Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Bheru @ Bherulal And Ors. on 12 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: II(1995)DMC550
JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated X7.12.1987 of the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar passed in S.T. No. 110/ 87 whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable Under Sections 147, 307, 498A and 149 of I.P.C. for forming unlawful assembly and committing attempt to murder in pursuance of common object of their all.
2. P.W. 6 Mangilal, P.W. 7 Shantabai are the father and mother of P.W. 3 Sumitrabai. Sumitrabai was married to Radhu @ Radheshyam. She lived for some time with Radhu and had come second time from her parent's house for living with him.
3. It is alleged that on earlier occasion i.e., on 21.5.1986 Sumitrabai was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Sumitrabai had burn injuries. After the treatment Sumitrabai was taken by her parents but because of the death of her father-in-law Onkarlal she was sent back to her husband's house (i.e., Radhu's house).
4. The prosecution case in brief is that these accused persons are near by relations of Sumitrabai and were pressing Sumitrabai to bring almirah and electric fan from her father's house. According to accused persons Kantabai, the other daughter of Mangilal had received all these articles. Sumitrabai was ill-treated. On the date of incident Kamlabai and Samudibai caught hold of her and her husband poured kerosene oil on her & set her to fire. She raised alarm but by the time some other persons could came, accused persons left the place. These other persons helped her in extinguishing the fire. She became unconscious and therefore, she was admitted in Hospital. During her stay in the Hospital she informed the Doctor that she got burn injuries while cooking.
5. A report was made by Sumitrabai on 26.9.1986 at about 3.45 p.m. nearly three months after the incident. The matter was investigated and the challan under various sections was filed against all the accused persons. On charges being explained the accused denied the same and pleaded false implication because of animosity.
Learned Trial Judge acquitted all the accused persons. Hence this appeal.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant is that Sumitrabai has wrongly been disbelieved. She made a disclosure after influence of in-laws, was removed from her mind and since Sumitra had extensive burns and the same were found by the Doctor on examination, therefore, her statement stands corroborated from the medical evidence.
7. As against it, it has been contended on behalf of the accused-respondents that there was some talk of divorce between Sumitrabai and Radhu. This annoyed her and it was for this reason that a concocted report was subsequently filed with the police.
8. We were taken to the evidence on record. The very fact that Sumitrabai kept mum for about 3 months raises a strong suspicion against the credibility of her evidence.
9. Not only that immediatelay after the admission in the Hospital she disclosed to the Doctor that she had sustained burn injuries while cooking. Later on after 3 months this story of setting her to fire by her husband was disclosed.
10. There is no corroboration of the evidence of Sumitrabai with the medical evidence. Dr. Suresh Gupta (P.W. 1) has proved the fact of burn injuries found on the body of Sumitrabai. But he has stated nothing about the statement made by Sumitrabai. As against it P.W. 2 Dr. Patidar has stated that he found no smell of kerosene or petrol on the clothes of Sumitrabai. This witness recorded the statement of Sumitrabai who gave the reason of burns as accidental as she sustained burn injuries while cooking. It is during cooking operation that her clothes caught fire. This is very clearly borne out from the statement of Sumitrabai Ex. D/1. Dr. Patidar also recorded the statement of Mangilal, the father of Sumitrabai. Mangilal has also not stated about the demand of dowry or any cruelty being practised on Sumitrabai. These statements of Sumitrabai and Mangilal were recorded on 22.5.1986. Till then there was no case of homicidal injuries. This report Ex. P/5 was made nearly after four months i.e. on 26.9.1986. There appears to be subsequent concoction as the relations between the husband and wife deteriorated by that time.
11. Learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the prosecution story mainly on the ground of earlier statement of Sumitrabai and Mangilal and further because of absence of smell of kerosene and petrol on the clothes of Sumitrabai during medico-legal examination.
12. We find no reason to disturb that finding. There is always a presumption in favour of the accused and the same is not weakened because of the pronouncement of acquittal. Even otherwise in cases of appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of fact even if, it can come to a different conclusion if the inference and conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Judge is probable.
13. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution is failed to prove its case. The first information was given on 26.9.1986 is a concoction and, has been disbelieved.
14. As a results the appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed.