Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Narsi Ram & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 1996
Decided On : 04-09-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pritam Solanki and Mr. K.L. Vishnoi.
For the Respondent: Ms. Apeksha Chhangani.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellate court should respect a trial court's acquittal unless there is compelling evidence to warrant interference.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - IPC Sections 498-A, 302 - The court discussed the evidentiary standards for acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling evidence to overturn a trial court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 498-A and 302 after the deceased, who had been subjected to alleged dowry harassment, died from burn injuries. The prosecution's case relied on two dying declarations, with conflicting accounts regarding the cause of the injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's acquittal was reasonable, as the evidence did not convincingly establish the accused's guilt, particularly given the inconsistencies in the dying declarations and lack of corroborative evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under IPC Sections 498-A and 302 based on the evidence presented, particularly the dying declarations.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, stating that it would not interfere unless the findings were perverse or shocking, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling evidence.
Result: The criminal appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Munnuri Laxman, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of acquittal dated 27.04.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on the file of Sessions Case No.3/1987, wherein and whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC.
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the accused-Narsiram and the deceased-Krishna @ Sushila were married about 8-9 years prior to the occurrence. Another accused-Naresh Kumar is brother of the husband of the deceased. At the time of marriage, a dowry of Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- was given. The accused were harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry and she was drove out of matrimonial home. A Panchayat was convened in the presence of elders. On the advice of elders, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. The incident occurred on 03.09.1986 at the house of the accused in the day light. The accused allegedly harassing the deceased physically 2-3 days prior to the incident asking her to meet the additional demand of Rs.10,000/-. When she expressed her inability to bring such amount from her parents, the accused allegedly burned the deceased and she went unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found to be admitted in the P.B.M. Government Hospital, Bikaner.
3. Initially, the A.S.I of the concerned Police Station had recorded the statement of the deceased on the day of incident under Exhibit-P/5. On 19.09.1986 at about 7:15 p.m., a report was lodged with the Police Station Pugal, Distt. Bikaner complaining about the harassment and burning of the deceased by the accused. Basing on the above report, an FIR No.78/1986 was issued under Section 307 of IPC. The deceased died on 24.09.1986. After the death of the deceased the section of the offence was altered from Section 307 of IPC to Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.
4. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, the charges were framed for the offence under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC against the respondents-accused. The accused denied the charges and the trial went on. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all 18 witnesses and adduced documents under Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/27. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating evidence. They denied such evidence but did not adduce any oral evidence in their defence. However, they exhibited documents under Exhibit-D/1 to D/4.
5. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the accused found that no offences were made out against the accused. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the State.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 & 2 and the dying declaration recorded by PW-12 Kamal Kumar Bagdi, the Judicial Magistrate, under Exhibit-P/10. According to him, going by the evidence of PW-1 & 2 and the dying declaration, they clinchingly establish that it is the accused who have subjected the deceased to harassment for bringing the additional dowry and when she expressed her inability, she was burned by them. It is contended that the learned trial court has given more weightage to the previous dying declaration under Exhibit-P/5 in spite of the reasons for making such a dying declaration has been clearly stated by the deceased in Exhibit-P/10. As per Exhibit-P/10, the deceased gave such a statement before the A.S.I. under Exhibit-P/ 5 on account of threat given to her by her husband stating that if she involved them in the alleged incident, he would shoot her children as well as her brother. In these circumstances, such statement was made to A.S.I. under Exhibit-P/5. When such is the explanation given by the deceased, the learned trial court ought not to have given the weightage
