SATPAL versus STATE OF HARYANA on 3 March 2021

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the accused in Session CaseNo.20 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, aggrieved by the judgment and order datedF05[th] September, 2016, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryanaat Chandigarh, whereby, his conviction and order of sentence, for offenceunder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was confirmed.

3. On information received from J. P. Hospital, Yamuna Nagar,regarding admission of the deceased, Pooja Rani, on account of burnGinjuries, a case was registered in FIR No. 112 on 20.03.2008, initiallyunder Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ondeath of Pooja Rani i.e. on 27.03.2008, Section 302 of the Indian PenalCode was added. On receipt of information, Mr. Ishwar Singh, A.S.I. ofPolice Station City, Yamuna Nagar, went to the J. P. Hospital along withother police officials and noticed that the deceased suffered 90 per centH

injuries and at that stage, she was declared fit to make statement. Onthe request of the police, Ms. Kumud Gugnani, Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, recorded the statement of deceased,Pooja Rani.

4. In the declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, the deceased has stated that the appellant/ accused has poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze. After investigation,Charge-Sheet was filed against the appellant / accused and three othersnamely Kamlesh, Mitter Sain and Anjali, mother-in-law, brother-in-lawand sister-in-law respectively of the deceased. However, vide order dated12.08.2008, the other accused persons were discharged and charge wasframed against the appellant herein, for offence punishable under Section302 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove the charge framed by the appellant herein, theprosecution examined C. Narender Kumar as PW-1, C. Ram Kumar asPW-2, Jai Pal, ASI as PW-3, EHC Prem Singh as PW-4, Varsha Rani asPW-5, Kashmiri Lal as PW-6, Pyara Singh, Inspector as PW-7, Jai Kishan,ASI as PW-8, Dr. Manisha Singh as PW-9, EHC Satwinder Singh asPW-10, Raj Kumar, SI as PW-11, Lal Singh, ASI as PW-12, Dr. AmitGoel as PW-13, Balraj Singh, ASI as PW-14, Ishwar Singh, ASI as PW-15 and Kumud Gugnani as PW-16.

6. When the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was recorded, the appellant deniedthe allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he was falselyimplicated inasmuch as the deceased, Pooja Rani, was under amisconception that he had illicit relations with Anjali (sister-in-law). Onbehalf of the appellant / accused, no witnesses were examined.

7. The Trial Court, by appreciating oral and documentary evidenceon record, by judgment and order dated 03.11.2009, convicted theappellant for offence, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fineof Rs.10,000/- with a default clause to undergo further rigorousimprisonment of two years.

8. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence imposedby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, theappellant herein, preferred Criminal Appeal No. D-147-DB of 2010before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. The HighCourt, vide impugned judgment and order dated 05[th] September, 2016, A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Adismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction recorded and sentenceimposed on the appellant.

9. We have heard Mrs. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant and Mr. Deepak Thukral, learned Dy. A.G., appearingfor the respondent-State.

B

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though,the evidence on record led by the prosecution, is not sufficient to provethe guilt of the accused, the Trial Court has erroneously convicted theappellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the same wasconfirmed by the High Court without considering various grounds, raisedCon behalf of the appellant. It is, further, contended by the learned counselthat the conviction is mainly based on the dying declaration, recorded bythe Magistrate, who was examined as PW-16. It is submitted that thedying declaration was tutored one and the same was made at the instanceof family members of the deceased, who were there with the deceasedin hospital at the relevant time. It is submitted that, in fact, when theDdeceased made attempt to commit suicide, the appellant has tried hisbest to extinguish the fire. Lastly, he has submitted that the conviction,recorded by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court, is fit to beset aside by this Court.

11. On the other hand, the learned Dy. A.G., appearing for theEState, has contended that the prosecution has proved the guilt of theaccused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonabledoubt. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of information, Mr.Ishwar Singh, ASI went to the hospital, along with other police officialsand found that the deceased has suffered 90 per cent injuries, but sheFwas in a fit condition to make statement. It is submitted that, on request,Ms. Kumud Gugnani, the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class, YamunaNagar, Jagadhri, recorded the statement of deceased, Pooja Rani underExhibit ‘Ex-PL’, wherein she stated that she was married to the appellantthree years prior to the incident and that the appellant was under theinfluence of his brother’s wife and used to act on her instigation. In theGstatement recorded, the deceased clearly stated that the appellant haspoured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. It is submitted that merelybecause her family members have reached the hospital, on coming toknow of the burn injuries, suffered by the deceased, it cannot be saidthat the declaration made by the deceased before the Magistrate was atutored one. It is submitted that at the time of recording of statement ofH

deceased, all the family members were sent out and the statement wasrecorded, as deposed by the deceased. It is submitted that if the entireevidence is considered, it clearly proves the case of the prosecution foroffence under Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that the evidenceon record is properly appreciated by the Trial Court as well as the HighCourt, and in view of the concurrent findings, recorded by both the Courtsbelow, no case is made out to interfere with the same.

12. Having heard learned counsels on both sides, we have perusedthe impugned judgment, judgment of the Trial Court and other materialevidence placed on record.

13. In this case, it is to be noticed that, at first instance, on comingto know that the deceased, Pooja Rani, was admitted to hospital with theburn injuries, as informed by the police, the ASI went to the hospitalalong with other police officials. When it was noticed that the deceasedhas suffered 90 per cent injuries and was in a fit condition to make adeclaration, he sent a request to the concerned Magistrate, upon which,the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, recordedthe statement of the deceased, Pooja Rani, which was exhibited as Ex-PL. In her dying declaration, she has clearly stated that the appellanthas poured Kerosene Oil on her and set her ablaze. Though, the familymembers of the appellant were also chargesheeted, they weresubsequently discharged vide Order dated 12.08.2008. On informationgiven to the parents of the deceased, they have come to hospital. Thedeceased, Pooja Rani was admitted in the hospital on 20.03.2008 andultimately, succumbed to injuries on 27.03.2008. It is also clear from thematerial evidence, placed before this Court, that though the familymembers of the deceased were in the hospital, they were sent out, whenthe dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate, who was alsoexamined on behalf of the prosecution as PW-16.

14. If we look at dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate, itlooks natural and no reason to disbelieve the same. In addition to thedying declaration, the statements of PW-5 and PW-6, who are motherand maternal uncle respectively of the deceased, corroborate the caseof prosecution. It is clear from their statements that the deceased wastortured at the hands of the appellant and his family members. TheMagistrate, in her deposition, has clearly stated that the relatives ofdeceased, Pooja Rani, were not there at the time of recording dyingdeclaration of the deceased.

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

A15. Further, it is also relevant to notice here, though the appellanthas stated in his statement, recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., thatmany persons from the neighbourhood came to the house of the appellantat the time of incident, no one was examined on his behalf.

16. If the dying declaration, recorded by PW-16, is consideredBalong with the depositions of PW-5, PW-6 and other witnesses, whowere examined on behalf of the prosecution, it clearly establishes theguilt of the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt, as such, we find no meritin any of the contentions, advanced by the learned counsel for theappellant. Further, merely because the parents and other relatives of thedeceased were present in the Hospital, when the statement of theCdeceased was recorded, it cannot be said that the said statement was atutored one. It is quite natural that when such an incident happens, theparents and other relatives try to reach the hospital immediately. Merelybecause they were in the hospital, the same is no ground to disbelievethe dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate, who was examinedDas PW-16.

17. For the above stated reasons and the reasons recorded by theHigh Court, we are of the view that there is no error committed in theimpugned judgment and order, so as to interfere with the same in thisAppeal. This Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and the same isEaccordingly dismissed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H