Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 25 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(3)MPHT408
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
ORDER A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. Petitioner Vijay Kumar Sharma has filed the revision under Section 401 of the Cr.PC against the judgment and order dated 15-4-99 in S.T. No. 119/95 by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur wherein and whereby the respondent accused 2 to 5 were acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and they were convicted and sentenced under Section 304B of the IPC for R.I. of 10 years and fine of Rs. l,000/-, under Section 498A of the IPC for R.I. of 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 201/34 for R.I. of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between respondent No. 3 Sunil was performed with deceased Nilima on 29-6-93 according to the Hindu rites and customs. That respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are the parents of Sunil and respondent No. 5 Ku. Mranalini is his sister. That Nilima gave birth to a child in the month of March, 1995.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17-3-95 petitioner Vijay Kumar informed the Police of Ratlam that the body of Nilima was being taken to Indore in a Taxi. That the Police force intercepted the Taxi and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were found therein carrying the body of Nilima. That on the post-mortem of the body of Nilima it was found that she was burnt by the Acid,. The allegation of the prosecution is that the neighbours usually used to hear the cries of Nilima on account of her beating by the accused persons. That Nilima used to disclose that in order to fulfill their greed of the dowry she was treated with cruelty by the accused persons. That on 17-3-95 at about 6 PM the accused persons wrapped the body of Nilima in the cloth and they put her in Taxi to take her to some unknown destination. That near Daloda the Taxi was intercepted by Police and the body of Nilima was found on the back seat and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sitting in the front seat. After the post-mortem it was reported that the deceased has died on account of 70% burns received by her due to the Acid. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the IPC.
4. The learned Trial Court has framed the charge under Section 302/34 and also under Section 304B, 498A and 201/34 of the IPC against the accused persons and after recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the respondent accused were acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and they were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. The petitioner Vijay Kumar has filed the revision against the acquittal under Section 302 of the IPC on the ground that the Trial Court has overlooked the circumstantial evidence and erred in acquitting the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
6. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. The deceased has not given her dying declaration. The circumstances against the respondent accused are that she was tortured for the demand of dowry just before her death. That Nilima died within 7 years of her marriage. That her death was highly suspicious and that her body was being taken by the accused persons in a Taxi from Mandsaur to Indore.
7. The aforesaid circumstances are insufficient to prove that the accused have caused the murder. It is laid down in case of Laxmi Naik v. State of Orissa, , that to record the conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and it should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.
8. The learned Trial Court has taken into consideration all the relevant evidence and after proper evaluation of the evidence, recorded the finding of the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC. The circumstances highlighted above are insufficient to prove the charge of murder. We have failed to observe any defect in the appreciation of the evidence by the Court in recording the acquittal. In case of Satyajit Banerjee v. State of W.B., , the scope of the Revisional Jurisdiction invoked at the instance of the complainant under Section 401 of the Cr.PC is laid down and it was held that it should be exercised in very exceptional cases, where there is a defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In case of Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav, 2004 SCC (Cri) 2009, it is observed that the Revisional Court can set aside an order of acquittal and remit the case for the trial only where material evidence is overlooked by the Trial Court. In the backdrop of the aforesaid proposition of law and the circumstantial evidence in the case, we see no ground whatsoever to interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
9. The revision is devoid of merits and it is, hereby, dismissed.