Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab vs Anita Bhatia on 3 August, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002
The State of Punjab.
....... Appellant.
Versus
Anita Bhatia.
...... Respondent.
(2) Crl. Revision No.1994 of 2002
Pardeep Kumar Bhatia.
....... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and another.
...... Respondent.
Date of Decision: 3.8.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
....
Present: Shri S.S.Dhaliwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for
the appellant-State in Crl.Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002.
Shri T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate with Shri, J.S.Lalli,
Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Revision No.1994 of
2002.
None for the respondent in Crl.Appeal No.868-DBA of
2002.
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
....
Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002
-2-
.....
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J.
State of Punjab is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.5.2002 of acquittal of Smt.Anita Bhatia in a case registered by way of F.I.R.No.271 dated 20.9.1997 at Police Station, Sunam. Pardeep Kumar Bhatia has brought Crl.Revision No.1994 of 2002 questioning the said judgment of acquittal and, therefore, the two were heard together and are being decided by way of this common judgment. The case set up against Smt.Anita Bhatia by Police Station, Sunam is as under:-
On 18.7.1997, a wireless message was received from Police Station, Model Town Hoshiarpur. Simultaneously, a ruqa was received from Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sunam with regard to the death of Surinder Kumar son of Ajit Ram, a bank official at Sunam. On receipt of the same, Kehar Singh, S.I. along with other police officials went to Hoshiarpur. There, he went to the house of Surinder Kumar situated in Mohalla Santokh Nagar where the dead body of Surinder Kumar was lying. Pardeep Kumar, the brother of the deceased was found there by Kehar Singh, S.I. He had made a statement to Kehar Singh, S.I. that he was working as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. He had further told that they were four brothers and one sister. According to him, Surinder Kumar, his brother, was transferred about 2 or 2-1/2 years back to State Banak of Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -3- .....
India, Sunam as Field Officer. It also appeared in his statement that Surinder Kumar was married with Anita Bhatia, accused and they were blessed with a male and a female child. Surinder Kumar started residing with his family at Sunam. On 5.7.1997, Surinder Kumar came to Hoshiarpur and told Pardeep Kumar and Nirmala ( mother of Surinder Kumar) with regard to the behaviour of Anita Bhatia, who had been usually threatening him of being killed on slightest excuses. Her brother Naresh Kumar was also stated to be threatening him of being killed. He requested Pardeep Kumar and Nirmala to contact the parents of Anita Bhatia and to advise them to prevail upon Anita Bhatia to behave properly with him. On 9.7.1997, the said Anita Bhatia went to the house of Rita Rani, the sister of Pardeep Kumar at Chandigarh and told her that she had made arrangements for killing Surinder Kumar.
On 16.7.1997, at about 4.00 P.M., a telephonic message was received at the house of Satnam Singh, a neighbourer of Pardeep Kumar with regard to serious condition of Surinder Kumar. Pardeep Kumar along with his brother Sukhwinder Kumar and mother Nirmala went to Sunam and came to know about the death of Surinder Kumar. They also came to know that two persons had already taken the dead body of Surinder Kumar to Hoshiarpur. On 17.7.1997, at about 2.00 A.M., they returned to Hoshiarpur and found the dead body Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -4- .....
of Surinder Kumar lying there. Anita Bhatia, accused reached home after about one hour of the arrival of the dead body of Surinder Kumar. Pardeep Kumar suspected Anita Bhatia to have administered some poisonous substance to his brother Surinder Kumar resulting in his death. The statement of Pardeep Kumar recorded by Kehar Singh, S.I. in the aforesaid terms, was sent to the police station where the case was registered. Kehar Singh, S.I. then conducted inquest proceedings and had sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Purshotam Lal, S.I. also remained incharge of the investigation of this case during which he prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The investigation of the case was thereafter handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. Statements of other witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, challan against the accused was prepared and presented in the court.
Charge for an offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Taking evidence of the prosecution, consisting of fifteen witnesses, the accused was examined as per the provisions of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied all the evidence of the Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -5- .....
prosecution put to her in the shape of questions. She has claimed innocence and false implication in the case at the hands of her in-laws, who are said to be out to grab her property and other valuables of her husband. She examined one Nitin Gupta in defence as DW1 and tendering some documents therein, had closed the same.
Hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, learned trial court found the prosecution to have been unsuccessful in bringing home the guilt of Anita Bhatia for the offence of murder beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, extending benefit of doubt to the accused, she was acquitted of the charge.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State has brought the above mentioned appeal while Pardeep Kumar, the brother of the deceased, has brought the criminal revision.
We have heard Shri S.S.Dhaliwal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Shri T.S.Sangha, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of Anita Bhatia.
It is a case of death by aluminium phosphide poisoning. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Smt.Rita Rani, the sister of the deceased, examined as PW5 at the trial. Her statement is that on 16.7.1997, she had gone to Sunam to settle the dispute between Anita Bhatia and her brother and that at about 1.45 P.M., her brother Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -6- .....
