- (1.) 1. The present revision has been filed by the State against the judgment and or der dated 22-11-1997 passed by Sri Shailendra Saxena, the then Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1997 by which he had discharged the respondent-Kalyan Singh from the charges.
(2.) BRIEF facts for the disposal of this revision are that an F. I. R. was lodged on 14-02-1997 before the police station on the next day of the incident. It is alleged in the said report that the accused-Kalyan Singh used to harass the deceased in con nection with the dowry. Just two days before the occurrence, i. e. on 12-02-1997, the deceased had come to the house of her father and there she had stated that her husband, the accused / Kalyan Singh was harassing and threatening her to kill. The father of the deceased on the next day sent the deceased to the house of her husband. The occurrence of the death of the deceased took place on 14-02-1997 on the next day when she was sent to the matrimonial house. The matter was inves tigated by the police and chargesheet was submitted before the court. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge came to the con clusion that there is no sufficient ground to frame the charge against accused. The learned Sessions Judge had held that the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Sarojini Devi had been recorded by the Magistrate in which she had clearly stated that she burnt due to some incident. She had herself stated before the Magistrate that she did not want to live and she had categorically stated that nobody should be blamed for her death. The learned Ses sions Judge also held that the details of the incident had not been given in the F. I. R. There is no eyewitness of the inci dent and there is no circumstance which lead to take an inference that the said death occurred due to the abatement by the accused. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE learned A. G. A. vehemently argued that from the perusal of the case diary and the evidence collected by the I. O. , a prima-facie case was made out against the accused person. He further contended that from the statement of witnesses including the brother of the de ceased and other family members, it is clear that the witnesses supported the averments of the F. I. R. that the deceased was harassed by the accused on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry according to the desire and wishes of the accused/respondent. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the State that the court below had erred in law, fact and not considered the matter at the stage of framing of the charge and discharged the accused-respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention. It is not disputed that the marriage took place in between the deceased and the respondent at about ten years back at the time of the incident. The learned trial court was justified in holding that the de ceased Sarojini Devi had made a dying declaration which was duly recorded and that bears the signatures of the medical officer also. It is also revealed from the record that the deceased was in her full sense at the time of recording of the dy ing declaration. The learned trial court was also justified in holding that there was no evidence that Investigating Officer had not collected the evidence to support the con tention that on account of the dowry de mand the deceased was treated cruelly or was harassed on this account. Perusal of the record reveals that the dying declara tion which was made by the deceased in very clear terms states that the said burn ing took place due to some incident and she also stated that she did not want to live and nobody should be blamed for her burning. This statement clearly exonerates all the persons including the accused-re spondent. It is also relevant to mention here that when the incident occurred the lady was only present at the spot. There is no evidence on record which reveals that the prosecution witnesses were present to see the abatement or to see the act of suicide committed by the deceased. The only circumstantial evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution is that she came to her parental house two days prior to the incident and she stated that her husband was treating her cruelly in connection with the demand of dowry even there after she was sent by her fa ther to her matrimonial house in the next date. This mere evidence did not lead to take an inference that the act of abate ment was committed by the accused. The marriage took place more than 7 years, as such, the presumption as has been in corporated under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act is not applicable in this case.;