Madhya Pradesh High Court
Geetabai And 2 Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 934, 2019 CRI LJ 4560
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
CRA 868/2012 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
DIVISION BENCH : Hon'ble Shri Justice S.C. Sharma
and Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh
Criminal Appeal No.868/2012
Geetabai & Ors.
Vs.
State of MP
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.K. Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 20th day of August, 2019) Per : Virender Singh, J.
1. Husband, mother and younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against their conviction under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/304-B IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- and 3 years RI under Section 498-A of IPC with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months RI respectively recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Biaora vide judgment dated 18/07/2012 delivered in Sessions Trial No.154/2010.
2. Admittedly, Manju @ Nandini married Ritesh on 04/05/2008. After 1 ½ years of marriage; on 29/11/2009 at about 11 forenoon, she sustained burn injuries at her marital home and was rushed to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. She was later shifted to LBS Hospital, Bhopal where during treatment CRA 868/2012 2 she died on 09/12/2009.
3. After sustaining burn injuries, when she (deceased) was taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, her parents, brothers, sister and other relatives also reached their. Looking to her serious condition, she was shifted to LBS Hospital, Bhopal. Dr. Pradeep Billore of LBS Hospital, informed the police. On the request of police, Naib Tehsildar - Bajrang Bahadur (D.W.1) recorded her dying declaration (Ex.D/5) on the same day i.e. 29/11/2009 at 16:05 hours. In her dying declaration, she stated that due to accidental fall of kerosene can kept above the gas stove, she caught fire and sustained injuries. On next day i.e. 30/11/2009 her second dying declaration Ex.P/21 was recorded at 22:25 hours. In this second dying declaration, she made allegation against the appellants that after pouring kerosene, her mother-in-law and 'dewar' set her ablaze. Parents, brothers, sister and other witnesses including one neighbour of the appellant Harpal Singh (P.W.9) also made certain allegations that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of the appellants.
4. The information received from LBS Hospital was registered in roznamcha sanha No.2309 (Ex.P/6). After receiving the information of death, Merg No.01/09 under Section 174 was registered at Police Station-Shahajahanbad, Bhopal. Hair of the deceased received from the hospital were seized vide seizure memeo Ex.P/7. The police reached at the hospital, called the witnesses by issuing notice, prepared panchnama lash Ex.P/4 and requested doctors to perform CRA 868/2012 3 postmortem and received its report and opinion Ex.P/14 and handed over the dead body to brother-in-law of the deceased Ashish in presence of father and brother of the deceased (Ex.P/5). As the incident was pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of police Kotwali, Rajgarh, all the papers were sent to the police Kotwali, Rajgarh.
5. At the same time, the police Kotwali, Rajgarh also received information of the incident from brother of the deceased. On the instruction of the SHO, this intimation was entered in roznamcha sanha No.1587 at 23 hours dated 30/11/2009 (Ex.P/17) and the place of incident was sealed. After receiving papers from Police Station - Shahajahanabad, Merg No.26/2009 (Ex.P/9) was registered at Police Kotwali, Rajgarh. The police visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/3. Several articles were seized vide Ex.P/2. The police also lifted chance finger prints and obtained specimen finger prints from the appellants (Ex.P/1). Both chance and specimen fingerprints and the articles seized during investigation were sent to the FSL, Sagar vide letter dated 10/06/2010 (Ex.P/10 & P/11). After analysis, finger print expert submitted its report (Ex.P/12). He opined that chance fingerprint found on the bottom of the kerosene can seized from the house of the appellant matched with the specimen fingerprint of Geetabai. The appellants were arrested vide memo of arrest Ex.P/18 to P/20. The police recorded statement of the witnesses and after completing investigation, filed charge-sheet.
6. The appellants were charged, tried, convicted and CRA 868/2012 4 sentenced as stated in para-1 above.
7. The appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds that The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record. The learned trial Court has grossly erred in not considering and appreciating Ex.D/5, the first dying declaration of the deceased recorded on the date of the incident i.e. 29/11/2009. It has not been appreciated that husband himself took the deceased (wife) to the hospital on the same day and tried to provide her treatment, which shows that he did not have any intention or motive to kill her. It has overlooked material omissions and contradictions appeared in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The investigation in this case was bias, unfair and unjust towards the appellants. The prosecution case was believed despite the fact that the entire case of the prosecution was based on the hearsay evidence. The trial Court has not considered the defense of the appellants. The prosecution could not produced any reliable evidence, which proves its case beyond doubts. It is further argued that the evidence produced by the prosecution do not constitute the offence under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed that the appeal of the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court be set aside.
8. Focusing his arguments on second dying declaration of the deceased and the statements of parents, brothers, sister and particularly the neighbour of the appellants Harpal Singh, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the CRA 868/2012 5 learned trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. As stated in para-2 above, the appellants have not disputed the fact of marriage of the deceased with Nandini and that she died due to burn injuries, therefore, it is clear that the death of Nandini was not natural.
10. Now the question remains as to what was the nature of the death, whether it was homicidal or was accidental?
11. It is not disputed by the prosecution that during the treatment, two dying declarations of the deceased Ex.D/5 and Ex.P/21 were recorded. Ex.D/5 is first in time and was recorded on the date of the incident i.e. 29/11/2009 at 16:05 hours and Ex. P/21 is second in time and was recorded on the next day i.e. 30/11/2009 at 22:25 hours. Both the DDs were recorded by executive magistrates of the same rank i.e. Naib Tehsildar.
12. In her first dying declaration, the deceased has stated that due to accidental fall of kerosene can kept above the gas stove, she caught fire and sustained injuries. Thus, she did not make allegation against anyone and stated that she caught fire accidentally. While in subsequent or second dying declaration Ex.P/21, she has alleged that her husband demanded motorcycle and had beaten her up. On the date of incident also her husband had beaten up her and after sometime, when she was cooking food, her mother-in-law Geetabai and younger brother-in-law (Devar) Chetan poured kerosene and have set her ablaze. Thus, in second dying declaration, she levelled all sort of charges of demand of dowry, cruelty and murder.
CRA 868/2012 613. Now the first question comes into the mind is that which, out of these 2, dying declarations should be relied on.
14. The trial Court has relied on second dying declaration, however, no specific reason has been assigned for the same. To relied on this subsequent DD, the learned trial Court has derived support from statement of neighbour of the appellants Harpal Singh (P.W.9) and report of fingerprint expert (Ex.P/12). This report establishes that finger prints of Geetabai were found on the cane of kerosene seized from the house, but this does not appeal to us and we think that the learned trial Court has adopted only a superficial approach, while looking to the evidence of the prosecution, while in depth appreciation on the subject appears to be necessary to separate grain from the chaff or to reach on a just, proper and reasonable conclusion; or to find out the truth or to examine as to whether the prosecution could establish all the ingredients of the offence to the extent to held the appellant guilty for such a heinous crime in the backdrop of all essential parameters settled by the enacted law as well as by the law developed through the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several other High Courts.
15. Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence, it would be apt to have a glance on both the dying declarations in their original form. Dying declaration Ex.D/5, which was not produced by the prosecution with the charge-sheet reads thus:-
LFkku& ,y-ch-,l- gkLihVy Hkksiky :e ua- &208 CRA 868/2012 7 Q.D;k ejht c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa gS \ Ans. ejht c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa gSaA uke &uafnuh iRuh fjrs'k mez &23 o"kZ fuoklh & jktx<+ O;olk; &x`g.kh Q. rqe ;g n'kk D;ksa gqbZ gSa \ Ans. vkx ls tyus ds dkj.k esjh ;g n'kk gqbZ gSA Q. ;g ?kVuk dc vkSj dgkW ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh \ Ans. ;g ?kVuk vkt lqcg yxHkx 10 cts gekjs ?kj dh jlksbZ esa ?kfVr gqbZ FkhA Q. rqe vkx ls dSls tyh Fkh \ Ans. eSa jlksbZ esa [kkuk cuk jgh FkhA xSl pwYgk esa [kkuk cuk jgh FkhA ,d rjQ ijkBk cuk jgh Fkh tcfd nwljh vksj nky id jgk FkkA nky c?kkjus ds fy, Åij Vky ij j[ks elkys dks mrkj jgh FkhA mlh Vky ij j[kk dsjkslhu dk fMCck esjs gkFk ls Vdjkdj xSl ds Åij fxj iM+k ftlds dkj.k fMCck QV x;k vkSj dsjkslhu esjs 'kjhj ij yx x;kA xSl ls vkx esjs 'kjhj ij yxus ls eSa ty xbZA Q. ?kVuk ds le; ekSds ij dkSu dkSu Fkk \ Ans. ?kVuk ds le; jlksbZ esa eSa vdsyh FkhA esjh lkl ugk jgh Fkh vkSj esjs ifr Vh-oh- ns[k jgs FksA Q. rqEgkjs llqjky okyksa ls rqEgkjs laca/k dsls Fks \ Ans. esjs llqjky okys igys eq>s ijs'kku djrs FksA esjh lkl eq>s esjs ifr ds lkFk vyx j[kuk pkgrh Fkh tcfd esjs ifr eq>s esjh lkl ds lkFk gh j[kuk pkgrs FksA 'kknh esa bu yksxksa us eksVj lkbfdy ekaxh Fkh ftls esjs ek;ds okyksa us ugha fn;k FkkA Q. bl ?kVuk esa rqEgkjs llqjky okyksa dk dksbZ gkFk gS ;k ugha \ Ans. ughaA ;g lc vpkud nq?kZVuko'k gks x;k FkkA bl ckj tc ls ek;ds ls llqjky vkbZ Fkh] esjs llqjky okyksa us eq>s fdl izdkj ls ijs'kku ugha fd;k FkkA
16. Dying declaration relied upon by the prosecution Ex.P/21 reads thus:-
ej.kklUu dFku LFkku & ,y- ch- ,l- vLirky] Hkksiky fnukad & 30@11@09 le; & 10%25 P.M. iz'u mRrj 1- rqEgkjk uke D;k gS \ ufUnuh iq"id 2- rqEgkjs ifr dk D;k uke gS \ fjos'k iq"id 3- rqEgkjh mez D;k gS \ 23 o"kZ 4- fuoklh dgkW dh gks \ MkW- gsMxsokj dkyksuh] jktx<+ 5- rqEgkjs lkFk D;k ?kVuk gqbZ gS \ eSa cgqr ijs'kku FkhA esjs ifr us xkM+h ekaxh Fkh esjs firk us ns nhA ijlksa esjs ifr fjrs'k us eq>s ekjkA ijlksa ugha dy 28@11@2009 dks eq>s ekjkA eSa fdfpu esa [kkuk cuk jgh FkhA esjs ifr us eq>s ekjkA ekjus ds ckn esjs ifr pys x,A 6- fQj D;k gqvk \ esjh lkl xhrk ckbZ vksj esjs nsoj psru us eq>s tyk;kA 7- dSls tyk;k \ esjs Åij ?kklysV Mkyk vkSj LVkso ty jgk Fkk ftlls vkx yx x;h vkSj dksbZ ugha FkkA CRA 868/2012 8 8- rqEgkjh vkx fdlus cq>k;h \ esjs ifr fjrs'k us vkdj esjh vkx cq>kbZA esjs ifr us esjs Åij ikuh Mkyk vkSj esjs mij dacy Mky fn;kA 9- rqEgs vLirky dkSu yk;k Fkk \ esjh lkl vkSj esjs ifr fjrs'k eq>s vLirky yk,A eSus dy Mj ds ekjs >wB cksyk Fkk eSa vkt lgh dg jgh gwWA 10- ?kklysV fdlus Mkyk Fkk \ ?kklysV fdlus Mkyk eq>s ugha irkA fdfpu esa dsoy esjh lkl xhrk ckbZ vkSj psru gh Fks mUgha us ?kklysV Mkyk FkkA 11- D;k rqe dqN vkSj dguk pkgrh ugha esa vkSj dqN ugha dguk pkgrh gwWA gks \
17. Dying declaration Ex.D/5 was recorded on 29/11/2009 at 16:05 hours. Entire prosecution evidence is mysteriously silent as to why recording of second dying declaration was felt necessary particularly when once the same had already been recorded by the Executive Magistrate itself.
18. Doubts have been expressed by the defence that by using their influence, the parents and brothers of the deceased pressurized the investigating agency to record the second dying declaration. Though the parents Omprakash and Sharda and brother Sunil have concealed this fact but brother Anil (P.W.5) could not hide this. In para-6 of his cross- examination, he has admitted that in her first dying declaration, Nandini had revealed that she caught fire accidentally; but they wanted that her dying declaration be recorded again, therefore, they persuaded the police to do the same and to get her dying declaration recorded again.
19. There is no document on record to show as to who called Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar Manish Shrivastava (P.W.18) to record the second dying declaration of the deceased and how he was called. An officer of Additional S.P. rank Anand Prakash Singh, who investigated the case and CRA 868/2012 9 recorded the police statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated in para-5 of his cross-examination that he does not know as to why even after recording first dying declaration on 29/11/2009, the dying declaration of deceased was again recorded on 30/11/2009. He tried to avoid his responsibility and has stated that as the proceedings in respect of recording of second dying declaration might have been conducted by the Police Station Sahajahanbad, therefore, he is not aware about the same. He has stated to the extent that he does not know as to whether the law permits recording of second dying declaration after recording dying declaration once. In this sequence, it would be pertinent to go through the admission of Naib Tehsildar Manish Shrivastava P.W.18, who has recorded second dying declaration. In para-3 and 4 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was well aware that before him, the first dying declaration of the deceased had already been recorded by Naib Tehsildar Bajrang Bahadur. He has stated that he had received a letter from the police for recording second dying declaration but no such letter is produced either by him or by the prosecution. Even no evidence is produced that any such letter was ever issued by the investigating officer to call Naib Tehsildar Manish Shrivastava to record the second dying declaration.
20. One thing also to be noted here is that both the dying declarations are recorded by the Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar, having same rank and status. No aspiration has been caste on the integrity, honesty and impartiality of Naib Tehsildar Bajrang Bahadur (D.W.1), who recorded first dying CRA 868/2012 10 declaration. Therefore, first dying declaration cannot be brushed aside that too for no reasons or only for the reasons that the parents and brothers of the deceased were wanted to do so.
21. Second dying declaration was recorded after about 30 hours on the next day of the incident i.e. 30/11/2009 at 22:25 hours. Delay is not explained. Further, the evidence of the prosecution shows that by that time, parents, brothers and sister of the deceased become aware of the first dying declaration and during this entire intervening period i.e. from 29/11/2009 16:05 hours to 30/11/2009 22:05 hours, they remained with the deceased and had conversation with her.
22. In the second dying declaration dated 30/11/2009, it is mentioned that the husband of the deceased had beaten her on day before yesterday or a day before the incident 'parso Ritesh ne mujha mara. Parso nahi kal 28/11/2009 ko'. The word "kal" means yesterday. As deceased states that 'Kal' means 28/11/2009, it means the second dying declaration was recorded on 29/11/2009 and not on 30/11/2009 as it has been shown in the document itself. This also raises doubt about genuineness of the second dying declaration.
23. It is pertinent to note that the first dying declaration was not produced by the police with the charge-sheet. The prosecution has not given any explanation for withholding this vital document necessary to do justice, but one can easily understand the reasons. This intentional default of the prosecution speak volumes and fortifies the doubts of the defence that the prosecution was bias and not impartial, which CRA 868/2012 11 otherwise it should be.
24. Undisputedly, the deceased was first taken to the Hamidia Hospital. Her parents, brothers and sister were also reached there but surprisingly no record of Hamidia hospital is produced by the prosecution to disclose as to what was the first version of all the persons concerned. Withholding such important evidence creates doubts regarding genuineness of the prosecution case.
25. Thus, it is clear that parents and brother of the deceased were with her since receiving the information of the incident. They were aware that in her first dying declaration, she has not made any allegation against her in-laws or against her husband as well. They persuaded the police to record the second dying declaration and the same was recorded without assigning any reason. Second dying declaration was recorded after 30 hours of the recording of the first dying declaration. In the meantime, parents, brothers and sister had full excess and remained in constant touch of the deceased and also had conversation with her, therefore, they were having all opportunity to influence the deceased. Nothing is on record to show that Naib Tehsildar Manish Shrivastava was called officially to record second dying declaration. First dying declaration was withheld by the prosecution and was not produced with the charge-sheet. Thus, the second dying declaration suffers from the serious irregularities and cannot be relied upon.
26. Much emphasize is given by the learned trial Court to drive support for the allegation against the appellants on the CRA 868/2012 12 statement of neighbour of the appellants Harpal Singh (P.W.9). Harpal Singh (P.W.9) has tried to convince the Court that on the date of incident at about 10, he heard the screams of some woman from the house of the appellants. He rushed towards their house; but found the channel gate was closed. The appellant Chetan was standing close to the channel gate pushing it by his back to prevent its opening, but he pushed the door, got it opened and entered in the house. Appellant Chetan asked him as to why he has come or is there any shooting is going on? After entering the house, he saw that appellant Ritesh (husband of the deceased) was brushing his teeth, mother-in-law Geetabai was wearing jacket and the deceased was lying in the courtyard in 99% burnt condition. He asked Ritesh as to what happened. He stated that while cooking food, the (LPG) cylinder got burst and she sustained burn injuries. He replied that there is a strong smell of kerosene and you are saying that this is a case of burst of (LPG) cylinder. He did not talk the deceased as she was not in a condition to speak and came out. This is the entire statement of Harpal Singh (P.W.9) and the trial Court has taken it as a gospel truth.
27. Harpal Singh is a retired Police Officer and retired after 51 years of service in the police department. He has admitted that he had no relation or was not in talking terms with the appellants. He has stated that even after seeing entire scene, he came back and sat down idle in his house. Neither he took any action against the appellants nor helped the deceased to save her life, neither took her to the hospital nor provided any CRA 868/2012 13 medical or other help or even not informed the police. He simply went inside the house of his neighbour with whom he was not having any talking terms, came back home and sat down. He did not even take any steps to inform the police. Even for next several days, he kept mum and in fact never informed the police on his own. It was the police, who contacted him and only thereafter, he revealed the so called truth in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after almost a month of he incident. This conduct of the witness is highly unnatural and delay in recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. makes his statement seriously suspicious.
28. Fingerprints of Geetabai found on a jerrycan and lifted as chance fingerprint have also been taken by the trial Court as circumstance supporting the case of the prosecution but there is no convincing evidence that the fingerprints were lifted by some expert. V.S. Thakur (P.W.11), a scientist posted in District Scene of Crime Unit, Rajgarh has admitted in para- 10 of his cross-examination that he is not a fingerprint expert. Chance fingerprints were developed before him but no panchnama or memorandum of taking such chance fingerprints was prepared. No evidence is produced by the prosecution or no witnesses is examined to show that how he had lifted such fingerprints from the spot. It is pertinent to note here that chance fingerprints were lifted from a jerrycan of kerosene kept in a shelf adjacent to the LPG cylinder beneath the kitchen platform of the appellants. Geetabai was the house-lady. It is but natural that she was using kitchen as CRA 868/2012 14 well as the articles kept in the kitchen. In such a situation, her fingerprints on the utensil or boxes or can etc. are very natural. There is no evidence as to how old the fingerprints were. In such situation it become doubtful that it might have come due to use of can at the time of incident as equally the possibility can not be ruled out that it might have come during it usual use by the lady of the house.
29. It has come in the prosecution case that after receiving the intimation from the brother of the deceased, the police of Kotwali, Rajgarh had sealed the place of incident to avoid any external inference with intent to make any evidence disappeared, therefore, there was no occasion for Geetabai or for any other appellant to keep the jerrycan of kerosene in its proper place after pouring kerosene on the deceased and after setting her ablaze. The chance fingerprints were found on the bottom of the jerrycan. It appears that the prosecution wanted to show that jerrycan was lifted from the bottom to pour the kerosene but one other view is also possible that bottom side of the jerrycan remains in touch of floor and if a person keeps jerrycan after using it, the fingerprints may get disappeared or extorted to such extent that they may get blurred and may not remain sufficient for comparison, therefore, this evidence of the prosecution is again seriously doubtful.
