State of Haryana vs Manjit Kaur

Jaswant Singh, J.—State of Haryana is in appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, arising out of FIR No. 89 dated 20.4.2007 for the offences under Sections 302/328/309 IPC, PS Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,whereby respondent Manjit Kaur has been acquitted of the charges levelled against her.

As per case of the prosecution, on 20.4.2007 at 5.30 a.m., one Baldev Singh made statement Ex.PX before SI/SHO Ram Singh (PW23) of Adarsh Police Station, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra to the effect that his 15 years ago his daughter Manjit Kaur was married with Lakhwinder son of Kartar Singh and out of that wedlock two daughters, namely, Amandeep and Harpreet Kaur were born. Lakhwinder Singh committed suicide about 8/9 years ago and after his death Manjit Kaur contracted Karewa marriage with Charan Singh (brother of late Lakhwinder Singh), who was already married to Kulwinder Kaur @ Rajwinder Kaur. Out of this wedlock a son namely Jasandeep was born. It was further alleged by Baldev Singh that differences had arisen in the family life of Charan Singh and on the night of 19.4.2007 Charan Singh telephonically informed the complainant that his daughter and her three children, namely, Amandeep, Harpreet Kaur and Jasandeep had consumed some medicine due to which they all were admitted in Nagpal Hospital, Kurukshetra. On receipt of said telephonic information, complainant Baldev Singh alongwith his relatives and other residents of his village reached Nagpal Nursing Home where they found that Amandeep Kaur and Jasandeep had already died and Manjit Kaur and Harpreet Kaur were struggling for life. It was also alleged by Baldev Singh that on enquiring from his daughter Manjit Kaur, it was told by her that Charan Singh and his wife Rajwinder Kaur had forcibly administered medicine to them as a result of which Amandeep Kaur and Jasandeep had died. With these allegations action was sought against the accused person.

ASI Ram Singh (PW 23) after recording the said statement Ex.PX, made his endorsement Ex.PX/1 and sent the same for registration of an FIR upon which formal FIR Ex.PX/3 was recorded at PS Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra at 7.35 pm and special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate.

On the basis of said statement, police initiated proceedings against accused Charan Singh and his first wife Kulwinder Kaur @ Rajwinder Kaur and after completion of investigation they were charge sheeted for causing the murder of Amandeep, Harpreet Kaur and Jasandeep. In the said trial complainant Baldev Singh, his daughter Manjit Kaur (accused respondent herein) and one Kuldeep Singh were examined as PW5, PW6 and PW7, however, they did not support the prosecution case. On the basis of evidence adduced on record both of them were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 27.8.2008.

The prosecution then turned their attention towards accused respondent Manjit Kaur and charge sheeted her for causing the death of Amandeep, Harpreet Kaur and Jasandeep. On the basis of incriminating evidence collected against accused respondent Manjit Kaur, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., was prepared and after her surrender she was sent to stand trial where she was charged for the offences under Sections 302, 328 and 309 IPC.

The prosecution in order to prove its case against accused respondent Manjit Kaur examined as many as 23 witnesses. Respondent in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and pleaded her innocence. She did not lead any evidence in her defence.

The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and on analysis of evidence on record found that both the pieces of evidence i.e. the extra judicial confession and the dying declaration being suspicious could not be acted upon to hold the accused respondent guilty and accordingly she was acquitted of the charges framed against her. Aggrieved against the same State of Haryana has filed the present appeal.

After hearing the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned trial court has found that the evidence of extra judicial confession tendered by PW14 Dr. A.C. Nagpal is shrouded by doubts. It is noticed that three children after the occurrence in Village Bir Amin were taken to Dr.Nagpal Nursing Home on 19.4.2007 at 9.20 pm by Charan Singh etc., (husband of Manjit Kaur and father of deceased children) and the accused respondent Manjit Kaur was taken to same hospital by her neighbour Dalbir Singh, where Amandeep Kaur and Jasandeep had already died during the night of 19.4.2007 at 11.10 and 11.50 pm respectively and Harpreet Kaur died the next day i.e. 20.4.2007 at 11.30 am. PW14 Dr. A.C. Nagpal had sent a ruqa to the police but he made no mention of extra judicial confession being made by accused Manjit. In fact it is stated to have been recorded on 11.5.2007 i.e. after nearly 20 days. It is also noticed that a Judicial Magistrate had visited the hospital for recording statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., on the morning of 20.4.2007 but even during the visit of Magistrate, no such mention regarding extra judicial confession was made by PW14-Dr. AC Nagpal.

As regards the videographed dying declaration allegedly made by Harpreet Kaur before PW15 Pardeep Kumar Arya, which was placed on record in the form of a compact disc Ex.P1, the learned trial court found that the prosecution led no evidence to prove that the said compact disc was authentic and was not tampered with. The prosecution did not get the same tested from any Expert in the field and therefore, there was enough scope for the CD to be a doctored one.

The prosecution was also relying on the statement of deceased Harpreet Kaur, Ex. PDD which was sought to be relied upon as a dying declaration, which gives out that the medicine was administered to the children by Manjit Kaur accused with a spoon on the pretext that they were having bad cold and it would cure them. The learned trial court keeping in view the report of FSL, which stated that organophosphorous, commonly known as celphos was administered, found that the same was very difficult to administer with the help of a spoon by mixing with some liquid since it contains phosphorous and its mixture with water or any other liquid gives rise to an instant reaction which in smell is very pungent. The learned trial court further found that the statement of Harpreet Kaur recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PDD was recorded at 9 am and she died at 11.30 am on 20.4.2007, after she was declared fit to make statement at 8.30 am. The learned trial court doubted the fact that Harpreet Kaur could remain mentally fit and alert during the course of making of statement Ex.PDD in view of endorsement made by Dr.AC Nagpal, PW14 that Harpreet Kaur was having difficulty in breathing and had died 1? hours after making the statement. The learned trial court found that Harpreet Kaur an impressionable child of 11 years old in view of the crowd of relatives and her father etc., present in the hospital around the time of making statement Ex.PDD could be easily tutored. Thus, the learned court recorded the finding that the alleged dying declaration could not be relied upon.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as to how the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned trial court is palpably wrong or erroneous or perverse warranting interference by this Court. In our considered opinion, learned trial Court has given well founded reasons in support of its finding of exoneration. Therefore, keeping in view the settled parameters laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, and State of Maharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan and Ors. 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 224 for adjudication in such matters, we find no legal infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

Dismissed.