SHORT NOTE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Amitava Roy, CJ.
Sita Ram —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. —Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.63 of 2001
Decided on 28.3.2014

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 306 and 498A—Deceased got married on 20.5.1986 sustained burn injuries on 4.9.1986 in matrimonial home and died—Mother-in-law of deceased was charge-sheeted and trial Court acquitted accused—Revision petition by father of deceased—Trial Court noted significant omissions amounting to contradiction in evidence of material witnesses and it could not be lightly discarded—In some letters written by deceased to her husband no mention of any such demand of dowry or harassment was made—Having regard to limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction , no interference was warranted.

       Held: PW2 Sitaram, PW3 Om Prakash, PW4 Indra Devi, PW6 Madan Lal, PW7 Geeta Devi and PW8 Rajendra are the relatives of the deceased, in particular PW2 Sitaram and PW7 Geeta Devi are her parents. On a perusal of their testimony in Court, it is apparent that there is a striking similarity in their versions. Though in course of their examination-in-chief they had stated about demands of dowry made by the respondent No.2-mother-in-law of the deceased and Ramvilas and Meera, her brother and sister in-law, when they were confronted with their statements made before the police (which were eventually proved through the investigating officer), they admitted to have omitted to mention about the same. The conclusion of the learned trial court in this regard as noticed hereinabove bearing on the credibility of these witnesses having regard to significance of such omissions amounting to contradictions thus cannot be lightly disregarded. Whereas there is no element of doubt that Smt. Kanta had died an unnatural death out of burn injury as is evidence by the statement of Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal, who had performed postmortem examination on her, the fact that charge-sheet was laid only against her mother-in-law though allegations of dowry demands had also been levelled against her brother and sister-in-law, is also an aspect which cannot be overlooked. Noticeably, though the prosecution has claimed that the written report had been lodged by Sitaram in the wee hours of 5.9.1986, the records disclose that the same appeared to have been filed at 5 p.m. on that day. No explanation whatsoever for the time lag was forthcoming. The evidence of DW2 Surendra Kumar, Senior Advocate is to the effect that on 5.9.1986 in the morning he alongwith others had assembled in the house of Munshiram, father-in-law of the deceased, where Sitaram was also present. He mentioned further that by that time the police had also arrived. The witness stated that he enquired from Sitaram as to whether he wanted police action in the episode, to which latter replied that he had no suspicion about the death of his daughter and that he did not intend any such action. On this, the witness further stated that in such a case he (Sitaram) ought to make a statement to this effect before the police or give it in writing. The witness claimed that he thereafter drew up the document (Ex.D5) as dictated by Sitraram and his son, whereafter he (Sitaram) signed the same in his presence. The witness asserted on oath that this document had been written by him and the same was handed over to the SHO, Police Station Raisinghnagar. He mentioned further that FIR (Ex.P2) was lodged later in the evening of the day and thereafter, the document (Ex.D5) was returned to him by the police, which he handed over to Kesri Chand. This witness could not be dislodged in cross-examination. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court cannot be said to have erred in acting on this document (Ex.D5), more particularly in the face of the delay in the filing of the written report Ex.P2. Incidentally, the letters Ex.D6, D7, D8 and D9 written by the deceased to her husband during the time when allegedly she had been persistently harassed and intimated with dowry demands, she did not make a mention thereof. In that view of the matter, in the overall perspective, the conclusion of the learned trial court that these disclosures as well had a militating impact on the charges cannot be repudiated to be absurd of illogical.

       In the wake of the above, having regard to the limited scope of interference with an order of acquittal from a criminal charge, this Court is of the view that considering the materials on record, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted.

       Result: Revision dismissed.