Surinder Kumar came home for taking meals and Anita Bhatia served him with the meals. According to Rita Rani, Surinder Kumar took a little bit of food and then left the same telling that it was not of good taste. He is stated to have started vomiting and to have become unconscious after a short while. She has also claimed that Anita Bhatia and she took him to Civil Hospital, Sunam where he was admitted and she gave information to her parents through Satnam Singh by way of telephone and told them that Surinder Kumar was not well and that they should enquire about his health. She is then stated to have left Sunam for Chandigarh. She suspected Anita Bhatia to have mixed poison with food and served her brother with the same. She is also on record saying that on 9.7.1997, Anita Bhatia came to her at Chandigarh and told her that Surinder Kumar was objecting too much and that she should tell her brother either to stop objecting or that she would kill him. The other evidence is of relations, who have stated that Surinder Kumar and Anita Bhatia did not enjoy cordial relations and they were always quarreling. This is to prove the motive on her part to kill him.
Learned trial court has given numerous reasons to disbelieve Rita Rani. Rita Rani is an employee in a bank at Chandigarh and she has admitted to have attended her duties in the bank on that day. It was held doubtful that she could reach the house Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -7- .....
of her brother at Sunam at 12.00 noon after attending to her duties. Her conduct is found to be unnatural in leaving her brother in the hospital after staying there for 10 to 15 minutes. She has stated that she reached Sunam with one Rajan in his car and she returned from the hospital at 4.30 P.M. in the car of the said person. Learned trial court has found the availability of Rajan with his car in the hospital at 4.30 P.M. doubtful, particularly when he did not know about the occurrence.
Learned trial court has also found as a fact that Surinder Kumar had been transferred from his branch at Sunam and that he had been relieved on 12.7.1997. According to him, if it was so and that he had been transferred to Talwara from Sunam and was relieved from Sunam on 12.7.1997, he was not expected to have reached home at 1.145 P.M. to take lunch. The post occurrence conduct of Rita Rani has also come under scrutiny of learned trial court. She not only left Sunam for Chandigarh, but had even left Chandigarh for Kinnaur where she stayed for about one week. She has stated that she did not try to find out the condition of her brother during this period and came to know of his death after return from Kinnaur. She has stated that she made statement to the police in this regard after the post mortem examination on the dead body of his brother which was done on 18.7.1997. If Rita Rani had left Chandigarh for Kinnaur and stayed Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -8- .....
there for one week, she could not come to Sunam and make statement to the police about the occurrence on 18.7.1997.
The statement of the mother of the deceased about strained relations between Surinder Kumar and Anita Bhatia has also been adversely commented upon by learned trial court and that too for valid reasons. She has not only filed proceedings against Anita Bhatia to grab everything from Anita Bhatia even the children born to Anita Bhatia with a view to deprive her of everything.
Anita Bhatia had been living with Surinder Kumar at the places of his posting and the two had been moving together to those places. Nothing had come earlier to this occurrence to disclose any such strained relations between the two. There were no proceedings against Anita Bhatia brought either by Surinder Kumar or his mother and others. If she had been threatening Surinder Kumar to be killed on even the slightest pretexts, something should have come in the shape of documents to show that her conduct was of such a nature.
Learned trial court has lastly commented upon the nature of poison detected from the viscera etc. of Surinder Kumar. The death in this case is found to be due to aluminum phosphide poisoning, which as per Modi's book on Medical Jurisprudence, is used for suicidal purposes and seldom used for homicidal purposes. The taste and smell of this poison are stated to be foul and pungent and no Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -9- .....
person can be believed to have consumed a food item laced with this poison.
Such poison could not even be administered by deceit. More so, it could not be administered in the manner in which it is stated to have been given to Surinder Kumar. Rita Rani has claimed that the poison was mixed with the food and Surinder Kumar consumed a little bit of the same with open eyes. The taste and smell of the poison would have made it impossible for him to take it. In a case reported as Anita Versus State of Haryana, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 112 (P&H), a Division Bench of this Court has observed that aluminum phosphide (celphos) is available in the form of chalky white tablets used as pesticide and rodenticide. It is further observed that when these tablets are taken out of the sealed container, they come in contact with atmospheric moisture and the chemical reaction takes place liberating phosphine gas. It is also noticed that all the published works are to the effect that aluminum phosphide poison is not homicidal and that it cannot be taken accidentally as it emanates highly pungent smell.
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Pal Versus State of Haryana, 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 486, relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court, that aluminium phosphide on account of its very pungent smell, which can drive out all inmates Crl. Appeal No.868-DBA of 2002 -10- .....
from the house if left open, cannot be taken accidentally.
The afore-quoted observations fully support the view of learned trial court that aluminium phosphide poison cannot be administered by some person to the other without it coming to the notice of the victim and, therefore, Anita Bhatia could not be believed to have administered this poison to her husband.
The reasons given by learned trial court do not appear to be perverse, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal as well as the revision petition merit dismissal and are dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA ) ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
August 03 ,2011
"SCM"