- (1.) This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons under Section 302, IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment with fine which was reversed by the High Court and acquitted the accused persons.
(2.) The prosecution case is as follows: Guddi, the deceased, was admitted in the hospital on 11.09.1998 with ninety nine per cent burn injuries. Parcha Bayan (Ex.P14A) of the deceased was recorded by ASI, Ram Kishan and signed by SHO Mohan Lal PW13 in the hospital. On the basis of the said Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 300/98 was registered at police station Madanganj (Ajmer) against the accused persons under Section 307, IPC. During treatment, Guddi died at about 10AM on the same day and the case was converted into Section 302, IPC. During the course of investigation, both the accused persons were arrested on 12.09.1998, first accused is the father-in-law and second accused is the husband. The accused persons denied the charges and the case went to trial. On the side of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined. The Additional Sessions Judge, placed considerable reliance on the dying declaration stated to have been made before PW 3 Prem Chand, a neighbour which find a place in the statement (Ex. P6) made by him to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW3 has stated that the deceased had raised hue and cry after the burn injuries and abused the father-in-law - Sharvan Ram and based on the evidence of PW3 and his 161 statement, the Session Court found the accused persons guilty.
(3.) Following are the circumstances which weighed with the Additional Sessions Judge: i) That Smt. Guddi, aged 19 years died after two years of her marriage due to 99% burn injuries after pouring kerosene on her enlightening match stick, therefore the death is homicidal. ii) Deceased was in the custody of accused appellants and simply on account of going outside the house were the 'occurrence took place' custody will not be ceased. iii) PW1 Nathu Lal (father), PW2 Kailash (uncle) and PW13 Smt. Suraj Devi (mother) of the deceased in their statements have deposed that Smt. Guddi was not allowed by the accused appellants to go to her matrimonial home. iv) The version of Prem Chand, PW3 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was considered as dying declaration and not the Parcha Bayan. Reliance was not placed by Additional Sessions Judge on Parcha Bayan of deceased. v) That the previous and subsequent conduct of accused appellants was not satisfactorily explained in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C as required under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. vi) Since the death was caused in the custody of the accused, therefore, the accused were also responsible for proving the fact of burn which was specifically within their knowledge as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and further according to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act presumption has to be drawn against accused appellants.;