RAMESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, along with six other accused, was tried in the Court of the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1993/32 of 1994, for subjecting Chandrakanta to cruelty, for causing her death and also for causing disappearance of the evidence. The trial Court convicted only the appellant (husband of Chandrakanta) under Section 302, I.P.C. He appealed to the Patna High Court, but his appeal was dismissed. Therefore, he has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.

(2.) The fate of this appeal depends upon two oral dying declarations - one stated to have been made by Chandrakanta before her sister Sheela (P.W. 5) and the other before another sister Asha Devi (P.W. 4) when Subodh Kumar (P.W. 3) was also present. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 498(A), I.P.C. The trial Court found the prosecution evidence regarding the charge under Section 201, I.P.C. vague and insufficient. Relying upon the two oral dying declarations and the conduct of the appellant in not trying to save his wife by getting her admitted in a local hospital, the trial Court held that the appellant had caused her death by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her ablaze. As there was no clear and reliable evidence regarding involvement of the other accused (close relatives of the appellant) the trial Court acquitted them. The High Court also relying upon the two oral dying declarations and the circumstances that Chandrakanta was taken to a private doctor and not to the Government Dispensary at Lohardaga for the fear that she might make a statement to the police and that when the Investigating Officer had visited the house of the appellant incriminating articles like a tin containing kerosene oil, some unburnt match-sticks and smell of kerosene oil were found from the Puja room, confirmed the conviction of the appellant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a close scrutiny of the evidence of the three witnesses Sheela (P.W. 5) Asha (P.W. 4) and Subodh Kumar (P.W. 3) discloses that they did not tell the truth when they stated that Chandrakanta had stated to them that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and then applied a lighted match-stick to her clothes. He also submitted that the Courts below were not right in holding that the appellant had not tried to save Chandrakanta as the prosecution evidence clearly discloses that the appellant had also received burns on his hands and some hair of his moustache and head were also burnt. He also submitted that the Courts below were not right in drawing an inference against the appellant from the circumstances that he had not taken Chandrakanta immediately to the Government Dispensary, but had called a private doctor for her treatment at home.