Hari Pal vs State of Haryana

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer that case F.I.R.No.80 dated May 12,1998 registered at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari, be re-investigated by some other officer.

Briefly the facts of the case are that one Anju was married to Anil Kumar. Her younger sister Pinki was married to Inder Singh, younger brother of Anil Kumar. Both the sisters were residing along with their husbands and other members of the family in the same house. On the night intervening 10/llthMay, 1998, Anju came out of her room and was in flames. She was burnt badly. Her sister Pinki tried to save her, but she was pushed inside the room by Anil Kumar and other members of the family. Anju was rushed to the Civil Hospital, Rewari, and thereafter she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where she expired. In the opinion of the doctor at Civil Hospital, Rewari, Anju had suffered 100 per cent burns. Case was registered against Anil Kumar, husband of Anju deceased, his brothers Harpal Singh and Labh Singh, his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and his sister Saroj, u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code. However, after completion of the investigation, the challan was presented u/s 306/34, Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code.

Mr. M.L. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Anju deceased was used to be beaten up by Anil Kumar and other co-accused very frequently. She had written various letters to her father explaining her plight. The counsel has further argued that Pinki, who is the sister of Anju deceased, had made a statement u/s 161, Cr. P.C. (Annexure P9), to the effect that when she tried to save Anju, she was pushed inside the room by Anil Kumar, and other accused. Mr. Saini, thus, contended that in spite of the statement made by Pinki, which prima facie indicates a case of murder, yet challan has been put up u/s 306/34 and not u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the entire investigation of the case is tainted and that the Investigating Officer has been won over by the accused side. He prays that the case be reinvestigated and challan be filed u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code, against all the accused.

Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana submits that the officer investigating the case has retired. He further submits that during investigation it transpired that Anju had committed suicide and was not burnt by her in-laws. He submits that if the petitioner has any grouse, he may raise the issue before the trial Court when the case comes up for hearing.

I have heard the counsel for the parties. A perusal of Annexure P9, i.e., the statement of Pinki, sister of the deceased, clearly shows that Anju was set on fire by her in-laws. Pinki tried to save her sister, who was burnt inside the room by her in-laws. She is a natural witness as she is residing in the same house. Due weightage ought to have been given to her statement by the Investigating Agency and prima facie it appears that the officer investigating the case has tried to shield the accused and the challan ought to have been filed u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code.

I am, thus, of the considered opinion that the investigation in the present case has not been fair. The Investigating Agency has not given due weightage to the statement of Pinki and other evidence adduced on record. It is, thus, imperative that the case be reinvestigated by a Senior Official of the State Police. It is, therefore, directed that the Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), whose headquarters are at Madhuban, shall investigate this case again by taking into consideration the statement of Pinki and all other relevant evidence which is necessary for just and proper investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, a supplementary challan be filed, if need be. The investigation shall be completed within a period of two months from today and the supplementary challan, if any, shall be filed within a period of 15 days thereafter.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed.