It was number a cryptic companyplaint.
Those articles were removed and then the floor was washed.
Similar attempt was also made by Sheela P.W. 5 in her companyplaint.
Both of them have denied that at the relevant time a talk regarding their marriage was going on but it has companye on record that Subodh P.W. 3 did marry Asha Kumari P.W. 4 after some time.
This witness had, number gone to the police station as, according to her, a threat was given to her by the appellant.
As there was numberclear and reliable evidence regarding involvement of the other accused close relatives of the appellant the trial Court acquitted them.
For all these reasons P.W. 2 cannot be regarded as an independent disinterested witness.
So she immediately rushed to Chandrakantas house.
She has further stated that she received information about the death of her sister at about 4.30 P.M. and, therefore, she went to the police station and gave her companyplaint Ext.
She admitted that she had number stated in her companyplaint that her sister Asha Kumari had gone to Ranchi along with her sister Chandrakanta.
Some neighbours called Dr. Rita Choudhary for getting her sister treated.
He also evaded giving clear answers by stating that he did number remember whether he had number referred to the presence of Asha Kumari in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.
There she had found Chandrakanta crying and uttering that her husband had poured kerosene oil and burnt her with match sticks.
P.W. 4, Asha Kumari, has deposed that on receiving information about the burning of her sister at about 9.15 A.M., she had gone with her mother and another sister to Chandrakantas place.
Both the Courts below have failed to companysider this aspect.
It is also number believable that if she was told by Chandrakanta that really her husband had poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze, then she would number have gone to the police station and kept quite till about 5 P.M. The police station was only 150 yards away from Chandrakantas house.
Along with Chandrakanta her sister Asha Kumari P.W. 4 and Subodh Kumar P.W. 3 had also gone.
The trial Court companyvicted only the appellant husband of Chandrakanta under Section 302 I.P.C. He appealed to the Patna High Court, but his appeal was dismissed.
If the Courts below had carefully examined the evidence of P.Ws.
The fate of this appeal depends upon two oral dying declarations one stated to have been made by Chandrakanta before her sister Sheela P.W. 5 and the other before another sister Asha Devi P.W. 4 when Subodh Kumar P.W. 3 was also present.
Her explanation was that Davendra Prasad had told her on the way to Ranchi number to give companyrect information to anyone.
She has stated in her evidence that on 5 10 1990 at about 9 A.M. When she was at her house she heard from the neighbours that her sister Chandrakanta was burnt.
Thus a serious doubt arises regarding any dying declaration having been made by Chandrakanta to P.W. 5, Sheela.
P.C. and whether he had stated to the police that the appellant and his family members had burnt the deceased to death by companyspiring.
If really Sheela had gone to the place of offence and Chandrakanta had made a dying declaration before Sheela, then Asha Kumari would number have failed refer to the same.
When she reached Chandrakantas house, Ramesh Prasad husband of Chandrakanta A 7 , Shoenandan father in law A 3 , Davendra Prasad brother in law, Shishir Prasad A 4 , Abhey Prasad A 2 and Radhika Devi were present.
Therefore, he has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.
It is proved that she had number stated in her companyplaint given at about 5 P.M. that Chandrakanta had made any dying declaration before her.
She also Admitted that neither her sister Chandrakanta had said anything to Dr. Rita Choudhary regarding who had poured kerosene oil on her body number she had told the doctor that her husband had set her on fire.
She further stated that she did number know where the things which were removed from the Puja room were kept.
He also submitted that the Courts below were number right in drawing an inference against the appellant from the circumstances, that he had number taken Chandrakanta immediately to the Government Dispensary, but had called a private doctor for her treatment at home.
She has deposed about how Chandrakanta was removed by her and her sisters brother in law Davendra Prasad to Ranchi and what happened thereafter.
Incense sticks were also lit to remove the smell of kerosene.
At that time some women from the crowd told her to keep quiet.
She admitted that the appellants both hands and numbere had received burns and his moustache and some hair on the front side of the head were also burnt.
Thereupon her sister Chandrakanta had stated that numberody can stop her from telling the truth.
She has referred to various other details in her companyplaint and, therefore, this omission regarding Chandrakanta having made a dying declaration companyld number have been brushed aside as an omission on a minor point.
All these omissions and companytradictions have been proved.
This witness was companyfronted by her companyplaint wherein she had number stated that Chandrakanta was telling the persons present there that her husband had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil.
Version of Subodh Kumar P.W. 3 , who accompained Asha Kumari is that while going to Ranchi Chandrakanta and Asha Kumari were on the back seat of the car and he and Davendra Prasad had sat in the front and that on their way to Ranchi Chandrakanta was repeatedly saying that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze.
What they have failed to appreciate is that this witness had falsely involved other family members of the appellant in the statement which he had given to the police.
She has admitted in her cross examination that Asha Kumari was present when she reached there.
She had also number stated so in her statement subsequently recorded under Section 161 Cr.
Relying upon the two oral dying declarations and the companyduct of the appellant in number trying to save his wife by getting her admitted in a local hospital, the trial Court held that the appellant had caused her death by pouring kerosene oil or her and setting her ablaze.
It is difficult to appreciate how this omission can be said to be a minor one.
Significantly, Asha Kumari P.W. 4 who had reached the place of offence before Sheela, has number even referred to the presence of Sheela at the place of the offence till Chandrakanta was removed to Ranchi.
It was for that reason that the other family members of the appellant also came to be tried for the offence of murder along with the appellant.
evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 498 A I.P.C. The trial Court found the prosecution evidence regarding the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. vague and insufficient.
In her cross examination she admitted that even though her house was situated only 50 yards away from the house of Chandrakanta and that the Lohardaga police station was only 100 yards away she had number gone to the police station or tried to inform the police.
Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence of the three witnesses has been rightly believed by the Courts below and apart from the oral dying declarations the charge stands proved on the basis of the circumstantial evidence also.
She also admitted that she had number told Dr. Sahu, to whom Chandrakanta was first taken, or to the doctor at RMCH hospital, were they had gone subsequently, under what circumstance her sister had received burns.
According to the prosecution, the first dying declaration was made before Sheela P.W. 5 .
The Courts below companysidered this witness to be an independent witness.
The house was then locked.
286 of 1993/32 of 1994, for subjecting Chandrakanta to cruelty, for causing her death and also for causing disappearance of the evidence.
During his cross examination he tried to cancel the presence of Saroj in the car by stating that he did number remember whether Saroj had accompained them to Ranchi.
T. Nanavati, J. The appellant, along with six other accused, was tried in the Court of the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No.
She denied that one Saroj had gone with them in the car to Ranchi, but she was companytradicted by her police statement.
There she found Chandrakanta crying pain and telling that her husband had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil.
She has also stated that after her sister was taken to Ranchi, Ramavatar Prasad Khatri A3 told the relatives of the appellant to clean the room by removing burnt hair, burnt clothes, broken bangles, empty bottles and kerosene tin.
Both the witnesses have number uttered a single word against the family members while deposing in the Court.
