Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1561 (RAJ)

Prabhati v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-25

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Honble BALI, J.–Sumitra who had hardly reached the age of 21 years and was recently blessed with a daughter is said to have been set ablaze by her mother in law Prabhati, appellant herein. As per the prosecution version, Sumitra was done to death on 4.4.2003 at 8 or 8.30 in the morning. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Phool Chand, father of the deceased on 7.4.2003 at 4.30 p.m. It is on the basis of written report made by him that formal FIR came to be entered and registered copy whereof and special report was sent to the concerned Magistrate on 8.4.2003 at 10.30 a.m. Phool Chand, narrated events leading to death of his daughter Sumitra in the written report which, when translated into english, would read as follows: ``It is humbly prayed that the daughter of the complainant was married according to Hindu rituals on 6.12.2001 to Satyapal son of Sayarmal resident of Sangarwa at Village Laxmangarh. The applicant according to his financial condition had given cash, jewellery and other articles at the time of marriage as dowry. After marriage when the daughter of the complainant came back to her parents house she told them that her brother-in-law blamed her for lowering their social status and that he is a big officer in LIC and her mother in law, husband, sister in law and the wife of her brother-in-law abused her, demanded Scooter and Fridge and they also beat her. On this, we told our daughter that we would make them understand that she was newly wed and everything would be . After 10-15 days, when Satyapal came to take Sumitra then I told him that I am a person of limited means and that I have married two of my daughters together and that I am not in a position to give more articles and that I would arrange for them later on. On this, Satyapal did not say anything and took Sumitra to Sangarwa. After taking Sumitra to her in laws she was kept well for about one month and after that her husband Satyapal, her father-in-law Sayarmal, mother-in-law Prabhati and sister-in-law Saroj started abusing her physically and did not provide ample quantity of food and clothing and this went on for 10-15 days. After taking Sumitra to her in laws she was kept well for about one month and after that her husband Satyapal, her father-in-law Sayarmal, mother-in-law Prabhati and sister-in-law Saroj started abusing her physically and did not provide ample quantity of food and clothing and this went on for 10-15 days. After that, her brother-in-law Lalchand dropped my daughter Sumitra to Laxmangarh stating that she would come again only with the dowry articles demanded earlier. The daughter of the complainant Sumitra remained with her father about one month. The complainant along with Mohanlal son of Shri Gopi Ram, Sukhchain brother of Sumitra and other family members went to the in-laws of the girl at Sangarwa. On this, the in-laws of the girl apologized for the same and promised to keep the girl in a good state. On this, the complainant left her daughter at the in-laws place and came back to Laxmangarh. After about 12 months the daughter of the complainant Sumitra gave birth to a daughter and on 4.4.2003 information was conveyed to the complainant that his daughter was seriously ill and he should immediately come to hospital at Sikar. When the complainant reached hospital at Sikar he came to know that his daughter had been murdered by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. The applicant verbally complained to the Dy. SP that his daughter was harassed by her parents-in-laws and they had all jointly murdered his daughter. When the complainant asked the Dy. SP to register the report, the Dy. S.P. asked the complainant to sign some documents first and after signing some documents the report to be registered. The complainant returned again to Laxmangarh and could not register report because of his ill health and that of his wife. Therefore, this request to register the report and take necessary action against the culprits. (2). It is conceded position that appellant Prabhati has been convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration made by Sumitra before she succumbed to burn injuries. Therefore, this request to register the report and take necessary action against the culprits. (2). It is conceded position that appellant Prabhati has been convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration made by Sumitra before she succumbed to burn injuries. Phool Chand, father of deceased, examined as PW-1, Mohan Lal, paternal uncle of the deceased examined as PW-2, Lal Chand husbands brother of the deceased examined as PW-3, Smt. Aanchi, mother of the deceased, examined as PW-4, Smt. Sunavanti, paternal aunt of the deceased examined as PW-5, Smt. Sampati Devi, brothers wife of the deceased examined as PW-6, Banwari and Durga Prasad, neighbours of the appellant (PW-8 and 9 respectively) and Sukhchain, cousin of deceased (PW-10) were declared hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. (3). The sole question that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether conviction of the appellant could be sustained on dying declaration alone made by Sumitra. With a view to find an answer to the only question mooted out before this Court, the relevant facts leading to making of dying declaration by Sumitra have necessarily to be noticed. Post mortem report (Ex.P.15) of Sumitra would reveal that she was admitted in S.K. Hospital, Sikar at 9.45 a.m. on 4.4.2003 as a case of about 100% burns; smell of kerosene oil was present; the patient was irritable and her BP pulse was not recordable. She was examined in Ward on 4.4.2003 at 10:30 p.m. In the opinion of the board of doctors, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sumitra, the injuries were ante mortem in nature. It was a case of 100 per cent burns caused by dry heat. Cause of death was shock due to excessive burns. Dr. J.R. Tanwar, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sumitra was examined as PW-11. He stated that on 4.4.2003, when he was working as Medical Jurist in SK Hospital, Sikar, on the request of SDM, Sikar a medical board was constituted of which he was a member. He along with Dr. S.S. Sharma examined the dead body of Sumitra, aged 21 years. He stated that on 4.4.2003, when he was working as Medical Jurist in SK Hospital, Sikar, on the request of SDM, Sikar a medical board was constituted of which he was a member. He along with Dr. S.S. Sharma examined the dead body of Sumitra, aged 21 years. She was admitted in the hospital in Female Surgical Ward on 4.4.2003 at 9.45 a.m. and was declared dead on the same day at 10.30 a.m. On external examination of the dead body, it was found that eyes were closed, the mouth was open, there was swelling on the lips, the skin of the body was burnt, the dead body had superficial and deep burns and the total burn area was 100% which was due to dry heat and the dead body was having smell of kerosene. In cross- examination, the doctor stated that death of Sumitra had in fact taken place at 1.30 p.m. and not at 10.30 a.m. He also stated that the patient was able to speak in that condition. He categorically denied the suggestion that in 100% burn cases in which pulse is not recordable, the patient would not be able to speak. (4). Dr. Mohd. Farooq who was examined as PW-18 stated that on 4.4.2003 when he was posted as SMO in SK Hospital, Sikar he had examined Sumitra at about 11.30 A.M. He had declared her to be fit for recording her statement. This endorsement he had made on Ex.P.46. When cross-examined, he stated that he was neither the treating doctor nor Incharge of the Female Surgical Ward at that time. He also stated that the dying declaration did not bear his signature but he qualified the aforesaid statement by further stating that the doctors do not sign the dying declarations. He denied the suggestion that the declaration given by him did not bear his signatures and that his signatures from mark `C to `D at Ex.P.46 were obtained after the death of the girl. (5). Ms. Rekha Choudhary, Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar examined as PW-16, stated that on 4.4.2003 she was posted as Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar. On that day, ASI Bhagwan Singh along with order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar gave an application to record dying declaration of Sumitra, aged 21 years. (5). Ms. Rekha Choudhary, Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar examined as PW-16, stated that on 4.4.2003 she was posted as Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar. On that day, ASI Bhagwan Singh along with order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar gave an application to record dying declaration of Sumitra, aged 21 years. On that, she reached S.K. Hospital, Sikar and recorded the dying declaration of Sumitra, who was admitted in the Female Surgical Ward on Bed No. 24. Senior Medical Officer Dr. Mohd. Farooq who was Incharge of the Ward and Incharge of the patient was present in the ward at that time and when asked whether the patient was in a position go give dying declaration, it was told by the doctor that the girl was capable of making statement. Doctor, in this regard gave a written certificate Ex.P.46 which bears her signatures from mark `A to `B and Dr. Mohd. Farooqs signatures from `C to `D. She proved the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate on Ex.P.46. ASI Bhagwan Singh had identified the girl of which a note was made by her in Ex.P.46. She saw the girl, enquired about her and found her serious but she was in a state to make her statement. She recorded statement Ex.P.47 of Sumitra which bears her thumb impression at mark `X. Right hand of the girl was bandaged and therefore, thumb impression of the left hand was obtained. The girl told that she was literate but could not sign the paper due to drip on her hand for which she made a note in Ex.P.47 from `A to `B which too bears her signatures from `C to `D. The witness further stated that whatever the girl told her, she had recorded the same. After recording statement, she sent the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with forwarding letter Ex.P.48. Dying declaration, contents whereof are significant in determining the controversy in hand, when translated into English, would read as follows: ``Before the Judicial Magistrate Smt. Rekha Choudhary, RJS, Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar. FIR No._________PS Ranoli. Name of the Hospital : S.K. Kalyan Hospital, Sikar. Ward No. Female Surgical Ward Bed No. 24 Doctor : Shri Mohd. Farooq Post Sr. Medical Officer has stated that Smt. Sumitra is in a proper state to give her dying declaration. FIR No._________PS Ranoli. Name of the Hospital : S.K. Kalyan Hospital, Sikar. Ward No. Female Surgical Ward Bed No. 24 Doctor : Shri Mohd. Farooq Post Sr. Medical Officer has stated that Smt. Sumitra is in a proper state to give her dying declaration. Date : 4.4.2003 Time-11.30 a.m. The person whose dying declaration is being recorded stated as under: My name is Sumitra, husbands name is Satpal, aged 21 years, by caste Khatik, Occupation-Housewife, resident of Sangarwa, P.S. Ranauli, District Sikar. NOTE: The condition of Sumitra is very serious. On asking her time and again and finding her fit to reply the following statements were recorded: 1. How did this happen? Answer-My mother-in-law set me on fire. 2. Why? Answer-Because I did not use to work. 3. How did she burn you? Answer-By pouring kerosene oil from bottle. 4. At that time where were you? Answer-I was in mother-in-laws room. 5. Do you have to state something else? Answer-She used to beat me earlier too. I do not remember how long I have been married. 6. Who along with you mother-in-law were involved? Answer-My mother-in-law was alone. 7. At that time who else was present at room? Answer-My mother-in-law, sister-in-law and me. My sister- in-law did not set me on fire. My sister-in-law asked me to give her my daughter as my daughter was very young. 8. Did you sister-in-law also see you immediately after you caught fire? Answer-My sister-in-law saw me after I caught fire. She was carrying my daughter and she had no information regarding my catching fire. 9. Where was your husband at that time and how is he? Answer-My husband had gone to the shop at that time. He is a nice person. 10. At what time did this incident take place? Answer-The incident took place in the morning. I cannot remember the time. I woke up at 6.00 a.m. 11. Do you want to state something else? Answer-All the facts stated by me are true and that mother- in-laws name is Prabhati. The above statements were recorded in my presence and in the presence of Dr. Mohd. Farooq and a IVth Class Peon of my court Shri Harlal son of Shri Laluram. The statements were read to the person giving the dying declaration and were true. This dying declaration contains the exact words as stated before me by Sumitra. The above statements were recorded in my presence and in the presence of Dr. Mohd. Farooq and a IVth Class Peon of my court Shri Harlal son of Shri Laluram. The statements were read to the person giving the dying declaration and were true. This dying declaration contains the exact words as stated before me by Sumitra. Sumitra accepted that she knew how to sign but she was not in a state due to bandage on her hand and the glucose drip, the right hand thumb impression was taken. (6). The details of the dying declaration, time and the manner in which it was recorded having been given above, time is now ripe to evaluate contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant who naturally contends that no implicit faith can be had on the dying declaration said to have been made by Sumitra and therefore, no conviction based upon the same can be sustained. (7). His first contention based upon the site plan (Ex.P.19) and the photographs (Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38) is that the room in which Sumitra is said to have been burnt, was bolted from inside. The inmates of the house of the appellant had to break open the door when they found smoke coming out of the room. Sumitra was taken to the hospital after breaking open the door, for medical treatment. If Sumitra had bolted the door from inside, it could be a case of suicide or at the most an accident and such death would not be homicidal, contends learned counsel. Learned counsel relies upon Notes appended to the site plan (Ex.P.19) and in particular, Note-2 which reads as follows: ``Mark (2) by this is shown the south facing room in which deceased has caught fire. By mark A is shown the gate of the room. The room is of old type design having two parted doors with hinges mounted on stone door frames with gap in the bottom in between. The wall and the roof of the room are blackened due to signs of smoke and the doors are blackened from inside. The two parts of the doors are latched by iron latch by which room could be closed from inside. The portion of the doors where the iron latch is used to close the inside shows less sign of smoke and nearby this portion show more sign of smokes. The two parts of the doors are latched by iron latch by which room could be closed from inside. The portion of the doors where the iron latch is used to close the inside shows less sign of smoke and nearby this portion show more sign of smokes. Near the door frame also out of the room on the wall of verandah signs of smoke are present and near the gap in the bottom also signs of smoke are present. The gap is shown by Mark C while Mark B shows the cement Jali on the top of the room out of whose gaps also the wall has been blackened due to signs of smoke. Outside the room two wooden fixtures are present on which basket and some clothes also show sign of smoke. The roof of the verandah near the room also shows light sign of smoke. The signs of smoke below the iron latch of the doors and near the door frame as well as gap in the bottom and the cement Jali show that smoke came out of the gaps and shows that at the time of fire room was closed from inside. (8). Photographs (Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38), counsel contends, would manifest that the inside part of the door where there was a bolt was less burnt than other part of the door. Portion of the door mentioned above was more black than rest portion of the door and from that also, it would be made out that the door was bolted from inside. Ex.P.19 site plan was proved by witness examined by defence. This site plan, it appears, was prepared by Ram Gopal who stated that on 18.5.2003 he was posted as C.O. Fatehpur. During the course of investigation, he had gone to the spot on 29.5.2003 and had made the site plan (Ex.P.19). In his cross- examination, he stated that he had made the site plan 25 days after the occurrence, which does not appear to be correct as he had made the site plan according to his own saying on 29.5.2003 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 4.4.2003. He had thus gone to the spot and had made site plan after more than a month and a half from the date of occurrence. He had thus gone to the spot and had made site plan after more than a month and a half from the date of occurrence. He admitted in his cross- examination that before he had made the site plan, the door might have been opened and closed on a number of occasions. From the site plan (Ex.P.19) which was prepared after more than a month and a half from the date of occurrence and the fact that the door might have been opened and closed on a number of occasions, note on site plan Ex.P.19 reproduced above, would be of no consequence and would not, in any manner, suggest that when the occurrence had taken place the door was bolted from inside. Further, the notes made on the site plan (Ex.P.19) do not depict that portion of the door where iron latch is and was used, depicted less blackening than other portion of the door. If latch was not used by bolting the door, it would be a different portion of the door and if on that portion blackening was less, it would not show that the latch was used. The notes made in site plan (Ex.P.19) thus do not show that the door was bolted from inside when the occurrence had taken place. In so far as the photographs Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 are concerned, on a bare look the same do not reveal as if the bolted portion of the door was less black than other portion of the door. It is significant to mention that no question with regard to the same was put to the photographer who proved various photographs inclusive of Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38 when he appeared as PW-15 on behalf of the prosecution. (9). Learned counsel then contends that the conduct of the appellant in taking the injured Sumitra to hospital would clearly show that she was interested in saving life of Sumitra and if that be so, there could be no occasion for the appellant to burn alive her daughter-in-law. We do not find any merit in the aforestated contention of the learned counsel as well. Statements made by Banwari (PW-7) and Madan Lal (PW-17) that have been relied upon by the learned counsel do not at all show that the appellant had taken Sumitra to hospital. We do not find any merit in the aforestated contention of the learned counsel as well. Statements made by Banwari (PW-7) and Madan Lal (PW-17) that have been relied upon by the learned counsel do not at all show that the appellant had taken Sumitra to hospital. While appearing as PW-7, Banwari only stated in his cross examination that in the room in which Sumitra caught fire, the doors were put on hinges and after removing the doors from the hinges, she was brought out and they had taken her to hospital. Banwari is a hostile witness. He was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and as mentioned above, the aforementioned statement he made in cross examination adverted to him by the defence and thereafter also, he did not name the appellant as one of the persons who had taken Sumitra to the hospital. Madan Lal who was examined as PW-17 once again stated that they had taken out the doors from the hinges and brought Sumitra out and then she was taken out from the room. She told that she was burnt to fall of chimney. This witness also never stated that Sumitra was taken to the hospital by the appellant. Assuming that the appellant had taken Sumitra to hospital, still that would not be enough to conclude that she had not committed the crime alleged against her. It is possible that in given circumstances, a person committing crime may realise his/her mistake and try to find out remedial measures but that would not absolve such a person from the crime committed by him/her. (10). Learned counsel then contends that it has come in the statements of number of witnesses that Sumitra was tutored by the police before she had made statement before the Magistrate which has been treated to be the dying declaration. We simply find no evidence on that count but for statements of some of the witnesses who were declared hostile by the prosecution. Further, the defence did not gather courage to put any question to any of the witnesses nor did it led any evidence to show that parents of the deceased were residing at a short distance and had indeed arrived in the hospital before Sumitra made her statement. Whatever evidence has come on the records, the same shows arrival of the parents in the hospital only after death of Sumitra. Whatever evidence has come on the records, the same shows arrival of the parents in the hospital only after death of Sumitra. That apart, if Sumitra was to be tutored, she would not have named the appellant alone as the culprit. It is significant to mention that father at least at the time he lodged FIR squarely blamed everyone in house of the appellant responsible for death of his daughter. If therefore, Sumitra might have been tutored it was natural for her to have named others as well. Secondly, she specifically stated that none other than the appellant-her mother-in-law was responsible for setting her ablaze. With regard to her husband, she clearly stated that he was a nice man. With regard to her sister-in-law, she stated that she had seen her only when she was burning and not before that. (11). The last contention of the learned counsel in support of the present appeal is that while recording order of conviction based solely on dying declaration, the court must look in for corroboration if there be infirmities therein. For his aforestated contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panchdeo Singh vs. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 577 = (RLW 2002(1) SC 71). He also contends that the dying declaration recorded in suspicious circumstances should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence and that in the present case, even parents of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel in support of his contention mentioned above, once again relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rasheed Beg and Others vs. State of M.P. ( AIR 1974 SC 332 ). We do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel as well. Dying declaration made by Sumitra inspires confidence, contents whereof speak volumes of truth stated by a dying person about whom it is said that normally the same would be true. We reiterate that Sumitra did not name anyone but for her mother-in-law. It is not a case where she might have accused her mother-in-law only and kept silence with regard to others. She specifically absolved all others including her husband and sister-in-law. This itself is a very strong circumstance leading to an irresistible conclusion that her statement was indeed statement of a person breathing her last who would normally speak the truth. It is not a case where she might have accused her mother-in-law only and kept silence with regard to others. She specifically absolved all others including her husband and sister-in-law. This itself is a very strong circumstance leading to an irresistible conclusion that her statement was indeed statement of a person breathing her last who would normally speak the truth. No corroboration is required to sustain conviction upon such a dying declaration which, in our view, had absolutely no infirmity. We do not find any suspicious circumstance also attached to the dying declaration made by Sumitra. In so far as even parents not supporting the prosecution case is concerned, it does appear to us that they have rather chosen to bargain and sold even the coffin of their daughter in which, they were actively helped by their other relations who too, as mentioned above, did not support the prosecution case. It is a case where the complainant himself was declared hostile and tried to wriggle out of the statement made and signed by him on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. He stated in examination-in-chief that her daughter was being harassed by her brother-in-law and his wife and not by her mother-in-law. He also stated that his daughter was harassed for demand of dowry and was not given proper food but he further stated that Sumitra had never told them anything about her mother-in-law. It is a clear case of clever statement made by father of the deceased who even though affirmed mal-treatment meeted out to his daughter on account of dowry but shifted the blame from mother-in-law to other family members. He admitted having reported the matter to the police and his signatures on the FIR (Ex.P.1). He admitted the police having prepared Panchnama before him which also bears his signatures. He also admitted his signatures on the site plan Ex.P.19 but stated that his daughter was not burnt by her mother-in-law Prabhati. In cross examination adverted to him by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that he would not know how name of the appellant had been written in the FIR Ex.P.1. We find nothing on records which may even remotely suggest that someone else had lodged FIR Ex.P.1 and not Phool Chand, father of the deceased. In cross examination adverted to him by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that he would not know how name of the appellant had been written in the FIR Ex.P.1. We find nothing on records which may even remotely suggest that someone else had lodged FIR Ex.P.1 and not Phool Chand, father of the deceased. Nothing material has been brought on the records that might even remotely suggest that the police was in any way inimically disposed towards the appellant and recorded the statement of Phool Chand itself. It is a clear case of the parents of the deceased chosing to enrich themselves even from death of their daughter. (12). It is too well settled that conviction can be based solely on dying declaration of the victim. In the present case, dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate in presence of the doctor. Nothing at all has been pointed out that might even remotely suggest that the doctor who certified that Sumitra was in a fit state to make her statement and the Magistrate who herself verified after putting questions to Sumitra that she was in a fit state to make statement, were not in any way telling the truth. The contents of the dying declaration mentioned above in itself suggest truthfulness of the statement made by Sumitra. Dying declaration, in our view, in the present case, is also supported by medical evidence. It is significant to note that the doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sumitra clearly stated that her body was smelling of kerosene. Smell of kerosene from the dead body could come only if the victim was burnt in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Kerosene oil was thrown on her body and then she was burnt. Dr. JR Tanwar was not even put suggestion that his statement that the dead body was smelling of kerosene was incorrect. If once the statement made by Dr. Tanwar as mentioned above is accepted, it shall have to be held a case of burning by throwing kerosene oil and not Sumitra dying on account of catching fire on account of breaking of glass of chimeny. If once the statement made by Dr. Tanwar as mentioned above is accepted, it shall have to be held a case of burning by throwing kerosene oil and not Sumitra dying on account of catching fire on account of breaking of glass of chimeny. It is interesting to note that two alternative defences that militate against each other -(i) that Sumitra had committed suicide being a ascentric and that (ii) her clothes had caught fire on account of breaking of the glass of the chimney have been taken by the appellant. None of these defences could be supported during the course of trial. The theory propounded by the appellant that it was an accidental fire in the manner as mentioned above, would be ruled out because of smell of kerosene on the dead body of Sumitra. In so far as the defence with regard to Sumitra being ascentric and therefore committing suicide is concerned, it would be rejected as no faith could at all be had on the statement made by Dr. Gouri Shanker who was examined as DW-1. Dr. Gauri Shankar stated to be running a nursing home in the name and style of SB Mittal Maternity and Nursing Home at Sikar, stated that Sumitra was admitted to his nursing home from 21.1.2003 to 26.1.2003. She was diagnosed to be suffering from Perfurial Psychosis. He stated that in such illness the patient would not recognise people and would have sucidal tendency. In cross-examination, he however admitted that the date, number, name and the time as stated in Ex.D.2 were not written by him. The same were written by his Receptionist who did not appear as a witness in court. He admitted that test slips 1, 2 and 3 did not bear any name and the portion marked `Ka to `Kha of Ex.D.1 was written in different ink and with different pen. He also admitted that the bed head ticket of the patient was not before him in the court. He admitted that they were maintaining indoor patient register. He, however, denied the suggestion that indoor patient register was not brought by him because the patient was never admitted in the aforesaid nursing home. He also admitted that the bed head ticket of the patient was not before him in the court. He admitted that they were maintaining indoor patient register. He, however, denied the suggestion that indoor patient register was not brought by him because the patient was never admitted in the aforesaid nursing home. To a court question, he stated that on 21.1.2003 he had not mentioned the illness of Sumitra as Perfurial Psychosis and symptoms of Perfurial Psychosis have not been written in Ex.D.1 as the same had been mentioned in the Bed Head Ticket and the bed head ticket, as mentioned above, he had not brought. He also stated that the patient had shown improvement and was not referred anywhere else at the time of discharge as she had shown much improvement. Statement made by Dr. Gouri Shanker inspires no confidence whatsoever. In fact, it appears that he fabricated records simply with a view to help the appellant on extraneous considerations. (13). The up-shot of the discussion made above, results into dismissal of the present appeal being devoid of any merit. So ordered. In consequence of dismissal of the appeal, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar dated 25.9.2003 is upheld. (14). The court after going through the evidence, is prima facie of the view that Phool Chand, father of the deceased Sumitra has given false evidence in a court of law after having been sworn to state truth, whole truth and nothing but truth. The Court is also of the prima facie view that Dr. Gouri Shanker DW-1 has tried to screen a major offence by forging the records. (15). Issue notice to both (1) Phool Chand, the complainant and (2) Dr. Gouri Shanker DW-1 as to why they should not be prosecuted for various offences that might have been committed by them. Whereas Phool Chand, father of the deceased Sumitra appears to have committed offence u/s 191 IPC, Dr. Gouri Shanker DW-1 appears to have committed offences under Sections 192, and 471 IPC.