Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 January, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 18.01.2011
Ajmer Singh
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate, Amicus Curiae,
for the appellant.
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
JORA SINGH, J.
Ajmer Singh S/o Sukh Ram R/o village Bir Ghaghar, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction 16.5.2002 and order of sentence dated 18.5.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, in Sessions Case No.9, arising out of FIR No. 159 of 1.11.1996, registered under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Chandimandir.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 498- A/304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -2-
1. Under Section 498-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Under Section 304-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ` 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Co-accused namely, Simro Devi and Reshmi Devi, were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against acquittal no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Ram Chander, PW-5, is the father of the deceased Geeta. Geeta was married with Ajmer Singh on 12.3.1996. Sufficient dowry was given by him at the time of marriage as per his financial position but after marriage mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani) started torturing her for bringing insufficient dowry. Ajmer Singh, also used to taunt her under the influence of liquor. Ajmer Singh, was demanding ` 25,000/-. In July, 1996, Geeta came to her parental house and disclosed that Ajmer Singh, is demanding ` 25,000/-. Geeta was brought to her matrimonial house by the complainant along with one Piara Lal Lambardar and Pritam Chand, CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -3- Sarpanch. Accused were requested that being poor he (complainant) cannot fulfill their demand. Geeta was left at the house of her in-laws but the accused used to misbehave and maltreat her for want to dowry. On 18.10.1996, Geeta was set on fire by the accused by pouring kerosene. Geeta was brought to PGI, Chandigarh, by her father-in-law for treatment. On receipt of information, he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, along with Piara Lal, Lambardar and Pritam Chand, Pardhan. Number of persons were present in PGI, Chandigarh and they requested him that they will get his daughter treated. On 31.10.1996, he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, along with Piara Lal, Lambardar and at that time condition of Geeta was serious. Simro Devi, sister-in-law (Jethani) of Geeta had gone to bring meals. Beant Singh, brother-in-law of Geeta had gone to bring medicines. Geeta was alone then he had enquired from Geeta then on enquiry she replied that due to non- payment of ` 25,000/-, she was set on fire by the accused on 18.10.1996, when Ajmer Singh was under the influence of liquor. She further disclosed that accused used to beat her. She was caught-hold by her mother-in-law and Jethani and was set on fire by Ajmer Singh. On 31.10.1996, he came back to his village and assured Geeta that he will come on the next day along with the persons of his village and will take up the matter with the accused party. On the next morning i.e. on 1.11.1996, he came back to PGI Chandigarh, then Geeta was found dead. Statement of Ram Chander-complainant Ex. PC was recorded and he signed the same in the token of its correctness. Inquest report was CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -4- prepared. After post mortem examination dead body was handed over to the complainant for cremation. Accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A/304- B/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 Dr. Sanjay Barapatre, on 1.11.1996 had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Geeta and found following injuries on her person:
1. Super-facial to deep burn of face below forehead, super-facial to deep burn of neck.
2. Super-facial to deep burns of front of chest with greenish colour exudate over front of chest. 3 Super-facial to deep burn of front of abdomen with greenish-yellowish colour of exudate over abdomen.
4. Super-facial to deep burn of right arm on middle side and lateral side extending from axilla to 12 cm below right elbow joint.
5. Super-facial to deep burn of middle side of left arm extending from the axilla 12 cm below left elbow joint.CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -5-
6. Super-facial burn of finger of left hand. Super-facial to deep burn of front of right thigh extending up to middle side of thigh up to knee with greenish yellow colour, exudate at places.
7. Super-facial to deep burn of front of left thigh, back of left thigh with a greenish yellow colour exudate at places.
8. Super facial burn on left scapular region.
Case of death was due to shock because of septicemia due to burns. Injuries were found to be anti-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-2 HC Ramesh Chander, stated that on receipt of ruqa Ex. PC, he had recorded the formal FIR Ex. PC/1.
PW-3 Constable Manohar Lal, had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PD, with its correct marginal notes.
PW-4 ASI Ram Mehar, stated that he was deputed to get the post-mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Geeta. Application Ex. PF was prepared and the same was presented before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panchkula. Application was marked to Tehsildar, Panchkula, for conducting the inquest proceedings. Inquest report Ex. PG was prepared and after post-mortem examination dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation.
PW-5 Ram Chander, is the father of the deceased and stated that Geeta (deceased) was married with Ajmer Singh. Marriage was CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -6- solemnized on 12.3.1996. Sufficient dowry was given by him at the time of marriage as per his financial position but after the marriage mother-in- law and sister-in-law (Jethani) started torturing her for bringing insufficient dowry. Ajmer Singh, also used to taunt under the influence of liquor. Ajmer Singh, was demanding ` 25,000/-. In July, 1996, Geeta came to her parental house and disclosed that Ajmer Singh, is demanding ` 25,000/-. Then he along with Piara Lal, Lambardar and Pritam Chand, Sarpanch, brought back Geeta. Accused were requested that being poor he (complainant) cannot fulfill their demand. Geeta was left at the house of her in-laws but the accused used to misbehave and maltreat her for want to dowry. On 18.10.1996, Geeta was set on fire by the accused by pouring kerosene. Geeta was brought to PGI, Chandigarh, by her father-in-law for treatment. On receipt of information, he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, along with Piara Lal, Lambardar and Pritam Chand, Pardhan. Number of persons were present in the PGI, Chandigarh and they requested them that they will get his daughter treated. On 31.10.1996, he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, along with Piara Lal, Lambardar and at that time condition of Geeta was serious. Simro Devi, sister-in-law (Jethani) of Geeta had gone to bring meals. Beant Singh, brother-in-law of Geeta had gone to bring medicines. Geeta was alone then he had enquired from Geeta then on enquiry she replied that due to non-payment of ` 25,000/-, she was set on fire by the accused on 18.10.1996, when Ajmer Singh was under the influence of liquor. She further disclosed that accused used to beat her. CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -7- She was caught-hold by her mother-in-law and Jethani and was set on fire by Ajmer Singh. On 31.10.1996, he came back to his village and assured Geeta that he will come on the next day along with the persons of his village and will take up the matter with the accused party. On the next morning i.e. on 1.11.1996, when he came back to PGI Chandigarh, then Geeta was found dead.
PW-6 Piara Lal, has supported the version of PW-5 Ram Chander-complainant.
PW-7 Inspector Hari Kailash, stated that on 1.11.1996, he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, after receipt of ruqa regarding death of Geeta. Statement of Ram Chander, Ex. PC was recorded and after making endorsement Ex. PK, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. ASI Ram Mehar and Head Constable Rajinder Singh, also came there and they were directed to conduct enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He came to the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panchkula and met the Tehsildar, who directed him to verify the place of occurrence. After that he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh. After post mortem examination dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. After visiting the place of occurrence rough site plan Ex. PL, was prepared with its correct marginal notes. Dowry articles were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PJ attested by the witnesses. On 3.11.1996, accused were arrested.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -8- 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 appellant was that he is innocent. On 18.10.1996, Geeta, caught fire accidentally when a burning kerosene lamp fell on her. He was not present in the house at that time. When he came back to his house in the evening then came to know about the incident. She had already been shifted to PGI Chandigarh by his brother Beant Singh, mother Reshmi Devi and Simro Devi wife of Beant Singh and some other relatives. He had gone to PGI then detained by the police. He was released in the evening. Many relatives of Geeta from her parental side were attending her in PGI, Chandigarh, when she was under treatment. After the death of Geeta false case was got registered. His mother and brother were residing separately.
DW-1 Devinder Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh, stated that on 19.10.1996, vide application Ex. DA, he was requested to record the dying declaration of Geeta. Application Ex. DA was presented requesting the doctor to report regarding the fitness of the patient. At 9.20 a.m. patient was declared fit to make statement then he recorded the statement of Geeta Ex. DC.
DW-2 Jagbir Singh, stated that Ajmer Singh, was residing separately from other family members. Beant Singh, informed that Geeta caught fire accidentally. He had gone to hospital. Geeta was conscious and was talking to the visitors.
DW-3 Subhash Chand, stated that Geeta was his sister-in- CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -9- law. Ajmer Singh along with Geeta was residing separately from other family members. After marriage Geeta came to his house. He came to know about the occurrence on the next day and he had gone to PGI, Chandigarh. After 12/13 days Geeta had succumbed to her burn injuries. Mother of Geeta was present in PGI. There was no dispute amongst the deceased and Ajmer Singh.
