Allowed

Saurav Kumar v. the State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2013CRA-S/912/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC. The court held that the sole evidence, a dying declaration, was unreliable due to the victim's serious burn injuries, lack of medical proof of mental fitness at the time of recording, and conflicting testimonies.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The fine deposited, if any, is to be returned.

Saurav Kumar Vs the State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 05, 2013

Saurav Kumar

…Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra & Mr.K.S.Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

¶13

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶14

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 25.7.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appellant, Saurav Kumar, was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years besides payment of fine of Rs.1,000/and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for ten days. The fine was paid by the appellant.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that the police swang into motion on receipt of the Memo. (Ex.P1) dated 1.6.1999, from Dr. Anil

¶16

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 2

¶18

Aggarwal (PW1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, to the effect that Neeru (since deceased) was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, with burn injuries. On receipt of the said information, ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) along with other police officials rushed to the Civil Hospital, Jalalabad. After seeing the condition of the patient, ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) tried to locate the Executive Magistrate but as none was available, he moved an application (Ex.P9) to the Senior Medical Officer, namely, Dr. Balraj Vohra (PW3) for recording statement of Neeru (since deceased). She was declared fit to make the statement vide endorsement (Ex.P2). The statement (Ex.P6) of Neeru was recorded by ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) on the dictation of Dr. Balraj Vohra (PW3) since Dr. Balraj Vohra did not know how to write Punjabi and therefore, he requested ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) to record/write down the statement of Neeru (since deceased).

¶19

In her statement, Neeru stated that she had studied up to 11th class; her marriage was solemnized with the appellant, Saurav, about six years ago; her husband had four brothers and all of them were living jointly; her husband was running a Karyana (grocery) shop; he used to beat her since she was not of his liking; on the day of occurrence, she was beaten by her husband and was told to die; at about 2:00 p.m., she sprinkled kerosene oil on herself and lit the fire; and that her brother-in-law Raj Kumar, sister-in-law Kiran Bala and younger brother-in-law Robin, doused the fire and took her to

¶20

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 3

¶22

hospital. Neeru put her thumb impression beneath her statement at point Ex. P6/B. ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) put his endorsement (Ex.P6/C) and sent the statement to the police station for registration of a case, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.P7) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, was recorded by the Moharrir Head Constable, Darshan Ram (PW6).

¶23

ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) visited the place of occurrence and there he received an information (Ex.P3) that Neeru had died. He deputed ASI Gurbax Singh at the spot for further investigation and he himself went to the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P10), which was attested by Kewal Krishan (PW4), father of the deceased. The dead body was sent to the Civil Hospital, Fazilka, for autopsy. ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) once again went to the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.P11). Plastic Can (Ex.MO-1), burnt clothes (Ex.MO-2), match box (Ex.MO-3), partly burnt match stick (Ex.MO-4), one lady suit made of tericoat (Ex.MO-5) and part of ash (Ex.MO-6) were taken into possession of the police vide memo. (Ex.P12). ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) also recorded the statements of the witnesses in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C. After arriving at the police station, ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) deposited the case property with the Moharrir Head Constable Darshan Ram (PW6). Section 306, IPC, was added in the FIR. The postmortem report (Ex.P4) and a parcel (Ex.MO-7) containing the burnt clothes removed

¶24

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 4

¶26

from the dead body of Neeru by the doctor, were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.P13). The appellant was arrested on 7.6.1999 and vide memo Ex.P14 he was apprised of the grounds of his arrest. The personal search memo (Ex.P15) of the appellant was also prepared.

¶27

After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for prosecution of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Since the said offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the said Court.

