PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan questioning correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by a learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. The appellant and two others faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 304, Part-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'Dowry Prohibition Act').

(2.) Prosecution version unfolded during trial is as follows :- On 23-04-1988 at about 2.05 p.m., the accused Krishnalal lodged an oral report Ex.P/12 before Jagmalram (PW-11) SHO, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that he was married with Smt. Raju, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in the year 1984 and his father had already died before 15 years back and since then he was living with his mother Prem Kanwar, the present appellant and uncle Puran Chand and he was not in service and thus was unemployed. On that day, he went out from his house for some work and when he returned back at about 1.30 p.m. he found crowd near his house and also found fire in his house and people were extinguishing the fire and he came to know that his wife, the deceased was burnt and had died and, therefore, he had come to inform the police. On this report, police registered the FIR No. 7/88 and started investigation. During investigation, post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted and the post-mortem report is Ex. P/3, where the doctors opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia due to ante-mortem burns. When the investigation in FIR No. 7/88 was going on, PW-1 Bachnaram, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex. P/1 on 26-4-1988 before police station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that all the three accused have murdered his daughter (deceased) by burning her and he had also come to know that a report was also lodged on behalf of the accused stating therein that the deceased had committed suicide, but the fact was that all the three accused have killed her. It was further stated in the report that all the three accused used to harass and torture her as she was an illiterate lady and accused No. 1 Krishnalal (husband of the deceased) was an educated person and accused used to say that in dowry nothing was given to them and thus, they used to torture, harass and humiliate her. It was further stated in the report that action be taken against the accused for killing her daughter (deceased) by burning. On this report, police chalked out FIR Ex. P/2 for the offence u/Ss. 306, 304 B IPC and started investigation. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence u/Ss. 306, 304-B, IPC in the court of Magistrate holding inter alia that it was a case of dowry death. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session. As the accused persons denied the allegations trial was held. Eleven witnesses were examined to establish the accusations. Learned Sessions Judge directed acquittal inter alia holding as follows :

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the limited nature of the scope of interference in a matter of acquittal, the High Court ought not to have interfered, particularly, when it found that the acquittal was in order so far as the other co-accused persons are concerned. It was submitted that the High Court's conclusion that the skull bones were broken, which rules out the case of suicide, is contrary to medical evidence. The High Court noted that to bring in application of Section 304, Part B, it is immaterial whether the death is suicidal or homicidal.