Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned counsel Shri Nishant Bora representing the appellants, urged that the trial court discharged the accused appellants from the offence under Section 304B IPC and that there is no material whatsoever on the record of the case to show that the appellants ever harassed or humiliated Smt. Geeta on any account whatsoever. He urged that the evidence of material prosecution witnesses gives a strong indication that there was a grave doubt on the conduct of the deceased who was suspected to be talking to some unknown man on phone. Serious disputes arose between the spouses as a result of her misdeeds and as a result, Geeta was sent back to her father's house. However, the maternal relatives, did not keep her there and she was sent back to her matrimonial home a day before the incident. He urged that no such dispute had occurred between the appellants and Geeta which could have spurred them to set her afire. He contended that appellants sent the deceased back to her father's house on suspicion of her being in touch with an unknown man but she was not allowed to stay there and was sent back to the matrimonial home. Being frustrated and out of despondency, she set herself to fire. Thereafter, in order to wreak vengeance on the appellants, she gave a totally cooked up Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) alleging that (5 of 17) [CRLA-540/2017] she had been set on fire by the appellants herein. He contended that neither the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) recorded by the SHO Police Station Panchu nor the dying declaration (Ex.P/16) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Deeksha Sood (PW-16) are reliable because Geeta was not at all familier with Hindi language and knew only Marwari language, whereas both these statements were recorded in pure Hindi language. He submitted that other than these two statements, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record of the case to show that the appellants herein poured kerosene on Geeta and then set her on fire. He submitted that Tejaram (PW-1) and Hemaram (PW-2), the two neighbours, who admittedly reached the spot on hearing the screams of Geeta, clearly stated that she did not divulge that she had been set on fire by the accused. He further contended that these two witnesses may have been declared hostile but Laluram (PW-3), who also reached the spot just after the incident, categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that when he reached the place of incident, Ruparam's wife (Geeta) was shouting that she was trying to alight the hearth and she got burnt during the process. Shri Bora also referred to the statement of Babulal (PW-6), who also stated that he transported Geeta to the Nokha Hospital in his vehicle and on the way, he asked Geeta how she got burned upon which, she stated that her in-laws were maligning her character by imputing that she was talking to some unknown man and thus, while she was preparing tea, she poured kerosene on her body and set herself on fire. Shri Bora submitted that even Padmaram (PW-7) uncle of the deceased, and her mother Kunni Devi (PW-8), when examined during investigation, gave statements Ex.D/1 and (6 of 17) [CRLA-540/2017] Ex.D/2 respectively, divulging therein that Geeta had set herself on fire. He submitted that these two witnesses are the only persons who alleged in their testimony that Geeta was being harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home, but the reason for such harassment, as per the witnesses, was alleged demand for dowry. However, this theory of harassment of the lady for demand of dowry was not accepted by the trial court because the accused were discharged from the offence under Section 304B IPC. He submitted that the fact mentioned in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) that the appellant Sugnaram was associated in taking Geeta to Nokha Hospital, gives a strong indication of his innocence. He raised the following contentions for criticizing the dying declaration (Ex.P/16) and urged that the said statement is totally unreliable and inadmissible in evidence:-

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He submitted that Sunil Charan (PW-14) SHO Police Station Panchu, who recorded the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) and the Judicial Magistrate Deeksha Sood (PW-16), who recorded the (8 of 17) [CRLA-540/2017] dying declaration of Geeta (Ex.P/16), neither had any animosity with the accused nor did they have any affinity with the complainant party so as to record the statement of Geeta unfaithfully or to twist or modulate the version given out by her. He urged that merely because the Medical Officer, who gave the fitness certificate, was not examined, these two statements of the injured cannot be thrown out entirely as the Police Officer as well as the Judicial Magistrate recorded these statements after being duly satisfied that the injured was in a fit condition to give such statement. He further urged that Marwari and Hindi languages are almost similar in script and pronunciation and thus, no benefit can be claimed by the accused by the mere fact that the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/16) were recorded in Hindi language. He further pointed out that the close maternal relatives of the deceased namely Padmaram (PW-7) (Uncle) and Kunni Devi (PW-8) (Mother) have categorically stated that the husband and his relatives used to harass and humiliate Smt. Geeta on account of demand for dowry and it was for this reason that she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Geeta's maternal relatives sent her back to the matrimonial home and on the very next morning, the accused set her on fire because their demands were not met. He thus urged that the impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

14) who took down the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) of Geeta, did not record his satisfaction that the burned victim was in a fit condition to give such a statement. Sunil Charan, when examined on oath as PW-14, did not utter a single word that he satisfied himself regarding the victim being in a mentally or physically fit condition to give the statement. He stated that on reaching the PBM Hospital at about 12.00 p.m., he took the permission/opinion of the duty doctor regarding the burn victim Geeta being in a position to give the statement and then the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) was recorded by him. However, no such written permission/opinion was proved/brought on record by the prosecution during the trial. Thus, the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) is not a reliable document as there is no evidence to satisfy the Court that Smt. Geeta, who had sustained almost 60 per cent superficial to deep burn lesions all over her body and was semi-

11. In this background, the version as set out in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/16), does not appear to be truthful and reliable enough so as to convict the appellants solely on the basis thereof. There is no other corroborative evidence on the record of the case to support these two statements and rather, they are contradicted by the other independent pieces of evidence which we have discussed supra.

12. These important facts and circumstances extracted from the prosecution evidence, raise a doubt in the mind of this Court as to the truthfulness of the contents of the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/12) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/16). The possibility of the deceased having set herself on fire is imminent. She walked out of the matrimonial home as she was perturbed by the aspersion cast upon her character by the accused persons. Rather than giving solace to her, she was forced by the maternal relatives to go back (16 of 17) [CRLA-540/2017] to her matrimonial home, and being totally frustrated by this turn of event, she set herself afire and then implicated the accused for the incident. This conclusion is supported from the facts emerging from the prosecution evidence as discussed above.