¶28

Finding a prima facie case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, to which he (appellant) pleaded not guilty and claim trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

¶29

PW1 Dr. Anil Aggarwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,

¶30

Jalalabad: He deposed that on 1.6.1999, at 2.15 p.m., Neeru wife of Saurav was got admitted in the hospital by Raj Kumar in a serious condition with 100% burns. An intimation (Ex.P1) was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Jalalabad. On the same day, at 4.20 p.m., on police request, he gave opinion (Ex.P2) that the patient was fit to make statement. On the same day, at

¶31

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

5.40 p.m., Neeru expired and, therefore, a report (Ex.P3) was sent to the Station House Officer at 5.45 p.m. in that regard. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the statement of Neeru was recorded in his presence but in token thereof his signatures were not obtained thereon. PW2 Dr. M.M. Singh: He deposed that on 2.6.1999, at 10.00 a.m., he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Neeru. He found that the dead body was emitting smell of kerosene. Second and third degree burns were present all over the body. Skin was blackened at places and peeled off at other places. Blisters were also present at places. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of 100% burns, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

¶35

PW3 Dr. Balraj Vohra: He deposed that on 1.6.1999, during the course of admission of Neeru in the Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, police requested him for recording her (Neeru) statement. Dr. Anil Aggarwal, vide his report (Ex.P2) had declared the patient fit to make her statement. Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector had recorded the statement of Neeru in his presence. He further deposed that he was not knowing how to write

¶36

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 6

¶38

Punjabi, therefore, he requested the police official to record the statement of Neeru in Punjabi. After completion of the statement (Ex.P6), the thumb impression of Neeru was obtained on the said statement. The statement was read over and explained to Neeru.

¶39

PW4 Kewal Krishan @ Ashok Kumar: He deposed that he was father of Neeru Bala wife of Saurav Kumar. The marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 13.12.1998. The appellant and his family members were not happy with the dowry articles. The accused were beating his daughter on account of less dowry. They were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- for Karyana shop. He had been requesting the accused not to mis-behave or maltreat his daughter, but despite requests the accused did not mend their ways. 10-15 days earlier to the occurrence, his daughter had informed him that the accused were demanding dowry and, as such, were misbehaving and maltreating her. On 1.6.1999, he received a telephonic message that his daughter was set on fire by the accused, then he accompanied by Vinod Bansal, Charanjit and other family members, visited Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, where he found that his daughter was lying admitted in a critical condition. His daughter

¶40

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 7

¶42

disclosed to him at 1.00 p.m. that she was taken to bathroom by Raj Kumar, Kirna and Saurav Kumar, where Raj Kumar caught hold her by her feet while Kirna caught her arms, whereas Saurav Kumar poured kerosene on her and after closing the doors of the bathroom, she was set on fire by Saurav Kumar. On the same day at 5.00 p.m., his daughter had died in the hospital. He further deposed that the police did not record all the facts in the statement (Ex.P6) suffered by his daughter. In the crossexamination, he took a somersault and deposed as

¶43

under:-

¶44

" At the time of marriage, there was no demand from the accused or his parents. Neeru had no financial difficulty after marriage. After marriage accused never came to me to demand anything. On the day of occurrence, I had gone to see my daughter and at 12.00 noon I had reached Jalalabad. Directly I had gone to the house of my daughter and my daughter had prepared meals and when Neeru was preparing food at that time other family members of the accused were sitting with me. Saurav had no dispute with Neeru and they were residing happily. While preparing food Neeru caught fire accidently and she was shifted to hospital by us. When Neeru was admitted in the hospital then Neeru was given sedative injections.

¶45

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶46

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶47

¶48

At about 1.30 p.m. Neeru was taken to the hospital. I remained by the side of Neeru till her death in the hospital. Till her death Neeru did not regain consciousness. In my presence statement of Neeru was not recorded either by the police or by the doctor. My statement was not recorded by the police. On 15.3.2000 I was tutored by the police outside the court and I deposed under police pressure. My signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police."

¶49

Thereafter at request of the learned Public Prosecutor, the witness was declared hostile, but nothing material in favour of the prosecution could be elicited from his mouth.

