Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 582 (RAJ)

Natwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2020-07-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant Natwar Lal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 24.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.84/96 whereby, he was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo two months' additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 307, 498A and 342 IPC in relation to an incident which took place in the night intervening 10th & 11th August, 1985 wherein, it is alleged that the appellant set fire to his wife Smt. Leela who was initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Rani. From there, she was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Pali where her Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/20) was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 24.08.1985 in which, she levelled allegations that thirteen days earlier, her Jeth Dalpat, Jethani Ratan and mother-in-law Jamana connived together to burn her. Ratan caught hold of her hair, Jeth Dalpat caught hold of her hands; Jamana, her motherin-law poured kerosene on her body and thereafter her husband (the appellant herein) set her ablaze. She rushed to a tap and sat under water to douse the fire and raised hue and cry whereupon, the ladies from neighborhood came and saved her. An FIR No.94/85 was registered at the Police Station Takathgarh, Pali on the basis of this Parcha Bayan of Smt. Leela. 3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant herein, Jethani Ratan, Jeth Dalpat and mother-in-law Jamana for the offences under Sections 307, 498-A & 342 IPC. 4. It so transpired that Smt. Leela expired during the pendency of the trial before her statement could be recorded on oath, and therefore, no evidence could be led by the prosecution regarding cause of her death. Finding that there was no substantive evidence on the record of the case to connect the appellant with burning Leela, the trial court proceeded to acquit the co-accused persons of all the charges and also acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 307 and 342 IPC by the impugned judgment dated 24.02.1994. Finding that there was no substantive evidence on the record of the case to connect the appellant with burning Leela, the trial court proceeded to acquit the co-accused persons of all the charges and also acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 307 and 342 IPC by the impugned judgment dated 24.02.1994. However, the trial court held in para No.8 of the judgment that not providing prompt medical aid to an injured person amounted to cruelty and observing so, proceeded to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC recording that the appellant took no steps to take his wife for treatment to the higher center at Pali from Rani Hospital where she was initially admitted. This finding was recorded by the trial court at Para No.8 of the judgment which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 5. Accordingly, the appellant was held guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and was sentenced to six months RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo two months' RI. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court, the appellant has preferred this instant appeal. 6. Shri H.R. Soni, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the finding recorded by the trial court while holding the appellant guilty for the charge under Section 498-A IPC, is absolutely perverse and unsustainable. He contended that Smt. Leela got burnt accidentally while preparing food. Treatment was being provided to Smt. Leela at the Rani Hospital where she was promptly got admitted by the appellant and his family members. She was referred for further management to the higher center and thus she was taken to Ahmedabad for better treatment. Finally, she was brought back and admitted to the Pali Hospital where her belated parcha bayan came to be recorded. He thus urged that neither any delay nor any complacence on part of the appellant in providing treatment to his wife Smt. Leela. As per Shri Soni, there is no material on the record of the case to establish that the alleged delay resulted into worsening of Smt. Leela's condition. He thus urged that neither any delay nor any complacence on part of the appellant in providing treatment to his wife Smt. Leela. As per Shri Soni, there is no material on the record of the case to establish that the alleged delay resulted into worsening of Smt. Leela's condition. He pointed out that as per the findings recorded by the trial court in Para No.6 of the impugned judgment, Smt. Leela expired somewhere in the end of the year 1987 and thus, it was rightly held that there was no proof to show that the injuries suffered by her in the year 1985 had any connection with her death. On these grounds, he craved acceptance of the appeal, quashing of the impugned judgment and sought acquittal of the appellant. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. 8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record. 9. On going through the record and to be specific, the statement of Dr. Jaswant Singh Bhandari (D.W. 1), it is apparent that Smt. Leela was got admitted into Rani Hospital on 11.08.1985 (the incident took place in the night intervening 10the and 11th August, 1985). While being admitted into the hospital, she gave a statement to the Doctor that she was cooking food in the kitchen when she caught fire accidentally. She was referred to the Pali Hospital on 12.08.1985. However, she was initially taken to a hospital at Ahemdabad for better management from where she was brought back after a few days. Then she was got admitted into the Pali Hospital. Apparently thus, the appellant was making all sincere efforts to get his wife treated. There is nothing on the record of the case which can satisfy the Court that the appellant intentionally delayed the treatment of his wife or that he acted with any complacence. The prosecution has not led any evidence to explain as to why the maternal relatives of Smt.Leela made no complaint during the long period of almost 14 days from the date, Smt.Leela got burnt till her parcha bayan was recorded. The prosecution has not led any evidence to explain as to why the maternal relatives of Smt.Leela made no complaint during the long period of almost 14 days from the date, Smt.Leela got burnt till her parcha bayan was recorded. That apart, the satisfaction recorded by the trial court that by delaying the treatment of Smt Leela, the accused acted with cruelty and thereby is responsible for the offence under Section 498A IPC would have to be put forth in form of a distinct charge against the accused. However, the charge which was framed by the trial court against the accused reads as below:- 10. On going through the language of charge read out to the accused, it is clear that there is no such indication therein that intentional delay in treatment of Smt. Leela constituted an act of cruelty. 11. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court at Para No.8 of the impugned judgment that the appellant acted with cruelty whilst not providing medical treatment to Smt. Leela is absolutely perverse and contrary to the record. The Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/20) is also highly suspicious because Leela got the burn injuries in the night intervening 10th & 11th August, 1985. She was immediately got admitted into Rani Hospital from there she was taken to a Hospital at Ahemdabad as is evident from the statement of Ganesh (PW6), the father of Smt. Leela. The fact that Smt. Leela had got the burn injuries was known to her parents but they took no steps to report the matter to the police or to get her statement promptly recorded. Thus, the statement (Ex.P/20) comes under a cloud of doubt; is totally unbelievable and was rightly not relied upon by the trial court. 12. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded (Supra) by the trial court at para No.8 of the impugned judgment are perverse and contrary to record and cannot be affirmed. As a consequence, the appellant's conviction under Section 498-A IPC deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.84/96 whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. As a consequence, the appellant's conviction under Section 498-A IPC deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.84/96 whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. 14. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.