Criminal Misc.No.M-2029 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No.M-2029 of 2009 Date of Decision:-31.8.2009 Teka Ram and Kelo Devi ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.V.S.Punia, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6. L.N.Mittal, J. (Oral): Teka Ram and his wife Kelo Devi, who are parents of Ms.Mukesh Devi (since deceased), have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.PC”) for holding further and proper enquiry/investigation in case FIR No.112 dated 27.10.2008 under Section 307 IPC (Section 302 IPC added lateron) registered in Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal, through some Senior Police Officer i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police or through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The aforesaid FIR was registered on statement made by deceased Mukesh herself to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short “CJM”), Kaithal in the Government Hospital, Kaithal. In the said statement, she, inter-alia, stated that her mother-in-law Rajni Devi after raising dispute with her over some matter poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze with match stick with intention to kill her. It was also stated that the husband of the deceased was not at the Criminal Misc.No.M-2029 of 2009 2 spot at that time but came there later on and prior to him, neighbours had also reached the spot and controlled the fire. She also stated that her mother-in-law Rajni Devi was solely responsible and there was no fault of her husband i.e. the husband of the deceased. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there was involvement of Virender husband of the deceased as well, in setting her on fire and even hands of the husband of the deceased had burns. The contention cannot be accepted. Statement of the deceased was recorded by the learned CJM, Kaithal in the Government Hospital, Kaithal after Medical Officer certified that she was fit to make statement. In the statement, the deceased categorically stated that only her mother-in-law Rajni Devi set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her and was solely responsible for the same and husband of the deceased was not at fault. There is no reason why CJM would not record the statement correctly. The said statement also cannot be said to have been made under the influence of the husband of the deceased because the deceased categorically named her mother-in-law being solely responsible for the occurrence. If the deceased had been under the influence of her husband, she would not also have named her mother-in-law. There is also no reason why CJM would record distorted or incorrect statement. Burns on the hands of the husband could have been sustained while trying to extinguish the fire of the deceased herself. Criminal Misc.No.M-2029 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is not a matter of co-incidence that the husband was not at the spot at the time of occurrence but reached after the occurrence. The contention has no substance. The husband could reach home in routine or ordinary course or could also reach home on hearing of the incident. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the statement of Ram Mehar recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.PC. Ram Mehar is husband of the sister of the deceased. Even the said statement of Ram Mehar corroborates the version given by the deceased in her statement before CJM. Ram Mehar has also stated that the deceased had telephonically told her that her mother-in-law had quarrelled with her and had poured kerosene oil on her and was attempting to set her afire. On this information, Ram Mehar reached the spot and found the deceased on fire and also found her husband Virender trying to extinguish her fire. This statement also corroborates the statement made by the deceased before CJM and it would show that there was no distortion in recording the statement of the deceased by the CJM. In view of the aforesaid, no case for re-investigation or further inquiry as prayed for by the petitioners is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (L.N.Mittal) 31.8.2009 Judge AS