Amitava Roy, J. - (1.) The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked to set at naught the judgment and order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/1989 (77/97) thereby acquitting the respondent No. 2 of the charges for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the l.P.C.").
(2.) The prosecution case is traceable to a written report (Ex.P-2) lodged at about 5.00 P.M. on 5.9.1986 by Sitaram, the father of the deceased Smt. Kanta stating that his daughter had been given in marriage to Pawan Kumar S/o Munshiram Agarwal on 20.5.1986, where after she was subjected to harassment and illtreatment on demands of dowry. It was disclosed that on 4.9.1986 at about 6.30 P.M. having received a telephonic information from Raisinghnagar, the place of her matrimonial home, that she had died of burn injuries, he along with others rushed there and on seeing her dead daughter, entertained an impression that she had been murdered. The information was thus lodged with the SHO, Police Station Raisinghnagar. On this a police case was registered under Section 306 l.P.C. and on the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the respondent No. 2, the mother-in-law of the deceased. Eventually, charges were framed against her under Sections 306 and 498-A l.P.C., to which she pleaded "not guilty" and was made to stand trial. The prosecution at the trial examined 14 witnesses including the parents of the deceased, a few relations of her, the doctor, who had performed the postmortem examination on her as well as the Investigating Officer. The respondent No. 2 in course of her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. abided by her denial of the charges. She examined 4 witnesses in defence as well. At the conclusion of the trial and on a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Court, however, by the judgment and order impugned acquitted the respondent No. 2 of the charges.
(3.) Before adverting to the rival arguments, it would be appropriate at the threshold to notice the grounds on which the order of acquittal had been recorded. As would be apparent from the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court did elaborately analyse the evidence on record and on the evaluation thereof concluded as hereunder (1) The prosecution witnesses PW-2 Sitaram, father of the deceased, PW-7 Geeta Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-6 Madan Lal and PW-8 Rajendra, brothers of the deceased, PW-3 Om Prakash, uncle of the deceased, PW-4 Indra Devi, aunt of the deceased have in their testimony at the trial substantially departed from their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in course of the investigation thereby improving their version in support of the charge on the aspects of alleged demands of dowry and harassment to the deceased stemming therefrom, so much so that their evidence in Court was as a result of after thought and mutual deliberations. That these witnesses in course of the investigation did not implicate the Respondent No. 2, mother-in-law of the deceased, Ramvilas, brother-in-law of the deceased and Meera, sister-in-law of the deceased in alleged demands of dowry, was also noticed. These witnesses, however, involved the respondent No. 2, Ramvilas and Meera in their deposition at the trial.' The learned Trial Court construed these to be significant improvements deliberately introduced later in point of time rendering the witnesses untrustworthy. (2) There had been a substantial identicalness in the nature of improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses at the trial on same aspects, thus rendering their testimony akin to parrot like narration. (3) Though PW-2 Sitaram had stated that on receiving the intimation of the death of his daughter in the evening of 4.9.1986, he along with others had proceeded towards Raisinghnagar and having reached there at about 2.30 A.M., lodged the written report quickly thereafter, the F.I.R. on i record was shown to have been laid on 5.9.1986 at 5.00 P.M. Thus, this information was delayed of about 14-15 hours for which there was no convincing explanation forthcoming. The F.I.R. also did not disclose the I identity of the persons making the alleged demands of dowry. (4) Though these witnesses referred to some extra-judicial confession on I the part of the respondent No. 2, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of I the deceased, in their testimony at the trial, there was no reference j thereof in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. thus rendering the same doubtful. (5) In the letters Ex.D-6, D-7, D-8 and D-9 written by the deceased (who was an educated lady) to her husband did not contain even a whisper of dowry demands and harassment by the respondent No. 2 and her i brother-in-law and sister-in-law in connection therewith. On the other hand, these letters demonstrated that she was happy and contented in her matrimonial home and she shared a pleasant relationship with her in laws. (6) The defence has proved and exhibited a document Ex.D-5 written by Surendra Kumar, Senior Advocate of Raisinghnagar containing the statement of Sitaram, father of the deceased, that he did not suspect any foul play in the death of his daughter. That this document was proved by J Surendra Singh as DW-3, was noted.;