The reliability and consistency of evidence, especially in cases involving child witnesses, are crucial in determining the outcome of a case.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. Through the medium of instant revision petition, the petitioner has called into question the judgment dated 03.08.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in challan titled State vs. Keshav Verma and Another (File No. 31/Sessions) for offences under Sections 306/498-A/34 RPC.

2. Petitioner claims to be the father of deceased, namely Mamta Devi, who, as per the challan filed by the investigating agency before the trial Court, is stated to have died on 11.05.2005 due to burn injuries received by her. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment whereby the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 306/498-A/34 RPC on the grounds that the investigation in the case has been conducted in a very casual manner; that most of the witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution; that the findings of the learned trial Court are against the law; that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective, particularly that of PW Baghisha and that the learned trial Court has overlooked the vital evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the instant revision petition on the ground that the State has not chosen to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal and that a revision petition filed by a prosecution witness against the judgment of acquittal is not maintainable, particularly when Section 417 of J&K Cr.P.C. provides for remedy of appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal.

4. The instant case was set down for hearing a number of times, but the petitioner, after appearing initially on some dates of hearing, stopped appearing in the case. In fact, none has appeared on his behalf for the last five consecutive dates of hearing. Therefore, the matter has been taken up for disposal in absence of the petitioner.

5. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.2005, a lady, namely Mamta Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was admitted to GMC, Hospital, Jammu as she had received burn injuries. The said lady succumbed to her injuries on 11.05.2005 and the police started inquest proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. During these proceedings, statements of witnesses under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. PW Baghisha, the minor daughter of the deceased in her statement recorded under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. narrated that the respondents in connivance with (1) Jagdish, (2) Ajay, (3) Shashi, (4) Lovely, (5) Ravi, (6) Yash Pal and (7) Raju had assaulted the deceased with stick and thereafter poured kerosene oil and acid on her body and set her on fire.

6. On the basis of aforesaid statement, a case for offences under Sections 302/120-B/498-A RPC came to be registered. During investigation of the case, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, but neither any witness supported the version of occurrence given by PW Baghishah, nor the traces of acid were detected on the wearing apparel of the deceased. PW Baghisha was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the Magistrate observed that her statement cannot be recorded because she does not have a mature understanding. Accordingly, the investigating agency reached a conclusion that the offences under Section 302/120-B RPC are not made out against the respondents. The investigating agency, however, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1, the husband of the deceased used to demand dowry from her and her parents. It was further found that respondent No. 1 was a habitual drunkard and the deceased disliked this behavior. It was also found that respondent No. 2, who was a close friend of respondent No. 1, used to visit the house of respondent No. 1 and both used to