GANGA RAM Vs. PRABHUDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO doubt Smt. Narbada wife of Prabhudayal died as a result of severe shock due to burns all over body. According to her husband Prabhudayal, Smt. Narbada herself committed suicide of which he had made a report to the Police on September 6, 1972. However, in January, 1980 Banwarilal, brother of deceased Smt. Narbada Devi, made an application to the Addl. Inspector General of Police (CID) Jaipur stating therein that the police had dropped the proceedings holding that the case was that of a suicide. Banwarilal, in his application stated that it was not a case of suicide but Prabhudayal had caused the death of Smt. Narbada Devi by beating him. There was admittedly no eyewitness to show that Prabhudayal had burnt his wife to death. On behalf of the petitioners much reliance is placed on the police statements of Kakuram, Sitaram and Mool Singh. It is worthy to be mentioned that Kaluram's statement was recorded by the police on April 13, 1980, i. e. about 7 months after the date of the incident and after three months of the making of complaint by Banwarilal. On its face, he appears to be a chance witness and his statement is not corroborated by other witnesses. Sita Ram resides at Delhi and he happens to have gone to village Lokhara on the date of occurrence. He only states that Prabhudayal was pouring water on his burnt wife. He does not say that Smt. Narbada Devi was rebuking her husband for burning her. It is quite clear that Smt. Narbada Bai was alive when she was taken to the hospital, Dr. S. N. Sharma on receiving a telephonic information went to the house of Smt. Narbada and he has said in his police statement that all that Smt. Narbada was telling was that she has got burns. She did not tell before Dr. S. N. Sharma, that Prabhudayal had burnt her or had in any way instigated her to commit suicide. To the same effect is the police statement of Ramdeo who had accompanied the doctor. It seems to be important that the police statements of the three witnesses on which the petitioner wants to rely were recorded after a considerable delay and in that a story was set up that Smt. Narbada was crying that she was brought today and that on that very day she was burnt. Such an evidence does not inspire confidence. There is no other evidence which connects the non-petitioner NO. 1, with the crime in any way. It may be that there existed strained relationship between Prabhudayal and his wife and the husband may not be well treating her for the reason that she could not deliver any issue, but that is in no way indicates that Prabhudayal in any way instigated or assisted Smt. Narbada Devi to set fire on herself or that Prabhudayal himself set fire to Narbada Devi. Thus, the prosecution case was groundless and the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, rightly discharged the non-petitioner NO. 1. This is one aspect of the matter.

(2.) THEN there is the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Ram Vs. State of Bihar (1) which was with respect to S. 435 of the old Criminal Procedure Code which correspondent to S. 397 of the new Code and in Thakur Ram's case, it was held that in a case which had proceeded on a police report, a private party had no locus standi to invoke jurisdiction under Section 435 of the Code. No doubt the terms of section 435 were very wide and the matter can oven be taken up in consideration sue-moto. The Criminal law was not, however, to be used as an instrument of working private vengeance by an aggrieved party against a person who according to that party had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party which is treated as an aggrieved party is the state which is the custodian of social interest of the community at large and so it was for the state to take all the necessary steps for bringing the person who had acted against the social interest of the community to book. In the instant case, the State had not come in revision. It was always open to Ganga Ram father of Narbada Devi or Banwarilal brother of Narbada Devi, to have filed a private criminal complaint against the petitioner, if they so liked.