The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the acquittal of two accused in a dowry death case, stating that the second dying declaration of the deceased was not sufficiently reliable to overturn the initial judgment. The court emphasized that discrepancies in the evidence and a significant delay in the second dying declaration raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.
The judgment was delivered by a division bench consisting of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati. The appeal, registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 350/1996, was filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court in Bikaner.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from an incident on September 3, 1986, involving the deceased, referred to as Krishna alias Sushila, who was married to one of the accused for about 8-9 years. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to continuous harassment and abuse by her husband and his brother, the two accused in the case, over demands for additional dowry. On the day of the incident, the deceased was reportedly burned after she expressed her inability to fulfill the demand for an additional Rs. 10,000.
The deceased was initially taken to P.B.M. Government Hospital in Bikaner, where she provided a statement to the police (Exhibit-P/5) that the injuries were accidental, caused while she was cooking. However, she made a second dying declaration (Exhibit-P/10) on September 19, 1986, alleging that the accused had intentionally burned her. This declaration was recorded by Judicial Magistrate Kamal Kumar Bagdi (PW-12). Following her death on September 24, 1986, the charges against the accused were altered from Section 307 of the IPC to Sections 498-A and 302.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations:
1. Reliability of the Dying Declarations:
The High Court’s ruling focused heavily on the conflicting dying declarations made by the deceased. The first declaration (Exhibit-P/5) made immediately after the incident described the burns as accidental. In contrast, the second declaration (Exhibit-P/10), made 16 days later, claimed that the burns were inflicted by the accused due to demands for additional dowry. The court found the delay between the two statements suspicious and noted that the deceased’s second statement could have been influenced or tutored.
2. Delay in Reporting and Lack of Immediate Complaint:
The court observed that despite the alleged assault on September 3, 1986, no complaint was made by the deceased’s family until September 19, 1986. The judges found this delay significant, stating, “If there was indeed a role of the accused in the commission of the offence, the parents of the deceased, after knowing the incident, would have lodged a report immediately.” The court emphasized that the lack of a timely report undermined the prosecution’s case.
3. Medical Evidence and Inconsistencies:
The court also considered the medical evidence presented. The doctor who examined the deceased before her death, Dr. Shyam Sundar (PW-10), did not find any injury other than the burn wounds. The deceased’s second statement had claimed injuries to her hand, but no such injuries were documented in the medical examination. The court highlighted that this inconsistency further weakened the prosecution’s case.
4. Judgment Parameters and Reasonable Doubt:
The court reiterated the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007), which provides that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or shocking to the conscience of the higher court. The judges noted, “If two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
5. Lack of Evidence Supporting Dowry Harassment:
The court found that there was no clear evidence of persistent dowry harassment. Although witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 mentioned a panchayat involving village elders regarding the alleged harassment, the prosecution failed to produce any such elders or provide their names, nor did any neighbours corroborate the claims of harassment. The court concluded that there was no material to substantiate the charges under Section 498-A of the IPC.
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence and arguments, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. The court found that the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the second dying declaration were “plausible and convincing in the light of the evidence on record.” The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Counsel for the Parties:
– For the Appellant (State of Rajasthan): Mr. C.S. Ojha (Public Prosecutor), Mr. Pritam Solanki, and Mr. K.L. Vishnoi.
– For the Respondents (Accused): Ms. Apeksha Chhangani.
