Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that despite there being no clinching and sufficient evidence on record against the Appellants, the Trial Court has convicted them. From perusal of the entire evidence on record, it reveals that material ingredients, i.e., demand of dowry and that too soon before death of the deceased are missing. Therefore, conviction of the Appellants is not sustainable. It was further submitted that there are two dying declarations, i.e., Ex.P11 and P22, which were recorded by two different Tahsildars and there are also two statements of the deceased under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., Ex.P18 and P19 recorded by the same Investigating Officer. First dying declaration (Ex.P11) and first statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P18) were recorded on 22.7.1993 in which the deceased had not levelled any allegation. From the statements of the witnesses, it reveals that thereafter brother of the deceased, namely, Ramchandra Sen (PW1), who was Reader in the office of the S.D.M., advised the deceased to level allegations against the Appellants and then, on the next day, the deceased levelled allegations against the Appellants in her second dying declaration (Ex.P22), which was recorded by Tahsildar C.L. Yadav (PW12) under the influence of the said brother of the deceased and she also levelled allegations in her second statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P19). It was further submitted that Pradeep Sharma (PW7), who is an Advocate by profession and a close family friend of Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and senior to Rita Sen (PW2), wife of Ramchandra Sen, has deposed that on 23.7.1993, at 9 a.m., he had visited the deceased in the hospital and had a talk with her. At that time, the deceased had disclosed him everything. But, Ramchandra Sen (PW1), brother of the deceased lodged written complaint (Ex.P1) on 23.7.1993 at 21:20 hours. Looking to the relationship between Pradeep Sharma (PW7) and Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and Rita Sen (PW2), Pradeep Sharma (PW7) would have immediately disclosed the discussion took place between him and the deceased in the morning, but the FIR was lodged in the night. Looking to the above, the entire statement of Pradeep Sharma (PW7) is doubtful. It was further submitted that looking to the two different statements of the deceased and other material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful.

18. With regard to the incident, Ramchandra Sen (PW1) has deposed that on 22.7.1993, they came to know that the deceased had burnt and she was admitted in the hospital. They went to the hospital. At that time, condition of the deceased was not good. Therefore, he did not talk with her. Next day, he again went to the hospital. At that time, condition of the deceased was normal. Then she told him that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law had caught her, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Rita Sen (PW2) has also deposed that on 22.7.1993 no talk had taken place with the deceased. On 23.7.1993, they met with the deceased after permission of the doctor. At that time, the deceased told them that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law caught her, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Ramchandra Sen (PW1) has not disclosed that at what time his talk had taken place with the deceased on 23.7.1993. But, according to Rita Sen (PW2), on 23.7.1993, their visit with the deceased took place at 5-6 p.m. and at that time the deceased had told them about the incident. Meaning thereby, on 23.7.1993, at 5-6 p.m., the deceased had disclosed about the incident to them for the first time. The second dying declaration (Ex.P22) of the deceased was also recorded on 23.7.1993 at 6 p.m. Thus, it seems that when the second dying declaration (Ex.P22) was being recorded, Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and Rita Sen (PW2) were present in the hospital. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that by that time the deceased had come under the influence of her brother Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and his wife Rita Sen (PW2). The matter was reported by Ramchandra Sen (PW1) vide Ex.P1 on 23.7.1993 at 21:20 hours. According to the statement of Pradeep Sharma (PW7), on 23.7.1993, at 9 a.m., the deceased had disclosed him about the entire incident. Looking to the close family friendship, if Pradeep Sharma (PW7) was aware of the facts in the morning at about 9-10 a.m. then he should have disclosed about this to Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and Rita Sen (PW2) immediately thereafter. But, Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and Rita Sen (PW2) have not stated anything that they had been told anything so by Pradeep Sharma (PW7). Looking to the above, the entire statement of Pradeep Sharma (PW7) is suspicious.

20. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is established that death of Laxmibai occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. But, there is no direct evidence available on record to show that demand of dowry was being made from the deceased and marpeet was taking place with her therefor and soon before her death also marpeet took place with her for demand of dowry. Though on some occasions, as stated by Ramchandra Sen (PW1), some money was given to the deceased by them, when and how much money was given to her has not been disclosed and there is nothing on record to show that there was any direct demand of money by the Appellants. Pradeep Sharma (PW7) has obviously tried to establish that after 6 months of the marriage of the deceased, her husband had left her at her maternal house saying that they will take her back on fulfillment of their demand of money and this witness had taken and left the deceased at her matrimonial house on her request one week prior to the incident. But, his statement is suspicious. With regard to the incident also, there is material contradictions and omissions in the statements of Ramchandra Sen (PW1), Rita Sen (PW2) and Pradeep Sharma (PW7). Pradeep Sharma (PW7) seems to be an interested witness and he has fully tried to implicate the Appellants. The entire statement of Pradeep Sharma (PW7) is suspicious. There are also two dying declarations (Ex.P11 and P22) of the deceased. There are also two statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P18 and P19). Her first 161 statement (Ex.P18) was recorded on 22.7.1993. Her first dying declaration (Ex.P11) was also recorded on 22.7.1993 in which she had not levelled any allegation, rather she had stated that she had burnt accidentally. Her second dying declaration (Ex.P22) was recorded on 23.7.1993 at 6 p.m. At that time, Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and Rita Sen (PW2) were present in the hospital. Therefore, there is possibility that the second dying declaration (Ex.P22) would have been recorded under the influence of Ramchandra Sen (PW1) and Rita Sen (PW2), who were Reader of the SDM and Advocate, respectively. In my considered view, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction of the Appellants is not sustainable.