Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1574 (RAJ)

State v. Ram Singh

2022-05-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 09.07.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) & Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Special Sessions Case No.62/98, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC, while extending them the benefit of doubt. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, at the outset, submits that vide order dated 30.04.2001 passed in the criminal leave to appeal, this Hon’ble Court granted leave to file the appeal only to the extent of accused-respondent No.1-Ram Singh, accused-respondent No.2-Dhur Singh and accused-respondent No.5 Smt. Shanti Devi, and thus, criminal leave to appeal qua remaining of the accused-respondents was not granted; accordingly, the present criminal appeal survived only qua accused-respondents No.1,2 & 5. 2.1 Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that upon being informed about the demise of accused-respondent No.2-Dhur Singh and accused-respondent No.1-Ram Singh, the present appeal was dismissed, as having abated, qua respondents No.1 and 2. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the present criminal appeal now survives only qua respondent No.5-Smt. Shanti Devi. However, despite the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 06.08.2021, the appellant-State has not filed the amended cause title, as yet. 2.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, as it suffers from a misreading of evidence of the testimonies of witnesses. 2.3 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the testimony of P.W. 1 Shri Gordhan Singh, that his daughter Meera (deceased/victim) was married to the deceased-accused/respondent Ram Singh on 11.04.1992 and that a sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, yet after marriage, his daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of more dowry. 2.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased-victim, Meera, died under suspicious circumstances, and that when her father, the complainant P.W.1 visited her in the hospital, she was in a serious condition and that she pointed her fingers towards the accused-respondents. And that, the same is corroborated by the statements of P.W. 3 Ashu Singh. 2.5. 2.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased-victim, Meera, died under suspicious circumstances, and that when her father, the complainant P.W.1 visited her in the hospital, she was in a serious condition and that she pointed her fingers towards the accused-respondents. And that, the same is corroborated by the statements of P.W. 3 Ashu Singh. 2.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the PW-6 Punam Chand Bothra, stated on 29.05.1998, it was seen by him that fire was coming out of the house of the accused-respondent Dhur singh (deceased), who was father-in-law of the victim; he found that the door of the house was closed from inside and a woman (deceased-victim) was burning due to such fire; thereafter, the fire was extinguished and the deceased-victim was taken to the hospital. 2.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased victim was put to fire by her husband and in-laws who demanded an additional dowry from her, and from a perusal of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased-victim occurred due to a mishap/accident caused, while she was ironing the clothes. 2.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has also not taken into consideration the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Ashok Parmar who stated that such a death could not have occurred by electric shock of the iron (istri). 2.8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that a sufficient explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the delay in filing of the F.I.R. but the same has not been considered by the learned trial court. 2.9. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage, and therefore the offence squarely falls within the purview of Section 304-B I.P.C. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the incident in question occurred on 29.05.1998, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 06.06.1998 and that there was a gross delay in filing the F.I.R. without any explanation therefor. 3.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that D.W. 1 Sampat Lal in his testimony stated that when the fire occurred due to an electrical issue with the wiring of the house, the deceased-victim was living separately from her in-laws; however, there was no dispute between her and her in-laws. 3.2. 3.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that D.W. 1 Sampat Lal in his testimony stated that when the fire occurred due to an electrical issue with the wiring of the house, the deceased-victim was living separately from her in-laws; however, there was no dispute between her and her in-laws. 3.2. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that D.W. 2 Mohan Rajvanshi, in his testimony stated that the accused persons, Kishore Singh and Ram Singh on the day of the incident in question were in fact in Ganga Shahar, and when they left their work from Ganga Shahar, they left stating that an incident had occurred at their home and that they needed to return. Furthermore, they were employees of the State Water Department, and their attendance at their office, on the day in question was marked at their workplace. 3.3 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the accused persons took the deceased victim to the hospital before she succumbed to her injuries, and that if their intention was to end her life, then they would not have taken her to the hospital. 4. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. This Court finds that the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor have already been dealt with by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment. 6. This Court observes that the learned trial court has recorded the following findings to that effect:- 6.1 That the father of the deceased-victim, Gordhan Singh, did not state anything, before the police authorities in the hospital, with respect to dowry demands being made by the deceased-victim’s in-laws, or that it being the cause of death. Furthermore, his testimony reveals that he admitted that no demand for dowry was made prior to or after the marriage of the deceased-victim. 6.2 That there was no complaint or evidence on record to prove that any such demand for dowry was made by the respondents to the deceased-victim or her family. Similarly, there is no witness testimony to that effect either. 6.3 That the demand for amount of Rs. 15,000, which was being termed as a dowry demand, cannot be ascertained from the record in fact, to be a dowry demand. 6.4 That a demand for dowry, after 6 years of marriage, seems highly unlikely. Similarly, there is no witness testimony to that effect either. 6.3 That the demand for amount of Rs. 15,000, which was being termed as a dowry demand, cannot be ascertained from the record in fact, to be a dowry demand. 6.4 That a demand for dowry, after 6 years of marriage, seems highly unlikely. 6.5 That for an offence to be made out under Section 304-B I.P.C., it has to be proved that a demand for dowry was made to the deceased-victim from the accused person(s). 6.6 That the gesture, so made by the deceased-victim, while in hospital, cannot be taken to infer anything against the accused, and cannot be taken to be a dying declaration, as she had sustained severe injuries and was not in a condition to communicate anything, and that merely waving her finger across the room would be too weak a ground to proceed against the accused. 6.7 That the mother-in-law or any of the other accused, of the deceased victim was not at the house, when the incident in question had occurred. 7. This Court further observes that the learned trial court has delved deep into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal after a thorough perusal of the evidences placed on record before it. 8. This Court, in light of the aforesaid observations, finds that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is a well reasoned speaking order, and finds that no case warranting interference by this Court is made out. 9. This Court, therefore, dismisses the present appeal. All pending applications also stand disposed of.