DARSHANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of Madan Lal, her husband. The learned Judge of the Special court, Ferozepur convicted her for the said offence and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 29/8/1985. Through this statutory appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act, 1984, the appellant has called in question her conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that the appellant and deceased were married about 10 years prior to the date of occurrence. They were serving as government teachers and posted at different places. The couple had a son who was suffering from blood cancer and unfortunately died on 23/7/1984. Though the summer vacations had finished on 22/7/1984, the couple had applied for extension of leave on account of the death of their son and the leave in the case of each one of them was extended up to 31/8/1984, the day of the occurrence. It is alleged that on the night intervening 30/8/1984/31/8/1984 at about 2. 00 a. m. deceased Madan Lal knocked at the door of his mother, Lachhmi Devi, Public Witness 1, who was living separately along with one of the sisters of the deceased, Bimla Devi, Public Witness 2 just across the lane. When Public Witness 1 opened the door she found the deceased to be burning and on enquiry he told his mother and sister, PWs 1 and 2, that the appellant had sprinkled kerosene on him and set him on fire. Lachhmi Devi, Public Witness 1 rushed him to the hospital where they reached at about 2.30 a. m. Dr Janak Lal Mittal, Public Witness 4 started treating him and sent information to the police through rukka Ex. P-3. The deceased had suffered extensive burn injuries and was semi-conscious. Shri Rajinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Public Witness 5 arrived at the hospital and made an enquiry from the doctor whether the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement. The doctor replied in the negative. The SHO, Public Witness 5, thereafter, recorded the statement of Lachhmi Devi, Public Witness 1, Ex. P-l, at about 4.30 a. m. and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case and that forms the basis' of the formal FIR Ex. P-1/b. It was initially registered under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but after Madan Lal succumbed to the burn injuries at about 8.30 a. m. in the hospital, the offence was converted into one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. When the deceased was brought to the hospital by his wife Jitendar Lal, Public Witness 3, a Municipal Commissioner was present at the hospital, as he had taken his elder brother's daughter Radha Rani and admitted her in the emergency ward of the hospital. Public Witness 3 informed the investigating officer that he was lying in the verandah when he heard the deceased saying aloud that he had been burnt by his wife. His statement was recorded by the SHO.

(3.) During the course of investigation, SHO, Public Witness 5 visited the spot and prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He took into possession a broken bottle smelling of kerosene Ex. M/o/l from the house of the deceased under seizure memo Ex. P-8. A matchbox Ex. M/o/4 was also taken into possession from the room vide seizure memo Ex. P-9. Some burnt portion of the shirt belonging to the deceased was collected from the lane and seized vide memo Ex. P-l0. The inquest report was prepared by the SHO, Public Witness 5 and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The autopsy was performed by Dr K. K. Singhla and it revealed death due to shock and haemorrhage on account of extensive burns. The viscera of the deceased besides pieces of liver, lung and spleen were preserved and sent for chemical examination. According to the report of the chemical examiner, Ex. P-l 2, there was presence of alcohol in the viscera and that the blood-alcohol concentration was 86.25 mgml per 100 mis. The report of the chemical examiner also revealed that alcohol was found present in the pieces of liver, spleen, kidney and lungs besides the pieces of stomach, small intestine and large intestines. After completion of the investigation,. the appellant was tried and convicted and sentenced as noticed above.