Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 Date of Decision :16.08.2011 Ramvir @ Ram Mehar ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ....... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.B.S. Saroha, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. -- Vijender Singh Malik, J. Ramvir @ Ram Mehar, appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of his conviction dated 27.05.2005 of learned Sessions Judge, Hisar for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a case registered by way of FIR No.219 dated 21.09.2003 at Police Station Barwala and the order of sentence dated 28.05.2005 sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --2-- fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months in default of payment of fine. The case set up against Ramvir, appellant is as under:- Meena Devi was married with Ramvir. Said Ramvir used to drink daily. Her requests to him not to drink used to annoy him. He used to challenge her to do any harm to him. She, however, had been telling him that she would inform her parents and her parents would take her to her parental home. At this Ramvir used to threaten her of pouring kerosene on her and set her afire. On 2 or 3 such occasions, he kicked her and poured kerosene on her. He even tried to torch her with the help of a march box. She used to prevail upon him for not setting her on fire. On 19.09.2003 at 5.00 PM when such a situation arose, she told him to free her. At this, Ramvir set her on fire. He, however, was remorseful the very next moment and started crying. He then tried to save her by pouring water on her. On account of it, the fire was doused. Several other persons had also put water on her. She had become unconscious by that time. Her devar Leela with the help of neighbours took her to the hospital. Her husband came to the hospital after it became dark. Her statement to the aforesaid effect was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar on 21.09.2003. On the said statement, a case was registered for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Meena Devi died on 10.10.2003 and section 302 IPC was added to the case. The spot investigation was Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --3-- conducted by Om Parkash, ASI. He also got the spot photographed and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He took up burnt pieces of clothes and a plastic can from the spot. He gave them the shape of parcels and sealed the same with seal bearing impression of 'OP'. He then took the same into possession by way of a recovery memo. He prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He had arrested Ramvir, accused on the same day. The facts of the case were narrated to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Barwala. After the death of Meena Devi, Om Parkash, ASI conducted inquest proceedings and got post-mortem examination conducted on her dead body at General Hospital, Hisar. He recorded statements of other witnesses. On 11.10.2003 Shamsher Singh, constable brought the post-mortem report and other police papers. On 31.10.2003, photographs of the place of occurrence were taken into possession alongwith their negatives. A site plan to scale of the place of occurrence was got prepared. On completion of investigation, challan against Ramvir was prepared. Charge was framed against the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC, vide order dated 28.01.2004. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all at the trial. With the prosecution evidence coming to a close, the accused was examined in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. He has controverted the incriminating prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --4-- questions. He has claimed himself to be innocent. According to him, on 19.09.2003 he had returned home after finishing his work and had found his wife burning. He has further added that he had put out the fire by pouring water on her and in that process, he had received burns injuries on his hands. He then claimed to have removed his wife to the hospital. According to him, his brother Leela and his wife Smt. Santosh then falsely involved him in the case. According to him, Smt. Santosh, wife of his brother Leela, is the sister of his wife. He did not lead any evidence in his defence. After hearing learned public prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence as also going through the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicted the appellant for the offence detailed as above vide judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2005 and awarded the sentence detailed as above, vide order dated 28.05.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court, the present appeal has been brought by Ramvir, appellant. We have heard Mr. B.S. Saroha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that statement of Meena Devi made before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --5-- Class, Hisar cannot be relied upon. According to him, she was under the influence of his brother Leela and his wife Smt. Santosh and they had incited her to make statement against the appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant was away to his work on 19.09.2003 and when he returned home, he found his wife burning. According to him, he had poured water on her to put out the fire and in that process, he suffered burn injuries on his hands. He has, thus,submitted that no reliance could be placed on the statements of Meena Devi, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar and Smt. Santosh, PW-6. Apart from submitting that there is no reliable evidence coming on the record against the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has not only tried to put out the fire, but had taken the victim to the hospital for treatment and he cannot be said to have the intention to kill the deceased. According to him, he had even suffered burn injuries on his hands while putting out the fire and, therefore, conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC is not sustainable. Learned DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State, on the other hand, has submitted that mere making attempts to put out the fire on the part of the appellant after setting his wife on fire would not show that he had no intention to kill the deceased. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon Bandarupalli Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) 3 Supreme Court Cases 492 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 32. Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --6-- There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant suffered burn injuries on his hands. He did not examine any doctor to prove his reaching the hospital with burn injuries on his hands and getting himself medicolegally examined. Dr. Jagdish Sethi, Medical Officer, PW-10 medicolegally examined Meena Devi on 19.09.2003 at 6.45 PM . He had spoken about the injuries of Meena Devi only. He does not speak about the injuries of Ramvir, appellant. Statement of Meena Devi, which is Ex.PB/1 on the record has been recorded by Ms. Ashu Sanjiv Tinjan, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, who appeared at the trial as PW-1. Nothing has come in her cross- examination which may show any irregularity on her part in recording the statement. Dr. Jagdish Sethi, PW-10 under whose treatment Meena Devi remained from 19.09.2003 till 24.09.2003 , had opined about the fitness of Meena Devi on 21.09.2003 for making statement. He also gave his opinion Ex.PB/2 that Meena Devi remained fit to make statement during the period her statement was recorded. The dying declaration is, therefore, unblemished and narrates the occurrence, which proves that Ramvir, appellant had put Meena Devi on fire. Smt. Santosh, PW-6, a sister of the deceased, may have some reason to make a statement against the husband of her deceased sister. However, there is nothing brought on the record to show any motive on the part of Leela Ram, brother of the appellant to make a false statement against him. Leela Ram, PW-7 has stated that about Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --7-- nine months back, he alongwith his wife, was present at his house when he heard the noise of “Aag Laga Di, Aag Laga Di” . He has stated that he had rushed to the house of the accused and put water on Meena. He has further stated that Ramvir was present there and when they were putting out the fire, he(Ramvir) fled away from the spot. This statement of Leela Ram tells two things clearly. The first is that Ramvir did not make any attempt to put out the fire caught by Meena Devi and the second is that he fled from the spot. Both the aspects point to the guilty conscience of the appellant. When none else was there in the house and Ramvir behaved like this, it can be believed that the statement of Meena Devi, Ex.PB/1 before learned JMIC, Hisar, is truthful. The post occurrence conduct of the accused-appellant in such a case has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bandarupalli Venkateswarlu 's case (supra). It had been contended before Hon'ble Apex Court that the appellant, who had tried to put out the fire, could be said to have no intention to commit the murder and, therefore, could not be convicted under section 302 IPC. The submission was repelled observing that it was impossible to accept this submission because if the appellant set fire to the deceased after another accused poured kerosene on his body, there cannot be any doubt that the intention of the appellant was to kill the deceased. Same is the ratio of Ashok Kumar's case (supra). Crl. Appeal No.D-459-DB of 2005 --8-- In these circumstances, we find no substance in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Finding no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2005 and the order of sentence dated 28.05.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, we uphold the same and dismiss the appeal. ( HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE JUDGE 16.08.2011 dinesh