Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab

Appellants before us, together with Dalip Singh, elder brother-in-law of the deceased as also her husband Hari Singh, were tried for commission of an offence of murdering Harbhajan Kaur on 21.8.1997 at about 7.30 a.m. Before we advert to the factual matrix involved in this appeal, we may notice that whereas the aforementioned Ranjit Singh and Dilip Singh have since expired, Hari Singh husband of the deceased has been acquitted by the High Court upon grant of benefit of doubt.

Before proceeding further in the matter we may notice that before the second dying declaration was recorded, an attempt was made also to record the dying declaration of the deceased by the Judicial Magistrate on 21.8.1997, but as the condition of the deceased was not such so as to enable her to make any statement, the same could not be recorded. We may, at this stage, notice that an oral dying declaration was also made by the deceased before her brother Harbhajan Singh who examined himself as PW-7. The defence has examined one Gurmukh Singh (DW-4) to show that a dying declaration was also made before him by the deceased to the effect that she got burn injuries from an accident.

We may furthermore notice that, indisputably, at the time the occurrence took place, the husband was in the latrine. The grievance of the deceased as against her husband appears to be that despite calling, he did not come at the spot. It however, appears from her first dying declaration that she was taken to the hospital by her husband and his aunt, namely, Pathani - sister of the mother-in-law of the deceased.

We, however, are not in a position to accept the statement of the deceased as regards the roles played by the other accused persons, namely, the brother-in-laws of the deceased and their respective wives.

The role ascribed to Vir Kaur, wife of Dalip singh (since deceased), and Bimla Kaur wife of Santokh Singh, together with their husbands is that they had allegedly caught hold of her.

Whereas in the second dying declaration, the deceased alleged that while after quarreling with her husband, she wanted to leave the house and for that purpose she started gathering clothes, her father-in-law came, followed by her sister-in-law Bimla Kaur. Ranjit Singh, her father-in-law and brothers of her husband, namely, Dalip Singh and Santokh Singh, had also come there. According to her, all the men were helping her mother-in- law and at that point of time her mother-in-law set her ablaze with a match stick. The inconsistency in the roles ascribed to her brother-in-law and sisters-in-law is, therefore, evident.. In her first dying declaration, the role of catching hold of her was ascribed to all of them, other than the mother-in-law; but in the second statement it was ascribed only to the men, namely her brothers-in-law alone.

We are, therefore of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the rule of caution should be applied and therefore benefit of doubt should be given to appellant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, namely, Santokh Singh, Vir Kaur w/o Dalip Singh and Bimla Kaur w/o Santokh Singh, respectively.

For the reasons aforementioned the appeal of Roshan Kaur, appellant No.-3, is dismissed and the appeal filed by appellant No.2 - Santokh Singh, appellant No.4 - Vir Kaur and appellant No.5 - Bimla Kaur, is allowed. Appellant No. 3 - Roshan Kaur is directed to surrender and she be taken into custody immediately. Appellant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds.