- (1.) No doubt Smt. Narbada wife of Prabhu Dayal died as a result of severe shock due to burns all over body. According her husband Prabhudayal, Smt. Narbada herself committed suicide of which he had made a report to the police on September 6, 1979. However, in January, 1980 Banwarilal, brother of, deceased Smt. Narbada Devi, rnade an application to the Additional Inspector General of Police (CID) Jaipur stating there in that the police had dropped the proceedings holding that the case was that of suicide. Banwdrilal in his application stated that it was not a case of suicide but Prabhudayal had caused the death of Smt. Narbada Devi by beating him. There Was admittedly no eye witness to show that Prabhudayal had burnt his wife to death. On behalf of the petitioners much reliance is placed on the police statements of Kaluram, Sitaram, and Mool Singh. It is worthy to be mentioned that Kaluram's statement was recorded by the Police on April 13, 1980 i.e. about 7 months after the date of the incident and after three months of the making of complaint by Banwarilal. On its face, he appears to be a chance witness and his statement is not corroborated by other witness. Sitaram resides at Delhi and he happens to have gone to village Lokhara on the date of occurrence. He only states that Prabhudayal was pouring water on his burnt wife. He does not say that Smt. Narbada Devi was rebuking her husband for burning her. It is quite clear that Smt. Narbada Bai was alive when she was taken to the hospital. Dr. S.N. Sharma on receiving a telephonic information went to the house of Smt. Narbada and he has said in his police statement that all that Smt. Narbada was telling was that she has got burns. She did not tell before Dr. S.N. Sharma that Prabhudayal had burnt her or had in any way instigated her to commit suicide. To the same effect is the police statement of Ramdeo who had accompanied the doctor. It seems to be important that the police statements of the three witnesses on which the petitioner wants to rely were recorded after a considerable delay and in that a story was set up that Smt. Narbada was crying that she Was brought today and that on that very day she was burnt. Such an evidence does not inspire confidence. There is no other evidence which connects the non-petitioner No. 1 with the crime in any way. It may be that there existed strained relationship between Prabhudayal and his wife and the husband may not be well treating her for the reason that she could not deliver any issue, but that in no way indicates that Prabhudayal in any way instigated or assisted Smt. Narbada Devi to set fire on herself or that Prabhudayal himself set fire to Narbada Devi. Thus the prosecution case was groundless and the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar rightly discharged the non-petitioner No. 1. This is one aspect of the matter.
(2.) Then there is the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, 1966 CrLJ 700 which was with respect to Section 435 of the Old Criminal Procedure Code which corresponded to Section 397 of the new Code and in Thakur Ram's case it was held that in a case which had proceeded on a police report, a private party had no locus standi to invoke jurisdiction under Section 435 of the Code. No doubt the terms of Section 435 were very wide and the matter can even be taken up in consideration suo moto. The criminal law was not, however to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against a person who according to that party had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party which is treated as an aggrieved party in the State which is the custodian of social interest of the community at large and so it was for the State to take all the necessary steps for bringing the person who had acted against the social interest of the community to back. In the instant case, the State bad not come in revision. It was always open to Ganga Ram father of Narbada Devi or Banwarilal brother of Narbada Devi to have filed a private criminal complaint against the petitioner, if they so liked.
(3.) Even on merits, I find that the evidence and documents produced by the police along with its report did not disclose the commission of any offence by non-petitioner No. 1 and he was rightly discharged.;