State of Punjab vs Agya Wanti and another

Hemant Gupta, J.—This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 656-DBA of 2002 arising out of FIR No.52 of 10.8.1195 and Criminal Appeal No. 750-DBA of 2002 arising out of Complaint of Dharamvir against the separate judgments of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge dated 15.12.2001 in respect of same occurrence, acquitting the respondents herein. In both the cases separate but almost identical evidence has been led. For the facility of reference, the facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 656-DBA of 2002.

The deceased-Sushil Kumari was married to Mangat Rai son of Jaswant Singh on 15.1.1994. It was on 7.7.1995, Sushil Kumari suffered burn injuries which led to her death on 15.7.1995. Soon after the occurrence, Sushil Kumari-deceased has made a statement (Ex. PD) at about 11.50 a.m. to ASI Basant Singh in the presence of Dr. J.R. Bansal, SMO, Kotkapura who certified that she is in a fit condition to make statement. In the said statement (Ex. PD), she has, inter alia, stated that she was being blamed for causing tension between her husband and father-in-law. This allegation has been leveled upon her by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and that the accident took place while she was in the process of lighting the stove and her clothes got fire.

ASI Basant Singh has recorded the police proceedings to the effect that near the injured, her mother-Usha Rani, her brother''s wife Anita Sharma, Panchayat of Village Laleana were present apart from Lady Doctor Usha Kapoor and Dr. J.R. Bansal (PW-1). Subsequently, on the same date, at about 10.25 p.m., the statement (Ex. PN) of Sushil Kumari-deceased was again recorded by Executive Magistrate, Faridkot. In the said statement, she stated that she poured kerosene oil upon her and set herself on fire. She has stated that there used to remain quarrel between her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The only incriminating circumstance against the accused in her statement is that they have demanded money from her about a month back.

The said statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate PW 6 Tarlochan Singh Bhatti which was made basis of registration of case by SSP, Faridkot on an application Ex PK on 10.8.1995. Such statement is not preceded by any opinion of the doctor that she was fit to make statement.

Learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence and returned a finding that the dying declaration (Ex. PD) made by Sushil Kumari-deceased to ASI Basant Singh DW 3, in the presence of Dr. J.R. Bansal (PW1) and Dr. Usha Kapoor is reliable and consequently, granted benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused.

The reasoning recorded by learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or perversity which may warrant any interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The first dying declaration (Ex. PD) has been recorded by ASI Basant Singh is in the presence of PW-1 Dr. J.R. Bansal. The Investigating Officer-Basant Singh has appeared as DW-3 and supported the recording of the said statement. Tarlochan Singh Bhatti, the Executive Magistrate who recorded the second dying declaration has been examined as PW-6. In the cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember that the thumb impressions of Sushil Kumari were in burnt condition or not at that time.

We find that the statement recorded by DW-3 Basant Singh is after obtaining the opinion of the doctor in his presence. Such statement and medical fitness is proved by PW1 Dr. J.R. Bansal who not only examined her but also declared her fit to make statement at 11.50 am. The second dying declaration is not preceded with the opinion of the doctor and has been produced after one month of such recording. Still further, on the basis of such statement as well, the prosecution is not able to prove that there was any demand of dowry. She has admitted that she herself poured kerosene on her and that a month before money was demanded. Simple demand of money without any correlation with the demand of dowry cannot lead to any presumption. PW 4 Dharmvir is the brother of the deceased. He was present at the time of preparation of inquest report Ex. PH. He stated that signatures of his wife, brother and mother were taken on blank papers as told by them. But none of them have been examined to support such plea. The entire evidence has been considered by learned trial court. We have gone through the long statement of Dharmvir, but find that his testimony is full of contradictions and improvements over the first version and cannot be relied upon.

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by learned trial Court on 15.12.2001.

Dismissed.