The appellate court emphasized that it will not interfere with an acquittal unless there is a clear demonstration of a flawed reasoning process or substantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 378(3) and 378(1) Cr.P.C. by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 25.07.1992 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.51/1987 and No.70/1987 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted respondent No.1-Brij Lal from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 302 IPC and respondents No.2-Meera, No.3-Hanuman Prasad & No.4-Savitri from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B IPC.

2. The respondent No.2-Meera passed away on 28.05.2021 and vide order dated 17.09.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the present appeal qua respondent No.2-Meera has already been dismissed as abated.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 07.05.1987 at about 08:00 AM, Smt. Madhu made a statement to the police wherein she stated that she had entered into matrimonial alliance with Respondent No. 1, Brij Lal, approximately four years prior. She further alleged that subsequent to the marriage, she was subjected to persistent harassment and cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law in connection with dowry demands. She specifically stated that her mother-in- law frequently taunted her, asserting that as she had only one son, the dowry provided by Smt. Madhu’s father was insufficient. The complainant further recounted that an altercation arose when her 18-month-old daughter misplaced a bottle of surma, which led to a quarrel initiated by the respondents. She narrated that on the preceding day, i.e., 06.05.1987, at around 2:00–2:30 PM, her mother-in- law left the house to attend a marriage ceremony, leaving her alone with Respondent No. 1, Brij Lal. At that time, Brij Lal allegedly bolted the door from inside. When she approached to drink water, he allegedly poured kerosene oil over her and, with the apparent intention to cause her death, set her ablaze using a matchstick. She further stated that she managed to douse the flames by pouring water over herself, after which Respondent No. 1 unlocked the door. Upon raising a hue and cry, neighbors, namely Rampratap Bhamu, Hari Singh, and others arrived at the scene. Thereafter, her mother-in-law and husband took her to the hospital for medical treatment.

4. On the said report, Police registered the FIR against the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC and started investigation.

5. On the same day i.e., 07.05.1987 at approximately 04:15 PM, the deceased- Madhu, made another statement before the Magistrate, wherein she stated that she had poured kerosene on herself and her husband thereafter ignited the fire using a matchstick. Subsequently, a third statement was also made by the deceased- Madhu at a later stage. On 29.06.1987, Madhu succumbed to burn injuries.

6. After thorough investigation, Police submitted a charge-sheet against all the four accused. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 307, 498-A and 302 IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge and sought trial.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

8. The accused respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, DW/1 to DW/5 were examined and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its ca