RAVICHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29/10/1991 passed by the Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Criminal appeal No. 360 DB of 1989. By the impugned judgment, the High court hasaffirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1988. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant lachhmi Devi and the other two appellants under Section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and passed the sentence of life imprisonment against them. They were, however, acquitted of the charges under S. 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said convicted accused faced the trial before the learned Sessions Judge in connection with the death of Sarita alias Sunita alias Veena on 4/10/1988 at about 8. 00 a. m. The said Sarita died within four years of her marriage in her matrimonial home, the marriage being solemnised on 12/7/1985. Sarita was admitted in the C. M. C. Hospital, ludhiana by her husband, Ravi Chander, one of the accused. The dying declaration was recorded by the ASI of the police station at about 10. 00 a. m. in the hospital. The said dying declaration is Ex. DB. The said dying declaration is stated to be countersigned by the doctor of the hospital. Another dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate at about 2.45 p. m. and the said Executive Magistrate, Ashok Singla, has also deposed as Public Witness 3. The prosecution has also relied on the third dying declaration which was oral and the said dying declaration is stated to have been made by the deceased at about 5. 00 p. m. to her brothers. In support of such dying declaration, Prem Chand Public Witness 4, the brother of the deceased, has deposed.

(2.) It may be stated that in the first dying declaration recorded by the assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, the deceased is alleged to have made a statement that while she was pouring kerosene in the stove it started coming out and such kerosene came out on her clothes and the clothes caught fire. She had come out from the kitchen which was in the upper storey of the house. Hearing her cries, her husband Ravi came there and threw clothes on her. A number of other persons also assembled. She specifically stated that nobody had poured kerosene on her. It may be stated that it is the prosecution case that the brother of the deceased met the ADC at Ludhiana and made a request that the dying declaration should be recorded by a magistrate. In view of such request in writing, the ADC sent a requisition to the Executive Magistrate, Public Witness 3 Ashok Singia who recorded the said dying declaration at 2.40 p. m. in the hospital after ascertaining from the doctor that the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement. Such dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in question and answer form. It appears from such dying declaration of the deceased that her mother-in-law had sprinkled kerosene on her and the husband Ravi caught hold of her by her hands and Suresh Kumar, the brother of the husband, lit a matchstick and she was set on fire. On her raising alarm, persons from the street gathered and thereafter she was taken to the hospital by the husband but on the way she was warned by the husband and husband's brother not to disclose the said act of setting her on fire and she was threatened that otherwise her relations would be done to death. So far as the third oral dying declaration, said to have been made to the brothers of the deceased is concerned, Public Witness 4 Prem Chand has deposed that at about 5. 00 p. m. when thesaid Prem Chand had met his deceased sister in the hospital, she had stated that in the previous evening the mother-in-law had assaulted her with a rolling pin (belna) on her head and the brother of the husband had also dragged her by her long. hair. On the next day, at about 8. 00 a. m. i. e. on the date of incident, when she was in the room, all the three accused came and said that she should be done to death as she was creating problem for them daily. The mother-in-law Lachhmi then brought a can of kerosene and sprinkled the same on the deceased. The husband caught hold of her by her hair and Suresh, the brother of the husband, who was carrying a matchbox, set her on fire. She also made a statement to Prem Chand that previously by threatening her in the hospital, a signature was taken on some statement by the police officer though she had not made any such statement.

(3.) Placing reliance mainly on the dying declaration recorded by the executive Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. As aforesaid, such conviction has been upheld by the High court by dismissing Criminal appeal No. 360 DB of 1989.