IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2551 of 2003 Date of decision: December 24, 2010 Ram Lal .. Petitioner Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. None for the respondents No.1 to 4. A.N. Jindal, J The complainant- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') has assailed the judgment dated 16.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal acquitting all the accused- respondents (herein referred as, 'the respondents') of the charges under Sections 498-A/307/304- B IPC. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sunita was married to Rakesh Kumar respondent in the year 1998. It was her second marriage and she had two children from her first marriage. The accused after couple of months started maltreating the deceased on account of demand of dowry. On 10.3.2001 at about 10 .00 A.M. her sister-in-law Promila and her husband Tinku had come to their house. Her sister-in-law started quarrelling with her, but Rakesh Kumar did not intervene, at this she got enraged and set herself ablaze. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law tried to save her but she caught hold of them and dragged them towards herself, therefore, they also received burn injuries. It was Rakesh Kumar's second marriage also and he had one child from his first marriage. After the aforesaid statement made by Sunita before ASI Ram Kumar, she again made a statement before Dr. Raj Mohan Singh in which she changed her stand and stated that her husband and sister-in-law had tried to turn her out of the house. The accused Rakesh Kumar and his parents, her sister-in- law and brother-in-law had started beating her and they put kerosene on her while Promila ignited the fire, and in the third dying declaration made before the Magistrate, she Criminal Revision No. 2551 of 2003 -2- *** gave different story that the accused had threatened to kill her children from the first marriage whereupon she raised noise which attracted the women folk of the vicinity and distinguished the fire. The Sarpanch had arrived thereafter. The case was investigated and all the four respondents were challaned. The accused were charged under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in all. The accused denied all the allegations in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and set up a defence that Sunita was not legally wedded wife of Rakesh. She was first of all married with one Subhash, but the said marriage could not survive, therefore, she again got married with Vijay Singh of Panipat to whom she left and started living with Rakesh Kumar without proper marriage and without seeking divorce from Vijay Singh. Her brother had also deserted his wife and contracted three marriages. Promila and her husband denied if they were present at the time of occurrence. The trial resulted into acquittal. The prime argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court though has ignored the two dying declaration viz one recorded by Dr. Raj Mohan Singh and second by the Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, yet the court has not considered the validity of the first dying declaration in the form of statement Ex.PA made before ASI Ram Kumar. This contention is devoid of any merit. The trial court while discussing the first dying declaration Ex.PA has refused to place reliance over the same as the said dying declaration contained the vague allegations with regard to demand of dowry. The witness Suraj Bhan in whose presence she had made the statement was not examined. The court has specifically observed that the prosecution intentionally gave up the witness as it never wanted to place reliance on the statement Ex.PA. Moreover, if we peruse the statement Ex.PA recorded by ASI Ram Kumar, it does not bear his note that she was in a fit condition to understand his questions and she had made the statement of her own free will and consent. Any way, Criminal Revision No. 2551 of 2003 -3- *** since all the three dying declarations made by the deceased were found to be contradictory and contained improved version, therefore, it was very difficult for the court to believe any of them. In the dying declaration Ex.PA, the deceased disclosed that when her sister-in-law Promila started quarrelling then her husband did not intervene and she put kerosene upon herself. This dying declaration does not contain if any accused abetted to commit suicide and she having fed up with the behaviour of the accused who were demanding dowry had committed suicide. To the contrary, the dying declaration Ex.PJ recorded by Dr. Raj Mohan Singh reveals that she was beaten by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. Her husband poured kerosene upon her and her father-in- law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law caught hold of her, whereas sister-in- law Promila ignited the fire. In the third dying declaration Ex.PK/2 she gave the different version, the relevant extract of which is as under :- “....... My husband is a lai-lag. My in-laws provoked him that I would kill her child by giving poison. On some excuses they used to quarrel with me. Thereafter, my husband started beating me. My mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law started beating me. My mother-in-law bolted the outer door so that no body may enter the house. Thereafter my mother-in- law, father-in-law and brother-in-law caught hold of me, my husband poured kerosene and sister-in-law ignited the match stick. Then I cried “save me, save me”. I caught hold of my father-in-law as soon as I caught fire and said save me.........” All this goes to show that all the dying declarations being contradictory, shrouded with suspicion and containing improved version cannot be believed. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 24, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge