Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State vs Islamudeen And Ors on 9 July, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No.574/2007 State of Rajasthan vs. Islamudeen & Ors. Date of Judgment : 09.07.2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY Mr. Javed Choudhary, PP for the State. Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, for respondents.
The instant appeal is filed by the State questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2005 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bundi in Sessions Case No.68/2004 acquitting the respondents of the charge under Sections 304B & 498A the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code;).
I have heard Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.
On 13.08.2004 one Bahadur Kha, father of the deceased, lodged an information that he had given her daughter Piri Bai (since deceased) in marriage to the respondent No.1 whereafter he (respondent No.1) alongwith the appellants No.2 & 3, his mother and sister correspondingly used to harass her by demanding dowry. It was alleged that the respondents used to make persistent demand of Rs.50,000/- as dowry and that eventually on 12.08.2004 they doused her in kerosene oil and set her on fire, as a result whereof she eventually succumbed to burn injuries at the hospital. On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered under aforementioned provisions of the Code and challan was laid against the respondents thereunder. The respondents, on being confronted with the charge, denied the same and were, thus, made to stand trial. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the informant and the doctor, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body. The respondents in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charge as well.
The learned trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record both oral and documentary acquitted the respondents holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against them.
The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of the prosecution as a whole having proved the charge against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court is per se illegal and unsustainable and is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. All ingredients of sections 304B & 498A of the Code being present, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the respondents on the charge levelled against them, he urged.
The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, has argued that not only the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge, it being evident from the dying declaration of the victim that she attributed an accident while engaged in the kitchen to be the cause of her burn injuries, the trial court was right in acquitting them (respondents) and in absence of any overwhelming evidence to the contrary, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted.
I have carefully examined the evidence on record. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the dying declaration made by the deceased is of clinching impact on the prosecution case. As has been deposed by the medical witness PW-3 Dr. Ravindra Sachdeva, on 12.08.2004 while the injured was taking treatment at the hospital, he examined her and recorded her statement that she had suffered the burn injuries as a result of accidental burst of the stove on which she was working in the kitchen. He (PW-3) stated further that the victim had no other injury on her body. There is also no evidence on record to even suggest that the statement of the injured was either involuntary or untrue or had been made under duress, threat or undue influence.
In the above view of the matter, the conclusion reached by the learned trial court on the evidence available on record that the charge against the respondents has not been proved is certainly a plausible one. Having regard to the law outlining the scope of scrutiny of an order of acquittal and also having regard to the state of evidence on record, I am of the unhesitant opinion that no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted.
The appeal is dismissed.
(AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
Mohit All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.