¶50

PW5 Roop Chand : He deposed that he was the mediator for the marriage of Neeru with the appellant. Kewal Krishan had given dowry according to his capacity without there being any demand from the accused side. After marriage, Neeru resided happily without there being any demand from the accused side, at the house of her in-laws.

¶51

This witness was also declared hostile at the request of learned Public Prosecutor, but in spite of lengthy cross-examination nothing favourable to the prosecution emerged on record.

¶52

PW6 MHC Darshan Ram: He deposed that on 1.6.1999,

¶53

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶54

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶55

¶56

after receipt of memo (Ex.P1), ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) had gone to the hospital and recorded the statement (Ex.P6) of Neeru, which was further sent to him for recording of the formal FIR (Ex.P8). Yet another memo (Ex.P3) was received in the police station regarding the death of Neeru, on the basis of which, Section 306, IPC, was added. He further deposed that the special reports were sent to the higher officials. He did depose that the case property was deposited with him.

¶57

PW7 SI Amrit Pal Singh: He deposed regarding recording of the statement of Neeru (since deceased) and the investigation conducted by him. In his crossexamination, he admitted that Dr. Anil Aggarwal was not available at the time of recording of the statement of Neeru. He further admitted in the cross-examination that questions to the patient were being put by Dr. Balraj Vohra and he (Amrit Pal Singh) was writing the replies given by the patient.

¶58

PW8 Amrik Singh, Dfraftsman: He had prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.P16).

¶59

PW9 HC Rajinder Singh: He tendered his sworn affidavit (Ex.P17) into evidence.

¶60

PW10 Constable Khushal Chand: He also tendered his

¶61

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶62

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶63

¶64

affidavit (Ex.P18) into evidence.

¶65

After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant, in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded. The incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him. In answer to the penultimate question, he replied as follows:-

¶66

" I am innocent. My father-in-law had come to meet my wife on the day of alleged occurrence. At about 11.00 to 12.00 noon I was at my shop. My wife was preparing lunch for her father-in-law. Accidently, she caught fire while cooking food. My brother Vikas had informed us on phone, to reach immediately. I alongwith Raj Kumar my brother reached home. I alongwith my father-in-law and brother Raj Kumar and others got admitted Neeru to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad. Neither I demanded any dowry or cash nor I considered her bad. I never treated her with cruelty. I and deceased were having very cordial relation. She never made any statement to the police as dying declaration as she never became conscious after the accident. This was all concocted story by the police to extract money from us to which we refused. I am living in a separate portion from my other brothers who also live in same house separately. We all have separate mess and separate residence portions. I have been falsely implicated in this case."

¶67

No defence evidence was led by the appellant.

¶68

After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant for the charge punishable under Section

¶69

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶70

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 11

¶71

304-B, IPC, but hold him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC and awarded the sentence, as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.

¶72

Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

¶73

a) that Neeru (since deceased) was admitted to the hospital with 100% burns of second and third degree. Her alleged statement was recorded after 2-1/2 hours of the occurrence which was not possible in view of the condition of Neeru (since deceased);

¶74

b) that Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3) before whom Neeru (since deceased) suffered her dying declaration, had not medically checked her and even then he accorded his opinion that the patient was physically and mentally fit to make statement;

¶75

c) that Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3) was not knowing how to write Punjabi, therefore, he requested ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) to record the statement of Neeru though it has come in evidence that such statement was recorded on the dictation of Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3) but the fact remains that Punjabi was not known to him then there was no question on the part of the doctor to dictate the statement to the police official as actually narrated by

¶76

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶77

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶78

¶79

Neeru (since deceased);

¶80

d) That without knowing Punjabi Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3) should not have attested the statement, allegedly suffered by Neeru (since deceased); e) That according to prosecution, there were two dying declarations suffered by Neeru (since deceased)

¶81

i) as suffered before Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3) and recorded by ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7); and

¶82

ii) as disclosed by Neeru (since deceased) to her father, Kewal Krishan (PW4)

