STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) DESPITE issuance of non-bailable warrant and attachment of the properties, presence of the respondent could not be secured for executing the warrants as it was reported that his whereabouts were not known. Consequently, as per the directions of the Court, the Legal Aid Committee assigned Shri S. K. Pasi to assist the Court as a counsel for the respondent. After hearing the counsel for the State and the respondent, we had reserved the judgment on 30/01/1996. However, on 2/02/1996, the respondent was brought and his counsel Shri Sushil Kumar Jain requested the Court to give an opportunity for hearing. Accordingly we hear the matter again. This case also indicates avoidance on the part of the people like the respondent to delay the disposal of the appeal in this Court. When the attempts were found to be unsuccessful, he made appearance in the Court which gave us an insight to adopt such appropriate procedure for securing presence for early disposal to avoid miscarriage of justice.

(3.) THE State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the mother-in-law. THE respondent filed appeal in the High Court. THE Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1986 by order dated 13/05/1988 has acquitted the respondent. Reasons in support thereof are that: the Judicial Magistrate had not recorded her mental condition; he did not get any confirmation of the mental condition of the deceased before recording the declaration; the articles seized at the scene of the offence were not sent for chemical examination; the hair of the deceased sent for chemical examination did not contain the smell of kerosene oil; doctors would normally be available in the ward; the Judicial Magistrate without waiting for the doctor and without obtaining from him proper certificate of the mental condition of the decased, recorded Ex. P-8 declaration which would be highly irregular on the part of the Magistrate to record such statement; the deceased was under agony with 80 per cent of burn injuries. THErefore, the story set up by the prosecution is not genuine and is shrouded with doubts. THE prosecution, therefore, has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Division Bench acquitted the respondent giving him the benefit of doubt.