Crl.Rev No.138/1996

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl Rev. P.No.138/1996

%

NARESH KUMAR

....... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Rajender Singvi &

Mr.K.L.K. Gautam, Advs.

Versus

KALAWATI & ORS.

....... Respondents

Through : Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv

with Mr.Sunil Sethi, Adv

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

YES

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

YES

in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J.

1.

Vide the instant petitioner the petitioner has

challenged the judgment dated 30.11.1995 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby, both the

accused persons were acquitted for the offence under

Section 498A/302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, in case FIR

No.439/1991, Police Station Hari Nagar, by giving them

benefit of doubt.

2011:DHC:4327

Crl.Rev No.138/1996

2.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the

Trial Court, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition

before this Court. The same was disposed-of vide order

dated 12.09.2001 without going into any of the grounds

because of the fact that none appeared on behalf of the

petitioner. With the help of ld. amicus curie, the instant

petition was dismissed.

3.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this

Court, the petitioner challenged the same before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The

Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.02.2009 had set aside

the order passed by this Court and remitted the matter back

for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.

4.

I note that in the matter, before the Trial Court,

there were two accused persons, one was Jethani (sister in

law) of the deceased and another was the husband of the

deceased. The present revision petition has been filed by

brother of the deceased, on whose complaint the FIR was

registered.

2011:DHC:4327

Crl.Rev No.138/1996

5.

Vide judgment dated 30.11.1995, the Trial Court,

after going through the evidence and the submissions of the

counsel, acquitted both the accused persons.

6.

The brief facts of the case are that; On

17.09.1991 deceased Rekha Rani Jain was admitted in

Safdarjung Hospital in burnt condition. She made statement

in the presence of ASI Lal Singh and the said statement was

attested by Dr.Anant Sinha. The occurrence was reported by

Constable Sushil Kumar on 17.09.1991, who was posted as

Duty Constable at Safdarjung Hospital. He gave the

information to the PCR. The said information was transmitted

to police station, on receipt of the information; ASI Lal Singh

went to Safdarjung Hospital, where, he recorded the

statement of Smt.Rekha Rani Jain. On her statement, case

was registered against both the aforesaid accused persons.

7.

During investigation, statements of witnesses

were recorded. Smt.Rekha Rani Jain was medically examined

however; she succumbed to her injuries on 18.09.1991.

Shri HC Gaur, SDM was also contacted for recording the

statement of Smt. Rekha Rani Jain. He reached

2011:DHC:4327

Crl.Rev No.138/1996

Safdarjung Hospital at 11:15 PM on that day, by that time

Smt. Rekha Rani Jain expired at 11:00 PM on that day. After

the investigation and completion of the formalities, challan

against the accused persons under Section 498A/302/34 IPC

was filed.

8.

The prosecution examined as many as 25

witnesses in support of its case. PW-14 and PW-17 were

given up by the prosecution.

9.

PW-20 Ct.Sushil Kumar was posted as duty

constable at Safdarjung Hospital on 17.09.1991 gave the

information to the PCR.

10.

PW-13 SI Pishori Lal of PCR informed the SHO,

police station Hari Nagar about the admission of the injured.

11.

PW-12 HC Surender Pal who was posted at police

station Hari Nagar, on 17.09.1991, as Wireless Operator. He