Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. State of Haryana APPELLANT VERSUS Roshan Lal and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE JUSTICE (MRS.) DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional, A.G. Haryana for the State. Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the accused/respondents (in Cr.A.Nos.468-DBA of 1994 and Cr.A.413-SB of 1993). Shri Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner (in Cr.Rev.173/1995). MEHTAB S.GILL, J. We will be deciding Criminal Appeals No.468-DBA of 1994, 162-SB of 1994, 413-SB of 1993 and Criminal Revision No.173 of 1995 by this common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 8.11.1993/ 9.11.1993 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri convicted Anil Kumar son of Roshan Lal Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -2- under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default, to further undergo RI for one year. Further, Anil Kumar was convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused Roshan Lal son of Babu Ram, Sheela Devi wife of Roshan Lal and Renu Lata alias Renu Bala daughter of Roshan Lal were acquitted by the learned trial Court. Against their acquittal, the State has filed two appeals which as stated above, are being taken up with the main appeal. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PT/1 given by Inderjit son of Kishori Lal. Inderjit stated that he is the owner of K.L.Agriculture Works Samalkha. He has two daughters and one son. On 6.5.1990 his daughter Veena was married with Anil Kumar son of Roshan Lal resident of Jagadhri. He had spent more than what he cold afford. After some days he received a message from his daughter that her father-in-law Roshan Lal, mother-in-law Sheela Devi and husband Anil Kumar were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and were also taunting her about her poor health. Inderjit along with Kali Ram, Balwant Ram of Village Pawti and Hanuman Parshad took a panchayat about 4-1/2 months before the occurrence. They went to the house of Roshan Lal at Jagadhri. They talked to Roshan Lal, Sheela Devi mother-in-law of Veena, Renu Lata sister-in-law of Veena and Anil Kumar husband of Veena. Thereafter they took Veena to Samalkha. Demand of dowry was made by the accused before they left for their house. Inderjit's daughter Veena stayed with him for 15 days. Thereafter Roshan Lal came to Smalkha to take Veena to Jagadhri and he gave an assurance that Veena would not be harassed or tortured. On 27.3.1991 Inderjit received a letter from his daughter Veena which was written in her hand and she requested him to come to Jagadhri on Sunday to Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -3- take her from her in-laws' house, otherwise he would repent. On receiving the letter, Inderjit went to Jagadhri on 30.3.1991 and reached the house of his son-in- law in the morning at about 9.30 a.m. Roshan Lal father-in-law of his daughter, Sheela Devi mother-in-law of his daughter and other members of the family were present. On seeing Inderjit, his daughter Veena took him inside and started weeping and asked him to take her away. She stated that her husband Anil Kumar, Roshan Lal and Sheela Devi were harassing her and were demanding more dowry and they were also taunting her of her poor health. They stated that they had been cheated. Inderjit talked to Roshan Lal, Sheela Devi and Anil Kumar that he wanted to take his daughter to Samalkha, but they refused to let her go. At about 2.30 p.m. when Inderjit was resting in the Baithak and thinking about the well being of his daughter, he heard shouts of “Save me, save me”. He saw Sheela and his son-in-law Anil Kumar sitting in the verandah of the house and clothes of his daughter Veena had caught fire in the room and she was crying bitterly. Inderjit got shocked on seeing the incident, Veena fell down on the ground in flames. Inderjit and Roshan Lal then took Veena to the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. Inderjit further stated that he was quite sure that his daughter Veena had been compelled by his son-in-law Anil Kumar, Roshan Lal and Sheela Devi to set herself on fire due to bringing of insufficient dowry and her poor health and due to the taunts given by the accused. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PT/3 was recorded on 30.3.1991 at 5.30 p.m. at Police Station Jagadhri and the special report reached the Duty Magistrate on the same day at 8.30 p.m. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr.Rakesh Jain PW-1, Dr.Mrs.Anita Sethi PW-2, Harnam Dass Grover PW-3, Raj Kumar PW-4, Sumitra Devi PW-5, Hanuman Parshad PW-6, Dr.Kuldip Singh PW-7, R.K.Sharma PW-8, Balwant Singh PW-9, Inderjit PW-10, Ram Kumar PW-11 and ASI Maha Singh PW-12. Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -4- Learned counsel for the State Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional A.G. Haryana has stated that Inderjit, father of deceased Veena was in the house and hardly 30 feet away, when he heard the shrieks of his daughter and when he came out, he saw the whole occurrence. The dying declaration Ex.PS, corroborates what Inderjit PW-10 has stated. This itself is sufficient evidence to prove the prosecution case. The dying declaration Ex.PS was recorded by no other person than a Judicial Magistrate, Shri R.K.Sharma PW-8. The letter Ex.PH written by the deceased to her father also shows that Veena was desperate and she was wanting help. The injuries on the person of accused Roshan Lal, Sheela Devi and Anil Kumar are superficial and Dr.Mrs.Anita Sethi PW-2 who examined them has stated that these could be self-suffered. Both the statement of Inderjit PW-10 and the dying declaration Ex.PS are truthful. The occurrence had taken place during day time. Demand of dowry has been stated by the complainant from the first instance when F.I.R. Ex.PT/3 was recorded. Harassment has also been alleged in the F.I.R. Ex.PT/3. The sacrosanct nature of the dying declaration Ex.PS cannot be overlooked. Learned counsel for accused Anil Kumar, Roshan Lal Sheela Devi and Renu Lata alias Renu Bala, Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate, has argued that the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the dying declaration and if there are two versions before the Court, the one favourable to the accused is to be taken into account. The circumstances show that it is a case of suicide and not that of a dowry death or murder. Renu Lata alias Renu Bala has not been named in the F.I.R. Ex.PT/3, though Inderjit PW-10 in his statement before the Court has named her. It is a clear after-thought. There are no burn injuries on the person of Renu Lata alias Bala as in the case of Anil Kumar, Roshan Lal and Sheela Devi. It has come in evidence of Dr.Kuldip Singh PW-7 that deceased Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -5- regained consciousness at 1 a.m. in the night. Inderjit PW-10 was present and there is all possibility of she being tutored. Letters Exs.PJ, PJ/2 and PK clearly show that accused/respondents were trying to cool things down as deceased was a girl bent upon committing suicide. Inderjit PW-10 was present in the house. He was only 30 feet away and the accused would not have dared to put Veena on fire in the presence of her father, when her father was present in the house. If she was being put on fire by the accused, she would have shouted for help and there was all possibility that her life would have been saved. In F.I.R. Ex.PT/1, it does not come out as to whom the complainant is suspecting. The dying declaration Ex.PS is a tutored one. The injuries received by Anil Kumar, Roshan Lal and Sheela Devi cannot be overlooked. The Investigating Officer ASI Maha Singh PW-12 has stated that he took a burnt blanket into possession. This blanket is the one which was used by the accused to extinguish the fire when Veena put herself on fire. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Inderjit PW-10 in his testimony before the Court has stated that on 31.3.1991 he was present in the house of his daughter Veena and all the accused were also present there. He reached at about 9.30/10 a.m. Veena started crying on seeing him and asked him to take her away as she was being taunted and tortured for having brought insufficient dowry and regarding her poor health. At about 2.30 p.m. Inderjit PW-10 was lying in the drawing room (Baithak) when he heard the cries of Veena. When he came out, he saw Veena in flames. All the accused were present there. Thereafter he and accused Roshan Lal took Veena to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. In F.I.R. Ex.PT/3 he has stated as under :- “”I saw that Sheela and my son-in-law were sitting in the verandah of the house and the clothes of my daughter Veena had caught fire Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -6- in the room and she was crying bitterly.” He has further stated as under :- “I and Roshan Lal took Veena to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. I am fully confident that my daughter Veena has been compelled by my son-in-law Anil Kumar, Roshan Lal, Sheela (Simdhan) to set herself on fire due to bringing the insufficient dowry and thin health and taunting.” Taking the statement of Inderjit PW-10 on oath when he appeared before the Court and what he stated in the F.I.R. Ex.PT/3, it is clear that Veena had set herself on fire, but after some time, Inderjit PW-10 and others saw that they had made a mistake by stating that Veena had committed suicide, then they introduced the dying declaration Ex.PS. The dying declaration Ex.PS was recorded by Shri R.K.Sharma J.M.I.C. PW-8 who has stated in his testimony that after getting a certificate from Dr.Kuldip Singh PW-7, as to whether Veena was fit to make a statement, he recorded her statement Ex.PS. Veena thumb marked it and Dr.Kuldip Singh PW-7 also signed it in token of its correctness. In the dying declaration Ex.PS, Veena has stated that she was married to Anil Kumar and her in-laws used to mistreat her for less dowry. She wrote a letter Ex.PH to her father to come and see her. She has stated that her father had gone to the Baithak (drawing room) and then her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law Renu Lata threw kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. This statement was recorded on 1.4.1991 at 9.10 a.m. It has come in evidence of Dr.Kuldip Singh PW-7 that Veena regained consciousness at 12 o'clock or 1 a.m. in the intervening night of 31.3.1991/1.4.1991. Inderjit PW-10 has stated that he was the one who took Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -7- Veena to the hospital, meaning thereby that once Veena had regained consciousness, Inderjit PW-10 had all the time to tutor and speak to her till her dying declaration Ex.PS was recorded on 1.4.1991 at 9.10 a.m. In F.I.R. Ex.PT/3 accused Renu Lata alias Renu Bala has not been named. Nothing has been said against her. There is no injury on her person. We cannot overlook this fact that accused Roshan Lal, Sheela Devi and Anil Kumar have also suffered burn injuries on their hands. A burnt blanket has been recovered by ASI Maha Singh PW-12. This clearly shows that accused tried to extinguish the fire. Letters Exs.PJ, PJ/2 and PK written by deceased's father-in-law Roshan Lal, husband Anil Kumar and sister-in-law of the deceased to Inderjit PW-10 also show that Veena was not happy in staying in the house. Her father Inderjit PW-10 did not want to take her back to his own house, as all fathers do want the marriage of their daughter to be successful and they give a long rope to that effect, so that some day, hopefully things would settle down. In letter Ex.PK written by Veena's sister-in-law to Inderjit PW-10, she has stated that Veena is threatening that she would die. No one from her family has instigated her. It is possible that she may kill herself. Veena is not a sensible person and she pleaded that Inderjit should make Veena understand as to how to run the house. She has further stated that may gods save them from such a lady. With the above discussion and observations, it is clear that Veena committed suicide. Respondents Roshan Lal son of Babu Ram, Sheela Devi wife of Roshan Lal and Renu Lata alias Renu Bala daughter of Roshan Lal are not guilty of any offence. Criminal Appeals No.468-DBA of 1994 and 162-SB of 1994 filed by the State are dismissed. Accused Anil Kumar son of Roshan Lal is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. Conviction and sentence of Anil Kumar as awarded by the learned trial Court is maintained. Criminal Appeal Criminal Appeal No.468-DBA of 1994 -8- No.413-SB of 1993 filed by Anil Kumar is dismissed. Criminal Revision No.173 of 1995 is also dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) March 20, 2009 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO