Gyan Chand Arora vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16517 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 205/2019

Gyan Chand Arora S/o Dhalu Ram Arora, Aged About 64 Years,
Heera Chawk, Siraki Bazar, Bhatinda (Punjab).
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.     Manoj Kumar S/o Jagdish Kumar, By Caste Arora, R/o
       Hanumangarh Town, Police Station Hanumangarh Town,
       District Hanumangarh.
3.     Sanjeev Kumar @ Vicky S/o Jagdish Kumar, By Caste
       Arora,      R/o     Hanumangarh               Town,       Police   Station
       Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.
4.     Smt. Darshana Devi W/o Jagdish Kumar, By Caste Arora,
       R/o Hanumangarh Town, Police Station Hanumangarh
       Town, District Hanumangarh.
5.     Jagdish Kumar S/o Desh Raj, By Caste Arora, R/o
       Hanumangarh Town, Police Station Hanumangarh Town,
       District Hanumangarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     None present
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
                                Mr. Kuldeep Sharma



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                 Judgment

29/10/2021

BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Mr. Vyas, J)

This criminal appeal under Section 372 CrPC has been filed

by the complainant Gyan Chand Arora father of the deceased Smt.

Meena Rani being aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.01.2018

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh

(2 of 7) [CRLAD-205/2019]

in Sessions Case No.31/2016, whereby the accused respondents

herein Manoj Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Darshana Devi and Jagdish

Kumar were acquitted from the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 306 & 302/34 IPC.

As per prosecution story, Meena Rani was married to Manoj

Kumar respondent No.2 on 29.10.2000 as per Hindu rites and

rituals. Respondent No.3 Sanjeev Kumar is uncle of Manoj Kumar,

whereas, Darshana Devi and Jagdish Kumar are mother-in-law

and father-in-law of the deceased Meena Rani. Evidence on record

reveals that in the year 2006, on the complaint of father of Meena

Rani, an FIR No.599/06 (Ex.P/3) was registered at Police Station

Kotwali, Bhatinda under Sections 406, 498-A & 323 IPC against

respondents herein. In that case, after investigation, present

respondents were held guilty for offences under Sections 498-A &

406 IPC by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatinda on 27.01.2014

(Ex.P/7); appeal against the conviction was also dismissed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda on 09.11.2016. However, as

per evidence on record, compromise (Ex.P/5) was arrived at

between the parties and Meena Devi returned to her matrimonial

home on 21.10.2007. On 05.03.2008, in the morning, Manoj and

Jagdish informed on telephone that Meena has got burnt due to

explosion in gas cylinder; and had sustained injuries. The incident

took place in the matrimonial home of Meena Devi at

Hanumangarh Town; she was admitted in the Nagpal Hospital at

Bhatinda, where family members of the complainant party also

reached on receiving the information.

                                       (3 of 7)                 [CRLAD-205/2019]


     As   per   prosecution      story,      injured       Meena   Devi   while

undergoing treatment in a critical condition told her father and

family members that she has been put on fire by her husband,

father-in-law, mother-in-law and Vicky (younger brother of his

husband) on account of demand of dowry. In this regard a written

report was filed on 12.03.2008 at Police Station Hanumangarh

Town, upon which, First Information Report No.186/08 (Ex.P/2)

was registered under Sections 498-A & 302 IPC. However, after

investigation charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498-A & 306

IPC before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The

case was committed to Sessions Court, Hanumangarh; charges

under Sections 306 & 498-A IPC were framed against all four

accused. During trial, on the prayer of complainant party,

alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the

accused persons. After completion of trial, all accused were

acquitted of all offences charged against them. Being aggrieved of

the impugned judgment of acquittal, this appeal by complainant is

before this Court at admission stage.

Respondents have made their appearance after service of the

notice.

No one appears on behalf of the appellant.

We have perused the record of the case and heard learned

counsel for the respondents.

In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned

judgment on the ground that learned trial Court has erred in not

relying upon evidence of the prosecution witnesses; deceased was

consistently harassed and beaten on account of not fulfilling the

(4 of 7) [CRLAD-205/2019]

constant demand of dowry. She was expelled from matrimonial

home by the respondent in the year 2006, for that FIR No.599/06

was registered at Police Station Kotwali and accused persons were

convicted in that case. Learned trial Court has given undue

importance to the evidence of hostile witnesses PW 1, 2 & 3, who

have been won over by accused persons. Soon before her death

the deceased clearly told her father Gyan Chand that she had

been burnt by Manoj, Jagdish, Darshana and Sanjeev @ Vicky for

not fulfilling the demands of dowry. Learned trial Court has

committed illegality in not relying upon the dying declaration of

the deceased. Hence, it was prayed that order impugned may be

quashed and set aside and respondents be convicted for offence

under Sections 498-A & 302/34 IPC.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

supported the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court.

