State of Haryana vs Surjit Kaur

N.K. Kapoor, J.

The State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 2.12.1982.

The prosecution story runs as under :

The deceased Baljit Kaur had been married to Kashmir Singh son of accused Surjit Kaur. On May 30, 1982 Baljit Kaur was in a state of distress when her brother Randhir Singh PW who resides in the Dera of Jiwan Nagar went to see her early in morning at about 9 a.m. and on inquiry the deceased told him that motherinlaw i.e. accused Surjit Kaur had administered something to her in milk in the presence of her husband (accused Kashmir Singh). Randhir Singh sent his brother Kala Singh to call a doctor and one Balbir Singh an R.M.P. was brought in who took out some fluid from the stomach of Baljit Kaur with the help of tube and also tried to make her vomit which was collected in a kauli. The life of Baljit Kaur could not be saved and she died after about an hour thereof. The matter was reported to the police by Randhir Singh who met the police officer at the bus stand, Damdama. The police officer visited the spot, took the vomitted contents from the kauli into possession after transferring the same into a bottle. The kauli was also sealed and taken into possession. He then prepared the inquest report and sent the deadbody for postmortem examination. The doctor conducting the post mortem examination could not give the probable cause of death of Baljit Kaur, however, he sent the viserca to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report wherefrom it was revealed that there was no poison in the viscera, although there were glasspieces therein. The result of the vomitted contents, however indicated the presence of phosphonidon (pesticide).

The dying declaration is also alleged to have been made in the presence of Smt. Pritam Kaur a membePanchayat of village Jiwan Nagar.

The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the facts asserted by the prosecution. Their contention is that there was great love between Kashmir Singh and the deceased and that they had gone out on the fateful day. They came back at about 10.00 a.m. and found Baljit Kaur in precarious condition. They sent for the parents of the deceased and the villagers. Doctor was also called by Kashmir Singh accused but Baljit Kaur could not survive. The complainant party wanted the accused to give huge amount which they were unable to pay and were consequently got implicated in this case. They did not lead any defence.

The prosecution with a view to prove its case examined Randhir Singh as PW1, Kala Singh PW5 and Pritam Kaur PW2. Randhir Singh and Kala Singh are the brothers of the deceased whereas Pritam Kaur is a memberPanchayat of the village. As per deposition of Randhir Singh complainant, he happened to pass by the side of the house of his sister Smt. Baljit Kaur on his way to his fields situated in There Jiwan Nagar that he saw women rushing towards the house of his sister and heard them saying that something has happened to the daughterinlaw of Saket Singh. On hearing this, he immediately rushed towards the house of Baljit Kaur and found her sister writhing with pain sometimes she would sit down and sometimes she would lay down. He further deposed that on his asking his sister Baljit Kaur told him that Smt. Surjit Kaur her motherinlaw had administered something in the milk a little while ago. At that time, her husband Kashmir Singh and mother in law Surjit Kaur were standing. Soon thereafter, Kala Singh PW5, brother of the deceased came present who was deputed to bring some doctor who brought Balbir Singh son of Lachman Singh, R.M.P. PW2 Balbir Singh administered an injection to her and made her vomit which was collected in a kauli Smt. Baljit Kaur, however, breathed her last within one hour of arrival of PW2 Balbir Singh. Smt. Pritam Kaur PW2 and Kala Singh PW5 who witnessed this occurrence and in whose presence the alleged oral dying declaration was made, broadly supported the version given by PW1 Randhir Singh. Dr. Gurtej Singh PW6 conducted the autopsy on the deadbody of Baljit Kaur and found viscers in the lungs, liver etc. congested. Vicera was sent to Chemical Examiner and as per report of the Chemical Examiner, the most probable cause of death could have been phosphonidon poison. The learned Additional Sessions Judge examined the evidence led with regard to the murder of Baljit Kaur under the three broad headings :

(i) oral dying declaration made by Baljit Kaur implicating her motherinlaw as the person who administered something to her in the milk;

(ii) the presence of the phosphonidon poison (pesticide) in the vomittance or the extract from the stomach of the deceased Baljit Kaur, and

(iii) postmortem report of the deadbody recorded by Gurtej Singh PW6.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW5, came to the conclusion that the above named three witnesses were only chancewitnesses and no plausible explanation has been given for their presence at the spot, thereby holding that they were not present at the time of occurrence and the story of dying declaration has been subsequently introduced so as to make believable their presence at that particular time. The statement of Pritam Kaur PW2 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is also inconsistent in so far as she stated that daughterinlaw of Saket Singh was unconscious when she reached and then in the later part of her statement, she asserted that Baljit Kaur had made dying declaration in her presence. Even otherwise, the statement of Smt. Pritam Kaur does not unspire confidence. According to her statement, she left for bazar to fetch a piece of soapcake but was attracted to the place of occurrence as she saw few ladies going and coming from the house of Saket Singh and so she went inside the house. It has also been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the house of Saket Singh does not come on her way to bazar. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that in all probability, the story regarding dying declaration appears to be a subsequent concoction.

Even the medical evidence of Dr. Gurtej Singh PW6 does not in any way help the case of the prosecution and even otherwise in the absence of cogent and reliable ocular evidence, it is wholly impermissible to hold a person guilty of the alleged heinous crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has highlighted the delay in filing the FIR, i.e. at 2 p.m. whereas the alleged occurrence took place at about 10 a.m. and the distance between the policestation and the village is barely seven miles and that too connected by a metalled road. It has also been noticed by the Court that the taste of pesticides alleged to have been consumed in the milk by Baljit Kaur is bitter and thus the same could not have been administered to her against her will or forcibly.

Examining the matter thus in its all entirety, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution case cannot be said to have been fully proved. The accused were thus given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges.

Having been unsuccessful before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, once again an attempt has been made by the learned AAG Haryana to put across his view point to seek reversal of the order of acquittal. The AAG once against reiterated the submissions already made before the lower court in support of the case of the prosecution.

We have carefully perused the statements of the eyewitnesses, doctors and other relevant evidence on record. The whole case hinges on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased. This statement is alleged to have been made in the presence of Randhir Singh, Kala Singh brothers of the deceased and Pritam Kaur, a total stranger to the family. The exact words which were uttered by the deceased have not come on record. Randhir Singh and Pritam Kaur have rightly been held to be chance witnesses. Dying declaration of the deceased is also oral. An oral dying declaration is a very weak type of evidence and in the absence of any other corroboration, it is not safe to convict a person. The delay in filing of the FIR further creates doubt in the version as put up by the prosecution.

We find no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. We find no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

JUDGMENT dismissed.