Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pala Ram vs State Of Haryana on 10 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000
Date of decision: 10.02.2011
Pala Ram
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Parshad, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
JORA SINGH, J.
Pala Ram, preferred this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 21.9.2000 and order of sentence dated 26.9.2000, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 10.3.1999, arising out of FIR No. 344 dated 9.6.1998, registered under Sections 326/307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Hisar.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 326/307 IPC and was sentenced as under:
1. Under Section 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -2-
2. Under Section 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Co-accused namely Hanuman was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Against acquittal no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.6.1998, ruqa Ex. PC was received from General Hospital, Hisar, regarding admission of Laxmi Devi, with burn injuries. On receipt of ruqa, Sub Inspector Mahender Singh, had gone to General Hospital, Hisar, where Laxmi Devi, was lying admitted. Application Ex. PH, was moved requesting the District Magistrate, for deputing some Executive Magistrate, to record the statement of Laxmi Devi. Sh. Krishan Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, was deputed to record the statement of Laxmi Devi. Then Naib Tehsildar, had gone to General Hospital, Hisar. Statement of Laxmi Devi Ex. PA was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station. Allegation of the injured was that about 10 years back she was married with Pala Ram and from this wedlock she has one son aged about 4 years. Pala Ram, being a man of quarrelsome nature used to beat her under the influence of liquor. Pala Ram, threatened to throw her out of the matrimonial home. On 4.6.1998, at about 10.00 p.m. she served dinner to her husband and at that time he was under the influence of liquor. Her mother-in-law Chawli Devi and brother-in-law Hanuman Parshad, who also used to beat her, were also sitting with her husband at that time. When dinner CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -3- was served to Pala Ram then he remarked that vegetables served to him were not tasty. He started beating her. She was caught hold by her mother-in-law. Hanuman was carrying a tin of kerosene and the kerosene was poured on her by saying that they would kill her. After that her husband Pala Ram, set her on fire. She raised an alarm attracting her sister Maya Devi. Maya Devi, had extinguished the fire by pouring water. After that she (Laxmi Devi) was shifted to hospital by Maya Devi but on 8.6.1998, Pala Ram got her discharged from the hospital. After that her brother Manoj Kumar and sister Maya Devi again got her admitted in General Hospital, Hisar. Investigating Officer, had gone to the spot and recovered Salwar, Jampher, Shawl, one small bottle in the shape of lamp and one plastic can smelling of kerosene. All the above said articles were taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan Ex. PL, was prepared with its correct marginal notes. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 326/307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 ASI Khajan Singh, stated that on receipt of ruqa Ex. PA, he had recorded formal FIR Ex. PA/1.
PW-2 Dr. O.P. Charaya, stated that on 7.12.1998, in view of the application Ex. PD he gave his opinion that burn injuries on the person of Laxmi Devi were not dangerous to life.
PW-3 Dr. M.K. Bhadu, stated that on 9.6.1998, he had CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -4- medico-legally examined Laxmi Devi and found following injuries on her person:
"1 Old case of burn, over front of chest, anterior posterior of right arm and fore-arm, except both hands. Burn area over anterior of neck and mendipular area of wrist. Burn area anterior side of both thigh in upper half. No blister, no bullae over skin, skin lesion over burnt area were with epithelisation starts. History of taken treatment in some private hospital. No smell of kerosene present."
Nature of injury was declared grievous in nature. Ex. PB is the copy of the MLR.
PW-4 ASI Hawa Singh, had partly investigated the case. PW-5 ASI Jai Parkash, stated that he had recorded the statement of Dr. Atul Sharma.
PW-6 Sh. Krishan Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, stated that on 9.6.1998, he had recorded the statement of Laxmi Devi, as per order of District Magistrate, Hisar.
PW-7 Laxmi Devi, is the injured. She has reiterated her stand before the police.
PW-8 Maya Devi, is the real sister of the injured and is the eye-witness. She has supported the version of Laxmi Devi.
PW-9 Dr. Atul Sharma, stated that on 4.6.1998, Laxmi Devi was brought to his hospital at 11.00 p.m. with burn injuries. Burn injuries were 15%. Treatment was given and on 8.6.1998, patient was discharged.
CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -5-
PW-10 SI Mahender Singh, had initially investigating the case.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that they were falsely implicated due to dispute of the sister of the appellant with the brother of the complainant.
