Rajasthan HC Acquits Man Wrongly Convicted & Incarcerated For 12 Yrs Over Wife's Murder; State To Pay Him ₹25 Lakhs As Compensation

A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Bhuwan Goyal noted that though the accused cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money, however, a message was required to be sent to the society and to the persons acquainted with the accused.

The Court stressed that the accused was in fact a victim, who lost his wife, but was made an accused in this case and he had to remain in custody for a period of more than 12 years and 4 months during which he was deprived of the company of his three minor children

The Court gave this verdict of acquittal as it found that the deceased, the wife of the accused, had in fact committed suicide and the accused-appellant was falsely roped in the case by the prosecution.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution’s case, a parchabayan (later treated as a dying declaration) of the victim was recorded by a police official wherein she stated that her marriage was solemnized about 8 years back with the accused and on May 13, 2011, her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze over dowry demand, as a result of which, she sustained injuries.

On the basis of the said statement, the police registered an FIR against the accused husband for the offences under Section 498-A & 307 of IPC against the accused-appellant, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the victim.

During the course of treatment, the victim died and the charge under Section 302 IPC was added by the Investigating Officer. The police, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused-appellant only under Sections 498-A, 307 & 302 IPC.

The Trial Court, after hearing the final arguments of both parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by which, he moved the instant appeal filed before this Court.

Among other things, it was primarily contended by the counsel for the accused that at the time of the incident, the accused was taking a bath and when he heard the cries of his wife, he ran to the spot and the hair of his hands got singed, when he tried to pour water on the deceased.

It was further contended that PW-8 (Doctor) had admitted in his cross-examination that if a person is burnt and someone tries to save the person by pouring water, singeing can be caused by the flames.

It was also contended that all the witnesses examined before the Court below have clearly stated that the deceased had committed suicide.

Lastly, it was submitted that the Trial Court had committed an error in convicting the accused-appellant solely on the statement of PW-6, a child witness and on the basis of parchabayan.

High Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court took into account the testimony of the child witness (the son of the deceased and the accused) to note that he was sleeping on the roof when the incident took place and that he had not witnessed the incident himself.

The Court further noted that when he heard loud noises, he came down from the roof and saw his father taking a bath and when he reached the place of occurrence, water had already been poured upon her mother and she was covered by a cloth.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that this witness cannot be considered to be an eye-witness of the alleged incident and hence, the Trial Court clearly erred in considering him as an eye-witness.

Further, regarding the credibility of the parchabayan, the Court noted that neither it was recorded by a gazetted officer nor there were any independent witnesses to the same. The Court added that the parchabayan bore the thumb impression of the deceased, which meant that her palms were not burnt

The Court also found that the doctor, who had given the fitness certificate, was not produced before the Court and the parchabayan of the injured having 95% burns was recorded within 5 minutes of giving the certificate by the doctor.

“… it is strange and beyond comprehension that after recording the parchabayan and after it was known to Aedal Prasad, S.I. (PW-24) that the injured had expired, he approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate for deputing a Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the deceased. Thus, the entire proceedings have been initiated against the accused just to falsely implicate him” the Court further remarked as it observed that the alleged parchabayan was suspicious.

Importantly, the Court also noted that had it been a case of forcefully pouring kerosene and putting the deceased ablaze, the deceased would have shouted for help and raised an alarm, but it was not the case of the prosecution.

In view of this, finding it to be a case of suicide, the Court, directed the state government to provide Rs. 25 Lakhs to the accused for his wrongful prosecution and for curtailing his liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.