Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1413 (PNJ)

Kuldip Raj v. State Of Punjab

2002-12-20

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2002
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. The prosecution story is that on June 6, 1987 at about 8.00 P.M. accused Kuldip Raj went in the house of Nirmla Devi with the intention of committing rape. He molested her and made an attempt to rape her. On June 6, 1987 due to this shame, Nirmla Devi committed suicide. The statement of Nirmla Devi was recorded by Sub Inspector Amar Singh on June 7, 1987 at 10.30 A.M. in the Civil Hospital, Pathankot. She stated that at the time when an attempt of rape was made on her, her brother Darshan Lal and one Kala, younger brother of her sisters husband were present and the entire incident was witnessed by them. She further stated before the Sub Inspector that as she could not tolerate this insult, she went inside the house and consumed insecticides. Darshan Lal and Kala then brought her to the Civil Hospital, Pathankot. On her statement, formal First Information Report, Exhibit PG/2 was recorded. When she was admitted in the hospital, she was not fit to make a statement. On June 6, 1987 at 11.45 P.M. the doctor opined that she was not fit to make a statement. On June 7, 1987 at 10.00 A.M. the doctor opined that she was fit to make a statement. This application is Exhibit PE. Her statement was recorded at 10.00 A.M. on June 7, 1987. On June 7, 1987 at 2.30 P.M. Dr. Vijay Mahajan (PW-3) informed the police vide ruqa Exhibit PD that Nirmla Devi had died. 2. The prosecution to prove its case examined Dr. Krishan Mohan (PW-1), Dr. Arvind Gautam (PW-2), Dr. Vijay Mahajan (PW-3), Dr. G.L. Kukreja, S.M.O., Civil Hospital, Pathankot (PW-4), Darshan Lal (PW-5), Gurbux Singh, Draftsman (PW-6), Rattan Chand (PW-7). Sub Inspector Amar Singh (PW-8) and Inspector Jaimal Singh (PW-9). 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the State, examined the record, gone through the statements of the witnesses and the judgment of the learned trial Court. 4. The eye-witness to the occurrence is PW-5 Darshan Lal, brother of the deceased. PW-7 Rattan Chand is father of the deceased. No independent witness was cited by the prosecution. The occurrence in this case had taken place at about 8 P.M. on June 6, 1987. Naresh Kumar alias Kala, though cited as a witness, was not brought into the witness box. PW-7 Rattan Chand is father of the deceased. No independent witness was cited by the prosecution. The occurrence in this case had taken place at about 8 P.M. on June 6, 1987. Naresh Kumar alias Kala, though cited as a witness, was not brought into the witness box. The duty hours of Darshan Lal (PW-5) at his work place was from 8.00 A.M. to 8.0 P.M. and therefore, his presence is doubtful. Further, two able bodied persons were present in the house when molestation of the deceased had taken place. It is very strange that they did not make any attempt to catch hold of the accused. The accused at that time was not armed. The statement, Exhibit -PG which is recorded by the Investigating Officer, was not recorded in the presence of the doctor nor was there any attempt made on behalf of the Investigating Officer to record the statement in front of the doctor or nurse or any other employee of the hospital, who was attending to the deceased. The occurrence in this case had taken place at about 8.00 P.M. People of the locality at that time were still awake. The month was of June and there is enough light at 8.00 P.M. in the evening. 5. Learned counsel for the State has relied heavily on the statements of PW-5 Darshan Lal brother of the deceased, PW-7 Rattan Chand, father of the deceased and the statement of Nirmla Devi before the Investigating Officer. The statement, though in the form of dying declaration, was made before the Investigating Officer, but what prevented the Investigating Officer from recording it in front of the doctor or any .employee of the hospital, casts a doubt on the statement of the deceased. The statement of the deceased seems to be fabricated. Rattan Chand PW-7 has himself stated that he was not present at the time of incident. 6. A doubt is created in the mind of the Court, benefit of which goes to the accused. The appeal is allowed. Appellant is, accordingly, acquitted of the charges.