Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Sanghi

Heard counsel for the parties. The Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of applicant/appellant Ram Niwas during the pendency of the appeal.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of dying declaration made by Santosh before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak on 10.1.2006. According to Santosh (deceased), a day earlier to making her statement, her sister-in-law Bimla (accused No. 5), mother-in-law Rama Devi (accused No. 3), brother-in-law Raj Kumar (accused No. 2) and her husband Ram Niwas (applicant/appellant) had beaten her. Mann Singh (accused No. 4), husband of Bimla (accused No. 5) who was serving in the Police Department at Gurgaon was also called by Bimla (accused No. 5). Thereafter, Mann Singh (accused No. 4), Raj Kumar (accused No. 2) and Ram Niwas (applicant/appellant) overpowered her at about 8.00 p.m. whereas her mother-in-law Rama Devi (accused No. 3) poured kerosene oil on her and sister-in-law Bimla (accused No. 5) set her ablaze and then fled away. The neighbours of Santosh (deceased) after hearing shrieks and screams raised by her, rushed to the spot. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 8.2.2007 held that the prosecution has failed miserably to establish the case against Raj Kumar (accused No. 2), Rama Devi (accused No. 3), Mann Singh (accused No. 4) and Bimla (accused No. 5) of having committed the murder of Santosh (deceased) beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. However, it was held that the prosecution has established the case against the applicant/appellant Ram Niwas. The applicant/appellant Ram Niwas has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the marriage between the applicant/appellant-Ram Niwas and his wife Santosh was solemnized nine years earlier to the incident that had occurred. On the fateful day, the applicant/appellant had returned home in the evening after having his drinks. His wife Santosh (deceased) picked up a quarrel with him. Since he was in an inebriated condition, he went to sleep. He woke up as his neighbours reached his house and they heard the screams raised by his wife. She had set herself on fire. The dying declaration before the learned Magistrate was made by his wife at the instance of her parents. Besides, the applicant/appellant has undergone more than five years of imprisonment of which three years is after conviction.

In response, learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for convicting the applicant/appellant-Ram Niwas. The dying declaration, it is submitted, was made by Santosh (deceased) of her own free will. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant is not liable to be suspended.

After giving our thoughtful considerations to the matter, it may be noticed that there are arguable points in the appeal which would require consideration. In terms of the affidavit dated 17.5.2012 of Sh. Shishupal Singh Superintendent, District Jail Bhiwani, the applicant/appellant has undergone imprisonment of 6 years and 20 days as on 17.5.2012. He has availed of 14 weeks parole and there is no complaint of misuse of the concession of parole. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharampal v. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 600 has held that life convicts who have undergone five years of imprisonment of which three years should be after conviction should be released on bail pending hearing of the appeal. The said guidelines have been met in the present case inasmuch as the applicant/appellant has undergone 6 years of imprisonment which includes more than 5 years after conviction. Therefore, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Ram Niwas shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.