30. Fact mentioned in the first dying declaration that earlier mother-in-law of the deceased was harassing her is also used by the learned trial Court to consider that the allegation made in the second dying declaration are true but the deceased has clearly depicted in her first dying declaration that since after CRA 868/2012 15 her last visit to her maternal home when she returned back her maternal home, there was no problem with her. Nobody was harassing her in any manner, therefore, the allegation cannot be treated as harassment extended soon before her death.
31. Parents and brother of the deceased has made allegation that the husband of the deceased was demanding motorcycle which they could not provide but in her second dying declaration itself the deceased has stated that her parents had gifted motorcycle to her husband, therefore, there was no reason for the appellants to harass the deceased for non- fulfillment of their demand of dowry. This also rebuts the allegation of the witnesses that the husband of the deceased was demanding motorcycle or was harassing her on this account.
32. Witness Harpal Singh (P.W.9) has stated that at the time of the incident when he entered in the house, husband of the deceased was brushing the teeth. While in her second dying declaration the deceased has stated that after beating her, husband had left the place.
33. Harpal Singh has stated that when he entered in the house after hearing screams of a lady, the husband of the deceased was brushing his teeth. The incident took place at about 11 normally it is not the time when someone brushes his teeth. In second dying declaration the deceased has stated that Ritesh had tried to douse the fire. He splashed water first and then covered the deceased by a blanket.
34. All these facts raises certain serious doubts about the genuineness, truthfulness or trustworthiness of the witnesses CRA 868/2012 16 as well as the documents prepared during the investigation in the mind for a common prudent man. Entire evidence collected during investigation indicates that there is all possibility of doubting the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court and also that something fishy exists in the case of the prosecution which makes it seriously doubtful and certainly the appellants are entitled for such doubts.
35. There was a delay of about 20 days in recording the police statement of the witnesses while admittedly, they all were present on the spot since the time of the incident and remained in constant touch with the police till death of the deceased, but their statements were recorded after almost a month for no reason. The police never tried to record their statement even when the condition of the deceased was stable and the witnesses were available to the police and even when the police was aware that certain allegations have been made by the deceased in her dying declaration in respect of demand of dowry and cruelty and harassment extended by the appellants, this unexplained delay is also fatal to the credibility of the prosecution case.
36. It is further admitted that prior to or at the time of marriage no demand was made by the appellants. During the lifetime of the deceased, no such allegations have been made, therefore, such allegation after the death of the deceased appears to be more of desperation than of substance.
37. All the prime witnesses Anuradha (sister), Sharda (mother), Anil and Sunil (brothers) and Omprakash (father) have stated that after the incident, they met with the deceased CRA 868/2012 17 and asked about the incident, she revealed that the appellants doused her in the kerosene and set her ablaze. But even thereafter they did not approach the police and lodged the FIR then and there in any Police Station or more particularly the Police Station Shahajahanbad, Bhopal. Neither they approached the police Kotwali, Rajgarh having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. They did not reveal the fact before the treating doctor.
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion the evidence produced by the prosecution is not correctly appreciated by the learned trial Court. The flaws and discrepancies appeared in the evidence produced by the prosecution makes its case seriously doubtful. We do not find it safe to convict the appellants on such shattered and shaky evidence, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed. All the appellants are acquitted from the charge under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A of IPC.
39. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded back to the appellants.
40. The accused be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
41. The order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.
(S.C. Sharma) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
soumya
Digitally signed by Soumya
Soumya Ranjan Dalai
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of
Madhya Pradesh Bench
Ranjan
Indore, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84322b
b5797cf28ee60671538b737cf
Dalai
52962d84d7b527897e53ac,
cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai
Date: 2019.08.21 16:37:29
+05'30'