INDRA NATH SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.1991 of acquittal of opposite party No, 2 recorded in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1990 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh.

(2.) According to the prosecution story leading to the trial of opposite party No. 2 Sheo Shankar Keshari, the daughter of the petitioner, named Kiran Devi, was married to the said opposite party some time in 1981. She got burnt inside her matrimonial home at Kuju in the district of Hazaribagh on 22.3.1989, that is, after more than 8 years of the marriage. At first, she was taken to the local hospital at Kuju and therefrom she was referred to R.M.C.H. at Ranchi, by P.W. 2, the doctor, who attended her at Kuju. In the night of the same day, the parents of the victim of burns Kiran Devi, were informed of the incident. They went to the hospital and found Kiran Devi in a state of unconsciousness. On 29.3.1989 she died of the burns she had received on her person on 22.3.1989. It was thereafter that on 31.3.1989 the present petitioner being the father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with Kuju police alleging that his daughter Kiran Devi was set ablaze by her husband Sheo Shankar Keshari after dousing her with kerosene. According to him, opposite party No. 2 used to torture and assault the deceased. On getting information of such torture, he went to her matrimonial home and took her with him. However, on 23.1.1989 she was sent back to the matrimonial home. In the First Information Report, he further alleged that after getting information of torture of his daughter,he went to Kuju on the next day and there he learnt that in the morning of 22.3.1989 opposite party No. 2 assaulted the deceased and at about 8 in the night, he sprinkled kerosene on her person and set ablaze with intention to kill her. He further stated that on 28.3.1989 when Kiran Devi regained her senses, on enquiry by him she also disclosed that it was opposite party No. 2 who set her ablaze after sprinkling kerosene on her person.

(3.) On completion of investigation, opposite party No. 2 was put on trial, on a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. for intentionally killing his wife Kiran Devi. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the doctor (P.W. 2) who had given the deceased first aid soon after the burn incident and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13). In his evidence, P.W. 2 stated only this much that the deceased was brought to him in burnt condition; she was having extensive burns on her lower limbs, that is, below the waist. He could not know how she got burnt. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 was in no way helpful to the prosecution for proving the guilt of the accused. Similarly, nothing material against the opposite party No. 2 would come in the evidence of P.W. 13, the I.O. The remaining witnesses, except the first informant who was examined as P.W. 1, were either the brothers of opposite party No. 2 of local people, All of them stated in the Trial Court that the deceased got burnt while cooking. P.W. 10 Baldeo Prasad, one of the brothers of opposite party No. 2, stated that he tried to extinguish the fire which the garment of the deceased had caught and in the process he burnt his palms. This fact was also corroborated by P.W. 2. Consequently, the witnesses other than P. Ws. 1, 2 and 13 were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution drawing their attention to their previous statements made to the Investigating Officer (P.W. 13). When the I.O. came to the witness box, no attempt was made to contradict the prosecution witnesses who had not supported the prosecution story. In course of his evidence, P.W. 13 stated this much that those witnesses had stated to him that on the day of Holi, the accused and Kiran Devi had quarrelled inter se.