Dayal Singh vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Tejinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant PW.1 Chamanbai, was married to the appellant five or six years prior to the incident and she had two daughters, Pritpal and Sharanpal. The appellant started ill- treating Tejinder Kaur right from the beginning and used to pressurize her to bring money from her parents. About four months prior to the incident, which took place on 22.3.1989, the appellant took Tejinder Kaur to her mother's house, who also resided in Nanded, and after making a demand of Rs.5,000/- he came back alone leaving his wife there. On the next day, he went to the house of his mother-in-law Chamanbai with a naked sword in his hand and asked Tejinder Kuar to accompany him and also bring Rs.5,000/-. The money could not be paid by the mother of the deceased. It is alleged that after Tejinder Kaur came back to her husband's house, she sent some letters to her mother through a milk vendor complaining about ill-treatment being meted out to her. At about 3.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989, Chamanbai received information that Tejinder Kaur had received burn injuries and she was admitted in the Civil Hospital. She immediately rushed to the hospital and on enquiry Tejinder Kaur disclosed that she was set ablaze by the accused by pouring kerosene on her person. Chamanbai along with her son Sher Singh went to Police Station Wazirabad, where an FIR of the incident was lodged at 6.30 p.m. P.S.I. Murkute visited the house of the appellant at 7.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 which consisted of only one room and seized half burnt sari, petticoat, woolen blanket, mattresses, quilt, pillow, etc. He found two sunmics cots partially burnt, a stove, a kerosene tin and an empty gas cylinder. He then visited the hospital and instructed Head Constable PW.10 Dattatray Vinkar to record the statement of Tejinder Kaur when she regained consciousness. Tejinder Kaur regained consciousness at about 10.30 p.m., information regarding which was given by her brother PW.4 Sher Singh to Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar. The Head Constable immediately summoned PW.9 Dr. Mohammad Khursheed Ahmad, Duty Medical Officer, who examined the injured and found her conscious. Thereafter, the statement of Tejinder Kaur was recorded by PW.10 where she gave details of the occurrence, namely, demand of dowry by the appellant and how the appellant had set her on fire by pouring kerosene. The statement Ex.31 was recorded by PW.10 and Dr. Khursheed Ahmad made an endorsement thereon that the patient was conscious throughout her statement. At about 00.45 hours on 23.3.1989 Tejinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries. After inquest had been held, the body was sent for post mortem examination, which was carried out by two doctors who found 83% burns thereon. According to the opinion of the doctors, the death was due to the extensive burns which caused hypovolenic and neurogenic shock leading to cardio- respiratory failure. The seized clothes were sent for medical examination and the report thereof indicated presence of kerosene.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His main defence was that he had never made any demand for money and in fact he had deposited some money in the account of Tejinder Kaur and had also purchased land in her name. He further stated in his statement which was given in writing that Tejinder Kaur caught fire when she was cooking food on stove and at that time he was not present in the house. He also stated that after coming to know about the fire, he rushed inside the house and tried to extinguish the fire, in which process he also received burn injuries and he remained admitted in the hospital for treatment till 8.4.1989. The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution which primarily rested on the dying declaration recorded by PW.10 and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above. The High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal.

