Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . (1) Ram Rattan on 6 January, 2011

    IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
     JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No.1042/09
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0367452006

State                         Vs.           (1) Ram Rattan
                                                S/o Late Gokal Chand
                                                R/o 28/11, Gali no.23,
                                                Libas Pur, Delhi.
                                                (Acquitted)

                                            (2) Smt. Kela Devi
                                                W/o Late Gokal Chand
                                                R/o 28/11, Gali no.23,
                                                Libas Pur, Delhi.
                                                (Acquitted)

FIR No.:                                    539/2006
Police Station:                             Samaypur Badli
Under Section:                              307/302/34 Indian Penal Code


Date of committal to Session Court:                    15.12.2006
Date on which orders were reserved:                    20.12.2010
Date on which orders were announced:                   6.1.2011


JUDGMENT:

As per the allegations on 30.6.2006 at about 7:00 pm both the accused Ram Rattan and Smt. Kela Devi in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Smt. Sushila Yadav by pouring kerosene oil upon her and setting her on fire.

BRIEF FACTS:

Case of the prosecution:

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.6.2006 DD No. 75-B was received at Police Station Samaypur Badli pursuant to which SI Jagdish Rai reached the spot i.e. First Floor, House No. 22/11, Gali No.23, Libas Pur, Delhi where ASI Shagun Lal and Ct. Nandu Bhagat were already present. They came to know that the injured Smt. Sushila Yadav was removed to LNJP Hospital with burn injuries and thereafter ASI Shagun Lal was left at the spot and SI Jagdish Rai along with Ct. Nandu Bhagat reached LNJP Hospital where he found Smt. Sushila Yadav admitted in burns ward. Doctor declared her fit to give statement pursuant to which SI Jagdish Rai made inquiries from her about the date of her marriage on which Smt. Sushila Yadav informed him that she was married with accused about five and half years prior to the incident. Therefore, SI Jagdish Rai informed the SDM Narela about the incident who also reached the hospital and recorded the statement of injured Smt. Sushila Yadav. In her statement to the SDM Smt. Sushila Yadav stated that she was married to the accused Ram Rattan about five and half years prior to the incident and there was a quarrel in the house on the pretext of her frequent visit to her parental house. She further informed that her mother-in-law used to taunt her that the first wife of Ram Rattan was much better than her. She had alleged that her husband Ram Rattan and her mother-in-law Smt. Kela Devi poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. Smt. Sushila Yadav had further informed the SDM that she could not run outside to seek the help of neighbourers since at that time she was sitting outside St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.2 in the gallery and there was no electricity in the house and there is only one house in her neighbourhood and rest of the area is Industrial Area.

On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the injured Smt. Kela Devi, the SDM Narela directed the SHO Police Station Samaypur Badli to register an FIR pursuant to which the present FIR was registered under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. On 31.7.2006 the injured Smt. Sushila Yadav expired and therefore, the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code were added. On 2.8.2006 the accused Ram Rattan was arrested and on 7.8.2006 the accused Kela Devi was arrested and both the accused were charge sheeted.

CHARGE:

The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses.

Public witnesses:

PW1 Himanshu is the son of the deceased Sushila Devi. Since the witness was about 12 years of age at the time of his deposition, hence the court before examining this witness asked few questions to ascertain his intellectual capacity of understanding the question and after being satisfied the witness was examined on oath. He has deposed that his mother before the incident was living in the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.3 same house and his mama was residing at Jeevan Park, Siraspur at the time of incident. He has correctly identified his father Ram Rattan Yadav and grand mother Kela Devi (both accused) in the court and testified that the relations of her mother with the accused persons were good. According to him, on 30.6.2006 he along with his father and grand mother went to the house of his Mama at Siraspur when some neighbourer had informed them that his mother has burnt herself but he is not aware the name of the person who informed them about the incident. Thereafter he immediately rushed to his house alongwith his father, grand mother and both Mamas namely Daya Shankar and Ganesh Yadav. He has deposed that on seeing them his mother started commenting to his father and grand mother saying that she would implicate them in a case as they were not adhering to her words. The witness has further deposed that both his Mamas told his father and grand mother to leave the place after which his Mamas took his mother to the hospital and he along with his father and grand mother went to his Mamas house and left their house in the evening on 30.6.2006. According to PW1, his father did not go to the hospital on the advice of his Mamas since his mother did not like him, his father and his grand mother to visit the house of his Mamas and she herself was not visiting his Mamas house as she does not feel good there. The witness has also deposed that on the day of incident his mother did not cook food that is why they went to his Mama's house. He has deposed that he later on came to know that his mother had expired in the hospital due to burn injures.

PW1 was found resiling from his previous statement given to the police and in his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State he has admitted his statement which is Ex.PW1/A recorded by the police on 30.6.2006. According to the witness no statement was recorded by the police on 1.7.2006 and he has not stated in his statement Ex.PW1/A that his father and grand mother used to quarrel with his mother on small family matters whenever his mother visited the house of his mamas, both of them quarreled with his mother on this issue and did not permit her to visit the house of his Mamas. The witness has denied having told the police in his statement Ex.PW1/A that on the day of incident his father when came from the office brought a kerosene oil in a two liter Limca bottle for the purpose of burning his mother. He has further denied that on 30.6.2006 in the evening his father and grand mother again quarreled with his mother, which continued for some time and at the time he himself, his mother, his father and his grand mother were present at the house and when the light had gone then his mother told him to bring a candle from the kitchen and she herself went to a room for bringing mat and at that time in the outer room it was completely dark, he heard the cries of his mother from the same room and she was raising alarm that 'Himanshu save me save me, your papa and dadi had burnt me". PW1 has further denied to have told the police in his statement Ex.PW1/A that his mother ran outside from that room and his father and grand mother were looking silently and did not made any efforts to extinguish the fire, or even after his request to them then he himself taken the water from the washbasin in a mug and extinguishing the fire St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.5 and his mother fell down on the ground then he put a cotton gudari on his mother for the purpose of completely extinguishing the fire. The witness has further denied having told the police that then on his mother's he went to his Mamas house and stated them that his mother was burnt by his father and grand mother and both Daya Shankar and Ganesh yadav rushed to the spot. PW1 has further denied that he was present when his mother was burnt by his father and grand mother and that he was won over by the accused persons and is suppressing the truth so that the relations between his mother and father were strained or that since he was living in his fathers house, he is not deposing the true facts, or that he is deposing on the instructions of accused persons or that on the date of incidence his father had gone to the office. He has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A wherein the aforesaid facts were recorded. The witness Himanshu has further deposed that his mother was taken to LNJP hospital and denied the suggestion that he was present in the house when his mother sustained burn injuries and not in the Mamas house. He has further denied that he was present in the house and on his mother's alarm he went to the kitchen for bringing the candle and immediately thereafter he listen the crying of his mother and at the time only his father and grand mother were present. According to the witness near to his house only one residential house is situated and surrounding of his house factories are situated. PW1 has further deposed that his mother wanted to implicate his father and grand mother because she did not like their going to the house of his mama. According to PW1 it was incident of about 7 to 7.30 PM and police came to their house within 5-10 minutes but he St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.6 was not present at home at that time. The witness has also deposed that he did not see the burnt condition of his mother however he had visited the hospital and his mother did not tell anything to him. He is not aware why and when his father and his grand mother were arrested and now he is residing with his Mamas. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing on the instructions of his Mamas or that he has seen the incident of burning his mother.

In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness has deposed that his mother did not cook meals properly and that is why they often took food in his mamas house. According to him, on their return from his Mamas house, his mother used to quarrel with them and generally uttered that she would implicate his father and grand mother in a false case saying that she will burn herself and implicate both of them and on this issue his Mamas also tried to pacify his mother but according to him his mother never like their interference on this issue.

It is necessary to observe that PW1 Himanshu is the son of the deceased from her first marriage and had accompanied her to her matrimonial house on her second marriage with the accused Ram Rattan. He does not support his mother but has rather supported his step father and step grand mother, the accused before this court.

PW2 Daya Shankar is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that his sister Sushila was married to accused Ram Rattan which was her second marriage. According to him, previously she was married to one Sunil Yadav who was residing at Sita Ram Bazar and from that wedlock a son namely Himanshu was born who St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.7 accompanied to her matrimonial home after her second marriage to the deceased Ram Rattan. He has deposed that his sister was little hyper in nature and also tried to commit suicide even in the house of previous husband and on this pretext she was left their house and later on she took divorce with Sunil Yadav. According to the witness this marriage of Ram Rattan with his sister was also his second marriage. He has deposed that the nature of the mother in law of his sister was good and cordial towards his sister and it was his sister who used to quarrel with them and did not want them not to visit his house. According to the witness, on the day of burn incident of his sister, her husband and her mother in law alongwith son Himanshu were present at his house and were complaining about his sister that on that day she had not cooked food and that is why the had visited his house for taking meals. The witness has further deposed that on the pretext of visiting her husband and her mother in law and son to his house, she burnt herself, and thereafter one neighbourer came to his house and informed about the burning incident after which they went to the house of his sister and found her in burnt condition at that time. According to him on seeing her husband and mother in law, his sister started crying upon them saying that she will teach them a lesson as they visited the house of her brother even after refusal. The witness has further deposed that he had sent his brother in law and the mother in law of his sister to his house. Her son Himanshu was already at his house. Thereafter they removed his sister to LNJP hospital where she was medically treated. According to the witness, his sister started fighting with them on the issue of visiting her husband and mother in law to his St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.8 house. According to the witness after admitting her, they came back to home while his wife remained at the hospital. He has deposed that his sister did not tell him anything about the cause of fire. She remained in the hospital for about one month and during this period she had not stated anything to them. According to the witness the statement of his sister was recorded by the SDM, but he was not present at that time.

Addl. PP for the State with permission of the court has cross examined the witness as the witness was resiling from his previous statement given to the police and the witness has deposed that he did not give any statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded on 1.7.2006 and the same is Ex.PW2/A or that he has stated that his sister's husband and her mother in law use to quarrel with his sister on small family matters. (The witness was confronted with portion A to A1 on Ex.PW2/A where it is so recorded). He has further denied of having told the police in Ex.PW2/A that his sister's husband and mother in law quarreled with his sister and did not allow her to visit his house. (The witness was confronted with portion B to B1 on Ex.PW2/A where it is so recorded). He has further denied that he had stated in his statement Ex.PW2/A that on 30.6.2006 at about 8.30 PM, his nephew Himanshu came to his house in a perplexed condition and stated that her husband and mother in law burnt his mother. (The witness was confronted with portion C to C1 on Ex.PW2/A where it is so recorded). The witness has further denied having told the police in his statement Ex.PW2/A that SDM had recorded the statement of his St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.9 sister in LNJP hospital and she has accused both her husband and mother in law and on her statement the SDM directed for registration of this FIR. (The witness was confronted with portion D to D1 on Ex.PW2/A where it is so recorded). He has further denied the suggestion that the relation between his sister and her in laws and husband were not cordial or that his sister visited his house and on this pretext her husband and mother in law used to quarrel with his sister or that before the incident his sister visited his house or that his sister used to inform about her quarrel with her mother in law wherever she visited his house. He has further denied the suggestion that after pouring kerosene oil on his sister and burning her, her husband ran away from the house or that her son had informed them about the burning of his mother. He has denied the suggestion that his sister was burnt by her husband and mother in law and his sister had informed this fact in front of SDM in the hospital. He has further denied the suggestion that he was won over by the accused persons due to which reason he is suppressing the true facts stated by his sister to him.

In the cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness has testified that his sister actually did not cook food for her family and that is why her husband and mother in law and son Himanshu used to visit his house for taking meals. He has further deposed that his sister used to quarrel on the pretext of visiting the members of her family to his house each ad every time they visited. According to him he also tried to persuade her to prepare meals to her family but after that she started quarreling and did not start cooking the food for them and thereafter she stopped visiting his house. According St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.10 to him he requested his Jija to cope-up with her and her short temperament. He has further deposed that on the day of incident his sister's husband and mother in law and son Himanshu visited their house to take dinner as his sister had not cooked food. He has stated that when he came to know about the burning of his sister they all went to the house of his sister. According to the witness his sister narrated that as her husband and mother in law visited his house, she would implicate them in a false case of burning. He has further deposed that his sister had told him that the fire took place by her own and now she would implicate her husband and mother in law in this false case and while she was being taken to the hospital she was repeated the same when he tired to convince her not to implicate her family in a false case. The witness has further deposed that the police had taken their signatures on blank papers and performa for the purpose of using them later on. According to the witness the accused were not arrested in his presence nor any writing work was done in his presence. According to the witness he requested his jija and mother in law of his sister to leave the place of incident because his sister was vehemently uttering that she would implicate them in a false case when they reached at the house of Ram Rattan after knowing about the fact of fire.

PW3 Ganesh Yadav, the other brother of the deceased in his examination in chief has corroborated what has been stated by his brother PW2 Daya Shankar in toto.

In his cross examination by Addl. PP for the State, this witness has denied having made any statement before the police ever.

He has denied the suggestion that on 1.7.2006 any statement was recorded by the police as Ex.PW3/A. He has denied having made any statement to the police that his sister's husband and her mother in law used to quarrel with his sister, or; that his sister's husband and mother in law quarreled with her and when she visited his house some day before the incident, then both of them quarreled with her, or, that on 30.6.2006 at about 8.30 PM his nephew Himanshu came to his house in a perplexed condition and stated that her husband and other in law burnt his mother, or that he has stated in his statement that the SDM has recorded the statement of his sister in LNJP hospital and she has accused both her husband and mother in law and on her statement the SDM had directed for registration of FIR. (The witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded). He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing on instructions of the accused persons being won over by them.

In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that while his sister being taken to the hospital she had stated to him that she herself lighted fire on her and would have implicated her husband and her mother in law. According to thim his sister usually did not cook food for her family and that is why the used come at his house for taking meals. He has further deposed that his sister used to quarrel with her husband and mother in law if they visit his house. According to him she was short tempered lady. The witness has further deposed that the police had taken their signatures on blank papers and performa for the purpose of using them later on. According to the witness the accused were not arrested in his presence nor any St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.12 writing work was done in his presence. According to the witness he requested his jija and mother in law of his sister to leave the place of incident because his sister was vehemently uttering that she would implicate them in a false case when they reached at the house of Ram Rattan after knowing about the fact of fire.

PW4 Vinod Yadav has deposed that Sushila was his cousin sister who was married to Ram Rattan and they both were second time married. According to him after her marriage, he used to meet her often and once he told her regarding the complaint of her husband that she was not cooking proper food in the house, on which she scolded with him. According to the witness she was little aggressive in nature and her first marriage ended in a divorce. He has further deposed that he had information that there used to be quarrel in her house of her previous family in petty matters just like not cooking foods etc. According to him on the day of incident he was at home and received a phone call fro the brother of Sushila, namely, Daya Shankar and he informed him that Sushila has set herself on fire and he asked him to reach at his house. He reached there and found Sushila having burn injuries. He has deposed that one Geeta, friend of Sushila was also present there. According to the witness he asked from Sushila as to how she received burns injuries and she told that she herself had set on fire and she also told that now she will implicate her husband and mother in law to be responsible for the said burn injuries. He has further deposed that in his presence Geeta had told Sushila that as she will survive from the burn injuries and should, therefore implicate her husband and mother in law falsely and on hearing this he objected to St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.13 Geeta and asked her not to advise Sushila in this regard. According to the witness Sushila never told him that her husband Ram Rattan Yadav and mother in law had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. He has deposed that the SDM did not record the statement of Sushila in LNJP hospital in his presence. He has further deposed that when he reached the house of Sushila, the accused Kela Devi and Ram Rattan Yadav were not present there and came to know that they both had gone to take food. He had not made any phone call to the police at 100 number nor the police had recorded his statement however his name and address was asked by the police. According to the witness Sushila died in the hospital after about one month due to said burn injuries.

The witness was cross examined by Addl. PP for the State as the witness was resiling from his statement made by him before the police which is Ex.PW4/A, and the witness has not supported the case of prosecution and has corroborated what he has stated in his examination-in-chief. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/A and he has denied to have made any such statement to the police.

In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness has deposed that Sushila was a short tampered girl and attempted to commit suicide in the previous marriage so a divorce had taken. According to him Geeta had advised Sushila not to tell true facts that is that she has set herself on fire, to him or to any other peson and she advised Sushila to falsely implicate both the accused for the said burn injuries by saying that Ram Rattan Yadav and Kela Devi have set her on fire.

Medical witnesses:

PW8 Dr. S. K. Goyal has deposed that on 06.08.2006 one patient namely Kela Devi (accused before the court) aged about 80 years was admitted in his hospital i.e. Santom Hospital with a diagnosis of COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseased) with CAD (Coronary Artery Diseased) with bilateral knee Osteoarthritis and remained admitted in the hospital till 09.09.2006. According to him, on 07.08.2006 Inspector Sardol Singh had moved an application for permission to interrogate and arrest of accused Smt. Kela Devi who was admitted in his hospital and Dr. Sunita - RMO (Resident Medical Officer) had granted permission for interrogation with opinion which is Ex.PW8/A that the accused/ patient cannot be moved from the hospital in this condition as per cardiologist. The witness has further proved having given in writing on 04.09.2006 that the patient/accused Smt. Kela Devi can be shifted to a Government Hospital under the supervision of her attendant vide Ex.PW8/B. According to him, 09.09.2006 the patient/ accused Kela Devi was shifted from Santom Hospital to Ambedkar Hospital and his report in this regard is Ex.PW8/C. PW10 Dr. Vinod has deposed that on 01.08.2006 he was posted as Sr. Resident in MAMC, Delhi and on that day he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sushila @ Sushila Yadav D/o Shobha Ram Yadav, aged about 30 years, female on the request of Sh. Vijay Dogra, SDM Delhi which dead body was brought to mortuary on 31.07.2006 at 11.00AM with the alleged history of burn injury after pouring kerosene oil by the husband and mother in St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.15 law on 30.06.2006 at about 8.00 PM. He has further deposed that she was taken to LNJP hospital where she was admitted and later on she was expired on 31.07.2006 at 8.30AM during the course of treatment.

According to the witness on external examination he observed infected superficial to deep antimortem burn injuries present over face, neck front of chest, front of abdomen, patches over back of chest, front and back of right upper limp, front of left upper limb, front of right thigh, front of right foot, front of upper two third of left lower limp, patches over middle back of left lower limb, covering about 55% of the total body surface area, peeling of skin present at places exposing yellowish green base with foul smelling pus. He has proved that the cause of death is due to septicemia consequent upon infected burn injuries involving abut 55% of the total body surface area. According to him, all injuries were antemortem in nature could be caused due to flames of fire. This witness has proved the postmortem report prepared by him in his handwriting which is Ex.PW10/A. PW13 Dr. Chaman Prakash has proved the MLC no.

73553 of Sushila Yadav which MLC is Ex.PW13/A which was prepared by Dr. Ajay Kumar wherein Dr. Ajay Kumar declared the patient fit for statement vide endorsement Ex.PW13/B. Police witnesses:

PW5 HC Sher Singh has deposed that on 30.6.2006 he was posted at police station Samay Pur Badli and was working as duty officer from 5 PM to 1 AM and constable Jai Pal was on duty with him at that time as DD writer. According to him at about 8.55 PM, a St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.16 message was received that one lady had sat herself on fire at House No. 28/11, Gali No. 23, Libas Pur which message was recorded by Ct. Jai Pal vide DD No.75B copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. He has further deposed that on 31.7.2006, HC M.A. Khan gave message from LNJP hospital that Sushila Yadav wife of Ram Rattan aged about 28 years who was admitted in LNJP hospital was declared dead and this message was recorded by him in the DD No. 16A, copy of which is Ex.PW5/B. According to the witness, the DD No.17A Ex.PW5/C and DD No.18A Ex.PW5/D are in handwriting of HC Devender who was working at Duty Officer at the relevant time. He has identified the signatures of HC Devender in the above said DD entries and further deposed that on 01.07.2006, he was working at Duty Officer from 5.00PM to 1.00AM and at about 1.00AM Ct. Nandu Bhagat came to him and handed over him rukka sent by SI Jagdish Rai on the basis of which he recorded the present FIR copy of which is Ex.PW5/E. He has proved his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW5/F regarding registration of the case In his cross-examination the witness has denied that DD No.18A which is Ex.PW5/D is not signed by HC Devender or any other police official and deposed that copy of the same is attested by the then SHO. He has further denied that the FIR is ante date or ante time or that it is not recorded in the manner in which has been deposed by him.

PW6 SI Jagdish Rai has deposed that on 30.6.2006 he was posted at Police Station Samaipur Badli and after receiving DD St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.17 No.75B which is Ex.PW5/A he reached the spot i.e. 1st Floor of House No.22/11, Gali no. 23, Libaspur, Delhi where he found ASI Suga Lal and Ct. Nandu Bhagat present. According to him, he came to know that injured Smt. Sushila Yadav, wife of the accused was already removed to LNJP Hospital by PCR Van with burn injures and he found a salwaar in partly burnt condition, one kameej (ladies) of green colour partly burnt, some burnt sticks which were partly burnt and an empty plastic bottle of Limca containing some small quantity of kerosene oil and one gudri in partly burnt condition at the spot. The witness has testified that after leaving ASI Sugan Lal at the spot to guard, he along with Ct. Nandu Bhagat reached LNJP Hospital where he found Sushila Yadav in burn ward after which he collected the MLC of injured Sushila Yadav on which the doctor mention the alleged history of burn at 7:00 PM by pouring kerosene oil on her by her husband and mother in law, as told by the patient, conscious oriented, 50% burn injuries and she was declared fit for the statement. According to PW6, he made enquiries from the injured regarding her date of marriage and also about the incident on which she told him that she was married to accused Ram Rattan about five and half years prior to the incident and therefore, he informed SDM Narela on telephone in this regard and requested him to come to the hospital after which SDM Vijay Dogra reached the hospital and recorded the statement of injured in presence of Inspector Nageen Kaushik, the then SHO, Police Station Samaipur Badli and no relative of injured was present there. He has further deposed that SDM made endorsement on the statement of injured directing him to register a case against the accused person and St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.18 handed over the statement of injured to him and prepared rukka which is Ex.PW6/A and sent the same to Police Station for registration of case through Ct. Nandu Bhagat directing him to reach at the spot after registration of the case. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he reached the place of occurrence and called crime team and photographer after which the crime team reached the place of occurrence and inspected the spot and took photographs from different angles and on the basis of which in-charge of crime team prepared his report Ex.PW6/A which was handed over to him. The witness has proved having prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW6/B and deposed that in the meantime Ct. Nandu Bhagat came at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. According to him, he collected the exhibits from the doctor which were taken into possession by him vide memo Ex.PW6/C and also took into possession one pink coloured salwaar in partly burnt condition from the spot, sealed the same with the seal of JR and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/D; also took match box make Ship having some live sticks from the same and sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of JR and given S.No. no.3 and taken into possession vide memo which is Ex.PW6/E; two partly burnt match sticks were converted in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR and the said pullanda given Sr. No.4 and took into possession vide memo which is Ex.PW6/F. The witness has further proved having taken one plastic bottle of 2 Liter capacity on which Limca was printed containing some quantity of kerosene oil in it and same was sealed by with the same seal and the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.19 pulanda was given S. No.5 which was taken into possession vide Ex.PW6/G; the partly burnt gudri and sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of JR and given S. No. 6 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/H. According to the witness, the seal after used was handed over to Ct. Nandu Bhagat and thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses. PW6 has testified that he came back to the Police Station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana and statement of MHC(M) was recorded in this regard. He has further deposed that he searched for the accused persons and also recorded statement of public witnesses Vinod Yadav and injured Sushila Yadav. According to PW6, on 31.07.2006 he received an information from LNJP Hospital regarding death of injured Sunita Yadav which information was forwarded to the SDM, on which SDM reached the mortuary of LNJP Hospital on the next day and conducted the inquest proceeding and also recorded statement of witnesses regarding the identification of the dead body of deceased. He has further deposed that SDM also requested to Autopsy Surgeon of MAM College, Delhi to conduct the postmortem on the body of deceased and to hand over the dead body to its relatives after the postmortem. The witness has proved that thereafter he added the provisions of Section 302 IPC and he handed over the case file to the MHC(R) as further investigation of this case was to be carried by Inspector Sardool Singh, Inspector Investigation of Police Station Samaipur Badli.

The witness has further proved having joined the investigations of this case on 02.08.2006 with Inspector Sardool Singh and reached at the house of Daya Shanker, brother of deceased who St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.20 also joined the investigations with them and thereafter they left his house in search of accused in TATA 407 government vehicle and when they reached Mukarba Chowk Byepass Delhi, Daya Shanker pointed out towards accused Ram Rattan who was sitting at bus stop at the side of GTK Road which goes towards Chandigarh. The witness has also deposed that accused Ram Rattan was interrogated by the investigating officer and was arrested in this case vide arrest memo which Ex.PW6/J and personal search of the accused was taken vide memo which is Ex.PW6/K and thereafter accused Ram Rattan made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW6/L. According to PW6, thereafter they searched for co-accused Kela Devi but she could not be apprehended on that day and thereafter they came back to the police station along with the accused. He has further deposed that on 07.08.2006 he again joined the investigations with the investigating officer and Lady Ct. Sanjita and they left the Police Station in TATA 407 and went to the house of Daya Shanker who also joined them after which they reached Satyam Hospital, Rohini since the investigating officer had received the information regarding admission of accused Kela Devi in the said hospital. According to PW6, the accused Kela Devi was found admitted in the ICU, who was declared fit for statement by the doctors and thereafter she was interrogated and arrested by the investigating officer vide Ex.PW6/M and her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Sanjita vide memo which is Ex.PW6/N and made her disclosure statement vide memo which is Ex.PW6/O. The witness has testified that lady Ct. Sanjita was St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.21 directed to guard the accused in the hospital till her discharge and on 09.09.2006 SI Manohar Lal (Draftsman) visited the place of occurrence and at his instance, SI Manohar Lal took measurement and prepared rough notes of the place of occurrence and on the basis of the same he prepared scaled site plan. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. burnt salwaar which is Ex.P-1, burnt pieces of clothes which are Ex.P-2 (colly), match box with live sticks which is Ex.P-3, two partly burnt match sticks which is Ex.P-4 (colly), plastic bottle with kerosene oil Ex.P-5 and partly burnt guddar which is Ex.P-6.

The said witness has not been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.

PW7 Ct. Nandu Bhagat has deposed that on the intervening night of 30.06.2007 and 01.07.2006 he was posted Police Station Samaipur Badli and on that day at about 8.55 PM DD No.75B which is Ex.PW5/A was handed over to ASI Sugan Lal for further necessary action on which he alongwith ASI Sugan Lal reached at first floor of H.No. 22/11, Gali No.23, Libas Pur, Delhi where they came to know that injured Smt. Sushila Yadav had already been removed to LNJP Hospital by PCR officials and she was having burn injuries. According to the witness, they noticed smell of fire at the place of occurrence and they found two partly burnt match sticks, one match box having some live match sticks, one plastic bottle of two litre capacity make Limca containing some quantity of some kerosene oil, one partly burnt salwaar of pink colour, one partly burnt lady shirt, St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.22 some pieces of partly burnt clothes and one guddari from the spot of occurrence. He has further deposed that in the meantime SI Jagdish Rai reached the spot and directed ASI Sugan Lal to remain present at the spot to guard the place of occurrence and left for the LNJP hospital alongwith him and found injured Sushila Yadav in burn ward with burn injuries. The witness has further deposed that the investigating officer collected the MLC of the injured on which doctor had declared the injured fit for statement and the investigating officer informed the SHO Police Station Samaipur Badli and SDM Narela in this regard and after some time Sh. Vijay Dogra-SDM Narela and Addl. SHO Police Station Samairpur Badli reached at the spot along with staff. He has testified that the SDM directed all of them including all relatives of injured Sushila to remain outside the burn ward and recorded her statement and after recording the statement, SDM directed the investigating officer and Addl. SHO to take further steps. He has further deposed that investigating officer prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the case which rukka he had handed over to Duty Officer who registered the present FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him which he gave to SI Jagdish Rai at the spot. The witness has testified that the investigating officer took into possession partly burnt lady shirt of green colour vide memo Ex.PW6/C after converting the same into pullanda sealed with the seal of JR; partly burnt salwaar vide memo Ex.PW6/D after converting the same into pullanda sealed with the seal of JR; one match box with live match sticks vide memo Ex.PW6/E after converting the same into pullanda sealed with the seal of JR;

partly burnt match stick vide memo Ex.PW6/F after putting the same in a plastic pouch and sealed with the seal of JR; one plastic bottle containing kerosene oil vide memo Ex.PW6/G after converting the same into pullanda sealed with the seal of JR; partly burnt guddari vide memo Ex.PW6/H after converting the same into pullanda sealed with the seal of JR. He has correctly identified the case property in the court i.e. partly burnt salwaar which is Ex.P-1, burnt pieces of clothes which are Ex.P-2 (colly), match box with live sticks which is Ex.P-3, two partly burnt match sticks which is Ex.P-4 (colly), plastic bottle with kerosene oil which is Ex.P-5 and partly burnt guddari which is Ex.P-6.

In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that they received information that a lady has been burnt at H. No.28/11, Gali No.23, Libas Pur and stated that he had not received the information at about 8.55PM and the message was sent by 0.95 through intercom that at H. No.27/11, Gali No. 23, Libaspur, one lady has sat herself on fire. The witness has admitted after reading DD No.75B that as per the contents of said DD entry, it is mentioned that "Ek aurat ne aag lagali hai" and there is no mention that a lady had been burnt. He has deposed that the place of incident was about two to two and a half kilometers from the police station and they reached after twenty minutes at that place. He has also testified that the house was two storied situated in a residential colony and a crowd had already gathered there when they reached there but the Investigating Officer had not examined or recorded the statement of any of those persons St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.24 who were present there. He has also deposed that there was only one room on the first floor and there was only roof on the first floor, there were two rooms on the ground floor but nobody was present on the ground floor of that house but rooms were opened and the family of the accused persons were residing there and even first floor was open at that time. According to him, they stayed there for about half an hour and during that period no writing work was done by the Investigating Officer and it took them about half an hour to reach LNJP Hospital where he had visited the room where the injured was kept but he does not remember as to which floor the said room was situated and states that it was a ladies wards and number of patients were there in the room. PW7 has further testified that first of all he and the Investigating Officer met the injured in the hospital and thereafter they met the concerned doctor for collecting the MLC but the investigating officer did not record the statement of injured. According to him, SDM started recorded the statement of injured after about five to ten minutes of his reaching the hospital and he did not see any relative of the injured in the hospital at that time during his stay in the hospital. He further deposed that he had gone through the MLC of the injured who was brought to the hospital by PCR Van but PCR van officials had left the hospital before their arrival in the hospital. He has denied that the injured was removed to the hospital by her brother and deposed that he stayed in the hospital for about two and a half hours and reached at the spot at about 2.00/ 2.30 AM with the copy of the FIR. The witness has also testified that Investigating Officer had not asked him to go and to request the neighbour to join the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.25 proceedings and states that when he reached at the spot at 2:00 AM then public persons of the locality were present outside the spot but no public person was associated in the proceedings.

PW9 Sh. Vijay Dogra has deposed that on 30.06.2006 he was posted as SDM Narela and on that day he received an information from Police Station Samaipur Badli that a woman has been got admitted in LNJP Hospital in burnt condition pursuant to which he reached LNJP Hospital where he met SI Jagdish Rai and thereafter he went inside the hospital where he found one Smt. Sushila Yadav W/o Ram Rattan Yadav aged about 30 years, female in burnt condition. According to him, he made enquiries from the concerned doctor on duty namely Dr. Ajay Kumar Deka as to whether the patient Sunita Yadav was in a fit state to give statement or not at around 10.00AM on which the doctor opined Sushila Yadav fit for statement vide his endorsement mark A on the MLC. The witness has testified that upon being satisfied that the patient Sushila Yadav was in a fit condition to understand the questions put to her and to give rational answers thereof, he proceeded to record her statement in question-answer form and the questions were put by him in Hindi to the patient and whatever answers were given by her were recorded on his dictation by his associate staff who was accompanying him at that time. He has further testified that after completion of the statement around 11.50PM on 30.06.2006 he put an endorsement to that effect below her statement vide Ex.PW9/A and obtained signatures of Sushila Yadav at point B and in view of the allegations leveled in her statement, vide Ex.PW9/B he directed SHO of Police Station Samaipur Badli to St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.26 register a case against the persons named by the victim in the aforesaid statement which is Ex.PW9/C. The witness has further deposed that on 31.07.2006 he received an information that Sushil Yadav had expired in the hospital due to burn injuries and on 01.08.2006 the postmortem examination of deceased Sushila Yadav was got conducted on his request which is Ex.PW9/D after which he completed the inquest paper. He has proved form 25:35 which is Ex.PW9/E and deposed that the body was identified by Daya Shander and Ganesh Yadav, the brothers of the deceased vide their statements which are Ex.PW9/F and Ex.PW9/G and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the LRs of the deceased. According to the witness, he authorized SI Jagdish Rai to collect the postmortem report which is Mark B, from the Department of Forensic Science, Maulana Azad Medical College.

In his cross examination the witness has admitted that under the statutory law in cases of unnatural death or injury, a complete enquiry is required to be conducted apart from recording of statement He has further deposed that in the present case the incident came to his notice at 10.00 PM and he was told that the victim has been hospitalized on which he went to the hospital and first recorded the statements on the basis of which he directed the registration of the FIR and thereafter visited the spot on the next day and examined and same. He has also admitted that his report does not bear any spot inspection proceedings and denied that after the case FIR was registered he had no role and further deposed that he was informed by the police that the victim had expired on 31.07.2006 in the hospital and St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.27 therefore, he also conducted the subsequent proceedings. PW9 does not remember what questions he had put to Susheela to ascertain her mental state before proceeding to record her statement as it was almost four years back but admits that the said questions do not form a part of the proceedings since the same is not required and states that prior to recording the statement of Sushila he was aware of the brief facts of the case as he was already informed about the same on telephone. He is unable to tell the details of the number of the police persons and public persons who were present in the hospital at the time when he recorded the statement of victim in the hospital but admits that he recorded the statement of the victim immediately after she was certified to be fit by the doctor and he made the endorsement on the statement immediately after recording the same. He has admitted that he did not administer oath to the victim before recording her statement as she was hanging between life and death and it is presumed that she would not tell a lie under these circumstances. The witness has further admitted that he had made no inquiries from the victim to ascertain whether what she was saying was correct or not since the victim was in a very bad state and was making a statement with great difficulty in a feeble voice and under these circumstances he was not supposed to be pestering her with queries and he recorded what she had told him of her own. PW9 has also admitted that he did not record the statement of relatives or neighbours of the victim before he made the endorsement on the statement of the victim or made any inquiries from them being a public place he did not know who were the relatives or neighbours of the victim. He has denied the suggestion that he St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.28 directed the registration of the FIR without making any inquiries and states that he was satisfied that the statement disclosed the commission of an offence and therefore, he directed the registration of the FIR and all inquiries/ investigations were to be made later. He has also denied that he had recorded the statement of victim on the basis of briefing given to him by the Investigating Officer and he could not understand anything what was said by the victim.

PW11 SI Matadin deposed that on 30.06.2006 on request of the Investigating Officer he along with crime team members comprising of finger print expert and photographer went to House No.28/11 Gali No.23, Libaspur, Delhi at first floor where ASI Sohan met him after which they inspected the room in the said house and outside area and took photographs also. According to him, in the last corner room one partly burnt pink colour salvar, partly burnt green colour shirt, half filled match box, two burnt sticks and a plastic Limca bottle containing some kerosene oil were found and smell of kerosene was coming out from inside the room. He has deposed that no finger prints could be found over there and proved his inspection report prepared by him which is Ex.PW11/A. PW12 SI Manohar Lal has proved that on 9.9.2006 on request of the investigating officer Inspector Sardoop Singh, he had visited the spot of incident i.e. House No. 8/11, Gali No.23, Libaspur, Delhi First Floor where on the pointing out of SI Jagdish Rai he took rough notes. According to him, on 10.9.2006 on the basis of said rough notes he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW12/A at his office and thereafter he destroyed the rough notes.

PW14 ASI Ramesh Chander has deposed that on 30.6.06 he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, North West as Head Constable photographer and on that day, after receiving the information he along with mobile crime team Incharge SI Mata Din and finger print expert and other staff reached at H. No. 28/11, Gali No. 23 Libaspur where they met ASI Sugan Lal. According to him, after some time SI Jagdish Rai also reached the spot and at the instance of the investigating officer he took 17 photographs. He has proved the negatives of the photographs which are Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.14/A-17 and the photographs which are Ex.PW14/A-18 to Ex.PW14/A-34.

PW15 HC Rajinder Singh has deposed that on 30.6.06 he was posted as Channel Operator PCR at channel No.124 from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. According to him, on that day at around 20:54 hrs. he received an information from phone No.9213370127, that one lady has set herself ablaze at House No.28/11, Gali No.23, Libaspur and he filled the PCR form and thereafter handed over the same to runner for further necessary action. He has deposed that the original PCR form has since been destroyed and he has brought the certificate vide which the record has been handed over to Shri Girish Chander, Assistant for weeding out. On request of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State further examination in chief of the witness was deferred but thereafter the said witness has not been examined.

PW16 SI Sugan Lal has deposed that in the intervening night of 30.6.06 and 1.7.06 he was on emergency duty in Police Station Samaypur Badli and on that day, Duty Officer handed over to him DD No.75B and thereafter at around 8.55pm he proceeded for the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.30 spot along with Ct. Nandu Bhagat and reached at the spot i.e 28/11, Gali No. 23, Libaspur, Delhi. According to him, after some time SI Jagdish Rai also reached at the spot and in the last room of the first floor one pink colour salwar in burnt condition and some pieces of green colour shirt, two half burnt match sticks, one half empty match box of 'Ship' and one two litre plastic bottle of 'Limca' containing some kerosene, one quilt (rajai) of blue colour with white stripes were found. He has testified that they came to know that injured Sushila has been taken to LNJP hospital by the PCR van and no eye witness was found there. He has deposed that thereafter the investigating officer left him at the spot and went to LNJP Hospital with Ct. Nandu and at about 1:00 am in the night the investigating officer came back at the spot and prepared the site plan. The witness has also deposed that crime team reached the spot and photographs of the spot were taken and in the meantime Ct. Nandu came back at the spot and handed over to investigating officer the copy of FIR and original rukka. According to the witness, the investigating officer put up the burnt salwar in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR and pullanda was given Sl. No.1 and seized vide memo which is Ex.PW6/D. He has further deposed that the investigating officer lifted the pieces of green colur shirt and put up into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR, which pullanda was given Sl. No.2 and seized vide memo which is Ex.PW6/C. According to him, the investigating officer also lifted half filled Ship match box and put up into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR, which pullanda was given Sl. No.3 and seized vide memo which is Ex.PW6/E. He has further deposed that the investigating St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.31 officer also lifted two half burnt match sticks and put up into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR which pullanda was given Sl. No.4 and seized vide memo which is Ex.PW6/F. The witness has proved that the investigating officer also lifted two litre Limca bottle containing kerosene and put up into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR, which pullanda was given Sl. No.5 and seized vide memo which is Ex.PW6/G after which the investigating officer also lifted one quilt and put up into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of JR which pullanda was given Sl. No.6 and seized vide memo which is Ex.PW6/H. He has also deposed that he searched for accused Ram Rattan and Kela Devi but could not be found. He has identified the case property in the court i.e. one partly burnt salwar which is Ex.P1, burnt pieces of cloth already collectively Ex.P2, match box with live sticks already collectively which are Ex.P3, two partly burnt match sticks which are collectively Ex.P4, plastic bottle which is Ex.P5, partly burnt quilt/gudri which is Ex.P6.

The said witness has not been cross-examined by the accused persons.

PW17 Inspector M.C. Meena has deposed that on 30.8.2006 he was handed over the investigations of the present case by Inspector Sardool Singh. He has proved having collected the photographs Ex.PW14/A-1 to Ex.PW14/A-17 through SI Jagdish Rai and the extract of the PCR calls which are Ex.PW17/A & Ex.PW17/B. He has testified that he made a request to his senior officers for issuing a priority letter by the FSL and on 3.9.2006 the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.32 case file was against transferred to Inspector Sardool Singh. According to the witness, on 12.10.2006 SI Jagdish Rai was directed to get the scaled site plan from SI Manohar Lal on which SI Jagdish Rai brought the scaled site plan and handed over the same to him. He has proved having prepared the charge sheet and filed the same to the court.

PW18 Lady Ct. Sanjeeta has deposed that on 7.8.2006 he was posted as Ct. at the Police Station Samaypur Badli and at 10:20 am she was told by the Duty Officer to join the investigation with investigating officer. According to the witness, he went to Satyam Hospital, Sector 16, Rohini where she met the brother of one Sheela Yadav namely Daya Shanker who pointed out one lady by the name of Kela Devi who was admitted in the ICU on which the investigating officer SI Jagdish recorded the statement of Smt. Kela Devi which is Ex.PW6/O. She has also deposed that thereafter Kela Devi was arrested vide memo which is Ex.PW6/M, her personal search was taken by her vide memo which is Ex.PW6/N. She has testified that Kela Devi was admitted in the hospital and could not be produced in the court and the Duty MM granted her hospital remand.

In her cross-examination the witness is unable to tell when the statement of Kela Devi was recorded by the investigating officer nor she is able to tell as to how much time was taken by the investigating officer in taking the statement of Kela Devi. The witness has further deposed that she and Inspector Sardul Singh was present along with SI Jagdish at the time of recording of statement of Kela Devi but she is unable to tell whether anybody else had signed the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.33 statement of Kela Devi as a witness.

PW19 Constable Narender Kumar has deposed that on 2.8.06 he was posted at Police Station Samaypur Badli and on that day he joined the investigations with SI Jagdish Rai. According to him, at about 4.00 PM he along with SI Jagdish and Inspector Sardul Singh in a Government Vehicle TATA 407 reached the spot i.e. Gali No. 23, Libaspur Village, Delhi where they could not meet any witness or the accused as the house was locked. He has further deposed that he along with the investigating officer and other staff reached at house No. 447, gali no. 8, Jeevan Park, Siraspur at the house of Daya Shanker, brother of deceased Sushila Yadav who had also joined the investigation along with him in search of accused and at about 5.30 PM they reached at Mukarba Chowk Bypass red light where the accused who was sitting on the Pattari was identified by Daya Shanker as Ram Rattan Yadav. PW19 has deposed that on seeing the police party, accused tried to ran away from the spot but was chased and apprehended after which the accused was interrogated by the investigating officer and was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/J and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW6/K. The witness has proved the disclosure statement of accused Ram Rattan which is Ex.PW6/L and deposed that accused took the police party and pointed out his house in Gali No. 23, Libaspur Village , first floor and pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW19/A. He has also deposed that they looked for other accused persons and statement of Daya Shanker was also recorded by the investigating officer and after medical examination of accused from BJRM Hospital the accused was lodged St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.34 in lockup.

In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that they met Daya Shanker after 5.00 PM but he cannot tell the exact time and they remained at the house of Daya Shanker for about 5-10 minutes and thereafter they directly reached Mukarba Chowk via Highway without stopping anywhere in between. According to him, around the place where accused was sitting the public persons were passing, though accused was sitting alone and there was a water Rehri and other Hawkers present around the place where the accused was sitting. He has testified that after apprehending the accused investigating officer requested the public persons to join the proceedings but the investigating officer had not noted down the name and addresses of those persons who refused to join the proceedings nor any action was taken against them by the investigating officer. He has deposed that Personal Search memo, Arrest memo and disclosure statement were written at the spot by SI Jagdish while sitting in Tempo and in his presence statement of Daya Shanker was also recorded by the investigating officer. He has denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared in the Police Station or that signature of accused were obtained on blank papers.

PW20 HC Om Prakash is a formal witness being the MHC(M) who has deposed that on 1.7.2006 SI Jagdish Rai had deposited six sealed pullandas having seals of JR on which he made the relevant entry regarding deposit at Sl. No.5597 copy of which is Ex.PW20/A. According to him, on 26.12.07 six pullandas having seals of JR were sent to FSL through Ct. Deepak Kumar vide RC No. St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.35 335/21/07 and the relevant entry was made against the entry Ex.PW20/A which is in the handwriting of HC Chander Mohan. The witness has testified that on 25.02.2008 result FSL was received through Ct. Harpal and was deposited with the MHC(M) and on 4.8.08 six exhibits were received from CFSL Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat through Ct. Joseph and were deposited in the Malkhana, the relevant entry was made against the entry Ex.PW20/A at Point P. He has also placed on record the copy of the RC register and copy of RC No.335/21/07 which is Ex.PW20/B and receipt acknowledgment which is Ex.PW20/C. He has proved that so long as the case property remained in his custody it was not tampered with.

In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the sending of the parcel to CFSL, Gandhi Nagar and deposed that he had not obtained the signature of SI Jagdish Rai in register No. 19. He has admitted that the had reproduced the contents of the seizure memo in register No.19.

PW21 ACP Sardul Singh is the investigating officer who has deposed that on 02.08.2006 the investigation of case FIR No.539/06 was assigned to him for further investigation and he constituted a team along with Sub Inspector Jagdish Rai and Ct. Narender Singh. According to him, during the investigation of this case he along with the raiding party members reached Village Libaspur, Yadav Nagar of Outer District in Government Vehicle TATA 407 and searched for the accused. He has further deposed that they reached village Siraspur where they met Daya Shanker, brother of the deceased at his residence who also joined the investigation of St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.36 this case and when they were coming from Mukarba Chowk Red Light, accused Ram Rattan was pointed out by Daya Shanker who was sitting on the pavement at the road. According to him, on seeing the police party, the accused tried to move away from there but was apprehended and was interrogated after which accused was arrested vide memo which is Ex.PW6/J and personally searched memo which is Ex.PW6/K. He has proved that the accused had confessed and gave his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW6/L after which the accused Ram Rattan led the police party to his village Libaspur and pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. House No.28/11, Street No.23, Libaspur Village, first floor, last room in the corner and pointed out the place where he had killed Sushila with his mother Kela Devi which pointing out memo is Ex.PW19/A. According to the investigating officer, on 07.08.06 an information was received telephonically in the Police Station that accused Kela Devi is admitted in Satyam Hospital, Sector- 16, Rohini on which the witness Daya Shanker was telephonically called who came to the Police Station and thereafter he along with Daya Shanker, SI Jagdish Rai and lady Ct. Sanjeet reached at Satyam Hospital. He has testified that after interrogation accused Kela Devi was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW6/M and her personal search was conducted vide memo which is Ex.PW6/N which was conducted by lady Ct. Sanjeeta. He has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Kela Devi which is Ex.PW6/O and deposed that since accused Kela Devi was ill and found admitted in the Hospital her judicial custody remand was obtained in the hospital by calling Ld. St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.37 Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter she was sent to judicial custody.

In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that they reached the house of Daya Shanker at about 4.45 PM and the distance from Mukarba Chowk to the house of Daya Shanker is about seven to eight kms. He has admitted that the place from where accused was apprehended is surrounded with a Bus Stand, Hawkers, Vendors and passersby were present. According to him, in Tata 407 he was sitting with the driver in the front seat and SI Jagdish Rai was also sitting by his side and he did not ask any public person to join the arrest proceedings. He has testified that he had done the writing work at police booth at Mukarba Chowk and the documents were written by SI Jagdish Rai in his handwriting. The witness has testified that he recorded the statement of Ct. Narender first in time then statement of Daya Shanker was recorded after about twenty minutes and then he recorded the statement of SI Jagdish Rai. He has further deposed that there were houses around the house of the accused and the area is thickly populated but he is unable to tell about the area of the surrounding houses. According to the witness, he had not asked any neighbourer to join them while entering the house of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he had not recorded any disclosure statement of the accused nor he had pointed out the place of occurrence. The investigating officer has also testified that there were other patients in the hospital where accused Kela Devi was admitted and he had not asked any doctor, nurse or any other staff of the hospital to join the proceedings. He has denied the suggestion that the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.38 thumb impression of accused Kela Devi were obtained on the blank papers or that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the Police Station.

Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:

After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Smt. Kela Devi has stated that at the time of incident he along with her son Ram Rattan and her grandson Himanshu had gone to have dinner at the place of the brother in law of her son since the deceased Sushila had not cooked meals on that day where they were informed by someone that she had burnt herself. According to her, they immediately rushed to the house and after seeing them she started abusing and threatening them that she would implicate them in a false case as they did not adhere to her instructions for not going to the house of the brother-in-law of Ram Rattan. She has further stated that the deceased Sushila was hyper in nature and she seldom used to cook meal for their family and therefore, they often visited the house of the brother-in-law of Ram Rattan for taking meals. According to the accused, they tried their best to cop-up with her nature but they failed in convincing her to cook meals for the family. According to her, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

The accused Ram Rattan has stated that at the time of incident he along with his mother Smt. Kela Devi and his son St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.39 Himanshu had gone to have dinner at the place of his brother in law since the deceased Sushila had not cooked meals on that day, where they were informed by someone that she had burnt herself. According to him, they immediately rushed to the house and after seeing them she started abusing and threatening them that she would implicate them in a false case as they did not adhere to her instructions for not going to the house of her brother on which his brother in law (brother of the deceased) advised him and his mother to go to his house and they would take her to the hospital themselves. He has also stated that the deceased Sushila was hyper in nature and she seldom used to cook meal for their family and therefore, they often visit the house of his brother-in-law and they tried their best to coup-up with her nature but they failed in convincing her to cook meals for the family. According to the accused, his brother-in-laws also persuaded her to take care of her family but she refused and got annoyed with them also and whenever they tried to convince her to mend her ways in the past, she used to threaten to falsely implicate them in false cases.

FINDINGS:

I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and also by the Ld. defence counsel. I have also considered the written synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of the accused persons and the evidence on record. Firstly it is evident from the record that none of the public witnesses including the son and the brothers of the deceased have supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 Himanshu aged about 11 years, who is the natural son of the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.40 deceased from her first marriage and the step son of the accused Ram Rattan has turned totally hostile. According to him, before the death of his mother she was having good relations with both the accused i.e. his father and grandmother. He has deposed that on the date of the incident when he along with his father and grandmother had gone to the house of his mama at Siraspur, they were informed by some neighbourer that his mother has burnt herself on which they immediately rush to their house along with his father and grandmother and both his mamas namely Daya Shanker and Ganesh Yadav. According to him, his mother threatened his father and grandmother to implicate them in a false case and it was because of this that both his mamas took his mother to the hospital whereas he along with his father and grandmother went to the house of his mama. He has deposed that his father did not go to the hospital on the advice of his mama because his mother was very agitated at that time. He has also stated that his mother did not like his father and grandmother visiting the house of his mamas and according to him, on the date of incident his mother did not cook food due to which reason they had all gone to his mamas house. He has denied the contents of the earlier statement made by him to the police.

Secondly Daya Shanker and Ganesh Yadav, the real brothers of the deceased Sushila have deposed as PW2 and PW3 and have also not supported the case of the prosecution. According to them, the marriage of Sushila with the present accused Ram Rattan was her second marriage and previously she was married to one Sunil Yadav who was residing at Sita Ram Bazar and had born a son St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.41 Himanshu from her first marriage (Himanshu has been been examined as PW1) who also accompanied Sushila to the house of Ram Rattan after her marriage. According to both Daya Shanker and Ganesh Yadav, Sushila was hyper in nature and had even tried to commit suicide in the house of first husband due to which reason she was left at their house by Sunil Yadav, her first husband, and later divorced. According to both these witnesses deceased Sushila, Ram Rattan (her husband), Smt. Kela Devi (her mother-in-law) and Himanshu were living in the same house and the behaviour of both the accused were good and cordial towards their deceased sister. They have also deposed that their deceased sister used to quarrel with her in-laws and did not permit them to visit their house and even on the date of incident when their sister got burnt, both the accused were present in their house complaining about their sister as she had not cooked food for them and they had come to the house of Daya Shanker who also stays in the same area for taking their meals. They have both deposed that their sister had brunt herself by raising a dispute on the issue of her husband and mother-in-law visiting their house even after her stopping them from it. In fact PW2 Daya Shanker has deposed that after the incident it was he who sent the accused and his mother to his house and the son of the deceased was also present in their house when the deceased was shifted to LNJP Hospital and his sister started fighting with them on the issue as to why they allowed her husband and her mother-in-law to come to their house. According to the witness, his sister had made some statement to the SDM but it was not in their presence. They have denied that they have been won over by St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.42 the family of the accused and according to these witnesses their signatures have been taken on blank papers.

Thirdly PW4 Vinod Yadav the cousin of the deceased Sushila has also similarly deposed in favour of the accused persons. He has corroborated the testimonies of the real brothers of deceased i.e. Daya Shanker PW2 and Ganesh Yadav PW3 to the extent that the marriage of Sushila with accused Ram Rattan was her second marriage and she had taken her son Himanshu form her first husband to her matrimonial home. He has also deposed that once he told the deceased that her husband was complaining that she was not cooking proper food in the house on which his deceased sister became aggressive and scolded him. He has further deposed that he had information that there were quarrels in her family on petty matters like not cooking of food and according to him, the behaviour of both the accused were cordial towards his sister. According to Vinod Yadav PW4, on the date of the incident he had received a telephone call from the brother of Sushila namely Daya Shanker who had informed him that Sushila had set herself on fire and asked him to reach his house and when he reached he found that Sushila was having burn injuries and one of her friend namely Geeta was also present there. According to the witness, when he asked from Sushila as to how she received burn injuries she told him that she herself had set on fire and would implicate her husband Ram Rattan and her mother in law Kela Devi. This witness has further deposed that it was Geeta the friend of the deceased Sushila who told her that she would survive from the burn injuries and that she should falsely implicate her husband and her mother-in-law on which he St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.43 objected not to be advise Sushila in this regard. He has deposed that Sushila never told him that her husband and her mother-in-law had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil and the SDM has also not recorded the statement of Sushila in his presence.

Fourthly PW9 Vijay Dogra, SDM - Narela has proved the statement given by the deceased Sushila to her which is Ex.PW9/C. He has also proved that he received an information regarding death of Sushila on 31.7.2006 and thereafter got the postmortem examination conducted on 1.8.2006 which fact he has proved in accordance with law. I have gone through the said Dying Declaration made by the deceased to the SDM wherein she has stated that she had been married for the last five and a half years and there was a dispute between her and accused as they used to go to her brother's house very often. According to her, at the time of incident there was no electricity in the house and she was sitting outside the gallery and it was her husband and her mother-in-law who put kerosene oil on her and burn her after which they put water on her. Perusal of the said statement shows that the doctor was not present at the time when the statement was recorded. According to the SDM, at the time when the said statement of the deceased was recorded she was declared fit by the doctor and was speaking very feeble voice and therefore he did not pester her with more inquiries. Apart from the statement of the deceased given to the SDM, she had also informed the doctor on duty at the time when she was brought to the hospital that her husband and mother-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and let her ablaze. Further, the PCR Form - 1 which is Ex.PW17/A prepared after the PCR call was made shows that St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.44 when the Constable had gone to the spot to attend to the call he was told by the deceased that she was burnt by her husband and mother-in- law.

Before proceeding to analyze the statement of the deceased as recorded by the SDM, it is necessary to revert to the provisions of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides for the relevance of the statements of the persons who are dead or cannot be found, becomes relevant. Section 32 reads as under:

Section 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found etc., is relevant: Statements, written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:

(1) when it relates to cause of death: When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.

Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.45 when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceedings in which the cause of his death comes into question.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for exception to the rule of hear-say. As a general rule the hear-say evidence is excluded and best evidence must always be given but Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is an important exception to this rule and one of the exceptions so provided where a person is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found, then in such case since no better evidence can be obtained, the oral or written evidence of such a person relating to relevant fact under inquiry, becomes admissible. The test of cross-examination being unavailable, the safeguards which are enumerated under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act must be observed. Dying Declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence satisfy the court that what has been stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to rely upon it. The evidentiary value or weight which has to be attached to such a statement/ Dying Declaration necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is the duty of the court to subject such a statement to close scrutiny to ascertain whether it was honest and truly made and not a result of any tutoring, prompting or imagination and the deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make a declaration. In a case where the Dying Declaration is suspected it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence (Ref: Rashid Beg Vs. St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.46 State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1974 SC 332). Also, in a case where the prosecution differs from the version as given in the prosecution, the same cannot be acted upon. Further, in a case where the prosecution is solely based upon the Dying Declaration, no doubt conviction can be based upon an uncorroborated Dying Declaration, yet that can be done only after such a Dying Declaration is tested with utmost care and caution. It is a settled law that such a statement is required to be examined minutely and it is necessary for the court to ascertain the correctness of such statement made by the deceased in terms of the surrounding circumstances. (Ref: State of Gujarat Vs. Khumansingh Karsan Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1641).

Applying these settled principles of law to the fact of the present case, it is evident from the record that as per the statement made by the deceased Sushila to the SDM she was sitting outside in the gallery and there was no electricity in the house when the accused persons put kerosene oil upon her. The manner in which the oil was allegedly thrown upon her is also not borne out from the circumstances. Had that been the case, the accused persons would have thrown the kerosene oil on her from the back side and there would have been burn injuries present on the posterior region of her body whereas the MLC Ex.PW13/A and postmortem report Ex.PW10/A reveal that the injuries were present on the anterior portion of the neck, face, chest and legs which primafacie demolishing the case of the deceased. The deceased also told the SDM that after setting on fire they have put water upon her whereas the report of the St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.47 Crime Team and the testimony of the various police officers who reached the spot and also the photographs taken at the spot and the exhibits collected, do not show the presence of water at the spot. The MLC of the deceased also does not show that there was any water put on her since had that been the case the presence of water on her body or on her clothes seized from the spot, or on the floor or furniture lying at the spot, would have been evident, which is not the case. The nature of injuries as reflected in the MLC and postmortem report is compatible with the theory of suicide and not to the theory of homicide, as promulgated by the prosecution. Also, going by what the deceased had said, it is not possible that any person who would conspire to kill his wife would do so in a place which is open and within the visibility of the neighbourers i.e. gallery. Therefore, under these circumstances, I reject the alleged dying declaration Ex.PW9/C so made to the SDM as it does not find any support from the circumstantial evidence on record.

Lastly it is evident that the marriage between the deceased and the accused was a second marriage of both the accused Ram Rattan and deceased Shushila and the son born out of the first marriage of the deceased namely Himanshu also went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and was staying with the accused persons before the death of the deceased. It is evident from the testimony of the brothers of the deceased that the deceased Sushila had suicidal tendencies and it is for this reason that even during her previous marriage with one Sushil Yadav she was left at the house of Daya Shanker (PW2) her brother after which she was divorced.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the brothers and son of the deceased who were the most material witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case at all. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The role of the accused persons as the culprits in the prosecution story has not been St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.49 proved.

The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt on its own strengths and cannot take advantage of the weakness, if any, of the defence. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. It cannot be ignored that the greater the crime, the stronger is the proof required and fouler the crime, higher the proof. The prosecution has failed to establish any circumstance which could point a finger of doubt towards the accused persons and their role in the commission of the alleged offence. If there are two views coming forth in the prosecution case, the one which is favourable to the accused is required to be taken.

It is clear from the above discussion and analysis that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the accused persons were present at the time of the incident or that they had pured kerosene oil upon the deceased. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused Ram Rattan and his mother Kela Devi had set the deceased Sushila ablaze as a result of which she sustained 55% burn injuries and subsequently expired on account of Septicemia and other complication on account of these burn injuries. Rather, on the contrary it is evident from the record that the accused persons along with the son of the deceased were present at the house of brothers of the deceased at the time of the incident to complain against the deceased as she was not cooking meals for them. It also been proved that the deceased was a short tempered woman and suicidal tendencies on account of which she had been divorced by Sunil Yadav her first husband who had initially left her to her brothers house due to such tendencies. It has St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.50 been brought on record that the accused Kela Devi is aged about 86 years of age suffering from severe Asthma and it has been observed that she is unable to move without any assistance and therefore, to say that she had set on fire a young able bodied woman, does not appear plausible.

Under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the allegations against the accused persons and to connect them with the commission of offence. The accused Ram Rattan and Kela are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Their sureties stand discharged. Original documents of the sureties be returned as per the rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court                        (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 6.1.2011                                    ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI




St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli             Page No.51
 State Vs. Ram Rattan
FIR No. 539/2006
PS Samaipur Badli
6.1.2011
Present:       Addl. PP for the State.
               Both accused are on bail with Sh. Kundan Kumar
               Advocate.

Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the accused Ram Rattan and Kela are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Their sureties stand discharged. Original documents of the sureties be returned as per the rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW)/ 6.1.2011 St. Vs. Ram Rattan, FIR No.539/06, PS S.P. Badli Page No.52