¶83

Both the alleged dying declarations were absolutely contradictory. In the first dying declaration, Neeru (since deceased) stated that on account of harassment meted out to her by the appellant, she poured kerosene oil on herself and lit the fire while in the oral dying declaration before her father, it was disclosed that her in-laws were harassing her on account of demand of dowry and they put her on fire in the bathroom;

¶84

f) That it has come in the deposition of the witnesses i.e. her father and other family members of her paternal side who were present in the hospital by her side when

¶85

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶86

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶87

¶88

her statement was being recorded by ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) that the opinion with regard to fitness of Neeru (since deceased) to make statement was given by Dr.Anil Aggarwal (PW1) but he did not remain present at the time of making of the alleged statement by Neeru (since deceased), therefore, the prosecution has failed to show that at the time and during the recording of the statement till its completion, Neeru (since deceased) remained physically and mentally fit to suffer the statement;

¶89

h) that Kewal Krishan (PW4) father of the deceased in his cross-examination very fairly conceded that the appellant or his family members never harassed or maltreated Neeru (since deceased) on account of demand of dowry rather he deposed that his daughter Neeru was being kept nicely by the appellant and his family members;

¶90

i) that except the alleged dying declaration which cannot be relied upon without there being any corroboration, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC; and

¶91

j) that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory and such additions, omissions or

¶92

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶93

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 14

¶94

confabulations go to the root of the case and the benefit of the same should have been extended to the appellant. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned trial court had rightly accepted the dying declaration suffered by Neeru (since deceased) and in support of its findings, cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned court below. He further submits that no corroboration is required if the dying declaration is believed by the Court. He also submits that Kewal Krishan (PW4), father of Neeru (since deceased), was declared hostile at the request of learned Public Prosecutor since he was won over by the appellant during his cross-examination, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his deposition. The depositions of the doctors who had accorded their opinion with regard to fitness of Neeru (since deceased) regarding making of her statement and that of police officer should not be brushed aside lightly. He further submits that the contradictions, additions etc pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant were bound to occur in the deposition of the truthful witnesses and the same are not going to the root of the case and as such, the appellant cannot be acquitted on that score.

¶95

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶96

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶97

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 15

¶98

Concededly, on 01.6.1999 at 2.00 p.m, Neeru (since deceased) with 100% burns was brought to the hospital by Raj Kumar, a brother of the appellant. The burns were found to be of second and third degree. The statement/dying declaration by Neeru (since deceased) was recorded at 4.20 p.m and by that time, 2-1/2 hours have elapsed whereas the incident of sustaining burns had taken place at 1.00 p.m, therefore, from that time three hours have elapsed. There appears to be substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not possible for the injured in such a serious condition to suffer statement after three hours. During the course of his argument, learned counsel had pointed out from the statement of Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3) that he was not aware as to whether the injured was administered morphin injection. The prosecution has not placed on record the bed-headticket of Neeru (since deceased). Dr.Anil Aggarwal (PW1) who first attended Neeru (since deceased) in the hospital, did not depose regarding the medicines administered to Neeru during her stay of approximately three hour in the hospital. As a matter of common experience and knowledge, as soon as a patient with burn injuries of such magnitude is brought to the hospital then for redressal of her pain and agony, some sedatives or tranquillizers are injected. If the burns, might be 100%, would have been of superficial nature then in that eventuality, the scenario would have been different but the in the

¶99

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶100

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶101

¶102

case in hand, concededly Neeru (since deceased) had 100% burns of second and third degree therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that she was not in a fit state of mind to suffer the statement. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

¶103

Dal Singh and others, 2013(3) RCR(Criminal)1, held as under:-

¶104

“19. Dr.S.K.Jain (PW.8) deposed on 7.4.2003, stating that he had been the medical officer in the district hospital Damoh on 29.11.2002. Kusumbai had been brought for medical examination from the police station in an injured state and he had examined her. According to him, she had on her person, 100% superficial burn injuries, and the smell of kerosene oil had also been present in the body of the victim. She was unconscious at the time, and her pulse and blood pressure had been difficult to detect. She was able to breathe, but with great difficulty. She had died after some time. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of examination at the initial stage, Kusumbai had been unconscious, and had been unable to speak. He has further opined that if a person suffers 100% burn injuries, then he may not be able to speak.

