STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this appeal under Sec. 378, Cr. P.C., the State of Rajasthan has questioned the acquittal of the respondents Kishanlal and Mst. Poora (now dead) by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 1-4-83.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Sulochana, daughter of Chandulal (PW1) was married to Kishanlal respondent No. 1 on 17-7-75. There arose some dispute between Chandulal and father of respondent Kishanlal regarding the amount paid in the marriage. The prosecution case is that Kishanlal (husband), Poora (mother-in-law) Banwarilal (father-in-law and Om Prakash (brother-in-law) continuously pressurized Sulochana to bring Rs. 5,100 from her father. The prosecution case further is that on 12-9-76 Sulochna was given beatings by her husband Kishanlal. He took all her ornaments and threatened her that she would be killed. In the night at about 1 a.m. when Sulochna was sleeping with her mother-in-law. Poora, the accused persons poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her. On screams made by Sulochna, Brijlal Rajput and one more neighbour reached there and they put off the fire. Sulochna was taken to the hospital, where the accused got her statement recorded which suited them. The prosecution case further is that on 6-11-76 when Sulochna while in hospital regained consciousness and she told that the accused persons, Kishanlal, Poora, Banwarilal and Om Prakash had poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her. Chandulal lodged a report to DIG Bikaner on 11-11-76 on which a case was registered. As the police did not arrest the accused, Chandulal filed criminal complaint on 15-11-77 before the Munsif Magistrate, Suratgarh whereupon enquiry was held and cognizance was taken of the offences under Secs. 302/302/120-B IPC against Kishanlal and Mst. Poora vide Order dated 2-1-81. The case was committed to the Court of Session.

(3.) Charges under Section 120-B and Sec. 302 IPC, in the alternative 302/34 IPC were framed against both the accused. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Accused in their statements denied accusation. It was admitted by the accused that Sulochna was married to Kishanlal and that she got burns in the matrimonial home. The defence set up was that she got burns by coming into contact of a burning lamp. No witness was examined in defence. The learned Sessions Judge held that Sulochna met the homicidal death and that the cause of her death was burn injuries. He, however, held that the evidence produced in the case was not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. He, therefore, acquitted both of them.