State Of J&K vs Som Raj
2021 Latest Caselaw 1584 j&K

                                                                        Sr. No. 04



       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU


                                                 CRAA No. 75/2011

State of J&K                                           ....Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                 Through :- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA


          V/s

Som Raj                                                         ....Respondent(s)

                 Through :-    Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                              JUDGMENT(ORAL)

1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal

dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri ["trial

Court"] in file No.46-A/Spl. Challan titled State v. Som Raj, whereby the learned

trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 306 RPC.

2. As the prosecution story goes, on 6th May, 2000 the police recorded

the statement of deceased-Veena Devi, the wife of the respondent while she was

battling for life in the hospital after having received severe burn injuries. As per

the statement, she was married to the respondents 6-7 years back and out of the

wedlock, two daughters and one son were born. There used to be altercation

between respondent and his deceased wife and the reason for such quarrel was

that the respondent was an alcoholic and used to beat up the deceased after

taking liquor. On 06.05.2000 at about 3 p.m. when the deceased asked the

respondent not to indulge in drinking of liquor, the quarrel between the two

ensued. The deceased having been fed up with the acts of the respondent poured

kerosene oil all over her body and set herself ablaze. She was thereafter admitted

to hospital at Budhal with severe burn injuries. She could not put up her

signatures/thumb impression on her statement because her hand and feet had

received extensive burn injuries. As per the prosecution, on the basis of aforesaid

statement, police registered FIR No.19/2000 for offence under Sections 306/511

RPC and started investigation in the matter. The deceased was later shifted to

Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jammu, where she succumbed to the burn

injuries on 15th May, 2000. After investigation, the police found the charge under

Section 306 RPC proved against the respondent and accordingly, laid the charge-

sheet before the competent Court of law for judicial determination.

3. The trial Court framed charges on 12th October, 2000 for offence under

Section 306 RPC and recorded the plea of the respondent. The respondent denied

the charge and claimed to be tried. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution

examined PW-1 Nazia Kouser, PW-2Mukhtar Ahmed, PW-Abdul Ahad, PW-4

Mohd. Rafiq, PW-5 Ali Mohd., PW-6 Abdul Qayoom, PW-7 Kala Ram, PW-8

Ashok Dayal, PW-9 Sant Ram, PW-11, Dr. Anayat Ullah, PW-12 Ali Mohd.

and PW-14 Ram Lal. The statement of the respondent under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

was recorded. The respondent chose not to lead any evidence in defence.

4 The trial Court, after threadbare discussion on the arguments of the

prosecution and defence and having gone through the evidence on record

minutely, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to

bring home the guilt of the respondent. As a result, the respondent-accused was

acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 29th March, 2011. It is this

judgment, which is impugned in this appeal.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record, in particular, the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion

that the view taken by the trial Court was the only plausible view that could have

been taken in the matter. As is apparent from a bare reading of the impugned

judgment, none of the prosecution witnesses, except PW-8 Ashok Dayal, have

supported the prosecution version of the case. PW-8 Ashok Dayal is none other

than the brother of the deceased. He in his statement has, though, submitted that

the respondent was used to drinking alcohol and would occasionally beat up the

deceased, yet in his cross-examination, he has very categorically stated that since

he was living far off from the house of the deceased, as such, was not in a

position to tell as to what were the relations between the deceased and the

respondent. In any case, he has not alleged any ill-treatment of the deceased by

the respondent nor has he given any instance of quarrel on part of the

respondent, which is so extreme as would derive the decease to take the extreme

step of taking her own life. The prosecution story that the deceased while being

admitted in the hospital made statement is also belied by the statement of PW-11

Dr. Anayat, who in his statement has categorically stated that the deceased had

suffered burn injuries to the extent of 95% of the body surface and was, thus, not

in a position to make any statement. Even brother of the deceased, PW-8 Ashok

Dayal, who though, to some extent, has supported the prosecution version but is

clear in his statement that when he met the deceased in the hospital she was in

terrible condition due to burn injuries and was not in a position to speak.

6. The prosecution has, though, established that the death of the deceased

was due to burn injuries, yet has not been able to demonstrate by leading any

cogent evidence as to how she received the burn injuries. It is not established as

to whether it was a case of accidental death or suicide and if it was a suicide

whether there was grave provocation from the respondent so as to derive the

deceased to take extreme step of taking her own life.

7. While concurring with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned

trial Court and the conclusion drawn, I find no merit in this appeal and the same

is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu:

02.12.2021 Vinod, PS

Whether the order is speaking :Yes/No Whether the order is reportable :Yes/No