¶105

20. Burn injuries are normally classified into three degrees: The first is characterised by the reddening and blistering of the skin alone; the second is characterised by the charring and destruction of the full thickness of the skin; and the third is characterised by the charring of tissues beneath skin, e.g of the fat, muscles and bone. If a burn is of a distinctive shape, a corresponding hot object may be identified as having been applied to the

¶106

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶107

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶108

¶109

skin, and thus the abrasions will have distinctive patterns. 21. There may also be a given case, a situation where a part of the body may bear upon it severe burns, but a small part of the body may have none. When burns occur on the scalp, they may cause greater difficulties. They can usually be distinguished from wounds inflicted before the body was burnt by their appearance, their position in areas highly susceptible to burning, and on fleshy areas by the findings recorded after internal examination. Shock suffered due to extensive burns is the usual cause of death, and delayed death may be a result of inflammation of the respiratory tract, caused by the inhalation of smoke. Severe damage to the extent of blistering of the tongue and the upper respiratory tract, can follow due to the inhalation of smoke. (See: Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Lexis Nexis Butterworths Chapter 20)”

¶110

13 In the Dal Singh's case (supra), though the patient had suffered 100% burns but those were superficial in nature. In the case in hand, the patient Neeru (since deceased) not only suffered 100% burns but those were of second and third degree as per deposition of Dr.M.M.Singh (PW2). The operative part of his deposition is as under:-

¶111

“Second and third degree burns present all over the body. Skin blackened at places and peeled off at other places. Blisters were present at places. Hair of the scalp singed. Smell of kerosene oil was coming from kerosene area.

¶112

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶113

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M) 18

¶114

On dissection, underlying tissues were found to be congested”.

¶115

According to Dr.M.M.Singh (PW2), the probable duration that elapsed between injury and death was few minutes to few hours and between death and postmortem, 12 to 24 hours.

¶116

Concededly, Dr.Anil Aggarwal (PW1) who had given opinion that Neeru (since deceased) was fit to make statement, was not present at the time when her statement was allegedly recorded by ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) in the presence of Dr.Balraj Vohra (PW3). In a given set of facts, the patient may remain fit for hours together to suffer statement after giving of the opinion by the doctor with regard to his/her fitness to make statement but in view of the serious nature of the burns of second and third degree with 100%, it was not possible that the patient would remain physically or mentally fit to make statement. In fact, the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate that the patient remained fit to make statement not only at the stage of starting of the recording of the statement but during the statement and at the end of the statement. The prosecution case with regard to the suffering of the statement by Neeru (since deceased) becomes doubtful when it was not recorded in the presence of Dr.Anil Aggarwal (PW1) who gave opinion with regard to her fitness to make statement. The fact that the doctor Balraj Vohra (PW3) in whose presence, the alleged dying declaration was

¶117

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶118

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶119

¶120

recorded was not conversant with Punjabi. He did not know how to write or read Punjabi, therefore, the possibility of Neeru (since deceased) narrating altogether different version with regard to the dying declaration cannot be ruled out.

¶121

In examination-in-chief, Kewal Krishan @ Ashok Kumar the father of Neeru (since deceased) while appearing as PW4 deposed that Neeru disclosed him that the appellant and his family members took Neeru (since deceased) to the bathroom where the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and lit the fire but in crossexamination, he stated that throughout the admission of Neeru (since deceased) in the hospital, he remained by the side of her bed and she did not suffer any statement to the police or to the doctor. In cross-examination, he had specifically deposed that Neeru (since deceased) was never harassed or maltreated by her in laws on account of demand of dowry. The two different dying declarations one for suicide and another for murder as well as the admission of the father that his daughter was not being harassed or maltreated by the appellant and his family members, would compel the Court to draw an inference against the prosecution. Concededly, there is no other evidence except the alleged dying declaration to connect the appellant with the crime. 16. This Court is conscious of the fact that if dying declaration is believed then no corroboration is required, but the core question in