In defence, DW-1 Dharampal, appeared and stated that on 4.6.1998, Pala Ram came to his shop and told that his wife Laxmi Devi had received burn injuries accidentally. He along with Pala Ram had gone to his Dhani and gave first aid to Laxmi Devi. On inquiry Laxmi Devi replied that she received burn injuries accidentally. Pala Ram, was advised to shift Laxmi Devi, to Sharma Ravin Hospital.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
After arguing for some time, when learned defence counsel for the appellant failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then stated that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Appellant is the first offender. At the time of present occurrence Pala Ram was 27 years old and he has already undergone 2 years, 1 month and 14 days out of the actual sentence. Requested to take lenient view.
CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -6-
Learned State counsel argued that injured is the wife of the appellant. Appellant is not maintaining his wife and son. No divorce. Appellant used to beat Laxmi Devi under the influence of liquor. On the day of occurrence Laxmi Devi was set on fire by the appellant. Keeping in view the nature of offence, lenient view be not taken.
No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction and requested to take lenient view but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence, as to whether occurrence had taken place as per prosecution story or not?
Undisputedly, Laxmi Devi, is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and from this wedlock she has one son aged about 4 years. Without divorce Laxmi Devi, along with her son is residing separately. Appellant is not maintaining them. No petition for restitution of conjugal rights. On the day of occurrence, Laxmi Devi, was set on fire by the appellant but defence version is that she had caught fire accidentally. Now the question is whether defence version inspires confidence or prosecution story seems to be more probable than the defence version?
Laxmi Devi, while appearing in Court as PW-7, then stated that she was set on fire by her husband and occurrence was witnessed by her sister Maya Devi. Laxmi Devi, was shifted to hospital by Maya Devi but on 8.6.1998, Pala Ram got her discharged from the hospital. After that her brother Manoj Kumar and sister Maya Devi again got her admitted in General Hospital, Hisar. PW-8 Maya Devi, is the real sister of Laxmi Devi and she has supported the prosecution story.
Defence version of the appellant was that sister of the appellant had a dispute with the brother of the complainant and due to CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -7- this reason he was falsely implicated in this case but no oral or documentary evidence on the file that sister of the appellant had a dispute with brother of the complainant. When brother of the complainant had no dispute then no question of false implication particularly when injured had one minor son. If lady is residing happily at her in-laws house then she is not to name her husband. Husband is to be named when he exceeded his limits. In the present case, appellant has one minor son from the wombs of Laxmi Devi. Appellant is residing separately. No divorce. No petition for restitution of conjugal rights or application for the custody of minor son. Nothing is being sent by the appellant to maintain his wife and his minor son. Injuries cannot be self-suffered or self-inflicted. Defence version of the appellant is to the effect that injured caught fire accidentally but no plea of the appellant that he was present in the house and in his presence Laxmi Devi had caught fire accidentally. If Laxmi Devi, caught fire accidentally then why Laxmi Devi, was not shifted to hospital. Laxmi Devi, was shifted to hospital by Maya Devi but after four days she was got discharged from the hospital by her husband Pala Ram-appellant. No question was put to the doctor that Laxmi Devi, got admitted in the hospital by the appellant.
Dr. M.K. Bhadu, had medico-legally examined the injured. Burn injuries to the extent of 15% were noticed. Injuries were declared grievous in nature. If false implication on account of dispute of the sister of the appellant with the brother of the complainant then sister of the appellant should have been produced in defence. No explanation why sister was not produced in Court. DW-1 Dharampal, stated that as per request of Pala Ram, he had gone to his house and gave first aid to CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -8- Laxmi Devi. After that Pala Ram was requested to shift the injured to Sharma Ravin Hospital but his statement is without any force because appellant has not stated a word when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had contacted Dr. Dharampal and after first aid injured was shifted to the hospital. DW-1 Dharampal was not a qualified doctor. No record was maintained by him. Without any record any RMP doctor like Dharampal could be produced in defence to state that he had given first aid and advised the party to shift the injured to the nearest hospital.
In view of oral as well as documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment is upheld on the point of conviction.
Occurrence is dated 4.6.1998. At that time appellant was 27 years old. 15% burn injuries were noticed. Injuries were not dangerous to life but found to be grievous in nature. Appellant is the first offender and has already undergone 2 years, 1 month and 14 days out of the actual sentence. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken otherwise appellant would become hardcore criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I take lenient view and direct the appellant to undergo imprisonment already undergone (2 years, 1 month and 14 days). He is further directed to deposit ` 50,000/- more as fine within three months before the trial Court, payable to the complainant/injured as compensation, failing which appellant is to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
CRA-S-1020-SB of 2000 -9-
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
February 10, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE