Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Satish And Another on 7 July, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. A. No. 598-DBA of 2002
Date of decision: 7.7.2011
State of Haryana .....Appellant.
vs.
Satish and another .....Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: - Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. AG, Punjab HEMANT GUPTA, J State is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment dated 19.11.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak acquitting the present respondents for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On receipt of a wireless message from the Incharge Police Post, PGIMS, Rohtak regarding the admission of Naresh Bala wife of Balkar Singh, ASI Samunder Singh along with the constable Subhash reached PGIMS, Rohtak. He recorded the statement of Naresh Bala (Ex. PG) after obtaining the report of the concerned doctor. Such statement was thumb marked by her and her father- Sajjan Singh. On the basis of the said statement, an entry was made in the daily diary report. Crl. A. No. 598-DBA of 2002 2
It was on 30.3.2000, on an application (Ex. PK) made before Shri Bhupender Nath, Judicial Magistrate, Meham, statement of Naresh Bala admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak was recorded on 30.3.2000 after the report of the doctor that she is fit to make her statement. Her statement (Ex. PL) was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Meham, wherein she stated that her jeth Satish caught hold of her mouth and son of Bhalle threw the bucket containing kerosene oil and her jethani Munni Devi set her on fire by a match-stick. It is stated by her that when she came to the hospital her skin was burning and she had stated in her earlier statement that she has put a lamp near a pitcher and that the story of fire was under the influence and pressure of her jeth Satish.
On the basis of the statement, a case under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the accused. It was on 2.4.2000, Naresh Bala succumbed to her injuries and the offence was converted to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After the arrest and completion of investigation, the accused were made to stand trial.
Prosecution evidence includes Dr. Atul Bhardwaj as PW-4 who declared Naresh Bala fit to make the statement on 30.3.2000. PW-5 Sajjan Singh the father of Naresh Bala whereas PW-6 Kuldip is the brother of Naresh Bala. Both have deposed that Naresh Bala told them that she got burn injuries Crl. A. No. 598-DBA of 2002 3 due to fall of lit kerosene oil lamp on her and nobody set her on fire.
PW-7 is Balkar Singh husband of Naresh Bala- deceased who has again stated that his wife got accidental burn injuries due to fall of a lit kerosene oil on her. It is he who got his wife admitted in the hospital and his wife made the statement that she got accidental burn injuries.
Learned trial Court after considering the entire prosecution evidence granted benefit of doubt to the accused. It has, inter alia, been found that in the first statement made to the police on 21.3.2000, she has not leveled any allegation against the accused and the said statement is not only thumb marked by her but by her father as well. It is after nine days, the statement is recorded by a Magistrate, wherein, she implicates her jeth Satish and her jethani Munni Devi. Learned trial Court has found that father of the deceased Sajjan Singh (PW-5) and Kuldeep brother of the deceased (PW-6) have deposed that Naresh Bala has told them that she has got accidental fire. Learned trial Court also noticed that in the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate she has not attributed any specific motive upon Satish and his wife Munni Devi to eliminate her.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any illegality and irregularity in the order passed by learned trial Court. The first statement was made by the deceased on 21.3.2000. It is stated that it is a case of Crl. A. No. 598-DBA of 2002 4 accidental fire. Such statement is thumb marked by her father. He appeared as PW-5 and reiterated the version that his daughter has told him that it was a case of accidental fire. Such stand is supported by PW-6 Kuldeep, brother of the deceased as well.
In these circumstances, the statement recorded by a Magistrate on 30.3.2000 cannot be said to be sufficient to convict the respondents. The statement recorded after nine days of the occurrence and when there is enough time for her to change her mind cannot be said to be true version and sufficient to convict the respondents herein.
In view of the above, we do not find any perversity in the judgment dated 19.11.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge which may warrant any interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 7.7.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) preeti JUDGE