Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 585 (PNJ)

Satish Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2002-05-23

K.S.GAREWAL

body2002
Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala decided an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on November 7, 2001 in case entitled State v. Vinod Kumar and others registered vide FIR 74 dated September 22, 2000 under Sections 302 and 34, alternatively under Section 304-B IPC at PS Bhadaur. The application was allowed and six petitioners herein were directed to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief background of the case is necessary to be introduced before adverting to the legal submissions. Marriage between Neha @ Anu Bala daughter of Ved Parkash (PW 1) was performed with Vinod Kumar accused in December 1998 at Barnala. At the time of the marriage Ved Parkash had given sufficient dowry in accordance with his capacity but Vinod Kumar and his parents Ramesh Kumar and Savitri Devi started harassing Neha @ Anu Bala for bringing insufficient dowry. According to Ved Parkash some money and clothes were given to Neha @ Anu Bala and Vinod Kumar and his parents remained quiet for some time but later they then demanded a scooter which Ved Parkash was not in a position to provide a scooter. However, he gave Rs. 20,000/- to his daughter who paid it to her husband. The couple had a son in December 1999 in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Ved Parkash stated that he incurred the expenses for his daughters treatment in hospital. Ved Parkash also gave customary presents at the birth of the child-Shushak. Ved Parkash alleged that after some time Vinod Kumar, his parents as well as brother Satish Kumar, sisters Seema, Reeta and Anupam and brother-in-law Pardeep Kumar (Reetas husband) started harassing Neha @ Anu Bala for bringing insufficient shushak. They also asked her for a car and Rs. 11000/- for each of them. Neha @ Anu Bala told her husband and his family that her parents had given enough and were unable to give more dowry but they continued harassing her. The entire episode was narrated to Ved Parkash by his daughter on a visit to Barnala. They also asked her for a car and Rs. 11000/- for each of them. Neha @ Anu Bala told her husband and his family that her parents had given enough and were unable to give more dowry but they continued harassing her. The entire episode was narrated to Ved Parkash by his daughter on a visit to Barnala. Thereupon, Ved Parkash, his wife and brother Krishan Chand along with Neha @ Anu Bala went to the in-laws house at Bhadaur where they met Vinod Kumar and his parents as well as Satish Kumar, Seema, Anupam, Reeta and Pardeep Kumar and told them that they were not in a position to give more dowry and their daughter should not be harassed but they replied that they would only keep his daughter if she brought a car and paid the above amounts. When Ved Parkash left the house his daughter told him that he should take her with them otherwise she would be killed. However, Ved Parkash assured his daughter about safety and left her with husband. Harassment continued. Neha @ Anu Bala telephoned her father and told him that her in-laws were harassing her at the instance of Kasturi Lal and that she should be taken back. This was in May 1999. Much later on September 21, 1999 Neha @ Anu Bala called up her father and told him that she should be taken back otherwise she would be killed. Ved Parkash then called his brother and was preparing to leave for Bhadaur when a telephone call was received that Neha @ Anu Bala had received burns and she was being taken to Civil Hospital Barnala. Later Ved Parkash came to know that she had been taken to Ludhiana. When he reached Ludhiana along with his wife and brother at 6 PM and went to DMC Ludhiana he saw that his daughter had succumbed to extensive burn injuries. (the above has been culled from the statement of Ved Parkash as PW 1 on August 21, 2001). 3. After investigation the police sent up only Vinod Kumar and his parents Ramesh Kumar and Savitri Devi for trial but the trial court, after recording the statements Ved Parkash PW 1 and Ruldu Ram PW2, decided to invoke the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and ordered that Satish Kumar, Anupam Rani, Pardeep Kumar, Seema and Kasturi Lal be summoned as additional accused. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the evidence against the petitioners was insufficient to make them stand trial. Reference was made to the solitary instance of harassment and dowry demand made by the petitioners as revealed in Ved Parkashs statement with regard to the visit to Bahadur where he met Satish Kumar, Seema, Anupam, Reeta, Pardeep Kumar and where he was told that they would only keep his daughter after a car (had been provided) and aforesaid amount was paid to them (Rs. 11,000/- each). