Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 Date of decision: 23.09.2010 Narinder Kumar and another ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms.Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2001 (for short as `impugned judgment') passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, (for short `the trial Court'), whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced. 2. The appellant Narinder Kumar has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that he would further undergo rigorous Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 2 imprisonment for six months. 3. The appellant Satya Wanti has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. Renu Bala, the deceased, was brought up by her uncle- Subash Chander after her father died in the year 1993. She was married with Narinder Kumar son of Munshi Ram in the year 1993. Two sons were born out of the wedlock who were about six years and one year of age, respectively at the time of occurrence. Narinder Singh is a dentist and had been running his clinic. Her mother, Satya Wanti, stayed with them at Kalanaur. Accused Narinder Kumar was given sufficient dowry at the time of his marriage with Renu Bala but he and his mother-Satya Wanti were not happy with the dowry and started taunting and harassing Renu Bala for bringing inadequate dowry. They were asking Renu Bala to bring an amount of ` 1,00,000/-. She was even subjected to beatings. Due to this maltreatment and harassment she had come to her parental house and remained there for a period of about eight months. During this period she was pregnant and gave birth to a son in the month of June at Batala. It is further alleged that Dr. Narinder Kumar Ghai, the husband was not a person of good moral character and was having illicit relations with some other girls and Renu Bala used to object to this conduct of the accused. 5. Subash Chander, Rajiv Kumar @ Mintu, brother of Renu Bala and Master Rattan Lal visited the house of the accused about 5-6 Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 3 months prior to the occurrence and requested Narinder Kumar, Satya Wanti (mother), Pushpa Rani (sister) and husband of Pushpa Rani, not to taunt, torture and harass Renu Bala as they could not meet the demand of money due to their poverty. Narinder Kumar agreed to their request and stated that they should drop Renu Bal at his house. On the next day, Subash Chander and Master Rattan Lal dropped Renu Bala along with her children in his house. They again requested the accused not to harass Renu Bala. 6. After about 1 ½ months, Rajiv Kumar and his mother Sudesh Rani went to Kalanaur to meet Renu Bala. They were told that there was no change in the behaviour of Narinder Kumar towards her and she was still subjected to beatings and torture. When Sudesh Rani requested Narinder Kumar not to harass Renu Bala, he insulted her and Rajiv Kumar and told them to leave his house. On 2.8.2000, Subash Chander and Rajiv Kumar @ Mintu again visited the house of accused-Narinder Kumar and again requested Narinder Kumar and his mother Satya Wanti not to harass Renu Bala at which Narinder Kumar told them that he did not need Renu Bala any more and would marry again to some other girl. Subash Chander and Rajiv Kumar stayed there during the night and at about 11.30 pm, they woke up on hearing shrieks of Renu Bala from the verandah. After coming out of the room, they saw that Satya Wanti had caught hold of the hair of Renu Bala and Narinder Kumar poured kerosene oil from a tin on the person of Renu Bala and set her ablaze with the help of a match stick. At that time, Renu Bala had caught hold of Narinder Kumar in her arms and in the process, clothes of Narinder Kumar also caught fire. Subash Chander and Rajiv Kumar came out of Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 4 the house to arrange some conveyance but due to night, they could not find any. On returning, they found the house of the accused locked and nobody was present there. Thereafter, they returned to Batala and reached there at about 7.30 am the next day where Master Rattan Lal told them that Renu was admitted in Civil Hospital, Batala and her condition was serious. 7. Subash Chander, Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu and Gurbakshish Singh son of Randhir Singh, went to Civil Hospital Batala, but Renu had already succumbed to the burn injuries. Subash Chander set up for the Police Station to report the matter and Gurbakshish Singh and Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu remained near the dead-body of Renu Bala. He met a police party headed by Inspector Gopal Singh at the gate of the hospital to whom he made his statement vide Endst. No.PH/1. 8. On the basis of the statement made by Subash Chander, formal FIR, Ex.PH/3, was recorded by SI Nirmal Singh. Inquest report Ex.PC of the dead body of Renu was prepared and the same was sent for post-mortem examination. Accused-Narinder Kumar, who was admitted in Civil Hospital, Batala, with burn injuries, was arrested on 3.08.2000 by Inspector Gopal Singh, PW6. 9. Inspector Gopal Singh carried out the spot inspection along with Subash Chander. A rough site plan, Ex.PK, was prepared. One empty plastic can of kerosene oil lying in the house of the accused which was smelling of kerosene oil was taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused-Satya Wanti was also arrested on 3.8.2000 by Inspector Gopal Singh. Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 5 On completion of other formalities of investigation, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was laid before the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Gurdaspur. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Gurdarpur vide order dated 4.11.2000 in view of the fact that prima facie offence under Section 302/34 IPC was made out against the accused which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 11. Accused–Narinder Kumar was charged for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC whereas accused-Satya Wanti was charged u/s 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. 12. Dr. Jagdev Singh, PW1, proved the report of post-mortem examination (Ex.PA) conducted on the body of the deceased-Renu Bala. He deposed that whole body was burnt and charred at places and only hair of scalp were left un-burnt. The percentage of burns was more than 90%. The injuries were superficial as well as deep burns. Deep burn wounds were present on front of the chest, left and right side in front of abdomen, upper part of right and left thigh. He further deposed that in his opinion, the cause of death was burn injuries which were more than 90% leading to shock and the burns were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 13. Vaishno Dass LC, PW2, and C. Shangara Singh, PW3, were formal witnesses. Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 6 14. Subash Chander, PW4 and Rajiv Kumar, PW5, gave the eye-witness account of the occurrence while corroborating each other. 15. Inspector Gopal Singh, PW6, deposed about the investigation carried out by him and proved different memos prepared therein. 16. Jagir Singh, Draftsman, PW7, proved the site plan, Ex.PL, prepared by him. 17. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting them all the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case to which they denied and pleaded false implication. In defence they examined as many as six witnesses. 18. Avtar Singh, DW1, who is a neighbour of accused-Narinder Kumar, deposed that he woke up at about 1.30 am after hearing shrieks from the house of the accused and went to the roof of the house and saw many persons in the house of accused. When he went there, Narinder Kumar told that when his wife Renu was boiling milk for the child on the stove, the same got burst and she caught fire. He also deposed that Narinder Kumar was also having injuries on his hands which he stated to have received while saving his wife. This witness also deposed that none except Narinder Kumar, his wife Renu and two children, were present in the house at that time. 19. Surinder Pal, DW3, brought the register containing the entries about the issuance of ration cards pertaining to Block-I, Qadian. He deposed that name of accused-Satya Wanti was mentioned in the Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 7 ration card of Vijay Kumar. 20. Surinder Kumar, DW4, had also brought Ex.D-1 form and deposed that said ration card was issued in the name of Narinder Kumar and it included the names of Renu Bala and Kushal Kumar his son. The name of no other person was mentioned in the ration card which was made in the year 1995. 21. Raj Kumar Saini, DW5, deposed that Passport Ex.DK was issued after due verification in the name of Satya Wanti at the address of Mohalla Dharampur Qadian. 22. Hardev Singh, DW6, deposed that Satya Wanti used to reside in their Mohalla at Qadian before her arrest in this case and she was living with her husband and one son who had now gone abroad. 23. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the offence and the term as reflected at the out set in para 1 of this judgment. 24. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned trial Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 13.12.2001. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the presence of Subash Chander, PW4, and Rajiv Kumar, PW5 (brother of the deceased) is highly doubtful. As per the case of prosecution, they reached the house of the appellant in the evening on 2.8.2000. The occurrence is allegedly witnessed by them but none of them tried to intervene in order to save the deceased while she was ablaze. It is highly improbable that the uncle and real brother would not intervene and try to Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 8 save their family member. 26. Learned counsel has further argued that the conduct of these two witnesses before and after the alleged occurrence is also unnatural. As per their depositions, they got perplexed and went out to fetch a vehicle for the purpose of removing the deceased to the hospital. However, both of them were unable to find any taxi or vehicle in the town and came back to the spot after one hour and found the house of the accused locked. Thereafter, they went to their house at Batala, which is at a distance of about 30 kms from the place of occurrence. It has also come in their depositions that when they received the message from Master Rattan Lal that the deceased Renu Balla was admitted in Civil Hospital, Batala, which is located at a distance of 200 sq. yards from their house, they took 20-25 minutes to reach there, which shows their indifference to the matter. It is argued that the conduct of appellant Narinder Kumar is natural and truthful. The appellant Narinder Kumar tried to save his wife and in the process, he himself suffered burn injuries to the extent of 30%. The appellant Narinder Kumar removed the deceased to the hospital and he too was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Batala. He being in serious condition was shifted to Gurdaspur, which is proved from the MLR, Exhibit PB and the statement of Dr. Ramesh Mahajan, DW2, who examined appellant No.1. However, this fact has been suppressed by the prosecution and no investigation on this point, as to who removed the deceased to the hospital from the house of the accused/appellants, was done, which creates a doubt that the investigation was not conducted in a Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 9 fair and proper manner. It has also been argued that Dr. Paramjit Singh, who sent ruqa, has been given up and evidence regarding the treatment given to the deceased and appellant No.1 has been withheld. 