IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court's review of acquittals is limited to identifying legal errors or perverse findings in the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. By way of the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 24.04.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) & Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.51/96 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohanlal & Ors.), whereby accused-respondent-Mohini was acquitted of the charge against her under Section 302/109 IPC; accused-respondents, namely, Bheraram, Mohanlal, Ms. Manju, Ms. Seema & Ms. Kiran, were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 147 & 302 IPC & in alternate, under Section 302/149 IPC.

2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State produced before this Court a report dated 23.08.2024 received from the Office of Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotgate, District Bikaner, which reflects that accused-respondent no.1-Mohan Lal, accused-respondent no.3-Ms.Manju, and accused-respondent no.5- Smt. Mohini have already expired, and hence. Thus, now the present appeal may be heard and decided on qua the surviving accused-respondents Bheraram, Ms.Seema and Smt. Kiran.

2.1. The aforesaid report dated 23.08.2024 is taken on record. In light of the above-said report, the present appeal qua the aforementioned deceased accused-respondents stands abated. Accordingly, the present adjudication is made only to the extent of surviving accused-respondents Bheraram, Ms.Seema and Smt. Kiran.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that the main role of committing the crime in question has been attributed to accused-respondent no.3-Kumari Manju (now deceased).

3.1. It was further submitted that the deceased was burnt by the accused-respondents and the dying declaration was also recorded by the concerned Magistrate (PW.2-Rajendra Kumar Sharma), but the learned Trial Court discarded the said dying declaration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, as above.

3.2. It was also submitted that the role and involvement of the accused-respondents in commission of the crime in question is clearly corroborated by the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, who have completely supported the prosecution story. It was further submitted that the death in question was caused by setting the deceased on fire within 10 months of marriage by the in-laws, and the evidence placed on record clearly proves the prosecution case against the accused-respondents, beyond all reasonable doubts.

4. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, while disbelieving the prosecution story, which in the given circumstances is not justified in law and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside, while convicting the surviving accused-respondents under Section 302 IPC.

5. The matter was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the surviving accused-respondents, and therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State were heard and the record of the case was perused.

6. This Court observes that the dying declaration (Ex.P/2) of the deceased was recorded by PW.2-Rajendra Kumar Sharma wherein the deceased had clearly stated that the accused-respondent no.3- Ms.Manju (since deceased) poured the kerosene oil and burnt the deceased, while the other accused-respondents caught-hold of her, which shows that the main role in commission of the crime in question has been attributed to said the deceased accused-respondent.

7. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court disbelieved the dying declaration on the ground that the deceased sustained burns to the extent of 70-80%, but there is nothing on record showing any certificate issued by the concerned Doctor, to the effect that the deceased was in a state of mind, which could have enabled her to give such dying declaration; the certificate (Ex.P/1) was issued by PW.9- Dr. Manoj