Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It transpires from the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 / Bheemraju is none other than the husband of the deceased Rashmi. The marriage of Bheemraju and Rashmi was performed as on 10.04.2006 as per the customs prevailing in their society. During their marriage, Rashmi's parents had provided dowry in terms of gold jewellery. Subsequent to their marriage, both of them are said to have led a happy marital life for a period of two years. Accused No.1 / Bheemraju is none other than her husband and Accused No.2 / Prema, W/o. Srinivasa is her sister-in-law. It is stated that both Accused Nos.1 and 2 had insisted Rashmi to bring dowry in terms of money from her parental home. Also they were ill-treating her on the ground that she did not beget a male child. On both the counts, it is stated that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were extending physical as well as mental harassment to deceased Rashmi. It is stated that as on 19.09.2011 at around 11.00 p.m., when the deceased was staying along with her husband and child in a rented house, accused No.1 had extended physical as well as mental harassment to her on the ground that she did not beget a son and did not fulfill his demand to bring money from her parents house. Hence, with an intention to take away her life, Accused No.1 / Bheemraju is said to have doused kerosene over her person and lit the fire. As a result, Rashmi sustained burning injuries over her person. Firstly she was admitted to Kunigal Government Hospital and was later shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment. However, while she was under

6. PW-14 being an I.O. in part, had conducted investigation thoroughly by recording the statements of witnesses and so also conducted mahazar in the presence of Panch witnesses. Exhibit P1 is the spot panchanama which was conducted by PW-14 in the presence of PW-1 and also PW-2 who have subscribed their signatures. PW-15 being an I.O. had laid the charge-sheet against the accused after completion of the investigation. These are the evidence facilitated by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, whereby the Trial Court had appreciated the aforesaid evidence in respect of those material witnesses and rendered an acquittal judgment for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, whereby points for consideration have been raised by the Trial Court relating to the aforesaid offences in respect of the death of the Rashmi who had sustained burning injuries over her person, which is indicated in the P.M report at Exhibit P8 conducted by the Doctor being examined as PW-12. These are all the evidence which have been appreciated by the Trial Court after having gone through the contents in Exhibit P1 of the spot panchanama, contents in Exhibit P2 of the Inquest mahazar drawn in the presence of PW-3 and also the dying declaration at Exhibit P3 signed by deceased Rashmi. Her statement was recorded by PW-11 in the presence of PW-6 being a Doctor and after her death, the same has been treated as 'Dying Declaration'. Whereas in the said Exhibit P3, PW-6 being the Doctor had made an endorsement relating to physical as well as mental status of the victim who had given statement as per Exhibit P3. But the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence for consideration relating to the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and even alternatively Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC inclusive of Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act that with a common intention, both Accused Nos.1 and 2 had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Rashmi who is none other than the wife of Accused No.1 / Bheemraju. However, prior to her marriage with the accused Bheemraju, that there was love affair in between Rashmi and accused Bheemraju. But subsequently their marriage was got arranged by elders and was performed as per the customs prevailing in their society. Whereas Bheemraju was by avocation an autorickshaw driver to eke out his livelihood. The deceased Rashmi, her husband and child were staying for rent in the house of PW-1 Lokesha. Accused No.2 / Prema was the sister of Accused No.1 and also the sister- in-law of deceased Rashmi. In her statement, the name of Accused No.2 was also stated by the declarant namely Rashmi, in view of which fact the said Prema was also arraigned as the accused. Despite of criminal prosecution being set into motion based upon her statement at Exhibit P3 which is termed as dying declaration and recording FIR at Exhibit P9 and in spite of the contents in the FIR and mahazar at Exhibits P1 and P2, the Trial Court felt that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently has rendered an acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons, which is termed as justifiable reasons in S.C.No.141/2012. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by the State by urging various grounds.

10. PW-8 / Kumara and PW-9 / Gangappa have been subjected to examination. But they did not support the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile and thereafter have been subjected to cross-examination, which finds place in their evidence itself. More so, their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW-11 / Arunkumar who had subscribed his signature to Exhibit P3 who was by avocation as a Police Constable who recorded her statement at Exhibit P3. PW-13 being an I.O. in part who recorded an FIR as per Exhibit P9. But the evidence of PW-11 and PW-13 runs contrary to the contents at Exhibit P3 of the statement initially given by the deceased Rashmi. But dying declaration has to be carefully and meticulously scrutinized whether truthful facts have been narrated. It is the inference under the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution and the evidence of those witnesses have been considered by the Trial Court and rendered an acquittal judgment. Though several witnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, merely because of examination of certain witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, it cannot be said that each and every evidence is gospel truth on the part of the prosecution. But evidence has to be weighed in a golden scale in respect of each of the offences. But in the instant case, Sections 498A of IPC relating to physical as well as mental harassment wherein death had occurred within 7 years from the date of marriage and alternatively Sections 302 and 304B of the IPC and also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act were lugged against the accused. But no ingredients have been established by the prosecution to prove that the deceased Rashmi had been meted with physical as well as mental harassment by her husband Accused No.1 / Bheemaraj and also with the assistance of her sister-in-law Prema who is arraigned as Accused No.2. Subsequent to the marriage of the deceased Rashmi, Bheemraju who is arraigned as Accused No.1 and by avocation an autodriver were residing in the house of PW-1. The said PW-1 being the owner, had entered into the scene of crime, i.e., to their rented house when Rashmi caught fire. At that time Bheemraju also had entered into the house and PW-1 had informed him to go to the police station and give information about the incident. Accordingly, Bheemraju had been to the jurisdictional police to inform the incident. But Accused No.1 Bheemraju who is none other than the husband of deceased Rashmi had also sustained burn injuries on his person, which indicates at Exhibit P14 of the Wound Certificate issued by the Doctor. The same is collected by PW-14 by laying the charge-sheet against the accused. But PW-15 being an I.O. who laid the charge sheet whereby he collected the photographs at Exhibit P15 and marriage invitation card at Exhibit P16. Merely because the aforesaid material documents have been secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion by appreciating the evidence and assessing the entire evidence of the prosecution which are material evidence stated supra, and rightly rendered an acquittal judgment. The grounds urged by the State by preferring an appeal by banking upon the dying declaration at Exhibit P3 recorded in the presence of PW-6 need not be considered unless there is worthwhile evidence. The declaration given by the declarant namely deceased Rashmi cannot be considered to be gospel truth. On all these premise, learned counsel for the respondents / accused emphatically submits that the said grounds urged in this appeal do not have any substance and there is no bone of contention in order to re-visit the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial court and thus seeks for dismissal of this appeal as being devoid of merits by confirming the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court. It is also contended that there are no warranting circumstances even in respect of the grounds urged by the learned HCGP for the State who has preferred this appeal. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents / accused seeks for dismissal of this appeal as being devoid of merits.