27. It has further been argued that the statements of PW4 and PW5, who are interested witnesses, have not been corroborated by any independent witness. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on the basis of their testimonies. It is further contended that mother of the deceased, namely, Sudesh Rani and Master Rattan Lal, who accompanied Subash, PW4, to the house of the appellants, have not been examined, which makes the case of prosecution doubtful. 28. Learned counsel has further argued that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of deceased with the appellant No.1 had taken place in the year 1993. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The occurrence took place on 2.8.2000. Couple had been living a very happy life and therefore, there was no strong motive with the appellants to eliminate the deceased. 29. It has further been argued that if the appellants wanted to eliminate the deceased, the appellants would not have chosen the day when two family members of the family of the deceased i.e. her uncle and brother were present in the house. 30. It has also been argued that there is overwhelming evidence on record that appellant No.2 Satya Wanti, mother of appellant no.1, has been residing separately at Qadian. 31. Learned counsel has next argued that the prosecution with a view to frame the appellants has deliberately given the description that when the deceased was in flames, she hugged Narinder, appellant No.1. Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 10 Therefore, he has submitted that this is a crude effort to implicate appellant No.1 so as to give the false story a true picture. 32. It has further been contended that as per case of the prosecution, a demand of ` 1,00,000/- was raised after 7-8 months of solemnization of marriage. Thereafter, Renu Bala, the deceased, was blessed with two sons and there is nothing on record to show that the alleged demand was ever repeated. 33. Learned counsel has also referred to Agreement Deed, mark `A', whereby Vandana, younger sister of the deceased, took the responsibility for good conduct of her sister Renu Bala, the deceased. From the perusal of this document, it is made out that in case the deceased picked up quarrel or create trouble or commit any kind of mistake, she (Vandana) would take responsibility for the same. From the perusal of mark `B' i.e. affidavit sworn by the deceased, it is also made out that the deceased was a quarrelsome person. In affidavit, mark `B', the deceased herself has admitted that she quarreled with her husband and came to her parental house and had been living there for the last 10 months. She has also stated that at one point of time she after pouring kerosene oil on her person, tried to set herself on fire and second time she tried to kill herself after consuming some poisonous substance. 34. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the death has occurred within seven years of marriage. The demand of `1 lac is proved on record. The appellants have concealed the fact as to who had taken the injured to the hospital. 35. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 11 36. The present case is based on the testimonies of two eye- witnesses i.e. Subash, PW4 and Rajiv, PW5. Both these witnesses have made similar statements regarding the sequence and manner in which the occurrence took place. As per their deposition, on 2.8.2000 at 4/4.30 p.m. he along with Rajiv, PW5 received a telephonic call from Renu Bala, the deceased, at the shop of Sheela that Renu Bala, was being harassed by the appellants. They reached the house of the appellants on the same day. They further deposed that they stayed at the matrimonial home of Renu Bala, deceased, as it was too late to leave. They also advised the appellant not to misbehave with Renu Bala, the deceased. At about 11/11-30 p.m., they heard the shrieks of Renu Bala and noticed that accused/appellant Satya Wanti had caught hold of Renu Bala from the hair and accused/appellant Narinder Kumar had poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. They got perplexed went out for hiring a vehicle in order to remove Renu Bala (the deceased) to the hospital. Both of them were unable to find any taxi or vehicle in the town and came back after one hour and found that the house of the accused was locked. Thereafter, they went to their house at Batala, which is at the distance of about 30 kms from the place of occurrence. From the facts, it is made out that both these witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the occurrence, did not try to intervene in the matter or made any effort to save the deceased. Rather, immediately, they left the scene in order to arrange some conveyance and came back after one hour and found the house of the accused locked. This narration itself proves the fact that at least these two witnesses did not remove the deceased to the hospital. It has also Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 12 come in the statement of Inspector Gopal Singh, PW6 that taxies are available in the town round the clock. 37. Another aspect which attracts attention of this Court is that these two witnesses, Subash and Rajiv, did not choose to locate the injured in various hospitals of the town nor went to the police station to lodge the report in this regard. They safely chose to come back at their respective house(s) at Batala, which is at about 25-30 kms from the place of occurrence. They re-appeared on next day, i.e., 3.8.2000 after allegedly receiving the message from Master Rattan Lal that the deceased, Renu Bala was admitted in Civil Hospital, Batala, which is at a distance of 200 yards from their house. They took 20-25 minutes to reach there. Therefore, the conduct of these two witnesses prior to occurrence, at the time of occurrence and post occurrence, makes their presence highly doubtful at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, we hold that the presence of these two witnesses is not proved at the time of occurrence in the present case. 38. From the evidence on record, it is proved that appellant no.1 suffered burn injuries to the extent of 30%, which goes to prove that he made sincere efforts to save his wife and we do not find any substance in the statements of Subash and Rajiv to the effect that the deceased took appellant No.1 in her arms. It is otherwise highly improbable when the whole body of a person is on fire then such a person can keep his/her grip on any thing. The story put-forth by the prosecution appears to be far from truth. 39. There is overwhelming evidence on record as regards the fact that appellant No.2 had been residing separately. In his statement Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 13 Surinder Pal, DW3, has deposed that the name of appellant No.2 was mentioned in the ration card, Ex.DD, as member of Vijay Kumar. As per Surinder Kumar, Inspector, Food and Supplies Kalanaur (DW4), ration card, Ex.DD, was issued in the name of appellant Narinder Kumar and it included the names of Renu Bala (as wife , the deceased) and Kushal Kumar, (as son). He further deposed in his statement that no other person was mentioned in that ration card. This fact is further proved from the statement of Raj Kumar Saini, L.D.C., Passport Office, Jalandhar (DW5), that the passport, Exhibit DK, was issued in the name of Satya Wanti, appellant No.2 at the address of Mohalla Dharampura Qadian. 40. Another aspect which requires consideration in the instant case is that nobody from the neighbourhood was either joined during investigation or cited as a witness, which further makes the case of prosecution doubtful. There is no explanation as to why no investigation was conducted in this factual aspect of the matter as to who had removed the injured to the hospital. The appellant No.1, in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has taken a specific stand that he removed the injured to the hospital and the same has to be believed. 41. From the perusal of documents i.e. Mark `A' and Mark `B', it is made out that the deceased was a quarrelsome person and earlier also she had tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil in the first attempt, whereas a second attempt was made by consuming some poisonous substance. On the basis of these documents, it is manifestly proved that the deceased was prone to suicidal tendency and there is Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 14 evidence to support the fact that attempts to commit suicide were made by her (deceased) on two earlier occasions as well. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, has observed as under:- “41. The above observations are fully applicable to the case of Manju. She solemnly believed that her hold union with her husband would bring health and happiness to her but unfortunately it seems to have ended in a melancholy marriage which in view of the circumstances detailed above, left her so lonely and created so much of emotional disorder resulting from frustration and pessimism that she was forced to end her life. There can be no doubt that Manju was not only a sensitive and sentimental woman but was extremely impressionate (sic) and the letters show that a constant conflict between her mind and body was going on and unfortunately the circumstances which came into existence hastened her end. People with such a psychotic philosophy or bent of mind always dream of an ideal and if the said ideal fails, the failure drives them to end their life, for they feel that no charm is left in their life. 42. In this fact situation, when the presence of the complainant Subash Chander, PW4 and Rajiv Kumar, PW5, is not established, we are constrained to observe that as the deceased was prone to suicidal tendency, as such, she took the extreme step of ending her life at her own for which the appellants cannot be held responsible on the basis of evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Crl. Appeal No.701-DB of 2001 15 43. We are further pained to note the manner in which the entire investigation was carried out. The material witnesses Master Rattan Lal, who accompanied Subash, PW4, to the house of the appellant and Sudesh Rani, mother of the deceased, who could have thrown light on the genesis of the case, were not examined. No investigation on the point as to who had removed the injured to the hospital was conducted. Dr.Paramjit Singh, who sent ruqa to the police station, was given up. The medical record pertaining to the treatment of the deceased as well as appellant No.1 was withheld by the prosecution. No medical record pertaining