Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1015 (HP)

RAKSHA DEVI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-12-11

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. ASI Shri Rajender Singh, Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report perused and taken on record. 2. PETITIONER-accused Raksha Devi has filed the instant application, under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail, in connection with FIR No.135 of 2013, dated 3.10.2013, under the provisions of Section 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. The FIR in question stands registered on the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Anju Kumari. It is the case of complainant that she alongwith her sisters-in-law, Smt. Sharda (Jethani) and Smt. Nisha Kumari (Devrani) had gone to visit their mother-in-law, who separately resides in an old house at Patta Bazaar. This house is just in front of the house of accused Raksha Devi. In between the houses, there is a compound, in relation to which there is a dispute. Complainant saw the accused dig the disputed land. When she and her sisters-in-law objected, accused went inside her kitchen, brought kerosene oil and threw it on them. Thereafter, she set them on fire, as a result of which all three sustained serious burn injuries. 3. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the present bail petition only merits rejection. Accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to ten years. 4. NATURE of the accusation as also severity of offence and extent of punishment, in case of conviction, is a factor, inter alia, which requires consideration at this juncture. Prima facie satisfaction, frivolity or genuineness of the prosecution case also need to be taken into account. Smt. Sharda Devi sustained burn injuries to the extent of 60-70%, Smt. Anju Kumari sustained injuries to the extent of 30-40% and Smt. Nisha Kumari sustained injuries to the extent of 4%. It is not in dispute that Smt. Sharda Devi is admitted at the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (State Hospital) at Shimla. 5. NOW, in the instant case, accused alleges that she stands falsely implicated. According to her, she also got an FIR registered against the present complainant/injured. The same is FIR No.136 of 2013. At this juncture, it be only observed that investigation in relation thereto is still in progress. 5. NOW, in the instant case, accused alleges that she stands falsely implicated. According to her, she also got an FIR registered against the present complainant/injured. The same is FIR No.136 of 2013. At this juncture, it be only observed that investigation in relation thereto is still in progress. Accused alleges that it was the complainant party, who had thrown kerosene oil on her, whereafter her Dupatta caught fire. To save herself, she threw the Dupatta on the complainant party, as a result of which all three sustained injuries. Now, prima facie, this explanation does not appeal from any logic. Burn injuries sustained by the complainant and her two sisters-in-law are grave, severe and serious. Subsequent FIR was also lodged not immediately, but after some time, though on the same day. Whether this FIR is a counter-blast or not is a question, which would eventually emerge after investigation is complete and trial is conducted, but mere registration of FIR cannot be construed to mean that accused is a victim of prior animosity or falsehood, as is so urged by learned counsel. 6. IT is urged that complainant party is the assailant. In support, it is argued that complainant party being resident of a different area/village came only to pick up an altercation with the accused. The contention only merits rejection. After all, mother-in-law of the complainant resides in the village of the accused. She has a separate house and daughters-in-law have every right to visit their mother-in-law. Hence, their presence on the spot, cannot be termed or perceived to be that of assailants. It is also urged that challan stands filed and no recovery is to be effected from the accused. This fact cannot be a ground for admitting the accused on bail. As already observed, severity of offence and possibility of involvement of the accused in the crime are factors, which would germane to just decision of the present petition. 7. IT is next urged that on 12.12.2013 there is a wedding in the family of the accused and also there is none to look after her old and ailing mother-in-law who is all alone. In my considered view, even these factors would not weigh the scales in favour of the accused. After all, it is not that accused is the only member in the family, who is to look after the mother-in-law. In my considered view, even these factors would not weigh the scales in favour of the accused. After all, it is not that accused is the only member in the family, who is to look after the mother-in-law. There are other persons in the family, including male members. Husband of the accused can take care of his mother and marriage can be attended to by other members of the family. 8. IT is seen that trial is in progress and as such, in such a heinous crime, indulgence is unwarranted. At this juncture, prima facie, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the accused. It needs to be viewed seriously. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind ou the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 9. TAKING all the aforesaid facts into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. 10. ANY observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Petition stands disposed of.