Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2004. Date of Decision: 20.1.2011. Tarawati ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for Mr. Anil Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision has been filed by Tarawati- complainant, mother of Chanchal (deceased) (PW-1) against the judgment dated April 3rd, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby, respondents No.2 to 6 were acquitted in complaint case bearing No.10361 of December 4th, 2000 under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The story of the prosecution is as under:- 3. Chanchal was married with Jaidev-respondent No.2 on October 30th, 1998. She received burn injuries on October 17th, 2000 while preparing tea on a stove because its flame was not in proper order and kerosene was shooting out tangentially, falling on her clothes which she could not notice prior to lighting the stove but accidentally her clothes got fire. She raised hue and cry. Her family members and neighbours reached there. She was immediately brought to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak by Jaidev. She made statement (Exhibit DC) before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak describing the incident aforesaid. Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2004 2 Unfortunately, she expired on October 22nd, 2000. 4. In this case, in the dying declaration (Exhibit DC) recorded by Additional Chief Magistrate, she categorically stated that she got fire accidentally and no one was responsible for causing the occurrence. The complaint was filed after one month and four days of the occurrence. Obviously, the complaint was the result of after thought. If at all, there was any grievance, the complainant would not have taken more than one month in reporting the matter. Otherwise also, the evidence led by the petitioner was not trustworthy in face of the dying declaration made by the deceased before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. The evidence of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be doubted from any angle. It is also not believable that the dying declaration was made under some pressure or influence because in that case, she could very well make another statement thereafter as she remained hospitalized for about 5 days and during this period, she was fit to make statement as deposed by the Medical Officer. 5. In view of above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision is dismissed. 20.1.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE