STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred-to as "the Code") has been sought to be invoked to annul the judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No.64/1999, thereby acquitting the respondents of the charge levelled against them under sections 304B and 201 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case has its origin in the written report dated 18.8.1998 of one Niku Ram s/o Chhoga Ram with the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner to the effect that his daughter Nirmala Devi had been given in marriage to Ramjilal (respondent No.1) s/o Bhera Ram and that in connection therewith, he had given gifts and dowry items according to his capability and that in marriage, he spent about a sum of Rs. two lacs. He alleged that for a year thereafter, his daughter had a happy married life, where-after her in laws started making dowry demands and also subjected her to ill treatment. It was stated further that about seven to eight months after the marriage, her husband Ramjilal registered demand for a motor cycle and the same not having been met, her father in law and sister in law assaulted her. She was also urged by her mother in law to indulge in immoral activities. The informant stated that her daughter used to be subjected to assaults now and then and that she was sent to her matrimonial home for last time before her death on 25/26th March of the year. The informant stated that eventually on 24.7.1998, he got an information that her daughter had been bitten by a snake and that her father in law had asked him to visit them at the earliest. When the informant reached the matrimonial home of his daughter, her father in law stated that though she had been treated with a sorcerer, she could not be cured and that they proposed to bury her to which he objected. The informant stated that in-spite of his objection, her daughter was ultimately buried for which he suffered severe mental shock. However, when he went to the police station on 1.8.1998, his complaint was not entertained. It was thereafter that he came to know from the neighbours of her daughter that she had been strangulated to death so much so that her neck bone had been fractured. The written report was thus lodged with the Divisional Commissioner seeking action. The report was forwarded to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police and eventually police case was registered and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the deceased's husband, her in-laws and sister in law under sections 304B and 201 IPC. The case having been committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the materials available on record, it discharged all the accused persons of the offences alleged. Hence, the revisions by the State as well as the complainant.

(3.) Mr. M.K.Garg, learned counsel for the informant, has urged that the learned trial court having left out of consideration vital pieces of evidence in support of the offences of Sections 304B and 201 IPC, the impugned judgment and order would, if sustained, would be a travesty of justice and, thus, is liable to be interfered with. According to him, the written report got delayed in the face of a negative Final Report submitted by the police on the basis of the first information. Further, in returning the finding that the investigation did not disclose materials in support of these offences, the learned court below overlooked the evidence, amongst others, of Manohar, Jasa Ram, Nanu Devi, Hari Ram, Hari Devi, Mani Ram, Mangat Ram, Zahira, Niku Ram, Daula Ram, Asha Ram, Nandu Ram, Gopi Ram and Birbal Ram. Mr.Garg, thus, prayed that this is a fit case in which the impugned order of discharge ought to be interfered with and the matter be remanded to the learned court below for disposal on merits.