Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 Date of Decision : 19.05.2009 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus 1. Rakesh Kumar son of Badri Parshad, Harijan, resident of H. No. 426/10, P.S. Central Faridabad. 2. Badr Parshad, son of Laddha Ram, Harija, resident of H.No. 426/10, Faridabad. 3. Smt. Kasturi Devi wife of Badri Parshad, Harijan, resident of H. No. 426/10, Faridabad. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. P.S. Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant – State. Mr. Amandheer, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement of acquittal dated 21.11.96, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (IV), Faridabad, vide which, it acquitted the accused (now respondents). Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that Geeta daughter of Narain Singh was married to accused Rakesh in the year 1983. Out of their wedlock, a daughter and a son were born to them. About one year prior to the registration of the present case, Rakesh accused levelled an allegation against his wife that she had stolen ornaments and handed over the same to her brothers and the matter was investigated by the Police. It was alleged that the in-laws of Geeta started harassing her immediately after the marriage. It was also alleged that about six months prior to the registration of the case Badri Parshad (father-in-law of Geeta) and his wife quarreled with Geeta and ousted her from the house. It was also alleged that the in-laws of Geeta deceased used to compel her to seek divorce, but she did not oblige them. In these circumstances, Geeta and her husband started living separately in Indira Colony. 3. On 02.10.91 Rakesh Kumar, complainant, brother of deceased Geeta, came to know about her admission with burn injury in B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. On receipt of the information, he rushed to the hospital, where he saw his sister demanding water. On enquiry, Geeta told him that she had burnt herself due to her husband, mother- in-law and father-in-law. Thereafter, her sister was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, but she was got admitted in Jai Parkash Narain Hospital in Delhi where she died on 04.10.91. Even Sonu minor son of Geeta, deceased, also received burn injuries. Thereafter the dead body of Geeta was consigned to flames, but her in-laws did not participate in the last rites of Geeta deceased. Since Geeta deceased Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 3 remained unfit to make statement, during the period of her admission in the hospitals so the present case was registered on the statement Ex. PG of her brother Ramesh Kumar. During the course of investigation, scaled site plan Ex. PA was prepared, showing the place of occurrence. Geeta Devi was medically examined in B.K. Hospital and 35% burn injuries were found, on her person, as is evident from MLR PB. Superficial burn injuries on the face and scalp of Sonu son of Rakesh Kumar were found as is evident from MLR PC. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, who found 60% burns on her body. Report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by Assistant Sub Inspector Shamim Ahmed. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 4. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case examined Sohan Lal (PW1), who prepared the scaled plan PA, 6. Dr. Sudhir Khurana (PW2), who medico-legally examined Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Rakesh Kumar. She was having 35 per cent Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 4 superficial burns. On the same day, he medico-legally examined Master Sonu son of Rakesh Kumar, aged 5 years. He was crying with pain. He had superficial burns on his face and scalp. 7. Constable Abdul Sahid (PW3), was posted as Head Constable, at the relevant time, and on the receipt of ruqa PD, proceeded to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, and moved an application PE, for recording the statement of Geeta. He stated that she was declared unfit. On 03.10.91, he went to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, where Geeta Devi, was stated to have been admitted, but when he moved an application, the doctor stated that she was not admitted in the said hospital. 8. Sub Inspector Lekh Raj (PW4), received ruqa PG, on the basis whereof, the first information report PG/1, was recorded. 9. Assistant Sub Inspector Salim Akhtar (PW5), went to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, and moved an application, as to whether, Geeta, was fit. The doctor opined that she was not fit to make statement. He further stated that Geeta, succumbed to her injuries, on 04.10.91, at 2.30 AM, in the hospital. 10. Lekh Raj, Sub Inspector (PW6), on receipt of ruqa PG, recorded the first information report, PG/1. 11. Ramesh (PW7), brother of Geeta, deceased, stated that after about one year of the marriage, Geeta, gave birth to a female child. After the birth of the child, the accused made demand of a motorcycle and fridge. He also stated that the accused had given beatings to Geeta. Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 5 12. Padam Singh (PW8), who is the brother of Geeta, deceased, also deposed with the regard to the ill treatment of Geeta, by the accused, in connection with the demand of dowry and cash of Rs. 20,000/-. 13. Ram Kishan, retired Sub Inspector (PW9), stated that Ramesh, made a statement PG, on the basis whereof first information report PG/1, was registered. 14. Abdul Ali (PW10), did not support the case of the prosecution. 15. Chand Ram (PW11), brought the post-mortem register, and proved the post-mortem report PJ. 16. Ram Gopal, Head Constable (PW12), stated that complaint photocopy whereof, is mark A, was received in their office, and it was forwarded to Police Station Kotwali, for suitable action. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence. 17. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Accused Badri Parshad, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that his son and daughter-in-law were staying with them and were leading a happy life. It was further stated by him, that as a result of accidental fire, his daughter-in-law received burn injuries which proved fatal but they were falsely involved, in this case. Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 6 18. Rakesh, accused, husband of Geeta, deceased, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that his wife died on account of accidental burns, while working in the kitchen and there was no foul play. He further stated that, in fact, he removed his wife to the hospital immediately after the accidental burns received by her and provided all necessary medical aid but could not save her. He further stated that she subsequently expired. He further stated that his parents were living separate from him, much earlier and had no concern or connection with him or his wife. He further stated that he had treated and kept his wife properly and with love and affection. He further stated that he never harassed his wife, in connection with the demand of dowry at any point of time. 19. Accused Kasturi Devi, mother of Rakesh Kumar, accused, in her statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took up the same plea, as was taken up by Badri Parshad, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. The accused examined Rampal Singh (DW1), and Brahmjit (DW2), in their defence. Thereafter, they closed their defence evidence. 21. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused, as stated above. 22. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant – State of Haryana. 23. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 7 through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 24. It is settled principle of law, that if two views are possible, on the basis of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, and the view taken by the trial Court, can be said to be a reasonably possible view, then the Appellate Court, is not required to interfere with the judgement of acquittal. In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1991 (1) SCC 166), it was held that interference, in an appeal, against acquittal, would be called for only, if the judgement, under appeal, was perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence, and merely because the Appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason, calling for interference. Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, now let us see, as to whether, the trial Court, took a reasonably possible view, on the basis of the evidence, in acquitting the accused, or not. The first question, that falls for consideration, is as to whether, Geeta Devi, sustained burn injuries, accidentally or kerosene oil was put on her and she was set ablaze. The evidence of Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW2, in this regard, is very material. During the course of his cross-examination, it was stated by him, that burn injuries found on the person of Geeta, deceased, could be accidental, as the same were found on the front portion of her body only. He also stated that similarly, injuries on the person of master Sonu, who was in the lap of Geeta, at the relevant time, could be accidental. Death summary of Geeta, was prepared by Dr. Rajinder of Jai Parkash Narain Hospital, Delhi. This was the document which was Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 8 produced by the prosecution, with the challan. No doubt, no effort was made by the prosecution, to get this document proved. However, since this document was produced by the prosecution, and is favourable to the accused, it can be taken into consideration, for the purpose of deciding the case. The death summary aforesaid prepared by the doctor revealed that Smt. Geeta, received burn injuries, accidentally, while cooking on kerosene oil stove as per her statement on 02.10.91, at 4.00 PM. The statement of Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW2, and the contents of the death summary, referred to above, are further corroborated from the statement of Ramesh, PW7, brother of the deceased, when he stated that Geeta, advised him not to initiate criminal action, against the accused. Had she been set ablaze, by the accused, she would have been the last lady, to spare the accused. In those circumstances, she would not have told Ramesh, PW7, her brother, that criminal proceedings should not be initiated against the accused. This clearly proved that Geeta, and her son sustained burn injuries, accidentally while she was cooking on kerosene oil stove. The trial Court was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that since as per the evidence Geeta and her minor son sustained burn injuries, on account of cooking on kerosene oil stove accidentally, no offence, was committed by the accused. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, being correct is affirmed. 25. Not only this, the burn injuries were received in this case by Geeta and her son on 02.10.91. Ramesh, PW7, stated that the fact that burn injuries were received by Geeta, at the hands of her husband, Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 9 father-in-law and mother-in-law was disclosed to him on 02.10.91 itself. However, he did not lodge any report, with the Police till the death of Geeta on 04.10.91. Why Ramesh, PW7, waited for two days after he came to know that burn injuries were caused, on the person of Geeta, by the accused? Had Geeta, told him that burn injuries were caused on her person by the accused, he would have been the first person to go to the Police Station, immediately, for lodging the report. It appears that he had grudge against the accused, as they had levelled allegations of stealing ornaments and handing over the same by Geeta to her brothers Ramesh, PW7, and Padam Singh, PW8. Ramesh, PW7, therefore, out of grudge, wanted to take revenge, against the accused. It was, under these circumstances, that he waited for two days in lodging the first information report. During this period, he alongwith his other brother and family members, held consultations and deliberations, as to how to implicate the accused, in the present case. After due deliberations and consultations, the first information report, after two days was got lodged against the accused. In Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 393, it was held that the FIR in a criminal case, is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence, for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence, adduced at the trial. The importance of the report, can hardly be over-estimated, from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report, with the Police, in respect of commission of an offence, is to obtain early information, regarding the Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 10 circumstances, in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits, and the part played by them, as well as the names of the eye-witnesses, present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report, quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the prosecution story, as a result of deliberations and consultations. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging the first information report, should be satisfactorily explained. In that case, there was a delay of about 20 hours, in lodging the F.I.R.,though the Police Station was only at a distance of two miles. Hence this circumstance was taken, as the one, to raise considerable doubt, regarding the veracity of the case, and it was held that it was not safe to base conviction. In view of the unexplained delay of two days, in lodging the report, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 26. No doubt, Ramesh, PW7, stated that the accused after one year of the marriage, demanded motorcycle and fridge in the shape of dowry. He also stated that Rakesh, gave beatings to Geeta. He further stated that for two years Geeta, stayed in their house, but none from her in-laws family came to take her back. He also stated that false allegations were raised by the accused that Geeta, had taken away cash amount of Rs. 1 lac and gave the same to him and his brother. He also stated that a Panchayat was convened and a compromise took place in Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 11 writing and accused Rakesh, her husband, took away Geeta, to her matrimonial home. Padam Singh, PW8, the other brother of Geeta, also stated that she was maltreated by the accused in connection with the demand of dowry. He further stated that Geeta, disclosed the demand of scooter and cash amount of Rs. 20,000/-, made by Rakesh. He also stated that on the date of occurrence, Rakesh informed them at about 7.00 PM, that Geeta, had received burn injuries accidentally and was admitted in B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. The marriage of Geeta, took place about 8/9 years before her death. Two children were born to her. Geeta, and her husband, were enjoying their life. Had there been any differences, between them, during these years, they would not have been able to enjoy their married life. In case, the accused maltreated Geeta, in connection with the demand of dowry and a Panchayat was convened then members of the Panchayat, could be examined as witnesses, but no such witness was examined. Under these circumstances, the statements of Ramesh, PW7, and Padam Singh, PW8, that Geeta was tortured in connection with the demand of dowry and, as such, she committed suicide are not at all believable. In the face of the cogent and convincing evidence of the doctors that the burn injuries, on her person and on the person of her minor son were accidental, it appears that such statements were made by Ramesh and Padam Singh, brothers of Geeta, just with a view to take revenge, as earlier the husband of Geeta, had levelled allegations against her that she had taken away jewellery and cash amount and handed over the Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 12 same to her brothers. Even the criminal proceedings in that regard against the brothers of Geeta, were initiated. Naturally, Ramesh and Padam Singh, were inimically disposed towards the accused. Under these circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the accused could not be ruled out. The trial Court, was right in holding so. 27. Ramesh, PW7, no doubt, stated that he went to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, and found Geeta, with serious burn injuries. He further stated that Geeta was taken to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, on medical advice. He further stated that in Safdarjang Hospital, Geeta told him that Badri Parshad, and Rakesh had held her whereas Kasturi Devi, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. He further stated that she advised him not to initiate any criminal action, against the accused. The statement of Ramesh, PW7, is not in consonance with the case of the prosecution that Geeta committed suicide. Even the case of the prosecution, was found to be false, when the doctor stated that Geeta and her son sustained injuries, on account of accidental fire. However, the statement of Ramesh, PW7, was not at all supported by Padam Singh, who accompanied him to the hospital. He stated during the course of his cross-examination, that he did not make any statement to the Police that Geeta told him that on 02.10.91, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her. He further stated, during the course of his cross-examination, that he had no suspicion that Geeta, had committed suicide. He further stated, in his cross-examination, that she was demanding water at that time, but did not tell anything. Had Criminal Appeal No. 376-SBA of 1997 13 Geeta told Ramesh Kumar, PW7, that the accused held her, poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter set her ablaze then Padam Singh, PW8, would have also stated so. It means that the statement made by Ramesh Kumar, that Geeta, told him that she was set ablaze was wrong. Such a statement was made by him, just with a view to ensure the conviction of the accused. No reliance, therefore, on the statements of Ramesh Kumar, PW7, and Padam Singh, PW8, regarding the maltreatment of Geeta, by the accused could be placed. The trial Court was right in doing so. 28. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 29. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of acquittal, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point. The finding recorded by the trial Court, is neither perverse nor erroneous on account of mis-reading of evidence. The judgement of acquittal, does not call for any interference. The same is liable to be upheld. 30. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgement of acquittal, rendered by the trial Court, acquitting the accused (now respondents), is upheld. 19.05.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE