Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Accused Suraj Bhan. Rajender and Smt. Nazina (hereinafter referred to as A-1, A-2 and A-3, respectively), have filed this appeal against the judgment of their conviction and the order of sentence, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby they have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Nargis (wife of A-1) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.

2. A-1 is the husband of the deceased. A-2 is the cousin of A-1. A-3 is the wife of A-2. The grand fathers of A-1 and A-2 were real brothers. A-2 is running the Audio and Video Cassettee shop at village Pooth Kalan, Delhi and is residing there along with his wife (A-3).

3. According to the prosecution version, deceased Nargis was married to A-1 in November, 1999. She was residing with her husband in village Kakroi, District Sonepat. On the intervening night of 7/8.7.2003, she was got admitted by her husband Suraj Bhan (A-1) in Civil Hospital, Sonepat with 90% burn injuries. Dr. V.K. Gupta (PW.7) conducted the medico legal examination of Nargis. He found superficial deep injuries on her whole body. The burn injuries were fresh. He sent ruqa (Ex.PD/1 to the police. Thereupon, ASI Balraj Singh (PW.16) reached the Hospital and moved application (Ex.PD/2 seeking opinion of the Doctor about the fitness of the patient to make statement. Dr. V.K. Gupta, vide his opinion (Ex.PD/3) declared the patient unfit to make statement. In the meanwhile, Nargis was referred to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi.

5. On 9.7.2003, ASI Balraj Singh of Police Station Sadar Sonepat went to the Hospital and moved an application (Ex.PN) before the Doctor, seeking his opinion about the fitness of the patient to make statement. The Doctor, vide opinion (Ex.PN/1) declared the patient fit to make statement. When the aforesaid police officer went to record the statement of the patient Nargis, he came to know that the SDM, Delhi had already recorded her statement, therefore, he contacted the SDM, Delhi through SI Anil Sharma of Delhi Police and collected the said statement given by Nargis. On the basis of the said statement, the formal FIR (Ex.PB/2) under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC was recorded against the accused on 10.7.2003.

36. Another evidence, which the prosecution is relying upon, is the statement of PW.2 Randhir Singh. This witness has not supported the prosecution version with regard to the demand of dowry. He has stated that on the intervening night of 7/8.7.1993, he received a telephonic message at about 2.30 AM (night) from his daughter Seema, who told him that the accused have set Nargis on fire. Thereupon, he reached Civil Hospital, Sonepat, where the Doctor had referred his daughter to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi. His statement to the effect that the accused set his daughter on fire is based upon the information given to him by his daughter Seema (PW.3). When we have already reached to the conclusion that the testimony of PW.3 Seema is not reliable, the statement of this witness (PW.2) to the effect that she told him that the accused had set the deceased on fire cannot be relied upon, because his version is based upon the information given to him by PW.3 Seema. Further, it has come in the statement of DW.3 Tara Chand, who had taken Randhir Singh (PW.2) in his car to Civil Hospital, Sonepat, that when they reached the Hospital, daughter of Randhir Singh told him that her husband had given two/three slaps to her and thereupon, she set herself on fire. No suggestion was put to this witness (DW.3) that Randhir Singh was not taken by him to the Hospital in his car.