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the reliance placed on the statement of Ruldu Ram (PW 2) who testified that he was present near the emergency gate of DMC Hospital on September 21, 2000 at about 4.45 PM when a car reached there carrying Neha @ Anu Bala in a burnt condition. When he enquired about her well being she told Ruldu Ram that Kasturi Lal, Ramesh, Savitri, Vinod Satish Seema, Reeta, Anu and Pardeep Kumar had set her ablaze at the instance of Kasturi Lal. According to the counsel, the court had given misplaced importance to Ruldu Rams statement because if Ruldu Ram had indeed heard the so-called dying declaration made to him by the deceased he would have definitely informed the father of the deceased about it and the fact would have certainly been mentioned by Ved Parkash in his statement on the basis of which FIR was registered on September 22, 2000 under Sections 304-B, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC at PS Bhadaur. 6. The sole point which is required to be determined is whether on the basis of the principle laid down in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 75 (SC) : AIR 2000(2) SC 1127, the petitioners should have been summoned. 7. In the present case Ruldu Rams statement to the effect that the deceased had told him about having been set ablaze by the three accused and the six petitioners at the instance of Kasturi Lal cannot be accepted. The reasons are many. Firstly, Ruldu Ram did not inform Ved Parkash that the deceased had been set ablaze at the instance of Kasturi Lal and the petitioners had also taken part. It is obvious from Ved Parkashs statement that Ruldu Rams version was not known to him. The reasons are many. Firstly, Ruldu Ram did not inform Ved Parkash that the deceased had been set ablaze at the instance of Kasturi Lal and the petitioners had also taken part. It is obvious from Ved Parkashs statement that Ruldu Rams version was not known to him. Is not it very strange that such an important piece of evidence should remain hidden from the father of the deceased. Secondly, this evidence also remained hidden from the investigators until Ruldu Rams statement was recorded on September 28, 2000 a good six days after the occurrence. Thirdly, the State could argue that Ruldu Ram and Ved Parkash never met before Ved Parkashs statement was recorded by the police but the counter argument is that the two must have met at the time of the cremation of the dead body as Ruldu Ram had stated that he was present at the cremation. The prosecution could still say that Ruldu Ram may have presumed that Ved Parkash knew about the involvement of the petitioners and must have mentioned it in his statement to the police. The answer to this is that Ved Parkash could never have knowledge that Neha @ Anu Bala was alive when she reached DMC, Ludhiana at 4.45 PM and had spoken to Ruldu Ram before she became unconscious and was taken to the emergency ward of DMC where she succumbed to the burn injured at 6.45 PM. This fact was within the knowledge of Ruldu Ram alone and not Ved Parkash. Therefore, unless Ruldu Ram spoke to Ved Parkash about what Neha @ Anu Bala had told him, Ved Parkash would never come to know about the involvement of the petitioners. 8. It is highly unlikely that court would accept Ruldu Rams statement that he had met Neha @ Anu Bala at 4.45 PM and spoken to her and that she had named the six petitioners and the three accused and accused them of setting her ablaze at the instance of Kasturi Lal. Ruldu Ram remained silent for six days. He did not even think it appropriate to inform Ved Parkash about the last words spoken by his daughter. 9. Moreover, there is no other collateral or corroborative evidence that the deceased was in a position to speak a few hours before death. Ruldu Ram remained silent for six days. He did not even think it appropriate to inform Ved Parkash about the last words spoken by his daughter. 9. Moreover, there is no other collateral or corroborative evidence that the deceased was in a position to speak a few hours before death. No Medical Officer has been produced to confirm that her conscious mental state was even capable of coherent thought and speech. It is very unlikely that the persons who brought the deceased in Hospital would permit a rank outsider to have a word with a badly burnt woman close to death. 10. The above analysis of the evidence before the trial court was absolutely essential to determine whether the petitioners were liable to be tried as accused by invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., The quality of evidence before the Court was not such that the court could ever be hopeful that there was reasonable prospect of the newly added accused being convicted on the basis of the so-called dying declaration made by Neha @ Anu Bala to Raldu Ram. 11. Since the evidence against the petitioners has been found to be deficient on close scrutiny the case is covered by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Michael Machado case (Supra). Accordingly this petition is accepted and the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala is hereby set aside.