By the Court:
The revisional jurisdiction of this court under ss.397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred-to as “the Code”) has been sought to be invoked to annul the judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No.64/1999, thereby acquitting the respondents of the charge levelled against them under sections 304B and 201 IPC.
The prosecution case has its origin in the written report dated 18.8.1998 of one Niku Ram s/o Chhoga Ram with the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner to the effect that his daughter Nirmala Devi had been given in marriage to Ramjilal (respondent No.1) s/o Bhera Ram and that in connection therewith, he had given gifts and dowry items according to his capability and that in marriage, he spent about a sum of Rs.two lacs. He alleged that for a year thereafter, his daughter had a happy married life, whereafter her in laws started making dowry demands and also subjected her to ill treatment. It was stated further that about seven to eight months after the marriage, her husband Ramjilal registered demand for a motor cycle and the same not having been met, her father in law & sister in law assaulted her. She was also urged by her mother in law to indulge in immoral activities. The informant stated that her daughter used to be subjected to assaults now and then and that she was sent to her matrimonial home for last time before her death on 25/26th March of the year. The informant stated that eventually on 24.7.1998, he got an information that her daughter had been bitten by a snake and that her father in law had asked him to visit them at the earliest. When the informant reached the matrimonial home of his daughter, her father in law stated that though she had been treated with a sorcerer, she could not be cured and that they proposed to bury her to which he objected. The informant stated that inspite of his objection, her daughter was ultimately buried for which he suffered severe mental shock. However, when he went to the police station on 1.8.1998, his complaint was not entertained. It was thereafter that he came to know from the neighbours of her daughter that she had been strangulated to death so much so that her neck bone had been fractured. The written report was thus lodged with the Divisional Commissioner seeking action. The report was forwarded to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police and eventually police case was registered and on completion of the investigation, chargesheet was laid against the deceased's husband, her inlaws and sister in law under sections 304B and 201 IPC. The case having been committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the materials available on record, it discharged all the accused persons of the offences alleged. Hence, the revisions by the State as well as the complainant.
Mr.M.K.Garg, learned counsel for the informant, has urged that the learned trial court having left out of consideration vital pieces of evidence in support of the offences of Sections 304B and 201 IPC, the impugned judgment and order would, if sustained, would be a travesty of justice and, thus, is liable to be interfered with. According to him, the written report got delayed in the face of a negative Final Report submitted by the police on the basis of the first information. Further, in returning the finding that the investigation did not disclose materials in support of these offences, the learned court below overlooked the evidence, amongst others, of Manohar, Jasa Ram, Nanu Devi, Hari Ram, Hari Devi, Mani Ram, Mangat Ram, Zahira, Niku Ram, Daula Ram, Asha Ram, Nandu Ram, Gopi Ram and Birbal Ram. Mr.Garg, thus, prayed that this is a fit case in which the impugned order of discharge ought to be interfered with and the matter be remanded to the learned court below for disposal on merits.
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor, did endorse these arguments.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that as the learned trial court on an elaborate analysis of the materials available on the record at the stage of consideration of charge, discharged them (respondents) having realized the futility of a trial, if initiated, this court in its revisional jurisdiction ought not to substitute its own assessment thereof (materials available on record) and interfering with the conclusions. To buttress this plea, Mr.V.N.Kalla has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 AIR SCW 784.
I have duly considered the arguments advanced. It is submitted at the Bar that no post mortem examination of the dead body could be conducted and, therefore, there is no report to this effect. There is, thus, to start with, no medical evidence disclosing the cause of death. This is of utmost significance in view of the stand mentioned in the written report, as conveyed to the informant that the deceased had died out of snake bite. Be that as it may, it is no longer res integra that at the stage of consideration of charge, the learned trial Court need not undertake a detailed analysis of the materials made available on police investigation and a prima facie satisfaction that the incriminating facts, if unrebutted, would establish the offence(s), as sought to be divulged thereby is enough.
A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order would reveal that the learned court below, however, did undertake an exhaustive exercise to examine the written report, which admittedly had been lodged about 25 days after the incident had occurred. Admittedly, the informant, father of the deceased was aware thereof on the very same day i.e. 24.7.1998. With reference to the statement made in the written report, the learned trial court, more particularly the fact that the deceased did not, out of embarassment, disclose to the informant (her father) about the dowry demands and that she used to do so to her mother, discarded his (informant) statement claiming that he had direct knowledge thereof (dowry demands). With reference to the evidence of Nirmala Devi, mother of the deceased, it was recorded that not only the same was laden with omissions vis a vis dowry demands, it was also in departure from the version to the effect set out in the written report. The learned trial court concluded that her statement though had indicated about some misbehaviour by her husband (respondent No.1), she did not implicate the others. The learned trial Court with reference to the statement of Daula Ram, recorded that the same was not clear as to who of the family members had allegedly harassed and intimidated the deceased. It dismissed the evidence of Bhanwarlal, brother of the deceased, also on the same consideration. The learned trial court also found statement of Asha Ram and informant Niku Ram being wanting in identification of members of family of the respondent No.1 indulging in such demands. That the witness Manohar also did not state in the course of the investigation that the respondents were involved in dowry demands and had subjected the deceased to assault and ill-treatment, was recorded as well.
According to the learned trial Court, the witnesses Jesa Ram, Hari Ram, Smt.Paro, Reshma, Mani Ram, Mangtu and Birbal Ram also did not disclose anything about demand dowry. The learned trial court noticed that the so called demand for motor cycle, as referred-to in the written report by the respondent husband after seven to eight months of the marriage, was about three years before the date of incident i.e. 19.8.1998. Admittedly, no medical evidence disclosing the unmistakable cause of death is available on record. Lack of medical evidence unimpeachably demonstrating the cause of death, was also noticed by the learned trial court, which concluded as well that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to suggest that the deceased was throttled to death. That there was no material as well to indicate that the body of the deceased had been buried to screen out the possible evidence of alleged offence, was also recorded. The respondent accused, thus, were discharged.
The statements of Manohar, Jesa Ram, Hari Ram, Mani Ram and Birbal Ram were to the effect that there was no sign of snake bite on the body of the deceased and that her eyeballs were found bulging out and her neck had turned loose. The witnesses viz; Smt.Pari and Reshma, claimed to have bathed the dead body in the course whereof, they found the deceased's neck having turned loose and her head flexible.
Though the evidence to the above effect by the aforementioned witnesses did not find categorical reference in the impugned judgment and order, having regard to the fact that meanwhile, fifteen years have elapsed, more particularly in absence of any medical evidence disclosing convincingly the cause of death of the deceased, this court is of the view that the remittance of the matter to the learned court below would not yield any effective and plausible results, contrary to what had already ensued. The statement of these witnesses to the effect that there was no sign of snake bite on the body of they deceased and that her neck was loose and that her eyes were bulging out, do not per se inspire confidence and coupled with the strong possibility of their non-availability at this distant point of time and uncertainty of their adherence to the said statements, now, this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in undertaking the exercise of remitting the matter to the learned court below. The view taken by the learned trial court on an assessment of the materials on record, even with reference to the statement of the witnesses suggesting death by strangulation, is not an implausible, absurd or preposterous one and in that view of the matter as well, this court is not inclined to interfere therewith, as the materials on record, taken as a whole, do not unerringly demonstrate that the deceased had been strangulated to death.
In the above backdrop of facts, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not considered warranted.
The revision petitions fail and are dismissed. A copy of this judgment be placed in S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.563/2000 as well.
Comments