Kamlesh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 5121987, whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for committing the murder of her daughterinlaw Kavita alias Saroj.

In brief, facts of the prosecution case, are, that on the morning of 2651987, Kavita alias Saroj with more than 80% burns on her body was brought by her husband Som Nath to Civil Hospital Shahabad. Dr Samrat Harsh Sehgal gave treatment to her and sent ruqqa Exhibit PA to the Police Station at 9.15 A.M. Almost at the same time he sent another ruqqa Exhibit PA/1 to Naib TehsildarcumExecutive Magistrate, Shahabad, with the request that the dying declaration of the said injured may be recorded. After the receipt of information that the said officer was out of station, Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal recorded the dying declaration Exhibit PA/2 in the presence of Dr. Jatinder Sayal, who also was working in the same hospital.

The dying. declaration was quiet brief after the effect that Kamlesh, her motherinlaw whom she described as a bitch) had been giving her beating from the very beginning. While she herself was preparing Chapati, her, motherinlaw poured kerosene oil on her and she was burnt. Her husband saved her and he too caught fire. She further stated that none else except her motherinlaw was at fault. The said declaration was attested by both Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal, as well as Dr. Jatinder Sayal, and was handed over to ASI Surinder Singh who vide his endorsement at 9.50 AM sent the same to, that Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded on the same day at 10.05 AM. Special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 2.00 PM that day.\\ ASI Surinder Singh prepared inquest report, sent the dead body for postmortem examination, which revealed multiple 90% burns all over the body. Eyebrows and eye lashes, axillary and pubic hair were burnt and singeing was present. Larynx, trachea, lungs and intestines were congested and healthy. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock, as a result of multiple burns, which, were antemortem, and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ASI Surinder Singh inspected the spot and collected among other articles burnt pieces of cloth, broken bangles, cylinder, stove and tin. Investigation of this case was taken over by Sl Hukam Singh on the same day at 3 00 PM. The said SI arrested Kamlesh accused on the next day of the occurrence. After completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned, tried, convicted, and sentenced, as indicated above.

In her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused gave her version. According to her, on the morning of the occurrence, she, her son Som Parkash and his wife Kavita were present in the house. At that time, her son Som Parkash asked his wife to bring his breakfast. She went to the kitchen to bring the same. In the meanwhile they heard shrieks of Kavita, whereupon both she and her son Som Parkash rushed towards the kitchen and found that Kavita bad caught fire. Her son immediately tried his level best to put off the fire, and in that process he too suffered burn injuries. After the fire was extinguished he aid his wife Kavita were removed to Civil Hospital, Shahabad. She was detained in the Police Station, and there she came to know about the death of her daughterinlaw. She pleaded false implication in this case. In her defence, she examined Dr. R.K. Sandhir as DW1 and Som Nath as DW2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record with their help.

According to PW2 Ramesh Kumar brother of the deceased, the marriage between the deceased and Som Nath was solemnised on 1151986 and a male child was born out of the said wedlock. Ramesh Kumar further deposed that whenever Kavita visited her parental house, she complained that her motherinlaw teased her for bringing inadequate dowry. In his crossexamination, this witness admitted that after her marriage deceased visited their house 4 or 1 times and her last visit was in December, 1986. It is true that this witness admitted in crossexamination that in none of her letters received by them, the deceased made any complaint against her in laws. It is quite apparent that the deceased would run a great risk to mention such a fact in her letters against her inlaws. Thus mere omission on her part to mention such a fact in her letters, would not be sufficient to uphold the defence plea that the accused did not harass the deceased on this account. In her brief dying declaration, the deceased had specifically mentioned that her motherinlaw gave her beating from the very first day. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is quite apparent that the accused was annoyed with the deceased from the first day she came to the house of her in laws. Prosecution has thus been able to prove that the accused had adequate motive to commit this heinous crime.

The next question which arises for determination is as to whether Kavita alias Saroj did make any dying declaration Exhibit PA/2 in this case. The said dying declaration was recorded by PW1 Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal in Civil Hospital, Shahabad, where Kavita alias Saroj was admittedly taken by her husband shortly after the occurrence, with more than 80% burns on her body. Dr. Samrat, Harsh Sehgal, who was posted in Civil Hospital, Shahabad, attended on this patient and sent information about her admission immediately to the Police Station. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the condition of the patient he made a request to Naib TehsildarcumExecutive Magistrate, Shahbad, to record her dying declaration. Since the said Officer was not available at Shahabad, Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal proceeded to record her dying declaration himself. Testimony of Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal has mainly been assailed on the ground that condition of Kavita alias Saroj was critical, she had more than 80% burns over her body, scalp hair were partially burnt, eyebrows and eyelashes were burnt, and, as such she would not be in her senses, or, in a proper frame of mind to make any coherent statement regardless the main occurrence Postmortem report revealed that skull and vertebra were healthy and did not reveal my damage to the brain, except the same as well as larynx, trachea and lungs were congested. Kavita was conscious to some extent when she was brought in the hospital in a condition of shock and was having hallucination, due to that shock. Pethedin injection was given to her as pain killer, and supportive treatment was also given. Her statement was recorded in question and answer form and she gave rational answers to those questions, which would indicate that she fully understood the questions, was in her senses and in a proper frame of mind to make a coherent statement. Mere fact that because of injuries, she made her statement in feeble, but, clear voice would further show that she was fit enough to make a true, voluntary and coherent statement in this case. The next question which arises for determination is as to whether her statement is true and voluntary. Admittedly, Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal is an independent witness. There is no evidence on the record that he in any manner was interested in the complainant party, or was inimically disposed towards the accused. He is a wholly reliable witness and we do not see any cogent reason to disbelieve him, on this important aspect of the prosecution case.

Deceased Kavita alias Saroj in her brief dying declaration had only accused her motherinlaw for commission of the offence. She had completely exonerated her husband, who received burn injuries on his person, while trying to save her life. At the time when her drying declaration was recorded only Dr. Samrat Harsh Sehgal and Dr. Jatinder Sayal were present, and there was nobody to tutor her at that time. Even otherwise she was in critical stage and her death so near, she spoke the truth and specifically named her motherinlaw as the sole culprit, who, first poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter, brunt her.

The defence plea set up in this case that the deceased herself caught fire when she went to bring breakfast is a cock and bull story which hardly inspires confidence. Som Nath, no doubt tried his best to save his wife, after she had been set ablaze by her motherinlaw. The fact remains that after death of his wife, Som Nath came forward with his version at a belated stage, in order to save his mother from punishment regarding this heinous offence. The accused did riot accompany her son or her daughterinlaw to the hospital after they had received burn injuries on their person. Her conduct in this respect is inconsistent with natural human conduct. The defence plea set up in this case is clearly an after thought, and we have not the least hesitation in rejecting the same. Medical evidence also reveals that the burn injuries on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The prosecution has thus been able to bring home charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Kamlesh accused beyond reasonable doubt and she has rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed against Kamlesh accused by the learned trial court, this appeal is hereby dismissed.