Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1631 (RAJ)

State v. Bhagirath

2022-05-18

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 28.02.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women atrocities & Dowry Cases), Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial court') in Special Sessions Case No.135/1997, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. No one appears on behalf of the accused-respondents. 3. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a complaint submitted by one Mangilal (complainant - father of deceased victim Ganga) on 03.06.1993 before the Reserve Centre (aarakshi Kendra), Bigod, to the effect that her daughter Ganga (deceased-victim), who was married to accused-respondent No.1 Bhagirath ten years prior to lodging of the complaint, was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws; as per the complaint, she was killed by her husband and in-laws. 3.1 Upon the aforementioned complaint, a case No.87/93 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and accordingly, the investigation commenced. after investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 306 & 201 IPC against accused-Bhagirath, Devilal & Smt. Dakhi and for the offence under Section 201 IPC against accused-Heera, Udailal, Ramchandra, Bainjalal & Mohan aheer, was filed, before the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, from where, the case upon committal, was transferred to the learned trial court for the necessary adjudication; the accused denied the charges and claimed trial, and accordingly, the trial commenced. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that from the evidence placed on record before the learned trial court, a clear case for the alleged offences was made out against the accused-respondents; the evidence further makes it clear that prior to extinguishing of her life-spark by the deceased-victim, her husband and in-laws subjected her to immense harassment, beatings and cruelty; not only this, the accused-respondents did not wait for arrival of the parents and other relatives of the deceased-victim, at her matrimonial place, before performing his last rites, which also shows a cruel attitude of the accused-respondents. 4.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that to make out a case for the alleged offences against the accused-respondents, the instigation/abetment, immediately prior to the suicide in question, was not required to be proved, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that to make out a case for the alleged offences against the accused-respondents, the instigation/abetment, immediately prior to the suicide in question, was not required to be proved, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the contents of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased-victim makes it clear that while the harassment, beating and cruelty against the deceased-victim, at the hands of the accused-respondents continued, at one point of time, she went to her parents house; however, upon being assured by her husband and in-laws, who are accused-respondents herein, that no such act would be repeated in future, she was sent back to her matrimonial home; but as the record would reveal, thereafter again she was subjected to even more cruelty, beatings and harassment, as a result whereof, coupled with the immense instigation and abetment on the part of the accused-respondents, she herself put her life to an end by committing the suicide. 4.3 as per learned Public Prosecutor, the key prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-1 Mangilal (complainant), PW-2 Onkar and PW-7 Smt. Dhapu, makes a clear testimony about the cruel behaviour of the husband and in-laws of the deceased-victim; they also deposed that she was even given beatings by the accused-respondents in connection with a demand of Rs.10,000/-to purchase a house by the accused-resopndents, she was told by her husband (accused Bhagirath) that he will bring in another lady as his wife. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that such testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses was sufficient for holding the accused-respondents guilty for the alleged offences. 4.4 Learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the learned trial court, without taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it, acquitted the accused-respondents from all the charges levelled against them vide the impugned judgment, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court, more particularly, when the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused-respondents, beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as perused the record of the case. 6. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as perused the record of the case. 6. On a bare perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in favour of the accused-respondents, this Court finds that before passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has made a threadbare analysis of all the evidence placed on record before it, coupled with a like examination of the prosecution witnesses. This Court also finds that the learned trial court has recorded a categorical and separate finding regarding both the alleged offences. 6.1 The finding recorded by the learned trial court, in regard to the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal reads thus: 6.1.1 That there is absence, not only of an independent witness, but also an eye witness, which could prove that the accused-respondents have, before the death of the victim, subjected her to cruelty, harassment and beatings; furthermore, no such witnesses is there to prove that the deceased-victim was instigated/abetted to commit the suicide. The prosecution has also failed to establish, beyond all reasonable doubts, that after returning back to her matrimonial home, her relationship with her husband (accused Bhagirath) was not harmonious; furthermore, after her returning, she even gave birth to a girl child. 6.1.2 That there is no evidence on record, which could sufficiently show that after returning to her matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty, beatings and harassment, in connection with demand of money; even there is nothing on record to show that prior to the alleged incident, at any point of time, any complaint was made by the deceased-victim, connection with demand of money, and the consequential cruelty, harassment and beatings. The absence of any medical examination, no prior complaint, no letter correspondence etc. also makes the case of the prosecution very doubtful. Thus, as regards the said offence, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. The absence of any medical examination, no prior complaint, no letter correspondence etc. also makes the case of the prosecution very doubtful. Thus, as regards the said offence, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. 6.2 The finding recorded by the learned trial court, in regard to the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal reads thus: 6.2.1 That there is nothing on record to show that the incident in question, as alleged, had happened, and if happened, there is any reliable witness; even there is nothing on record which could show that even in case the incident in question had happened, in the manner as alleged, the accused-respondents tried to destroy the evidence or influence any of the prosecution witnesses. There is no sign found on the body of the deceased, following her death, which could show that immediately prior to her death, she was subjected to cruelty and beatings, thereby nothing could show that the accused-respondents had committed any criminal act, as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the said offence also, was not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, there is no legal infirmity in the well reasoned speaking judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court, more particularly, when the record clearly reveals that the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. all pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.