KAMLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case alleged to be one of dowry deaths. The appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Kamal. She is convicted by the trial court under S. 302, IPC. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The appellant along with her husband Gurdial Mal was tried under S. 302, IPC read with S. 34, IPC. The trial Court acquitted Gurdial Mal and convicted the appellant. She preferred an appeal to the High Court but the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) The prosecution case is that the deceased in the case of Smt. Kamal was married to Ramesh Kumar, the son of the appellant, about 1-1/2 years prior to the present occurrence which took place on 29-9-79. The deceased was living amicably with her husband at Ludhiana and gave birth to a male child who was about 5 months' old when the incident took place. Though the relations between the deceased and her husband were cordial, the appellant who was the mother-in-law of the deceased and Gurdial Mal, father-in-law were not satisfied with the articles of dowry and they were ill-treating the deceased. Because of some quarrels the deceased left the matrimonial house and went to the house of her uncle Dwarka Dass at Amritsar. However, her in-laws managed to bring back the deceased. On the day of occurrence the appellant and her husband had a quarrel with the deceased regarding the insufficiency of dowry. At that time the husband of the deceased was also there but he did not interfere. When the deceased was busy in the kitchen, the appellant and her husband were there and the deceased heard them talking while standing behind her. Soon thereafter the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the clothes of the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased raised an alarm which attracted her husband to the kitchen. He made an attempt to extinguish the fire and in doing so he received some burn injuries. The deceased was immediately removed to the hospital. A Doctor examined her and referred her to the Plastic surgery House Doctor. There she was examined by Dr. Rupinder Singh, P.W. 2 who found that she was having 70 per cent. burns on her body. The Doctor enquired from her as to how she had received the injuries and she is alleged to have made a statement Ex.PB/2 which was reduced to writing by P.W. 2. P.W. 2 sent an intimation to the police at about 10 a.m. on the same day. On that very day, the Medical Superintendent also sent an intimation to the police requesting them to arrange for getting her dying declaration recorded. In that intimation it was stated that the deceased had made a statement before P.W. 2. It appears that the police did not pay any serious attention. Only at 8 p.m., S.I. Vidya Sagar, C.W. I reached the hospital and recorded the statement which is marked as Ex. PJ. On 30-9-79 the deceased requested the Doctors on duty to record her dying declaration. Dr. Abraham Thomas, P.W. 7 recorded the dying declaration marked as Ex. PD at about 10-30 a.m. and Dr. Bhupen Dass, P.W. 3 and Dr. Jaison Chopra, C.W. 1, who were present in the burn unit attested the same. Later she succumbed to the injuries. A case was registered, both the accused were arrested and the charge-sheet was laid subsequently. Dr. Kewal Kumar Singla, P.W. 4 who conducted the post-mortem, found burns all over the body of the deceased and he opined that the death was due to shock as a result of extensive burns. The prosecution case rests mainly on the dying declarations. The accused pleaded not guilty. The appellant in particular stated that she was ailing for the last two years and she was not even in a position to walk about. The other accused stated that he and the appellant were not in the house and they had gone to the Mandir as those were Navratra days. Later they came to know that their son and the deceased had received burn injuries and according to them the death was an accidental one and that he gave telephonic messages to the uncle of the deceased at Amritsar and to her father at Delhi. He pleaded that he and his wife namely the appellant were falsely implicated. In their defence they examined D.Ws. I to 4. The trial court relying on the dying declarations convicted the appellant but acquitted her husband Gurdial Mal, A-2.