Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 18 (PNJ)

Beero Alias Beermati v. State Of Haryana

2000-01-11

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K. S. Kumaran, J. 1. - F. I. R. No.19 dated 30-1-1999 has been registered at Police Station Sampla, under Sections 302, 506, 201.34, IPC on the statement of Rekha recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. These three petitions for bail under Sec.439, Cr. P. C. arising from the same FIR are considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. In this statement recorded on 19-1-1999 the following allegations have been made: 3. On 17-1-1999 at 8 p. m. complainant-Rekha was left in a room on the upper portion of her house by her mother-in-law-Indra (petitioner in Cr1. Misc. No.30932/m/1999 and sister-in-law-Beero (petitioner in Cr1. Misc. No.29423- M/1999 ). The complainants husband-Virender started to quarrel with the complainant and stated that he will kill her. He tore her shirt and also gave a brick blow. The complainant told that she will leave the house but he stated that he had brought the complainant to kill her, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze with a match stick. The complainant had her son Vijay Kumar with her, and wrapped in the quilt she fought with her husband; Her husband locked the room from the inside with a lock. The complainants sister-in-law Beero, mother-in-law Indra and father-in-law Same Ram were sitting outside. The complainant raised noise and other persons also came there, Clothes were sticking with the complainantts body and those were burnt by them stating that no clue should be left. The complainant came downstairs by herself. Then they told the complainant that if she would tell that she got burnt by getting fire from the lamp then they would bring medical aid, but if she would tell that she was burnt, no medical aid would be brought and her sons would be killed. Her brother-in-law Sahib Singh brought her to the Hospital. The complainantts parents came to the Hospital at 5 or 6 Oclock Yesterday the complainant had given the statement under pressure wherein the complainant had stated that she got burnt herself. 4. It is on the basis of this statement that the FIR in question has been registered on 30-1-1999, Rekha, the complainant died ultimately on 13-2-1999. 5. The petitioners in these applications were arrested and they moved application for bail before the Sessions Court. Rohtak, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissed their applications. Therefore, they have approached this Court. It is on the basis of this statement that the FIR in question has been registered on 30-1-1999, Rekha, the complainant died ultimately on 13-2-1999. 5. The petitioners in these applications were arrested and they moved application for bail before the Sessions Court. Rohtak, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissed their applications. Therefore, they have approached this Court. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and have perused the records on file. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that on 18-1-1999 the statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, wherein Rekha had stated that while cooking food a lighted lamp fell on her and she caught fire accidentally, but after her parents had come due to their pressure, she changed the statement and another statement was recorded on 19-1-1999 by another Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that even in the FIR registered on the basis of the statement recorded on 19-1-1999 no role has been attributed to the petitioners-Beero and Indra except that they left he complainant in the room on the upper portion of the house and that they remained sitting outside the room while the complainant was allegedly being set on fire by her husband. He also points out that the only role attributed to Same Ram, father-in-law is that he was also sitting outside the room at that time. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that there are now two dying-declarations with contradictory allegations and though the later statement was recorded on 191-1999 the FIR has been registered only on 30- 1-1999. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the subsequent contradictory statement was recorded after the parents of the deceased had come and moved an application. He also contends that Beero, sister-in-law was married 15 years ago and had come only on 14-1-1999 for Sankranti Festival. But the learned Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that Rekha had sustained 75% burns, but he conceded that Rekha had not implicated the petitioners in her statement dated 19-1-1999. The learned Counsel for the State also points out that the clothes which were sticking to the body of Rekha had been burnt by them to destroy the evidence. The learned Counsel for the State also points out that the clothes which were sticking to the body of Rekha had been burnt by them to destroy the evidence. According to him, the first statement was given under pressure in view of the threat given by the petitioners that she would be given medical aid only if she stated that the fire was accidental or otherwise they would, not give her medical aid and would also kill her sons. The learned Counsel for the State also points out that the petitioners had not taken Rekha to the Hospital, but, it was her husbands brother who had taken her to the Hospital. According to the learned Counsel for the State from these circumstances, it could be presumed that the petitioners had conspired, with the husband-Rekha to kill her. 9. But, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is not even alleged that the petitioners had even made any demand for dowry and no motive whatsoever has been attributed to them and, therefore, they had no reason at all to enter into conspiracy with the husband of Rekha to kill her. He also contends that the allegations that the sister-in-law and mother-in-law left Rekha in the room, that they were sitting outside the room at the time when her husband allegedly burnt her, and also that they did not take her to the Hospital cannot in any way mean that they had conspired to kill Rekha. He also contends that the general allegations that they threatened Rekha not to disclose the truth, and that they also destroyed the cloth sticking to her body to destroy evidence are also not enough to show any conspiracy especially when in the first statement she had not implicated the petitioners at all but had implicated them only in the second statement after her parents had come and also in view of the delay in lodging the FIR itself. 10. Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by both the sides, but, at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 11. Petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Petition allowed.