Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) The statement of the deceased recorded by the Doctor (P.W.10) exonerates the accused, as the reason given for the burn injuries was accidental fire by a stove.

12. The judgment and order of the learned trial court has been challenged on various grounds mentioned above. We shall consider each ground in the light of evidence on record.

13. It is not disputed that incident took place on 22.1.1998 while the F.I.R. was lodged on 28.1.1998 i.e. after 6 days of the incident. According to prosecution this delay has been satisfactorily explained by the complainant, who stated that after receiving information of the burning of his daughter, he immediately rushed to the house of the accused and after that he remained in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi from 22.1.1998 to 25.1.1998 wherein his daughter was struggling for life under the supervision of the doctors. He also stated that he returned back to his village on 26.1.1998 after cremation of his daughter that was performed by her husband and his family members. It has also come in his statement on oath that the report was lodged by him on 28.1.1998 after due consultation with his family members and other relations. It is argued that a party may take reasonable time for deliberations, and consultation with his family members and relations before lodging report in such type of cases where honour and reputation of the family is involved and in this case since the deceased had left two minor children also, hence P.W. 1 complainant Mahavir Prasad must have been under various pulls land pressures of the relations and caste fellows who may have been desisting him from taking the matter to the Court and therefore, the delay is claimed to have been explained satisfactorily. The contention of the defence, on the other hand, is that the complainant had come to know about incident on 22,1.1998. It has come in evidence that he remained in Hospital in Delhi for 3 days continuously where police and executive officers had also come several times but he did not make any complaint against his son-in-law to them. Even after the cremation of his daughter he did not lodge any report at the concerned police station, which was only at a distance of one kilometer from the place of incident. It has come through evidence of D.W.3 Ravi Dutt Seema that after cremation of Seema deceased on 26.1.1998 a Panchayat was called on the next morning by the complainant in which he was also present wherein he (complainant) said "???" complainant after the death of Seema, he (the Complainant) did not send them back to their father Virendra. The witness no doubt is a relation of the accused Virendra but the statement of this witness cannot be discarded only due to his relationship, especially when it finds support by the fact of delay in lodging the F.I.R. Under the circumstances the delay in this case remained unexplained and that proved to be fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant had come to know oh 22.1.1998 that his daughter had been of burnt alive but he did not lodge any report at once or at least immediately after cremation of his daughter. It is admitted by the complainant that the deceased in burnt condition had been taken to hospital by her husband accused Virendra and entire expenses towards her medical treatment from 22.1.1998 to 25.1.1998 were borne by the husband himself. He also admitted that the husband remained present in the hospital through out and during this period no complaint was made by him (Complainant) to any police officer or executive officer, who had been visiting the hospital in connection with this case.