STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GYANESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 21/96 (72/93) by which he acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under Section 304B and 498A, IPC.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : On 22-3-1993 at about 4.15 p.m. the accused respondent No. 1 Gyneshwar, who is husband of Suman (hereinafter referred to as decease) gave statement before the Police Station Nayasahar District Bikaner stating inter alia that he was married with the deceased on 28-6-1991 and since then, deceased was living with him and in his house, his father and mother also used to live with him. It was further stated by the accused respondent No. 1 Gyaneshwar that before the alleged incident, deceased asked him that he should take food alongwith her. On the fateful day i.e. on 22-3-1993, his friend Ram Singh was with him and at about 2.00 p.m. Ram Singh had gone and when he went to see his wife, he found the door of room closed and smell of kerosene oil was coming out and after breaking the door he entered the room and found the deceased in burnt condition and she was conscious to some extent and on being asked how incident took place, deceased told him that since he had not taken food with her, therefore, she had burnt herself and, thereafter, she died. On this statement given by the accused respondent No. 1 Gyaneshwar, police registered murg FIR No. 7/93 (Ex. P/18) under Section 174, Cr. P. C. 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/19 where it was opined that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to about 100% burns. On 28-3-1993, PW-4 Bhanwarnath, father of the deceased, lodged a written report Ex. P/5 with the Police Station Nayasahar, Bikaner stating inter alia that his daughter was married with the accused respondent No. 1 Gynaeshwar on 28-6-1991 and he had given dowry as per his capacity in that marriage, but the accused respondents No. 1 Gyaneshwar, husband of the deceased, No. 2 Mohan Nath, father-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given to them in that marriage. It was further stated in the report that the accused respondents demanded Rs. 40,000.00 for the purpose of purchasing Taxi and he refused to give that amount to them. It was further stated in the report that on 22-3-1993 at about 12.30 p.m., his younger brother PW-3 Jethnath went to in-laws' house of deceased for the purpose of taking her, but they did not send deceased with him and they told him that she would come later on. It was further stated in the report that on the same day, accused respondent No. 1, Gyaneshwar, husband of deceased, came to his house and informed that deceased had been burnt. It was further stated in the report that deceased was burnt by the accused respondents as their demand of Rs. 40,000.00 was not fulfilled by him. On this report Ex. P-5, police registered the case for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P-13. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the said offences against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 7-1-1994, the learned Trial Judge framed charges for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC against the accused respondents. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of accused respondents under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner vide his judgment and order dated 25-9-1996 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC holding inter alia that since PW-4 Bhanwarnath and PW-5 Shanti, who are respectively father and mother of the deceased, have been declared hostile, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.

(3.) In this appeal, the only contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is that though PW-4 Bhanwarnath and PW-5 Shanti, who are father and mother of the deceased respectively have been declared (hostile) but still there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the accused respondents guilty of the charges for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner be set aside and the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the said offences.