¶122

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶123

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶124

¶125

the present case is as to whether the alleged statement suffered by Neeru (since deceased) which is being termed as 'dying declaration', can be acted upon in the case in hand. The reasons, at the cost of repetition, that she had sustained 100% burns of second and third degree and, as such, was not able to make statement; there was no categoric medical opinion that she was in a fit mental state to make statement; the doctor who declared her fit to make statement was not present at the time of recording of the statement; the doctor in whose presence the statement of Neeru was recorded in Punjabi, was not acquainted with Punjabi language; Kewal Krishan (PW4) father of the deceased, who altogether presented a new version in the examine-inchief with regard to the oral dying declaration saying that the appellant and his family members took Neeru into bathroom and poured kerosene oil and thereafter set her on fire, but in the crossexamination he changed the stand and deposed that Neeru was never harassed or maltreated by the appellant or his family members, rather she was kept nicely; and the contradictory depositions of Dr. Anil Aggarwal (PW1), Dr. Balraj Vohar (PW3) and ASI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7) with regard to presence of Dr. Anil Aggarwal in the hospital at the time of recording of the statement of Neeru, clearly suggest that the alleged dying declaration suffered by Neeru (since deceased) cannot be acted upon and on the basis of such a sole statement, a person cannot be held guilty. While arriving at such a

¶126

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶127

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶128

¶129

conclusion, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the statements or the opinions given by the medical officers should not be lightly brushed aside, but this Court has also kept in its mind the fact that the Court should not blindly follow the medical opinions or statements/depositions. It is settled law that the medical opinions or the depositions need not be the last word on the subject but the Court has to test the same on the basis of the other material available on record and then has to form its independent opinion.

¶130

Out of the total ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, Dr. Anil Aggarwal (PW1) had admitted the injured Neeru in the hospital and had declared her fit to make statement; Dr. M.M. Singh (PW2) had conducted the autopsy; Dr. Balraj Vohra (PW3) in whose presence the statement of Neeru was recorded by ASI Amrit Pal Singh; Moharrir Head Constable Darshan Ram (PW6) had recorded the formal FIR; Amrik Singh (PW8) had prepared the scaled site plan; while HC Rajinder Singh (PW9) and Constable Khushal Chand (PW10) are of formal nature. Their depositions would not connect the appellant with the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. If the depositions of Kewal Krishan (PW4), father of the deceased, and Roop Chand (PW5), a mediator of the marriage, are carefully scanned, then also it would rather support the defence instead of the prosecution. As has been discussed earlier, the deposition of Kewal Krishan (PW4) was contradictory in itself

¶131

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶132

CRA-S-912-SB-2001 (O&M)

¶133

¶134

inasmuch as in his examination-in-chief, he deposed about the murder of his daughter, but in cross-examination he took a somersault and admitted that his daughter was being treated nicely. Roop Chand (PW5), who alleged himself to be a mediator of the marriage, had also not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, their depositions do not connect the appellant with the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. Now, we are left with the deposition of SI Amrit Pal Singh (PW7), who had investigated the case. Even from his deposition, the prosecution has not been able to lead its case any further.

¶135

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant and, as such, he deserves acquittal. Resultantly, the present appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The fine, if deposited, be returned to him.

¶136

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) December 05, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor/seema

¶137

Sharma Seema 2014.01.09 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Saurav Kumar v. the State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurav Kumar v. the State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karambir Vs State of Haryana

Gaurav Gupta & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raj Rani Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dalbir Singh @ Gogi Vs State of Punjab

Jagjeet Singh Alias Jaggu Vs State of Punjab

Parlad Singh Vs State of Punjab