After perusing the record of this case carefully and

considering the grounds of appeal, it emerges that the incident

took place after about 7 years & 5 months of the marriage.

Deceased Smt Meena Rani, who was native of Bhatinda, was

married to Manoj on 29.10.2000; after marriage, she went to her

matrimonial home at Hanumangarh Town. The incident in which

she received burn injuries took place on 05.03.2008 in the

morning. It is an admitted fact that incident was reported by in-

laws of the deceased, to father of Meena Devi on the same day by

telephone, wherein, it was informed that Meena Devi had

sustained injuries on account of blast of gas cylinder. Gyan Chand

PW7 in his deposition stated that after admission of Smt. Meena

(5 of 7) [CRLAD-205/2019]

Devi at Bhatinda in Nagpal Hospital, he was again informed by

Manoj; then he (PW7), Ishwarlal, Darshana, Hardev went there

and saw Meena Devi, who had received burn injuries; he talked to

her, she told them that she has been burnt by Manoj, Jagdish,

Darshana on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands. While

undergoing treatment, she passed away in the intervening night of

5th or 6th March 2008. The allegation that Meena Devi told her

father that she had been burnt by the accused does not find

corroboration from statements of Ishwar Kumar PW5 and Darshan

Singh PW6 whereas Hardev was not been produced in evidence.

Cremation was performed in the presence of family members of

the deceased. This important fact was not reported to the police

till 12.03.2008; when written report (Exhibit P-1) was filed by

Gyan Chand to police. There is no explanation for not disclosing

this important fact of the oral dying declaration of his daughter for

about 7 days to anybody. It is also important that after the death

of Meena Devi in the night of 05 th March 2008 proceedings under

Section 174 CrPC were conducted. At that time, memo of dead-

body was prepared in the presence of five witnesses, some of

whom also belonged to Bhatinda but the so called dying

declaration of the deceased was not disclosed by anybody.

There is no illegality in the impugned judgment The learned

trial Court was absolutely justified in not placing reliance upon the

alleged dying declaration of Meena Devi before her father. The

alleged dying declaration is totally afterthought, on the basis of

which, accused could not have been convicted under Section 302

IPC. No description has been given of the manner in which she

(6 of 7) [CRLAD-205/2019]

was burnt by the accused. It is also relevant to mention here that

after investigation, charge-sheet was filed not under Section 302

IPC but filed under Sections 306 & 498-A IPC only. Charge under

Section 302 IPC had been amended on the prayer of the

complainant Gyan Chand during trial. It is true that Meena Devi

sustained burn injuries in unnatural circumstances but

presumption under Sections 113-A & 113-B of the Indian Evidence

Act could not be applied against the accused since the incident

took place after 7 years of marriage of Meena Devi with Manoj and

for total absence of evidence of cruelty soon before death.

After perusal of the record, fact of committing suicide by the

deceased may not be denied but again for convicting the accused

under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence on record which

indicates that suicide was committed on the instigation or

abetement of the accused. In the present case, prosecution has

not put forward any convincing evidence, which could suggest that

Meena Devi committed suicide on the instigation of the

respondents herein. There is also no evidence on record to

suggest that this suicide was a direct result of any cruelty

committed with the deceased by respondents. The evidence

available on record emphasizes on the theory of murder of Meena

Devi by the respondents, which has been found totally false.

Prosecution evidence does not disclose any act of cruelty in

between 21.10.2007 to 05.03.2008. Gyan Chand in his evidence

did not allege regarding any cruelty towards Meena Devi during

above period. On this point, Gyan Chand stated that post the

compromise, Meena Devi went to her matrimonial home at

(7 of 7) [CRLAD-205/2019]

Hanumangarh and after that she used to tell on telephone that

accused are very greedy and treated her with cruelty. On

25.02.2008, Manoj and Jagdish came to Bhatinda with Meena Devi

and demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for business. He borrowed

Rs.2,50,000/- from Hardev and gave it to Manoj and Jagdish in

presence of Darshan Singh. In our considered opinion, this

statement cannot be considered an act of cruelty, on the basis of

which, one may be punished for offence under Sections 498-A &

306 IPC. The statement does not inspire confidence. Learned trial

Court has rightly disbelieved this part of evidence; Hardev has not

been produced by prosecution. Neighbours of the matrimonial

home of the deceased - Satpal PW1, Navdeep PW2 and Preetam

Kumar PW3 have also not supported the prosecution story. There

is no error in the impugned judgment, whereby, respondents have

been acquitted of the offences.

In view of the above circumstances, the criminal appeal fails

and consequently dismissed at admission stage.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    25-AnilKC/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)