Criminal Misc. - M 21630 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. - M 21630 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.8.2011 Reena @ Reena Devi .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R. S. Rana, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 463 dated 31.8.2010, registered under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station, City Kaithal, which was got registered by the mother of the deceased against the petitioner and her brothers on account of death of her son, who was the husband of the petitioner. The incident took place on 3.8.2010. The FIR was registered on 31.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased was under stress as he had purchased a house in the name of the petitioner, but the property dealer was not handing over the sale deed to him. He used to take liquor and on the fateful day as well, he had come home after taking excessive liquor and complained of chest pain. Thereafter, he died. The petitioner immediately informed her brother, who was living in the neighbourhood and also the family of the deceased. The relations between the petitioner and the deceased were not strained. The petitioner is having Criminal Misc. - M 21630 of 2011 [2] two minor children. Immediately after the death, a DDR was got recorded on 4.8.2010. The petitioner is sought to be arrested now after the statement of Vijay Pal- Municipal Councillor was recorded by the police, who stated that the petitioner as well as her brothers had made extra-judicial confession before him about the killing of husband of the petitioner. Three brothers of the petitioner have already been arrested. He further submitted that the petitioner had joined investigation during this period. Lie Detector Test was also conducted but nothing could be found. Since the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, she should not be taken into custody as prima facie no case is made out against her. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the DDR got recorded by the petitioner immediately after the death of her husband, she stated that her husband used to remain in tension and take excessive liquor. On that day also at about 9.30 PM, the deceased came back home after taking liquor outside. He was heavily drunken and complained of chest pain. He started shouting loudly and was crying of pain. The petitioner called her brother who was residing in the neighbourhood and took the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Shah, who after examination declared him dead. Thereafter, the complainant (mother of the deceased) was also informed. The reason given by her in the DDR was that her husband died due to consumption of excessive liquor and chest pain due to intoxicant. After recording the DDR, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. The samples were sent to the Chemical Laboratory, where no signs of liquor or poison were found in the body. There were marks of injuries on the face of the deceased and fresh blood was coming out from his nose. No one else was present at home when the incident took place and it is only the petitioner who can tell the truth. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that initially the matter was not properly investigated. The complainant filed a petition in this court seeking transfer of the investigation to some independent agency. After notice of motion was issued in the petition, the State itself transferred the investigation of the case to the CIA. It was only thereafter that arrest was sought to be made in this case. Criminal Misc. - M 21630 of 2011 [3] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that death of the husband of the petitioner had taken place when he was at home with the petitioner. The initial statement of the petitioner that her husband had consumed excessive liquor on that day was found to be false in post-mortem examination and chemical examination report. In addition to that, there were marks of injuries found on the face of the deceased which remained unexplained and do not find mention even in the DDR. It shows that there was something more to be found out. The petitioner was the only person who was present at home when the incident took place. In my opinion, her custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation of the case. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.8.2011 mk