and minor child or that Meera had set herself on fire. 20. In the facts of the present case, the plea taken by the appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appears to be plausible. 21. After carefully examining the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the present case appears to be a case of an accidental fire. Unfortunately, Meera as well as her minor child died on account of burn injuries suffered by them. 22. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the trial court are set aside. Consequently, appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 23. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant namely Dinesh Chand S/o Roop Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.