SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked to set at naught the judgment and order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/1989 (77/97) thereby acquitting the respondent No. 2 of the charges for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the l.P.C.").

(2.) The prosecution case is traceable to a written report (Ex.P-2) lodged at about 5.00 P.M. on 5.9.1986 by Sitaram, the father of the deceased Smt. Kanta stating that his daughter had been given in marriage to Pawan Kumar S/o Munshiram Agarwal on 20.5.1986, where after she was subjected to harassment and illtreatment on demands of dowry. It was disclosed that on 4.9.1986 at about 6.30 P.M. having received a telephonic information from Raisinghnagar, the place of her matrimonial home, that she had died of burn injuries, he along with others rushed there and on seeing her dead daughter, entertained an impression that she had been murdered. The information was thus lodged with the SHO, Police Station Raisinghnagar. On this a police case was registered under Sec. 306 l.P.C. and on the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the respondent No. 2, the mother-in-law of the deceased. Eventually, charges were framed against her under Sections 306 and 498-A l.P.C., to which she pleaded "not guilty" and was made to stand trial. The prosecution at the trial examined 14 witnesses including the parents of the deceased, a few relations of her, the doctor, who had performed the postmortem examination on her as well as the Investigating Officer. The respondent No. 2 in course of her statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. abided by her denial of the charges. She examined 4 witnesses in defence as well. At the conclusion of the trial and on a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Court, however, by the judgment and order impugned acquitted the respondent No. 2 of the charges.

(3.) Before adverting to the rival arguments, it would be appropriate at the threshold to notice the grounds on which the order of acquittal had been recorded. As would be apparent from the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court did elaborately analyse the evidence on record and on the evaluation thereof concluded as hereunder