Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 710 (PNJ)

Ranbir v. State Of Haryana

2001-07-19

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
JudgmentJudgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. On 11.1.1993, around 4.00 a.m. Smt. Nahni @ Mayawanti, a young issueless woman received almost 100% burns in her residential house in village Bakherta within the area of Police Station, Sampla. She was removed to the Civil Hospital by Ranbir, her husband, appellant-accused with whom she was married about 4/5 years prior to her death. No Judicial Officer could be available to record the dying declaration of Smt. Mayawanti. Ultimately on the same day i.e. 11.1.1993 Dr. Naveen Chitkara P.W. 5 recorded the dying declaration Ex. PF around 2.00 p.m. She was asked in question answer form the circumstances which led to the incident of fire. 2. The deceased, however, claimed that she lived with her husband Ranbir, who along with Kamla, his brothers wife poured kerosene on her. Kamla @ Bimla appellant lighted a match stick and set her ablaze. She also claimed that the neighbours rescued her. The demand of money from her was the motive for the crime. She also stated that she wanted punishment to these offenders. 3. On the basis of the said statement/dying declaration Ex. PF First Information Report Ex. PF/2 was recorded at 3.20 p.m. and special report reached the learned Ilaqa Magistrate at 9.00 p.m. the same day i.e. on 11.1.1993 as the deceased had expired at 7.50 p.m. 4. As a result of the aforesaid situation, the statement of Rampat P.W.6, the father of the deceased was recorded by ASI Nar Singh P.W. 10. During the investigation of the case, it was claimed that the appellant Ranbir had asked for a colour T.V. of the value of Rs. 10,000/- and also demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash. He also stated that Attar Singh had brought the deceased from the matrimonial home some time back when she was being harassed by the appellants. The deceased had also allegedly made allegations of harassment at the hands of Kamla appellant. Thereafter ASI Nar Singh P.W. 10 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex. PG. He also got the scene of occurrence photographed. He also took into possession an iron container of 5 litres, burnt clothes, broken match box, semi-burnt plastic Chappals, out of which one Chappal was having burnt skin of right foot, vide memo Ex. PH. PG. He also got the scene of occurrence photographed. He also took into possession an iron container of 5 litres, burnt clothes, broken match box, semi-burnt plastic Chappals, out of which one Chappal was having burnt skin of right foot, vide memo Ex. PH. On receipt of message from the hospital regarding the death of the deceased, the offence was converted into under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Inquest report Ex. PL was prepared. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. On 13.1.1993 Ranbir appellant was arrested and on 18.1.1993 Kamla appellant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were put to trial. 5. Dr. Nidhi Jain P.W. 8 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mayawanti deceased on 12.1.1993 at 2.15 p.m. and found that there were 100% superficial and deep burns. Walls of the chest were burnt. Pleaura were Inflamed. In lyrnx and trachea carbon particles were present. Both the lungs were congested. Abdominal wall was burnt. All other organs were congested. External organs of genital were burnt and uterus was not pregnant. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased was due to shock caused by massive burns which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex. PK is the copy of the post-mortem report. 6. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PT disclosed that kerosene was found on the clothes of the deceased. 7. At the trial, the appellants took up the plea that in fact families of both the brothers Ranbir and Zile Singh were living separately from each other right from the marriages of both the brothers. It was also being claimed that the dying declaration was a tutored one as the relations of the deceased were telling her to make a statement involving the appellants. Ranbir appellant claimed that he had taken the deceased to the hospital and looked after her throughout and had no complaint of any kind. He has been falsely involved because deceased was not having any issue and also suspected his illicit relations with Kamla @ Bimla (his Bhabi). Three witnesses were produced in defence to take up the aforesaid pleas. Ranbir appellant claimed that he had taken the deceased to the hospital and looked after her throughout and had no complaint of any kind. He has been falsely involved because deceased was not having any issue and also suspected his illicit relations with Kamla @ Bimla (his Bhabi). Three witnesses were produced in defence to take up the aforesaid pleas. The learned Trial Judge convicted both Ranbir and Kamla appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 8. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence Ranbir and Kamla appellants filed Crl. A. No. 260-DB of 1997 whereas the complainant party filed Crl. R. No. 422 of 1997 for enhancement of sentence. Both the appeal and criminal revision are being disposed of together by this judgment. 9. The learned. Counsel for the appellants has taken us through the entire medical evidence. He has also taken us through the statement of Rampat P.W. 6, father of the deceased. The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of Dr. Mahabir Singh P.W. 9, who has not mentioned anywhere in the medico-legal report that any kerosene was found on the clothes of the deceased or any such kerosene was found on the Chappal of the deceased taken into possession nor any kerosene was found on any part or .piece of the body of the deceased. The learned Counsel has categorically referred to a brief cross-examination of this Medical Officer where he had stated that if he had observed the smell of kerosene, he would have mentioned the same in the medico-legal report. However, this argument is negatived by the fact that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PT mentioned the presence of kerosene in the clothes of the deceased. A part of the report is reproduced hereunder : "Exhibit-1-One empty metallic container of 5 litres capacity. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Exhibit-4-One partially burnt cut and torn dark blue coloured coat along with burnt and partially burnt pieces of clothes of different colours stated to be salwar, Jhamffar, coat, etc. Result of Examination : Kerosene residues were detected in Exhibits 1 and 4." 10. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Exhibit-4-One partially burnt cut and torn dark blue coloured coat along with burnt and partially burnt pieces of clothes of different colours stated to be salwar, Jhamffar, coat, etc. Result of Examination : Kerosene residues were detected in Exhibits 1 and 4." 10. The learned Counsel also urged that the statement of the deceased was recorded by a Medical Officer without having ascertained as to whether the deceased was fit to make such a statement. Dr. Naveen Chitkara P.W. 5 should have furnished a separate certificate to the effect that the patient was fit to make a statement. According to him, it was improbable that the lady who got 100 per cent burns at 4.00 a.m., would be fit to make a dying declaration at 2.00 p.m. while she passed away at 7.50 p.m. However, Dr. Naveen Chitkara P.W. 5 has been cross-examined at length and nothing has been suggested to him that he had any bias against the appellants or had anything to favour the complainant side. The Medical Officer has put a very few and brief questions to the deceased. The corroborative evidence is that of Rampat P.W. 6, father of the deceased, who has stated that there was a background of demand of dowry. 11. The learned Counsel further urged that the entire F.I.R. is highly belated and that both the appellants lived separately with their families and there was neither any demand of dowry nor was there any reason for the appellants to commit such a crime. He further urged that this was exploitation of the situation and that the deceased died when she was preparing meals, etc. and that the appellants have been involved falsely. We are of the firm view that time 4.00 a.m. was not time to prepare meals and that there appears to be no occasion for accidental fire. It is immaterial that the appellant Ranbir took the deceased to the hospital. The situation differs from case-to-case. 12. The dying declaration of the" deceased was recorded by a Medical Officer who was naturally person in the hospital and was on duty and had absolutely no motive against any one. Dr. Naveen Chitkara P.W. 5 has claimed that the patient was in full senses when she made the dying declaration. The situation differs from case-to-case. 12. The dying declaration of the" deceased was recorded by a Medical Officer who was naturally person in the hospital and was on duty and had absolutely no motive against any one. Dr. Naveen Chitkara P.W. 5 has claimed that the patient was in full senses when she made the dying declaration. In the given circumstances we have no reason to discard and disbelieve that dying declaration and the same is corroborated by Rampat P.W. 6 father of the deceased, who after having come to know about the incident rushed to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, where the deceased was admitted and it was disclosed to the father also that Ranbir and Kamla had poured kerosene and Kamla had set her on fire. He also found one empty can smelling kerosene and broken match box at the house of the appellant. He also claimed that one nail of the toe, one nail of the finger and some skin were sticking to one of the Chappals. It is not necessary that the kerosene would fall on each and every part of the body of the deceased if the kerosene had been poured in the said manner. 13. We are, therefore, of the firm view that there are no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Judge. The same is, therefore, maintained. 14. In view of the above discussion, Crl. A. No. 260-DB of 1997 and Crl. R. No. 422 of 1997 are dismissed.