DW-4 Sher Singh stated that Ajmer Singh and Geeta were residing separately from other family members. She caught fire accidentally and at the time of occurrence he was Deputy Sarpanch of the village. He had gone to PGI, Chandigarh. Ram Chaner and his wife along with Beant Singh, were present by the side of Geeta. Ram Chander is the father of Geeta. He had not heard any dispute amongst the deceased and her husband.
DW-5 Iqbal Singh, stated that Geeta (deceased) is the daughter of his real brother-in-law, Ram Chander. There was no dispute amongst Geeta and her in-laws. When he came to know that Geeta received burn injuries then he had gone to PGI Chandigarh. Ram Chander and Beant Singh were found present by the side of Geeta. He had a little talk with Geeta.
DW-6 Mrs. Krishana Kumari, Clerk in the office of District Food and Supply Controller, Panchkula, stated that as per record Ration Cards Ex. DX and Ex. DY were issued by the Department.
DW-7 Dr. Vipul Nanda, stated that as per record brought by him regarding patient Geeta Devi wife of Ajmer Singh, she was brought CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -10- to PGI by Beant Singh and Ajmer Singh on 18.10.1996, at about 10.00 p.m. Geeta got burn injuries as claimed by her when her clothes got fire while she was lighting a candle.
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.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that no doubt Geeta (deceased) was the legally wedded wife of the appellant and marriage was solemnized on 12.3.1996. Out of this marriage no issue. On 18.10.1996, Geeta caught fire accidentally when she was lighting the kerosene lamp. She was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh, by Beant Singh and Ajmer Singh and this fact is clear from the statement of Dr.Vipul Nanda, DW-7. At about 10.00 p.m. on 18.10.1996, Geeta was brought to PGI and on enquiry from the doctor she disclosed that she caught fire accidentally. On 19.10.1996, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by DW-1 Devinder Singh, Executive Magistrate. Ex. DC is the statement of Geeta and statement is to the effect that she caught fire accidentally. After the occurrence dated 18.10.1996, Ram Chander, father of the deceased had gone to PGI, Chandigarh but no complaint to any authority. On 31.10.1996, when Geeta was alone in PGI then she disclosed to her father that she was set on fire by her husband, mother- in-law Reshmi Devi and sister-in-law Simro Devi (Jethani) but without CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -11- informing the police, Ram Chander, came back to his house. On 1.11.1996, again he had gone to PGI but by that time Geeta, had succumbed to her injuries. Statement of Ram Chander, Ex. PC was recorded after the death of Geeta. Investigating Officer, while appearing as PW-7, has not stated a word in examination-in-chief that any application was moved requesting the Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration but in his cross-examination admitted that on 19.10.1996, he had gone to PGI Chandigarh, after receiving ruqa and had met the deceased. After that he had contacted the Executive Magistrate and along with Sh. Devinder Singh, Executive Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh, came back to PGI. HC Rajinder Singh was deputed to visit PGI. HC Rajinder Singh, moved an application Ex. DA, requesting the doctor to opine regarding the condition of Smt. Geeta. He (HC Rajinder Singh) along with the Executive Magistrate, had gone to PGI Chandigarh and after obtaining opinion from the doctor, statement of Geeta was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in his presence. In view of the statement of Geeta entry was made in the Roznamcha. Argued that firstly on 18.10.1996, on enquiry by the doctor deceased replied that she caught fire accidentally. Second time before the Executive Magistrate Geeta stated that she caught fire accidentally. On 31.10.1996, complainant came to know that Geeta was set on fire by the appellant but on that day there was no report to the police. If appellant used to misbehave and maltreat the deceased for want of dowry and was demanding ` 25,000/- then immediately after the occurrence dated CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -12- 18.10.1996, Ram Chander, should have reported the matter to the police by saying that appellant used to misbehave and maltreat her and was demanding ` 25,000/- and he was not in a position to arrange ` 25,000/-. Geeta was set on fire by the appellant for want of dowry but after the death of Geeta, matter was reported to the police. No allegation by the prosecution that statement of Geeta Ex. DC was not correctly recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Statement Ex. DC was ignored by the trial Court simply on the ground that statement was not in question answer and recorded by the Executive Magistrate, not by the Judicial Magistrate. Statement is without oath. Lastly, the dying declaration is contrary to the oral dying declaration before Ram Chander-complainant on 31.10.1996. Without any reason dying declaration Ex. DC was ignored. Evidence on file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
Learned State counsel argued that death of Geeta was within 2 years from the date of marriage. Death was un-natural at her in-laws house. Immediately, after the marriage appellants started harassing the deceased for want of dowry. Appellant was demanding ` 25,000/- but when the complainant failed to fulfill the demand of appellant then Geeta was sent on fire.
