SUNITA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for grant of regular bail filed by the petitioner, Sunita, the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased in respect of FIR No.433/2009 under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC registered by PS:Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.

(2.) THE learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.5.2010 and the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined. It has been stated by him that so far as the parents of the deceased are concerned, they have not supported the case of the Prosecution. It has also been stated by him that the only ground, on the basis of which the bail has been denied to the present petitioner by the Trial Court, is the Dying Declaration purported to have been made by the deceased, implicating the present petitioner, wherein it has been stated that the present petitioner had poured a mug of kerosene oil on the deceased while she was making tea on the gas stove, because of which she caught fire. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the material witnesses have been examined and there is hardly any chance of the Prosecution witnesses being tampered with or influenced, therefore, she, having already been incarcerated for more than 2 years, deserves to be enlarged on bail. Secondly, it has been contended that even if it is assumed that there is a Dying Declaration, purported to have been made by the deceased, even then the Dying Declaration, on the basis of which the said FIR has been registered, becomes doubtful on account of the fact that PW4, Surjeet, who is purported to have taken the injured to the hospital, has specifically stated that the deceased did not name the present petitioner as an accused person. On the contrary, it has been stated that the deceased had admitted to PW4 that she got burnt because of the accidental fire. Reliance has also been placed on the statement purported to have been made by the deceased to the Doctor, which has been recorded in the MLC that the deceased had stated that she got burnt on account of accidental fire. On the basis of these two statements attributed to the deceased, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the Dying Declaration, on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the petitioner, becomes doubtful and the petitioner may not be denied bail solely on the basis of the Dying Declaration of the deceased.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and have perused the contents of the Dying Declaration made by the deceased. In the said Dying Declaration, the deceased has very categorically and emphatically put the entire blame of having burnt on the present petitioner. She has specifically attributed that the present petitioner had poured a mug of kerosene oil on her while she was making tea on the gas stove. The intensity of the fire was so grave that not only the deceased, but her husband also, who tried to save her, died in this process. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parents of the deceased have turned hostile cannot form the sole basis of releasing the present petitioner on bail because if one considers the testimony of the father and his cross -examination, he has admitted that the petitioner and her family members were subjecting the deceased to cruelty, with a view to demand dowry. Therefore, at this stage by doing detailed analysis of the evidence, the Court will be embarking on appreciation of evidence which has to be essentially done by the Trial Court, and in case it is done by this Court, it will prejudice either of the parties. At this stage, only prima facie view is to be formed on the basis of the evidence which has been produced till date.