5. PW.1 Chamanbai (mother of the deceased) has deposed that the marriage of Tejinder Kaur was performed with the appellant Dayal Singh about six years prior to the incident. After her marriage, she started living with the appellant at Gurdwara Gate No.2, Nanded. Initially, the parents, brothers and sisters of the appellant were all residing together but some time thereafter, the appellant started living separately. The appellant used to ill-treat Tejinder Kaur and used to ask her to bring money from her parents. Whenever Tejinder Kaur visited her parental home, she used to complain about the ill-treatment being meted out to her. About 4 months prior to the incident, the appellant came along with Tejinder Kaur to her parental house and demanded Rs.5,000/- from his mother-in-law. He held out a threat that Tejinder Kaur should not return until she brought Rs.5,000/-. Next day at about 8.00 p.m. he came armed with a sword and threatened Tejinder Kaur that he would kill her if the amount was not given. She has further deposed that she begged the accused not to behave in that manner as she had no money. Thereafter the appellant took Tejinder Kaur along with him and went away on his motor cycle. She also produced two letters which were allegedly sent by the deceased to her through a milk vendor. Regarding the main incident, she deposed that at about 3.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 one Biru Singh came and informed that Tejinder Kaur had received burn injuries and was in the hospital. She immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital and saw Tejinder Kaur admitted in the ward. On enquiry she informed her mother that her husband Dayal Singh had set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her body. After learning about the incident, the witness along with her son Sher Singh went to the Police Station Wazirabad and lodged an FIR of the incident. She has further deposed that some time after she had returned, Tejinder Kaur regained consciousness. Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar then asked the family members to leave the ward and thereafter statement of Tejinder Kaur was recorded. Though she was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but she stuck to her statement that the appellant used to make demand of money and used to threaten Tejinder Kaur and she was afraid of him. PW.4 Sher Singh is brother of Tejinder Kaur. He has corroborated the statement of his mother Chamanbai regarding the ill- treatment being meted out by the appellant to his sister and the demand of money and the earlier incident when the appellant had come armed with a sword and had given threats when the money was not paid to him. He has further deposed that at about 10.00-10.30 p.m. Tejinder Kaur regained consciousness and disclosed to him and his mother that the accused had sprinkled kerosene on her and had set her on fire. He has also deposed that when the Head Constable had called the doctor for recording the statement of the victim, he and other relations were asked to leave the ward.

6. PW.2 Dr. Sanjay has deposed that he is M.S. in General Surgery and was posted in Civil Hospital, Nanded, as a Duty Medical Officer on 22.3.1989. He had admitted Tejinder Kaur in the hospital in Ward No.4 and at that time she was conscious. PW.10 Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar has deposed that he was posted on duty in the hospital from 8.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 till 8.00 a.m. on the next day. At about 10.30 p.m. he received orders from P.S.I. Murkute to record statement of Tejinder Kaur. He, therefore, went to Ward No.4 where Tejinder Kaur was admitted and after finding her in a conscious state, he went to Dr. Khursheed Ahmad, Duty Medical Officer, and requested him to come and examine the victim as her statement had to be recorded. Dr. Khursheed Ahmad then examined the victim and informed him that she was conscious and he could record her statement. The witness has further deposed that he put questions to Tejinder Kaur to which she gave replies in Marathi, which he recorded in his own hand. In her statement (Ex.31) Tejinder Kaur stated that her marriage with the appellant had taken place 5 years back. At 2.00 p.m. on that day i.e. 22.3.1989 there was a quarrel between her and her husband on account of domestic reasons, namely, about visiting her mother's house and she was asked to bring money from her mother. The appellant then tore her blouse and sari and tried to drag her out of the house. She protested and said that she will not leave the house. At that stage, the appellant poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire by lighting a match stick. When she caught fire, she cried for help, on which her mother-in-law and neighbours came there and extinguished the fire by pouring water. Her daughter Sharanpal, who was sitting near her, had also sustained some burns and was taken outside by the appellant. She further stated that as she was wearing a polyester sari, she immediately caught fire and sustained burns in her chest, abdomen, legs and private parts. Her father-in-law brought her to the hospital for treatment. The statement was thumb marked by the victim. Thereafter, Dr. Khursheed Ahmad made an endorsement on the same and put his signatures thereon. The witness has categorically deposed that whatever was stated by Tejinder Kaur was recorded in her own words. In his cross- examination, he stated that the information had earlier been sent to Special Judicial Magistrate for recording statement of the victim. The recording of the statement commenced at 22.50 hours on 22.3.1989 and it took about 15-20 minutes.

16. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.