Admittedly, Geeta deceased was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. Marriage was solemnized on 12.3.1996 but from this wedlock there was no issue. Unnatural death at the in-laws house within 7 years from the date of marriage. According to the prosecution story, deceased was harassed for want of dowry soon before death whereas CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -13- defence version of the appellant is that deceased caught fire accidentally while lighting the lamp and this fact is clear from the statement of doctor and dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Now there are two versions whether deceased was set on fire by the appellant by pouring kerosene or deceased caught fire accidentally while lighting the lamp on 18.10.1996?
Occurrence is dated 18.10.1996. Geeta was shifted to hosptial by Beant Singh her brother-in-law and this fact is clear from the statement of Dr. Vipul Nanda, DW-7. Dr. Vipul Nanda, had brought the record and as per record Geeta was shifted to PGI Chandigarh, by Beant Singh and Ajmer Singh on 18.10.1996 at about 10.00 p.m. Dr. Vipul Nanda, further stated that Geeta caught fire accidentally when she was lighting a candle. There was no burn injury either on the head or face of Smt. Geeta Devi. No question was put to the doctor that Geeta was not shifted to the hospital by Beant Singh or Ajmer Singh and secondly, on enquiry Geeta did not disclose that she caught fire accidentally while lighting a candle, that means statement of DW-7 Dr. Vipul Nanda, was admitted to be correct one by the prosecution.
After admission of Geeta Devi in PGI, Chandigarh on 18.10.1996, Ram Chander came to know about the incident and had gone to PGI on 19.10.1996. Ram Chander when appeared as PW-5 then in cross-examination admitted that on 19.10.1996, at 10.00 a.m. he had reached PGI, Chandigarh but he cannot tell whether on 19.10.1996, Executive Magistrate, had recorded the statement of his daughter. CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -14- Devinder Singh, Executive Magistrate, appeared as DW-1 and stated that on 19.10.1996, as per request of the police he had recorded the dying declaration of Geeta Devi and the same is Ex. DC. No question was put to Devinder Singh, Executive Magistrate, that there was no request by the police to record the dying declaration. Secondly, he had not recorded the dying declaration or Geeta Devi was not fit to make statement.
Investigating Officer, appeared as PW-7 but in examination- in-chief he had not stated a word regarding the dying declaration but in cross-examination admitted that he received ruqa from the police post PGI, Chandigarh, regarding the burn injuries of Smt. Geeta. It is also admitted that he went to PGI on 19.10.1996. It is also admitted that thereafter he went to Devinder Singh, Executive Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh and took him alongwith him to PGI, Chandigarh. He sent Rajinder Singh, Head Constable, to PGI before his departure. It is admitted that application Ex. DA was moved by HC Rajinder Singh to SMO PGI, Chandigarh, for obtaining opinion of the doctor regarding the condition of Smt. Geeta Devi. He identify the writing of HC Rajinder Singh because he (Rajinder Singh) was working under him. He alongwith Executive Magistrate, had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, for recording the dying declaration of Smt. Geeta. He (Executive Magistrate) had taken the opinion of doctor in his presence which is Mark-A. It is admitted that statement Ex. DC of Geeta Devi, was recorded by Executive Magistrate in his presence. It is admitted that on the basis of statement Ex. DC he had made entry in the Roznamcha and CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -15- Ex. DB is the entry. It is also admitted that copy of the said DDR was sent to SDM and DSP, Panchkula. From the statement of Investigating Officer, one thing is clear that on 19.10.1996, Executive Magistrate was requested to record the dying declaration of Geeta. Application was moved for obtaining the opinion of the doctor as to whether the patient was fit to make statement or not. Patient was declared fit to make statement. Then statement of Geet Devi Ex. DC, was recorded in the presence of Investigating Officer but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, application Ex. DA requesting the Executive Magistrate, to record the dying declaration and statement of Geeta Devi Ex. DC were not exhibited by the prosecution. No suggestion to Devinder Singh, Executive Magistrate, that there was no request to record the dying declaration and dying declaration was not recorded by him in the presence of Investigating Officer, after obtaining opinion from the doctor. According to the dying declaration Ex. DC, deceased caught fire accidentally.
On 19.10.1996, complainant was very much present in PGI, Chandigarh, but intentionally while appearing in Court stated that he cannot tell whether statement of Geeta Devi was recorded by the Executive Magistrate or not on that day. Suppose, Ram Chander has no knowledge about the arrival of Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration or dying declaration was not recorded when Ram Chander was in PGI, Chandigarh then the question is before the occurrence dated 18.10.1996, he had the knowledge that there was a demand of ` 25,000/- CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -16- by the appellant and due to non-payment of ` 25,000/- appellant used to misbehave and maltreat his daughter Geeta Devi. Immediately after the occurrence dated 18.10.1996, when Geeta was lying admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, then Ram Chander, should have reported the matter to the police. But no reason why Ram Chander remained silent. On 31.10.1996, he was in PGI, Chandigarh and when Geeta Devi was alone then she disclosed to her father that she was set on fire meaning thereby there was oral dying declaration by the deceased before her father Ram Chander, who after oral dying declaration not reported the matter to the police. Instead of reporting the matter to the police Ram Chander came back to his village.
On 1.11.1996, again Ram Chander had gone to PGI, Chandigarh, but by that time Geeta Devi was no more. After the death of Geeta Devi statement of Ram Chander Ex. PC was recorded at 12.30 p.m. and statement is to the effect that marriage was solemnized on 12.3.1996. Sufficient dowry was given as per his statement but after marriage appellant, his mother and sister-in-law used to maltreat and misbehave Geeta Devi for want of dowry. Appellant was demanding ` 25,000/- and used to torture Geeta Devi under the influence of liquor. On the basis of same evidence mother and sister-in-law were acquitted by the trial Court. Earlier to 18.10.1996, there was no complaint to any authority regarding demand of dowry. There was no Panchayat. Close relations of the complainant appeared in defence and stated that there was no dispute amongst the deceased and the appellant. CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -17-
DW-2 Jagbir Singh, is the neighbour of the appellant and stated that there was no dispute amongst the appellant and the deceased. DW-3 Subhash Chand, is the son-in-law of the complainant. Subhash Chand was married with Rano, daughter of Ram Chander-complainant. Rano is the real sister of Geeta Devi (deceased). Marriage of both the sisters were performed on the same day. Subhash Chand, had no knowledge about the demand of dowry by the appellant.
DW-5 Iqbal Singh, is the brother-in-law of the complainant and his house was at a distance of 20 yards from the house of the appellant. He stated that there was no dispute regarding dowry amongst the deceased and the appellant. Statements of the close relations of the complainant inspires confidence. When on 18.10.1996, deceased had informed the doctor that she caught fire accidentally and later on before the Executive Magistrate on 19.10.1996, stated that she had caught fire accidentally and no one is at fault but statement of the deceased i.e. dying declaration was ignored simply on the allegation that statement is not on oath. Statement was not recorded by any Judicial Magistrate. Lastly, statement is not in question answer form and statement is contradictory to the oral dying declaration dated 31.10.1996 i.e. before the complainant. When there are two dying declarations one is oral and the second is recorded by the Executive Magistrate, then there was no reason to discard the dying declaration Ex. DC, recorded by the Executive Magistrate, particularly when no allegation against the Executive Magistrate, that statement was not recorded correctly by the CRA-S-1007-SB of 2002 -18- him and no allegation that deceased was tutored by anybody.
No other submission was put forward.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is ordered to be set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal is allowed.
January 18, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE