Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 398 (BOM)

Sau Vatsalabai Ghanwat v. State of Maharashtra

2012-02-23

A.P.BHANGALE

body2012
Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr S. S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 171/2011 registered with Police Station, Mehkar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that there is delay of more than one month in lodging FIR and that the dying declaration recorded by Head Constable is shrouded with suspicion and is not reliable. He further contends that relatives of deceased Urmila stated before the police that Uma had disclosed to them in a hospital at Aurangabad that since her marriage was against her wishes, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that pre-arrest bail may be granted to the applicant. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to dying declaration dated 19.11.2011 which was recorded at 12.35 hours wherein deceased Urmila stated her name, age, occupation, residence and details of family members. She made a disclosure of incident and stated that on 18.11.2011 after cooking when she went to sleep, her husband beat her and her mother-in-law Vatsalabai (present applicant) poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. According to her, her husband’s cousin brother Deelip removed her to Government Hospital at Mehkar and thereafter to Aurangabad. Learned APP submits that the dying declaration bears the signature of head constable who recorded it; thumb impression of Urmila and that the concerned Medical Officer has certified about the fitness of patient to give dying declaration. 4. This Court (brother Tahaliyani, J) while passing the order dated 7th February 2012 made the following observations : “2. It is pointed out that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 19th November 2011 by Police Head Constable No. 1111 of Ghati Police Chowky, Aurangabad. In the dying declaration the deceased had disclosed that she was set on fire by her mother-in-law. It is not clear as to why the offence was not registered at the said Police Chowky or at the nearest Police Station at Aurangabad. It is not clear as to why offence was not registered at Mehkar Police Station, despite the fact that the said dying declaration was received by Mehkar Police on 7th December, 2011.” 5. It is not clear as to why the offence was not registered at the said Police Chowky or at the nearest Police Station at Aurangabad. It is not clear as to why offence was not registered at Mehkar Police Station, despite the fact that the said dying declaration was received by Mehkar Police on 7th December, 2011.” 5. Although a serious offence was informed to the police by injured person in the nature of dying declaration, prima facie, it appears that no further steps contemplated in law were taken. Under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure when information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given orally to a police officer, he is required to reduce it to writing. It has to be read over to the informant and signed by informant. In other words, no police officer can refuse to record information in respect of commission of cognizable offence and cognizable offence is required to be investigated into soon thereafter in accordance with law. Under Section 156 Cr. P. C. any police officer may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which occurred within the local jurisdiction of such Police Station. Police have ample powers to start investigation immediately soon after commission of cognizable offence is reported to police. Chapter XII of Cr. P. C. requires police to take prompt steps once information as to commission of cognizable offence is received with a view to bring real culprit to book. The Investigating Officer concerned is expected to hold investigation by requiring attendance of witnesses concerned and recording their statements as contemplated under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by visiting the spot concerned, making recovery etc. of incriminating articles. When investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours, he is required to transmit a copy of entries in the diary and forward the accused to the Magistrate concerned. Section 174 Cr. P. C. requires the police to give intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest and to investigate about the apparent cause of death particularly when the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman. It is compulsory for the police to forward body of such woman to be examined by a qualified medical officer. It is compulsory for the police to forward body of such woman to be examined by a qualified medical officer. This is to ensure that proper enquiry is made into cause of death when death is informed to police. 6. In the light of above position of law, it is surprising to note that police head constable at Ghati Police Chowki, Aurangabad who recorded dying declaration of Urmila did not take immediate steps to register the offence at nearest Police Station which, I am informed, is P. S. Begampura. I am further informed that dying declaration was forwarded to Mehkar Police Station, Mehkar on 7th December 2011. However, thereafter also no offence was immediately registered by Mehkar Police Station. On the basis of statement of Nanda Kuhire and Vijay Kuhire (parents of Urmila), it is gathered that they did not lodge police report immediately since their another daughter is married in the family of accused and they apprehended harassment to her if they reported the matter to police. 7. It is, therefore, prima facie evident that police officials of Mehkar Police Station and Ghati Police Chowky/Begampura Police Station, Aurangabad were quite negligent though they noticed from the dying declaration of Urmila about commission of cognizable offence. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Buldana and Aurangabad who will call for the report from the concerned Police officers and file a detailed affidavit before this Court within one month from today. 9. Even though ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant by this Court vide order dated 7th February 2012, I am informed that police have not yet arrested the applicant for to release her on interim bail as if to indicate that her arrest is not required. This depicts a sorry state of affair. 10. Since the accusations against the applicant are serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to her. Application is rejected. Interim order dated 7th February 2012 stands vacated.