Rohini @ Dolly vs State & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3428 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.A. 728/2013
      ROHINI @ DOLLY                                       ..... Appellant
                      Through:         Mr. A.K. Chowdhary, Advocate
                                       with appellant in person.
                         versus

      STATE & ORS.                                        .... Respondents
                         Through:      Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for the State
                                       with Inspector Rohtash, Police
                                       Station F. Bazar, Delhi.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

                                  ORDER

% 05.08.2013

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 372

Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions case No. 196/2006 thereby

acquitting the accused persons of the charged offence under Sections 498-

A/406/307/34 IPC.

2. Arguing the present appeal Mr. A.K. Chowdhary, counsel for the

appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has discarded the clinching

evidence of PW-2 Smt. Rohini(appellant/complainant), PW-1 Shri Sohan

Lal Sharma (father of PW-2) and PW-10 Smt. Krishna Devi (mother of

PW2) merely on the ground that they made material improvements and

embellishments in their depositions before the Trial Court in comparison

with their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Contention

raised by counsel for the appellant is that the learned Trial Court has

failed to categorically point out the alleged material improvements made

by these witnesses in the impugned judgment. Counsel further argued that

the learned Trial Court has also wrongly observed that the said witnesses

did not disclose the specific dates on which the alleged demands of

money and physical harassment was meted out to the appellant by the

accused persons. Counsel also argued that the learned Trial Court has

wrongly discarded the clinching evidence of PW-4, Shri Baldhari Yadav

and PW-6, Shri Ram Niwas, who had fully corroborated the version of

PW-2 on material points, despite the fact that they turned hostile later.

Contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that PW-4, Shri Baldhari

Yadav is an independent witness and was sitting in his pan shop when he

saw the appellant, wet in kerosene oil, rushing out from her matrimonial

home crying 'bachao bachao'. Counsel also submits that on the same

lines PW-6, Ram Niwas, had also personally seen the appellant wet in

kerosene oil and making such cries. Counsel also argued that the

appellant was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan after a gap of 2 ½

hours and inthe MLC the attending doctor hadobserved smell of kerosene

from the clothes of the appellant. Counsel also argued that merely

because in the MLC of Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, the appellant was

not found to have sustained any external injuries that would not mean that

the accused persons have not poured kerosene oil on her body. Counsel

also argued that there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to have

disbelieved the medical opinion given by the attending doctor of Garg

Hospital which was proved on record as Exhibit PW-5/A. Counsel also

submitted that the testimony of PW-5, Dr. S.S. Bhagat of Garg Hospital

could not have been doubted merely because the appellant was earlier

being treated in the same hospital.

3. Based on these submissions counsel for the appellant urged that

there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to have disbelieved the

testimonies of the complainant, her parents supported by other

independent witnesses i.e. PW- 4 and PW-6, which is further

corroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, the order passed by the

learned Trial Court is illegal and perverse on the very face of it.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable

length and have also perused the records.

5. It is a settled legal position that in an appeal against the order of

acquittal, the High Court will interfere only where the order passed by the

learned Trial Court is vitiated by manifest illegality or perversity or the

conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court could not have been possibly

arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously. The Appellate

Court should also bear in mind that with the acquittal of the accused

persons by the learned Trial Court, the presumption of innocence of the

accused persons has been given the legitimacy. It is also a settled legal

position that where there is possibility of arriving at two different

conclusions on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court

should not disturb the finding of acquittal arrived at by the Lower Court

merely because the other possible view is a preferred view.

6. In the facts of the present case, the appellant herein was married to

the respondent No.4 on 23.1.1999 and as per the allegations levelled by

the appellant after about 1 ½ months of her marriage,all the accused

persons started harassing and torturing her on account of illegal demands.

The alleged incident inquestiontook place on 8.4.2004, when brother-in-

law of the appellant Rajeev Mishra visited the parental house of the

appellant and told her that he will get her matter compromised and

according to his request, the appellant had accompanied Rajeev Mishra

on his motor cycle to the matrimonial house. As per the appellant,on

reaching the matrimonial home , immediately her mother-in-law, sister-

in-law, brother-in-law, aunt, uncle and her husband started beating

her,and her mother-in-law threw kerosene oil on her body and even

attempted to put her on fire. The appellant instantly came out running

from her matrimonial home on the street in the same condition.

7. After the said incident the matter was reported to the police vide

DD No. 34 A dated 8.4.2004 and the police had recorded the statement of

the complainant on the basis of which rukka was prepared and sent for

registration of FIR at the Police Station. The appellant was also taken to

the said Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan and as per the MLC, the

appellant had not received any external injuries on her body. The

appellant was not satisfied with the said MLC report of Dr. Hedgewar

Arogya Sansthan, therefore, got herself examined again from Garg

Hospital on the morning of 9thApril, 2004 at 11.00 a.m.

8. It is an admitted case of the appellant that she did not receive any

external injuries on her body. Even during the course of the arguments of

the present appeal, submission made by counsel for the appellant was that

some injuries had resulted on the body of the appellant due to the reaction

caused by kerosene oil, which remained on her body for about more than

2 ½ hours.

9. Counsel for the appellant has mainly placed reliance on the

testimony of PW-5 Dr. S.S. Bhagat and the medical card/slip issued by

Garg hospital proved on record as Exhibit PW5/A. This contention of

counsel for the appellant has been convincingly dealt with by the learned

Trial Court and we do not find any justifiable reason to upset the finding

of the learned Trial Court on this aspect. Learned Trial Court has rightly

given more weightage to the MLC issued by Dr. Hedgewar Arogya

Sansthan and the testimony of PW-3 Dr.Sharad Vyas. Undoubtedly, the

appellant was first taken to the said hospital which is a Government

hospital and as per the MLC report issued by the said hospital, no

external injuries were found on the body of the appellant. In any event of

the matter, it is not the case of the appellant that she had received some

external injuries on her body rather the only contention raised by the

appellant is that some injuries had resulted on the body of the appellant

due to the reaction caused by the kerosene oil. The important aspect,

therefore, was not of the appellant sustaining the alleged injuries due to

thepouring of kerosene oil on her skin but the pouring of kerosene itself

on her body by the accused persons. Curiously enough the appellant after

discharge from the Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan got herself admitted

in Garg Hospital on the following day and we find merit in the

observation of the learned Trial Court that in such circumstances the

possibility of falsely implicating the accused persons by the appellant and

her family members cannot be ruled out.

10. So far the offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC is concerned the

learned Trial Court found that the witnesses adduced by the prosecution

could not give the specific dates of the alleged dowry demands and the

witnesses had made material improvements and embellishments in their

deposition before the Trial Court in comparison with their statements

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We do not find any infirmity in the

said reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. Even with regard to the

offence punishable under Section 406/34 IPC, the learned Trial Court

found that the allegations levelled by the appellant were general and

vague.

11. After having carefully scrutinized and analysed the evidence on

record, the learned Trial Court also found many contradictions and

inconsistencies in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 with regard

to the material facts and that the learned Trial Court has threadbare

discussed the testimonies of the witnesses adduced on record charge-wise

and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of counsel for

the appellant that the learned Trial Court has passed the order of acquittal

without proper discussion.

12. Upon careful consideration of the reasoning given by the learned

Trial Court, we do not find that the learned Trial Court has committed

any perversity or illegality in passing the impugned judgment. There is no

merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is accordingly dismissed.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 05, 2013 rkr