SHANTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case of a young 22 years old bride being burnt for the sake of dowry by her in-laws. Four persons were tried for the murder. They are the Appellant Shanti, mother-in-law of the deceased, Vinod, husband of the deceased, Bhushan, younger brother of the husband of the deceased and Jai Narain, father-in-law of the deceased. The deceased, Dinesh Kumari was married to Vinod on 27.6.1989. The incident took place on 3.10.1993 when, according to the prosecution, Dinesh Kumari was taken to a storeroom meant for storing hay by Shanti, the Appellant herein. Shanti is alleged to have poured kerosene oil on Dinesh Kumari. A match stick was lit by Bhushan, the younger brother of the husband of Dinesh Kumari and thus she was set on fire. The husband of Dinesh Kumari, namely, Vinod and her father-in-law Jai Narain are said to have been standing by the side and watching the incident quietly. This happened at night between 9 to 10 p.m. on 3.10.1993. The door of the storeroom was locked from outside. However, in view of the incessant cries of the woman, she was ultimately removed to the hospital at about 6 a.m. next morning. The trial court convicted the present Appellants, i.e., Shanti, mother-in-law of the deceased and Vinod, husband of the deceased under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted of the charges under Section 304B and Section 498A, I.P.C. Since the younger brother of the deceaseds husband was a minor at the relevant time, his trial was separated. We are informed that the trial is still going on. The trial court acquitted Jai Narain, father-in-law of the deceased. In the appeal filed by the Appellants before the High Court, the decision of the trial court was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the said two convicts.

(2.) The present case entirely rests on the two dying declarations said to have been made by Dinesh Kumari. The first dying declaration was recorded on 4.10.1993 by Sandeep Singh, A.S.I. who is P.W. 13 in the case. This was recorded in the presence of Dr. D. P. Singh, P.W. 5 at 12 noon on 4.10.1993 and is Ext. PJ. Dr. Singh declared her fit for making statement. The second dying declaration was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. V. P. Bishnoi, P.W. 7, on 7.10.1993 at 10 a.m. and the same is Ext. PL-3. Dinesh Kumari ultimately died on 11.10.1993 at about 7.45 a.m. Dr. D. P. Singh who certified Dinesh Kumari as fit for making the statement on 7.10.1993 was examined as P.W. 5.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the Appellants tried to challenge the first dying declaration on two grounds, mainly that there was no proper certification about the fitness of the maker of the declaration at the relevant time. It was stated that the doctor who gave the certificate was not the treating doctor of the lady nor was there any entry made in the bed head-ticket about the certificate issued. Both these points do not appeal to us. The dying declaration shows clarity of mind of the maker of the declaration. We have no reason to doubt the certificate issued by a qualified doctor about the fitness of the maker of the statement at the relevant time. Nothing has been urged to suggest that the doctor was in any way interested in the outcome of the case. It is not necessary that only a treating doctor must certify fitness for making statement. Secondly, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that in the dying declaration it has been stated that the reason for the crime was demand for dowry which could not be met by the family of the deceased. The accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, it cannot be said that the present was a case of harassment of the lady on account of dowry. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. The prosecution was not able to sustain the charge under Section 498A, I.P.C. for which standard of proof required is high. Yet the allegation of Dinesh Kumari about she being harassed on account of demand for dowry cannot be ignored. Moreover, the dying declaration was made much before the verdict of acquittal in charge under Section 498A. The two things have no connection.