12. Ex.P14 is the wound certificate of accused No.1

- Bheemaraju whereby he made an endeavourance to save his wife - Rashmi where she was in fire flames in the scene of crime. PW.1 - Lokesha is the landlord wherein his house was obtained on rental basis whereby deceased - Rashmi and her female child inclusive of her husband - Bheemaraju were residing there. But PW.1 - Lokesha who got information that smoke was coming out from the rented house whereby accused No.1 and his family consisting of his wife and female child were staying. But for the information from the wife of PW.1 - Lokesha and that Lokesha who had been to the house noticed that deceased - Rashmi was on fire flames and he also made endeavourance to put off fire and in the meanwhile, accused No.1 - Bheemaraju who is none other than the husband of deceased - Rashmi had also entered and also made endeavourance to put off the fire frame found on the person of deceased - Rashmi. While at that time, he also sustained injuries as per Ex.P14 injury certificate. PW.15 being the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against accused by securing photographs at Ex.P15 and marriage invitation card at Ex.P16 relating to marriage of deceased - Rashmi with accused No.1 - Bheemaraju. But accused No.1 and deceased had fallen in love with each other and even that deceased - Rashmi eloped with him but specifically there was some arrangement of their marriage and accordingly their marriage was performed on 10.04.2006 as per the customs prevailing in their society. But during her marriage with him that her parents had provided dowry in terms of golden jewellaries such as gold ear studs, hangings and finger ring and subsequent to their marriage that she had been to her husband's house whereby she lead happy marital life with him for two years. But subsequently that her husband and also her sister-in- law who is arraigned as accused No.2 has given physical as well as mental harassment on account of the fact that she did not beget a male child and also she did not fulfill their demand relating to additional dowry from her parents house and accordingly, both accused Nos.1 and 2 had given physical as well as mental harassment to deceased - Rashmi. Accused No.1 by avocation was a Auto driver and they were staying in a rented house of PW.1 - Lokesha at Kunigal. The same finds place in the materials which collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation and even deceased - Rashmi has given statement as per Ex.P3 while she was under treatment in Kunigal Government Hospital for having suffered with burn injuries over her body. A person who is suffering burn injuries on entire body will not scientifically have stamina or even mentally prepared to give statement as stated to have been recorded as per Ex.P3. Even at a cursory glance of Ex.P3 of the statement given by deceased- Rashmi while she was on treatment in Government Hospital, Kunigal it was recorded by PW.11 - police constable whereby he was accompanied with PW.13. But it appears that she has not been specifically stated or narrated how she sustained burn injuries or even dousing kerosene over her person and fire got lit. Even she has not stated in her statement anything that her husband - Bheemraju who is arraigned as accused No.1 after setting fire on her was running away from the scene of crime. Even after committing such an offence that too dousing kerosene over her person and setting ablaze and she has also stated the presence of accused No.2 who is none other than her sister-in-law. But one can infer that a person who is suffering from burn injuries over the body will not scientifically have stamina or even mentally prepared to give statement continuously as she has stated in her statement at Ex.P3. Even at a cursory glance of statement of deceased - Rashmi which is termed as dying declaration Ex.P3 and even after her death, but it has to be tested as under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act where a prudent man can infer that if the statement has been given as per Ex.P3, nothing prevented the police agency from securing the responsible Taluka Executive Magistrate to record her statement even in the presence of Doctor - PW.6 as expeditiously. Even nothing prevented the police agency from arraigning Bhagya also as a co-accused. These are all the evidence that has been appreciated by the trial Court while rendering the acquittal judgment. But the reasons assigned by the trial Court are sound and also justifiable. Even accused No.2 who is none other than the sister of accused No.1 she was married and she lead her happy marital life with her husband. Even at a cursory glance of the post mortem report at Ex.P8 whereby it indicates there were blue ink marks on both plantar surfaces of big toes. Needle mark on dorsum of right hand. But it does not speak of any ink on the left thumb. If deceased - Rashmi had given a statement as per Ex.P3 in Government Hospital, Kunigal and affixed her LTM as per Ex.P3 and even at the time of post mortem conducted by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body must have found the blue ink mark on her left thumb. However, her left thumb mark has been got it marked as Ex.P3(c). But there is no mentioning specifically of such blue ink mark on the left thumb at Ex.P8 of the report issued by the Doctor. These are all the material evidence appreciated by the trial Court by considering the evidence of PW.6 being the Doctor and in her presence PW.11 who recorded statement of deceased as per Ex.P3 and subsequent to her death it has been termed as dying declaration.