CHINTAMAN PRASAD DHANUSHADHARI DUBEY Vs. KUNJBIHARI BABULAL TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who is father of the deceased Anita, has come in revision challenging an order dated 2-1-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been ordered to be acquitted of all charges. The said respondents were tried for the offences under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined 13 witnesses in support of charges. The trial Court, after assessing of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the death was homicidal or that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were in any manner responsible for the death of deceased Anita.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant urged before me that the deceased anita was married to respondent No. 2 Anil on 6-5-1994 and the said Anita died pursuant to an incident which took place in the house of the respondents in the early hours of 8-12-1994. Therefore, according to him, since the death had taken place within six months from the marriage presumption of under section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn. Learned advocates for the applicant further pointed out that the trial Court had erred in not accepting cogent and reliable evidence of the applicant/complainant, as also two of brothers of deceased Anita, who were examined as P. W. 4 and p. W. 5, inasmuchas all of them had in their deposition categorically stated that the deceased Anita was being ill-treated on account of repeated dowry demands which to a large extent had been met by the applicant/complainant and his sons. According to him, there is absolutely no reason to discard the evidence of the said witnesses. He also relied on the C. A. report and has urged that the C. A. report which showed presence of kerosene on the clothes of the deceased Anita has been discarded by the trial Court on account of reasons which are not germane. He, therefore, contends that there was no reason whatsoever to discard the oral dying declarations made by the deceased Anita to her brothers P. W. 4 and P. W. 5. According to him, in the light of the evidence n record, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court cannot be sustained and that the matter be remanded for de novo trial.

(3.) LEARNED A. P. P. supports the contentions advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant. Learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, has submitted before rne that the evidence on record has been properly scrutinised by the trial Court keeping in view the principles of assessment of evidence and that the evidence of applicant/complainant and his son has rightly been discarded for the reasons disclosed in the judgment. He also urged that the trial Court had rightly disbelieved the incriminating circumstance relating to presence of kerosene on the clothes of the deceased Anita since possibility of tampering with the same could not be ruled out in asmuchas the clothes remained in unsealed condition in the police Station for about four days. According to him, findings of the trial court which are otherwise well founded cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.