JUDGMENT R.C. Deepak, J.
1. The State of U.P. has filed this Government Appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.8.1990 passed by Sri B.K. Khare, II Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Session Trial No. 72 of 1989 whereby he acquitted the respondents Gulam Rasool, Smt. Nazmun, Km. Sitara Khatoon and Amrul Hasan for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B IPC pertaining to Police Station Baberu, Disrict Banda. This Government appeal relates to the death of Mahrun Nishan wife of Samma Khan resident of Village Hardauli, Police Station Baberu, District Banda, who is said to have died of burn injuries on 4.5.1988 at her In-laws' house. In regard to her death Gulam Rasool, the father-in-law of the abovenamed deceased, had made an information Ex.Kha-2 at 5:45 p.m. maintained in the G.D. dated 4.5.1988 at Police Station Baberu mentioning therein that her daughter-in-law Mahrun Nishan sustained burn injuries of self-immolation and died inside her room. On this information, the constable Babu Lal (P.W.9) and home guard Meda Prasad of the said Police Station were sent to the place of occurrence to look after the dead body. S.I. Guru Mukh Singh (P.W.6) and Naib Tehsildar Bhanu Pratap Shukla visited the place of occurrence and they prepared the Panchayat Nama of the body of the deceased (Ex.Ka-7). The dead body of the deceased was dispatched to the mortuary for postmortem examination. S.I. Guru Mukh Singh recovered one tin box, one match box and one chain door in two pieces and prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka-3 and he also prepared another recovery memo Ex. Ka-4 for some burnt clothes. Dr. M.L. Anandi conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased in presence of of Dr. M.C. Mittal. He noted the cause of death as antimortem burn injuries. The postmortem examination report is Ex.Ka-2.
2. On the other hand Bakar Khan, the father of the deceased made an typed application dated 5.5.1988 to the Circle Officer, Baberu alleging therein that Samma Khan, the husband of the deceased was residing at Mumbai in connection with his employment and his daughter was residing at her In-laws' house; that Smt. Nazmun, Gulam Rasool, Km. Sitara Khatoon and Amrul Hasan, her parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively made the demand of dowry, harassed, tortured and burnt her to death and on the basis of this application a case as case crime No. 121 of 1988 under Sections 302, 498A IPC (Ex.Ka-1) was registered at the said Police Station against them. The investigation into the case was taken by Dy. S.P. Lalji Shukla. He recorded the statement of S.I, Guru Mukh Singh, reached the place of occurrence followed by S.I. Guru Mukh Singh. S.I. Guru Mukh Singh prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka-5), statements of the witnesses were recorded, the case was converted under Section 304B IPC and he filed the charge-sheet / police report under Section 498A, 304B IPC against them.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Bakar Khan (P.W. I), Abdul Hamid (P.W.2), Mehdi Hasan (P.W.3) and Siraj (P.W.4) are the witnesses of fact whereas remaining are the formal ones.
4. The accused respondents pleaded not guilty and stated that the deceased Mahrun Nishan committed suicide of self-immolation and in support of their case they examined Kesheo (D.W.I), Mohd. Irfan (D.W.2), Samma Khan (D.W.3), Mohd Siddiq Khan (D.W.4) and Shiv Sagar (D.W.5) and filed certain documents. The accused Gulam Rasool has already died and his appeal stood abated on 29.3.2005.
5. We have heard learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant, Sri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel with the assistance of Sri R.K.S. Chauhan and Sri P.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record.
6. The deceased Mahrun Nishan sustained burn injuries at her In-laws' house. She died of the injuries. There is no dispute in regard to these facts. Two main questions crop up for consideration are whether there was demand of dowry, harassment and torture extended to the victim in this regard, whether she committed suicide by self-immolation or she was burnt to death.
7. To examine the first question, which relates to the alleged demand of dowry and torture to the victim, in this regard the complainant Bakar Khan (P.W.I) is definite in his evidence that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. When the demand of dowry was made, has not been disclosed and if disclosed, that too after the information tendered by Gulam Rasool at the Police Station in regard to the death of the victim, who died of burn injuries. The witnesses examined in support of these allegations are related to each other, therefore, no positive evidence has been adduced to prove that there was demand of dowry and torture to the victim in this regard.
8. The second question is very crucial one, which deals with the burn injuries on the person of the deceased and these burn injuries are responsible for her death. It is relevant to mention here that the deceased Mahrun Nishan died of burn injuries inside her room at her parent-in-laws' house. Regarding this occurrence, Gulam Rasool informed the Police of the said Police Station on 4.5.1988 and this information was maintained in the G.D. dated 4.5.1988 as Ex.Kha-1 wherein it is mentioned that Mahrun Nishan committed suicide inside her room. The statement of Siraj (P.W.4) indicates that he saw the smoke rising from the house of Gulam Rasool. The accused Gulam Rasool, his wife and daughter were crying outside of their house. He saw the son of Noor Mohammed climbed on the roof and entered the house. He opened the outer door from inside. All of them entered the house. Mahrun Nishan was inside the room. The door of the room was bolted from inside. They had cut the inside chain of the door by iron rod. They found victim Mahrun Nishan dead and fire was burning. These facts find corroboration from the evidence of S.I. Guru Mukh Singh (P.W.6). He has taken container of kerosene oil, match box from the side of the dead body and broken door chain was found there. He prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka-3 & Ka-4. These all go to prove that the deceased died inside of the room. The room and the house was bolted from inside. Therefore, the information tendered by Gulam Rasool in this regard that his daughter-in-law committed suicide inside the house becomes probable. The defence has examined other witnesses in support of their case, Now the question arises that what was the reason for the victim to commit suicide. It is an undisputed fact that at the time of occurrence Samma Khan, the husband of the deceased was residing at Mumbai. She wanted to accompany him to Mumbai, but he did not accompany her because the marriage of his sister Sitara Khatoon / the accused was scheduled to be performed after 11/2 months after the said occurrence. This may also be a reason for her to do so, but the letters Ex. Kha-3 and Kha-4 alleged to have been written by the deceased in this regard can be disputed as their identity has not been exclusively established, but the another fact in regard to it is very relevant to mention here that the marriage of Sitara Khatoon was proposed to be solemnized soon after the occurrence, the accused respondent would not indulge in such criminal activities to endanger her marriage.
9. We have taken into account the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case available therein and we are of the view that the trial court appears to have considered all these facts and circumstances while passing the order of acquittal and we do not find any reason to interfere in the same.
10. No interference in the order of acquittal is warranted. The Government Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.