Criminal Revision No.260 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.260 of 2006. Date of Decision : 17.3.2011. Rekha Rani ...... Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar & others ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.4-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated July 20th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, whereby, respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No.133 dated October 9th, 1998 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadhaura. 2. Facts. Rekha Rani married Baldev Raj in the year 1985. Out of the wedlock two children, namely, Mukesh-son and Simmi-daughter were born. On October 6th, 1998 at about 5 p.m., she caught fire accidentally. Her husband extinguished the fire and brought her to Civil Hospital, Sadhaura. He then took her to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh. Statement of Rekha Rani was recorded on October 6th, 1998 by Balkar Singh, Station House Officer (PW-5) in which she did not hold the respondents responsible for burn injuries. 3. On October 8th, 1998 Bhim Sain, maternal uncle of Rekha Rani moved application (Exhibit PF) before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri alleging that Baldev Raj and his family members poured kerosene on Rekha Rani and set her afire. Criminal Revision No.260 of 2006 2 He further alleged that this was told to him by Rekha Rani on October 7th, 1998. On the basis of application (Exhibit PF), First Information Report (Exhibit PG) was recorded. Statement of Rekha Rani (Exhibit PE/5) was again recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh wherein she stated that her brothers-in-law Pali and Satish, her mother-in-law Harbhajan Kaur poured kerosene on her abdomen, arms and legs and her husband set her ablaze on account of demand for dowry. 4. Baldev Raj, Pali, Satish and Harbhajan Kaur were arrested. After completing the necessary formalities, the respondents were arraigned for trial. 5. Prosecution in support of their case examined Dr. Nirmal Parkash (PW-1), Mam Singh (PW-2), Fateh Chand (PW-3), Pala Ram 9PW-4), Balkar Singh (PW-5), Surender Jain (PW-6), Rekha Rani (PW-7), Dr. Parvesh Gupta (PW-8) and A.K. Bishnoi, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa (PW-9). 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondents denied their complicity with the offence in question and pleaded innocence. 7. In defence, the respondents examined Kashmir Kaur (DW-1), Janak Singh (DW-2) and Gulzar Singh (DW-3). 8. During trial, Baldev Raj absented and he was declared proclaimed offender. 9. The solitary question arising for consideration in this case is : Whether the first statement given by Rekha Rani to the Police Officer (Exhibit D-1) wherein she did not point any accusing finger against the respondents or the second statement made before the Magistrate inculpating the respondent, is to prevail ? 10. In Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of Criminal Revision No.260 of 2006 3 such witness. 11. In the case in hand, Rekha Rani made two statements. In the first one which was recorded on the day of occurrence, she stated that she caught fire accidentally and her husband extinguished it. He also brought her to the hospital. But, after the lapse of two days, she changed her version before the Magistrate and fastened the responsibility of burn injuries on her husband and in laws. Even her statement recorded before the Magistrate is not corroborated by the medical evidence because she stated that kerosene was poured on her abdomen, arms and legs whereas per medical record, there was no injury on these parts of the body. Not only that, she has also admitted that she along with her husband was residing separately from her in-laws. There used to be disputes between the couple and Panchayats were also convened. No document has been proved on record. Even the best witnesses who could prove the disputes, that is, her mother, has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. She has denied her statement recorded before the Police on the ground that she was unconscious. This fact has been belied by Dr. Nirmal Parkash (PW-1) who stated that the injured made statement in his presence and at that time, she was fit and conscious. He also proved his opinion (Exhibit PA/1). That apart, Dr. Parvesh Gupta (PW-8) has deposed that at the time of admission of the injured in the PGI, she was conscious. The whole yarn spun by the complainant appears to be an entirely made up story. Thus, Rekha Rani cannot be relied upon in respect of any of the statements. Hence, the Court below was justified in acquitting the respondents. 12. The revision petition stands dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 17.3.2011 SN